Bringing Hope, Building Futures: Tackling child poverty delivery plan 2026-2031 – annex 2: Analysis of consultation and engagement

7. Integrated support

Respondents highlighted a variety of actions to support the strategic themes detailed in earlier chapters of this report. Although the actions outlined in this chapter were commonly mentioned in response to Question 6, they were also often prevalent in responses to Question 3 through Question 5, which considered what works well and what the Scottish Government could do more of. In particular, respondents highlighted the need for long-term and sustainable funding, collaborative working, community-led and place-based support, to recognise the role of the third sector, policy cohesion, and a consistent approach to tackling child poverty.

Question 6. How can Scottish Government and partners work different to ensure seamless, integrated supported for families? What prevents this?

Long-term, sustainable funding

Across the call for evidence and engagement events, the most commonly mentioned action was the need for long-term, sustainable funding to support child poverty reduction. Several respondents at Question 3 through Question 6, and a few at other questions, felt that short-term funding made it more challenging to lift people out of poverty, highlighting the challenges that resulted from this approach. In particular, they noted that difficulties arise in service planning and provision due to uncertainty, in skilled staff recruitment and retention, and misalignment between long-term projects and interventions and funding cycles.

Several other respondents highlighted challenges related to accessing funding. These included issues with timescales, clarity and changing criteria. Respondents proposed a shift towards multi-year, coordinated, sustainable, and flexible funding to effectively address the long-term challenge of child poverty. It was suggested that this would support partnership and collaborative working (see ‘Collaborative working’ below), improve value for money by reducing child poverty, increase service capacity and stability, and give families more certainty. Suggestions from respondents included consolidating funding streams targeted at reducing child poverty, ensuring transparent decision-making, and allocating funding proportionally to specific local contexts and needs.

Recommended areas that respondents felt would benefit from increased and longer term funding included: third sector support and services (see ‘Role of the Third Sector’ below), education, healthcare, housing, employment, childcare, free school meals, transport, monitoring and evaluation of interventions (see ‘Monitoring and evaluation’ below), data sharing infrastructure, youth work, and public services.

Collaborative working

Collaborative working was a key action raised by several respondents at Question 6. It was also noted by several at Question 3, Question 4 and Question 5. Overall, these respondents called for a greater focus on a partnership and joint-working approach. This includes collaboration between agencies and organisations, as well as across sectors, to provide more seamless, accessible, whole family, and holistic support. Respondents recommended a range of organisations they felt should be included in collaborative working, including the NHS and health boards, third sector organisations (such as advice agencies), the UK Government, local authorities, public bodies, schools, and community groups.

The ’No Wrong Door’ approach to providing integrated support was mentioned by some respondents, who felt that this approach supports dignity and minimises duplication of work. A few respondents also cited the Fairer Futures Partnerships as a good example of a collaborative, cross-sector, integrated, and holistic partnership approach to service delivery. Methods to support collaborative working included the use of shared software for information sharing, streamlined communication, data sharing (see Chapter 9), sharing of learnings and best practices, coordination of resources, and having shared goals and ambitions. Having a co-location of services or multi-agency hubs was also frequently suggested, embedding support within existing services and infrastructure, for example, offering employability support within GP practices and schools (see Chapter 2).

Perceived benefits for people experiencing poverty of taking this collaborative approach included faster processing times for social security payments, reducing delays and streamlining access to services, active referrals as opposed to signposting, having consistent service provision (including across regions), and having a single point of contact.

Community-led and place-based support

In responses to Question 3 through Question 6 and at engagement events, several respondents emphasised the importance of community-led, local, and place-based support that responds to and is tailored to the specific needs of an area. Some emphasised the importance of involving community voices and co-designing with individuals who have lived experience, particularly in local service development and policymaking. Some others felt that partnering with community organisations would allow a more responsive approach to assisting communities, and others suggested focusing on community wealth building and adopting a whole community approach.

