Page 1

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

Realist Evaluation of Lancashire Children's Fund

Final Report

May 2006

Mansoor A F Kazi, Jenny Eades and Martin Manby

Mansoor A F Kazi, PhD, is Research Associate Professor & Director of the Program Evaluation Centre,

School of Social Work, University at Buffalo (The State University of New York).

Jenny Eades is Research Officer for the Evaluation Team.

Martin Manby is Director of the Nationwide Children's Research Centre (NCRC), Huddersfield.

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

Brian Jackson House

New North Parade

Huddersfield

HD1 5JP

Tel:

01484 415461

Fax:

01484 435150

E-mail:

m.manby@hud.ac.uk

Website:

www.ncrcuk.org.uk

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

2

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the children, young people, parents and project workers who have participated in this evaluation.

Our thanks also to Lancashire Children's Fund Programme Manager, Jo Humphries and her predecessor, Mike Cooper; to

Programme Development Officers, Mohammed Sarfraz and Talha Wadee; and to the rest of the Lancashire Children’s Fund

Team for their co-operation and to Anne Robbins, who helped to produce the report as well as to Johanna Metsala and Pia

Toivonen, Social Workers from Korso in Finland, for their working visit as research assistants with the evaluation team

Mansoor Kazi

Jenny Eades

Martin Manby

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

3

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Page 5

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL REPORT

10

National Developments

10

Lancashire Children's Fund (including Key Scheme Milestones)

12

Every Child Matters and Migration towards Children's Trusts

14

Recent Strategic Developments

15

SECTION 2

INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION

18

Methodology

19

Context of the Evaluation

20

Difficulties and Challenges of Implementing the Evaluation

Literature Review

Other Children's Fund Evaluations

20

22

30

SECTION 3

EVALUATION FINDINGS LINKED TO EVERY CHILD MATTERS OUTCOMES

36

Be Healthy:

• Projects

37

• Main Findings

37

Stay Safe:

• Projects

39

• Main Findings

39

Enjoy & Achieve:

• Projects

39

• Main Findings

41

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

4

Make a Positive Contribution:

• Projects

42

• Main Findings

43

Achieve Economic Well-Being:

• Main Findings

44

SECTION 4

SECTION 5

NOTES ON PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS AND COSTS

COMMISSIONING, MAINSTREAMING AND REPLICATION

45

48

SECTION 6 CONCLUSIONS

68

REFERENCES

70

APPENDICES:

74

Appendix 1: A table comparing Every Child Matters Outcomes and Children's

Fund Objectives

Appendix 1

Appendix 2: Templates describing services and summarising findings for 68

Projects

Appendix 3: Matrix Analysing Characteristics of 68 projects

Appendix 2

Appendix 3

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Background

(i)

NCH took the role of lead agency for Lancashire Children's Fund (LCF) in July 2002. The Children's Fund represents a

major plank in the Government's Preventative Strategy, aiming to address gaps in preventative health and social care

provision for children aged 5-13.

(ii)

LCF developed a multi-million pound investment strategy based on wide-ranging consultation across the county with

children, young people, families and service providers.

(iii)

By 2003 LCF had funded 170 projects including new initiatives for children from ethnic minorities, children with disabilities,

transient children and children in rural areas. Funding, and the scale of LCF provision, was significantly reduced in March

2004. The Programme has now been extended to 2008 on a tapered basis.

(iv) This evaluation report has taken account of the Draft Plan for Children and Young People in Lancashire, the Lancashire

Children and Young People's Charter, consultation documents on supporting parents and families, and on engaging children

and young people, and Lancashire Partnership's Local Area Agreements, all of which have been produced during the same

time period.

Evaluation

(v)

Birmingham University is leading the National Evaluation of the Children's Fund. Local evaluators for LCF (the Nationwide

Children's Research Centre - NCRC - and the University of Huddersfield) were appointed from January 2003, measuring

projects against Children's Fund Objectives, which were later subsumed within the five Outcomes for children's services

identified in Every Child Matters (2003). Successful projects could be eligible for mainstream funding from Children's Trusts

which would be developed to provide integrated children's services in the period 2006/08.

(vi) Lancashire County Council published its own Preventative Strategy in 2004 aiming to re-position services to focus on early

intervention and on tackling social exclusion. Lancashire Partnership published Local Area Agreements early in 2006 which

included targeting improved school attendance, attainment at age 14 for under-achieving groups, targeting reductions in first-

time offenders and anti-social behaviour, and targets to increase the percentage of Lancashire Schools with National

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

6

Healthy Schools status. Lancashire County Council has produced consultation documents on Supporting Parents and

Families, and on Engaging Children and Young People and also a Plan for Children and Young People (Consultation Draft

December 2005). These initiatives have the potential to assist mainstreaming of effective LCF projects.

(vii) The local evaluation has been based on a Realist Evaluation approach designed to integrate reliable outcome measures

relevant to project objectives. SPSS databases were installed in some 47 projects to assist monitoring and data analysis.

(viii) Most projects have made good progress with developing their evaluations, although some have experienced problems in

accessing school or crime data. Evaluation had to be discontinued for a number of projects when funding was reduced in

March 2004.

Literature Review

(ix)

A Literature review has been completed reviewing evidence about family support, parenting and nurturing programmes, and

evidence about school-based initiatives including the impact of Learning Mentors, reading groups, breakfast clubs and

initiatives to raise children's self-esteem and to tackle truancy. Out of school projects, summer holiday programmes and

targeted interventions directed to supporting children at risk of becoming involved in crime have also been reviewed. This

evidence provides valuable background information for the evaluation of Lancashire Children's Fund projects.

Other Children's Fund Evaluations

(x)

Further useful context has been provided by a review of local evaluation reports on the National Evaluation of the Children's

Fund (NECF) website. Lancashire Children's Fund is one of a small number that has succeeded in collecting "hard"

outcome data, which has tended to prove difficult, particularly for small, non-statutory organisations supported by local

Children's Funds. Lancashire Children's Fund is also one of a number that has had some success in recruiting and training

volunteers to support projects.

Project Characteristics

(xi)

This Report contains templates summarising objectives, processes and findings for 68 projects.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

7

(xii)

Out of sixty-eight (68) projects where evaluation data has been collected, 45 (two-thirds or 66%) have been allocated

positive intervention scores. Eighteen (18) achieved the highest evaluation score of 3 and twenty-seven (27) received an

evaluation score of 2. More than half of the projects are within the Enjoy and Achieve category; a quarter relate to Be

Healthy; and there are a smaller group of projects focusing on Make a Positive Contribution, most concentrating on

improving Law Abiding and Positive Behaviour. Enjoy and Achieve projects able to measure school attendance and

attainment produced more definitive results than projects focusing on sport or recreation.

(xiii) A much higher proportion of projects were community-based rather than school-based. Thirty-seven (37) projects were

located in the statutory sector and thirty-one (31) projects in the voluntary sector. The proportion of statutory and voluntary

sector projects receiving positive evaluation scores was the same. Statutory sector projects made more use of hard data

than voluntary sector projects.

(xiv) Unit costs varied widely across all projects. The mean unit cost per child per quarter across all projects was round about

£300. Unit costs were higher for projects which received the highest evaluation score (3) than for other projects.

(xv) Factors associated with successful projects included: clear objectives and programme design; positive leadership;

professionalism and stability of workers; ability to work with partners and other agencies; involving participants in significant

learning, creative experiences and change of attitudes; and involvement of parents in programmes targeted at children with

difficulties.

Every Child Matters Outcomes

(xvi) Projects focusing on Be Healthy and Stay Safe issues have been able to demonstrate positive impacts across a wide range

of outcomes including children's behaviour, diet, life-styles, emotional well-being and accident awareness.

(xvii) School-based projects have been successful in demonstrating positive impacts on children's school attendance and

attainment, the latter evidenced by improved results in numeracy and literacy tests, including reading accuracy and

comprehension.

(xviii) Community-based family support programmes have been successful in improving children's school attendance and

behaviour. There are examples of both school and community-based projects being able to demonstrate positive results for

children in lone-parent families and in families receiving Social Security benefits.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

8

(xix) A wide range of Enjoy and Achieve projects have demonstrated positive results through providing out of school activities

including homework projects, supporting fathers and encouraging sporting and cultural activities.

(xx) LCF has invested in both large and small-scale crime prevention projects which have been able to provide clear evidence of

reductions in police involvement or offending behaviour by young people.

(xxi) Projects targeted at Ethnic Minority Children, Children with Disabilities and Rural Children have produced mainly positive

results.

Overview

(xxii) Most projects continuing to be funded and evaluated by LCF appear to provide good, and in some cases excellent, value for

money.

(xxiii) LCF has been able to invest in some innovative and comparatively high cost projects, such as the Lancashire County

Council Educational Psychology Service, Nurture Groups (PR/HY20, HY169 and PE170) and the Lancashire Youth

Offending Team, GRIP (MA48), with positive results.

(xxiv) Detailed unit cost and outcome data is available to assist decision-making about continuation of funding or future

mainstreaming of LCF projects in line with Every Child Matters Outcomes.

Commissioning, Mainstreaming and Replication

(xxv) This section of the report analyses project outcomes according to the Every Child Matters themes.

