Child Poverty Practice Accelerator Fund evaluation: final report

6: Conclusion and Implications

This final section draws together learning from across the CPAF evaluation to set out what it reveals about how local action to reduce child poverty can be sustained and strengthened over time. It synthesises evidence on how CPAF projects were implemented (Section 3), what difference they made for families, practitioners and services (Section 4), and what the evaluation reveals about the underlying capacities that enable those gains to endure or fragment (Section 5).

Taken together, the evaluation evidence points to a clear conclusion: progress in reducing child poverty does not depend on individual projects or interventions alone, but on whether local systems have the capacity to coordinate, learn and adapt over time. Where CPAF projects were most effective, they contributed to strengthening a set of interdependent system capacities that supported more coherent, relational and informed action.

Section 5 identified these capacities as:

• Joined-up Leadership and Coordination Capacity, which enables coordination and shared purpose across services;
• Ongoing Dialogue with Families and Frontline Practice Capacity, which builds ongoing and meaningful engagement and local intelligence to inform service design;
• Trusted, Continuous Support in Communities Capacity, which embeds support offers into existing services and locations, and with consistent and named points of contact to build relationships with individuals and whole communities; and
• Shared Intelligence Capacity, which supports confident, timely and joined-up action based on evidence.

These capacities do not operate in isolation. Their effectiveness lies in how they reinforce one another and accumulate learning over time.

This section uses that capacities-based lens to interpret the overall findings of the evaluation and to draw out their implications for national and local policy and practice. It highlights the cross-cutting enablers and constraints that shaped implementation, reflects on what changed for families and service providers, examines what makes impacts stick, and sets out practical considerations for supporting progress beyond time-limited funding. In doing so, it positions CPAF not only as a mechanism for testing innovative practice, but as a source of insight into how Scotland can better support durable, place-based capacities to reduce child poverty.

Cross-cutting enablers and constraints in implementation

Drawing on the key themes identified in Section 3, this section considers how leadership, infrastructure, co-production, funding approaches and wider service contexts strengthened or constrained the four capacities that CPAF evaluation evidence has shown us underpin sustainable local action on child poverty. These themes are not discrete drivers of success or failure, but shape how the four capacities identified in Section 5 are strengthened or constrained in practice.

Leadership and strategic alignment

Leadership and strategic alignment were central to strengthening the Joined-up Leadership and Coordination Capacity. Where senior leaders provided clear ownership of child poverty priorities, named coordination roles, and aligned CPAF projects with wider local strategies, services were better able to work across organisational boundaries and maintain shared purpose.

Leadership also shaped other capacities. Strategic commitment to co-production supported the Ongoing Dialogue with Families and Frontline Practice Capacity, while prioritisation of data and learning strengthened the Shared Intelligence Capacity. Where leadership was weak or disrupted by organisational change, coordination slowed, dialogue became more fragile, and projects were more vulnerable to delay or drift.

Delivery infrastructure and enabling conditions

Delivery infrastructure played a critical role in enabling the Trusted, Continuous Support in Communities Capacity and Shared Intelligence Capacity. Access to reliable community venues, digital tools, referral systems, transport and secure IT made it easier to embed support offers in familiar settings and maintain consistent points of contact. Where infrastructure was robust, frontline staff were able to focus more on relationship-building and less on navigating practical barriers.

Where infrastructure was fragile or inconsistent, implementation was slower and more resource-intensive. Unclear data-sharing permissions and limited system access constrained coordination and learning. In rural and island contexts in particular, infrastructure limitations compounded workforce pressures and reduced the reach and continuity of support.

Wider service barriers faced by families

Wider structural barriers — including shortages in childcare, and limited support for health or education needs, and the complexity of the social security system — shaped the context in which CPAF projects operated. These constraints often limited families’ ability to engage fully with support, regardless of the quality of delivery.

Such barriers placed particular pressure on the Trusted, Continuous Support in Communities Capacity, as frontline workers absorbed frustration from families, managed expectations and sustained engagement over longer periods. They also constrained the Ongoing Dialogue with Families and Frontline Practice Capacity, as repeated service blockages risked undermining trust and weakening feedback loops. CPAF projects were often able to mitigate, but not resolve, these wider system constraints.

