ith multiple metropolitan boroughs). They highlighted that they had oversight of seven boroughs but only two were under the FFCP. Thus, there were challenges in maintaining consistency of approach across the FFCP and non- FFCP boroughs covered by them. Sharing opportunities between Wave 1 and Wave 2 areas: Some stakeholders, particularly at a frontline level, felt there was inadequate sharing of learning between the two FFCP areas. They felt that the DfE could do more to facilitate this sharing, especially on the practical realities of delivering the programme. Barriers to delivery of FFCP The barriers captured in this section served as drivers of the challenges faced by delivery teams in their implementation of FFCP. Current systems not set up for FFCP approach: local areas discussed how IT systems were sometimes a barrier to delivery. For example, in one Wave 1 area, they had to change various workflows and reporting which took time and was challenging for delivery. However, those interviewed thought working across IT systems will become easier in the future, particularly with national rollout of FFCP in mind, as the IT/software providers make changes to accommodate this. Limited time for delivery: Stakeholders across the board felt that the delivery timeline was limited to get up and running, especially given the significant transformation FFCP involved. In practice, many local areas moved into delivery more slowly than initially 49 anticipated, which may have added pressure in meeting DfE expectations around pace and progress. It's a long-haul shift in work, and actually the limitation of the FFCP is that that ability to design it, get it approved, implement it, in itself takes a significant period of time.’’ Strategic Lead [LA], Wave 1 (February 2025) "If only you 