Best Software for Managing CRF Programmes

Choosing the right software for the Crisis and Resilience Fund is one of the most consequential decisions a local authority will make in 2026. The CRF's operational demands -- 48-hour payment SLAs, four-strand delivery, quarterly MI returns, and multi-agency coordination -- make manual processes or disconnected tools impractical for all but the smallest schemes.

TL;DR: Purpose-built CRF platforms like Plinth cover all four strands in a single system. Generic grant management software handles payments but lacks crisis-specific features. Case management tools suit Strand 3 but miss payments and MI reporting. Spreadsheets cannot meet the programme's reporting and audit requirements at scale.

What you'll learn: How to evaluate software for CRF delivery, what features matter most, and how the main platform categories compare.

Who this is for: CRF programme leads, IT and digital teams, procurement officers, and commissioning managers.

What CRF Software Must Do

Before comparing platforms, it is worth defining the minimum requirements. Based on DWP guidance and operational experience from the Household Support Fund, CRF software must support:

1. Application intake and processing -- online forms, document upload, eligibility screening, and a clear decision workflow that meets the 48-hour SLA
2. Payment disbursement -- multi-channel (bank transfer, PayPoint, cash voucher) with reconciliation and audit trails
3. Housing assessment -- tenancy agreement and benefit letter reading, shortfall calculation, and landlord payment processing
4. Case management -- structured case tracking for resilience services with outcome recording against the seven CRF indicators
5. Referral management -- digital referral pathways between the council and VCS delivery partners
6. MI reporting -- automated quarterly returns with Section 151 sign-off workflow
7. Data security -- UK GDPR compliance, UK data residency, and role-based access controls

A 2024 survey by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) found that 67% of councils cited technology as a barrier to effective welfare programme delivery. The CRF raises the bar further.

Platform Categories Compared

1. Purpose-Built CRF Platforms

Platforms designed specifically for CRF delivery, covering all four strands in a single system.

Example: Plinth

Strengths:

• End-to-end coverage from application to MI return
• AI-assisted document reading (bank statements, utility bills, benefit letters)
• Multi-channel payment disbursement with audit trails
• Shared platform for council and VCS delivery partners
• Automated MI report generation with Section 151 sign-off workflow
• Multilingual application forms and voice-to-text input
• Built-in service directory for Strand 4 coordination

Considerations:

• Newer category; fewer councils have long-term track records compared with established grant systems
• Requires VCS partners to adopt the same platform (though this is also its key advantage)

Best for: Councils wanting a single system across all four strands with built-in MI reporting.

2. Generic Grant Management Systems

Established platforms designed for grantmaking that can be configured for crisis fund management.

Examples: Blackbaud Grantmaking, Flexi-Grant, SmartSimple

Strengths:

• Mature application and assessment workflows
• Strong reporting and compliance features
• Established user bases with support communities
• Good for managing Strand 1 and 2 payment decisions

Considerations:

• Not designed for 48-hour SLA crisis processing; workflows may be too heavy
• Typically lack AI document reading for evidence assessment
• No built-in case management for Strand 3 resilience services
• Limited multi-agency referral functionality for Strand 4
• MI returns require manual data extraction and formatting
• Pricing often based on application volume, which can be expensive for high-volume crisis programmes

Best for: Councils already using these systems for other grant programmes who want to extend them, accepting limitations in Strands 3 and 4.

3. Case Management Systems

Platforms designed for tracking individuals through support pathways, strong on Strand 3 but limited elsewhere.

Examples: Charity Log (Lamplight), Inform (Casetrack), bespoke council systems

Strengths:

• Strong case tracking with interaction histories
• Outcome recording and reporting
• Designed for ongoing support relationships
• Good for VCS delivery partners managing Strand 3 services

Considerations:

• No application intake or eligibility screening for Strand 1
• No payment disbursement functionality
• Limited reporting against CRF-specific MI requirements
• Typically single-organisation tools, not multi-agency platforms
• Do not cover Strand 4 community coordination

Best for: VCS organisations delivering Strand 3 resilience services who need their own case management, alongside a council-side platform for Strands 1, 2, and 4.

4. Spreadsheets and Manual Processes

Excel, Google Sheets, or paper-based processes used by some councils during the HSF period.

