Research and analysis

Summary: Case study research into the delivery of the Household Support Fund and Discretionary Housing Payments

Published 26 February 2026

Authors: Milo Warby, Rachael Holmes, Imogen Cox, Jake Fremantle

Overview

Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) and the Household Support Fund (HSF) are both discretionary welfare support schemes offered by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). DWP commissioned Verian to conduct research designed to provide a better understanding of the interactions between the HSF and DHP schemes in England, to inform successful implementation of the Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF).

This research consisted of nine local case study areas (covering 15 local authorities (LAs) in total), all delivering one or both schemes. Each case study involved scoping interviews, in‑person interviews and observations with LAs and key partners, and a remote workshop to validate findings.

Research Context

Discretionary Housing Payments (introduced in 2001) and the Household Support Fund (introduced in 2021) are discretionary welfare support schemes delivered by LAs. They are designed to provide financial assistance to those in need of support. HSF funding is delivered to upper‑tier authorities and DHPs to lower‑tier authorities, with unitary authorities receiving both funding streams^{[footnote 1]}. The forthcoming CRF is a new, reformed discretionary crisis scheme for England which will replace HSF and incorporate DHPs from April 2026, aiming to provide more stable, long‑term funding that enables both crisis support and preventative help.

In this context, DWP commissioned research to understand how the current HSF and DHP schemes are delivered and to identify lessons for designing the CRF. The study examined delivery principles, operational models, eligibility and identification processes, methods of support, and perceived challenges and enablers, with particular attention to balancing national consistency and local flexibility.

The research aimed to clarify how HSF and DHP interact, highlight key differences in delivery mechanisms that may need addressing for successful CRF implementation, and explore how preventative support is currently provided through HSF.

The objectives fell into three categories:

• understanding current delivery principles of HSF and DHP and their interaction
• identifying challenges within existing delivery models
• exploring how future schemes could be administered more effectively under the CRF model

Key findings

1. The research identified a range of LA approaches to overseeing and administering the schemes, which were influenced by:

• tiering: in a two-tier authority HSF funding is received at the upper tier and DHP funding at the lower tier
• LAs’ team structure and historical delivery context (in terms of practices and priorities), shaping which staff delivered the schemes
• the profile of the local population and area, shaping support needs

2. Interactions between HSF and DHP varied across LAs:

• some LAs integrated HSF and DHP through shared oversight, inter-referrals, and using HSF to supplement DHPs
• others kept schemes distinct. This was often due to tiering and decisions over which teams were best placed to deliver them
• these differences appeared to influence LAs’ readiness for CRF: concerns in two-tier areas included the impact of local government reorganisation and loss of expertise and discretion

3. LAs differed in their approaches to defining need and providing support:

• some prioritised rapid access and inclusivity, others focused on more detailed and holistic assessment of eligibility.
• HSF support ranged from provision of vouchers for food, energy and water to more tailored approaches such as advice and referrals to specialist organisations. DHP delivery was more standardised, with some LAs taking more innovative approaches, for example landlord negotiations for rent reductions

4. Research identified a range of delivery challenges across both schemes:

• short-term funding cycles were identified as the main delivery challenge, and were said to hinder resilience-building
• other key challenges that were shared included:
  • funding being felt to be insufficient to meet local need
  • ensuring those most in need received support (balancing inclusive with targeted approaches)
  • managing dependency at a local level

5. LAs were largely supportive of the proposed CRF but described a number of changes they would like to see in any future scheme:

• LAs desired longer funding cycles, more clarity on purpose and scope of schemes, and retention of local flexibility
• overall, LAs emphasised the need for the CRF to balance national consistency for LA schemes with local discretion

Methodology

The study followed a case study design across nine local case study areas (covering 15 LAs in total). Case study locations were selected by DWP from LAs expressing interest in research related to the development of the CRF. The sample frame was designed to include a spread of variables, including:

Primary variable:

• tiering (single-tier LA or two-tier LA): to capture any differences in delivery approach between LAs where DHPs and HSF were received by the same or different authorities
• under- or over-spend on DHPs: to explore cases where LAs were reliant on other forms of funding to ‘top up’ DHPs

Secondary variables:

• urban vs. rural context; Index of Multiple Deprivation score; level of preventative support offered in HSF

Each case study combined:

1. scoping interview(s) with strategic contacts

2. core in‑person research with LA staff and third‑party delivery organisations, including observations of processes and interactions

3. additional recipient‑facing activities where possible

4. a remote validation workshop to play back findings and invite corrections

Fieldwork took place from September to October 2025. Analysis followed established qualitative coding frameworks with internal QA and triangulation across sources. In parallel with this research, DWP also ran a co-design exercise with a select number of LAs to gain input on the design of the CRF.

