Child poverty pathfinders in Dundee and Glasgow: phase two evaluation

3. Dundee: Reach and engagement of families

Introduction

This chapter discusses evidence from Dundee on reach and engagement: who is the pathfinder reaching, and how is it engaging them? It considers evidence relating to inputs, outputs and early outcomes in the theory of change including:

• Activities: How key activities were delivered in practice – particularly identifying target families, door-knocking and drop-ins
• Outputs: Including numbers of drop-in sessions run, visits to target families, numbers accepting support, attending the drop-in, and numbers of contacts and length of engagement with key workers
• Short-term outcomes: engagement with key worker support and building trusting relationships with key workers.

Data and limitations

The chapter draws primarily on evidence from the monitoring data and on interviews with the operational team and parents about the ways in which families have been engaged, as well as views from wider stakeholders on the focus and value of different engagement activities. General limitations to the monitoring data, discussed in chapter 2, should be borne in mind. Additional monitoring data limitations are highlighted in this chapter where relevant.

For the qualitative interviews with parents, clients from Linlathen and Mid Craigie with children were approached by the key worker team to ask if they would be willing to take part in the evaluation, as there was no consent in place for evaluators to approach them directly. Given this recruitment process, and the fact that those who agree to participate in research are often more engaged, it is likely that families who were interviewed are skewed towards those who were more engaged with the pathfinder. As such, the views of families with very minimal or no engagement are not represented here.

Who is the target group for the Dundee pathfinder?

A workshop with Dundee pathfinder stakeholders during the scoping phase for this evaluation highlighted a lack of consensus around who was, or ought to be, the target group for the pathfinder.

On the one hand, there was a concern that the pathfinder had been at risk of becoming overly demand-led rather than targeted to families with children in the geographic target area. By “trying to be everything to everybody”, it was argued that key workers’ ability to offer intensive support to its original target group had risked being “diluted”. This was related to concerns that there had been scope creep away from the original purpose of addressing child poverty, towards trying to alleviate a wide range of community needs.

On the other hand, there was a view that adopting a ‘no wrong door’ approach means not turning anyone in need away and trying to support people wherever they present. It was argued that the level of demand from people outside Linlathen and Mid Craigie and from those without children highlights the wider need for the type of flexible, multi-agency support the pathfinder has offered. The operational team also noted that complex family structures meant that supporting, for example, a grandparent might actually have a significant beneficial impact for children, as they might be playing a pivotal role in supporting the wider family. From this perspective, narrowing the target group to only include households with dependent children might mean missed opportunities to support families to move out of poverty, and could conflict with a ‘no wrong door’ philosophy.

“If a granny came in, we would say 'Do you have any caring responsibilities?’ They (the granny) would say no, because officially they're not the main carer for the child. But as you get to know them, you know that they indeed are holding their family and the families all around them together.”

(Dundee professional interview)

These different perspectives were apparent in stakeholder interviews at both waves of this evaluation and some stakeholders felt that there should be a clearer direction on this from the Oversight Board. This tension also fed through into views on value for money and scalability, as discussed in chapter 6.

Who is the pathfinder reaching in practice?

The monitoring data demonstrates that the pathfinder has had some level of engagement with many people beyond the key target group of low-income families in Linlathen and Mid Craigie. In total, 1,277 people^[7] had some level of contact with the Dundee pathfinder, whether at the drop-in or via outreach, in its first two years (from October 2022 to early October 2024).

Table 3.1 shows that around 1 in 5 (21%) of these clients were families with children under 16 living in Linlathen or Mid Craigie.^[8] This means that 79% of those using the pathfinder fell outside the original target group: 56% of all clients did not have dependent children, while 63% were not from Linlathen or Mid Craigie.

In terms of supporting families more broadly, 44% of clients were recorded as having dependent children under 16 (21% from Linlathen and Mid Craigie, 23% from other areas). Analysis of the age profile of clients highlights that high numbers of older people also used the pathfinder: 15% of all clients (n = 191) were aged 60 or older when they first engaged with the pathfinder.

