Research and analysis

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

Published 26 February 2026

This Technical Report is associated with DWP research report no. 1121.

A report of research carried out by Verian UK on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.

Crown copyright 2026. 

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. View this licence or write to:

Information Policy Team
The National Archives
Kew
London
TW9 4DU

or email psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk. 

This document/publication is also available on the GOV.UK website 

If you would like to know more about DWP research email socialresearch@dwp.gov.uk. 

First published February 2026. 

ISBN 978-1-78659-942-1

Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other government department.

1. Technical Report

This report provides the technical and methodological details of research commissioned by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) to explore local authorities (LAs’) delivery approaches across the Household Support Fund (HSF) and Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs). Ther research was designed to capture how LAs are currently delivering funding and to explore their perspectives on what could be improved for future delivery of the new Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF). This report provides detail on the research methodology, including sampling, recruitment and fieldwork. Copies of the research materials are appended.

1.1 Background and context

HSF and the DHP fund are discretionary welfare schemes delivered locally by councils to support households facing financial hardship. HSF operates in England, while DHPs are available across England and Wales.

LAs in the UK operate either as unitary authorities, which handle all local government functions, or within a two‑tier system where responsibilities are split between county councils (upper tier) and district or borough councils (lower tier). For these two schemes, HSF funding is delivered to upper tier authorities and DHPs at lower tier (due to housing expertise)^{[footnote 1]}. In unitary authorities, funding for both HSF and the DHP scheme is received directly from DWP.

HSF was originally launched by DWP in October 2021 to help households struggling during the COVID‑19 pandemic. It was later renewed to help address the challenges of the cost of living crisis. Its overarching aim is to support vulnerable households and those on low incomes.

The DHP scheme was introduced in 2001 to provide additional support with housing costs for those in need, primarily covering shortfalls in rent and clearing rent arrears. DHPs can be awarded to those deemed eligible for Housing Benefit or the Universal Credit Housing Element.

The CRF is a new discretionary crisis scheme for England that will replace HSF from 1 April 2026 and will incorporate DHPs. The CRF is intended to provide more stable, long‑term funding to support both crisis provision and preventative work, addressing issues such as short funding cycles and enabling improved strategic planning by councils.

To inform the design of the CRF, DWP commissioned Verian to examine how LAs currently deliver HSF and DHPs, understand current delivery models and challenges, and explore LA perspectives on how future delivery could be strengthened. This research focused exclusively on local authorities in England. Devolved schemes, including delivery of DHPs in Wales, were out of scope. Full policy background and detailed aims are set out in Section 1 of the main report.

This research used a case study approach to explore current and future delivery. At the time of the research, LAs had been made aware that HSF was going to be replaced with the CRF. All LAs had received an introductory letter from DWP outlining the scope and goals of the CRF and had been informed that the design had not yet been finalised. To gain input on the design of the CRF, DWP also ran a co-design exercise with a select number of LAs, in parallel with this research.

1.2 Methodology

The research consisted of nine case studies with LAs delivering either, or both, of the HSF or DHP schemes. As some of these were two-tier areas, a total of 15 LAs were interviewed. Please see section 2.1 for a full breakdown of tiers and participants types engaged with. Each case study comprised of four different types of research activity, which included both remote and in-person research:

1. Scoping: introductory scoping interview with strategic contact (Remote call).

2. Core case study activities conducted in all case study areas: LA staff and Third party organisation (TPO) research activities, including observations of meetings and processes (In-person).

3. Additional case study activities conducted where possible: recipient-facing activities and reviewing recipient documentation (in-person, either in the LA office or where staff meet recipients).

4. Validation following completion of the other activities: a validation workshop with each of the LAs to validate insight and provide space for final clarifications (Remote call).

The balance of these activities varied based on each of the LAs’ approaches to HSF and DHPs: for example, the extent of partner organisation involvement, and the structure and make up of relevant teams within the LA.

Verbal consent was obtained from all LA staff members, partners and recipients for participation. Recipients were informed in advance that a Verian researcher might join their conversation. They were asked to give or decline consent before the researcher joined, and their consent was then reconfirmed at the point of participation

Fieldwork took place between 21 August and 15 October 2025.

1.3 Sampling

Case study locations were selected by DWP from the set of LAs that expressed interest in participating in research opportunities in relation to the CRF. DWP provided a longlist of details for lead contacts with Verian across 10 priority locations, plus an additional five in the case of non-response.

The sample frame was designed to include a spread of variables to ensure a diverse range of delivery models and experiences were represented across case studies.

Primary variables:

• tiering was included as a primary variable to capture any differences in delivery approach between LAs where DHPs and HSF were received by the same (unitary LA) or different authorities (two-tier LA)

• under or over-spend on DHPs was also included as a primary variable to explore cases where LAs were reliant on other forms of funding to ‘top up’ DHPs. Due to non-response from some LAs, the quota for under-spending was not achieved in the final sample (note that Verian included two LAs which were under-spending in relation to the totality of their lower tiers but not in relation to the specific lower tiers that were interviewed)

Secondary variables:

• secondary variables were used to ensure coverage of more and less urban areas, variation in need as measured by the Index of Multiple Deprivation, and differences in the share of HSF spending allocated to preventative as opposed to crisis‑response interventions

Table 1: Case study sample frame

Primary variables

Single vs two-tier	Single tier authorities	Minimum 4
Single vs two-tier	Two-tier authorities	Minimum 4
DHP allocation spent	Over threshold	Minimum 3

Secondary variables

Urban vs rural	Mix
IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation) score	Mix
Preventative support offered in HSF	Mix

1.4 Recruitment

Verian contacted LAs in twelve case study areas in total across the recruitment period. Each case study area was assigned a case study lead from the Verian team who was responsible for managing recruitment and fieldwork activities. Named lead contacts were emailed by Verian with detail about the research, what participating would involve and given an opportunity to participate. Details of a DWP team member were also provided for LAs to ask questions if needed. Lead contacts were asked to confirm their willingness to participate, provide contact details for appropriate staff to take part in an initial scoping interview, and share availability for remote discussions. If initial contacts did not respond, DWP provided Verian with alternative contacts. Where DWP’s sample did not include contacts from both tiers of a two‑tier authority, participating LAs were asked to help identify and recruit appropriate staff from one of the other tiers, either during recruitment or following the initial scoping interview.

Verian successfully conducted fieldwork with nine out of the 10 target authorities, with one case study excluded due to lack of response within the available timeframe. All completed case studies were on DWP’s original priority list.

1.5 Fieldwork approach

Scoping interviews were conducted remotely with each participating LA, sometimes involving small groups (two to three staff) either within or across LAs, to map delivery structures and plan subsequent fieldwork.

Following scoping, case study activities were delivered through a mix of remote and in‑person interviews, observations, and document reviews, tailored to each LA’s delivery model and availability. Where LAs described working largely online, we adapted our approach by carrying out interviews remotely and placing less emphasis on in‑person observation. Researchers successfully conducted in-person fieldwork in all case study areas. In two‑tier areas, fieldwork included coordinated visits and observations across both tiers where feasible, designed to consider how responsibilities for HSF and DHPs were distributed locally.

After fieldwork completion, online validation workshops were held with eight of the nine case studies to review headline findings and ensure accuracy. For the remaining LA, findings were shared by email due to lack of response.