As described above, some respondents reiterated that funding challenges have impacted local service provision, including the recruitment and retention of skilled staff, and called for these issues to be addressed. Other suggestions included collecting better local-level data, allowing local funding allocation, establishing community hubs alongside statutory services, improving signposting to local services, and clarifying child poverty delivery plans in relation to the requirements under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015.

Role of the third sector

Several respondents emphasised the value and importance of the third sector in tackling child poverty in responses to Question 3 through Question 6. This included highlighting the current challenges faced by the sector, suggestions for improvement to better support the third sector, and the benefits of the support it provides.

Challenges faced by the third sector were raised by some respondents. Concerns focused primarily on funding, particularly the negative consequences of short-term, unsustainable and delayed funding. As noted above, respondents described how this could result in challenges with recruiting and retaining skilled staff, planning service delivery, and measuring and evaluating impact, all of which could lead to difficulties in delivering support to those in need. The expectation being placed on the third sector to provide a wide range of support, despite a lack of adequate resourcing and these associated challenges, was highlighted during engagement events.

Consequently, there were calls by some to increase funding and improve funding mechanisms. This included directly funding the support and services provided by the third sector related to child poverty reduction, providing multi-year, sustainable funding, and funding evaluation. There were also suggestions to improve the relationship between the third sector and statutory services, to recognise the value of the third sector, and to focus on investing in existing services provided by the third sector, rather than the government recreating them.

Some respondents also highlighted the potential benefits of making these improvements. They mentioned that third-sector partners are trusted, well-known, accessible to families and communities, and understand the challenges they face. Others noted the strength of the sector’s existing relationships with public organisations, such as the NHS, Social Security Scotland, and local authorities, as well as community groups and lived experience groups, that could be leveraged to tackle child poverty. One suggested that funding the third sector to provide interventions could reduce the financial burden on local authorities. Others emphasised the breadth of existing experience and services provided by third-sector organisations, such as advocacy and support across various areas of concern for families experiencing poverty.

Monitoring and evaluation

Monitoring and evaluation of programmes and support services related to child poverty was highlighted by some respondents at Question 3 through Question 7 as important and needing improvement. This was suggested to occur generally, and at service, cross-sector, local and national levels, and well as in partnership across these levels. It was felt that improvements would help inform evidence-based policy and decision-making, prioritise effective interventions, and provide targeted interventions where a greater need is identified. Respondents highlighted the importance of using a range of approaches to monitor progress and evaluate programmes. These included qualitative methods to engage with people with lived experience, annual progress reports, evaluating existing policies and initiatives, modelling, using logic models to demonstrate progress, and conducting needs assessments to identify those most in need.

Some respondents felt that improvements to monitoring and evaluation were necessary across a range of support and services to better understand their impact on children and young people experiencing poverty. This included reviews of interventions and methods for early detection of families in need, evaluation of third-sector programmes, monitoring of priority groups (for example, inequalities in employment), increased use of data to identify priority areas, conducting research on drivers of rural poverty, and improving policy frameworks.

Ensuring that learnings from monitoring and evaluation activities are consolidated and shared was highlighted as necessary by some. This included improved sharing of information around data collection, sharing, and use (see Chapter 9) and enhancing the ability of everyone involved to learn from existing reports. A few others suggested implementing consistent measurements across local authorities and increasing funding for monitoring and evaluation.

Comments relating specifically to Local Child Poverty Action Reports (LCPARs) were made by some respondents. They noted that these could be made more effective with standardised measures and greater clarity on scope. A suggestion was made to reduce the duplication of effort in completing these reports with other reporting requirements, such as for local authorities and community planning partnerships. Another suggestion was to reduce the burden by requiring them every two or three years rather than annually.

Impact assessments were considered an important monitoring tool by a small number of respondents. They suggested that they be conducted more regularly, particularly Equality Impact Assessments (EQIAs). One respondent suggested introducing a Poverty Impact Assessment, and another suggested having EQIAs as living documents.