(xxvi) In relation to "Be Healthy" a case is made for replicating After School Clubs based on the Community Food Project (BU13),

the Grow and Sow Project (PE/EM152) and the Lancashire Healthy Schools Project (PE132). Mainstreaming learning from

the Nurture Groups (PR/HY20, HY169, and PE170) and the development of therapeutic services similar to the Coastal Child

and Adolescent Therapeutic Service (WY15) is also recommended. A strategic gap has been identified in relation to the

provision of school-based counselling services to improve children's emotional well-being.

(xxvii) In relation to "Stay Safe" it is recommended that funding should be identified to mainstream teaching packs on accident

awareness for schools across the county, based on the Child Accident Prevention and Safety Scheme (PR179).

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

9

(xxviii) In relation to "Enjoy and Achieve" learning from Hyndburn Park Primary School (HY/DI124) about speech development and

reading skills can be mainstreamed to schools with high Pakistani pupil numbers; Learning Mentors have achieved

successful outcomes linked to the provision of Breakfast Clubs and out of school activities; they should have a direct role in

supporting families, be integrated with school staff and have good links with external agencies (WL27 and WL/DI119). The

Pendle Pakistan Welfare Association project (PE65) has had positive experiences from Homework Clubs which merit

replication.

(xxix) The family support model using trained volunteers developed by Blackburn Diocesan Board for Social Responsibility

(PE149) also merits replication. Preston Parenting Project (PR161) has proved very successful in providing intensive

support for families and a "ladder of opportunities" for parental involvement. A strategic gap has been identified for county-

wide development of parenting education programmes, improving parents' self-confidence and helping them deal with

problem behaviour.

(xxx) Lancashire Children's Fund has also developed a number of successful examples of youth programmes and sports and

holiday activity programmes, many of which merit replication.

(xxxi) Barnardo's Inclusion of Children with Disabilities Programme (MA/DI43), Preston City Council's Inclusive Activities for

Children with Disabilities (PR/DI51) and Lord's House Farm (HY/PE/DI140) have all been successful in supporting disabled

children and their families.

(xxxii) In relation to "Make a Positive Contribution" evidence from GRIP (MA48) has confirmed reduced levels of offending and

reduced risks of offending for most children, and funding is being continued by LCF and Lancashire Youth Offending Team.

A number of other projects including Groundwork (PE111), Wyre Housing Dream Schemes (RC/WY67+RC/WY155) led by

volunteers, and Lancaster City Council Community Youth Sport Development Project (LA108) have provided positive

evidence about supporting young people, which merit mainstreaming. East Lancashire Deaf Society (MA/DI84) is providing

individual support and Homework Clubs for deaf children and an extensive programme of British Sign Language signing

courses in local schools, within the same Every Child Matters theme.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

10

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL REPORT

This introduction describes the national context of the Children's Fund and the objectives and target groups identified in

Lancashire. Every Child Matters has provided the framework for the development of integrated Children's Services and the

establishment of Children's Trusts as well as introducing new outcomes to be set alongside Children's Fund Objectives. The

evaluation has provided a wealth of data to inform investments in effective interventions for children and families.

National Developments

1.1 The Children's Fund is part of the Government's strategy to tackle child poverty and social exclusion. The Fund aims to

address the gap in preventative health and social care measures for children aged 5-13 by providing more and better co-

ordinated services. The Children's Fund is a transitional and experimental programme with the capacity to inform future

investment in Children's Services in order to promote optimal outcomes for children, young people and families.

1.2 The Children's Fund was introduced in response to the publication of the Social Exclusion Unit's Policy Action Team 12 on

young people (PAT12). The report argued that early identification of children and families at risk of running into severe

difficulties could be helped by the implementation of effective service interventions designed to improve children's long-term

prospects. Most Children's Fund resources are aimed at preventative work with children and their families helping them

before they reach crisis point. The Fund is intended to "provide a flexible and responsive approach to meeting needs and

developing good practice for services for vulnerable children, supporting them and their families in breaking the cycle of

poverty and disadvantage". In particular the Fund aims to set "children and young people on pathways of participation in

society rather than on trajectories of social exclusion" (DFES 2004 Developing collaboration in preventative services for

children and young people - the National Evaluation of the Children's Fund, First Annual Report 2003). The Fund has

sought to act as a lever to influence the way services are focused around prevention, partnership working and the

involvement of children and young people in their delivery.

1.3 The Children's Fund has been developed alongside a range of complementary initiatives including Sure Start, On Track,

Integrated Youth Offending Services, Connexions, Children's and Young People's Strategic Partnerships, Education Action

Zones and Extended Schools. Reference should also be made to Behaviour Improvement Programmes, improvements in

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

11

services for Looked After Children, Healthy Schools Initiatives, Community Safety Strategies and new investment

opportunities through, for example, Neighbourhood Renewal Strategies (NRS) and the Single Regeneration Budget (SRB).

1.4 Children's Fund strategic objectives include promotion of inter-agency partnership working to improve public accessibility to

services and empowerment of children and families to decide on relevant interventions and solutions. Over-arching

Children's Fund Objectives are to ensure:

• an agreed programme of effective interventions in each area, to pick up on early signs of difficulties, identify needs and

introduce children, young people and their families to appropriate services; and

• that children and young people who have experienced early signs of difficulties receive appropriate services in order to

gain maximum life chance benefits from education opportunities, health care and social care, emphasising informal and

self-referral and empowerment strategies for children, young people, families and communities. (From Annexe D,

Children's Fund Part 1 Guidance - adapted).

1.5 In order to set a clear pathway towards achieving these over-arching objectives seven specific sub-objectives were specified

i.e.

• promoting school attendance;

• achieving improved educational performance;

• ensuring fewer young people commit crimes and fewer children are victims of crime;

• reducing child health inequalities;

• developing services that are accessible and which tackle social exclusion;

• developing services which are experienced as effective;

• involving families in building community capacity to create pathways out of poverty (sustainability).

1.6 The National Evaluation of Children's Fund (University of Birmingham) has produced reports on the role of Partnership

Boards, and on participation strategies including benefits for children and young people to increase political engagement,

citizenship and social inclusion. The NECF produced a Summary of Emerging Findings from local evaluation reports in the

autumn of 2005. NECF has also completed case studies reporting on Children's Fund Partnerships and exploring the

impact of local Children's Funds on the development of inter-agency practice.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

12

Lancashire Children's Fund (including Key Scheme Milestones)

1.7 Lancashire Children's Fund Partnership, covering one of the largest areas in the country, has overseen a multi-million pound

investment programme funding over 170 projects. The county-wide Partnership comprises voluntary, community, faith and

statutory sector representatives that provide services for children and families. The Partnership appointed a Programme

Manager and support staff in 2001/02. External evaluators (Nationwide Children's Research Centre and the University of

Huddersfield) were appointed in January 2003.

1.8 Lancashire's strategy has been to encourage projects meeting Children's Fund Objectives to apply for funding from the 41

wards ranked in the top 10% in England according to the Index of Multiple Deprivation (30 wards) or ranked in the top 10%

according to the Child Deprivation Index (11 wards). These wards were mainly in Pendle, Wyre, Burnley, Hyndburn, West

Lancashire, Preston and Lancaster. Encouragement was also given to projects in rural areas where families could

experience difficulties in accessing services. Following national guidelines, part of the available funding was directed

towards high need groups including:

• traveller families

• minority ethnic communities

• children with disabilities

• highly mobile (transient) children and young people and their families

• young carers

Opportunities to bid for funding were widely advertised across the county in September 2002.

1.9 LCF’s impressive promotional activity included consultation with Primary School and Year 7 children and young people and

county-wide consultation with parents and families about perceived needs and gaps in services. As well, a detailed audit of

existing services was carried out in District Council areas across the county including analyses of educational attainment,

authorised and unauthorised absences and fixed-term and permanent exclusion from schools.

• LCF was a first wave Children’s Fund and was originally scheduled to run from April 2001-March 2004.

• The LCF Plan was approved by the relevant Government department in November 2001.

• Phase 1 of grant allocation resulted in 25 services being commissioned across the county, also in November 2001.

• A further 77 services were commissioned in April 2002 as Phase 2 projects.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

13

• LCF also received additional funding under the Street Crime Initiative in May 2002. A total of £850,000 was allocated for

years 2002/3 and 2003/4.

• In the summer of 2002 the Youth Justice Board (YJB) and the Children and Young People’s Unit (CYPU) decided that

25% of Children's Fund programmes' budgets should be used in partnership with the Lancashire Youth Offending Team

to achieve services selected from a menu provided by the YJB. As a result a number of LCF projects have been funded

through cross selection.

• NCH assumed responsibility for lead agency status for LCF in July 2002, from Lancashire County Council.

• NCH assumed responsibility for the accountable body status for LCF in October 2002, from Lancashire County Council.

• 68 Phase 3 projects were approved by the Partnership in April 2003.

• At its highest point, LCF had a funded portfolio of 176 projects.

• All Phase 1 & 2 projects were reviewed in October 2003 and as a result 40 of these projects received some level of

funding during 2004/5.

• Due to reduced funding from the CYPU and the identification of less successful projects, 48 projects had funding stopped

in March 2004.

• By 1 April 2005 the total number of commissioned projects still live stood at 89.

• When the Government announced the Children's Fund, it was planned for three years, to April 2004. Since then further

extensions have been announced and the current end date is March 2008.

