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

9 Conclusions and recommendations

The Scottish Government’s vision is for holistic family support, with early intervention and prevention at its core, to be readily available to families that need it. Whole Family Wellbeing Funding (WFWF) was established to help support whole systems, transformational change.

The Year 2 evaluation shows varied achievement of the different outcomes outlined in the WFWF logic model (shown in Table 3 below). CSPPs prioritised availability and access and child- and family-centred service design, with outcomes related to these core components often being partly achieved. There was less achievement of the outcomes in the whole systems approach and leadership, workforce, and culture core components. Strategic leads argued that these outcomes need more time to emerge and are harder to measure, as they are more conceptual and depend on some degree of achievement of outcomes in other core components first. Overall, the evaluation’s evidence suggests that many WFWF outcomes showed some achievement, but the extent of achievement varied between CSPPs. While the evidence was largely inconclusive for some of the outcomes, there was no evidence captured by the evaluation of these outcomes worsening. There were also no outcomes assessed as having not been achieved.

To draw these conclusions, assessment of the level of achievement of each outcome formed the basis of the analysis. Once all of the evidence was assembled (case study qualitative data and WFWF reports from 22 CSPPs), IFF assessed the extent to which the outcomes in the WFWF logic model had been achieved. All evidence was assessed using a critical review process by the IFF evaluation team for each CSPP, against each outcome.

The evaluation team also assessed the strength of the evidence base for each outcome, for each CSPP. This was done to provide a judgement on the strength of the data available to evidence the extent to which outcomes were (or were not) achieved.

The final stage of the assessment process involved a workshop where the evaluation team reviewed and discussed each outcome in terms of the extent of achievement and strength of evidence across the WFWF programme. This process determined the overall, evidence-based assessment about whether each outcome was ‘achieved’, ‘partly achieved’, ‘not achieved’, or whether the assessment of achievement was ‘inconclusive’ (see Section 2 for the full description of the method).

Conclusions and recommendations related to each evaluation aim are discussed below.

Understand how CSPPs continue to use their WFWF allocation

Most CSPPs continued to deliver on their Element 1 initial funding plans, though evidence from Year 2 shows a greater focus on delivery and monitoring progress following exploration and set-up activity in Year 1. Meanwhile, Element 3 projects were in the early stages of delivery, focussing on design and set-up.

Some CSPPs underspent their Element 1 allocation in Year 1. The funding’s flexible conditions enabled some areas to carry over funds from Year 1 to Year 2 where they felt it was appropriate based on the local situation and plans. For example, where they were still establishing governance processes and co-production groups with children, young people and families. Other CSPPs experienced barriers to funding spend, including recruiting new staff and finding appropriate locations to deliver support.

Some CSPPs were also mindful about planning beyond the end of WFWF. This resulted in them taking more time to thoroughly explore and plan activities to ensure sustainability was built-in to delivery plans.

CSPPs welcomed Scottish Government support, particularly the newsletters, networking groups and having a dedicated and responsive contact at Scottish Government. Yet, CSPP staff capacity to engage with and awareness of these offers limited their ability to fully benefit from it.

Case study CSPPs that accessed Element 2 collaborative partnership support from the National Support Team valued this opportunity to work closely with the Scottish Government. However, CSPPs found balancing Element 2 collaborative partnership support alongside their core roles and integrating this with Element 1 activities had limited progress with some of the Element 2 partnership activities.

Recommendations:

For Scottish Government: Promote professional support for children’s services practitioners and reduce the time commitment for CSPPs to engage with learning developed through the programme (e.g. shorter sessions/outputs). Promote wider use of the KHub for CSPPs to better understand, navigate and tap into available resources and supports. Suggested learning topics, communication and engagement should focus on are: effective delivery of holistic family support; measuring whole-system change; undertaking evidence-based decision making; and promoting financial sustainability of holistic family support beyond the funding period.

For Scottish Government: Continue to work together with CSPPs (where appropriate) to enhance the financial and operational sustainability of their WFWF activities, and plan for long-term spending beyond funding milestones. This support could be integrated into ongoing discussions between Scottish Government WFWF leads and CSPPs, tailored to each CSPP's specific needs and concerns (for example, transitioning from project-based activity to ongoing operations). It could also connect to broader Children's Services Planning discussions and how other funding streams can contribute to sustainability planning.