1.6 Analysis and reporting

Interviews were recorded for note-taking purposes. Internal LA meetings and observations were not recorded and instead captured in pro-forma templates. Researchers did not record names or other identifying details, and data collection tools were designed to support anonymity at the point of collection.

Researchers summarised responses and observation notes into an analytical framework developed from the research objectives and early emergent themes from the fieldwork. Data was coded and summarised into this matrix, allowing researchers to systematically explore patterns by case, individual and theme. Researchers included verbatim quotes from interviews in this framework, which illustrated key points and summarised participants’ perspectives.

Analysis sessions were conducted with all case study leads towards the end of the fieldwork period. The purpose of the analysis sessions were to identify key themes across case study areas and for each specific scheme, as well as distinctive differences and potential reasons for these. Notes from these sessions, combined with data from the analytical framework, were used to inform the next stage of thematic analysis which included refining themes, identifying potential case study area types, and supporting analysis with verbatim quotes.

Following analysis, Verian worked with DWP to produce a final publishable report of the findings in detail.

2. Appendix 1: Sample

This appendix outlines the achieved sample for this project. Demographic criteria have been excluded to minimise any risk of identification.

2.1 Achieved sample

Table 1: Case study achieved sample

Case study number	Tiering	Single vs. two tier
1	Unitary	4
2	Unitary	4
3	Unitary	4
4	Unitary	4
5	a. Upper tier	11, 5 Upper tier, 6 Lower tier
5	b. Lower tier	11, 5 Upper tier, 6 Lower tier
6	a. Upper tier	11, 5 Upper tier, 6 Lower tier
6	b. Lower tier	11, 5 Upper tier, 6 Lower tier
7	a. Upper tier	11, 5 Upper tier, 6 Lower tier
7	b. Lower tier	11, 5 Upper tier, 6 Lower tier
7	c. Lower tier	11, 5 Upper tier, 6 Lower tier
8	a. Upper tier	11, 5 Upper tier, 6 Lower tier
8	b. Lower tier	11, 5 Upper tier, 6 Lower tier
9	a. Upper tier	11, 5 Upper tier, 6 Lower tier
9	b. Lower tier	11, 5 Upper tier, 6 Lower tier

Primary variables	Number
Single tier authorities	4
Two tier authorities	11
DHP allocation spent (Over threshold)	3

Secondary variables	Type
Urban vs rural	Mix
IMD (Index of Multiple Deprivation) score	Mix
Preventative support offered in HSF	Mix

Research activity breakdown	Number
Scoping interviews	11
LA staff interviews and observations	41
Partner interviews	5
Recipient observations	6

3. Appendix 2: Research Materials

This appendix contains the research materials used for this project. These materials reflect the context and decision‑making at the time of interview before all aspects of CRF delivery had been confirmed.

3.1 HSF/DHP Process Evaluation: Scoping interview guide

Online, MS Teams, 60mins

Topic Guide

Background for fieldwork team

Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) and The Household Support Fund (HSF) are part of a category of local discretionary welfare support schemes. These schemes (introduced in 2001 and 2021 respectively) are designed to provide financial assistance to individuals and households facing hardship, particularly where mainstream benefits are judged to be insufficient or delayed.

The Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF) is a new, reformed discretionary crisis scheme for England, which will replace the HSF which is due to end on 31 March 2026. The delivery of DHPs will also be merged with the CRF as far as possible. HSF is delivered at upper tier and DHPs at lower tier (due to housing expertise), but CRF is yet to be decided.

The CRF will be delivered by LAs and it is essential that DWP understand the delivery of the current schemes and build in any lessons learned to the design and implementation of the new scheme. Note that alongside this research project, DWP are running a forward-looking CRF codesign process with LAs.

Research Aims

This research aims to fill remaining evidence gaps on the interactions between the HSF and DHP schemes and any key differences in delivery mechanisms that will need to be addressed to enable successful implementation of the CRF. It will also provide evidence which will be used in the design of CRF, specifically on how support to prevent people falling into crisis is currently being delivered in HSF, as this has not been looked at previously. The research aims fall into three broad categories to explore: 

Research aim 1: Explore current delivery principles of HSF and DHPs and how they interact.

• How do HSF and DHPs interact with each other and with wider local welfare provisions?

• How does delivery vary across LAs and across different LA structures (unitary vs two-tier)?

• How do LAs define ‘need’ and make decisions on allocating funds?

• How are LAs delivering preventive support and what good practice can be shared for the CRF?

• Do LAs prefer the funding distribution methods of HSF or DHPs

• Do LAs check eligibility for DHPs before they award HSF? Or vice versa? Do they fall back on one fund when the other is not applicable? If so, in what ways?

• What issues do LAs focus on addressing when distributing HSF? Do they already have their own eligibility groups? Do they make eligibility decisions based solely on ‘in need’ an individual is?

Research aim 2: Explore challenges with the current delivery models of HSF and DHPs

• What are the key challenges faced by LAs in delivering HSF and DHPs?
• How much do LAs feel that their ability to distribute financial support in relation to DHPs is restricted due to the eligibility criteria?
• What approaches do LAs take to supplement funding sources when these run out? How common are these and are they timed to ‘bridge the gap’ before the next payments are received?

Research aim 3: Explore how the scheme could be more effectively administered in the future under the CRF model

• How can efficiencies be achieved through combining the HSF and DHPs schemes and what are the challenges to this?
• How could we increase the effectiveness of the long-term support that is available to individuals through the way LAs distribute the funds?
• Do LAs feel like they would be able to distribute discretionary financial support more effectively without benefit eligibility criteria?

Scoping

This phase comprises interviews with LA staff representing 10 LA case studies to provide an overview of the LA approach to HSF and DHPs and to enable us to discuss logistics for taking the case study forward.

The LAs will nominate the most relevant individual(s) for us to engage with at this stage. We anticipate that this is likely to be someone in a strategic role with oversight of both HSF and DHPs, although multiple participants may need to be engaged with to provide coverage of both schemes.

Note to Moderators

This topic guide should be read in conjunction with the Project proposal

Key contacts

Project Director – Rachael Holmes

Project lead – Milo Warby

Please note, this guide is for a semi-structured qualitative interview and is not a survey or script and is intended to be used flexibly, with participant responses guiding the flow of the conversation, topics covered in the order that they naturally arise, and probes used only when needed. Timings are provided as guidance. While all sections will be covered, not all prompts and probes will be covered in every interview. General ‘why and how’ probes are part of the qualitative researcher repertoire and therefore are not included in the guide. A ‘*’ is used where questions should be asked consistently across interviews using the wording specified.

Overview

Section	Timing (mins)
1. Introduction to the research	5
2. Participant introduction	5
3. LA introduction	10
4. Structure for overall delivery of HSF and DHPs	15
5. Scoping for the evaluation / case study	20
6. Perspectives on future delivery and close	5

1. Introduction to the research (5 minutes)

Introduce the research, reassure about confidentiality, cover research ethics, and set tone of discussion.

