Early Adopter Communities: process evaluation

Chapter 4. Meeting the needs of families

This chapter considers the evaluation questions around how EAC provision has been designed to meet the needs of families, and to what extent this has been successful. It first covers how provision has been designed to meet families' needs using co-design and ongoing feedback, including learning around enablers and barriers to doing this. The second part of this chapter goes on to assess the extent to which the provision is meeting the needs of families using it, framed around activities in the theory of change that concern the delivery of services for families. In doing so, it considers what has worked well to support this and what the barriers have been.

Key findings

• The delivery of services for families was broadly happening as intended in the theory of change. Overall, staff and families felt this had been working well.
• EACs had all implemented co-design activities with families. However, the extent of this varied. Activities ranged from consulting families on their needs, to more participatory activities such as parent focus groups and child wish lists. Staff generally felt co-design had enhanced provision and gave examples of this. However, there was little recollection of co-design among parents interviewed.
• On the whole, EAC provision timings and locations met the needs of parents who took part in this research. Covering working hours was a key factor and flexibility was appreciated by those with changing shift patterns. However, there were parents who needed provision at different times, or on more days, than was available.
• Families were positive about the food offer, especially hot meals. Providers noted that timings of food provision were important for meeting children's needs.
• It was important to parents that their children enjoyed attending and children interviewed liked the activities on offer. Staff felt this was in part due to giving children a choice and creating a diverse offer. However, staff had found catering for the needs of different age groups challenging.
• EAC funding had been used to remove or reduce childcare costs for parents, which came out as an important factor in enabling families (who took part in this study) to attend. However, cost was a barrier to some families using more days.
• Friendly and knowledgeable staff helped parents trust that services would meet their child's needs. However, recruitment and retention was a significant challenge for providers, particularly for roles supporting children with ASN or breakfast clubs.
• Partnership working with specialist ASN providers and access to training had helped mitigate some of the challenges to accommodating children with ASN.
• In order to meet wider family needs, EACs provided or referred onto a range of further family support. Having dedicated staff (e.g. family support workers) was viewed positively. However, in some areas, take up of family support had not been as high as hoped. Staff were also mindful of managing families' expectations.

How has provision been designed around the needs of families?

EACs had undertaken a range of co-design activities during the early stages of implementation and gathered ongoing feedback from families, as intended in the theory of change. However, the extent of this varied between services. In situations where EACs partnered with childcare providers who were already well-established, there was limited co-design of the services they delivered to families (compared to new services that had been created as part of the EAC projects).

In terms of how successfully co-design and feedback processes were working, there was evidence that EACs had used the outputs from this to adapt services to meet families' wants and/or needs. Due to time constraints, co-design during the first phase of the EACs was more consultative in nature, whereas the activities in the second phase went further and involved more active participation from families.

Overview of co-design activities

Co-design activities with families in the early stages of the EACs (between proposal development and the end of the first funding phase) focused on understanding the needs of local communities and asking families what they wanted from a childcare service. This covered aspects such as timings, activities and food. Activities included speaking to families one-to-one, at community groups or events, or using online surveys. In Dundee, EAC staff supported Child Poverty Pathfinder targeted door-knocking to further their understanding of the needs of local families.

Given the relatively short timescale of phase one, there was a greater emphasis on co-design from phase two onwards. Co-design activities carried out during this phase tended to facilitate more active participation among families. This included: focus groups; children writing 'wish lists' of what they would like to see at their after school club; workshops to develop a Parents' Charter and a Providers' Charter for School Age Childcare (in Clackmannanshire); commissioning other organisations to carry out co-design work; as well as continued ad hoc discussions with families. Inverclyde developed a co-design charter to help plan future co-design activities and helped establish a wider network on "Out of School Care" that will be used for future co-design with providers.

It is worth noting that in instances where EAC childcare providers were already established, there was limited opportunity for co-design of services. However, these services had been tried and tested over time, and collected ongoing feedback from families (discussed later in this section). One provider that took part in this research also highlighted that their organisation was run by a parent committee. This organisational structure meant that parents with lived experience of using this type of service were directly involved in shaping how it was run.

There was also some consultation with stakeholders (such as childcare providers, community-based organisations and other potential partners) about their views on setting up an EAC. While this focused on how best to meet the needs of families, EACs were also mindful of the needs of partner providers in delivering this. In phase two, projects were able to draw on the skills of newly recruited Family Support Workers to help with engagement. For example, in one area, family support workers set up an implementation group with stakeholders and had regular meetings to gather views on development of the EAC. Areas of focus included how to best meet the needs of children with ASN and expansion into other communities.

