as they were still in the design and planning stage with partners. Qualitative interviews in February 2025 highlighted that a key barrier to implementation in these areas was ongoing staffing gaps, which limited the MACPTs’ capacity. However, this was gradually being addressed as new roles were filled. The parental representation offer had been designed and was live across all 6 case study areas, with one area in the planning phase for the appointment/commissioning of parental representatives Unlocking the potential of family networks: All measures in this pillar were in place across the 6 case study areas. • Family Group Decision Making (FGDM) and Family Group Conferencing (FGC) was in place and being offered to families • Family Network Support Packages (FNSPs) were being offered to families and governance and monitoring processes established Implementation of key elements of FFCP Implementation of the Lead Child Protection Practitioner (LCPP) role Local areas were positive about the future of Lead Child Protection Practitioner (LCPP) roles within the MACPT and recognised the value of using their existing networks in 32 putting LCPP roles into place. They also recognised the importance of effective communication and providing support to delivery staff in taking on lead practitioner roles. Stakeholders interviewed across Wave 1 and 2 local areas were largely positive about the Lead Child Protection Practitioner (LCPP) role(s) within the MACPT. It is important to note that LCPPs in Wave 1 areas retained responsibility for direct practice children and families in child protection, whereas in Wave 2 areas FHLPs retained responsibilities for direct practice, including in child protection, with LCPP oversight; and the bearing this distinction may have on findings. One Wave 