Agenda item

Report from the Interim Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement.

Recommendations

That Cabinet:

1. Agree provisional allocations of the CRF for the following areas of activity in 2026/27:

Crisis Support

Resilience Services

Community Coordination

Administrative Costs

2. Delegate authority to the Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to determine revised and final allocations for the CRF. This will include provision for other eligible actions in 2026/27 to ensure best use of the funding.

3. Delegate authority to the Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement, in consultation with the Leader of the Council, to approve amendments to existing service level agreements and approve new agreements where required, in relation to the allocations above.

4. Agree to receive a further report in December 2026 setting out specific proposals for future years of the fund.

At the Chair’s invitation, the Leader of the Council introduced the report, reminding members of the former Household Support Fund, which had provided grant funding for cost-of-living measures, including council tax support top ups and free school meal holiday vouchers. This funding had been replaced by the Government’s Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF), with a modest increase in funding but clearer requirements on how it had to be used.

The CRF required four elements. First, year-round crisis payments had to be available for residents experiencing financial emergencies, including energy costs. Given previous demand, £1m had been allocated to this element. Second, discretionary housing payments had to be included, with a similar level of funding allocated. Third, a small amount of funding had been set aside for community coordination to support oversight, engagement and promotion of schemes. Fourth, a significant proportion of the fund had to be used for “resilience”, defined as advice and advocacy services. Existing provision had been expanded, including the Open Arms scheme and additional support for care leavers.

Commitments for council tax support top up payments were to continue to be funded through the CRF. In relation to free school meal holiday vouchers, recent changes in Government guidance now allowed provision, but limited resources meant the scheme could not continue in the previous form. Instead, a single voucher payment would be made during the summer holidays to target support at a peak period of financial pressure for families. This would replace regular holiday payments. Other support, including Healthy Holidays food and activity provision, remained in place and was being expanded.

Overall, the approach aimed to balance proactive support for those most vulnerable to financial shocks, compliance with Government requirements on resilience services, and the availability of crisis support throughout the year.

The Interim Director of Policy, Strategy and Engagement, Chris Paddock noted that paragraph 2.10 of the report set out the outcomes used to define resilience services, and members were encouraged to refer to this section, as it underpinned the distinction between resilience and crisis support and reflected the concerns raised about how resilience was defined.

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries.

A question was raised by Councillor Allen about whether spend under this fund would be reported separately or included within general financial monitoring. It was confirmed that expenditure would be closely monitored through existing financial reporting arrangements, with specific oversight and reporting in place where required by the grant conditions.

Councillor Allen suggested that, given the importance of the issues addressed by the fund, a separate programme report might be helpful to track progress, while recognising that the overall level of funding was relatively small. It was asked whether information could be brought back to scrutiny and Cabinet through existing processes. In response, it was noted that more detailed updates could be incorporated into quarterly financial monitoring, providing specific information on spend and any reallocation between elements. However, it was highlighted that such reporting would be retrospective and potentially time?lagged. It was confirmed that the fund was closely monitored internally, with delegated authority in place to allow adjustments to allocations where necessary, and that no more effective or proportionate public reporting mechanism during the year was identified beyond existing arrangements.

In response, the Leader explained that discretionary housing payment arrangements had been in place for many years and that clarification would be provided on whether payments were made directly to tenants or to landlords, including when the council was the landlord. It was noted that previous experience, particularly during energy crisis payments, showed that direct payments to providers were not always practical, for example where residents used prepayment meters, which required cash support to purchase credit.

It was confirmed that Government guidance required a “cash?first” approach, which was considered to support dignity and choice. Experience indicated that recipients overwhelmingly used payments for intended purposes. The scheme was designed on the basis that individuals would normally receive only one crisis payment per year, to avoid creating ongoing dependency, with flexibility to make exceptions in exceptional or life?critical circumstances. This approach was intended to balance individual responsibility and autonomy with safeguards against repeated reliance on crisis funding.

Councillor Yasseen welcomed the range of activities and interventions set out in the report and noted the value of the evaluation work undertaken, particularly given its targeted and different approach compared with previous funding arrangements. It was highlighted that strengthening existing infrastructure reflected lessons learned from earlier crises, where this had been a key strength locally.

The importance of establishing baselines and measurable outcomes was emphasised, with a suggestion that clearer measures would help demonstrate the difference being made. It was also noted that the fund should be understood within the context of wider support provision, with recognition that families may be accessing multiple forms of support simultaneously and that a layered approach was often necessary.

Questions were raised about coordination arrangements and whether the resources allocated were sufficient, while acknowledging that close working across council teams and community partners could mitigate this. Overall, it was stated that the ambition was for the scheme to align effectively with existing provision and to demonstrate, in a measurable way, that it was delivering tangible benefits for residents.

In response, the Leader acknowledged that these were fair challenges. It was noted that, with greater medium?term certainty over the funding, there was now an opportunity to move away from short?term decision?making and take a more strategic approach.

It was outlined that the intention was to use the funding to put cash directly into the hands of those most in need, while also strengthening longer?term support through joined?up, place?based services. This included better integration between crisis support, social supermarkets, food banks, voluntary sector provision, advice services, libraries and other community venues.

Reference was made to improved links with employability support, following the first year of the Pathways to Work programme, and to closer alignment with children’s social care and other frontline services that routinely support families facing financial hardship. The aim was to ensure services worked in a complementary and coordinated way, with a stronger presence in communities.

Overall, it was emphasised that the approach sought to provide a continuum of support that enabled residents not only to move out of crisis but to achieve greater independence and choice, with services working together horizontally to deliver practical and tangible outcomes.