• A major review of all funded projects by an external consultant was undertaken in the summer 2005 to allocate funding

for years 2006/7 and 2007/8

• The table below shows the level of funding drawn down from the Government Office North West by year:

Year

Grant Allocated (£)

2001/02

280,669

2002/03

2,786,924

2003/04

7,230,578

2004/05

4,264,704

2005/06

3,620,287

Planned 2006/07

3,219,289

Planned 2007/08

3,158,639

Total

24,561,090

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

14

Every Child Matters and Migration towards Children's Trusts

1.10 Evaluation of LCF projects started in January 2003 measuring progress against the seven Children's Fund Objectives. The

publication of Every Child Matters in September 2003 provided an important landmark for the future development of

Children's Services. Five Outcomes:

• Be Healthy,

• Stay Safe,

• Enjoy and Achieve

• Make a Positive Contribution

• Achieve Economic Well Being

were identified against which all Children's Services were to be measured. The "fit" between the new required Every Child

Matters Outcomes and the Children's Fund Objectives is described in Appendix 1. Children's Fund Objectives to improve

school attendance and attainment and to reduce crime and child health inequalities, linking to wider objectives to improve

accessibility, social inclusion and sustainability, had provided a powerful impetus for the development of Children's Fund

projects - and a focus for their evaluation.

1.11 Every Child Matters was important, secondly, because it set out a framework towards the integration of Children's Services

through the development of Children's Trusts in all local authority areas. Mainstream health, social services, educational

and recreational services were to be united under the leadership of a Director of Children's Services, to be implemented

between 2006 and 2008, coinciding with the period when Children's Fund services were to come to an end. This

development now provides the context for the evaluation of Children's Fund projects provided during the transitional period

beginning in 2001. Services with a proven contribution to make towards the five Every Child Matters Outcomes and which

could contribute to knowledge about evidence-based practice have the potential to be mainstreamed within the new

Children's Trust arrangements. Services that had worked particularly effectively might be directly funded by Children's

Trusts. Strategic investments would be informed by lessons learnt through the evaluation of school-based or community-

based projects which contributed to preventative services and improved the life chances of children and young people and

families.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

15

Recent Strategic Developments

1.12 Lancashire produced its own local Preventative Strategy in 2004. The Strategy has identified three overall priorities: ie

Parent and Family Support; Children and Young People with Emotional and Mental Health Issues; and Information-sharing

by Professionals to enable better assessed early intervention.

1.13 Lancashire Partnership, an over-arching multi-agency body responsible for strategic planning, has produced a countywide

community strategy entitled Ambition Lancashire, incorporating a vision for Lancashire over the next twenty years.

Lancashire Partnership produced a document entitled Local Area Agreements in February 2006 setting out key priorities

from Ambition Lancashire for the period 2006 - 2009 in the form of a Delivery Plan. The document identified the most

deprived areas and districts across the county, including areas with highest indices for child poverty.

1.14 The Children and Young People’s Block in the Local Area Agreements sets out to improve the life chances of children and

young people in Lancashire by delivering services in an integrated way. The document identifies a thematic approach aimed

at:

•

Increased positive social participation by children and young people

•

Improved health of children and young people

•

Improved outcomes for young people aged 14 - 19

•

Improved outcomes for looked after children and young people

1.15 More specifically, the document targets improved school attendance; reduced fear of crime and anti-social behaviour

amongst children and young people; and also targets for all under-achieving groups to show progress in attainment at age

14. Amongst the targets most relevant to the Children's Fund age group (5 - 13) are specific reductions in authorised and

unauthorised absences in Primary and Secondary Schools; and increases in the percentage of excluded children offered

full-time alternative education provision. Baselines and targets are being set for children to engage in positive and

diversionary activities, and to halt the rise in the numbers of first-time offenders. Targets are also set to increase the

percentage of Lancashire schools with National Healthy Schools status.

1.16 The Local Area Agreement refers to the potential for alignment of Lancashire County Council mainstream budgets, specific

grants, including CAMHS and Connexions, and targeted funds, including the Teenage Pregnancy Grant, the Drugs and

Alcohol Team (DAT) and the Children's Fund.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

16

1.17 Lancashire County Council produced a Plan for the Children and Young People of Lancashire (Consultation Draft) in

December 2005, in response to a requirement in the Children Act 2004 for local areas to produce a single, strategic over-

arching plan for all services affecting children and young people.

1.18 The four key themes identified in the Plan are:

•

Early intervention, prevention and protection

•

Family support

•

Partnership

•

Workforce reform

1.19 The Plan involves all relevant services for children and young people engaging with Lancashire County Council and, again,

covers the three-year period from April 2006 - March 2009. The consultation period for the Plan lasted until February 2006,

and a final version of the Plan will be produced in the spring of 2006.

1.20 The Plan relates to the five Every Child Matters Outcomes. For each one, county-wide priorities are identified, statistical

trends in the county are summarised and the views of children and young people are highlighted. As the final evaluation

report for the Children's Fund is being produced to virtually the same timescale as the Draft Plan for the Children and Young

People of Lancashire, detailed references are made to relevant sections of the Plan in Section 5 of this report entitled

Commissioning, Mainstreaming and Replication.

1.21 Three further documents have recently been produced by Lancashire County Council (LCC). LCC produced a consultation

document entitled Every Child Matters - Supporting Parents and Families in November 2005.

1.22 This acknowledged that although much excellent work had been developed in Lancashire supporting parents and families,

this had not always been strategically planned and delivered, and access to such help varied considerably across the

county. The document argues that support is needed for parents with children aged 0 - 19 including very early intervention,

and additional support for parents with adolescent children. This strategy will be presented to Lancashire's Children and

Young People's Strategic Partnership by June 2006, and will cover the full range of services from universal provision to crisis

intervention.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

17

1.23 Lancashire has also published a Children and Young People's Charter based on work carried out by children and young

people identifying a principled approach to involving children and young people in decisions about services which affect

them. LCC has now produced a further consultation document - Every Child Matters: Engaging Children and Young People

on proposals for a strategic approach to involving children and young people in the design and delivery of services. The

consultation period was due to end in February 2006 with a view to publishing Lancashire's Strategy for Engagement of

Children and Young People in the summer of 2006. (This document includes the Children and Young People's Draft

Charter.)

1.24 The comprehensive range of planning documents related to improving the position of children, young people and their

families, provides important context for the evaluation of Lancashire Children's Fund, and should help increase opportunities

for mainstreaming effective projects, including those supported by LCF.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

18

SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION

2.1 The focus of this report is on the evaluation of selected projects from the portfolio of LCF projects. Forty projects were

evaluated and produced the data for this report, along with evidence from Phase 1 and Phase 2 projects which have been

discontinued. Summaries of these projects are included in this report on a template designed by LCF.

2.2 The overall purpose of the evaluation is to investigate what interventions work and in what circumstances. This approach

requires baseline data to be collected and then analysed against the repeat data. The majority of the projects have made

good progress with the evaluation. However, some projects have had problems gaining data from other organisations and

this has hampered their part in the evaluation. Other projects took longer to have sufficient data for analysis as the measure

which they used may only be available every year, for example, school attainment data (SATs and PIPS).

2.3 The evaluation strategy is based on Realist Evaluation approaches to integrate reliable outcome measures into practice in

each project; and on a ‘clear box’ (Scriven 1994) approach to identify the key factors or mechanisms in the circumstances of

the service users as well as the key components of the diverse interventions that may be influencing the desired outcomes.

Specifically, the methods include single-subject, pre-test post-test, and comparison group designs. Binary logistic regression

analysis is used to investigate the circumstances in which particular interventions are likely to be effective (Kazi 2003).

2.4 The Children’s Fund has provided opportunities to test diverse preventative approaches to meeting the needs of children

affected by poverty and at risk of social exclusion. The interventions that have been found to be effective provide an

important source of knowledge for the future commissioning of mainstream children’s services provided in Lancashire. This

evaluation is an example of accountability and the development of evaluation knowledge within children’s services.

2.5 The projects received regular visits from the evaluation team where support and assistance was given. A variety of outcome

measures were used, with the projects either selecting from a range of recommended standardised measures or developing

their own measure with the help of the evaluation team. Most of the projects also used secondary data, where available.

Forty-seven (47) of the projects had a Statistical Package for Social Services (SPSS) database installed, which enabled

progress against the key Children’s Fund Objectives to be analysed at regular intervals.

Objective 1: To promote school attendance – School attendance data was collected on a termly basis.

Objective 2: To achieve overall improved educational performance – School attainment data (SATs and PIPS) was

collected regularly. Projects could also have additional material that could be used, eg reading tests and tutor assessments.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

19

Objective 3: Fewer young people to commit crime and fewer young children to be the victims of crime –

Questionnaires were developed that indirectly measured these crime objectives. Access to crime data was difficult to obtain,

although a few projects were able to solve this problem.

Objective 4: To reduce health inequalities: A number of projects designed their own measure specific to their project.

Several projects used standardised measures of well-being from the Department of Health’s Assessment Framework.

Methodology

2.6 The approach is based on the realist evaluation methodology as developed by one of the authors (Kazi 2003) and as applied

in a number of health and social welfare services in the United Kingdom as well as in Finland, eg Moray Council, Leeds

Social Services, and Helsinki Social Services. Firstly, appropriate outcome measures (specific to each programme) are

applied repeatedly. Secondly, an SPSS database is integrated into the daily practice of the project, including:

• contextual and demographic details of the service users, eg ethnicity, age, school, area, whether they have special

needs, and health and care status;

• details of the components of interventions applied, eg counselling sessions, homework clubs, play and leisure activities,

and other services received from mainstream agencies;

• Outcomes achieved including both process (eg levels of attendance in the project sessions) and impact outcomes (eg

emotional well-being as measured with Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire; self-esteem as measured by Hare Self-

Esteem Scale; other indicators such as school attendance and attainment, drug misuse, police cautions and arrests).