Based on Dundee pathfinder monitoring data extracted 4 October 2024

Focusing specifically on families with dependent children who have engaged with the pathfinder, Table 3.2 shows the numbers reached within the key ‘priority’ groups identified by the Scottish Government as families more likely to be at risk of poverty (see Scottish Government, 2024).^[9]

High proportions of lone parent families and clients with health conditions had engaged with the pathfinder – 70% of Linlathen and Mid Craigie families were recorded as lone parents, and 65% as having a health condition when they first engaged with the pathfinder. In fact, across all the pathfinder’s clients, a very high proportion (61%) were recorded as having health conditions at first contact, suggesting that the pathfinder is being extensively used by people with disabilities and long-term conditions. This was reflected in interviews with the operational team, who observed that the number of people in Linlathen living with complex physical and mental health conditions was very high.

The Dundee pathfinder also reached a higher proportion of large families compared with the national average. Across Scotland, around one in ten families have three or more children,^[10] compared with a quarter of pathfinder families (26% in Linlathen/Mid Craigie, 27% across all clients with children). In addition to large families having higher poverty rates, it was suggested that this partly reflected the profile of the local housing stock (which includes a large number of four- or five-bedroom houses let through social landlords), though there was also a belief that the two-child benefit cap was leading to more larger families needing support.

Families with a child under 4 accounted for around a quarter of clients with dependent children (although there is no data on children under 1). Around 1 in 10 (8%) clients with dependent children were aged under 25. The demographic data did not capture ethnicity, so it is not possible to assess reach to ethnic minority families.

Taken together, the high proportion of lone parents, clients with disabilities or health conditions, and large families indicate the pathfinder has been successful in reaching some family groups identified as at higher risk of poverty.

Based on Dundee pathfinder monitoring data extracted 4 October 2024

How are people initially engaging with the pathfinder?

The figures shown above reflect any level or type of engagement with the pathfinder. As discussed in chapter 2, there are two main routes via which people come into the Dundee pathfinder: targeted door-knocking or via a drop-in at the Brooksbank community centre in Linlathen. This section discusses the numbers engaging with the pathfinder via each route, alongside professional and parent perspectives on the value of these different approaches.

Targeted door knocking

The Dundee pathfinder took an active ‘outreach’ approach to reaching families, primarily via targeted door-knocking. An initial list of 96 families^[11] living in Linlathen with children under 16 and no earned income from employment was identified by the Revenues Team at Dundee City Council using Council Tax Reduction (CTR) data and used to support door-knocking from October 2022 onwards. An equivalent list of 98 families in Mid Craigie was generated to support similar outreach to Mid Craigie families from February 2024 onwards. Updated lists were generated and shared with the team periodically.

DCC key workers used these lists to call on families to introduce themselves and the pathfinder and find out about families’ needs. Conversations were informal, rather than structured around specific questions. Key workers sometimes made multiple calls at addresses before families either answered the door, agreed to a conversation, or accepted support. This flexibility was seen as important to engaging families for whom stigma or lack of trust were barriers to engaging with services.

“If you’re door-knocking them, then you’re having that initial conversation to let them know what’s going on … and what they are needing help with. And if it isn’t at that time, then maybe the next time, because they’ve got a little bit of trust in you from that initial conversation.”

(Dundee professional interview)

The use of CTR data to facilitate specific targeting of support was seen as both novel and, overall, very successful in identifying the families most likely to need support. The data was described as “as good as we’re going to get” to identify families most in need of support, although the operational team felt it did miss some families who might be in need of support, including working families and those with complex living arrangements (for example, multigenerational families living in the same household, where a grandparent might be in work and therefore the household does not qualify for CTR, but the parents are not in work). There were no reports, from parents or pathfinder staff, of anyone questioning why they had been targeted.

The door-knocking itself was felt to be “key to getting people in the door in the first place”, particularly for those who were less likely to seek out support, including those with poor mental health. This view was reflected in interviews with parents, who cited a range of reasons why they might not have accessed support without the pathfinder staff knocking at their door, including poor mental or physical health, caring responsibilities, negative previous experiences with other services, not wanting to ask for help, being anxious about attending the drop-in, and not knowing where to go for help:

Interviewer: “So if (key worker) hadn’t called round, what would you have done about (benefits issue experienced)?”

Interviewee: “Just sat here panicking alone because I don't know who to speak to about things like that. …. I don't know who to turn to, who to go to, to ask for help or advice or anything like that.”

