workload burden across teams involved in delivering FFCP • Stakeholders felt that the current IT systems were not set up for the collaborative approach required under the FFCP approach • The complexity of the large number of Health and Education settings and variety between them was felt by those stakeholders to be a barrier to effectively securing buy-in across multiple stakeholders and sometimes conflicted with the multiple priorities that schools usually had 58 Implications For DfE Partner agency engagement at the central and local level: Feedback from partner agencies highlights limited direct engagement, underscoring the need for stronger, more coordinated cross-government collaboration. This should include not only improved communication with partner agencies and local authorities, but also proactive engagement with relevant central government departments to ensure alignment, shared ownership, and more effective delivery. • FGC Timing: The timing of the offer of FGCs needs to be explored in greater detail to establish clarity around the pros and cons of offering it at different phases in the family’s journey • Facilitate knowledge sharing across Wave 1 and Wave 2 areas: An opportunity to create regular forums or spaces for ongoing sharing of findings, challenges, and successes between Wave 1 and Wave 2 local areas, with a focus on the practical realities of delivery • Setting out clear expectations on the role that partner agencies need to play, specifically the Police, will be important on FFCP going forward • Co-location, where possible, should be prioritised • DfE may consider developing master templates for key documents that enable joined-up working, using examples already available from FFCP local areas. Alternatively, a bank of templates already in use can 