Warm up and introduction

• Introduce moderator and Verian – an independent social research company
• Research is being conducted on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), as part of an evaluation we are carrying out of the Household Support Fund (HSF) and Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs)
• Aim of this discussion is to draw on your experience and guidance to help shape our approach to case study research in your local authority. Specifically, we want to understand how HSF/DHPs are administered by your local authority, and identify the research activities we need to undertake to deepen our understanding. I’ll cover these activities in more detail shortly
• Insight from this project will contribute to DWP evidence base on this topic and feed into the development of future schemes, namely the Crisis Resilience Fund
• Interview length – 60 mins
• Research is voluntary – you can stop participating at any time. Your decision about whether to participate or not will not affect the local authorities’ current or future relationship with DWP
• Research is confidential and anonymous – we will not share your name with DWP in reporting. Information will be used for research purposes only
• Verian’s privacy policy can be accessed on our website:                       https://www.veriangroup.com/uk-surveys
• Any questions?

Introduction to the research

• Next year, DWP will replace HSF with a new Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF). This new fund will also incorporate Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs).  The aim of this fund is to provide more stable, long-term funding that enables councils to offer both crisis support and preventative help and address issues like short-term funding cycles and improving strategic planning
• Aim of this project is for DWP, before this point to:
  • Gain a more complete picture of how the HSF and DHP schemes are delivered and how they interact
  • Capture any key differences in how they’re run locally that will need to be considered when rolling out the CRF
• This research may also help shape how support is provided to stop people from reaching crisis point
• This is running in parallel to co-design work with LAs
• The research approach is made up of 10 case studies with LAs, exploring current delivery, challenges, and key lessons to bear in mind for the design of the CRF. Each case study will include a set of case study activities which would be carried out in the first half of September. We would like your help to decide what those activities should look like
• Verian have planned four different components for each case study [show slide]:
  • Scoping: Remote interview to agree approach and logistics
  • Core case study activities: Interviews, observations, and document reviews
  • Additional activities: Observe recipient interactions and review related documents
  • Validation: Workshop to confirm findings and explore insights
• We will come back to these later in the conversation

This research is about capturing lessons learned and informing future design. It’s intended to guide strategic thinking, so while your input is really valuable, it may not lead to direct changes based on individual suggestions.

Recording

Ask participant for permission to record, then start recording and confirm consent. [Note: Verian shall ensure that recordings are only conducted with consent and only used for the purposes for which the consent was given.]

2. Participant introduction (5 minutes)

Aim of this section is to get to know the participant, understand the scope of their role and their time at the LA.

Ask participant to introduce themselves

• Job title
• Role and responsibilities
  • Strategic vs. operational focus
• Confirm role in relation to HSF and DHP schemes
  • Researcher to note if participant will be unable to provide detail on either scheme
• Length of time in role
• Team and any key colleagues they work with day to day relevant to research focus
• Balance of office / home working / off site (relevant for practicalities of site visit)

3. LA introduction (10 minutes)

Aim of this section is to understand more about the LA case study and its specific context.

Confirm the set-up/structure of the local authority the participant works for

• Area the LA covers, sense of size of population, political makeup of council
• If unitary or two-tier authority (i.e. higher tier County Council plus lower tier district/borough/city)
• Any changes to structure in the last 10 years
  • e.g. replacement of two tier with unitary authority, merging of LA
• How similar/different structure is to nearby LAs

IF THE LA IS PART OF TWO-TIER STRUCTURE.

Explore two-tier structure and responsibilities

• Ask about other LAs within lower tier – number, type (e.g. district, borough, city)
  • [If upper tier stakeholder] Briefly, how similar are lower tiers in terms of size, geography, levels of deprivation
• Confirm who is responsible for HSF/DHPs between tiers: i.e. split, shared
  • Any changes to this over time
  • Note we will come back to this later
• How similar / different to where responsibility lies for administering other key welfare support schemes

Explore dynamic/relationships within the tier

• Nature of relationship between their LA and higher / lower tier(s) [depending on which stakeholder is from] – positive, negative, mixed
• Reasons for this – any areas of alignment or disagreement

ASK ALL.

Explore local population context

• Geography: urban, rural, mixed
• Demographic profile – how homogenous (e.g. in age, class, ethnicity etc.) or diverse

Financial hardship: *How would you describe the level of financial hardship in your local authority?

Researcher probe for whether anecdotal or based on data, e.g. level of demand for support, food bank usage, benefit claims, use of HSF/DHPs.

• (Briefly) Probe nature and range of types of hardship – e.g. food poverty, homelessness, struggles with housing costs, other complex needs

Explore any other key areas of collaboration with government departments (beyond DWP) around welfare initiatives

• MHCLG (Homelessness Prevention Grant), other government departments

*What are the key strategic priorities at the moment for your LA?

• For example – economic growth and investment, welfare, and financial support, housing and accommodation, skills and employment, health and social care, environmental sustainability, governance, digital transformation and data
• Any documents publicly available / you can share on this
• How HSF/DHPs relate to this, if at all

(Briefly) *What are the greatest challenges your LA is facing at the moment?

• Any implications for delivery of HSF or DHPs, e.g. relative prioritisation, resource availability

4. Structure for overall delivery of HSF and DHPs (15 minutes)

This section will explore in detail how the delivery of the HSF and DHPs schemes is organised within/across LAs.

Researcher note: the sections below should be ordered leading with the scheme that the participant is best placed to speak about.

ASK for Household Support Fund (HSF).

Explore responsibility for decision making regarding the delivery of the HSF

• [If two-tier] if lower tiers have involvement in decision making (even if formally administered at upper tier)
• Which teams and decision makers (note we will go into detail shortly)
  • How this differs by key decisions - eligibility definition, funding, data collection methods
• How is the scheme performance-managed, e.g. through data – ensuring it is accurate, that they are able to target those they aim to
• How fixed decision-making roles and responsibilities are and whether these have changed over time. Why

Explore responsibility for day-to-day delivery of the HSF

• [If two-tier] if lower tiers have involvement in delivery (even if formally administered at upper tier)
• Note partner involvement and specific teams but explain we will ask about this in detail shortly
• Key delivery responsibilities and tasks performed by LA, e.g.
  • Outreach, assessment, service delivery, data collection and reporting
• How fixed roles and responsibilities are and whether these have changed over time. Why

Explore how the public/recipients engage with the scheme

• Teams / partners responsible, other routes in e.g. Citizens Advice
• Communication and outreach channels, e.g. online, physical
• Awareness and engagement levels around scheme among the public

Explore key recipient-facing activities

• *What are some of the ways that members of the public might engage with local authority staff or partners on this scheme?
• *Where do these typically take place? (e.g. physical location, online)

Throughout, researcher to note or gently probe to better understand the feasibility of observing these activities.

Researcher to probe using the following:

• Drop-in sessions/advice clinics
• Caseworker-led support
• Social worker referrals
• Town hall/community events
• Applications – online, live chat etc.
• Partner community outreach and referrals e.g. door to door, stalls etc.
• Partner workshops/peer support groups

ASK for Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs).