(Dundee parent interview 22)

Wider professional stakeholders also commented that the targeted door-knocking had highlighted the level of unmet need for support among people who would not necessarily have come forward for support otherwise:

“Only a handful of them were actually already engaging with services. And that to me was a massive eye opener… that actually with a wee bit of targeted engagement and creating a space that people felt able to go to, all of a sudden, you're completely overrun. So, you've gone from nobody's accessing this stuff to actually the demand is pretty mega.”

(Dundee professional interview)

This quote also highlights the potential resourcing challenges in managing the high levels of demand that may be surfaced by outreach, especially when combined with an open drop-in. As discussed further in chapter 6, in the context of value for money, while door-knocking was viewed as a positive feature of the pathfinder, there were different views across professional stakeholders on exactly how much effort should be put into it. There was a related concern that key workers should not be perceived to be harassing individuals unreceptive to support. Overall, by late 2024, there was a perception that the pathfinder might have largely exhausted its ability to engage new families from the targeted lists of families in Linlathen and Mid Craigie.

There was also a desire from some professional stakeholders for clearer quantitative information on the outcomes of door-knocking to support future decisions on the optimum resource to invest in this. While, qualitatively, the targeted outreach was seen as very effective in reaching low-income families, precisely quantifying its impact is more difficult. The operational team reported that all but a handful of families on the targeted lists had engaged at some level with the pathfinder, but the monitoring data does not capture separately which Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients were engaged via targeted door-knocking rather than via the drop-in, so it is not possible to analyse levels of engagement or outcomes for this group separately.

The drop-in

Between mid-October 2022 and early October 2024, there had been 97 Tuesday drop-ins (open to all) and 38 Thursday drop-ins (targeted at Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients only). The Tuesday drop-in was far better attended than the Thursday drop-in; of the 2,646 drop-in appointments recorded in the monitoring data, 2,347 were on a Tuesday, 126 were on a Thursday, and 160 appointments were recorded on other days.^[12]

In total, 1,145 clients (90% of all clients) had attended the drop-in at least once in the first two years of the pathfinder. Attendance levels varied week to week, with an average of 24 attendees at the Tuesday drop-in (ranging from a minimum of 3 attendees to a maximum of 53). Demand also fluctuated month to month, although there is some evidence from the chart below (and comments from the delivery team) that it tended to increase over winter and fall back over the summer.

Based on Dundee pathfinder monitoring data extracted 4 October 2024

The delivery team and other drop-in partners thought that, although attendance fluctuated, overall the drop-in had been very well used. Engagement was believed to be driven by a combination of the targeted door-knocking, word of mouth, and key workers’ wider visibility in the community, such as through attendance at events at the local primary school.

In terms of who uses the drop-in, Table 3.3 shows that it is being extensively used by people outwith the original target group – 77% of appointments were with clients who either did not have dependent children (55% of all appointments) or did not live in Linlathen (57% of all appointments) or both (34% of all appointments). However, it is also well used by families with children, both those from Linlathen and Mid Cragie (who account for 23% of recorded drop-in appointments) and those attending from outside the target area (23% of appointments).

The monitoring data shared with the evaluation team does not include a field for where people live (except to flag those who live in Linlathen or Mid Craigie), but it was mentioned that as well as attendees from other parts of Dundee, the pathfinder has seen people attend the drop-in for support from as far away as Perth and Aberdeen. Although there is no indication of how many were from further afield, this highlights that some are prepared to travel a considerable distance to access the kind of support the pathfinder offers. However, as already discussed, the fact the drop-in is used by so many from outside Linlathen also reinforces the potential tensions between targeting and offering an open-drop-in in terms of managing resources.

Based on Dundee pathfinder monitoring data extracted 4 October 2024

How much contact are Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients having with the pathfinder?

The Dundee pathfinder has offered open-ended and highly flexible support to clients; there is no prescribed type, length, or number of contacts. Clients may use the drop-in on a one-off basis, or they may come back on different occasions. They may have ongoing contact with key workers at different levels and in different ways, by text, phone, or in person, depending on their preference and needs.

The monitoring data includes information on both appointments at the drop-in and, for Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients only, contacts with DCC key workers outside the drop-in.^[13] This gives an indication of the level of contact Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients had with the pathfinder over its first two years.

