Whole Family Wellbeing Funding (WFWF) - year 1 process evaluation: final report

4 Experiences of designing and planning priorities and activity

This section discusses how CSPPs made funding decisions and planned their WFWF support activities to achieve their priorities.

Key findings

• Most CSPPs reported activities in their CSP annual reports that aligned with the WFWF criteria and aims, with an emphasis on early intervention and prevention family support. Where CSPPs decided to focus WFWF on responsive support (rather than early intervention and prevention), this was because of the findings from local needs analysis.
• All case study CSPPs reported that they had consulted with children, young people, families, and carers when developing their initial plans, at least to some extent. Though ongoing consultation on service design was rare. Children, young people, and families interviewed also did not generally feel they had engaged in specific service design activities.
• Across all case study CSPPs, there was agreement from those who contributed to the evaluation that a range of partners (including the third sector) who make up the CSPP were involved in discussions about planned WFWF activities.
• In terms of CSPP third sector partners, there were mixed views across those interviewed for the evaluation about the extent to which involvement had worked well to engage staff from third sector partners. In the second wave of fieldwork, views were more positive about third sector engagement suggesting this had improved across the Year 1 implementation of WFWF.

Criteria for design of WFWF activities

The initial plan template included guidance from Scottish Government on criteria for spending the funding, with a focus on directing resources towards early intervention and prevention activities. It specified that funding could be used for:

• Scaling up existing transformational activity, with the funding only to be used to fund the scaled element (rather than to support business as usual activity).
• Providing additional resource and capacity to support transformation in the system, in line with key national policy initiatives, for example, The Promise.
• Exploring new approaches to delivering holistic whole family support.

The target groups for WFWF activities included families with the greatest support needs. This included children, young people and families where there was a risk of a child or young person being taken into care and the six priority groups^[12] identified in the Scottish Government’s Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan (Scottish Government, 2022b).

The Scottish Government advised CSPPs that their WFWF activity should ensure that:

• Planning and decision-making are collaborative across all CSPP partners.
• Decisions are based on an assessment of local need, including data in the CSPPs Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA).^[13]
• Decisions are taken with appropriate consultation with children, young people and families.
• WFWF is not used to replace or substitute funding for existing services but supports investment in transformational activity.
• Commissioning and procurement of services supports the outcomes sought from the Funding, by building in plans for sustainability and ensuring that the appropriate range of partners, including the third sector, are involved.

CSPPs’ Whole Family Wellbeing Funding priorities

Aims and activities

Most CSPPs reported activities in the progress templates of their CSP annual reports (described in Section 2: Secondary data analysis), that aligned with the WFWF criteria and aims, emphasising early intervention and prevention family support. Early intervention and prevention activities aim to ensure families can access support before they reach crisis point. Examples in the CSP annual reports included CSPPs establishing new community hubs to provide support, reducing the need for formal referrals and improving access for families seeking early intervention support. Other examples included recruiting to new posts to provide preventative support for children, young people and families – for example, a trauma recovery counsellor to reduce the need for more intensive mental health support.

Where CSPPs decided to focus WFWF on responsive support (rather than early intervention and prevention), this was because of the findings from local needs analysis and on the basis of young people and families’ input (discussed further in the section ‘Using data to understand local needs’ below).

Another reason for this was that CSPPs in the earlier stages of WFWF progress generally focussed on activities around workforce development such as building workforce capability and capacity, recruiting staff and setting up panels or focus groups. As such, prevention and early intervention was not discussed in their CSP annual reports.

Targeted beneficiaries

The findings from the CSP annual reports showed that only a small number of CSPPs (three of 21 CSPPs) were undertaking activities that explicitly targeted the six priority groups identified in the Tackling Child Poverty Delivery Plan (see Table 2). Whilst four CSPPs targeted children at the edge of care, in kinship care, who are adopted or requiring safe accommodation. Two CSPPs targeted parents with substance misuse or families with children with neurodiversity needs.

Most case study CSPPs though did not specify any target beneficiaries or did not plan to support particular groups. This was mainly because these CSPPs reported that having a specific beneficiary focus would not address, or be adaptable to, the multiple family support needs of their local community.

“We have lots of families with different and complex needs, and they are not in specific groups. So, we chose to do it [focus WFWF support] more broadly.”