2.7 The SPSS software is installed on the projects’ computers, and the database is created specific to the needs of each project,

but also includes the variables that are common for all projects, facilitating the aggregation of the local databases into a

central one. This database serves the purposes of both monitoring and evaluation. The quarterly reports are completed with

the numbers of children, their ages, ethnic origins, etc. At the same time, quarterly data analysis can be used to inform

practice, including the numbers of children that improved or not against the specified outcomes, the factors associated with

the level of outcomes achieved, and explanations of why outcomes were achieved in some circumstances and not in others,

enabling projects to develop their interventions informed by these findings. The integration of the realist strategies into

practice ensures that the findings from evaluation inform practice on an on-going basis, helping to better target services to

meet needs.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

20

2.8 Agreed outcome measures and the systematic recording of both service and service-user circumstances on a SPSS

database are the minimum requirements for each project. Use was made of quantitative research methods such as

comparison group analysis in the form of binary logistic regression to provide explanations for why the desired outcomes

improved for some service users and not for others. The forward-conditional binary logistic regression method (as developed

in Kazi 2003) identifies patterns in the data where multiple factors are influencing the outcome, and selects the main factor or

factors responsible for the outcome, with a prediction of the odds of achieving a given outcome in particular circumstances.

In this way, the outcome can be linked to the potential causal factors without a control group. This evidence provides

information about the effectiveness of the models of intervention in terms of what works, for whom and in what context. The

evaluation helps the project workers to better target their interventions, and to develop new strategies for users in the

circumstances where the interventions are less successful.

Context of the evaluation

2.9 The evaluation started in January 2003. At the beginning of the evaluation 102 Phase 1 and Phase 2 Lancashire Children’s

Fund projects were being evaluated with two main types of evaluation approaches taking place: self-evaluation and full-

evaluation. Self-evaluation involved providing advice and guidance on the evaluation strategy to be adopted within the

project. Full-evaluation was carried out with 59 projects which entailed regular meetings with them to provide assistance with

the evaluation. This normally involved advice on appropriate outcome measures to use, and the installation and creation of

an SPSS database to provide an in-depth analysis.

Difficulties and Challenges of Implementing the Evaluation

• Discontinuation of projects

2.10 Due to reduced funding and the identification of less successful projects, some projects had their funding stopped mid-way

through the evaluation. Many of these projects were being evaluated and had collected data. However, as they had their

funding withdrawn only a year into the evaluation, the data collected from these projects was extremely limited and only a

small number had used repeated outcome measures. Much of this data was inadequate for analysis, and for these projects

only limited findings were possible.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

21

• Use of outcome measures

2.11 Most of the projects have engaged positively with the evaluation team and have not experienced major problems in

measuring relevant outcomes. Some projects have experienced difficulties in accessing data from schools or in accessing

crime data. A smaller number of projects have had limited understanding of the purpose and importance of evaluation

despite having met with the evaluation team on several occasions. These projects have been less successful in collecting

data and, for them, the evaluation team has limited findings to report.

• Every Child Matters Outcomes

2.12 The projects were funded in relation to the seven Children’s Fund Objectives. Therefore, the evaluation data collected

related wherever possible to the Children’s Fund Objectives. The projects are now expected to demonstrate their

effectiveness in relation to the Every Child Matters Outcomes. Children’s Fund Objectives do not exactly match Every Child

Matters Outcomes, and these differences may cause slight difficulty. Appendix 1 attempts to compare Children's Fund

objectives and Every Child Matters outcomes.

• Children’s Fund Objectives

2.13 The projects were funded in relation to the seven Children’s Fund Objectives with the majority being funded in relation to the

four main Children’s Fund Objectives of school attendance, school attainment, crime and health. Therefore, the evaluation

team have attempted to engage the projects in using relevant outcome measures to demonstrate their effectiveness in

relation to these objectives. However, discussions with the projects indicated that although they agreed to be funded in

relation to these objectives, a minority of them considered that they were not easily able to demonstrate a direct impact on

any of these four objectives and therefore the data collected was not always relevant to the Children’s Fund Objectives.

• School-related projects

2.14 Projects that are school-related are not in all cases school-based. These projects aim to have an impact on school

attendance and/or school attainment; therefore they need to collect school attendance and school attainment data. Some of

these projects have encountered problems gaining this information from the surrounding schools for a variety of reasons.

This has led to these projects having extremely limited data on school attendance and school attainment or having to use

alternative outcome measures that do not accurately demonstrate the project’s effectiveness.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

22

• Crime-related projects

2.15 Many of the projects that are crime-related focus on crime prevention. These projects should be targeting children and young

people that are at risk of offending. A number of these projects are mainly engaged in more preventative work, consistent

with the overall objectives of the Children's Fund. However, the impact on reducing offending behaviour is difficult to

measure. Another challenge encountered has been with the projects that are targeting children who are at risk of committing

offences but who are not able to gain any crime data from the police to show the project’s effectiveness. When this has

occurred, wherever possible, self-report crime measures have been used.

Literature Review

• Family Support Projects

2.16 Much research evidence has been collected about the effectiveness of family support and parenting programmes, many of

which are similar to the family support projects that LCF funds. Five programmes are specifically highlighted below:

•

Parenting Positively Programme

•

Triple P (Positive Parenting Programme)

•

Webster Stratton Parent Child Videotape Series

•

Handling Children's Behaviour Project

•

Family Nurturing Network

2.17 The Parenting Positively Programme is an eight week course that provides parents with booklets about how to parent

positively which have been used in group work settings, one-to-one home visits and even via the telephone. Results from

this study indicate that children’s behaviour improved as a result of this intervention. It was also found that mothers'

depression reduced as the children’s behaviour improved. (Sutton, 1995).

2.18 The Triple P (Positive Parenting Programme) is a family support intervention that aims to prevent poor behaviour, emotional

problems and developmental issues within children aged 0-16. The project has five levels of intervention dependent on the

severity of the child’s problems such as accessing information about parenting, group work sessions and one-to-one

sessions. There have been many evaluations of this project, most of which have used random control trial designs. The

findings indicate that this parenting approach can significantly improve children’s poor behaviour, help parents to parent

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

23

better and prevent parental stress and depression. The project has also been effective in working with families from ethnic

minorities. (Sanders et al, 2004).

2.19 The Webster-Stratton Parent-Child video tape series has been widely used in the UK. Evaluations have demonstrated

improvements in aggressive anti-social behaviour and improvements in parenting skills (Scott et al, 2001).

2.20 The Handling Children’s Behaviour project works with children aged between 3 and 11 and aims to encourage positive

behaviour. The intervention consists of a ten week group course often run in a nursery or family centre. The aim of the

intervention is to improve parents’ self-esteem and help them to understand the different problems that they may encounter

with their child’s behaviour. An evaluation of this project with 27 mothers found that parents’ attitudes and knowledge of

children’s behaviour problems increased. (Lawes, 1992).

2.21 The Family Nurturing Network works with children aged 2-12 and their families. The main aims of the intervention are to

improve the parent’s self-confidence in order to support their child’s development and learning and to manage their

behaviour. It also aims to enhance the nurturing of the children and help vulnerable children succeed at home and at school.

Families are referred via a variety of means or can refer themselves to the programme which consists of 14 weekly sessions.

Evidence from this programme demonstrates that the parents’ experience improvements in their parenting skills and their

children’s behaviour. (Gardener and Burton, 2003).

2.22 The evidence from these family based interventions indicate successes, particularly in relation to children’s behaviour, and

can also make a contribution to improving parent’s self-esteem and confidence. LCF has funded a variety of family support

projects that are fundamentally very similar to these projects outlined such as projects that use home visitors and adopt one-

to-one support and parenting training. Evaluations of the LCF family support projects demonstrate positive results,

particularly in improving children’s attendance at school and issues with behaviour. It is evident therefore that parenting and

family interventions can be successful in improving children’s behaviour and school attendance, all of which are key

elements for a child to succeed in life and help to prevent more severe problems later in life such as truancy, poor academic

achievement and anti-social and criminal behaviour.

LCF family support projects include:

Template Page Numbers

• LA/TC22 – Signposts, Morecambe Bay Pupil Mobility Project

110

• PR/TC129 – Signposts, Preston Pupil Mobility Project

133

• PR161 – Preston Parenting Project

139

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

24

• PE149 - Blackburn Diocesan Family Support Project

137

• School-based projects

2.23 Three programmes, or programme types are highlighted:

•

Nurturing Programmes

•

“I can problem solve”

•

Truancy reduction and school-based family support projects

2.24 Dealing with children’s behaviour is important as often poor behaviour can lead to being excluded from school and becoming

involved in anti-social and criminal activities. There have been several evaluations carried out that have aimed to identify the

successes of school-based projects.

2.25 The Nurturing Programme works with children aged 3-13 and is based within primary schools. It aims to develop children’s

communication and social skills, promote attachment between children and their peers and their school, link the school,

home and the community and provide teachers with a range of strategies and techniques to achieve positive behaviour.