Explore responsibility for decisions regarding the delivery of DHPs

• [If two-tier] involvement of upper tier in decision making, if any
• Which key teams and decision makers (note we will go into detail shortly)
  • How this differs by key decisions - eligibility definition, funding, data collection methods
• How is the scheme performance-managed, e.g. through data – ensuring it is accurate, that they are able to target those they aim to
• How fixed decision-making roles and responsibilities are and whether these have changed over time. Why

Explore responsibility for day-to-day delivery of DHPs

• [If two-tier] involvement of upper tier in delivery, if any
• Note specific teams (e.g. housing/benefits team) and partners but explain we will ask about this in detail shortly
• Key delivery responsibilities and tasks performed by LA, e.g.:
  • Outreach, assessment, service delivery, data collection & reporting, decision to top up with LA discretionary funds
• How fixed roles and responsibilities are and whether they differ from the initial organisation. Why

Explore how the public/recipients engage with the scheme

• Teams / partners responsible, other routes in e.g. Citizens Advice
• Communication and outreach channels, e.g. online, physical
• Awareness and engagement levels around scheme among the public

Explore key recipient-facing activities

• *What are some of the ways that members of the public might engage with local authority staff or partners on this scheme?
• *Where do these typically take place? (e.g. physical location, online)

Throughout, researcher to note or gently to better understand the feasibility of taking part in these activities.

Researcher to probe using the following:

• Drop-in sessions/advice clinics
• Caseworker-led support
• Social worker referrals
• Town hall/community events
• Applications – online, live chat etc.
• Partner community outreach and referrals e.g. door to door, stalls etc.
• Partner workshops/peer support groups

ASK for both schemes (interaction of schemes).

Explore any shared oversight across the HSF and DHP schemes (probe if mentioned before)

• [If two-tier] how do upper/lower tier councils coordinate delivery
• Key teams and decision makers
• Shared use of monitoring data

Explore any key points of interaction between the two schemes

• Common delivery teams / forms of collaboration
• Transfer of funds between schemes (likely HSF to DHPs)
• Any movement of recipients between schemes, reasons for this

*How do HSF and DHPs fit into the wider ecosystem of welfare support in your local authority?

• Note relevant welfare and funding sources
• Use of funds to supplement/top up other welfare provision
• Any informal or formal referral routes between HSF/DHPs and any other local or national benefits
• Whether/how delivery is coordinated with other teams in LA e.g. social care, housing, employment support

5. Scoping for the evaluation case study (20 minutes)

Aim of this section is to understand in more detail the specific individuals and teams that should be the focus of core case study activities, as well as to understand important considerations informing the research approach.

Researcher to start by repeating and confirming what has been learned from previous section:

• Which LA/tier is responsible for decisions on HSF/DHP
• Which LA/organisation(s) is responsible for delivery

Researcher to explain that will have a limited time to explore local delivery through interviews, observations etc. They want to understand who is best placed for these discussions.

Ask participant to name the key teams and individuals involved in administering the schemes, and which LA they sit within

Researcher to probe and make a note of LA, teams, relationships, management structure, and key connections where relevant.

Probe roles related to:

• HSF delivery/oversight
• DHP delivery/oversight
• Shared delivery roles
• Shared oversight roles
• Wider housing team roles

Prioritisation – *Of these teams and individuals, which ones would you put at the top of the list in terms of who to speak to?

• By relevance of role, ease of being able to speak to them

Researcher to aim for 5+ names. Probe whether more strategic, operational or mixed roles.

Ask participant to name key third parties involved in administering the schemes

Researcher to focus on third parties who play a role in access and delivery (e.g. Housing Associations) rather than channels through which support is provided like Food banks.

[If a range of third parties/partners] Prioritisation – which ones would you put at the top of the list in terms of who to speak to

• By relevance of role, ease of being able to speak to them

Explore any specific sensitivities that may affect research activities

• Unwillingness to take part in research / fears or misapprehensions (e.g. around consequences of taking part), unwillingness to provide access to documents or recipient facing activities
• Any tensions to be aware of
• Discussions touching on sensitive areas e.g. eligibility, funding allocation, fallback mechanisms, relationship with DWP

Any guidance on how to address these

Explore key practicalities to bear in mind for research activities

Researcher note: where participant cannot answer question, note specific follow ups/unanswered questions and recap at end of discussion.

• Location of potential interviewees – i.e. across LAs, within one LA
• Researcher access to site – how easy for visitors to attend, specific requirements, limitations e.g. to WiFi access
• Typical format of regular meetings/calls and feasibility of observing
• Recipient-facing interactions – feasibility of observing these
• Views on suitable weeks/days for visit (from 1 September to 3 October)
• For team availability, key meetings, recipient activities
• Note that site visits could be conducted across multiple weeks, e.g. two Tuesdays in a row

Researcher to ask for any details of staff members who will be able to support with site access, who will make wider team aware of presence in office etc.

Researcher to establish for whether participant can:

• Schedule discussions themselves
• Put them in direct contact with interviewee or
• Refer them, e.g. contact at different tier LA

Any additional recommendations around practicalities

Relevant documents/ information for review – can you share anything useful to help illustrate the points you’ve discussed about a) the administering of either scheme b) practicalities

• E.g. eligibility criteria, guidance on administering of HSF/DHPs
• E.g. any information to help prepare for a site visit (can be confirmed later)

6. Perspectives on future delivery and close (5 minutes) - if time

Aim is to use final time to discuss any reflections on the scheme – if time is limited, or if the participant would like to discuss this at length we can offer a follow-up conversation.

• *Have you adapted your use of HSF or DHPs in response to changes in other benefits, national policy or government initiatives?
• *What are you team likely to identify as the key challenges in delivering HSF and DHP?
• *What aspects of HSF and DHP do you value the most and ideally want to be retained?

Any final thoughts:

• Anything else they would like to share
• Thanks and close

Post-field work admin:

• Researcher/Case Study Lead (CSL) to summarise follow up actions on an email, including:
  • Suitable teams/roles/partners
  • Times and dates
  • Any unresolved questions to answer
• Complete summary notes and analysis chart and save in secure project folder

• Based on the interview and any follow up information, CSL to create a one-page case study plan outlining:

  • The research approach agreed with the LA lead.
  • The planned timings of each research activity.
  • Which research activities will contribute to responding to each research question.

3.2 HSF/DHP Process Evaluation: Strategic and operational interview guide

Online (MS Teams) or in-person, 60mins

Topic Guide

Background for fieldwork team

Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) and The Household Support Fund (HSF) are part of a category of local discretionary welfare support schemes. These schemes (introduced in 2001 and 2021 respectively) are designed to provide financial assistance to individuals and households facing hardship, particularly where mainstream benefits are judged to be insufficient or delayed.

The Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF) is a new, reformed discretionary crisis scheme for England, which will replace the HSF which is due to end on 31 March 2026. The delivery of DHPs will also be merged with the CRF as far as possible. HSF is delivered at upper tier and DHPs at lower tier (due to housing expertise), but CRF is yet to be decided.

The CRF will be delivered by LAs and it is essential that DWP understand the delivery of the current schemes and build in any lessons learned to the design and implementation of the new scheme. Note that alongside this research project, DWP are running a forward-looking CRF codesign process with LAs.

Research Aims

This research aims to fill remaining evidence gaps on the delivery of HSF and DHP schemes and identify any key differences or interactions in delivery mechanisms that will need to be addressed to enable successful implementation of the CRF. It will also provide evidence which will be used in the design of CRF, specifically on how support to prevent people falling into crisis is currently being delivered in HSF, as this has not been looked at previously. The research aims fall into three broad categories to explore: 

Research aim 1: Explore current delivery principles of HSF and DHPs and how they interact:

• How do HSF and DHPs interact with each other and with wider local welfare provisions?  
• How does delivery vary across LAs and across different LA structures (unitary vs two-tier)?  
• How do LAs define ‘need’ and make decisions on allocating funds?
• How are LAs delivering preventative support and what good practice can be shared for the CRF? 
• Do LAs prefer the methods used to distribute funds through the HSF or those used for DHPs?
• Do LAs check eligibility for [either HSF or DHPs] before they award funding from the other scheme? Or vice versa? Do they fall back on one fund when the other is not applicable? If so, in what ways?
• What issues do LAs focus on addressing when distributing HSF? Do they already have their own eligibility groups? Do they make eligibility decisions based solely on ‘in need’ an individual is?

