160 likes | 369 Views
A RCT evaluation of The Letterbox Club in Northern Ireland. Dr Karen Winter and Jennifer Mooney k.winter@qub.ac.uk jmooney06@qub.ac.uk. Context. Poor educational outcomes Measures: attendance rates; suspensions; exclusions; attainment in tests, exams and formal qualifications
E N D
A RCT evaluation of The Letterbox Club in Northern Ireland Dr Karen Winter and Jennifer Mooney k.winter@qub.ac.uk jmooney06@qub.ac.uk
Context • Poor educational outcomes • Measures: attendance rates; suspensions; exclusions; attainment in tests, exams and formal qualifications • Contributory factors: interplay of individual child; familial and care related characteristics • Disability; abuse; trauma; physical/emotional ill health; poor familial relationships; multiple transitions; poor attachment; stigma; labelling; lack of support for carers
Initiatives • Legislation • Policy and practice initiatives • Macro level - structures and processes • Micro level – direct to child interventions • Concern with evidence, what works, cost effectiveness
The Letterbox Club • Once monthly parcel for 6 months • May to October • Books, stationery, number games • Addressed to the child • Personalised letter • Interest level, not ability level • Aims • www.letterboxclub.org.uk
Available research • Letterbox Club began 2002 • 2003-2006 pilot work • 2007 – national pilot funded by government • 2008; 2010 evaluations by programme designers in England and Northern Ireland • Gains in reading and number skills • 2011 independent evaluation data in Northern Ireland – gains reported • www.qub.ac.uk/cee
The gap Can the gains in reading and number skills be attributed directly to the Letterbox Club intervention?
The gap Comparison using standardised scores - limits Importance of control group – identical, random allocation, evenly balanced, variations accounted for Essential if we are serious about addressing inequality Next slides consider 3 elements to study design: the RCT, logic model and the process evaluation.
Mismatch between inputs and anticipated outcomes? Logic model • Does not account for previous research around reading • Assumes a linear movement • Hinges on feelings of ownership • Assumes children do not have access to materials • Middle class deficit view of children in care
The RCT study Current study
RCT study participants Flow chart
Data collected Logic model Measures • Neale Analysis of reading ability • Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (Garfield) Other data • Age • Gender • Type of placement • Trust area • Placement moves • Carer information • Length of time in care • Siblings/ foster siblings • Letterbox fun days
RCT challenges • Attitudes • Ethics • Collaborators • Fieldworkers • Results • Responses to results
Process evaluation Logic model • Interviews foster children and their carers • Exploring: • what actually happens at time of receipt of the parcel; • engagement with parcels; • views on parcel content; • and ongoing support with the materials.
The Future Logic model • Further Studies- nurture groups and school based interventions • Collaborations- with colleagues in Canada and REES centre (Oxford) • Development of the programme Many Thanks!