Strategic Lead

As such, family support activities were not targeted to specific groups in order to maximise the reach of the support. The evidence from one CSPP showed that plans to engage with seldom heard families were dropped for capacity reasons.

Table 2 below shows the groups CSPPs intended to support as part of WFWF activities.

Approaches to deciding on WFWF priorities and activity

Senior leaders, particularly in children's services, led the prioritisation and planning of WFWF activities, with involvement from other senior leaders such as heads of children's and justice services. Managers supported senior leaders and collaborated with representatives from various CSPP partners. Working groups for initial plan development with cross-partner representation were formed in most CSPPs. Draft plans were then reviewed and approved by CSPP partner representatives before submission to the Scottish Government. This inclusive approach allowed a wide range of partners to contribute to the design process and encouraged ownership and responsibility among staff from partner organisations.

However, the case study findings suggested that some partners did not feel as though they had been engaged with in meaningful ways and were dissatisfied with the approaches taken. The following sections provide details on CSPPs' specific approaches to determining WFWF priorities and activities, along with highlighting best practices and challenges.

Pre-WFWF reflection and development work

Some CSPPs held discussions before WFWF about improving their structure and governance to enhance alignment across partnerships. They used these discussions to determine their WFWF priorities. For instance, one CSPP had agreed to hold more frequent board meetings and set up structured working groups for specific priorities, which facilitated a swift establishment of a WFWF-focused group with partner representation.

Many CSPPs had established their priorities for children and family services after the pandemic, and before WFWF launched, by engaging with various stakeholders and conducting self-assessments using the Scottish Government's Supporting Families: A National Self-Assessment Toolkit for Change. For instance, East Ayrshire developed a place-based community model to meet local needs before WFWF (see Figure 4).

Figure 4 CSPP Spotlight: East Ayrshire

Shifting approach to holistic family support after reflecting on local family needs, then developing a place-based community model.

East Ayrshire re-evaluated the approach to holistic family support to reflect the recommendations of The Promise and the Independent Review of Adult Social Care. This meant greater emphasis on early intervention and support for diverse communities. The CSPP collaborated with the third sector to create the HEART model, which is a place-based community hub approach. The model consisted of six community-based hubs aiming to enhance self-directed family support. While the model predated WFWF, the funding allowed the CSPP to expedite and expand its efforts. With a strong understanding of local needs and evidence, it has quickly developed its WFWF initial plan.

Some CSPPs also had informal discussions with the Scottish Government before the formal launch of WFWF. For example, one CSPP engaged in a pre-funding conversation with existing government contacts, gaining insights into WFWF priorities, funding parameters, and timelines, which aided their initial plan development. Strategic leads and local WFWF leads also reported that these pre-WFWF national-level discussions indicated the Scottish Government’s interest in and commitment to practically supporting CSPPs.

Consulting children, young people and families

All case study CSPPs reported that they had consulted with children, young people, families, and carers when developing their initial plans, at least to some extent. This included general requests for information, invitations to existing groups of service users to comment on proposals, approaching families directly (e.g. through education colleagues), or using existing channels of communication such as feedback forms and experience surveys. In Fife, a session was delivered by frontline practitioners which invited children, young people and families to share their experiences to inform service design (see Figure 5).

Figure 5 CSPP Spotlight: Fife

Inviting children, young people and families to a co-creation project session to share their lived experiences directly and inform service design.

A co-production project session ran in Fife as part of WFWF was attended by local families. Frontline practitioners shared that they brought children, young people and families to the co-production sessions to allow them to directly share their lived experiences and support needs. One support worker involved shared that the children and young people involved were excited to attend the consultations because they were thrilled that people wanted to hear their views. A young person interviewed also reported that they found the session ‘really fun’ because they got to share their views of what it was like ‘being a kid’ with senior people. This led to families feeling empowered and more parents approaching frontline practitioners asking to be involved in future meetings.

A key enabler of successful consultations with children, young people and families was the size of group consultation sessions. Frontline practitioners reported that smaller, and informal, group sessions were received well by parents because they were more comfortable to be open and share their particular needs that they would like addressed by service delivery.