A question was raised by Councillor Tinsley BEM, regarding the eligibility of home?educated children for free school meals and whether they could be considered within the policy, particularly given increases in home education and the financial pressures faced by some low?income families.

In response, it was noted that eligibility was assumed to follow nationally recognised free school meals criteria, but that clarification would be provided in writing. It was explained that free school meals had been used as a proxy means test because it was a well?established and straightforward way of identifying households in need. It was stated that introducing an additional or separate means?testing process would be challenging, as increased administrative costs would reduce the amount of funding available for direct support. While recognising that some families outside the standard eligibility criteria might experience significant need, it was emphasised that the scheme aimed to remain lean to maximise the funds reaching residents.

The Chair asked about how the value of the summer free school meal voucher payment had been determined, particularly in the context of rising inflation and the cost of providing meals for children.

The Leader explained that the figure was based on maximising the amount of support available to eligible families while meeting the wider commitments of the fund. The approach was not to set a fixed voucher value in advance, but to determine how much funding could be allocated to this cohort after other required elements of the scheme had been provided for. It was noted that, as a single payment, this represented more support during the summer period than families received previously, though it was less support across the full year compared to earlier arrangements. This was described as a necessary trade?off given limited resources.

It was confirmed that families experiencing further financial difficulty could still access crisis payments if needed, and that other support, including Healthy Holidays provision, remained available. While acknowledging the challenge for families, it was stated that the council was maintaining support within the available funding at a level comparable to, or better than, many authorities where similar schemes had been withdrawn entirely.

The Chair asked about how the council would monitor and evaluate the impact of reduced family support on child poverty and food insecurity in 2026–27.

In response, it was noted that identifying clear headline impacts would be difficult unless there were significant changes in the number of children accessing services, as wider external factors such as cost?of?living pressures were likely to have a greater influence. However, it was acknowledged that, with greater certainty over funding, there was a need to strengthen evaluation and reporting. This would include gathering feedback from service users on the impact of support received and reviewing broader indicators, particularly demand and pressures within children’s services. It was recognised that any assessment over a 12?month period would provide only a partial and imperfect picture.

It was noted that, as the Policy, Strategy and Engagement directorate developed, greater emphasis would be placed on improving the use of data and evidence to better understand and anticipate financial hardship affecting residents. This included strengthening qualitative insight from frontline and community?level engagement to inform policy development, alongside improved use of data and analysis to support earlier and more informed decision?making.

Reference was made to work linked to the Thriving Neighbourhoods strategy, which aimed to better capture lived experience of financial crisis and feed this into policy and service design. It was also highlighted that scenario planning was underway in relation to known risks, such as the end of energy price protections, to ensure the authority was better prepared for potential impacts on residents. Work was ongoing to identify and invest in appropriate data sources to support timely and effective responses.

A question was raised by Councillor Monk about how the quality of resilience and advice services would be assessed, beyond simply measuring access and usage. Assurance was sought that residents would receive a consistent standard of advice regardless of whether services were accessed through council?run provision, drop?in centres, or voluntary and community sector organisations.

The Leader explained that common standards for advice provision were already in place through existing agreements with voluntary sector organisations, which set clear expectations about the models and quality of advice to be delivered. These standards had been established for some time and would be reinforced through service level agreements linked to the resilience and advice provision.

It was noted that, while provider standards were clear and well embedded, further work was needed to confirm how feedback from residents about their experience of advice services would be captured and assessed. An undertaking was given to provide further information on how service?user feedback and quality assurance would be monitored, alongside existing performance and compliance arrangements.

In a further question Councillor Monk raised concerns about how some resilience outcomes would be measured, particularly reductions in the need for crisis payments and food support. It was noted that food parcels could be accessed from a range of providers beyond this scheme, making attribution difficult. It was also highlighted that a reduction in applications for crisis payments did not necessarily indicate reduced need, given limits on eligibility and the possibility that unmet need might remain hidden.

It was explained that requests for crisis payments would be recorded over time, even where payments were limited, allowing trends in demand to be monitored. It was noted that exceptions could be made in exceptional or severe circumstances.

In relation to food support, it was stated that the council worked with the majority of crisis food providers across the borough and already held good intelligence on levels of demand, referral routes and underlying drivers. It was highlighted that many providers had shifted from emergency food provision towards more sustainable support models, including low?cost food offers and links to wider services. As a result, the number of emergency food parcels issued had reduced compared with previous years, and it was considered possible to track changes in demand for crisis food support with a reasonable degree of confidence.

The Chair asked about how the council would ensure that the most vulnerable residents, including those who were digitally excluded, were made aware of and able to access the fund. In response, the Leader explained that the primary approach was proactive targeting, with a significant proportion of funding automatically provided to households already identified as most financially vulnerable, without the need for an application. It was further noted that access would be supported through a strong place?based approach, working with community?based provision such as social supermarkets and food and crisis partners, so that support was available in locations residents already accessed when experiencing hardship.

In addition, broader promotion would take place, including local awareness activity alongside national communications, recognising that demand could be influenced by the level of central Government promotion. Overall, the combination of automatic payments, community?based access points and targeted promotion was intended to ensure that those most in need, including digitally excluded residents, were able to benefit from the fund.

The Chair noted that two additional actions were proposed: to provide confirmation on whether crisis payments would be made to tenants or directly to landlords, and to clarify free school meal eligibility for home?educated children.

Resolved: That the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board supported the recommendations to Cabinet.

Further actions that arose from discussions were that officers were asked to confirm:

·       Whether crisis payments were made to tenants or directly to landlords.

·       The free school meal entitlement position for home?educated children.