Findings explained

The research identified a range of LA approaches to overseeing and administering the schemes

As outlined, LAs were found to range across a spectrum from more holistic to siloed delivery, shaped by tiering (with upper-tier receiving HSF and lower-tiers receiving DHPs in two-tier systems), organisational structure and historical delivery approaches, and local population and area profile. In holistic models, shared teams could route clients between schemes so that the HSF met urgent essentials while DHPs covered housing-related costs. In mixed or siloed models, having distinct teams and processes and limited coordination made referrals less common. Considering the launch of the CRF, these structural differences are likely to result in varied levels of readiness for DHP integration, and in some LAs in favour of more direction from government and others preferring more local discretion.

Interaction between HSF and DHP varied across LAs

For some case study areas involved in research, the HSF and DHP schemes interacted frequently, in terms of shared team oversight, inter-referrals, and in using HSF funding to supplement DHPs. However, others treated the schemes as distinct, mainly due to tiering and decisions on which teams were best placed to deliver different components. Therefore, research confirmed that while HSF funds are often used to supplement DHPs, the reality of crossover between funding sources and delivery approaches is varied and nuanced. These included applicants being directly routed from DHP applications through to HSF, considering HSF eligibility before DHP (e.g. due to TPO referrals), and the supplementation of DHPs with a range of other funding sources. Overall, LAs recognised clear benefits of combining both schemes in reflecting current delivery practices, reducing duplication (e.g. in eligibility checks) and streamlining administration. However, research also suggested that integration will be complicated by the differing statutory frameworks and governance arrangements across each funding source. Two-tier LAs in particular advised taking a staggered approach to avoid disruption to support and loss of expertise.

LAs’ differed in their approaches to defining need and providing support

Research highlighted a number of difficult trade-offs LAs make when delivering support through these schemes. Identifying need, particularly for HSF, was presented as a balance between competing priorities. Some LAs prioritised rapid access and inclusivity, using simple online forms, blanket or targeted distributions (for example, holiday food vouchers), and straightforward awards for essentials. Others opted for more detailed, holistic assessment processes that enabled tailored packages combining material support (for example, white goods) with advice and referrals. While DHP delivery was more standardised, it included some more innovative practice, for example negotiating rent reductions.

Research identified a range of delivery challenges across both schemes

Stakeholders in case study areas identified a consistent set of challenges with current delivery models and eligibility criteria:

• HSF funding cycles were widely perceived by LAs to be too short, making it difficult to embed longer‑term, resilience‑building activity or undertake strategic planning
• LAs described how funding was insufficient to meet the level of local need, particularly where demand rose rapidly
• ensuring those most in need received support was challenging, balancing inclusive access with targeted approaches
• managing demand and dependency at local level required continuous adjustments to communications, referral routes and award policies
• eligibility restrictions for DHPs, specifically the requirement for applicants to be receiving Housing Benefit or the Universal Credit housing element, were viewed by some LAs as too restrictive, limiting support for households in need who do not meet these criteria (for example, the working poor or atypical poverty profiles)
• fragmentation between teams and tiers, and limited coordination or data‑sharing in more siloed models, was said by LAs to affect the seamlessness of some recipient journeys

LAs were largely supportive of the proposed CRF but described a number of changes they would like to see in any future scheme

At a high level, desired changes for a combined scheme were largely consistent: longer funding cycles to support planning and prevention; retention of local discretion and flexibility; and clarity on purpose and scope. At the same time, authorities expressed differing views on key design choices and trade‑offs, reflecting varied local contexts, legacy delivery choices, and perspectives across authorities and tiers. The evidence suggests that, in integrating schemes, LAs need the CRF to strike a careful balance between national consistency and local flexibility. This involves setting core expectations and safeguards while ensuring practical discretion in delivery so that LAs can respond rapidly to crisis and invest in preventative approaches.

1. The term ‘upper-tier’ authority is used to refer to county councils, ‘lower-tier’ to district councils. For ease, in this case ‘unitary authority’ also includes metropolitan districts and London boroughs. For more information on how local government is structured in England, please see: Local government structure and elections – GOV.UK ↩