e learned from other local areas that funding had been awarded funding to families in situations where she would not have awarded it, leading to reservations. Some stakeholders noted that initially not all practitioners fully understood the distinction between the roles of FGDMs and FGCs, with each team getting referrals for the other. This was echoed by some frontline staff who felt that, at the start, the volume of information felt overwhelming and led to some details being lost in the process. As a result, they struggled to clearly differentiate between the FGDM and FGC roles. However, the team observed that this was occurring less often than it had at the beginning. ‘’It's all about the detail, we don't need any more PowerPoint slides about the general principles of the pillars. What we need to get into is the nitty gritty of how does that work on a day-to-day basis?" – Frontline worker [LA], Wave 2 (February 2025) In addition, partner agencies reflected a gap in communication. A Health representative felt there was inadequate communication about the FFCP to the Health staff. An Education stakeholder also felt that Education had been left out in the design and development stage. Police stakeholders pointed out the lack of direct engagement from DfE with Police and how it had been routed through CSC teams. Setting up FFCP alongside Business as Usual (BAU): Stakeholders interviewed felt that transforming processes and systems alongside delivering current services was challenging and raised the risk of things getting missed. This also included the need to balance the FFC programme with other safeguarding priorities. They highlighted that it was a significant transformation and thus would require time for the changes to take place. Stakeholders from Health reflected tha