Strengths:

• No procurement required
• Familiar to staff
• Adequate for very small schemes (fewer than 100 applications per quarter)

Considerations:

• Cannot meet 48-hour SLA consistently at volume
• No audit trail for individual decisions
• MI reporting requires manual aggregation across multiple sheets
• No multi-agency referral capability
• Version control problems with multiple users
• Data security risks (spreadsheets emailed between staff, saved to local drives)
• Section 151 Officers increasingly unwilling to sign off returns from unauditable spreadsheets

Best for: Very small district councils with minimal CRF allocations, though even here, the MI reporting requirements argue for a structured system.

Feature Comparison Table

Evaluation Criteria

When scoring platforms, weight the criteria according to your council's priorities. A suggested weighting:

Critical (must-have):

• 48-hour SLA processing capability
• Multi-strand data capture for MI reporting
• UK GDPR compliance and data residency
• Audit trails for payment decisions
• Section 151 sign-off workflow

Important (strong differentiator):

• AI-assisted document reading and eligibility screening
• Multi-channel payment disbursement
• VCS partner access for Strand 3 case management
• Multi-agency referral routing
• Automated MI report generation

Desirable (value-add):

• Multilingual application forms
• Voice-to-text input for accessibility
• AI-generated narrative summaries for MI returns
• Service directory for Strand 4 coordination
• Mobile access for partner field workers

Procurement Considerations

Framework availability: Check whether platforms are available through existing procurement frameworks (G-Cloud, CCS Technology Products and Services, local frameworks) to simplify procurement.

Implementation timeline: With schemes needing to be operational by April 2026, procurement and implementation must happen in parallel. Purpose-built platforms with CRF templates can typically be deployed in 4-8 weeks; generic systems requiring significant configuration may take 3-6 months.

Pricing models: CRF platforms typically price by local authority (flat fee or tiered by population). Grant systems often price by application volume, which can be expensive for high-volume crisis programmes processing thousands of applications per quarter. The average upper-tier authority processed approximately 15,000-20,000 HSF applications per year.

Data migration: If migrating from an existing HSF system, plan for data export and import. Historical data is valuable for understanding local patterns and demonstrating baseline metrics.

Partner access: Confirm whether VCS delivery partners can access the platform within the council's licence or whether separate licences are required.

Implementation Best Practices

Start with Strand 1: Get crisis payment processing live first -- it has the most demanding SLA and the highest volume.

Add Strand 2 in parallel: Housing payments share much of the same infrastructure (application forms, document reading, payment processing) and can be configured alongside Strand 1.

Commission Strand 3 partners with technology in mind: Include platform adoption requirements in Strand 3 service specifications so that partners plan for it from the outset.

Build Strand 4 incrementally: The referral network does not need to be complete on day one. Start with the most common referral pathways and expand based on operational experience.

Test MI reporting early: Generate a dummy MI return from live data before the first quarter-end to identify gaps in data capture.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much does CRF software cost?

Costs vary significantly by platform and council size. Purpose-built CRF platforms typically range from £15,000 to £60,000 per year for an upper-tier authority, including VCS partner access. Generic grant systems may cost £20,000 to £80,000 per year depending on configuration complexity. The cost of not having a system -- measured in staff time for manual processing, MI reporting errors, and SLA failures -- typically exceeds the software investment.

Can we use our existing CRM or benefits system?

Possibly for parts of the CRF, but most council CRM and benefits systems were not designed for multi-strand programme delivery with MI reporting. They may handle Strand 1 application intake but are unlikely to support Strand 3 case management, Strand 4 referrals, or automated MI returns. A bolt-on approach risks creating data silos.

How long does implementation take?

Purpose-built CRF platforms with pre-configured templates: 4-8 weeks. Generic grant or case management systems requiring significant configuration: 3-6 months. Spreadsheet-based manual processes: immediate but with ongoing operational costs.

Should VCS partners use the same platform as the council?

Ideally, yes. A shared platform eliminates manual data transfer between organisations, ensures consistent outcome recording, and simplifies MI reporting. Plinth provides a shared workspace where councils and VCS partners operate within the same system with appropriate access controls.

Recommended Next Pages

• What Is the Crisis and Resilience Fund? -- The complete guide to the CRF programme.

• The Four Strands of CRF Explained -- Detailed guidance on delivering each strand.

• Crisis Fund Management vs Standard Grant Programmes -- Why crisis funds need different technology.

• CRF Use Case: Plinth for Crisis and Resilience Fund Delivery -- See the platform in action.

• Best Grant Management Software in the UK -- Broader comparison of grant management platforms.

Last updated: February 2026

For a demonstration of Plinth's CRF platform, contact our team or schedule a demo.