 while there were some local variations in the implementation approach adopted by the case study areas, there was overall alignment with the Design Specifications with demonstration of delivery of the core elements of the FFCP. Most Pathfinder case study local areas successfully engaged in a range of activities during the initial setup phase of the FFCP, including the co-design of local models, which enabled them to implement the programme. These included: (I) communication from senior leadership regarding the FFCP implementation (typically via staff briefings, launch events and regular check-ins), (ii) measures to facilitate multi-agency collaboration, including establishing strategic boards and working groups to plan and oversee the implementation of the FFCP in a way that reflected the priorities and contexts of different partners. FFCP leads were also assigned across partner agencies to support navigation of their respective systems and to ensure effective resourcing, staffing, and operation of both the Family Help teams and the Multi-Agency Child Protection Teams (MACPTs), (iii) upskilling existing staff via targeted training – including multi-agency sessions – and recruiting new staff to fill workforce gaps, recognising that recruitment may be challenging due to the national shortage of children’s social care workers. 4 Alternatively qualified staff is the term used for Children’s Social Care staff who are not social work qualified 8 Implementation of key elements of the FFCP Stakeholders interviewed across areas were largely positive about the Lead Child Protection Practitioner (LCPP) role. Co-working between the Family Help Lead Practitioners (FHLP) and LCPPs was seen to be valuable both in supporting families and in the professional development of social worker