Child Poverty Practice Accelerator Fund evaluation: final report

4: The Impacts of CPAF Projects

This section presents what difference the Child Poverty Practice Accelerator Fund (CPAF) has made for families, practitioners, and local systems across Scotland. The evidence is drawn from interviews and focus groups with key informants and family participants, coupled with project documentation from both Round 1 and Round 2.

It is important to note that Round 1 projects have been able to demonstrate greater impacts, as they have all been completed. Meanwhile, fieldwork on Round 2 took place part way through delivery. For this reason, most examples will be from Round 1 projects. While not all projects have been as impactful as others, we focus here on the observable impacts where they have arisen — financial, social, and organisational — and the patterns of change that are beginning to emerge. It answers research questions for Objective 2, as set out in Section One.

Key Points

The following are observed impacts across projects. Not all impacts relate to all, and impacts have been stronger in some other overs.

Key Impacts for Families

• Families are financially better off. Targeted income-maximisation, help with appeals, and corrections to benefit awards have led to significant monthly gains for many households. For some, this has reduced problem debt and increased financial stability. However, even projects that sought to focus on employment have not been able to report clear outcomes of supporting families into employment. This is largely due to more complex needs arising for parents through the course of their work, and a change of focus to looking at improving wellbeing ahead of potential employment in future.
• Support is easier to access, earlier, and feels more welcoming. By placing advice and help in trusted settings — such as schools, health services, community centres and family groups — families are getting support without so much fear of stigma, long travel, or complicated processes.
• Families feel less isolated and more connected. Projects that bring people together in community hubs, peer groups and family sessions have helped reduce loneliness and anxiety. Parents report feeling more supported, and children benefit from safe places to play and socialise.
• Co-production has built confidence, agency and aspiration. When families helped design services, they gained skills, motivation and a stronger sense of control. Some reported new ambitions around work, education or volunteering as a result of supportive group environments.

Key Impacts for Practitioners

• Staff have new tools and approaches that make their work more effective. Data dashboards, shared referral systems, “tell us once” processes and person-centred models have made it easier for practitioners to identify unmet need, reduce duplication, and support families more holistically.
• Confidence and capability in frontline work have increased. Training and joint working have helped staff feel more comfortable discussing money worries, making referrals, addressing stigma, and supporting families with complex needs.
• Lived experience has become a part of service design. Peer researchers, advisory groups and lived-experience panels have helped staff understand real barriers, test practical changes, and develop services that better reflect local needs.
• Learning is becoming part of everyday practice. Regular data-informed reviews, shared reflection sessions and new training assets are being embedded into local teams, strengthening professional practice beyond the initial project staff.

Key Impacts on Local Systems

• Local services are starting to shift from reactive to proactive support. Better data and stronger outreach mean areas are identifying families earlier rather than waiting for crises. Proactive letters, targeted campaigns and community-based presence are becoming more common.
• Partnership working is becoming more normalised. Projects have strengthened relationships between councils, NHS boards and third-sector organisations. This has helped reduce fragmentation, improve referrals, and create more joined-up support around families.
• Local systems are becoming more person-centred. Tools and models developed through CPAF — such as whole-family support, integrated welfare advice in early years settings, and flexible roles — are beginning to influence wider practice.
• Co-production and lived experience have gained wider legitimacy. Families’ insights are influencing strategic decisions, service design and tests of change beyond the original project scope, increasing the credibility and relevance of local anti-poverty work.

Some elements show strong potential for sustainability and scaling. Data tools, shared referral processes, and training resources can be retained and expanded. Relationship-based roles and intensive forms of support, however, remain vulnerable to short-term funding and staff turnover.

Overall, CPAF has generated strong evidence on what works. Evidence from CPAF shows that combining income maximisation, trusted relationships, better data, and genuine partnership with families can improve outcomes and strengthen local systems. The challenge now is embedding and expanding these gains beyond the funding period.

Impacts for Families

CPAF projects had multiple impacts on families involved in their development or in receiving support from the services they provided. This section details the key impacts with regard to:

• increased household income and financial stability;
• earlier and easier access to support;
• improved wellbeing, belonging and peer connection; and
• confidence, agency and peer empowerment.

