Introduction 

This report provides findings from the evaluation of the Household Support Fund 4 (HSF4), conducted by Ipsos on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). The evaluation was conducted between September 2023 and August 2024. 

The evaluation used quantitative and qualitative research methods to assess the effectiveness of the delivery of the HSF4 by local authorities (LAs) and their local partners and its benefits for recipients, with a view to informing any potential future funding schemes. The evaluation examined specific research questions focussing on the approaches used by LAs to identify households in need and distribute awards. It also explored the characteristics of recipients, their experiences of receiving awards and the resulting benefits, as well as LAs’ and recipients’ reflections on potential improvements to the design of the fund and the distribution of awards.

Background to the Household Support Fund 4 

The fourth iteration of the HSF aimed to provide low income and vulnerable households with support towards the cost of essentials, such as food and energy. The HSF4 was delivered between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024 and was followed by the HSF5 which launched in April 2024 and by the HSF6 which launched in October 2024. Across these 6 iterations of the HSF, almost £3 billion of investment was allocated to LAs in England to distribute to households in need, with the devolved governments also receiving funding in accordance with the Barnett formula. 

Several changes were made to the design of the HSF4 from previous iterations, including extending the duration of the implementation period from 6 to 12 months and including advice as a discrete support category. This allowed LAs to provide supplementary advice services to award recipients, including debt, benefit and/ or employment advice, where authorities considered this appropriate. These changes were widely welcomed by the LAs and their partners.

Planning and preparation 

The HSF4 planning and preparation process was found to have worked well across the case study areas. Key influences on the effectiveness of the process included the ability to build on experiences from previous HSF iterations, the understandings and partnerships developed between local actors (many of which had their roots in COVID support or earlier), the inclusive nature of the process (which commonly involved the key actors in the local welfare support infrastructure) and having a delivery infrastructure and associated arrangements already in place. Key partners included representatives of the local Voluntary Community Sector (VCS), who offered specific local and client-specific insight and were well placed to inform planning and contribute to the distribution of awards. 

Some areas for improvement were also identified, including more effective use of data provided by DWP to inform planning and the targeting of fund distribution (outlined in section 3.3), providing more preparation time (6 months being suggested), and establishing an extended delivery period which could enhance the adoption of more strategic and potentially innovative approaches. 

The planning and preparation process for HSF4 also considered how the fund could best complement existing local welfare provision and avoid duplication. This was felt to have worked well through a combination of the inclusive nature of the planning process and the relationships developed locally, the collective knowledge of the key actors involved (who were largely members of the local welfare support community) and ensuring that delivery partners and the wider local welfare sector were aware of the HSF4 offer to maximise referral opportunities.

Delivering the HSF4 

LAs and their partners described following a range of different delivery models and approaches to identify potential recipient households and distribute HSF4 awards. In each area, approaches had been developed and refined over previous HSF iterations and were considered to be working well. This was reflected in the final HSF4 management information, which showed that areas had been successful in distributing their allocations fully and had been effective in reaching their intended target groups. 

Three broad delivery models were identified, based on the share of awards distributed by the LA, by third party delivery organisations (TPOs), or by both LAs and TPOs in combination.  

Approaches to identifying households in need tended to be data-driven or based on referral and outreach activities, often used in combination. Data-driven approaches were commonly used to distribute awards at scale, while referral/outreach-based identification approaches were commonly associated with application-based distribution approaches (which enabled the tailoring of support or provision of multiple awards to maximise benefit). 

Three broad mechanisms were used to distribute awards, again often in combination given their suitability for specific award types. These were:

• direct distribution – used to distribute awards at scale, often using data-driven identification approaches and without the need for recipient households to apply 

• application-based – where recipients completed applications to receive awards, with supporting processes to confirm their eligibility and identity, and which enabled assessments of needs to be conducted to inform the tailoring of awards

• referral and outreach – here potential recipients may also have to apply or ‘opt-in’ to receive awards, facilitated either on an outreach basis or through cross-referrals of eligible households between delivery partners, which often involved less active recipient engagement (compared to the application-based route). This approach was key in engaging more vulnerable households, those less able to apply themselves, and others who were more reluctant to apply. Support included walk-ins to partner settings and attending food banks, community cafes and other community settings

Each of the approaches to identifying households and distributing awards had their respective strengths and weaknesses, with some being more suitable for certain award types than others. The key finding was that one approach was not necessarily broadly more (or less) effective than another, but rather a combination of approaches was required given the diversity of household characteristics, needs and support provided under the HSF4.  