Co-production

Co-production is the key enabler of the Ongoing Dialogue with Families and Frontline Practice Capacity. Where lived-experience involvement was embedded as an ongoing process — through panels, peer research or regular reflective spaces — services were better able to adapt practice, challenge assumptions and design support that reflected real needs. Co-production also strengthened legitimacy and accountability, reinforcing trust between services and communities.

However, co-production requires time, facilitation and emotional support. Where funding, skills or organisational permission were limited, engagement was more episodic and harder to sustain. Unclear expectations around payment, timelines on action, or support for participants could constrain participation and reduce the depth of learning.

Funding cycles and approach

Funding cycles and commissioning approaches influenced all four capacities. The wider context in which CPAF operates, characterised by short-term, annualised funding and often lengthy processes around recruitment and procurement weakened the Trusted, Continuous Support in Communities Capacity by condensing timelines. They also constrained the Joined-up Leadership and Coordination Capacity, limiting local systems’ ability to plan confidently, invest in coordination roles, or align CPAF activity with longer-term strategies.

At the same time, flexibility within CPAF — including permission to adapt delivery models — was widely valued and supported more responsive implementation. Where funding approaches enable learning, adaptation and handover, they strengthen the Shared Intelligence Capacity and supported more durable change.

Bringing the themes together

Across all five themes, a consistent pattern emerges. Implementation was most resilient where leadership, infrastructure, dialogue, continuity and shared intelligence were developed together and allowed to reinforce one another over time. Where one or more element was underdeveloped or unstable, progress was more vulnerable to delay, disruption or decay.

What changed for families and service providers

Across both Rounds of CPAF, projects delivered a range of benefits for families and for the practitioners and services supporting them. While projects varied in focus, scale and context, consistent patterns of change emerged across many areas. At the same time, the evaluation highlights important variation in reach and impact, shaped by implementation barriers, wider service constraints and the characteristics of the families involved.

What changed for families

For many families, CPAF projects focused on income maximisation led to tangible improvements in financial security. Proactive entitlement checks and support with applications or appeals resulted in increased household income, reduced arrears and greater financial stability, particularly for families facing multiple disadvantages. These gains were most evident where projects were able to maintain trusted, continuous engagement and where referral pathways were well established.

Families also experienced earlier and easier access to support. By embedding help in trusted settings such as schools, health services and community venues, projects reduced stigma, travel barriers and administrative burden. In these contexts, support was more likely to reach families before crisis point, rather than relying on self-referral at moments of acute need. Where delivery infrastructure or staffing was less stable, impacts were more limited, and engagement was harder to sustain.

Beyond financial outcomes, families reported improved wellbeing, reduced isolation and stronger peer connections. Relationship-based and group approaches created spaces where parents felt listened to and supported, and where children benefited from safe and welcoming environments. For some families, involvement in co-production activity also built confidence, skills and a stronger sense of agency in navigating services. However, these outcomes were uneven, and more fragile where continuity of presence could not be maintained.

Notably, CPAF projects did not demonstrate direct employment outcomes for parents, including in projects with an explicit focus on employability. This finding reflects both the short timeframes involved and the circumstances of many participating families. Evidence gathered through CPAF indicates that, for some parents, additional capacity-building support — including confidence-building, skills development and stabilisation of wider challenges — is required before engagement with work is feasible. For others, caring responsibilities, disability or health conditions meant that income maximisation through paid employment was not viable in the short to medium term. These insights are important in shaping realistic and humane approaches to supporting families’ routes out of poverty.

What changed for practitioners and services

Practitioners reported increased confidence and capability in supporting families affected by poverty, particularly where they had access to training, shared tools and opportunities for reflection. Staff felt better equipped to initiate conversations about money, address stigma and work more holistically with families whose needs cut across traditional service boundaries.

Services also became better connected in many areas. Improved coordination, shared routines and clearer referral pathways reduced duplication and enabled more joined-up support around families. Where data and learning infrastructure were stronger, practitioners were able to use insight more proactively, shifting from reactive casework towards earlier identification and targeted outreach. In areas where data systems were fragmented or unclear, these shifts were more limited.