Teachers and other school staff receive training for 2 days about behaviour management techniques. The parents and

children also receive support via sessions at the schools about behaviour, self-awareness, and self-esteem. The evaluation

of this project found that the children who took part were less aggressive than the children who did not take part. It also

found that the children were more assertive, constructive and socially aware. (Layton and Hunt, 1997).

2.26 The ‘I can problem solve’ programme in the United States is aimed at children between the ages of 3 and 12 to develop their

cognitive and interpersonal skills. An evaluation of this programme indicated that children have improved their behaviour and

cognitive skills as a result of taking part in the intervention. (Shure and Spivak, 1982). The DfEE provided funding in the

1990’s to a wide range of truancy reduction projects. Some of the main conclusions about factors that had worked well to

prevent these problems were parental involvement in school life and activities, action on the first day of unauthorised

absences via contact with the child or the parent and behaviour management training for teachers and playground staff

(Communities That Care, 2005).

2.27 An evaluation of three family support projects funded by Coventry Children’s Fund highlighted that parents welcomed having

someone to listen to their problems at school who was non - judgemental and provided practical advice. Effective outcomes

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

25

were linked to support from head teachers and other school staff and establishing positive relationships with other agencies.

(Holmes and Manby, 2004).

2.28 The evidence outlined about school-based projects has been positive. LCF funds a variety of school-based projects such as

learning mentors, reading programmes, Nurture Groups and self-esteem projects. The findings from these has also been

positive, particularly again in relation to improvements in children’s attendance, attainment and behaviour. All of these

factors are important in enabling a child to succeed in and out of school and prevent her/him from encountering problems

later on in life such as experiencing poor housing and low income or involvement in crime and anti-social behaviour.

However, the evidence from both parenting programmes and school-based projects is positive, but hardly any of the

evaluations have followed children over a long period of time to identify if these positive changes are maintained as the child

gets older. This is an area of research that needs to be undertaken to identify if the benefits are long-term or not.

LCF school-based projects include:

Template Page Number

• PR/HY20, HY169, PE170 – Nurture Groups

91

• WL27 – Moorside School

111

• PE47 – Holy Saviour RC Primary School

116

• WL63 – Holland Moor Primary School

120

• PR70 – Deepdale Junior School

124

• WL/DI119 – Learning to Learn alongside Learning Mentors

130

• HY/DI124 – Hyndburn Park Primary School, Integration with Speech & Language 131

• Youth

2.29 School activities can contribute to diverting children and young people away from anti-social behaviour and crime and can

also provide a safe environment for younger children if parents are at work. ‘Out of school activities can ensure that children

are properly and safely supervised by enabling parents to work normal hours can reduce the risks associated with low

income’ (Communities That Care, 2005).

2.30 Five programmes, or programme types, are highlighted:

•

Breakfast Clubs

•

Summer Holiday Activity Programmes

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

26

•

Targeted interventions

•

Mentoring Programmes, for example Big Brothers and Big Sisters

•

Youth Inclusion and Support Programmes (YISPs)

2.31 School breakfast clubs have been highlighted as improving children’s nutrition and school performance, improving their

attendance at school, decreasing their lateness and improving their self-esteem (Lucas and Liabo, 2003). A national

evaluation of a Department of Health pilot initiative claimed that school breakfast clubs are extremely effective as they

encourage children to eat breakfast and can reduce the stress and pressures at home before going to school (Shemilt et al,

2002).

2.32 Summer holiday activities can provide children with activities to divert them from becoming involved in crime and anti-social

behaviour. An evaluation of a summer programme for children aged 8-19 engaged children during the summer holidays in a

variety of sport, music and outdoor activities reported that there was some evidence to suggest that the summer programme

was effective in reducing the levels of youth crime. (Sutton et al, 2005).

2.33 Many targeted interventions for children and young people at risk of becoming involved in crime employ mentors to work with

the young people. However, many mentoring programmes have found problems in demonstrating their intended aim.

Mentoring children and young people at risk of offending is shown to be successful in helping them to build a positive

relationship with a good role model, but much evidence has suggested that the majority of mentoring programmes are not

successful in reducing offending behaviour with young people who are already involved in anti-social behaviour and criminal

activities. (Communities That Care, 2005). For instance, an evaluation of the Youth Justice Board’s mentoring scheme only

found limited evidence to suggest a reduction in offending behaviour. However, it did find that there was more success in

relation to improving school attendance and helping young people to engage with education and training programmes.

(Tarling et al, 2004).

2.34 However, some mentoring programmes have been able to demonstrate successful outcomes. For example, the Big Brothers

and Big Sisters mentoring programme in America works with children aged between 10 and 16 and matches a responsible

adult to the child to act as a ‘mentor’. An evaluation of this programme found that the young people who had a mentor were

less likely to become involved in drugs and alcohol and were also less likely to truant from school. (Tierney et al, 1995).

2.35 Youth Inclusion and Support Programmes (YISPs) are multi-agency planning groups helping children aged 8-11 who are at

risk of involvement in crime and anti-social behaviour. The evaluation of the YISPs is being carried out by Newcastle

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

27

University and started in January 2004. The evaluation is using both quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection

at each of the 14 pilot sites. As yet there has not been a report produced, although this should be available towards the end

of 2006.

2.36 The programmes discussed seem to portray mixed findings with regard to their success in preventing children and young

people from becoming involved in crime and anti-social behaviour, particularly in relation to mentoring schemes. There is

also not much evidence about the effectiveness of youth clubs in reducing children and young people’s involvement in crime.

One of the main reasons for this is because there have been few rigorous evaluations in the area. (Communities That Care,

2005).

2.37 LCF funds a variety of projects for young people and children in relation to the prevention of crime. The evaluation of

diversionary activities has been limited as it has been hard to demonstrate the effectiveness of these projects against real

crime involvement, a limitation also apparent in national evaluations. However, the more targeted crime projects funded by

LCF seem to be more able to demonstrate their impact in relation to crime and the results of these types of projects have

mainly produced positive findings in reducing children and young people’s involvement in crime.

LCF youth projects include:

Template Page Number

• PR01 – Spotlight on Sport

107

• BU14 – Stoops and Hargher Clough Community Centre

143

• WL30 – West Lancs. Community Safety Partnership

112

• MA36 – EDGE

145

• MA48 – GRIP

146

• LA108 – Lancaster City Council Community Youth Sport Development Project

150

• PE111 – Groundwork East Lancashire, Youth Works Pendle

151

• WL128 – LCC West Lancs. Youth Crime Initiative

152

• WL/RC138 – Grove Community Association

135

• Target Groups – Children from Ethnic Minority Groups and Children with Disabilities.

2.38 Lancashire Children’s Fund has several target groups of children who they aim to support such as children from ethnic

minority groups and children with disabilities. Often children with disabilities and children from ethnic minorities may need

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

28

additional support to overcome some of the disadvantages associated with their demographics. Certain interventions can be

particularly effective with children from ethnic minorities such as family support projects.

2.39 Four programmes, or programme types are highlighted:

•

Incredible Years Programme

•

School-based interventions

•

Health Visitor support for hyperactive children and their families

•

Institute of Neuro-Physiological Psychology (INPP) Developmental Exercise Programme for Schools

2.40 The ‘Incredible Years Programme’ is a family support project and uses ‘videotape modelling’ in which parents watch video

clips that demonstrate other parents effectively employing a variety of every day techniques with their children. Parents are

encouraged to discuss the different techniques used and also discuss any other problems that they may be experiencing

and are also given parenting advice. Scott et al (2000) found improvements for the black and ethnic minority families in their

study on the Incredible Years Programme in the UK. An evaluation of this programme in America by Reid et al (2001) found

that African-American, Hispanic and Asian families experienced particularly positive outcomes. Furthermore, attendance

levels and parent satisfaction were higher amongst the ethnic minority families compared to the Caucasian families.

2.41 School-based interventions can also help to overcome some of the difficulties that children from ethnic minorities may

experience. Communities That Care (2005) claim that children who go to school with limited language skills, in particular

ethnic minority children need exposure to reading material in the home in order to develop their literacy skills. They claim

that it is important to recruit parents, and in particular fathers from ethnic minorities in order for a scheme to be effective. In

addition, the evaluation of out-of school activities in the USA indicate that they are particularly effective in overcoming

disadvantages associated with ethnic minority groups (Oyserman et al, 2002).

2.42 Children with disabilities and special needs require additional support to help them succeed in life. The project "Health Visitor

support for hyperactive children and their families" is an intervention for children aged 2-9 who have ADHD or other over-

activity problems. It consists of a manual that can be used with families during the 8 week home visits and addresses

techniques that parents can use with their children to maintain their attention, stay calm and avoid arguments and tantrums.

The evaluation of this programme using a control group found that the families who received the 8 week home visits with the

use of the manual made greater improvements in their children’s behaviour than the families who received support but

without the use of the manual (Weeks et al, 1999).

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

29

2.43 Similarly, the Institute of Neuro-Physiological Psychology (INPP) Developmental Exercise Programme for Schools targets

children aged 5-11 years who may be suffering from Neuro-Developmental delay (NDD) which is preventing them from being

able to learn at school. The programme helps children within the school environment and uses special exercises to improve

the motor skills and co-ordination skills of the child. An evaluation of this programme in Leicester and Birmingham found that

the targeted groups had improved greater in reading, writing and spelling compared to the control group (Pettman, 2001).