Outcomes and contributing factors: availability and access

Families typically knew how to access relevant family support when they had already accessed or been referred to universal family support or statutory services. Families’ awareness of support was low if they had not used family support before. Yet, strategic leads and service managers reported more families, and more diverse families, accessed family support than in Year 1. Families with experience of WFWF support who were interviewed also expressed satisfaction with the WFWF support they accessed.

Many CSPPs had initiatives in development or implemented to offer support to families at an early stage, to avoid crises. Most CSPPs could evidence avenues for the whole family to access support, however, waiting list times for some services, limited staff capacity to provide or refer to the right services, and some families choosing not to access services limited take-up.

Recommendations:

For CSPPs: Increasing the visibility of support services can be achieved by improved information sharing across CSPPs. Some examples identified in this evaluation as most effective were online and digital platforms; links to community events or spaces; and clear, visually appealing promotional materials. Promotional materials should clearly outline what the support includes, the level of commitment required, and the potential benefits for families of accessing early help support.

For CSPPs: Where possible, CSPPs should consider how to improve the functionality and alignment of different case management systems across the CSPP. This could include exploring how data about families could be more consistently recorded (including details about individuals and whole families) and how this could be easily shared across partners. This could be achieved through data analysts and data protection officers from across the CSPP meeting to discuss challenges and potential solutions. Good practice examples gathered through this evaluation (e.g. use of the FORT system) should be explored and learning shared across CSPPs.

Outcomes and contributing factors: leadership, workforce and culture

Visible and joined up strategic leadership was consistently highlighted in the evaluation evidence as essential for promoting multi-agency collaboration, enhancing service delivery and encouraging innovation. Compared with Year 1, CSPPs showed some evidence of improved family support capacity, particularly by recruiting new or specialist roles and less duplication of work due to greater partnership collaboration. However, recruitment and retention issues remained across most CSPPs. Ongoing barriers included external factors, such as an ageing workforce and ongoing recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, and a relatively small pool of staff with the required skills and capacity.

CSPPs showed some evidence of greater collaboration in planning and delivery. Key factors contributing to successful collaboration included strategic initiatives that promote joint decision-making, involvement from the third sector, and multi-agency meetings that facilitate effective information sharing. However, the extent of collaboration varied among CSPPs. While progress was made in fostering leadership and teamwork, persistent challenges, such as staffing capacity issues and ongoing siloed operations between partner organisations, hindered further integration.

Recommendations:

For CSPPs and Scottish Government: When possible and appropriate for a local area, strategic leads and managers should consider how to address recruitment priorities by applying useful lessons learned from other CSPPs. This could include aligning WFWF with additional funding sources. If the specific examples of good practice provided in this evaluation are not feasible, consider, where appropriate, alternatives like secondments or job sharing within or across neighbouring CSPPs (ensuring this does not negatively impact other CSPPs). Future evaluations should also look to explore the benefits of values-based recruitment (an approach taken by some case study CSPPs) on recruitment and retention. Recruitment and retention issues are a national problem that extends beyond the WFWF. As such, there is a need for Scottish Government and CSPPs to work together to seek solutions.

For CSPPs: Prioritise embedding a collaborative culture based on shared values that delivers the principles of holistic family support, particularly within services and organisations that have less flexible or agile working styles. This could be achieved through relationship-based leadership that promotes open communication and mutual understanding. Continue regular multi-agency meetings to align goals and practices around shared local vision for holistic family support, and allocate staff time for training, wellbeing support, and innovation opportunities.

Outcomes and contributing factors: children, young people and families at the centre of service design

CSPPs have enhanced how children, young people, and families engage with and provide feedback on the support they receive. Most feedback was gathered informally, such as through one-on-one conversations, while some CSPPs use online platforms for more advanced monitoring data collection, such as pre/post support assessments. However, there was limited evidence of how this feedback and monitoring data was analysed or used in CSPP-wide service design.

While families often noticed changes in their individual support – like tailored delivery – they were typically unaware of how their feedback and other monitoring data collected, influenced other family support services. More effort was needed by CSPPs to ‘close the feedback loop’, to ensure that family input informs service delivery and that the service is able to demonstrate its impact to these families.

