d, and a further 45% were unsure (consistent across Wave 1 and 2 areas). Between organisations, 42% of LA staff agreed, compared to 29% of Education staff and 30% of Health staff respectively. A significant proportion of Health staff (67%) reported uncertainty to this question (compared to 41% of LA staff and 47% in Education) (see Appendix 5, Q27). Some differences were noted in how local areas implemented the FHLP role. For example, in one Wave 2 local area, the focus of FHLP was to serve as a link to external agencies, such as housing, mental health and substance misuse. The Family Help team also had ‘Family Help social workers’ who held a caseload, and who were social work qualified and experienced and a decision was taken for the FHLP roles to not hold caseloads. In another Wave 2 area, those interviewed reported some confusion and challenges with how FHLP roles were communicated. Staff in Family Help teams understood the FHLP roles were voluntary and there was some resistance from staff when it became clear that taking on these roles was an expected part of the FFCP. Staff were reluctant to take on additional responsibilities that did not come with an increase in salary. In one Wave 1 area, FHLPs are referred to as Early Help Consultants, and these roles were primarily taken on by alternatively qualified Health and Education partners. The LA appointed four Early Help Team Managers (one per locality), and have 44 Early Help Workers supporting families across the LA. Prior to FFCP, each of the localities worked in different ways to each other regarding their Early Help service, but at the time of interview reported greater consistency in their ways of working. 36 "The relationships we have with our Early Help Consultants has improved, understanding and respecting ea