Table 3.4, below, shows that a majority of Linlathen and Mid Cragie clients (80%) had attended the drop-in at least once. 1 in 5 Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients had not used the drop-in, indicating that they chose to engage more directly with key workers for support and highlighting the value of different mechanisms if the aim is to maximise engagement. People without children tended to use the drop-in more often than those with dependent children (average of 2.6 appointments vs. 2.3).

Taken together, the data indicates that, outside the drop-in, key workers have tended to focus more support on families with children.

• Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients with children were more likely to have contact with key workers outside the drop-in – 69% of those with children had contact recorded outside the drop-in, compared with 28% of other Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients.
• The average number of contacts outside the drop-in was also higher for those with children (3.1 among Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients with children and at least one contact outside the drop-in, compared with 1.7 for those without children).
• Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients with children were also more likely to have received home visits from DCC key workers (47%, compared with 12% of those without children).

Based on Dundee pathfinder monitoring data extracted 4 October 2024

Table 3.5 shows how long clients from Linlathen and Mid Craigie stayed engaged with the pathfinder (between October 2022 and early October 2024). This highlights the wide variation between clients in terms of their length of engagement with the pathfinder. Among those with children, 25% were recorded as either having had one contact only, or having stayed in contact for a month or less (from first to last contact). At the other end of the spectrum, 37% of Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients with children had been in contact with the pathfinder (at some level) for over a year. The mean length of engagement (from the first to the last contact recorded in the monitoring data) was longer for those with children than for those without (around 8.1 months vs. around 5.9 months). This again indicates that support has been more focused on families with children (while still providing considerable support in some cases to other households).

Table excludes clients where first contact was listed as pre-dating September 2022, as this predates the start of Linlathen Works.

What issues did families need and receive support with through the pathfinder?

Following their initial conversation with a new pathfinder client, key workers record in the monitoring spreadsheet whether people are experiencing any of a list of issues or barriers to employment. The most common recorded issue was health conditions (65% of Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients with dependent children and 61% of all clients), followed by travel barriers (see Table 3.6). A third (33%) of Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients with children were recorded as lacking previous work experience and a similar proportion (36%) as having issues around confidence or motivation to work.

Based on Dundee pathfinder monitoring data extracted 4 October 2024

The monitoring data also records information requested at the drop-in. The most common requests related to benefits (63%) and energy or fuel support (52%), with smaller proportions requesting information at the drop-in on employment (16%) or adult education and training (6%). It was suggested that the drop-in tended to be focused on crisis or immediate needs, but that this could then provide a hook for conversations around longer-term needs to be picked up by key workers outside the drop-in session.

“The drop-in is predominantly crisis issues. It's almost like a triage. You know, when you go to the hospital, if you've broke your arm, you see somebody first and then you're directed on. That's almost like what the drop-in's doing for these families”

(Dundee professional interview)

For a high proportion of clients, engagement with the pathfinder led to a referral to another support service. A majority of all clients (77%) are recorded as having been referred to at least one other service, although this figure was lower for Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients with dependent children (63%). This may indicate that, in comparison with clients from outside the target area, key workers are more likely to provide support and advice directly to Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients rather than refer them on to other services. The most common referrals recorded in the monitoring data (across all clients) were for support with benefits (52%), fuel support (30%), or employment (19%).

The monitoring data also reflects the wide range of topics key workers discuss with Linlathen and Mid Craigie clients outside the drop-in. Among the Linlathen and Mid Craigie families with dependent children who had some contact with a key worker outside the drop-in (n = 184), topics discussed included energy-related support (35%), jobs or employment (25%), housing (23%), benefits (22%), physical health (16%), mental health and wellbeing (15%), and education or training (13%). A smaller proportion were recorded as discussing support with childcare (9%), food (8%), or problems with money or debt (2%).

Overall, monitoring data on conversations and referrals indicate that a key focus of support in the pathfinder has been on benefits, fuel support, and employment, but the data also highlights the wide range of other issues the pathfinder provides support or advice with. This was reflected in interviews with the operational team, who stated that the issues families presented with could range from the “easy things to sort”, such as food bank parcels, blue badges, and bus passes, to the “hardest”, such as help with domestic abuse, or urgent support for homeless families with young children.