2.44 The evidence from these interventions indicate successes for children with disabilities and for children from ethnic minorities.

LCF have funded a variety of projects that specifically target children from these groups and evaluations of these projects

demonstrate positive results. It is evident therefore that a variety of community and school based interventions can be

successful in helping children and their families overcome disadvantages and barriers to social exclusion that are associated

with disability and ethnicity.

LCF target group projects include:

Template Page Number

Children with Disabilities

• MA/DI43 – Barnado’s, Inclusion of children with disabilities

115

• HY/DI124 – Hyndburn Park Primary School, Integration with Speech & Language

131

• HY/PE/DI140 – Lords House Farm

136

• PR/DI51 – Preston City Council, Inclusive activities for children with disabilities

117

• MA/DI84 – East Lancs. Deaf Society

149

Transient Children

• LA/TC22 - Signposts, Morecambe Bay Pupil Mobility Project

110

• PR/TC129 – Signposts, Preston Pupil Mobility Project

133

Ethnic Minority Children

• PE/EM65 – Pendle Pakistan Welfare Association

122

• PE/EM152 – Pendle Leisure Trust – Grow and Sow

100

Rural Children

• RC/WY67+ RC/WY155 – Wyre Housing Association

147

• MA/RC136 – Dads and Lads (Mums and Daughters too!)

134

• WL/RC138 – Grove Community Association

135

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

30

Young Carers

• MA/YC175 – Junior Carers

141

Other Children's Fund Evaluations

This section of the report comments on the evaluations that have been undertaken by the Local Children’s Funds, where reports

are available from the National Evaluation of the Children’s Fund website. It firstly addresses the different ways in which evaluators

have attempted to measure the impact of the services being funded and issues that they have encountered when attempting to

access data. The role of volunteers is then outlined, followed by information about how projects have attempted to ‘cost’ the

Children’s Fund. Finally it identifies how projects attempt to connect to each other and ways in which children are involved in

decision-making. This section enables the evaluation carried out by Lancashire Children’s Fund to be identified in a wider context.

• Impact

2.45 It is important for the Local Children’s Funds to identify whether the services that they are funding are impacting on the lives

of the children that they are working with. Although many of the local evaluations have focused on process outcomes, some

have managed to collate data on the impact of the services through a variety of means. Birmingham Children’s Fund

collected data on school attendance and school attainment nationally and compared these results with the data taken from

the wards in which the Children’s Fund operates (Matrix Research and Consultancy, 2004). Leicester adopted the same

approach and made comparisons between SATS results nationally and SATS results of the children living in targeted wards

of Leicester Children’s Fund (Stewart, 2005). A limitation of this approach is that it is not evident exactly which children within

these wards were receiving support and which were not.

2.46 Some of the projects funded by the Blackburn Children’s Fund managed to collect impact data and stated that some of the

children’s school attainment and school attendance had improved as a result of the children’s involvement with their project

(Thorpe, 2005). Liverpool managed to collect some data on the impact that the project’s services were having on the

children’s attendance at school (O’Brien, 2004). Northamptonshire also managed to gather hard evidence that family support

projects in their area were improving children’s attendance at school (Percy-Smith, 2004).

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

31

2.47 Other evaluators have collected data through various methods such as interviews and case studies to attempt to measure

service impact. For example, Bradford evaluators carried out interviews to obtain opinions about the extent to which Bradford

Children’s Fund had met its strategic objectives and its sub-objectives, for example mainstreaming or reaching children at

risk of exclusion. The Bradford evaluators recognised that data needed to be collected on impact but felt that new measures

needed to be developed in order to collect this information (Walton, 2003). Gateshead also interviewed key informants and

has used these reported impacts to form the basis of their argument that its Children’s Fund has achieved some success for

all the Children's Fund sub-objectives (Shenton, 2003).

2.48 Other Children’s Fund evaluations have attempted to collate evidence of impact directly from the projects. For instance,

Blackpool administered questionnaires to projects for them to state what impact they were having on the children they were

working with (Dobson, 2003). Cornwall also adopted this approach by meeting with the project employees to discuss their

opinions about service impact (Rodd, 2004). Similarly, Nottingham interviewed the projects to identify the impact that they

were having on the Children’s Fund sub-objectives (Becker, 2004).

Issues about accessing data

2.49 Gaining access to ‘hard data’ to provide evidence about services has been a difficulty for several local evaluators. This has

especially been the case for smaller non-statutory organisations that are funded by the Children’s Fund. For instance,

Blackburn highlighted the problems of smaller community organisations due to the extensive amount of bureaucracy and

paperwork involved (Thorpe, 2004). Leeds Children's Fund found that many projects simply do not have the time and skills

to collate the necessary information about the impact of their project (Percy-Smith, 2003). Another barrier to gaining data has

been the reluctance and time of the statutory organisations, for example, schools, to provide non-statutory organisations with

information. Both Gloucestershire and Cornwall stress the need for co-operation and the sharing of information on

performance indicators by the statutory sector which holds this information (Kyprianou, 2005, Rodd, 2004).

Volunteers

2.50 Many Children’s Fund projects recruit and train volunteers to work on their projects. For instance, thirty-two of Leeds

Children’s Fund projects have successfully recruited and trained volunteers with a total of over 11,000 hours being accrued.

These volunteers are from a variety of backgrounds such as unskilled, skilled, parents and carers, and even project

managers have volunteered hours to provide supervision and training (Percy-Smith, 2003). This is an example of a

Children’s Fund which has been successful in recruiting and training volunteers. Other Children’s Funds such as Newham

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

32

have encountered problems in recruiting and retaining volunteers. ‘Some problems that are difficult to resolve quickly (relate

to) recruiting and retaining staff and volunteers’ (Newham C F, Sampson, 2003:4 ).

Costing

2.51 Some evaluators decided that it was important for the costing of Children’s Fund services to be highlighted. It is important for

costing to be addressed as ‘the local evaluation has encouraged projects towards establishing and reviewing their cost

effectiveness - whether or not services provide value for money’ (Blackpool CF, Dobson, 2003:5).

2.52 Costing has been addressed in a variety of different ways ranging from identifying how much the particular Children’s Fund

has spent on different areas, to providing a breakdown of cost per child at particular projects. For example, Enfield identified

the proportion of their funding that had been spent on the areas of crime prevention, family support, play and leisure and

mental health (Whiteley, 2004). Similarly, Wiltshire addressed how much money had been spent on the community,

voluntary and statutory sectors within their area (Turkie, 2004). Children’s Funds in Cumbria, York, Stockport and Cornwall

all went a stage further to identify how much each individual project was costing to ascertain if the projects were providing

value for money (Brown, 2004, Percy-Smith, 2004, Barkat, 2005, Rodd, 2004).

Collaboration between Projects

2.53 It is important for projects to work together and several evaluators have identified that the projects are doing this

successfully. For instance, several projects funded by Islington Children’s Fund co-ordinate joint activities together and also

meet regularly to discuss ideas (Harnett, 2003). In the main the evaluators that have addressed how projects connect with

each other, have concluded that the projects are working well together and are sharing ideas and resources successfully.

Involvement of children in decision-making

2.54 Many of the evaluations at a local level have looked at how children have been involved in decision-making. Some of the

findings indicate that children have been actively involved from the start. For example, Dudley and Newcastle both involved

children from the beginning in the design, delivery and commissioning of services (Dudley Children’s Fund, 2005, Murphy-

Waters, 2005). Medway Children’s Fund created a children’s forum to ask about preferred methods of communication and

consultation (Sesnan, 2005). Some of the evaluation in this area has focused on carrying out interviews with key members to

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

33

understand to what extent children have been involved. From this, both Camden and Bradford concluded that children have

been extensively involved in decision-making with the Children’s Fund (Wyvill, 2003).

Target Groups

2.55 It is important for Children’s Funds to ascertain whether services provided are reaching their target groups, for example,

children with disabilities, or black and ethnic minority groups. Where this has been addressed, this has been mainly through

the use of monitoring figures which provide evidence of investment but not about impact. For example, both Leicester

Children’s Fund and Enfield Children’s Fund have monitored the numbers of children from their target groups that are

accessing the services (Stewart, 2005, Whiteley, 2004).

2.56 However, Brent Children’s Fund carried out an evaluation of one of their projects whose target group was Black and Asian

children. The ‘Boys2men’ preventative service aimed at young black males experiencing emotional and behavioural

problems involves a wide range of intervention such as mentoring, one-to-one support, school support and counselling. The

evaluation concluded that the project had been successful in reducing risk factors and involving Afro-Caribbean boys and

their families in mainstream services (Jakhu, 2005).

Lancashire Children’s Fund Evaluation

2.57 As identified, many of the local evaluations encountered difficulties in obtaining substantial information about the impact of

the services that the Children’s Fund projects are providing. In some cases, the local evaluators managed to collate some

impact data, but this was often minimal or not for the specific children who were receiving the intervention. However,

Lancashire Children’s Fund was able to gain substantial data from many of the projects about the impact of their service.

The majority of the projects co-operated with the evaluation team and provided information about the impact of the services

which enabled the evaluators to demonstrate the effectiveness of the Lancashire Children’s Fund in relation to the sub-

objectives and to the Every Child Matters Themes. Findings indicate that the majority of the services commissioned by the

Lancashire Children’s Fund have been effective in either improving children’s school attendance or school attainment, or

improving children’s health and wellbeing, or reducing the amount of young people becoming involved in crime.

