On 26 January 2026, the Independent Revenues and Benefits Monday Discussion Group focused mainly on the new Crisis and Resilience Fund, with a closing round of linked updates on digital delivery, WorkWell, and a developing Council Tax Reduction legal challenge. Independent R&B Monday Discussi…
Malcolm Gardner opened by setting out the central tension in the fund’s design. It is meant to provide a safety net for sudden financial shock while also investing in longer term resilience, which, in Malcolm’s view, is a very wide brief for a single funding stream. He highlighted the scheme’s required components, crisis payments, housing payments, resilience services and community coordination, and noted the official emphasis on “cash first” as the default option, with vouchers or in kind support permitted where that better meets need.
Two tier delivery was quickly identified as the practical fault line. Laura Bessell explained that, as a district, she was doing “absolutely nothing with it” at this stage because the county will receive the funding and define the policy; the district expects to receive an allocation based on demand rather than shape the approach. Laura’s concern was structural: if the money sits at county level, the scheme will need a county wide policy, yet local practice and client understanding often sit in districts, and trying to force “four into one” risks creating something that works for no one. She also questioned whether the required policy and governance could be put through the necessary legal and democratic gateways quickly enough to then be delivered locally.
Naomi Armstrong largely echoed Laura’s position, describing a mirror image set up where the county holds the purse strings while districts hold operational knowledge and some existing grant relationships. Naomi’s immediate focus was protecting what currently works, particularly direct grants that support Discretionary Housing Payment delivery. She also raised a practical problem that has grown since Housing Benefit changed shape: districts often no longer have the same data picture because need is increasingly tied to Universal Credit, and that makes proactive intervention harder. Naomi floated the idea of a single application pathway that could better join up crisis and housing support, but was blunt about timing, warning that an April start combined with expectations about improved data flows within months was not realistic.
Paul Howarth framed the direction of travel as government anticipating local government reorganisation. In Paul’s reading, the fund looks like a transition: Discretionary Housing Payments are expected to fade out, replaced over time by a single mechanism. He welcomed the move to a three year settlement and the stated intention to strengthen prevention and resilience, but warned about the financial context. When earlier schemes were merged, Paul noted that £100m was lost, and that the overall envelope has been tightened, effectively asking the system to do more with less.
The conversation then moved from structure to the friction points that will determine whether the scheme is workable. Sean O’Sullivan asked whether the new approach would solve long running demarcation issues, particularly where social services do not notify housing or welfare teams about support already given, and where different parts of the council may be providing overlapping help, such as white goods support for new tenants. Sean’s concern was that departments might continue to operate in silos, leaving some teams “blind” at the point decisions need to be made.
Robert Fox brought a unitary perspective from Swindon and offered a contrast. He described a more coordinated local set up, with provision for white goods, carpets and food support already sitting within a connected delivery model, including substantial summer holiday provision. Robert’s challenge was different: how to balance crisis help and prevention, and whether elements that have become embedded locally, such as holiday vouchers and summer food support, might be squeezed or discouraged under the new framework.
Michael Fisher reinforced the unitary advantage, arguing that unitaries benefit from data access and established cross service links, while two tier delivery risks the worst of both worlds: counties unsure how to operate the scheme, and districts unable to access it despite knowing what works. Michael highlighted the governance timetable as a real world barrier. Accepting and spending the grant needs authorisation, and elections in late March could stall decision making for weeks. He also flagged the potential impact on delivery partners if familiar funding routes are disrupted, particularly charities and schools involved in holiday food and activity provision, and he stressed the scale of communications work needed to explain a new scheme to residents. Michael also pointed to the political risk: changes in control can shift local priorities quickly, even if the underlying need does not change. Independent
Gareth Morgan underlined a different operational tension: budgeting rules that require councils not to run out of money before year end. Gareth questioned how that requirement can be reconciled with genuine crisis events that do not arrive neatly within a planned budget profile. He suggested councils may end up rationing support based on calendar logic rather than human need, which undermines the purpose of a crisis scheme. Later, Gareth posed a more uncomfortable question about discretion in practice: if two cases appear equally deserving, but one payment reduces council tax arrears while another would go to a third party, does decision making drift towards what benefits the authority’s finances rather than the resident’s situation.