Research aim 2: Explore challenges with the current delivery models of HSF and DHPs

• What are the key challenges faced by LAs in delivering HSF and DHPs?
• How does HSF eligibility criteria impact on staff resource and decision-making timeliness?
• What approaches do LAs take to supplement funding sources when these run out? How common are these and are they timed to ‘bridge the gap’ before the next payments are received? What do these approaches reveal about the cost of delivering and administering the schemes in practice?

Research aim 3: Explore how the scheme could be more effectively administered in the future under the CRF model:

• How can efficiencies be achieved through combining the HSF and DHP schemes and what are the challenges to this?
• How could we increase the effectiveness of the long-term support that is available to individuals through the way LAs distribute funding?
• How could the administration of DHPs and HSF be adapted to better support preventative approaches? What changes to current guidance or delivery models would enable more proactive use of funds to address underlying issues rather than short-term relief?
• For DHPs, do LAs feel like they would be able to distribute discretionary financial support more effectively without benefit eligibility criteria?

Note to Moderators

This topic guide should be read in conjunction with the Project proposal.

Key contacts

Project Director – Rachael Holmes

Project lead – Milo Warby

Please note, this guide is for a semi-structured qualitative interview and is not a survey or script and is intended to be used flexibly, with participant responses guiding the flow of the conversation, topics covered in the order that they naturally arise, and probes used only when needed. Timings are provided as guidance. While all sections will be covered, not all prompts and probes will be covered in every interview. General ‘why and how’ probes are part of the qualitative researcher repertoire and therefore are not included in the guide. A ‘*’ is used where questions should be asked consistently across interviews using the wording specified.

Overview

Section	Timing (mins)
1. Introduction to the research	3
2. Participant introduction	5
3. Current delivery on HSF and DHP schemes	25
4. Challenges with current delivery models	15
5. Perspective on future delivery	10
6. Close	2

1. Introduction to the research (3 minutes)

Introduce the research, reassure about confidentiality, cover research ethics, and set tone of discussion.

Warm up and introduction

• Introduce moderator and Verian – an independent social research company
• Research is being conducted on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), as part of an evaluation we are carrying out of the Household Support Fund (HSF) and Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs)
• Aim of this discussion is to understand more from you about the how the HSF and DHP schemes are administered in your local authority and hear your opinions and perspective
• Insight from this project will contribute to DWP evidence base on this topic and feed into the development of future schemes, namely the Crisis Resilience Fund
• Interview length – 60 mins
• Research is voluntary – you can stop participating at any time. Your decision about whether to participate or not will not affect your local authority’s current or future relationship with DWP
• Research is confidential and anonymous – we will not share your name with DWP in reporting. Information will be used for research purposes only
• Thank you leaflet – check if received beforehand (in appointment confirmation email), else send email after interview
• Verian’s privacy policy can be accessed on our website:                       https://www.veriangroup.com/uk-surveys
• Any questions?

Introduction to the research

• Next year, DWP will replace HSF with a new Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF). This new fund will also incorporate Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs). The aim of this fund is to provide more stable, long-term funding that enables councils to offer both crisis support and preventative help and address issues like short-term funding cycles and improving strategic planning.

This research is about capturing lessons learned and informing future design. It’s intended to guide strategic thinking, so while your input is really valuable, it may not lead to direct changes based on individual suggestions.

Recording

Ask participant for permission to record, then start recording and confirm consent. [Note: Verian shall ensure that recordings are only conducted with consent and only used for the purposes for which the consent was given.]

2. Participant introduction (5 minutes)

Aim of this section is to get to know the participant, understand the scope of their role and their time at the LA.

Ask participant to introduce themselves

• Job title
• Role and responsibilities
• Confirm role in relation to HSF and DHP schemes:
  • Do they work across both schemes or only one?
  • Researcher to note if participant will be unable to provide detail on either of the two schemes
• Confirm strategic/operational focus in relation to both schemes:
  • Extent role has a strategic focus (e.g. offering technical expertise, developing partnerships, and designing eligibility criteria)
  • Extent role has an operational focus (e.g. direct experience with potential recipients, whether part of a Resident Support Team)
• Length of time in role

3. Current delivery of HSF and DHP schemes (25 minutes)

This section will explore in detail the current delivery principles of HSF and DHP and how they interact.

Ask to confirm LA’s general approach to welfare provision

Note that the Case Study Lead is expected to have provided much of this information before the conversation – the aim is to use these probes to confirm details/set up later questions.

• Confirm which schemes or other funding streams are offered by the LA to vulnerable households [note relevant welfare and funding sources]
• Which of these schemes are they/their team involved in?
• Is delivery coordinated with other teams?:
  • If two-tier In the upper/lower tier
  • Within the LA (e.g., social care, housing, employment support)
  • Whether differs by HSF, DHPs, other schemes, in what ways
• Which key third party organisations are involved in delivery of the schemes?:
  • Any schemes where third parties are mainly responsible for delivery
• What kinds of criteria do participants typically have to meet to get support (e.g., free school meals or access to housing benefits)?

Explore, at a high level, ways in which HSF, DHPs and other welfare provision in the LA interact

• Does funding from one scheme supplement another?

Explore overarching views on the HSF and DHPs schemes [discuss each scheme as appropriate]

Cover lightly / move on in discussion if stakeholder focused on delivery

• (Briefly) views on key differences, in:
  • Aims, administering approach, costs /  resource needed to deliver
• Optimal outcomes for residents / households receiving support:
  • Probe if needed on preventative, crisis, long-term support
• Key benefits from type/level of support offered through schemes
• What is working well

APPROACH TO DELIVERY: ASK for Household Support Fund (HSF),  i.e. in unitary tier or upper tier, not lower tier.

Explore the eligibility criteria/process for the delivery of the HSF

• Who/which teams within the LA are responsible for setting the criteria for who is eligible for HSF?
  • How flexibly is this criteria treated
  • How often is this reviewed

If participant is involved in eligibility assessment/the application process

• Walk me through how your LA assesses the eligibility of households for the HSF:

  • Which teams are responsible
  • What types of evidence are typically required
  • What systems/software are used at this stage
  • Any mechanisms in place for fraud prevention, what are these
  • Are there any pre-existing eligibility groups of recipients able to access HSF funding
  • Are decisions of funding made based solely on how ‘in need’ an individual is – If not, what are the other considerations? – Do you offer support for low-income households who are not receiving benefits?
  • Do you check recipient eligibility for DHPs before/during awarding HSF

• How do you ensure consistency in decision-making on eligibility?

Promotion of the HSF scheme

• Who in the LA / which teams are responsible for promoting or communicating about the HSF scheme? [note details of individual for potential follow up conversation, and mention of third parties for partnership working questions, below)

• How do LAs promote the existence of the HSF scheme to those who may be eligible?:

  • Do LAs coordinate the delivery of HSF with other local support services such as food banks, mental health services or employment support?