Across several projects, lived experience became more embedded in service design and improvement. Structured dialogue with families and frontline staff helped services test assumptions, adapt delivery and improve relevance. However, sustaining this engagement depended on time, facilitation and organisational permission, which were not consistently available across projects.

What makes impacts stick

Evidence from across CPAF shows that whether positive changes endure depends less on the nature of individual projects, and more on whether key system capacities are protected and allowed to reinforce one another over time. Where impacts were strongest and more sustained, they were underpinned by the combined presence of all four capacities. Where one or more of these capacities was weak or unstable, gains were more fragile and more likely to dissipate once time-limited funding ended.

Joined-up Leadership and Coordination Capacity played a critical role in preventing progress from stalling. Where child poverty priorities were clearly owned at senior level and embedded within wider strategies, learning from CPAF projects was more likely to influence business-as-usual practice. When they were led at the project level by people in wider coordination roles, permission and sustained collaboration often resulted. In contrast, where leadership changed or alignment was weak, effective practice often remained isolated within projects and was vulnerable to being lost when staff moved on or funding ceased.

Ongoing Dialogue with Families and Frontline Practice Capacity was central to keeping services responsive and grounded in lived experience. Where structured dialogue was maintained over time, services were better able to interpret uneven outcomes, understand why some families progressed while others did not, and adapt support accordingly. Where dialogue weakened, these nuances were more likely to be lost, increasing the risk of inappropriate expectations or policy drift.

Trusted, Continuous Support in Communities Capacity emerged as a key condition for durability. Consistent, named points of contact embedded within trusted settings enabled relationships, local intelligence and engagement to accumulate over time. This continuity was especially important for families facing multiple disadvantages, for whom episodic or short-term interventions were less effective. Where continuity was disrupted by funding cycles, recruitment delays or staff turnover, trust and local knowledge eroded quickly, and progress was harder and more costly to rebuild.

Shared Intelligence Capacity enabled learning to be carried forward beyond individual projects. Where data systems, consent pathways and feedback loops connected frontline insight with strategic decision-making, local areas were better able to distinguish between limits of implementation and limits of feasibility. Where shared intelligence was fragmented or informal, learning remained localised and harder to sustain.

Taken together, the evaluation suggests that making impacts stick requires a shift in emphasis from sustaining individual projects to sustaining the capacities that allow learning, trust and coordination to accumulate over time. Without this, even well-evidenced approaches risk being repeatedly reintroduced rather than embedded, limiting their contribution to long-term reductions in child poverty.

Supporting Progress

The CPAF evaluation indicates that future progress in reducing child poverty will be strongest where action focuses on strengthening the capacities that enable effective practice to endure, adapt and spread. Projects that take forward the CPAF principles of innovation, partnership and collaboration, evidence-based learning, and person-centred practice, have huge potential to contribute to wider systems transformation. This can be through starting or strengthening new ways of working, and looking for ways to ensure there is a medium-long term plan for taking learnings forward beyond the scope of a short initial project. The following two sections set out implications for both national and local stakeholders for future rounds of CPAF, as well as poverty-reduction programmes more generally.

Implications for National Stakeholders and Future Rounds of CPAF

For national stakeholders, the evaluation points to several areas where policy design, funding approaches and national infrastructure can significantly influence whether local learning translates into lasting change:

• Stabilise funding cycles (multi-year where possible) and streamline finance processes to reduce mobilisation delays. For example, if there is a third sector partner involved in a project that needs some upfront payment, ensure this is possible either through the local authority or NHS board partner, or via the Scottish Government upfronting a suitable portion of the project budget.

Consider regional approaches to reducing child poverty through CPAF or similar funding, particularly in city regions where employment, services and travel routinely cross local authority boundaries. The East Renfrewshire Council Round 2 project highlighted the limitations of addressing employment within a single local authority area adjacent to a large city. South Lanarkshire Council’s Round 1 project similarly showed difficulties for families moving short distances across local authority boundaries. Projects that explore unified systems to support transitions between neighbouring authorities could enhance service capacity and reduce costly delays and inefficiencies.