Views on success of co-design

Project staff and partners generally agreed that co-design activities had contributed to services meeting the needs of families. They gave examples of how EAC services had been shaped by what families had asked for, such as taking children out to explore their local area or running other specific activities, allowing older children to create their own spaces, or agreeing rules to follow during provision.

"Behaviour contracts and things like that […]. It is not just a case that we say that child is not allowed to do something or whatever. We make sure the child is involved and the parent is involved."

(Glasgow stakeholder)

However, there was also a view that drawing on previous experience and knowledge of running similar projects could go a long way in informing EAC provision. Professionals were also mindful of 'consultation fatigue' among families.

When asked, parents had little recollection of taking part in co-design but thought it seemed a good idea in principle. This may, in part, be due to issues around recall, as this would have taken place long before families took part in this research, or a lack of clarity around which previous engagement activities had constituted co-design. One parent recalled providing feedback in the early stages of the EAC when a staff member visited a local toddlers group, and felt that feedback had been reflected in the design of the EAC. Among parents who did not recall taking part in co-design activities, there were mixed opinions on the extent to which they would have liked to have done this. While there were parents who would have been happy to contribute, others (particularly lone parents/working parents) thought it would take up too much time or didn't see a need for it, if services were working well for them regardless. However, the importance of seeking children's views on what they would like to see at the service came out more strongly in interviews with parents.

Stakeholders were typically keen to be involved in co-designing EAC provision, particularly providers who are carrying out much of the delivery of services to families. There were varying experiences of this among the professionals who took part in this research, with some partners feeling that they had been closely involved and consulted and others who thought they had not been involved enough. For example, one provider felt that the EAC funding mechanism had not been working optimally, and they would have liked to have fed into the development of this.

"I often wonder why the actual after school care managers were never involved from day one."

(Partner)

Enablers and barriers to successful co-design

EACs highlighted several enablers to effective co-design with families and partners, such as having the necessary skills and knowledge to design and carry out co-design activities. In Inverclyde, benefits were highlighted of having advice and guidance from the Scottish Government around co-design, and the involvement of local Community Workers who had specialist skills in community engagement.

"Having people that are skilled at community engagement, people that know how to talk to people, people that are skilled in co-designing, or understanding that process, I think that's really important. […] It has been a real learning experience."

(Inverclyde representative)

Building rapport and trust between families and staff emerged as another enabling factor. In Dundee, professionals felt that engaging with families face-to-face and in informal settings, such as the school summer fair or regular family nights at the school, had contributed to this. This approach aligned with the views of parents. The Dundee project lead also highlighted a need to proactively reach out to families.

"It worked well because we went to where people were at, we didn't just put a survey link on social media, we didn't just drop stuff off through the doors. We worked together to create something that was appealing for people to come to."

(Dundee stakeholder)

"You then put a barrier up when you've got, like, a stall and you are waiting for people to come to you. You [need to] go to them"

(Dundee project lead)

This was reinforced by treating co-design as an ongoing process rather than a one-off activity. Professionals emphasised the need to show families that suggestions were being followed up. The importance of this is further underlined given concerns in initial engagement with families, that the EAC would be "just another initiative" that would get forgotten about. Linked to this, staff described being transparent with parents during co-design activities about what was possible for the EAC to provide. This was seen to help manage expectations and avoid breakdown of trust later on.

"What we don't do is [just] promise anything, well say 'let's look at it', 'what can we achieve' and if it's achievable we'll do it. There's no point in asking them what they want if you're not going to follow it through."

(Glasgow stakeholder)

At the same time, EAC staff and stakeholders noted some challenges to carrying out successful co-design activities, primarily around making them accessible.

Time and location affected which parents were reached. For example, engagement in the school fair was during daytime and may have missed working parents. Doing co-design at different times and in different places could help to widen reach. It had also worked well to run events with activities for children, to minimise childcare barriers when trying to engage parents outside of school hours. Using a variety of formats was also mentioned as improving engagement, particularly offline methods.

Additional challenges came up when families spoke English as a second language. This was particularly the case in Glasgow. Providers described using different methods to engage these parents, including speaking to parents and written forms. Sometimes staff members, or children themselves, were able to act as translators. However, they did not have the funding to get professional support with this.