Recipients’ experiences of the way in which their support was delivered were positive for the majority, with 81% of respondents reporting being satisfied in the recipient survey. Where recipients described not being satisfied, this was most commonly due to the scale of the award being considered insufficient to meet their needs, whilst some individuals with particular needs highlighted how the application process could be made more accessible.

The characteristics of HSF4 recipients 

The survey of recipients and subsequent qualitative interviews enabled a sample of HSF4 recipients’ demographic and household characteristics, and financial circumstances, to be captured and explored in detail. The majority of recipients responding to the survey were female (79%), aged between 35 and 50 years old (53%), had caring responsibilities for children (69%), and/or lived in a household with a resident who had a disability or a long-term health condition (69%). Around one-third described being in work (34%), with a quarter (24%) currently unemployed, and a further 20% being disabled/long-term sick. Over half the survey respondents (58%) described being in receipt of Universal Credit, 33% receiving other state benefits, and 10% a state retirement pension. Almost half the respondents (47%) reported having a total monthly income after tax of £1,080 or below, based on the amalgamation of the lowest 4 income categories include in the income question in the survey questionnaire.

The majority of recipients reported having found it difficult to cope financially over the previous 12 months; 83% finding it at least quite difficult and 49% finding it very difficult to cope or not being able to cope. The assessment of household characteristics and financial circumstances from the qualitative interviews enabled the development of a broad continuum in which to characterise recipient households. This ranged from households that had been struggling financially for some time (in many cases pre-dating the sharp rise in the cost of living), to others who had been better able to cope previously but who may have experienced an unexpected event (such as losing a job) which, combined with increases in the cost of living, meant that they were now no longer able to cope as they had previously (at least temporarily).  

Those households who described struggling to cope for an extended period were more likely to have been claiming benefits and received local welfare support previously and so were more familiar with the types of support on offer and how to access it. The reverse applied to those who had previously been more able to cope, including those in work whose incomes were no longer able to cover the cost increases caused by inflationary pressures.  

Awareness of the HSF was limited amongst recipients responding to the survey and participants in the qualitative interviews. Fewer than half the survey respondents (45%) described being aware of the fund by name, whilst a further 23% reported that they were aware of the scheme but not its name. Across the interviews and the survey, awareness was influenced by a range of factors, including whether or not recipients had actively applied for their awards. Those who had applied were significantly more likely to be aware of the HSF than those who had received their award via referrals or a direct distribution route.

Benefits of HSF4 

The vast majority of recipients reported positive benefits, as identified in the survey and explored further in the qualitative interviews. The benefits of the fund also extended beyond recipients of awards to encompass the organisations involved in its delivery, local communities and the local welfare infrastructure. 

Benefits for individuals and households – almost all the recipients responding to the survey (98%) identified at least one positive benefit resulting from the HSF4 support received. Both the nature and duration of the benefits reported were dependent on the nature of the award(s) received and the circumstances of the household at the time. 

The most common benefits, all reported by the majority of survey respondents, included helping households afford food and groceries (78%), energy and utility bills (60%) and helping them to keep homes warm in cold weather (58%). In addition, 61% respondents noted that HSF4 support had helped them avoid having to borrow money.

For many recipients, the benefits of the HSF4 extended beyond increased affordability and alleviating financial strain to broader benefits including improved personal/household wellbeing, reduced anxiety, enhanced personal confidence and increased levels of pride. Around a third or more of the recipient survey respondents agreed that the HSF4 support had contributed towards reduced stress and anxiety (38% of respondents), had reduced concerns over being able to heat their homes (33%), and/or improved their confidence that they would be able to better manage their household finances in the future (32%). 

