Service and practice models

How services are organised can directly influence the children and families receiving those services and failures can have devasting consequences

We will be looking primarily at innovative, often muti-agency service and practice models. We will particularly focus on early intervention and prevention to better understand how local areas can introduce ‘whole system’ or place-based approaches to identifying and resolving problems at the earliest opportunity.  

What do we already know?

We know that how services are organised can directly influence the children and families receiving those services. At present, there is huge variation in how services are delivered across the 152 local authority areas responsible for supporting vulnerable children in England. We  need to better understand which approaches are effective.  

What more do we need to know?

Multi agency or ‘system-wide’ service and practice models are very difficult to evaluate and currently little is known about which models work best. We will generate new knowledge about what works best in terms of structuring multi-agency and multi-disciplinary support for children and families and assess which of the many variables are linked to improved outcomes.

What are we doing about it?

We are running evaluations of multi-agency and multi-disciplinary services including Multi Agency Safeguarding hubs and three promising models in Children’s Social care (Family Safeguarding, Family Valued and No Wrong Door). We will work with Government to identify the implications of the findings of these studies for policy and what should be funded or rolled out.    

We will work with local services and areas to share what we learn and what this means for them and the children they are supporting. Where possible, we will also create tools and frameworks to guide local areas in how best to design their services. For example, we will work closely with the National Centre for Family Hubs to reach out to the network of local areas developing family hubs, disseminating learning about service and practice models.   See here for more details on the Family Hub Framework

Involving families in reducing parental conflict (RPC) service planning

Use of evidence-based tools and guidance in service design and commissioning

Tools

Useful guides, templates and other resources for you to use

Understanding police involvement in responding to conflict between parents

Enablers for involving children and families in reducing parental conflict service planning

Latest News

Read our latest news and blogs

News

April 22, 2025

Coming soon: New, updated Foundations Guidebook

Blog

January 31, 2024

For the NHS, data saves lives, in the children’s sector, data is an afterthought

Keep Up to Date

Sign up to receive our newsletter for the latest news, events and research from from Foundations

You can unsubscribe at any time by clicking the link in the footer of our emails. For information on how we process your personal data please review our privacy policy.

Cost ratings:

This rating is based on information that programme providers have supplied about the components and requirements of their programme. Based on this information, EIF rates programmes on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates the least resource-intensive programmes and 5 the most resource-intensive. 

1: A rating of 1 indicates that a programmes has a low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

2: A rating of 2 indicates that a programme has a medium-low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.

3: A rating of 3 indicates that a programme has a medium cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.

4: A rating of 4 indicates that a programme has a medium-high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.

5: A rating of 5 indicates that a programme has a high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.

Child Outcomes:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Evidence ratings:

The evidence ratings distinguish five levels of strength of evidence. This is not a rating of the scale of impact but of the degree to which a programme has been shown to have a positive, causal impact on specific child outcomes.

Level 2: Recognises programmes with preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome, but where an assumption of causal impact cannot be drawn.

Level 2+: The programme will have observed a significant positive child outcome in an evaluation meeting all of the criteria for a level 2 evaluation, but also involving a treatment and comparison group. There is baseline equivalence between the treatment and comparison‐group participants on key demographic variables of interest to the study and baseline measures of outcomes (when feasible).

Level 3: Recognises programmes with evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous evaluation – that is, where a judgment about causality can be made.

Level 3+: The programme will have obtained evidence of a significant positive child outcome through an efficacy study, but may also have additional consistent positive evidence from other evaluations (occurring under ideal circumstances or real world settings) that do not meet this criteria, thus keeping it from receiving an assessment of 4 or higher.

Level 4: Recognises programmes with evidence of a long-term positive impact through multiple rigorous evaluations. At least one of these studies must have evidence of improving a child outcome lasting a year or longer.