"We have got a good few parents [for whom] English isn't their first language. Scottish accents can be very hard to understand as well, so there is a barrier […] we have just got to ensure that every parent knows that there is an open-door policy. There is feedback sheets and things like that. We will get some back."

(Glasgow stakeholder)

Finally, providers discussed having to be more creative when getting feedback from children with ASN, who may not be able to communicate their needs easily. This included using visuals and speaking to parents more about their child's needs.

"[One of our children] is nonverbal. So, obviously we have to look at ways to get her views as well. […] She will show you the pictures, she will go up and she will point […]. So, when we are doing snack ideas we will sit with her and it will be visuals, and for our younger children as well, to ensure that [every] child is getting included. […] We just have to be more creative."

(Glasgow stakeholder)

Family feedback

Outwith co-design activities, providers described regularly seeking feedback on their services. For parents, this included verbal feedback (ad hoc or as part of end of term reviews) and feedback forms. Not all parents who were interviewed recalled giving or being asked for feedback. However, where they had brought up issues, they were content these had been swiftly addressed. For children, feedback was usually collected informally during provision.

Factors that staff identified as having facilitated the effective implementation of feedback processes included: keeping surveys short and concise, positive relationships between parents and providers, and being flexible in their approach.

It was noted by staff, however, that there was a sense that some parents may have become "fatigued" with the number of requests for feedback (on EACs and other local initiatives) and that low response rates to surveys were a challenge. Clackmannanshire has purchased a new, more engaging, survey platform which allows them to monitor survey responses by provider and parents for a response.

When providers gathered feedback from children, they observed that it was more effective when staff used play as a vehicle for engagement; when surveys are fun for children to complete; when children felt "comfortable and secure" in their environment; and when there were strong relationships between staff and children.

Has provision met the needs of families?

As noted in Chapter 2, delivery of services for families was broadly happening as intended in the local level theory of change and, overall, families were very positive about their experiences of using EAC childcare.

The following sections highlight key aspects of childcare delivery that were working well, the main challenges for families and staff, and whether it was meeting the needs of families. As previously noted, it was not within scope to explore whether there were eligible families not using the provision because it wouldn't meet their needs. This will be important for EACs to explore further when engaging with new families, and to reflect on in future monitoring and evaluation activities. Key areas covered include: timings and availability of childcare; location and transport; food; activities; cost of provision; catering to children with ASN; feedback processes and experiences of family support.

Timings and availability of childcare

Timings and availability of childcare varied depending on the provider and type of session on offer. For context, EAC services typically included the following:

• Breakfast clubs usually began at 8am or 8.30am and ran between three and five days a week.
• After school clubs usually ran for between two and three hours, four or five days a week. In line with Care Inspectorate requirements, unregistered providers can only offer two hours of care a day.
• There was more variation in holiday clubs. Some providers could offer 10 or 11 hours a day, while others were limited to two hours (as noted above). Clubs usually ran four or five days a week. There was also a mix in the number of school holiday weeks covered.
• There was limited use of childminders. In Glasgow, some children were referred into the EAC from the Scottish Childminding Association and funded for three hours per day during term time, and up to 10 hours in holidays.

On the whole, the timings of EAC provision met the needs of parents who took part in this research. Covering working hours was a key factor for working parents, who typically needed to pick up children later in the day. Parents also appreciated when there was flexibility in days or times to suit shift patterns or other commitments.

"One thing that works particularly well is the flexibility. I am able to choose three days in the week. It doesn't have to be fixed."

(Glasgow parent)

However, not all parents had access to provision at the times they needed it. One parent mentioned that they did not have a breakfast club available, but they start work before 9am which means their children have to wait outside school until it opens. Other families would have liked to have had more days funded, but this was unavailable due to capacity. Where care was available five days a week, parents of children with ASN highlighted the importance of this to help their children have a consistent routine and structure to their week. One parent who worked shifts outside office hours had raised EAC timings as an issue.