The duration of the benefits of the HSF4 for households varied to some extent by support type; households receiving food vouchers for the school holidays were the most likely to describe the benefits as lasting for a few days in their survey responses, whilst those receiving advice on household finances were the most likely to describe the benefits lasting a few months or more. However, the duration of benefit varied depending on its nature and on household circumstances; significant numbers of those receiving all types of support cited it as having had benefits that had lasted for several months or more.

The wider benefits of the HSF4 included: 

• for organisations involved in HSF4 delivery – involvement in HSF4 had raised LA and TPO profiles locally, led to new or the further embedding of existing partnerships, and contributed to enhanced capacity and capability amongst VCS partners

• for local communities – benefits included helping strengthen and sustain the local VCS sector and supporting local community facilities and structures, such as foodbanks and community pantries. Some TPOs also offered additional volunteering opportunities

• for the local welfare infrastructure – strengthening the local VCS sector and increasing its capacity and capability, extending and strengthening partnerships, and further embedding relationships between LAs and the VCS sector – with a shared focus on poverty alleviation    

Many of the LA and TPO stakeholders expressed concern that without continued future funding these additional benefits risked being lost.

Conclusions 

Delivering the HSF4 and local fit 

The evaluation found that approaches to delivering the HSF4 had been developed over previous HSF iterations and were working effectively. The HSF4 management information (MI) shows that the 13 case study areas had spent their HSF4 allocations fully, and an analysis of their delivery plans showed their allocations had been distributed broadly to plan. Each area also felt they had been effective in reaching their intended target populations through a combination of data-driven and referral/outreach approaches.  

The recipient research found that the vast majority of awards appeared to have been made to households in poor financial circumstances at the time of their awards. Nevertheless, some areas faced challenges in collating data to target their awards, and while this was less of an issue given the high levels of demand experienced, areas felt it was inevitable that some eligible households would not have been identified. 

A range of direct, application-based, and referral and outreach approaches were followed to distribute awards, commonly in combination, to address crises at pace alongside efforts to address the issues underpinning households’ situations. Recipient satisfaction with the distribution processes was high, although some individuals with particular needs highlighted how the application process could be made more accessible (for example, recipients with dyslexia who could find completing the application process particularly challenging). The key finding was that combinations of distribution approaches were most effective and are required for funds with similar objectives.

HSF4 aligned well with existing local welfare support structures and interventions, benefitting from inclusive planning and preparation processes and building on pre-existing joint working from previous HSF iterations. This enabled HSF4 to add value through being used in combination with existing local services, for example, enabling more reluctant households to engage by providing payments alongside existing support. 

However, some LA and partner representatives felt the short notification of successive HSF iterations meant there had been limited time to develop plans, reflect on previous experiences, and consider wider strategic planning of HSF resources, including alternative and potentially more innovative approaches.  

While the flexibility in the HSF4 design was welcomed by LA and TPO stakeholders, some felt that the strategic focus of HSF had diluted to some extent following variations over successive iterations, and considered there may be value in revisiting its key purpose/strategic intent.

Benefits resulting from HSF4  

The vast majority (98%) of recipients responding to the survey reported positive benefits from their awards, which were often highly case specific and dependent on the nature of the award(s) received and the household circumstances. The most common benefits included helping afford food and groceries (78%) and energy and utility bills (60%), and help keeping warm in cold weather (58%). In addition, 61% described how the HSF4 support helped them avoid having to borrow money. 

For some recipients, benefits also included helping to reduce stress (38%) and concerns over being able to heat their homes (33%), and improving confidence about being better able to manage their household finances in future (32%) – which in turn led to positive benefits for household wellbeing and health (including mental health). 

The duration of benefits varied by support type, with households receiving food vouchers for the school holidays being the most likely to describe the benefits as only lasting a few days, whereas those receiving advice on household finances were the most likely to describe the benefits lasting a few months or more. However, some households cited longer lasting benefits, including improved personal/household wellbeing, reduced anxiety, enhanced personal confidence and increased levels of pride.   

The benefits of the fund extended to the organisations involved in delivery, local communities and local welfare infrastructures. Benefits for organisations included raised local profiles and creating new/embedding existing partnership arrangements, while benefits for communities and local welfare infrastructures included strengthening the local VCS sector, maintaining and enhancing local welfare support provision, and improved relationships between the LAs and their VCS partners.