 those aspects." – Strategic Lead [Police], Wave 2 (February 2025) Some stakeholders also fed back that their existing model of multi-agency working and safeguarding (pre FFCP) was strong, and they were not starting from scratch. It was felt that these strong foundations were a key enabler and that if they did not have this, there would have been more resistance. What worked less well Data sharing constraints across partner agencies: With the exception of some pockets of successful data sharing (see Section 5.4), evidence of streamlined communication and data-sharing practices under the FFCP was limited. In the early IPE research (Phase 1 February 2024) Wave 1 local areas expressed significant concerns 47 regarding their ability to effectively share information across Health, Police and Education which all use different IT systems and case management systems and have their own data sharing agreements. Stakeholders fed back that Health teams, including General Practitioners (GPs) were quite restricted in what they could share with other partners. This, it was felt, posed significant challenges in providing coordinated support to families, particularly across the FHLP and LCPP roles. Lack of adequate information and training around specific aspects of the programme: The DfE guidance on Family Network Support Packages (FNSPs) was intentionally not highly prescriptive, in order to encourage local areas to think creatively about how best to use the funding. However, some frontline staff felt they didn’t have the necessary information and training to deliver FNSPs. For example, one Wave 2 frontline staff member commented that she learned from other local areas that funding had been awarded funding to families in situations where she would not have awarded it, leading to reser