Location and transport

Childcare was either located in a school or a provider's own premises, both of which met the needs of parents. Pros and cons were mentioned to having provision located in a school. On the one hand, this was seen to work well for children, particularly those with ASN, because it is a familiar environment. Another advantage is having access to school facilities, such as gym halls and playgrounds. One headteacher noted that their school had also benefited from sharing resources with the after school club, as they were able to make use of outdoor equipment bought for the EAC. On the other hand, a change of scene was thought to help provision feel less like school, which could help children to feel more relaxed. There was also a view among parents that it was positive for children to have the opportunity to meet children from different schools. From a practical perspective, providers also noted some limitations with being based in schools. This was mainly around not having guaranteed access to their space (clubs had experienced having to move to a different part of the school if other events were going on) and some challenges around storage for equipment.

Where after school provision was not located in schools, organised transport from the school to the provision helped make it accessible for parents as they did not have to leave work to take their child from one location to the other. EACs or providers paid for additional transport services such as buses, taxis or walking buses for children attending school a certain distance away from the after school club or depending on their age or support needs. One local authority transport team had also been able to offer flexibility by dropping off children with ASN (who were eligible for school transport) at the after school provision rather than their home.

In Dundee, EAC funding had been used to offer walking buses in the morning to take children to breakfast clubs in school. That was felt to have worked well for families who might struggle to leave the house, making it more likely for them to attend the clubs, but also to attend school on time. At the same time, there were road safety concerns about children walking between settings. Therefore, one project for children with ASN had introduced taxi provision as a more secure option.

Staff noted, however, that there had been some transport challenges. One EAC described transport as a "precarious" part of their offer because it currently relied on the availability of one staff member to escort children in addition to their usual role as a pupil support assistant. In another area, transport between schools, childcare services, and homes was described as a "logistical and risk management" challenge which needed careful and agile risk assessment. This was due to the high level of communication required between the school, childcare provider and families, particularly if services operate flexibly. However, having an online booking system was felt to help with organising this.

Food

Food was a focus of breakfast clubs, but all providers had some kind of food provision available at after school clubs too, in line with the theory of change and plans set out in initial proposals. This was either a substantial snack or hot meal. Similar types of food were available at holiday clubs, but in greater quantities when longer hours are on offer. Providers tried to strike a balance between children's requests, nutritional guidance and meals that would be popular with most of the group, although this could be challenging.

Project leads and providers highlighted ongoing learning around what works well in terms of food provision. In Clackmannanshire, childcare providers came together to develop a Providers' Charter for School Age Childcare which emphasised that hot meals should be provided where possible (this was not typical across the EACs).

Providers across the EACs generally observed that children were hungry when they arrived at after school club, so it was important to have food on offer straightaway. However, different settings described tailoring their approach to children's needs. For example, one provider put food to one side for a child with ASN who wasn't hungry straight away. Another after school club had initially provided food at a set time, but they found that children were asking for more, so decided to have food available throughout the session. However, the amount of additional food required was an unexpected extra cost. One setting for children with ASN found that it was important to have a set food schedule so that the children knew what to expect.

Children interviewed were generally positive about the food on offer. They particularly enjoyed when food was organised as an activity (e.g. baking or taste tests). Children were usually asked what they would like to have on the menu, which is in line with emphasis on choice in the National Children's Charter for School Age Childcare in Scotland.

Parents were also generally happy with food provision and particularly liked when children got a hot meal provided. Parents appreciated when children were given leftover food to take home with them. However, one parent of a child with ASN noted that they tend not to use the breakfast club because their child is a picky eater, so it is easier for them to eat at home.

"Because it's over tea time, rather than the kids waiting 'til whenever their parents finish [to eat] it would be less stressful when you get home [if they got a meal]."

(Dundee parent)

Activities

Activities at childcare provision included arts and crafts, games and sports, music, films and dressing up. Trips out (e.g. to museums) were sometimes offered at holiday clubs.

It was important to parents that their children enjoyed attending, and for some it was an important aspect of making childcare accessible to them (for example, parents had experienced children being unwilling to attend other childcare settings previously). On the whole, children interviewed reported enjoying the activities on offer and being able to spend time with their friends.

EAC providers reported that children particularly enjoyed spending time outdoors and doing physical activities. Where providers had access to outdoor space in the school-based setting, they tried to use this as much as possible. Despite this, there had been some challenges in providing activities that catered for the full age range, and particularly those that appealed to older children. Some measures that providers had found helpful in addressing this included running separate activities for different ages; providing older children with their own space; and encouraging older children to take on leadership responsibilities with younger children.