If participant has involvement in distribution of support 

Explore support design and the distribution of support

• How do you determine which type of support households receive?
  • Preventative support (i.e., interventions to stop vulnerable households from entering financial crisis)
  • Crisis support (i.e. interventions targeting households in acute hardship to alleviate urgent financial distress)
• How is HSF support generally delivered? (e.g., through direct payments, vouchers, support with bills, food support, provision of goods such as cookers or air fryers, household items such as furniture or other white goods)
  • Probe for differences between preventative and crisis support
• What types of support are more/less effective and why?
  • How might you increase their effectiveness

• Is HSF funding ever used to supplement support provided by other schemes? If so, how is this done

• Explore how funding models have an impact on long-term support for households (e.g., tenancy sustainment, reduced arrears, successful move‑on, improved financial resilience)

  • Funding or payment features that help or hinder this process
  • Changes that could improve long-term support
  • Any key role(s) for partners

Partnership working with external organisations

• In what ways do third-party organisations (e.g., charities or housing associations) contribute to the delivery of the two schemes? Probe on:

  • Role administering the scheme
  • Role dealing with recipients
  • Role distributing funds/resources

• How are these partnership relationships managed?

• What are the benefits and drawbacks from your perspective of working with these third-party organisations?

Explore monitoring and reporting on the scheme

• What monthly data do you collect on the scheme?

  • What purposes is this data collected for?
  • Is this shared with DWP / what data don’t you share with DWP and why?

• How successful is monitoring and reporting on the scheme?

• Are any mechanisms in place for collating feedback from recipients of the HSF scheme?

APPROACH TO DELIVERY: ASK for Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) i.e. in unitary tier or lower tier, not upper tier.

Explore approach to eligibility criteria for DHPs

• Within the eligibility criteria, does their LA decide on specific groups to target locally?
• If so, who/which teams within the LA are responsible for this?
• How do they prioritise groups to target?
• Any other feedback on application of scheme criteria?

If participant has involvement in eligibility assessment

• Walk me through how your LA assesses the eligibility of households for DHPs

  • Which teams are responsible
  • What types of evidence are typically required

If income and expenditure assessments are referenced: Why are these additional assessments conducted? What impact do they have?

• What systems/software are used at this stage
• Any mechanisms in place for fraud prevention, what are these
• Are decisions of funding made based solely on how ‘in need’ an individual is

If not, what are the other considerations?

• Do you check recipient eligibility for HSF before/during awarding DHPs

• How do you ensure consistency in decision-making on eligibility?

Promotion of the DHP scheme

• Who in the LA is responsible for the promotion of the DHP scheme?

• How do LAs promote the existence of the DHP scheme to those who may be eligible?

If participant has involvement in distribution of support

Explore support design and the distribution of support

• How do you determine which type of support households receive?

  • Preventative support (i.e., interventions to stop vulnerable households from entering financial crisis)
  • Crisis support (i.e. interventions targeting households in acute hardship to alleviate urgent financial distress)

• How is HSF support generally delivered? (e.g., through direct payments, vouchers, support with bills, food support, provision of goods such as cookers or air fryers, household items such as furniture or other white goods)

  • Probe for differences between preventative and crisis support

• What types of support are more/less effective and why?

  • How might you increase their effectiveness

• Is HSF funding ever used to supplement support provided by other schemes? If so, how is this done

• Explore how funding models have an impact on long-term support for households (e.g., tenancy sustainment, reduced arrears, successful move‑on, improved financial resilience)

  • Funding or payment features that help or hinder this process
  • Changes that could improve long-term support
  • Any key role(s) for partners

Partnership working with external organisations

• In what ways do third-party organisations (e.g., charities or housing associations) contribute to the delivery of the two schemes? Probe on:

  • Role administering the scheme
  • Role dealing with recipients
  • Role distributing funds/resources

• How are these partnership relationships managed?

• What are the benefits and drawbacks from your perspective of working with these third-party organisations?

Explore monitoring and reporting on the scheme

• What monthly data do you collect on the scheme?

  • What purposes is this data collected for?
  • Is this shared with DWP / what data don’t you share with DWP and why?

• How successful is monitoring and reporting on the scheme?

• Are any mechanisms in place for collating feedback from recipients of the HSF scheme

APPROACH TO DELIVERY: ASK for Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) i.e. in unitary tier or lower tier, not upper tier.

Explore approach to eligibility criteria for DHPs

• Within the eligibility criteria, does their LA decide on specific groups to target locally?
• If so, who/which teams within the LA are responsible for this?
• How do they prioritise groups to target?
• Any other feedback on application of scheme criteria?

If participant has involvement in eligibility assessment

• Walk me through how your LA assesses the eligibility of households for DHPs

  • Which teams are responsible

  • What types of evidence are typically required – If income and expenditure assessments are referenced: Why are these additional assessments conducted? What impact do they have?

  • What systems/software are used at this stage
  • Any mechanisms in place for fraud prevention, what are these

  • Are decisions of funding made based solely on how ‘in need’ an individual is – If not, what are the other considerations?

  • Do you check recipient eligibility for HSF before/during awarding DHPs

• How do you ensure consistency in decision-making on eligibility?

Promotion of the DHP scheme

• Who in the LA is responsible for the promotion of the DHP scheme?

• How do LAs promote the existence of the DHP scheme to those who may be eligible?

If participant has involvement in distribution of support 

Explore support design and the distribution of support

• How is support through DHPs generally delivered? (e.g., support for rent shortfalls, deposits, other housing-related expenses)

  • Do LAs ever use DHPs preventatively
  • Do you offer one-off payments or ongoing support
• What types of support are more/less effective and why?
  • How might you increase their effectiveness
• Are DHPs ever used to top up support provided by other schemes? If so, how is this done

Partnership working with external organisations

• In what ways do third-party organisations (e.g., charities or housing associations) contribute to the delivery of the two schemes? Probe on:

  • Role administering the scheme
  • Role dealing with recipients
  • Role distributing funds/resources
• How are these partnership relationships managed?
• What are the benefits and drawbacks from your perspective of working with these third-party organisations?

Explore monitoring and reporting on the scheme

• What monthly data do you collect on the scheme?

  • What purposes is this data collected for?
  • Is this shared with DWP / what data don’t you share with DWP and why?

• How successful is monitoring and reporting on the scheme?

  • How time consuming is data collection?

• Are any mechanisms in place for collating feedback from recipients of the DHP scheme?

ASK for both schemes (interaction of schemes)

How do the distribution methods of the HSF and DHPs to recipients compare?

• What are their relative strengths and weaknesses?
• Do distribution methods impact the effectiveness of these schemes, how?

4.  Challenges with the current delivery models of HSF and DHPs (15 minutes)

Aim of this section is to understand the challenges that exist within the current delivery models of HSF and DHP within LAs.

If more strategic

What are some of the main challenges your LA faces in overseeing or managing the [HSF and DHPs] schemes?

Researcher to probe across both schemes and for each one individually, and draw on notes made of key challenges throughout discussion above.

Probe on:

• Structure of how scheme is managed
• Responsibilities between parties
• Relationships between key parties/ways of working
• Software and systems
• Timeframes/funding cycles
• Cost of delivering scheme
• Decision making around eligibility
• Data sharing or limitation
• Resourcing

What are some of the main challenges your LA faces in administering [HSF and DHPs] schemes?

