During recent sector events on the delivery of the Crisis and Resilience Fund, a prominent concern highlighted among local authorities has been how the fund is being presented in the public eye and how this will impact the volumes of ineligible applications and the support individuals receive.
The DWP has stipulated that support is targeted and needs-based and will be administered at each local authority’s discretion. However, national press coverage has portrayed the funds as cash payouts and cost-of-living payments. Headlines across a range of media outlets include headlines such as ‘DWP crisis fund to give cash payments for ‘any good reason’ from April’ and ‘DWP announces TWO new ‘cash’ bonus payments for millions of UK ’. Although some articles do specify some of the known details of the fund, the headline hook and introduction will be the information that is read and acted upon. This public positioning of fund risks creates an expectation of automatic entitlement, rather than highlighting the fund’s purpose and targeted person-centred support.
The media’s impact
The Crisis and Resilience Fund is set out to provide needs-based and timely support. Each authority will decide on eligibility criteria, which will be based on local priorities, with cash-first responding to crisis needs and connecting individuals to needed resilience support.
Media outlets are presenting the fund as broadly accessible cash support that individuals can access for ‘any good reason’ and providing cost-of-living support. Headlines of this sort may create unrealistic expectations about the volume of people who will be able to receive support and the type of support they will be able to access.
Whilst the media’s focus revolves around the fund’s cash payments, the fund is not designed to be a cash-only solution. The cash-first approach means cash crisis payments are the starting point, where appropriate. Local authorities are expected to tailor support to individual circumstances and needs. For some individuals, a cash payment will not be the most appropriate or effective method of support. Authorities have discretion to provide support via alternative forms such as vouchers, goods, or services. If individuals arrive expecting to receive a cash payment for ‘any good reason’, this could lead to friction and further pressure on delivery teams.
A further concern raised across sector events is whether local authorities will be ready to deliver the fund from the start of April. Feedback throughout the sector suggests that many councils will not have delivery arrangements in place by this date. DWP has acknowledged this and accepts that local authorities have had limited time to implement delivery. If press coverage continues to report that cash support is available from April, this will drive calls and enquiries to councils who may not have delivery in place. Managing these expectations is a concern across the sector and will require coordinated communications from DWP and local authorities.
Driving public demand
Whilst frequent media coverage could create great visibility for eligible individuals who are in need of the support, it is expected that this will also lead to an influx of ineligible applications due to the number of people becoming aware of the fund. This will put increased pressure on contact centres and the teams assessing the applications, ultimately requiring more resources to manage.
An expected knock on effect of this includes longer processing times of applications. In the case of an individual who genuinely needs urgent support, they may not receive the timely support that they need, which could deepen the crisis. This could worsen the situation an individual is facing and lead to a greater amount of resilience support to identify and put steps in place for the root cause. Individuals facing a genuine crisis may encounter service delays if application volumes become overwhelming, driven by misunderstood enquiries.
Historically, there has been a correlation between welfare schemes fluctuating when national announcements have been made through press coverage. If the Crisis and Resilience Fund is not positioned carefully the ‘cash-first’ language used, forming a large part of the funds’ approach, may amplify this.
Coordinated referral management
As the awareness of CRF grows through national coverage, delivery models will need to be able to manage large fluctuations in applications. The Norfolk Community Advice Network (NCAN) provides an example of how a structured referral pathway can ensure individuals receive prompt support whilst facing increased support applications. The network introduced a shared referral system linking over 100 different advice organisations across a range of support functions. The platform has helped over 30,000 cases from across the sector, ensuring individuals were directed to the correct support without having to explain their circumstances again.
Coordinated referral models could be a route used to provide a solution to managing demand. If public awareness is continued to be heightened through media coverage, an approach similar to the delivery of NCAN could help to ease pressures on local authority teams and ensure cases are prioritised appropriately, whilst making sure individuals receive the correct support.
CRF models that bring together end to end management of application handling, assessment, crisis support, financial resilience support, and onward referral can support a coordinated approach. This type of approach allows local authorities to respond to spikes in demand when media coverage heightens, reducing duplication and processing time. Communication from the press is out of the control of both DWP and local authorities. Managing the public perception also relies on a support model that is built to cope with fluctuating demand whilst still being able to provide the person-centred support.
Balancing awareness and delivery
We are aware that public perception, application volumes, and processing times will play an important role in how CRF is experienced in each locality and, therefore, this could differ across regions. Media narratives that emphasise the availability of cash payments risk driving application volumes that won’t always correlate with need. If not managed correctly, this will place pressure on the service and could risk stretching what many councils already perceive to be a restricted budget for the delivery needs.
The success of the fund will be measured by whether those facing a crisis are able to access the right help at the right time. Therefore, authorities will need to balance the awareness and accessibility to funding, but ensure they have the capacity to respond to genuine crises. Approaches that combine clear messaging with support and a coordinated network of partners will be better positioned to absorb demand and maintain needs-based support.