Overall, the impacts have been very positive, and supported CPAF’s core aim of generating new evidence on effective child poverty interventions; adapting and scaling successful approaches from other areas; and improving service delivery through better use of data and collaboration. There have been some limitations on impacts, however, largely related to barriers to employment for parents such as health concerns and caring responsibilities. Projects have also had to navigate the complexity of systems and implementation barriers, as set out in Section 3.

Increased Household Income and Financial Stability

Overall, there is evidence that projects are having a positive impact on increasing household incomes and providing greater financial stability. This has been achieved in different ways, but particularly through:

1. moving towards proactive targeting as opposed to reactive service provision; and
2. by utilising local community infrastructure more efficiently, so that more support reaches people in need where they already are.

It should be noted, however, that the specific context of each project means that they have reported on different outcomes, and thus clear comparison between them is not possible or appropriate. For Round 2 projects, the findings at the point of writing were also almost entirely qualitative in nature as they were only at their project mid-point.

Across multiple areas, households became measurably better off through proactive entitlement checks and appeals from councils and their partners. Perth & Kinross Council’s Round 1 Project, Aberdeen City Council’s Round 1 Project, and Inverclyde Council’s Round 1 Project each reported families becoming hundreds of pounds per month better off following targeted advice and support. In several cases, relatively small administrative corrections had significant monthly impacts.

“You know, we had one household, it was referred to as rent arrears. And one of them had a health benefit, one didn't, but we got one of them the health benefit. And then basically they were £900 per month better off. They went from being in problem debt to having no debt.” Key informant

“If this mandatory reconsideration goes through, that will be like £15,000, which is going to be huge for the client.” Key informant

Embedding income‑maximisation within trusted settings has been particularly effective. multiple projects illustrate the value of linking welfare rights advice with routine family‑facing services.

Though several projects have focused on employment, their design has largely had to alter over time due to project monitoring suggesting that achieving employment for parents through the course of the project is too ambitious. For example, South Lanarkshire Council’s Round 1 project found that the parents they were supporting were generally experiencing a mixture of isolation, poor mental health, as well as caring for very small children. With these factors at play, it made most sense to focus on income from welfare benefits and improve parental wellbeing and connection within the project. Similarly, Moray Council’s Round 1 project was going to include employability support for families with a child who has additional support needs. However, through taking a grounded approach of spending time discussing the most pressing needs of families in these situations directly with parents, it became clear that their caring responsibilities were too much of a barrier for most to seek employment. Instead, a focus on improving local services for them and their children would be a more immediate stepping stone to financial stability and improved wellbeing.

East Renfrewshire Council’s Round 2 project with Flexibility Works surfaced the structural barriers to flexible employment, which is required for many families with complex caring needs. They found that the main intervention they could make, as the largest employer in the area, was to work through flexible working accreditation themselves. This lack of flexibility was brought up in parent focus groups across several other projects as well.

Earlier and Easier Access to Support

Projects made help visible, local and non‑stigmatising. Outreach in familiar places — food pantries, early years centres and community hubs — meant families encountered support while going about ordinary routines:

“I had housing issues… and issues with my son’s daily component of Child Disability Payment… it turned out that I was getting the wrong amount for him for months.” Family participant

For example, Scottish Borders Council’s Round 2 Project established a dependable presence in such spaces; Dumfries and Galloway Council’s Round 2 Project used family‑group settings; and City of Edinburgh Council’s Round 1 Chill ’n’ Chat sessions provided a welcoming environment for parents to talk, connect and access advice. South Ayrshire Council’s Round 2 project is embedded in a local primary school and families in Wallacetown are engaging in conversations about lived experience, restoring trust with services, and informing the parental wellbeing tool.

Improved Wellbeing, Belonging and Peer Connection

A consistent theme in family-centred projects is the reduction of isolation and anxiety, together with stronger peer networks and improved confidence. These were primarily measured qualitatively rather than quantitatively. Families repeatedly described community settings as safe, friendly and enabling places where children play and parents build relationships:

“It was great to have a wee support network as I don't have any family close by or anything. So it's great to come and meet everybody and just make friends and not be alone so much”. Family participant

“So many people are coming from different countries, and they're feeling isolated because they can't go there because there's no one from my country there that's going to understand me. Know what I mean? And this is why we need more funding for these community centres.” Family participant

“They come in the community centre and like play with other boys. So my middle son is really happy about the community centre, and he is very excited to come here.” Family participant

The availability of a simple shared meal often functioned as both a safety net and a social catalyst.