What supports or hinders families’ engagement?

Qualitative interviews with stakeholders and parents highlighted a range of facilitators and barriers to families’ initial and ongoing engagement with the pathfinder.

Targeted outreach

As discussed above, although there were some questions about the optimum level of resourcing of targeted outreach, there was nonetheless a general view (among both professionals and families) that proactive, in-person outreach to families at their homes had been instrumental in engaging target families with the pathfinder, especially those who may not otherwise have attended the drop in and those who were not already in contact with other support services.

Location of the drop-in

Both professional stakeholders and parents suggested that locating the drop-in centrally in Linlathen, and adjacent to Mid Craigie, had been important in facilitating families’ engagement with the pathfinder. Parents expressed a strong view that hosting services “right in the centre of the community” made people more likely to visit. While some said they might have travelled into the city centre for support, others cited barriers of cost, anxiety, and how busy city centre services could be as reasons why they would not have engaged had the pathfinder not been based locally.

“You know, they're able to do it all in one place, which is great because I'm on the go constantly … so I struggle to find time to do things and I'm anxious as well. I tend not to go far from the house [and I don't like] crowds or being around too many people. So, yeah, it's great that it's on my doorstep."

(Dundee parent interview 26)

At the same time, while location was felt to be very important to some of the parents interviewed for this evaluation, the level of use of the drop-in by people who lived outwith Linlathen also demonstrates that some people are prepared to travel to access support.

The Brooksbank centre itself was also seen as important, as it was known to many families locally. This was helpful in both highlighting the pathfinder to people using the Brooksbank for other reasons (for example, the evaluation team spoke to a family who had come in for an affordable meal at the café, but had ended up being signposted to the pathfinder), and in linking pathfinder families with the other services being hosted at the Brooksbank centre (such as the café, clothes and toy exchange, community events, etc.). The fact that it was accessible (all on one level) and neutral (in contrast with Benefits Offices, for example, which could be associated with having support withdrawn) was also felt by families and professionals to be important for engaging clients who might be less able or willing to attend other venues:

“It's that stigma that it removes as well, that you're not going to a recognised benefit office. You could be going there for any of the activities that they have in Brooksbank. So nobody knows why you're going there (for support).”

(Dundee professional interview)

Consistency

Consistency of both the drop-in and the key worker team was highlighted by both professionals and parents as key to maintaining families’ engagement with the pathfinder. Running the drop-in at the same location every week, and having the same key workers in attendance, was viewed as important for building trust with the community and facilitating engagement. Parents said they felt reassured that the drop-in would be there when they needed it. They also emphasised the importance of being able to see the same key workers over time, having built trusting relationships with them (discussed further in the next chapter).

"I feel like I could trust them and that's, trust is a thing for me. I have a lot of trust issues, but I feel like I can give them like, this is my story, this is what's going on in my life and this is where I'm struggling."

(Dundee parent interview 13)

This was contrasted by some with previous experiences of support, where “once you’re comfortable (with them) they leave”.

Quality of the key worker team

Families repeatedly emphasised the skills and characteristics of the key worker team as key to both their initial and ongoing engagement with the pathfinder. They were seen as friendly, approachable, “down to earth”, non-judgmental, reliable, and as understanding the community and their needs.

“And you know what, it was nice to see they didn't look very professional, you know, they weren't standing in the suits, it wasn't scary.”

(Dundee parent interview 9)

Families also commented very positively on the fact that the pathfinder had recruited key workers from the local community.

Face-to-face

Finally, the fact that the pathfinder offered face-to-face support was cited by parents as a key reason for engaging with the pathfinder. This reflected both literacy issues, issues around confidence and anxiety, and perceived difficulties making their needs understood over the phone.

“I can come here and see universal credit (DWP). Instead of me trying to phone up and speak to people that don't understand on the phone. … I don't like speaking of people on the phone. You're trying to explain to them, but they're not understanding what you're trying to say.”

(Dundee parent interview 5)

Barriers

Although overall, parents interviewed for this evaluation were very positive about the pathfinder, they did identify a small number of issues that they felt had either made it more difficult for them to engage, or which they thought could be off-putting for other families. Professionals also identified barriers they felt had prevented some target families from engaging or led to families disengaging.