Researcher to probe across both schemes and for each one individually, and draw on notes made of key challenges throughout discussion above.

Probe on:

• Inconsistencies in decision-making when determining eligibility
• Responsibilities between parties
• Relationships between key parties/ways of working
• Software and systems
• Timeframes/funding cycles
• Cost of delivering scheme
• Data limitations
• Public perceptions/misconceptions
• Resourcing – including, impacts of eligibility on staff resource and decision-making timeliness
• Fraud and error

Are there any gaps in provision that neither scheme currently addresses?

• Do LAs have to draw from other welfare support methods to ‘bridge the gap’ for recipients before they receive more payments on HSF or DHP schemes?
• Do the funding cycles of the HSF and DHP scheme impact the ability of LAs to plan and deliver support effectively?

5. Perspectives on future delivery (10 minutes) 

Explore how future schemes could be more effectively administered.

Reminder: Preface this section by highlighting that this research is about capturing lessons learned and informing future design. It’s intended to guide strategic thinking, so while your input is really valuable, it may not lead to direct changes based on individual suggestions.

How would you sum up your and your team’s overall experience [working on/implementing] the [HSF and/or the DHP] schemes?

Repeat questions for each of schemes that the individual has involvement in.

General perspective of how the scheme could be more effectively administered

Note for researcher: probe on benefits and challenges mentioned above if not mentioned by respondent.

• What, specifically, could change to make this more effective?

• What efficiencies, if any, could be achieved through a combined scheme?
  • Are there any risks or trade-offs that come from a combined scheme?

• Are there any key challenges that may result from combining the HSF and DHP schemes?

• How could the administration of DHPs and HSF be adapted to better enable better long-term support / preventative approaches by addressing underlying rather than short term issues? – Probe:

• Changes to current guidance
• Changes to delivery models
• Other

Now probe on specific changes to DHPs

• For those involved with DHP scheme only: Do you feel that they would be able to distribute financial support more effectively without the benefit eligibility criteria

*What good practice can be shared for the CRF?

• What practice from HSF/DHPs would you want to ensure is retained for the CRF?
  • E.g. scheme management, way funds are distributed, strategic focus

6. Close  (2 minutes)

To finish the interview and capture any final thoughts.

Any final thoughts

• Anything else they would like to share

Thanks and close

Post-field work admin.

Save recording and complete the tracking sheet to log complete interview.

3.3 HSF/DHP Process Evaluation: Partners interview guide

Online (MS Teams) or in-person, 60mins

Topic Guide

Background for fieldwork team

Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs) and The Household Support Fund (HSF) are part of a category of local discretionary welfare support schemes. These schemes (introduced in 2001 and 2021 respectively) are designed to provide financial assistance to individuals and households facing hardship, particularly where mainstream benefits are judged to be insufficient or delayed.

The Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF) is a new, reformed discretionary crisis scheme for England, it will replace the HSF which is due to end on 31 March 2026. The delivery of DHPs will also be merged with the CRF as far as possible. HSF is delivered at upper tier and DHPs at lower tier (due to housing expertise), but CRF is yet to be decided.

The CRF will be delivered by LAs and it is essential that DWP understand the delivery of the current schemes and build in any lessons learned to the design and implementation of the new scheme. Note that alongside this research project, DWP are running a forward-looking CRF codesign process with LAs.

Research Aims

This research aims to fill remaining evidence gaps on the delivery of HSF and DHPs schemes and identify any key differences or interactions in delivery mechanisms that will need to be addressed to enable successful implementation of the CRF. It will also provide evidence which will be used in the design of CRF, specifically on how support to prevent people falling into crisis is currently being delivered in HSF, as this has not been looked at previously.

Please refer to the LA Staff guide for more detail on the research aims.

Note to Moderators

This topic guide should be read in conjunction with the Project proposal.

Key contacts

Project Director – Rachael Holmes

Project lead – Milo Warby

Please note, this guide is for a semi-structured qualitative interview and is not a survey or script and is intended to be used flexibly, with participant responses guiding the flow of the conversation, topics covered in the order that they naturally arise, and probes used only when needed.

This guide has been prepared in a modular way and you will need to adapt according to participants’ involvement in delivery of the HSF and/or DHP. Timings are provided as guidance.

General ‘why and how’ probes are part of the qualitative researcher repertoire and therefore are not included in the guide. 

Overview

Section	Timing (mins)
1. Introduction to the research	3
2. Participant introduction	5
3. Current delivery on HSF and DHP schemes	30
4. Other areas of involvement with HSF and DHP schemes	10
5. Perspectives on future delivery	10
6. Close	2

1 Introduction to the research (3 minutes)

Introduce the research, reassure about confidentiality, cover research ethics, and set tone of discussion.

Warm up and introduction

• Introduce moderator and Verian – an independent social research company

• Research is being conducted on behalf of the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), as part of an evaluation we are carrying out of the Household Support Fund (HSF) and Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs)
• Aim of this discussion is to understand more from you about your and your organisation’s involvement in the delivery of the [HSF and DHP scheme(s)] in your local authority and hear your opinions and perspective
• Tailor as appropriate: we have already spoken to [local authority name / staff member]
• They recommended we speak to you to understand more about [your organisation’s role in delivery / specific function in delivering the scheme]
• Insight from this project will contribute to DWP’s evidence base on this topic and feed into the development of future schemes, namely the Crisis and Resilience Fund
• Interview length – 60 mins
• Research is voluntary – you can stop participating at any time. Your decision about whether to participate or not will not affect your organisation’s current or future relationship with DWP or that of the local authority
• Research is confidential and anonymous – we will not share your name with DWP in reporting. Information will be used for research purposes only
• Verian’s privacy policy can be accessed on our website:                       https://www.veriangroup.com/uk-surveys
• Any questions?

Introduction to the research

• Next year, DWP will replace HSF with a new Crisis and Resilience Fund (CRF). This new fund will also incorporate Discretionary Housing Payments (DHPs).  The aim of this fund is to provide more stable, long-term funding that enables councils to offer both crisis support and preventative help and address issues like short-term funding cycles and improving strategic planning.

This research is about capturing lessons learned and informing future design. It’s intended to guide strategic thinking, so while your input is really valuable, it may not lead to direct changes based on individual suggestions.

Recording

Ask participant for permission to record, then start recording and confirm consent. [Note: Verian shall ensure that recordings are only conducted with consent and only used for the purposes for which the consent was given.]

2. Participant introduction (5 minutes)

Aim of this section is to get to know the participant, understand the scope and nature of their organisation’s role.

Ask participant to introduce themselves

• Job title
• Role and responsibilities
• Length of time in role

Confirm their/organisation’s role in relation to HSF and DHP schemes

• Do they work across both schemes or only one?
• [If in multi-tier LA] Which LAs do they work with on the schemes?

• Confirm which of the following stages are they involved in:

  • Planning / identifying need
  • Co-designing support and distribution mechanisms
  • Promoting / raising awareness
  • Making referrals / supporting potential recipients through application
  • Delivering support
  • Follow up with recipients
  • Any measurement or reporting

• How are partnership arrangements with the LA are managed?

  • How formal and regular is contact, are there consistent communication channels and touchpoints

3. Current delivery of HSF and DHPs schemes (30 minutes)

This section will explore the participant’s perspective on HSF and/or DHP according to their involvement – what is working well, where there are key challenges, and suggestions for improvement.

