onsibilities for direct practice, including in child protection, with LCPP oversight; and the bearing this distinction may have on findings. One Wave 2 local area felt the introduction of LCPP roles within the MACPT had ‘gone surprisingly well’ and described how there was a broad consensus across teams that the LCPP role offered families consistency. Those interviewed felt the LCPP roles helped to address the differences in how social workers provided support to families and ensured families across the local area are given the same experience and support. Co-working between the FHLPs and LCPPs was seen to be valuable both in supporting families and in the professional development of social workers. However, stakeholders across both Waves highlighted that more work was initially required to bring in the MACPT, including the LCPP, to support families at the appropriate time. This was particularly important in Wave 1 areas for newly qualified social workers in terms of developing skills and experience in child protection. The research indicated an opportunity to improve collaboration between FHLPs and LCPPs, as survey responses highlighted that only 37% of FHLPs (who responded) agreed that support from LCPPs had increased their confidence in supporting families with escalating needs (24% disagreed and 39% were unsure or felt it was not applicable to them) (see Appendix 5, Q27). Good practice case study: communication and structuring of LCPP, embedded in the MACPT The focus on communication and careful team structuring to accommodate LCPP roles in a Wave 1 LA contributed to a perceived positive and empowering process in implementing LCPP roles among those interviewed. It is important to note that this example is relevant for the first iteration of the FFCP model. Team struc