Despite reports of initial consultation with children, young people, and families in the design of WFWF activity, ongoing consultation on service design was rare. There was some evidence of feedback on design being collected beyond the initial stage, typically through informal feedback to the frontline practitioner or via a feedback form. As described above, Fife was also continuing their co-production work. However, CSPPs did flag continuous feedback from children, young people, and families as a necessary part of WFWF and generally shared a desire to improve on this.

“We did a lot at the design [stage] but beyond that we need to work harder to get feedback from families, I think, to input into our future work.”

Strategic Lead

Some of the children, young people and families who were interviewed described influencing WFWF service design through tailoring the individual support they received. Examples included tailoring the topics discussed and individualising areas of focus for the support received. Although this was on an individual basis, rather than influencing overall service design, adapting support provision in this way was appreciated by these children, young people, and families.

“I got asked what I wanted to chat to [name of practitioner] about and what I thought I needed [support with]. I liked that I was asked what I think [sic].”

Parent

Parents receiving support that was less tailored to their individual support needs (e.g. group sessions) reported fewer opportunities to input into the support received. However, there were still opportunities to feedback what they did and did not like about the group sessions, as well as opportunities to frame the group sessions around their current life situations.

“It was just a group so not really about me. I did fill out a survey form to say what could be nicer next time. So, hopefully that will help other mums.”

Parent

Beyond this activity, children, young people, and families interviewed did not generally feel engaged in any service design activities. This is despite professionals interviewed in the case study CSPPs stating that they had organised various ways for engaging with children, young people, and families in service design. This may be because it was not made clear to children, young people, and families that this was the purpose of their engagement, or they did not recognise these consultation activities as contributing to the design of WFWF, but instead assumed that it was part of their ongoing support received through WFWF.

An interviewed young person was involved in developing the WFWF offer through a youth forum where they interviewed other young people about drug related deaths and led a workshop to help professionals understand stigma around this topic. The young person reported they found the experience of contributing to service design enjoyable and felt that they were able to share their perspectives with adults.

“I liked it. Was good. I got to tell the people that it should be this way, not that [way].”

Young person

“They [families] have really enjoyed being part of it and have said that they feel really connected and it’s…a positive experience being part of that…this allowed them to kind of reflect and really appreciate their own expertise and experience and how they can help other people.”

Frontline practitioner (family support worker)

Frontline practitioners in case study CSPPs identified two key barriers to engaging children, young people, and families in service design:

• Challenges encouraging families to engage, especially where families had limited time or capacity due to the complexity of their family circumstances. This was reported by a minority of frontline practitioners who shared that the life circumstances of some families created difficulties when opening up and limited their ability to contribute to service design activities.
• Difficulties pitching engagement activities at the right level due to the variety of lived experiences and specific support needs across children, young people and families. Frontline practitioners also noted that some families with complex needs did not feel as ready to join group sessions, perhaps due to discomfort of sharing their personal circumstances in a group setting.

Using data to understand local needs

CSPPs were expected to conduct a local assessment of need to share in their system change plans. They were encouraged to use the Scottish Government’s draft Supporting Families: A National Self-Assessment Toolkit to identify funding priorities and activities.

During the planning stages, all case study CSPPs incorporated data into WFWF activity decisions. They analysed quantitative and qualitative data, such as referral rates, school attendance, child poverty rates, and qualitative evidence about children, young people, and families’ views on support, in order to identify local family needs, impact of current support, and service gaps. For example, one CSPP used qualitative data from children, young people and families and frontline practitioners in consultations to change a service's name from ‘hubs’ to ‘networks’.

“We talked in those sessions quite a lot about ‘hubs’ but in subsequent engagement work and trying to bottom out exactly what we're doing to fully reflect the functions of the hubs as opposed to a pre-conceived notion of what a hub is, we've started to use the word ‘network’ because that better conveys, I think, what families are feeding back and practitioners are feeding back about what they like which is…that more integrated and seamless support at an earlier stage.”

Strategic Lead

Some CSPPs collected data for other purposes, including potential new activities, and were still in the early stages of developing their whole system monitoring plans.

Involvement of partners

The WFWF logic model (see Annex 4) anticipated that the key WFWF partners were:

• Children, young people and families;
• CSPP strategic leads;
• CSPP staff (including local WFWF leads);
• Adult services staff;
• Third sector partners;
• (Public) health partners such as community link workers;
• Mental health practitioners;
• School nursing services;
• Employability services;
• Primary care;
• Welfare rights; and
• Income maximisation advisors and financial support partners.