Policy Cohesion

Some respondents acknowledged that tackling child poverty requires consideration across multiple policy areas, including health, education, employment, transport, housing, childcare, and social security. While it was acknowledged that the Scottish Government has made reducing child poverty a key priority, respondents highlighted several perceived challenges in policy development and delivery, where they felt more coordination would be beneficial.

Some respondents emphasised the importance of preventing government departments and agencies from operating in a siloed manner, which can lead to potential duplication of work and policies, as well as the need for additional resources to support this. Instead, they suggested joint working and inter-departmental communication to integrate different policies and support services more effectively. This includes linking different policy areas that contribute to child poverty reduction, preventing overlap, and developing a joint strategic approach that targets resourcing more effectively.

Calls were made for more and improved partnership working, including between the Scottish Government, local authorities, anchor institutions and the private sector. Singular comments highlighted the need for policymakers to ensure cohesion between research and policy, to align UK and Scottish Government policies, and to compare new policies with international examples of best practice. Comments were made about the importance of ensuring that policies support effective implementation, such as ensuring they are practical, realistic, have appropriate timescales, and have clear guidance, expected outcomes, and actions. Singular suggestions included having a central plan to ensure all stakeholders are working towards the same priorities, including the protection of rights within policies, and ensuring policies are dynamic and flexible. Attendees at one engagement event called for integrated national guidance, while another requested that the Scottish Government clearly explain its policy decisions.

Respondents cited the following policies, strategies, legislation, and plans that they felt related to child poverty reduction, highlighting the need for the next plan to align and interact with them:

• Children’s Services Planning
• Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act
• Ending Destitution Together Strategy
• Equally Safe Strategy
• Fairer Futures Partnerships
• Mental Health and Wellbeing Strategy
• National Drugs Mission Plan
• National Trauma Transformation Programme
• Perinatal and Infant Mental Health Programme
• Population Health Framework
• Race Equality Framework 2016 – 2030
• The Promise
• UNCRC
• Whole Family Wellbeing Funding.

Consistent approach to implementing support

The need for consistency in the provision of child poverty-related support was highlighted by some respondents across the call for evidence. Constant change and short-term interventions were noted to be challenging for families. A few of these respondents believed that to establish trust and adopt a holistic, whole family approach, it is essential to provide long-term, consistent support to families. They highlighted that this should include having adequate and sustainable resources, clear referral processes, guidance, easy access, and clearly defined roles and responsibilities.

The value of taking a preventative, proactive approach to child poverty, rather than relying on crisis responses or interventions, was highlighted by a small number of respondents. It was suggested that the focus should be on services and interventions proven to work, rather than ‘reinventing the wheel’ and utilising additional resources. Other individual comments made include having a dyslexia policy lead and a more consistent application of the Fairer Scotland Duty and Public Sector Equality Duty.

Stigma

Throughout the call for evidence, respondents described the impact that stigma can have on families seeking support. Respondents noted that families may be less likely to take up the benefits they are eligible for due to stigma, keeping them in a cycle of poverty. Others felt that this applied to using support and services, particularly those from the third sector and advocacy services. A few respondents highlighted that stigma affects certain groups, such as people from minority ethnic backgrounds, lone parents and disabled people. While fewer respondents provided suggestions to address stigma, one recommended a national campaign to destigmatise poverty and accessing support, another emphasised the importance of awareness of language use when discussing support and poverty, and another thought that multi-service community hubs may help address stigma.

Further evidence of stigma around child poverty was evident in the results of the omnibus survey questions asked in March 2025 (see Chapter 2).

All those who believed there is child poverty in Scotland were prompted with a list and asked, “Which of the following reasons best explain why children are in poverty in Scotland?” Commonly selected answers often reflected both work-related and societal issues and family circumstances, including ‘Parents’ work doesn’t pay enough’ (54%), ‘Parents have been out of work for a long time or can’t get back into work’ (52%), and ‘Children, or their parents, have a long-term illness or disability’ (47%). However, the most common answer, selected by 67%, was the belief that ‘Parents have alcoholism, drug problems or other addictions’.