ung people in FFCP development • There was evidence of closer collaboration across local areas and partner agencies under the FFCP model, which led to overall strengthening of multi- agency working What didn’t work as well, and areas for improvement: 40 • Police initially struggled to understand their roles under the FFCP model and adapt to their new ways of working, which was further compounded by existing capacity constraints • Local areas would like more opportunities to meaningfully engage with each other and share lessons learned What worked well Local areas established successful mechanisms to involve families and children and young people in FFCP development There was evidence that in line with guidance, local areas across Wave 1 and Wave 2 areas had established a range of feedback mechanisms to involve children and young people (CYP), and families in shaping services under the FFCP. In most local areas, existing co-production structures naturally integrated FFCP feedback. For example, in a Wave 2 area, engagement expanded through their Voice, Influence, and Change team, which ran 16 forums- including those for children in care, youth parliament members, and children under child protection- to gather feedback on FFCP processes. However, time constraints limited their ability to carry out co-production in its fullest sense- that is, a collaborative process where children and families are actively involved in shaping services at every stage. As a result, many built on existing engagement structures or adapted established groups to strengthen involvement within the available timeframe. Improved co-working practices across local area teams under FFCP The multi-agency approach was viewed positively by most staff who responded to the survey. There was evidence from the