rced these results. In Wave 1 areas when interviewed in Nov 24, 87% of social workers agreed that they had a good understanding of assessing and managing risk in Section 17 cases in Oct 24, compared to 57% of alternatively qualified staff. This figure 25 remained consistent in Feb 25, with 89% of social workers, compared to 56% of alternatively qualified staff, in agreement. For Wave 2 areas, who took part in the survey for the first time in Feb 25, social workers displayed similar levels of confidence to those in Wave 1 areas, with 89% agreeing they had a good understanding. However, agreement among alternatively qualified staff was notably lower, with only 38% conveying confidence in this area (see Appendix 5, Q23). The qualitative research also revealed that social workers were apprehensive about alternatively qualified staff in Family Help Lead Practitioner (FHLP) roles holding these Child in Need cases under the new model, as this was a greater level of responsibility than they were used to. When asked whether the level of support for FHLPs who were alternatively qualified workers was effective, alternatively qualified staff themselves were more apprehensive than social workers (36% in Wave 1 areas and 35% in Wave 2 areas vs. 44% in Wave 1 areas and 40% in Wave 2 areas in Feb 25) (see Appendix 5, Q27) See Section 2.1 for an overview of the programme objectives and Appendix 4 for a breakdown of the design specifications for FFCP Wave 1 and Wave 2. Competing priorities and burden of workload: Delivery teams, particularly amongst partner agencies, raised concerns around the burden of workload and team capacity, driven by competing priorities. 34% of all staff agreed that their team was adequately staffed to cover the different roles required under the FFCP in Feb 25, 