Welcoming the Crisis and Resilience Fund guidance: a real opportunity to get this right

Perhaps it says as much about where we’ve come from, but in my view there is a lot to like in the guidance for the new Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF).

Reading it, it is hard not to feel that national policy has finally caught up with what many places have been arguing for, and in some cases already doing, for years. Much of our work, particularly in Lambeth, was built around what is now in the guidance: a clear understanding of and focus on outcomes (oh, the time we spent on our logic model), taking a cash-first approach, trying to address root causes rather than simply addressing crises.

Here we find three clear overall outcomes (crisis support, improving financial resilience and bolstering the local-level support landscape), clear and sensible principles to govern delivery, and a much broader and open-ended approach to what local authorities can design and deliver.

“Authorities should adopt a person-centred and needs-based approach…” Yes!

“Resilience Services should be developed in consideration of the complex, interrelated factors that affect an individual’s financial resilience…” Absolutely!

“The CRF does not operate in isolation. It exists within a network…” That framing is important!

I could go on, but more specifically…

Time and flexibility to plan properly

One of the most important changes is that the CRF is a multi-year award bringing together broadly similar funding (DHP, HSF).

Until now, funding in this space has usually been issued on a six or twelve month basis. That makes it incredibly difficult for local systems to plan, invest or improve. Local authorities end up having to rush planning, legacy approaches get rolled-over and system partners (particularly local voluntary and community sector (VCS)) are forced to scramble bids together.

A three-year settlement gives councils and partners the chance to think properly about what they are trying to achieve, to invest in systems and relationships (see also the overarching outcomes), and to test, learn and adapt over time.

It also helps that the guidance is less prescriptive than previous versions of this funding. Local authorities are given real flexibility to design schemes that reflect local need, rather than being pushed into one-size-fits-all models.   I remember well the calls with DWP asking why we hadn’t spent the ‘expected’ amount on an application-based approach, and patiently explaining that (using Policy in Practice’s Low Income Family Tracker) we had developed our own resilience index to identify and target support to those who needed it most. This ensured greater coverage and avoided the widening of inequalities for vulnerable residents that application-based approaches can lead to.

A clear commitment to cash-first support

The guidance also makes a strong and welcome commitment to a cash-first approach to crisis support.

This is something the sector has been arguing for nationally for a long time. It is also something we helped lead on in Lambeth two years ago, leading to award-nominated work with Cash Perks (hat-tip here to Gareth Evans and the team). Cash is quicker, more dignified and, in many cases, more effective than vouchers or in-kind provision. It also recognises a simple truth: people in crisis usually know what they need.

Seeing this principle clearly embedded in national guidance matters. It gives local leaders confidence to move away from legacy approaches that often feel safer administratively but do not work as well for residents.

Connecting up the system, not just funding services

What stands out most in the CRF guidance is its emphasis on joining things up.

The guidance repeatedly encourages councils to think about how crisis support links into wider resilience services. That might mean, for example, making sure families identified as eligible for free school meals are also aware of, and able to access, other support around income, debt, housing or wellbeing (see the recent PLACE: impact report for how this is operating across a small multi-academy trust in the north east).

This reflects what we see on the ground. Crisis support works best when it acts as a gateway into wider help, not a dead end. 

The inclusion of Discretionary Housing Payments within the CRF is another important signal. It encourages housing teams to see themselves as part of a wider system of support, rather than operating in a silo. That shift is long overdue in many places.

Resilience services

That the framing of support is around building resilience, not applying sticking plasters, is also to be applauded. This is where government expect a ‘significant amount’ of the funding to be spent though they do not, fortunately, prescribe what ‘significant’ means. 

And they encourage close work with the local voluntary sector on what the local system of support looks like.  I like this imperative to work and design with the local system.  And I like the acknowledgement that every local area and system, wherever you draw the boundary is different.  It’s this sort of freedom that enables local systems to step more confidently into spaces where they may previously have been hesitant, designing support with the local system in response to local data or demographics.  In the absence of permission like that targeted support projects like our award-winning sickle-cell warm home prescription project felt risky

Now permission to meet local need designed with the local system is written-in.

Community coordination as a core expectation

The CRF is also refreshingly honest about a long-standing problem in local welfare.

Too much support is still characterised by poor coordination, duplication between services, and a postcode lottery where the support you receive (if you receive any) depends on where your need first shows up.

The requirement for CRF to be used to invest in community coordination, and to strengthen the local support landscape as a whole, feels like a real attempt to tackle this head on. Finally, some funding directed at provision of the ‘system-convening’ role that has been spoken about in various circles for at least the last 20 years.

This element should be used to ensure that the local system is clear and coherent.  I have seen first hand the vital role that link workers provide supporting vulnerable residents to access the support they’re entitled to, and I think that relational approach will always be necessary.  But in some places we are appointing ‘navigators’ because we’ve designed systems so complex that we need specialists just to understand them.  Hopefully this coordination imperative can help local systems make things clearer and simpler and put an end to that.

The guidance also sets a clear expectation that this work should not stop at local authority boundaries. There is a huge opportunity at sub-regional and regional levels to undertake impactful work to support low income households – indeed some approaches make more sense the larger the footprint.  Plus, as we’ve always told ourselves, people’s lives do not fit neatly within administrative lines, and support systems should reflect that reality.

The challenges should not be ignored

That said, it would be naive to pretend this will be easy.

There is less money overall than there was before, and this funding is arriving at a time when many local authorities are under extreme financial pressure. Capacity is stretched and expectations are high. The temptation to badge this funding against existing activity, in order to relieve pressure elsewhere will be real.  The challenge will be resisting that where it undermines the longer-term intent of the fund.

There are also real risks if councils fall back on application-heavy models by default. We know that complex application systems often entrench inequalities, particularly for people who are time-poor, digitally excluded or facing language barriers. And at the same time, advice services are under huge pressure nationally.

If the ambition of the CRF is going to be realised, these risks will need to be designed out rather than accepted as inevitable.

A direction of travel worth backing

Despite those challenges, the direction of travel feels right.

Alongside wider conversations about local government reform and place-based working, neighbourhoods and family hubs, the CRF guidance points towards a more joined-up, preventative approach to poverty and inequality. That matters, especially at a time when so much else in the system feels fragile.

How Lathom Solutions can help

For places that welcome the ambition of the CRF but are unsure how to turn guidance into delivery, this is where Lathom Solutions can help.

We support local authorities and partners to design CRF-compliant approaches that work in practice. That includes building cash-first pathways, connecting services into coherent “no wrong door” systems, developing outcome and delivery frameworks that stand up to scrutiny, and using data ethically to reach people who are currently missing out.  We’re experienced in working across council, health and VCS systems and bringing them together to deliver is what we do.

The CRF guidance creates a real opportunity. Making the most of it will require practical system design, not just good intentions. We would love to work with places that want to do this well.