Families who were interviewed reported the support they received was stigma-free and non-judgmental, particularly when interactions with social workers were limited and trusted third sector organisations were involved.

Recommendations:

For CSPPs: CSPPs should continue to establish systems for capturing regular feedback from children, young people and families, and engaging in ongoing consultation with partners across the CSPP to use this feedback to inform transformative family support. Importantly, ensure children, young people, and families can see how their input and feedback influences service design (i.e., ‘closing the feedback loop’). Good practices identified in this evaluation, such as a “you said, we did” approach, should be shared widely among CSPPs to promote learning. By transparently addressing feedback, CSPPs can demonstrate accountability, build trust, and encourage ongoing engagement. This approach ensures that children, young people, and families feel valued and recognise the impact of their voices on decision-making processes.

For Scottish Government: It would be beneficial for the Scottish Government to encourage shared learning amongst CSPPs on monitoring and demonstrating the extent of achieving stigma-free support, as this was a challenge in CSPP annual reports. This may be possible through the Learning into Action network. Shared learning should cover effective methods for using data to assess achievement of this outcome, using both existing evidence and new data collection techniques.

Outcomes and contributing factors: whole systems approach

Generally, strategic leads and managers interviewed found whole systems outcomes were more conceptual and harder to robustly evidence, particularly within the originally intended timescales for WFWF implementation. This was because it requires large-scale (often cultural) change that takes longer to set-up and embed and requires some achievement of outcomes in other WFWF core components first.

While there was evidence that CSPPs analysed, interpreted and used evidence from children, young people, and families to inform individual service delivery, 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. CSPPs had made some changes to support this in the future, including recruiting staff for dedicated data roles and establishing or refining governance groups.

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. 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.

Recommendations:

For Scottish Government: The Scottish Government should consider facilitating shared learning amongst CSPPs on how to measure outcomes related to whole systems approach, as they are more conceptual and harder to robustly evidence. Shared learning should cover effective methods for using data to assess achievement towards outcomes in this WFWF core component, using both existing evidence and new data collection techniques.

For Scottish Government: The Scottish Government could share learning from the CSPPs trialling new ways of commissioning and procuring services (for example, to widen local provider opportunities to be involved in new support, and to commission faster). Discussion with CSPPs about the feasibility of achieving these outcomes within the extended WFWF timescales would also be valuable to understand the implications on potential progress.

For CSPPs: Review how well holistic family support can adapt to the changing needs of families. The more CSPPs can embed a whole systems approach in their thinking and the way they operate, the better they will be at identifying changes to family support needs and operating contexts. To respond to these changes, maintaining flexibility and adaptability within the systems’ operations will be important. Examples of approaches to assess agility include using employee surveys to measure staff comfort with change, risk tolerance and openness to experimentation; leadership assessments to explore how the level of collaboration and empowerment of the workforce; and reviews to identify any processes that could be improved to generate better feedback loops and opportunity to create change.

Monitoring the impact of WFWF support

Achieving some outcomes, and evidencing these, across WFWF core components, was limited by continued CSPP challenges with whole systems monitoring and evidence-based decision making.

Since Year 1, CSPPs continued to establish systems for capturing regular feedback and monitoring data and engaging in ongoing consultation with partners across the CSPP, as well as children, young people, and families, to inform transformative family support. Ongoing barriers continue to exist around effectively using data to inform decision-making and determining the extent of achievement towards outcomes.

Recommendations:

For CSPPs: Continue to gather feedback, monitoring data and evidence to understand and showcase the progress and performance of activities and outcomes related to holistic family support, as well as developing the analytical capacity to interpret and use this data within strategic decision-making. This should include CSPPs considering ways to build capacity for data analysis, for example recruitment of data analysts as needed. This could enable areas to capture and use new evidence of outcomes relevant to their local activities where they have been unable to do so previously.

For Scottish Government: CSPPs would benefit from Scottish Government support to help them understand their current capabilities, and how they could develop their knowledge and skill around data analysis, interpretation and how to use this in decision-making. As this would need to be coordinated across different Scottish Government policies and programmes that are delivered with CSPPs to avoid duplication, this is likely to be beyond the scope of the WFWF programme to directly implement. Support should enable CSPP to adapt, the stage in their monitoring and evaluation journey, their areas of priority, and the most appropriate means of delivering this support (format, timescales, frequency).