2.58 Many of the Local Children’s Fund evaluators stated that they have encountered difficulties in obtaining hard data to

measure the impact of their Children’s Fund. As highlighted previously community and voluntary organisations, particularly,

struggled to demonstrate their effectiveness as they do not have the same access to performance indicators available to

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

34

statutory organisations. This issue was also a main barrier when attempting to evaluate the community and voluntary

organisations in Lancashire. However, this was overcome where the organisations had strong links or were working in

partnership with the statutory sector, for example, schools or the police. When access to readily made performance

indicators was not as straightforward, the evaluation team and the Lancashire Children’s Fund intervened and contacted the

statutory sector organisations or developed other ways of measuring service impact.

2.59 Some of the Children’s Fund evaluations (notably Leeds) have highlighted the use of volunteers. Many of the services

funded by the Lancashire Children’s Fund have used volunteers and in the main have been successful in doing this,

particularly if there was a paid person who co-ordinated the volunteers. Many projects were extremely successful and

managed to retain volunteers for long periods of time, and in some cases, the volunteers went on to paid work or education

in a similar area after volunteering.

2.60 Costing has been addressed in a variety of different ways by local evaluators, including identifying how much money has

been spent on target wards, on different areas of service (for example, family support and crime prevention), and for each

individual project. Our evaluation has also provided some evidence about costing of the Lancashire Children’s Fund by

providing information about how much each project costs to run, broken down by beneficiary. This has enabled the

evaluation team to compare how much each project is costing, per child, with other projects in relation to the type of support

that the project is providing, and also by Every Child Matters themes. This information is essential as it is important to

recognise whether services are good value for money and are cost effective. It also enables the Children’s Fund to discuss

and understand why particular projects are more expensive than others.

2.61 Findings from the local evaluations indicate that many projects are working successfully together and are sharing ideas and

resources. The evaluation of the Lancashire Children’s Fund has highlighted that the more successful projects are more

likely to be the projects that are working in partnership with each other and also with other agencies.

2.62 Many of the local evaluations have highlighted the ways and the extent to which children were involved in the decision-

making of the services provided. The Lancashire Children’s Fund commissioned Save the Children to focus on the borough

of Hyndburn to assess to what extent the children have been involved in the planning and delivery of services. This report

found that the projects were committed to the principle of participation and a number of projects were identified as good

practice. In addition, the evaluators have found that although there may not have been a strategic intervention to involve

children in decision-making across Lancashire, many of the projects funded are offering children a choice of activities and

are constantly reviewing the service that is provided through children’s questionnaires and participation in discussion groups.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

35

Therefore, it is evident that the Lancashire Children’s Fund has involved children in decision making, particularly on a project

basis.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

36

SECTION 3: EVALUATION FINDINGS LINKED TO EVERY CHILD MATTERS OUTCOMES

3.1 Projects have been themed according to Every Child Matters Outcomes, i.e. Be Healthy, Stay Safe, Enjoy and Achieve, and

Make A Positive Contribution. These projects include those whose period of funding by LCF has already ended as well as

currently funded projects.

3.2 A summary of key findings is presented for each Outcome. It should be noted that some projects relate to more than one

Every Child Matters Outcome. For example, there is some overlap between the Be Healthy and Enjoy and Achieve; and

some overlap between Stay Safe and Make a Positive Contribution is also evident.

3.3 Templates for the 68 evaluated projects are included in Appendix 2.

3.4 Each template consists of the project title, a brief project description, average number of children supported per quarter, the

‘Every Child Matters’ Outcome, the type of Children’s Fund project, the project location, the target group, the main findings,

the intervention’s effectiveness rating, and evaluators’ comments. The evaluators have rated the project interventions’

effectiveness on a scale of three, as follows:

Intervention Effectiveness Ratings:

1 = intervention is largely not effective

(eg findings are largely negative)

1 / 2 = findings generally weak

2 = intervention may be effective,

but findings are inconclusive (eg soft data or largely mixed findings)

3 = intervention is largely effective

(eg findings are largely positive)

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

37

Every Child Matters Outcome: Be Healthy Projects (15)

Project Code

Project

RO11

East Lancashire CAMHS, Rossendale Emotional Health School Project – (closed)

BU13

Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Primary Care Trust, Community Food Workers’ Project

WY15

Coastal Child and Adolescent Therapeutic Service, previously the Fleetwood Home School Support &

Liaison Service (FHSSLS)

PR/HY20

HY169

PE170

Lancashire County Council Educational Psychology Service, Nurture Groups

PR31

Preston City Council, Community Sports/Health Co-ordinators Project – (closed)

PE32

Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Primary Care Trust , PHASE Project – (closed)

BU52

Burnley Borough Council Community and Recreation Services, Step 2 It

RO56

Rossendale Borough Council, Community Sports/Health Co-ordinators Project - (closed)

EM/PR72

Nguzo Saba Centre, Education Project – (closed)

DI83

Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust, Relationship Issues for Young People with Disabilities -

(closed)

BU/HY98

Burnley Football Club, Leisure and Community Programme – (closed)

PE132

East Lancashire Public Health Network, Lancashire Healthy Schools Project - Pendle

PE/EM152

Pendle Leisure Trust, Grow and Sow

PE153

Gingerbread, Brightening Lives – (closed)

WL162

West Lancashire Primary Care Trust , Young People’s Well-Being Initiative – (closed)

Every Child Matters Outcome: Be Healthy - Main Findings

Coastal Child and Adolescent Therapeutic Service (WY15)

•

Very positive impact achieved, particularly with regard to children whose behaviour is worse at the start of the

programme.

•

Children who improved most were likely to be male, children with special needs, children involved with CAMHS, or

children from families with financial problems.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

38

•

High levels of parental satisfaction evident, especially those with younger children.

Lancashire County Council Educational Psychology Service, Nurture Groups (PR/HY20, HY169 and PE170)

•

Positive impact achieved particularly with children with special needs. Positive improvement in scores, hyperactivity,

conduct, emotional well-being and peer relationships.

•

Positive impact on numeracy and literacy levels.

Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Primary Care Trust, Community Food Workers' Project (BU13)

•

Successful in improving children's knowledge about healthy eating and increasing the amount of fruit and vegetables

eaten.

•

Success linked to involving children in growing and cooking food.

•

Improvements evident for all children regardless of age, gender or ethnicity.

Pendle Leisure Trust, Grow and Sow Project (PE/EM152)

•

Able to demonstrate children's positive attitudes to importance of diet through involvement with growing food.

East Lancashire Public Health Network, Lancashire Healthy Schools Programme – Pendle (PE132)

•

Able to demonstrate impact on children's diet, levels of physical activity and awareness of the dangers of smoking,

through introducing Healthy School Tuck Shop and appropriate teaching aids.

Preston Primary Care Trust, Preston Parenting Project (PR161) - primarily Enjoy and Achieve

•

Able to demonstrate positive impact on physical health, mental health, and alcohol/substance use.

Groundwork East Lancashire, Youth Works Pendle (PE111) - primarily Make a Positive Contribution

•

Achieved improvements on adolescent well-being for 4/5ths of young people using the service.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

39

Every Child Matters Outcome: Stay Safe Projects (4)

Project Code

Project

BU28

Burnley Women’s Refuge, Community Support Workers – (closed)

LA38

Poulton Community Centre – After School Clubs (closed)

PR80

INTAG, Recreation Zone Project – (closed)

PR179

Preston Primary Care Trust, Child Accident and Prevention Scheme (CAPS)

Every Child Matters Outcome: Stay Safe - Main Findings

Just one project, the Preston Primary Care Trust, Child Accident Prevention and Safety Scheme (PR179) focused directly on

Stay Safe, with an aim of keeping children safe from accidental injury and death.

•

This very low-cost scheme achieved a very high success rate in improving children's knowledge about safety issues.

•

This project could be integrated within Healthy Schools Initiatives.

Arguably, a high proportion of Children's Fund projects impact indirectly on children's safety through increasing school

attendance, improving children's self-esteem, reducing high risk behaviours, or providing diversionary activities.

The Building Bridges Project (PE69) under the Make a Positive Contribution Outcome is a school-based programme aiming to

develop positive relationships and choose not to bully or discriminate. Its objectives are close to the stay safe aim - safe from

crime and anti-social behaviour in and out of school.

