Many of the initial conversations around the Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF) have focused on the delivery model and the cash-first approach. For a lot of local authorities, a key concern sits behind all of this, with a huge worry being reporting and monitoring. As councils prepare to implement the Crisis and Resilience Fund, one of the key points that keeps being raised is how success will be measured and evidenced over the span of the fund.

Why is reporting becoming a central concern for councils?

The CRF introduces a multiyear framework running across three years. Alongside the programme delivery and six-monthly management information returns (MI), authorities are expected to evidence how funding has been spent. This includes who it has reached and the impact it has made. The Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed that reporting requirements are intentionally designed to evolve over time, building both national and local evidence that will help to inform future funding decisions.

Previous crisis models have often focused on tracking spending against categories and volumes. For example, how much has been distributed, the number of awards, and the demographics of people supported. This differs from the CRF reporting expectations.

Authorities are still expected to report on spending and award breakdowns, but there is a large emphasis on the outcomes that are linked to resilience. Some key factors for reporting include:

• Reduced experiences of material deprivation
• Reduced need for emergency food aid/parcels
• Increased access to advice services
• Increased savings for individuals
• Reductions in priority debt and maximisation of income

There is also a huge focus on whether the resilience services have addressed or minimised the root cause of the crisis, decreasing the need for future crisis support. With CRF, success appears to be defined by whether a crisis has been stabilised and the vulnerability reduction, which means a more complex measurement of success and impact.

Data Collection and integration challenges

Household data is increasingly important for effectively demonstrating impact. Gathering initial information to gain a deeper understanding of an individual’s circumstances may include factors such as: Household composition, employment status, health, tenure, and individual demographics. This type of data could allow authorities to understand patterns in who requires support and how needs differ across groups.

Councils that have used data-led approaches previously have seen measurable results, with key indicators on how insights can lead to impactful outcomes. Bracknell Forest Council identified over 550 households at risk of financial crisis and supported more than 240 of these households to secure £820,000+ in income gains and managed over £550,000 in arrears. This approach evidences how early identification and support can reduce vulnerability before the crisis hits.

Application processes need to be designed to capture this data successfully. There needs to be a strong cohesion with the initial data set from when an individual enters support, and the outcome post support, focusing on the impact of resilience. When data is captured via voluntary and community sector partners, the consistency of the data will become even more important. To meet the management information (MI) expectations of the fund, delivery partners will be required to collate this information to ensure a consistent approach.

Linking the CRF applications with administrative datasets such as universal credit, council tax support, and housing benefits could provide insights into the wider welfare system, including where crisis support is sought, could provide a way for local authorities to understand long term outcomes. As well as monitoring and tracking changes against factors such as income, arrears and employment. Approaching the CRF reporting this way would provide a greater view of measuring impact but would require a large investment in systems as well as considering how data would be shared.

Reporting and continuous improvement

Reporting and monitoring under the CRF is designed to evolve based on learning from delivery, which will help inform future requirements. This creates an opportunity for continuous improvement, so gaps in provision can be identified and funding can be redistributed as required. There will also be seasonal pressures, for example, during the winter months, there may be a greater need for support for individuals facing crisis with energy costs. Reporting will need to adapt to support fluctuations in support volume. It will be important to provide evidence against the fund’s objectives: the effect of the crisis support received, how an individual’s financial resilience has been improved, and strengthening the local support landscape.

The challenge is how councils showcase this. In theory, post-support engagement and surveys offer a way to gather insights, but in practice, maintaining engagement after the initial crisis support can be difficult, as many individuals disengage once immediate pressure has been relieved. Therefore, it will pose a challenge to collect consistent outcome data and understand whether the support received has achieved its intended purpose.

One approach could be to focus on measurable indicators that have benefited an individual. For example, reduction in arrears, income maximisation outcomes, tangible evidence that a household have greater financial capacity post support. Improvements in disposable income and changes in debt circumstances could also be used to showcase a reduced reliance on emergency support. Combining administrative data and service outcomes may provide a more realistic picture of whether crisis support has translated into longer-term resilience. Over time, this could help local authorities to identify which approaches are most effective in preventing repeat crises, so funding can be directed towards the greatest impact of services.

Redefining success

We are aware that the CRF delivery model moves away from short-term emergency help and towards measurable prevention, supporting individuals to build resilience. Under the framework, local authorities will be required to evidence whether support has reduced vulnerability over time. Looking at this from both sides, CRF reporting could provide a beneficial case for increased investment in local provision.

Authorities have the opportunity to show how well delivered CRF models alleviate that initial point of hardship and contribute to longer resilience. If reporting frameworks are not correctly aligned with delivery, the challenge will be identifying that lasting impact and how the crisis has been prevented. In many ways, the success of CRF may be measured by what is no longer needed rather than what is not delivered.