“I feel that some families that come here can't afford to give them a meal, so they depend on the school meal. And if they didn't have community centres that were doing pantries, then there's going to be families struggling.” Family Participant

“I feel like it's a safe place to come and obviously like there's food. So sometimes if you're struggling to get food at home, then you can always get food here and then meet new people and build relationships with them.” Family Participant

Confidence, Agency and Peer Empowerment

Where projects adopted co‑production, families were reframed as partners and change‑makers rather than service recipients. City of Edinburgh Council’s Round 1 Project, Aberdeen City Council’s Round 2 Project, Midlothian Council’s Round 1 Project, and NHS Grampian and Aberdeenshire Council’s Round 2 Project all demonstrated participants gaining confidence, skills and a sense of shared purpose. Several parents described new motivation and aspirations emerging from the supportive group dynamic of the project they were involved with. For example:

“The important thing that I got was big confidence… I’ve got a new motivation to do something new… maybe I can open my own business.” Family Participant

While there were not clear cases where these improvements had led directly to employment, there was consistent discussion in fieldwork that these improvements are key stepping stones. For example, the parent in the quote above spoke interest and confidence in starting a business. Meanwhile, a different parent on another project had noted an interest in studying to become a counsellor. Key informants frequently spoke about these improvements as first steps in part of longer journeys to improved skills and financial sustainability.

Impact for Local Practitioners

CPAF projects had significant impacts on local practitioners, particularly with regard the development or improvement of new tools, approaches to supporting families, and training that assist staff in tackling child poverty. This includes:

• Proactive data tools and targeting;
• Improved efficiency of referral systems;
• New person-centred practice models;
• Greater co-production in service design; and
• Frontline workforce development and confidence.

This section draws out the impacts under each of these, and illustrates them with project examples. Overall, the impacts have been very positive, and supported all CPAF’s core aims. Particularly prominent in these impacts is the improvement of service delivery through better use of data and collaboration and generating new evidence on effective practice.

Proactive Data Tools and Targeting

Several projects developed or refined data tools that sharpened targeting while remaining simple and ethical. For example:

“The data is showing us the unmet need — we’re identifying people at risk who wouldn’t have sought help otherwise.” Key informant

“The ultimate vision is a system where residents don’t have to apply separately for each benefit — they just provide their information once, and all entitlements are calculated automatically.” Key informant

For example, Aberdeen City Council’s Round 1 Low Income Family Tracker enabled proactive contact with households who might need support through targeted letters and texts. The dashboard enables this as it pulls together data held by multiple council teams, and data shared by the DWP, to show maps of where entitlements are being picked up and household where it may be suspected that more support could be available. Similarly, West Lothian Council’s Round 2 Dashboard —developed with the Improvement Service — identified areas of unmet need by comparing expected and actual take‑up of entitlements; and Argyll & Bute Council’s Round 1 work focused on local validation to ensure accuracy of third-party datasets in dispersed communities.

Improved Efficiency of Referral Systems

Activities towards integrating service user consent for multiple entitlement checks and applications at once, and referral systems that are easy for multiple frontline workers to access are reducing duplication and speeding up access to support for families who need it most. For example, North Ayrshire Council’s Round 1 Project tested ways to unify consent procedures to connect siloed services. In this instance, instead of submitting multiple applications and consenting to individual checks, families could apply once for several entitlements and give immediate consent for relevant information to be shared where it may open up more access to support.

In terms of sharing information about family needs and supports ethically, Perth & Kinross Council’s Round 1 Project leveraged the FORT platform within their Support & Connect service to enable active, tracked referrals. This means that teams in different departments, as well as the local Citizens Advise Bureau can see shared case notes and referrals. This reduces duplication, and creates a clear feedback mechanism that is motivating for practitioners. For example, they may previously have sought to support a family by making a referral but then have no idea if it had been successfully picked up or led to further support. With FORT, they can see what has happened after referral without needing to individually chase every case and increase workload. Meanwhile, East Lothian Council’s Round 2 Project is exploring how a local ‘tell‑us‑once’ approach could eventually be operationalised.

Each of these project examples shows how a light‑touch but robust approach to gaining consent from families for information sharing, and ways to align disparate systems without costly upheaval can build partner capacity to effectively and efficiently support more people. This can reduce both the burden on families to repeat stories and engage with confusing service protocols, and free up staff time to be more person-centred in their response to service user needs.