Across all case study CSPPs, participants agreed a range of partners contributed to WFWF plans. This included consulting partners through steering groups, multi-agency workshops, and panel consultations. Staff from partner organisations who were involved in the engagement typically included frontline practitioners from third sector organisations and from education and health and social care teams.

“I'm not saying it's absolutely perfect [in terms of engagement with a wide range of partners] but I think they [WFWF strategic leads] definitely listened and took on board the input we gave. There was a good spread of people too from schools and NHS. It felt good to share our thoughts.”

Frontline practitioner – Educational psychologist

While initial engagement in the WFWF plans was reportedly good across case study CSPPS, ongoing and consistent partner engagement in WFWF activity implementation and delivery varied. In some case study CSPPs, various partners played a key role in determining what the monitoring and evaluation of the funding would look like, through their participation in sub-groups focussed on understanding specific issues in the CSPP. In other CSPPs, partners inputted into the design of pilot projects and were involved in the co-creation projects (see Figure 6).

Figure 6 CSPP Spotlight: South Lanarkshire

Contribution of partners to co-ordinating links between various support organisations.

In South Lanarkshire, educational psychologists were involved in considering how various partner organisations could join up their work. For instance, they helped identify ways the family support hubs would link in with education services, how the referral systems between the organisations would work in practice, how to foster links between multi-agency teams within secondary schools and how to communicate with parents and families to inform them about support hubs (including sharing information about what these were).

One of the social workers was also consulted in the early stages of discussion about the role of social workers in terms of how they would fit into the family support hubs model. The main conclusion was that there was ‘no one size fits all’ approach and that a flexible, adaptable approach would have to be taken.

Analysis of CSP annual reports indicated that an open and transparent approach to engagement had encouraged more innovative bids from partners and fostered an overall innovative environment. For example, one CSPP held a ‘development day’ workshop attended by head teachers and third sector partners to generate innovative approaches to holistic family support, by exploring gaps in current provision.

Case study participants shared mixed views about the consistent engagement with third sector partners. During the first wave of the evaluation, engagement was not always viewed by strategic leads and managers as consistently capturing the perspectives of a diverse range of partners. In the second wave, their views were more positive, suggesting this was improving across the Year 1 implementation of WFWF.

Some third sector frontline practitioners reported that engagement with them and their organisations was somewhat ‘selective’ or ‘superficial’. For example, limited or no communication from CSPPs on progress or outcomes after third sector practitioner input into the WFWF initial plans.

“One of our school nurses was involved in the design of the idea, they had a lot of meetings and stuff, but we don't really know what happened.”

Frontline practitioner – School nurse

Strategic leads and local WFWF leads felt their third sector partners faced challenges in understanding the WFWF aims and how it would work in practice. This was mainly reported in cases where CSPPs experienced differences across CSPP partners around how the WFWF vision should look in their area. This barrier was also typically seen where relationships with third sector partners were newer, as this meant more time was needed to build relationships and consensus between partners.

Some strategic leads noted the influence third sector commissioning practices had on their engagement with WFWF plans and delivery. Third sector commissioning practices were viewed as competitive and channelled through an organisation; this approach to commissioning services was at odds with the criteria of the WFWF allocation. This was felt by strategic leads to impact the alignment of third sector partners with WFWF priorities and cause some confusion amongst third sector partners about how the WFWF funding would be allocated. For example, some third sector partners were concerned about receiving insufficient funding for the level of work required to deliver WFWF activities.

“Part of our challenge is the [third] sector's a really competitive place [in terms of the need to secure funding]. It's very difficult for them to think about how they can collaborate more effectively to the good end of the families, without putting themselves into detriment. Those are some of the wrestling conversations that we're currently having with the third sector…Helping them to think [about] how they can actually get to where they need to get to deliver what families are asking for is a real challenge for them. To work in the collaborative way and make sure that families get a really good, high quality, consistent response at the point of entry into the system, wherever that is…Still working on the readiness and how are they actually going to do what families want without compromising their own funding.”

Strategic Lead