While children did, on the whole, enjoy being outdoors and active, providers noted that it was important for them to have alternative options. Children were regularly consulted on what activities they would like to do, and usually had a choice of activities within sessions, in line with the National Children's Charter for School Age Childcare in Scotland. This was particularly important for children who were attending both breakfast and afterschool clubs, which could add up to a lot of time. Having the option of quiet space was seen as particularly important for children with ASN.

Staffing

Friendly and knowledgeable staff emerged as a strong theme when parents considered what was working well for them. This helped parents trust that the service would meet their child's needs, as well as feel able to approach staff with any questions or ask for advice/support. Parents also appreciated receiving feedback from providers about what their child had been doing that day (including if there had been any issues), and how they were getting on in the service.

"They're always welcoming, always ask questions. You don't feel like you're going in just to pick up, they'll have a chat with you."

(Dundee parent)

Staff recruitment and retention was nonetheless a significant challenge for providers. In relation to recruitment, they reported a lack of suitable candidates applying for vacancies. This was particularly true for vacancies requiring experience of ASN and/or trauma, and for breakfast clubs, due to the working hours. Retention of staff had been a challenge when there had been a change to service timings, with not all staff wanting to work additional hours. Wider workforce challenges are discussed further in Chapter 5.

Cost for parents

As intended in project proposals, EAC funding has been used to subsidised childcare places for target families. There has been some variation in how this is implemented.

In most areas, provision is fully funded for eligible families. This is the case in Clackmannanshire, Dundee and Inverclyde. For families who had not been accessing any childcare before attending EAC services, the fact that the childcare was free was important. Some parents said they would not have considered using it if they had to pay. This tended to be based on a perception that childcare was usually unaffordable.

"I don't think we would have had childcare [if we had to pay] because my cousin got quoted for another childcare place but they were wanting like £70 a day and that was for one child. I'd rather just sort something else out or speak to family."

(Dundee parent)

While funded provision was working well, Clackmannanshire noted logistical challenges in providing provision with both funded and paid-for places. For example, there was no mechanism to allow ineligible families to pay for EAC breakfast clubs, when this was requested. More broadly, they highlighted in monitoring reporting that there "is a gap in provision for parents wishing to use their UK funding entitlements [whereby parents can get up to 85% of childcare costs funded by the UK Government], as they are not able to use these for services that are not registered with the Care Inspectorate."

Alternatively, a tiered approach to funding has been implemented in Glasgow. This was done on order to spread the benefit across more families. Therefore, families in Glasgow typically had their childcare places partially funded. Many of these families had previously paid for their childcare so were pleased to receive any funding. However, as noted earlier in this chapter, cost was a barrier to some families using more days.

There had been challenges reported among parents who received partial funding, when they had been required to pay up front and be reimbursed. While this had worked well overall, some parents had difficulty understanding how the funding was calculated, especially if they had received a different amount each month. This could make it difficult to budget and plan how much childcare they could afford.

Some providers were concerned that a change to payment arrangements in future might mean that parents receive funding directly instead of through their provider. Depending on providers' approach to payment, this could lead to them having to chase parents.

Additional support needs

There were different approaches to including children with ASN at EAC services. For example, Inverclyde and Glasgow offer mainstream provision and accommodate children with ASN where possible, while Clackmannanshire and Dundee offer mainstream and specialist ASN provision. Providers therefore had different levels of experience in supporting these children.

For some mainstream providers with less experience, having the skills to support children with ASN had been challenging. In some cases, children had experienced complex trauma which had been "overwhelming" for inexperienced staff to manage.

However, providers were also able to share learning around creating an inclusive service for children with ASN. One provider had overcome initial challenges after receiving support from the local authority to access training, and increasing their staff numbers. In Dundee, a specialist ASN provider had been brought into the EAC to address a perceived initial gap in their services. The provider also gave training to EAC staff which was viewed very positively by those who received it. Training for providers supporting children with mild to moderate ASN was also run in Clackmannanshire. This was felt to have helped foster inclusive environments.

In addition to the training and staffing requirements, staff mentioned steps they had taken during delivery to help support children with ASN and their families. These included taking time to understand children's needs before they join the service, and continuing to do this during provision by spending time building relationships with them. This could help staff better understand what triggers might lead to children becoming upset and work towards reducing them. They also emphasised creating a supportive environment, such as having quiet areas, maintaining familiar spaces, continuity of staff and providing a regular routine. There were also positive experiences of using reward charts to set expectations with children. There were, however, some children whose needs prevented them from being able to attend some of the EAC services. For example, one breakfast club operated in a large hall and was not able to offer any quiet spaces, which some children required.