New Person-centred Practice Models

Person-centred practice underpinned much of what worked best in CPAF projects. For example, Inverclyde Council’s Round 1 Project with Home Start integrated welfare advice into existing family supports; South Lanarkshire Council’s Round 1 Project and Dumfries and Galloway Council’s Round 2 Project showed how a named worker can carry complexity on behalf of families. Meanwhile, Stirling Council’s Round 2 Project demonstrated a whole‑family wellbeing role that consistently builds trust and addresses practical barriers to school attendance.

Key informants and project reports have consistently shown that this has unlocked engagement, especially for families who have traditionally been furthest from accessing support. For example:

”Support… yeah, support to both of us because she’s listening as well… Don’t get me wrong, the support is for [name of child], but she’ll come in, sit and have a coffee… it’s nice to have that kind of relationship with someone.” Family participant

“She’s always on the other end of the phone. She’ll text in the morning to see how the morning went, and it’s always positivity.” Family participant

Greater Co‑production in Service Design

Co‑production ranged from peer research that informed local policy (Midlothian Council’s Round 1 Project) to the redesign of family‑facing services (NHS Grampian and Aberdeenshire Council’s Round 2 Project) and participant‑authored service visions (Aberdeen City Council’s Round 2 Project). These approaches improved legitimacy, responsiveness and empowerment, and they helped staff to see the value of lived experience in decision‑making:

“The level of engagement has been really good… we’re linking up different pieces of work, and when people ask for training, there follows an offer so it actually connects.” Key informant

“We learned to let go of our plan. Parents told us what would work - for example, shorter sessions, space for kids, and switching to online surveys. It made us better facilitators.” Key informant

For example, NHS Grampian and Aberdeenshire Council’s Round 2 project has developed specific tests of change at Royal Aberdeen Children’s Hospital. At the same time, the process for the various stakeholders involved in hearing from a panel with lived experience and NHS and partner staff enhances their knowledge and capacities across and beyond their roles. While implementing the tests of change has not been as simple as some thought, the capacity to understand what needs to change and why is likely to have impact beyond the lifespan of any individual project

Frontline Workforce Development and Confidence

CPAF funding enabled spending on the staff development required to facilitate referrals, income maximisation services, and access unmet need. Training and shared learning strengthened frontline staff confidence and empathy, across partners (Councils, NHS Health Boards, and third sector):

“Frontline staff became more confident initiating poverty‑related conversations.” Key informant

For example, Perth & Kinross Council’s Round 1 Project delivered cross‑sector training that made frontline agencies and staff more confident to discuss money and hardship; City of Edinburgh Council’s Round 2 Project is producing anti‑stigma films that are being used as a portable asset across services; NHS Fife and CARF’s Round 2 project has been enabling NHS staff to have difficult conversations and make referrals to CARF; and NHS Tayside and Dads Rock’s Round 2 Project is increasing awareness and training on the needs of fathers across maternity services. Across projects, these factors showed signs of increasing impact for families seeking support, generating new tools and approaches, and increasing the evidence base from which to act.

Impacts on Local Systems

As a result of the impacts explored above, we note the following observed changes in culture and partnership within CPAF funded projects. These are noted briefly here, and explored in detail in the following section, to help highlight how culture change can be harnessed in the longer term as well as what the challenges in doing so could be:

• From Reactive to Proactive: Data insight, outreach presence and cross‑team referrals are helping services move upstream.
• From Siloed to Joined-up: Cross‑departmental collaboration is becoming more normalised as child‑poverty work cuts across organisational boundaries.
• From Consultation to Partnership: Lived‑experience contributors are influencing priorities, methods and sometimes spend.
• From Episodic to Continuous Presence: Visible, dependable presence is redefining engagement as an ongoing relationship rather than a recruitment task.

Summary

Across Scotland, CPAF projects have delivered meaningful benefits for families —relief from immediate hardship, earlier access to support, and stronger peer connections — while also building professional confidence and shifting local cultures in the direction of prevention, partnership and empathy. These impacts are multi‑layered: immediate financial gains; medium‑term service improvements; and early signs of cultural change. While these impacts have not been spread across all projects, they show what is possible even when projects have sometimes been operating under significant constraints. The next section considers what it would take to lock in and grow these gains through exploring what a complex systems analysis of CPAF tells us about the most viable approaches to child‑poverty reduction.