Rachael added both optimism and a warning. She said the guidance is, in her view, the best for discretionary support schemes in a long time, and appears to show learning from weaknesses in Household Support Fund management information. However, she pushed the group back to the recurring sticking point: data sharing. In two tier areas especially, setting up lawful and workable data flows across councils and services will likely be the most time consuming and contentious part of implementation, and it sits on top of the fact that counties may not have the same tools districts rely on for related support. Rachael also challenged the assumption that familiar holiday food and activity routes are simply banned, pointing out that the guidance discourages blanket approaches but does not necessarily prohibit targeted provision. She also raised the issue of stigma, noting that calling something a “crisis payment” may aid clarity and publicity, but can deter people who feel shame in applying.
Paul returned to the mechanics of data, explaining that some data shares previously used for Household Support Fund should continue for authorities responsible for the new fund, and that Universal Credit data used for Council Tax Reduction can now also be used for local welfare provision and homelessness prevention. His message was that data exists, but the system will be messy, and the most useful data in practice may still be what districts can access. Malcolm then highlighted that the most stubborn barriers are often internal, between departments within the same authority, even when the legal basis is available.
Naomi developed that point by describing “false barriers” created by organisational boundaries: districts can access certain data because they deliver CTR; counties often cannot, despite being expected to lead on the new fund. Naomi also noted the additional management information burden and the short window to push policy through political processes, particularly with elections limiting what can be progressed. Sean reinforced that even within unitaries, entrenched practices in education and social services can make internal data sharing slow to shift, and that councils may invest time in policies that are then revisited after political change.
The group also touched on free school meals reform as a complicating factor. Robert flagged that changes coming in September and the emergence of “deprivation group” style categorisations create both technical alignment work and communications difficulty. Malcolm observed that labelling residents in deprivation groups risks adding stigma and barriers to access. Kirsty Brooksmith linked the issue back to policy coherence: government messaging encourages auto enrolment for free school meals to reduce application friction, yet guidance warns against broad brush approaches that some councils may interpret as a reason to stop using free school meals related targeting altogether. Robert added an example of delivery oddity, noting that in Swindon some free school meals entitlement checks are handled externally, illustrating how fragmented arrangements can become.
A practical note of future direction came from Michael, who said the Liverpool City Region is exploring a joint approach to delivery across multiple councils. Rachael welcomed this as a way to reduce postcode lottery effects, arguing that regional harmonisation can reduce geographic inequality in discretionary support.
As the discussion drew to a close, Malcolm asked what “good” looks like for a scheme that blends crisis response and prevention. Rachael said evaluation is difficult because much of the benefit is counterfactual, but suggested councils can still build baselines and track indicators such as rent arrears, council tax arrears and referrals to children’s social care, while recognising that different parts of the system define success differently. Laura was sceptical that a single definition of success exists, seeing discretionary support as a safety net that fills gaps created by wider policy and regulation, and warning that discretion inevitably produces inconsistency between officers and between places. Malcolm countered that discretion exists to deal with hard cases, even if the “hole in the legislative doughnut” has grown larger over time, a point Laura accepted while warning that the scale of need now makes the sticking plaster analogy feel less convincing.
In final updates, Malcolm flagged Cabinet Office “Project Reset” on digital delivery as another attempt to reframe familiar ambitions around productivity and performance management, with Gareth and Bob Wagstaff responding wryly that government digital programmes have a habit of being rebranded rather than rebuilt. Malcolm also mentioned the DWP’s WorkWell announcement and wondered whether government is meaningfully linking work and health initiatives to local crisis support; Rachael’s view was that it probably is not. Malcolm then noted an emerging judicial review challenge to Somerset Council’s Council Tax Reduction scheme, which appears linked to issues arising after reorganisation and may be one for the group to watch. Paul had not yet seen the details but suggested the post migration period is an appropriate time to test how CTR schemes work in practice, not just how they are described.
The meeting ended with a brief exchange on how new schemes interact with modelling tools. Gareth said such schemes are not directly covered in calculators, but become challenging when modelling wider effects. Nicki Duckworth said they cover most schemes and are “having lots of fun”, adding that fewer changes this year is a small mercy, although she implied that scheme flaws mean councils will still be forced into improvisation.
The Recording can be found here