Whole Family Wellbeing Funding (WFWF) Programme - year 2: process and impact evaluation - full report

7 Outcomes and contributing factors: whole systems approach

This section explores the extent of achievement of the outcomes intended by the whole systems approach component of WFWF. A whole systems approach is defined within WFWF as systemic and cultural changes in how family services are delivered, with a focus on prevention, early intervention, and holistic support that considers the needs of entire families, not just individual members. A whole systems approach also includes local flexibility within a national framework; services are responsive to local circumstances while maintaining consistency with national wellbeing objectives.

Key findings

• Generally, strategic leads and service managers interviewed found whole systems outcomes more conceptual and harder to robustly evidence. This meant there was limited evidence to demonstrate the achievement of the outcomes under whole systems approach.
• Strategic leads, service managers and frontline practitioners viewed a whole systems approach as difficult to achieve in the intended timescales for WFWF implementation. Interviewees expressed that this was mainly because it requires large-scale (often cultural) change that takes longer to set-up and embed and requires some degree of achievement of outcomes in other core components first.
• Most CSPPs analysed, interpreted and used evidence from children, young people, and families to inform service delivery. However, there were fewer examples of this evidence being used to guide multi-agency and partnership planning at a system-wide level across children’s and adult’s services, beyond individual service design. CSPPs had made some changes to support this in the future, including recruiting staff for dedicated data roles to analyse and interpret evidence across the partnership, and establishing or refining governance groups committed to systematically using this evidence in decision-making.
• Some progress towards aligned family support funding was evidenced, enabled by Third Sector Interface involvement; new commissioning and procurement processes; and multi-agency collaboration.
• There was less evidence that CSPPs set local budgets to invest in planning system change. CSPP budget discussions typically focused on whether to continue WFWF activities based on existing evidence rather than having a whole systems focus. Changes to approaches to commissioning and procuring services were underway, and CSPPs started involving a broader range of partners in decision-making around service commissioning.

Outcome: Strategic leads, service managers and frontline practitioners use analysed evidence from children, young people and families to inform multi-agency and partnership planning and service delivery

This outcome was assessed as being inconclusive, based on interviews with strategic leads, service managers and frontline practitioners, and WFWF templates.

Most CSPPs planned to analyse, interpret and use evidence collected from children, young people, and families to inform service delivery. Frontline practitioners and service managers reported collecting evidence to illustrate family experiences and the impacts of WFWF activities, using both qualitative data from informal discussions and quantitative data from surveys.

However, there were fewer examples of evidence being used to guide multi-agency and partnership planning at a system-wide level across children and adult services, beyond individual service design. Some CSPPs were beginning to implement changes to support this outcome, such as funding a data officer to collate and analyse evidence at the system level. See Section 8 for more details.

Factors enabling the outcome

Increasing local capacity to collect evidence contributed to this outcome. Some case study strategic leads and service managers were optimistic about new data roles designed to enhance capacity for data collection and analysis. Once these individuals are fully inducted on their new roles, these staff will collaborate with frontline practitioners to identify service success measures and streamline data collection across the partnership (see Section 8 for more details). In Fife, they hoped that in the future, the data role would support practitioners to identify and report against success measures that demonstrate progress towards pre-existing frameworks, such as the SHANARRI indicators (see Glossary in Annex 3), a set of eight wellbeing outcomes used in Scotland's Getting it Right for Every Child (GIRFEC) framework. These posts aim to address concerns from WFWF Year 1 about practitioners’ lack of confidence in evidence collection and the collective capacity of partners delivering family support.

New or improved governance groups also contributed to this outcome. Such groups improved collaboration and facilitated the use of evidence in multi-agency planning by creating structures for integrated, system-level thinking (for more information, see outcome ‘CSPPs have clear and shared understanding of families' needs and how services are experienced across the whole system’ in Section 5). Where multi-agency governance groups were established or improved, CSPPs hoped the new ways of working would facilitate the analysis and use of evidence to inform multi-agency partnership planning and service delivery.

Factors limiting the outcome

The main factor limiting this outcome was related to challenges with the sharing of data and analysis across organisations. Case study strategic leads and managers identified two related issues as contributing to this. The lack of streamlined processes, such as misaligned management information systems, and not having data sharing agreements in place to enable sharing was one issue. The lack of agreement on how to share information across the CSPP, what information to share and how frequently this would be shared to ensure most value was a related issue.