• Issue practical and clear guidance on ethical data sharing between government and non-government agencies, and examples of how local authorities can move towards ‘No wrong door’ and ‘tell us one/apply once’ approaches based on existing examples. For example, share existing DPIAs for appropriate data-sharing of certain information between local authorities and the DWP, and when available, for Social Security Scotland. Additionally, approaches for streamlining consent processes across multiple forms and offers of support from local authorities would be beneficial to share. In this regard, North Ayrshire Council’s Round 1 project could serve as a powerful case study.
• Issue practical guidance and support for Local Authorities to sustain an outreach offer for people experiencing hardship: income-maximisation in local, trusted settings, link-worker models, and anti-stigma practice. Multiple CPAF projects can provide examples for what works and what does not, including Inverclyde Council’s Round 1 project, where an income maximisation worker was embedded in existing Home Start support services; and Scottish Borders Council’s Round 2 project when income maximisation support was brought into a range of existing community centres to better enable support in under-served communities who may struggle to travel. This can also support replication of proven relational models for supporting priority family groups to increase income and capacity such as South Lanarkshire Council’s Round 1 project supporting families where someone in the household is disabled, in their own home.
• Share project learnings between and beyond CPAF recipients, to embed learning across Scotland. This could further support the development of playbooks or guidance for local partners.
• Embed lived-experience panels in commissioning for child-poverty programmes, and highlight case studies of where this is already working and leading to change. Projects such as West Lothian Council’s Round 2 project, and Aberdeenshire Council and NHS Grampian’s Round 2 project offer good examples. In the former, a lived experience programme has helped ensure that a council-used child poverty dashboard is fit for purpose; in the latter, families with extensive experience travelling to Royal Aberdeen Children’s Hospital for appointments have designed tests of change to reduce the cost of attendance.

Implications for Local Partners delivering child poverty reduction projects (Councils, NHS, and third sector)

• Ensure child poverty projects are led by a named and accountable senior owner, with a cross-service board and clear operational remits. Where someone moves post, ensure a new owner is appointed swiftly.
• Consolidate referral and consent pathways so that there is opportunity for ethical re-sharing of information that could open up multiple entitlements for families. For example, filling out one form could give the information required to receive several benefits at once, if eligible. North Ayrshire Council’s Round 1 project provides powerful examples of how this can be worked out from a technical standpoint, and then trialled in practice.
• Resource continuity of presence in community venues for income maximisation approaches; protect trusted link-worker roles and offer secure employment to staff.
• Adopt regular reflective practice with Lived Experience panels or specific co-production projects to iterate quickly and reduce friction for families where support may not be working for those most in need.
• Track benefit gains and onward outcomes consistently so that there is more opportunity to learn about what is and is not working locally, and so that those offering referrals can see the outcomes of their work.

Final Reflections

The CPAF evaluation has shown that practical, person-centred change is possible at pace when local partners are trusted to act and supported to learn. Across Round 1 — and emerging in Round 2 — we see families were measurably better off, accessed support earlier and with less stigma, and experienced more joined-up responses to their needs. At the same time, frontline teams reported greater confidence in working preventively, to collaborate across services and organisations, and to respond more flexibly to families’ circumstances.

Where these impacts have endured, they have been underpinned by a small number of consistent conditions. These include clear and accountable leadership that learns from the experiences of people with lived experience of poverty and frontline workers, continuity of trusted support within communities, effective collaboration across services, and simple, workable approaches to data-sharing and consent. Together, these conditions enabled learning to accumulate and effective practice to be carried forward beyond individual projects.

The evaluation points to a clear lesson for future child poverty programmes. Stable and flexible funding, light but reliable infrastructure, and leadership that supports coordination and learning create the conditions in which local action can take root and endure. The challenge now is to lock in what has been learned: to embed tested approaches into business-as-usual practice, to scale or adapt what works with proportionate evaluation, to align national levers — including finance, guidance and data standards — with local delivery, and to keep lived-experience voices at the centre of design and improvement. Doing so offers the strongest route to sustaining progress and reducing the need to repeatedly reinvent effective responses to child poverty.