• Privacy and busyness at the drop-in: parents and professionals noted that the drop-in could be very busy on occasion, which could be “intimidating”, especially for those with anxiety. While having multiple agencies available at the drop-in was viewed very positively, parents did comment on the lack of privacy and on feeling uncomfortable discussing personal issues in the same room as others. While it was noted that sensitive conversations could be moved to private rooms, there was still potential for this to be off-putting.
• Capacity of other services: professional stakeholders reported that families could disengage from the pathfinder when they experienced long waits for other services to which the pathfinder had directed them. This was out of the pathfinder’s hands, but meant the team had to be very careful not to overpromise when referring to other services.

“You could refer someone - that's great. But they might not get that phone call for another three months. Which is a sort of an issue. A lot of them could then disengage from that point as well.”

(Dundee professional interview)

• Engaging families on Universal Credit no-work related requirements: perhaps the most significant barrier identified by professionals was around how to engage families on benefits with a ‘no work-related requirement’ provision. This applies to people assessed as having limited capability for work and work-related activity, usually due to ill health or caring responsibilities, and means that you are not required by DWP to engage in any employability activities to continue receiving Universal Credit. Although this does not prohibit engaging in any employability activities, the operational team reported that people were nonetheless anxious that doing so might mean they were reassessed as fit for work.
• In mid-2024, the operational team identified that around three quarters (73%) of Linlathen families on Universal Credit fell into this category.^[14] While the pathfinder was working with some families in this group (including some of those interviewed for the evaluation), other target families in the local area had expressed strong concern about engaging with the pathfinder in case they put their benefits at risk. Conversations had taken place among pathfinder partners about how to better support this group, to give them greater confidence about taking some steps towards improving their future employability without jeopardising their short-term financial security. However, as of late 2024 limited progress had been made in identifying potential solutions. This issue is discussed in more detail in chapter 5, which considers system change.

Suggestions for improvements to delivery

Clients had relatively few suggestions for improvement to the delivery of the pathfinder in Linlathen; their views on its delivery were overwhelmingly positive. Minor suggested improvements included:

• Greater privacy and/or reducing the busy-ness of the drop-in
• Extending support to more people, by advertising it more and/or offering it outside of Linlathen and Mid Craigie. Although this might appear to conflict with the point above, it in part reflected a desire for a similar approach to be offered in other areas, as well as for more resource to be available to better manage demand at the Linlathen drop-in.

Other suggestions related more to wider services and facilities in the area than to the support offered in the drop-in or by key workers, for example, offering a playgroup at Brooksbank.

Key workers themselves highlighted the benefit of spending time ‘in the community’ rather than in their office. It was suggested that, if anything, they could spend even more time in different community venues (the Brooksbank Centre, local schools, other local hubs). This was seen as beneficial, due to being more easily accessible to families when they needed them.

Wider learning and reflections: reach and engagement

• The question of the extent to which pathfinder support should have been more closely focused on low-income families in the target area is likely to be one that arises in other place-based interventions that aim to reduce child poverty. Is the best way of reducing child poverty to focus more exclusively on low-income families, or is the best way of supporting these families to adopt a more open approach (which also provides benefits to others)? The answer to this question may not always be clear, but there is a need for partners to agree which approach is being taken in any given intervention, and what evidence is needed to test whether, and how, the approach taken is allocated in the best way to help address child poverty specifically.
• There is a need to ensure that, whatever the key target group, they are clearly identifiable within the monitoring data. In particular, if there is a desire to understand how interventions are reaching and benefiting people in priority groups that may experience particular barriers to moving out of poverty, this needs to be more clearly factored into data requirements from the outset.
• Targeted outreach by friendly, approachable key workers was viewed as a particularly effective element of the Dundee pathfinder. The use of Council Tax Reduction data to identify and directly approach families likely to be in poverty and who may benefit from additional support is something other areas should consider.
• It may be beneficial to consider how to quantify the level of effort expended on outreach activities, such as targeted door-knocking, and to be able to assess the optimum resourcing for this. Accurately capturing how different clients are engaged (when there are multiple routes) and how much effort and resource is required (e.g. number of calls made), as well as outcomes, would help support more informed discussions around this in future, both within Dundee and in other areas testing similar approaches.