Researcher to work through each delivery stage as relevant based on previous responses. Work through for HSF and DHPs as appropriate.

Planning/identifying need

In terms of planning for the scheme and identifying in-need individuals for the Household Support Fund…

Can you outline your organisation’s involvement in this stage?

Probe:

• Holding relationships/contact with potential recipients
• Providing insight to LA into local need/those most in need
• Supporting with targeting of awards
• Outreach or community-based initiatives
• In collecting/sharing/using data used to identify households, and how this is used

Explore what is currently working well

• Referring back to the probes above as relevant
• What of this would they make sure to retain in any future scheme?

Explore the main challenges

• Referring back to the probes above as relevant
• Any challenges with identifying those ‘most in need’, with level of demand
• What would they change/improve for the future delivery of the CRF, how?

Co-designing support and distribution mechanisms   

In terms of any input you might have into the nature of support and how it is distributed…

Can you outline your organisation’s involvement in this stage?

Probe:

• Decisions over balance of types of support offered
  • Immediate support vs. more long-term support
  • Preventative support (i.e., interventions to stop vulnerable households from entering financial crisis)
  • Crisis support (i.e. interventions targeting households in acute hardship to alleviate urgent financial distress)

• Involvement in deciding types of support/payment

• Payments/vouchers
  • Free school meals
  • Payments towards energy and utilities costs
  • Provision of household items (e.g. cookers, furniture)
  • Other

• Involvement in deciding methods of distributing funding to recipients

  • Directly, application-based, through referral
• How involved – advising, co-deciding, making independent decisions

Explore what is currently working well

• Referring back to the probes above as relevant
• What would they make sure to retain in any future scheme?

Explore the main challenges

• Referring back to the probes above as relevant

• What would they change/improve for the future, how?

Promoting/raising awareness

In terms of raising awareness of the scheme…

Can you outline your organisation’s involvement in this stage?

Probe:

• Creating or distributing physical promotion material, e.g. leaflets, newsletters
• Digital communications, e.g. emails, digital newsletters
• In person outreach and community-based initiatives
• Incorporation in other welfare/anti-poverty programmes and communications efforts

Explore what is currently working well

• Referring back to the probes above as relevant
• What would they make sure to retain in any future scheme?

Explore the main challenges

• Referring back to the probes above as relevant
• Any challenges with – level of demand, working with other partners, branding for the scheme, resource/manpower to promote
• What would they change/improve for the future, how?

Making referrals/supporting with applications

In terms of referring potential recipients in to support with the Household Support Fund…

Can you outline your organisation’s involvement in this stage?

Probe:

• Holding/managing pre-existing relationships with potential recipients
• Referrals to organisations involved in delivery
• Supporting with completion of applications
• Supporting specific target groups, e.g. older people or those with disabilities or long-term health conditions, reluctant to apply groups, those unaware of fund

Explore what is currently working well

• Referring back to the probes above as relevant
• What would they make sure to retain in any future scheme?

Explore the main challenges

• Referring back to the probes above as relevant
• Any challenges with – level of demand, referral processes working with other partners, resource/manpower to promote
• What would they change/improve for the future, how?

Delivering support 

In terms of your role in delivering support to recipients in the local authority…

Can you outline your organisation’s involvement in this stage?

• Do they directly distribute support (i.e. manage themselves) vs. offer support on the basis of applications or referrals?

• Do they offer or help with:

  • Immediate support vs. more long-term support
  • Preventative support (i.e., interventions to stop vulnerable households from entering financial crisis)
  • Crisis support (i.e. interventions targeting households in acute hardship to alleviate urgent financial distress)

Probe:

• If direct distribution, is this of:

  • Payments/vouchers, free school meals, payments towards energy and utilities costs, household items, other

• If offering support in response to applications/referrals do they:

  • Manage/oversee application-based access
  • Referral and outreach approaches
  • Assessing need and proposing tailored responses

Explore what is currently working well

• Referring back to the probes above as relevant

• What would they make sure to retain in any future scheme?

Explore the main challenges

• Referring back to the probes above as relevant

• What would they change/improve for the future, how?

Following up with recipients

If you follow up with recipients after support is provided, what does this look like?

• In what cases will they follow up – all recipients, type of recipient/level of need, existing relationship, where requested

  • Do they/can they collect data around type of recipient/need

• Approaches – by phone, online, in person, any specific locations/formats

Explore what is currently working well

• Referring back to what is mentioned above as relevant
• What would they make sure to retain in any future scheme?

Explore the main challenges

• Referring back to what is mentioned above as relevant
• What would they change/improve for the future, how?

Measurement and reporting

Explore any measurement or reporting related to the schemes

• What Management Information (MI) data are you required to provide to LAs, how often
• Apart from the MI data you provide to the LA, do you collect any more data on recipients? What kinds of data?

• What is working well? / What would you retain in the future?

• What are key challenges? / What would you improve/change, how?

4. Other areas of involvement with HSF and DHPs schemes (10 minutes)

This section will explore any wider input the participant can provide on the schemes.

Explore any ways of working with other organisations for delivery

• What is working well? / What would you retain in the future?
• What are key challenges? / What would you improve/change, how?

Explore any key challenges with delivery if not discussed previously

[probes drawn from HSF evaluation report & LA guide]

Probe on:

• Inconsistencies in decision-making when determining eligibility
• Responsibilities between parties
• Relationships between key parties/ways of working
• Difficulties dealing with recipients
• Timeframes/funding cycles
• Data limitations
• Public perceptions/misconceptions
• Resourcing – including, impacts of eligibility on staff resource and decision-making timeliness
• Fraud and error

5. Perspectives on future delivery (10 minutes) 

Explore how future schemes could be more effectively administered.

Reminder: Preface this section by highlighting that this research is about capturing lessons learned and informing future design. It’s intended to guide strategic thinking, so while your input is really valuable, it may not lead to direct changes based on individual suggestions.

Researcher to tailor to explore as appropriate with participant based on level of awareness and strength of views.

Explore views on eligibility criteria of [HSF / DHPs] scheme

• How appropriate
• How effective in supporting those in most need
• Thoughts on how eligibility should be approached in design of the CRF

Explore views on how the CRF could deliver more preventative support

• What type of support specifically
• Which partners should be involved and how

*Any other good practice that can be shared for the CRF?

• What practice from [HSF/DHPs] would you want to ensure is retained for the CRF?
• Probe on any responses discussed above around ‘what is working well’

6. Close (2 minutes) 

To finish the interview and capture any final thoughts.

Any final thoughts

Anything else they would like to share.

Thanks and close

Post-field work admin.

Save recording and complete the tracking sheet to log complete interview.

3.4 Recipient-facing activities: Proforma

Researcher to tailor pro-forma to the specific recipient-facing activities that have been agreed to be observed following the scoping discussion. This may include common themes to explore across case studies, themes to observe within this specific case study, and notes on what to expect from this specific recipient interaction.

Note. you must avoid recording any recipient details and identifiable information.

3.5 LA Meetings: Proforma

Researcher to tailor pro-forma to the specific activities that have been agreed to be observed following the scoping discussion. This may include common themes to explore across case studies, themes to observe within this specific case study, and notes on what to expect from this specific meeting.

1. 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 ↩