Families who had children with ASN and who took part in this research were positive about the EAC provision and how it catered to their children's needs. Examples of what worked well included providing children with a choice of activities (but notably for some, including the same activities or regular schedules for those that preferred routine); and having skilled staff who got to know children's needs early on.

Experiences of family support

In order to meet wider family needs, EACs had provided or referred onto a range of further family support, in line with the theory of change. This included: welfare advice, support with benefits applications, employability, school uniforms, food parcels, advice on running a household, and support relating to general family wellbeing.

Family support offers were communicated to families in a range of ways, including: on the EAC application form; verbally during the registration process; door knocking by EAC project staff; at family events; on family feedback forms; and ad hoc when EAC project staff/providers have conversations with families.

Some childcare providers offer family support directly, for example, in Clackmannanshire, Community House Alloa supports families with parenting guidance, and Hawkhill Community Centre has a community shop and other services. However, other providers felt that family support was outwith the scope of their service but were happy to refer onto other services.

Parents interviewed had generally not accessed family support. This was either because they were not aware of it or did not feel they needed support. However, one parent interviewed in Inverclyde had taken up a referral for a benefits check. They recalled thinking that they would not be entitled to anything because they were working full-time, but as a result of the support they were able to maximise their income through accessing the Scottish Child Payment.

Similar to other elements of service delivery, the success of family support was seen as dependent on EAC project staff and providers building relationships with families. Positive relationships came out as particularly important for engaging with working parents who assume they are not entitled to financial support and may need additional encouragement.

Capacity was another factor in providing family support services. Three EACs employed a family support worker(s) (also known as family wellbeing workers) who play a key role in developing referral pathways with support services, identifying family needs, and signposting them to relevant services. They also have a role in designing EACs services, promoting the project, supporting applications, and gathering feedback (each of which is discussed in more detail in the relevant sections of this report). Their focus on family support also means the project leads can spend more time on other tasks. One project representative emphasised the importance of having staff funded to deliver family support.

"…every time I touch base with families […] something else comes up, and you go like, 'well, we could work that in, we could try it' […] But that won't happen unless you have these conversations, and they don't happen unless you've got staff in place to do it. It would just be childcare, which is fine, it will reduce stress and improve wellbeing, but not permanently."

(Inverclyde representative)

However, capacity could also be a limitation to providing support, particularly among the services EAC staff refer into.

Where family support was organised as part of community events, this was felt to have been successful in engaging families and reducing stigma. For example, in Dundee there are weekly drop-in events held on Thursday evenings, with various support services attending. However, the focus is mainly on creating an enjoyable evening, with food, activities for children, and the opportunity for parents to socialise. This helped services to get to know families gradually and build up trust, making it more likely for them to engage with further support.

Success of family support was supported by effective communication between partners, increasing stakeholder awareness of support services and knowledge of where to direct families. For example, in Dundee the family support worker works in close partnership with Child Poverty Pathfinder family support workers. In Dundee, the EAC family support worker was also based in a school. This was felt to help parents feel comfortable coming to them for support because they already trust the school.

"I think parents feel comfortable that [the EAC family support worker] is based in [in the school], so they almost see her as though she is a member of staff [at the school], although I have made it very clear the way her job works. They feel safe and comfortable because they are safe and comfortable coming to [the school]."

(Dundee stakeholder)

In some areas, take up of family support had not been as high as hoped. To address this, in Inverclyde, the family support worker and welfare/benefits advice team had worked together to create a "more robust pathway" to encourage parents to take up support. Referrals now involve joint conversations between the family support worker, benefits/advice worker and the parent. The welfare/benefits team also provides quicker feedback to the EAC about whether parents engaged with the service. The project was also considering making an appointment with the service compulsory as part of registering for EAC services. They felt this would help ensure families are not missing out on support and enable the service to collect baseline data to measure the impact of the EAC. The partner will also be moving to a new referral system which will allow them to customise the information requested from clients, so they don't have to repeat themselves if they have already provided this when applying for childcare. In Glasgow, they have recently added a QR code to the EAC application form linking families to sources of family support upfront.

In terms of challenges for stakeholders in delivering family support, one project lead highlighted that some families "expect an awful lot" from the EAC and that staff had to learn how to manage expectations.