“All of our systems don’t speak to each other, that is the challenge. So, we all have data, but it is not shared...or at least not shared so everyone can see it quickly so we can make best use of it.”

Service Manager

Outcome: CSPPs plan to shift towards non-siloed and aligned family support funding that matches scale of need

This outcome was assessed as being partly achieved, based on strong and consistent evidence from interviews with strategic leads and service managers, and WFWF annual reports.

Strategic leads and managers recognised the benefits of joined up funding and said that where funding was aligned, they saw benefits in their ability to deliver early intervention and preventative support for children, young people and families. Examples of non-siloed and aligned working included:

• Creating single points of access for children, young people and family referrals so the right support was identified and offered at the same time (rather than having to go through multiple referral routes to different services). For example, one CSPP established a Request for Assistance service, an online self-referral system for children, young people and families to access support.
• Frontline practitioners working together within schools to identify support needs earlier. For example, nurses in schools in Aberdeen and youth workers in schools in South Lanarkshire.
• Activities linking with educational psychologists and CAMHS to identify emotional and behavioural support needs earlier. For example, the Healthier Minds Hub in East Renfrewshire which provides one-to-one mental health support for children, young people and families. It used WFWF to develop a new post to support neurodivergent individuals, helping them to better meet demand.

These new ways of working were established to identify and address support needs earlier to prevent children, young people and families from reaching crisis point. Non-siloed and aligned budgets were viewed as important to support collaboration across different services so these outcomes could be achieved.

“Our hope is that they’ll tell somebody something once and that’s enough. They don’t have to keep going over the same ground to get the work done.”

Strategic Lead

Factors enabling the outcome

Three factors enabled this outcome, including Third Sector Interface (TSI) involvement, new commissioning and procurement processes, and multi-agency collaboration.

The first factor was TSI involvement. Some CSPPs had commissioned the TSI to understand their local service landscape, as discussed under outcome: ‘CSPPs have clear and shared understanding of families' needs and how services are experienced across the whole system’ (in Section 5). Strategic leads and service managers felt knowing about duplication and support gaps allowed them to make quick, informed changes to financial plans.

The second factor was CSPPs implementing new commissioning and procurement processes. This is also discussed under the outcome ‘Strategic leads set local budgets to invest in planning system change and started to transform commissioning and procurement’ in later in Section 7. Though these were in the early stages of implementation, the updated processes were intended to give CSPPs more control of the aims and operations of the WFWF activities they commission, help them to reduce the duplication of services and shift towards non-siloed and aligned budgets.

The third factor was multi-agency collaborations and joined up approaches with wider partners, including the third sector, which supported non-siloed and aligned working. Key to this was involving wider partners, including the third sector, in strategic and planning meetings about family support. For example, Angus established a hub of key agencies that came together to match children, young people and family support cases with the necessary services. The hub included representatives from the third sector, including the local TSI. These new ways of working encouraged more transparency and information sharing across the CSPP, improving working relationships and preventing organisations from working in siloes.

“Coming from the voluntary sector, we're often the poor relation and it just doesn't feel like that at all. It's very much about, you know, pooling those skills and experience and knowledge and your partnerships, to make the best of that whole service, which is really refreshing.”

Third Sector practitioner

Some CSPPs reported increased collaboration between key partners had wider benefits, including being able to use other funds to complement WFWF activities. For example, in one CSPP the Health and Social Care Partnership invested £100,000 over the same three years of WFWF (before the new investment approach was published in “The Promise Progress Update”, Scottish Government 2024a) to complement the activities being delivered. This additional funding increased the capacity to deliver family services that match the scale of need in local communities.

“What [WFWF has] done is it’s allowed us to work in partnership and actually to leverage other funding opportunities and to make it a bigger pot.”

Strategic Lead

Factors limiting the outcome

The short-term nature of WFWF and wider contextual challenges (for example, financial constraints across CSPPs) caused additional financial pressures on the delivery of early intervention and prevention services, which limited the achievement of this outcome. Frontline practitioners and service managers reported this limited their capacity to focus on aligning funding, even when they saw the benefits of this, because they felt they did not have sufficient time to engage in collaborative activities.

“When you’re putting financial pressure onto individual services… there’s a real tendency to become a bit more siloed in our thinking and approaches.”

Service Manager

Outcomes: Strategic leads set local budgets to invest in planning system change, and started to transform commissioning and procurement

There was insufficient evidence to draw a confident conclusion about the achievement of this outcome, based on interviews with strategic leads and service managers, and WFWF templates.

Budget discussions primarily focused on whether to continue WFWF activities (as originally planned at the start of the programme) based on existing evidence, rather than on how to use the budget for planning system change.

Some CSPPs began to change their approach to commissioning and procuring services, especially from the third sector. This was particularly important as CSPPs reported that they were increasingly outsourcing support (e.g., to the Third Sector), so new commissioning and procurement approaches were essential to ensure that externally commissioned services aligned with WFWF goals. See the Spotlight, below, for more detail.

Additionally, CSPPs started involving broader partners in the decision-making process for service commissioning. One CSPP, for example, included local providers, parents and carers in evaluating service proposals. CSPPs that had started to transform their commissioning and procurement processes hoped the new processes would have multiple benefits. These included:

• Widening the opportunity for smaller, local providers to deliver services. For example, some CSPPs offered funding up-front so that less established third sector organisations could engage with WFWF at lower risk to their financial stability.
• Prioritising the speed of procurement to help CSPPs deliver timely services that meet the needs of children, young people and families (based on experience and impact evidence), by removing barriers in the procurement process where possible.
• Enabling more agile delivery to meet the changing needs of children, young people and families, through suppliers agreeing to an element of flexible delivery once commissioned. This aimed to reduce the time taken to adapt support as it does not require services to be retendered to meet changing local needs.

Strategic leads believed that the new processes and approaches had increased awareness of the services being commissioned across the partnership, helping to align budgets and reduce duplication.

Figure 13 CSPP Spotlight: East Ayrshire

New processes for commissioning and procuring services have been implemented to increase flexibility in service delivery.

East Ayrshire transformed their local commissioning framework. They opened opportunities to local providers, as well as larger national providers, to deliver services. This new approach intends to speed up the commissioning of services and increase service capacity so the CSPP can be more responsive to the needs of children, young people and families.

“[The new commissioning] framework... widens the opportunity for local providers to become involved as well as the big nationals [so] when we need to be more responsive we can commission much more quickly.”

Strategic Lead

Factors enabling the outcome

Factors enabling this outcome are hard to identify due to limited evidence of achievement so far. Case study strategic leads and managers noted that achieving other contributing outcomes was necessary to progress with investing in system change. These outcomes included increased collaboration (see Section 5), developing a shared understanding of families' needs (see Section 5), and the sharing of evidence from children, young people, and families across organisations. For instance, adapting existing operational processes focussed on monitoring service delivery required support from senior leaders willing to embrace change and foster collaborative forums and relationships to engage partners across the CSPP.

Factors limiting the outcome

Factors limiting CSPP transformation of commissioning and procurement processes included:

• Funding delays: Organisations faced delays in receiving funding for commissioned services, often requiring them to provide services upfront, which limited participation to larger organisations capable of absorbing costs.
• Recruitment processes: Service managers noted that the lengthy process of advertising, interviewing, and hiring the necessary staff posed challenges, even when efforts were made to expedite commissioning.
• Third sector practices: Competitive third sector commissioning practices slowed progress toward transformation plans. These practices, often organised through specific channels, conflicted with WFWF allocation, leading to confusion about priorities and concerns about insufficient funding for required work.
• Commissioning cycle limitations: Many third sector organisations operated within rigid commissioning cycles, reducing their control over financial resources and limiting the pace at which they could engage with WFWF.
• Alignment issues: Some CSPPs encountered difficulties aligning with third sector organisations, leading to ongoing discussions about collaboration. Third sector partners felt that, although their delivery aligned with WFWF aims, the increased administrative burden required to demonstrate this was a significant challenge.

“We must show our goals align with WFWF aims, which can be challenging. I am confident they are, but we seem to have conversations going round and round to show that.”

Service Manager (Third Sector)