Every Child Matters Outcome: Enjoy and Achieve Projects (35)

Project Code

Project

PR01

Preston City Council, Sports Development Out of School Activities

PR02

Preston YMCA, Community Development Project – (closed)

PE08

Sacred Heart Primary School, Club 2000+

LA/TC22

Signposts, Morecambe Bay Pupil Mobility Project

WL27

Moorside Primary School, Home-School Mentor

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

40

WL30

West Lancashire Community Safety Partnership, Rap Plus Project

PR33

Preston City Council, Art in the Park – (closed)

DI/PE39

Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale CVS, Caring Today – (closed)

MA/DI43

Barnardo’s, Inclusion of Children with Disabilities

PE47

Holy Saviour RC Primary School, English Language Homework and ICT Club – (closed)

PR/DI51

Preston City Council, Inclusive Activities for Children with Disabilities

BU55

Education Learning Activity Centre (ELAC), Homework and Activity Clubs – (closed)

BU61

Cherry Fold Primary School, Outreach Worker and Out of School Activities – (closed)

WL63

Holland Moor Primary School, Sport, Learning and Recreation Manager

WL64

Lathom High School, Learning Support Centre – (closed)

PE/EM65

Pendle Pakistan Welfare Association (PPWA), Raising Achievement Project

PR68

Brookfield Spaceplace, Leisure/Educational Opportunities – (closed)

PR70

Deepdale Junior School, Spotlight on Sport – (closed)

EM/PR71

Sahara, Homework Club/ICT Support for Minority Ethnic Children – (closed)

BU94

Burnley Borough Council, Play-team – (closed)

PR95

Business in the Community – (closed)

WL97

Lathom High School, Breakfast/Homework Club – (closed)

BU103

Cherry Fold Primary School, Personal/Group Incentives and Dream Scheme Project – (closed)

WL/DI119

Holland Moor Primary School, Learning to Learn Alongside Learning Mentors

HY/DI124

Hyndburn Park Primary School, Integration with Speech and Language

WL125

West Lancs. Play Association, Bridge the Gap – (closed)

PR/TC129

Signposts, Preston Pupil Mobility Project

MA/RC136

LCC Parental Involvement Teaching Support Team, Dads and Lads (Mums and Daughters too!)

WL/RC138

Grove Community Association, Holiday Activity Scheme

HY/PE/DI140

Lords House Farm, Fun on the Farm

PE149

Blackburn Diocesan Board for Social Responsibility, Family Support Project

PE151

Pendle Leisure Trust, Brighter Futures

PR161

Preston Primary Care Trust, Preston Parenting Project

PE/EM171

Pendle Women’s Forum, Pendle Female Development Project

MA/YC175

Pendle, Burnley and Rossendale Council for Voluntary Service, Junior Carers

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

41

Every Child Matters Outcome: Enjoy and Achieve - Main Findings

• School-based projects

Moorside School (WL27), through the deployment of a Home-School Mentor, achieved a positive impact on school attendance

and punctuality; and very positive impact on literacy and numeracy SATS results. Attendance at the school Breakfast Club

improved children's punctuality.

Holland Moor Primary School, Sport, Learning and Recreation Manager Project (WL63), through deployment of another

Learning Mentor, and provision of a range of extra-curricular activities, achieved positive impact on numeracy and literacy SATS

results; and very positive impact on school attendance (notably for children from single-parent families) and on children's

behaviour.

Holland Moor Primary School, Learning to Learn alongside Learning Mentors (WL/DI119), a partnership project involving three

schools in Skelmersdale focusing on children with emotional and behavioural problems, achieved a positive impact on children's

attendance, and very positive impact on school attainment.

Hyndburn Park Primary School, Integration with Speech and Language (HY/DI124) provided, three times a week, reading

support to children in the transitional school years and achieved very positive results for children's reading accuracy and

comprehension and school attendance; the project also provided speech and language support with positive results for both

children with English and Punjabi as their first language.

• Community-based projects

Preston Primary Care Trust, Preston Parenting Project (PR161) provided a family support service which achieved positive

impact on children's school attendance, particularly for children from families receiving Social Security benefits or headed by a

lone parent; a large majority of parents reported a range of improvements, including children's behaviour, and positive impact on

physical health, mental health and alcohol/substance use.

The Blackburn Diocesan Board for Social Responsibility, Family Support Project (PE149) made use of a Co-ordinator and

volunteers and achieved very positive impact on children's school attendance, with extremely high satisfaction levels from

parents.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

42

• Other findings

Pendle Pakistan Welfare Association (PE24) provided a Homework Club which achieved positive impact on literacy and

numeracy SATS tests (project targeted at ethnic minority children).

Pendle Women's Forum, Pendle Female Development Project (PE/EM171) provided a Homework Club and other recreational

activities and achieved positive impacts on literacy and numeracy SATS tests.

Barnardo's, Inclusion of Children with Disabilities, (MA/DI43) providing a range of support for children with disabilities,

established links with local community services and experienced extremely high satisfaction levels from parents, and high levels

of satisfaction from children.

Deepdale Junior School, Spotlight on Sport (PR70) had run a range of sporting and out of school activities; a large majority of

children reported positive impact on physical fitness, and a majority of children reported they had increased enjoyment of

school.

LCC Parental Involvement & Teaching Support Team, Dads and Lads (Mums and Daughters too!) (MA/RC136) focused on

literacy and sport and the project was regarded as successful in a survey of sixteen schools, including fathers being more

involved in reading with their sons, and boys' attitudes to writing.

Lords House Farm, Fun on the Farm (HY/PE/D1140) provided riding and animal therapy to socially-excluded children: parents

reported improvements in children's self-esteem, behaviour, communication and relationships.

The Education Learning Activity Centre (ELAC), Homework and Activity Clubs (BU55), used volunteers to provide homework

sessions: children's and parents' satisfaction levels were high and most children valued the learning and staff support available.

Every Child Matters Outcomes: Make a Positive Contribution Projects (12)

Project Code

Project

LA05

Poulton Community Centre, Morecambe Centre-Based Youth Groups - (closed)

BU14

The Excluded Children’s Project – (closed)

SR35

The Leyland Project, Dream Scheme – (closed)

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

43

MA36

Lancashire Youth Association, The EDGE – (closed)

MA48

Lancashire Youth Offending Team, GRIP

RC/WY67+

RC/WY155

Wyre Housing Association – Live Wyre! – (closed)

PE69

“Building Bridges”, Interfaith Project – (closed)

MA/DI84

East Lancashire Deaf Society, Family Support Services

LA108

Lancaster City Council, Community Youth Sports Development Project

PE111

Groundwork East Lancashire, Youth Works Pendle

WL128

West Lancashire Community Safety Partnership, Youth Crime Initiative

PE150

Pendle Leisure Trust, Active Futures

Every Child Matters Outcomes: Make a Positive Contribution - Main Findings

Lancashire Youth Offending Team, GRIP (MA48), a county-wide crime prevention project has achieved a very positive impact

on crime reduction; and positive impacts on school attendance and on assessed risk scores have also been achieved.

Groundwork East Lancashire, Youth Works Pendle (PE111) has provided intensive interventions in close liaison with a local

secondary school and has achieved very positive impact on reducing participants' involvement with the police, and also on

young people's well-being (Adolescent Well-Being Scale). The latter is referred to under Be Healthy above. These positive

results are particularly evident for young people aged 10 - 13.

The Excluded Children Project (BU14) provided intensive out of school support to young people with extremely disruptive

behaviour and achieved very positive impact on school attendance and completion of Acceptable Behaviour Contracts; positive

impact on young people's self-esteem; and received high satisfaction ratings by parents.

WYRE Housing Association, Live Wyre!, (RC/WY67 and RC/WY155) supported children at risk of social exclusion which

achieved high satisfaction ratings by participants and positive reported results on children's participation and behaviour.

Building Bridges, Interfaith Project (PE69) provided inter-faith education programmes for children in primary and secondary

schools which achieved generally positive results on children's attitudes, particularly for children with worse baseline scores who

attended higher numbers of sessions.

•

Higher levels of improvement were evident for Pakistani Heritage children than for British white children.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

44

Every Child Matters Outcomes: Achieve Economic Well-Being - Main Findings

As noted above, Achieving Economic Well-Being is not a primary outcome for any of the LCF projects which are targeted at

children too young to be economically active or involved in further education, training or employment.

However, Children's Fund projects aim to support families from economically disadvantaged areas and the following projects

impact tangentially on this outcome.

•

As noted above, Holland Moor School, Sport, Learning and Recreation Manager (WL63) achieved particularly positive

results on the school attendance of children from families on Social Security benefits, and on single-parent families.

•

Also as noted above, the Preston Parenting Project (PR161) achieved particularly positive impact on the school

attendance of children from families on Social Security benefits.

•

Pendle Women's Forum, Pendle Female Development Project (PE/EM171) targeted girls from disadvantaged

backgrounds experiencing poverty and low household income, with positive impact on the young people's literacy and

numeracy SATS results.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

45

SECTION 4: NOTES ON PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS AND COSTS

Intervention scores and location

4.1 Eighteen out of the 68 projects had the highest intervention score - 3. Three projects scored 1 / 2. Data was not available

for 20 projects. Forty-five projects, 66% of the total, were allocated positive intervention scores of 2 or 3. Twenty-seven

projects scored 2.

4.2 Sixteen (24.2%) projects related to Every Child Matters Outcome 1, Be Healthy. Four of the projects (6%) related to

Outcome 2, Stay Safe. Thirty-five (53%) projects related to Outcome 3, Enjoy and Achieve. Eleven (16.7%) projects related

to Outcome 4, Make a Positive Contribution. There were no projects directly addressing Outcome 5, Achieve Economic

Well- Being.

4.3 All seventeen projects which scored 3 used hard data.

4.4 Just over half (54.5%) of the projects were based in the Statutory sector and just less than half (45.5%) were based in the

Voluntary sector.

4.5

The proportion of Statutory and Voluntary sector projects which received positive intervention scores (either 2 or 3) was

about the same: 25/37 (just over two-thirds) for Statutory sector projects and 20/31 (just less than two-thirds) for Voluntary

sector projects.

4.6 A much higher proportion of projects (54/68) were Community based than School based. Although numbers were small, a

higher proportion of School based (5/13) projects than Community based projects (13/55) received a score of 3.

Factors associated with successful projects

This section is based on data analysis and on discussion between the evaluation team and LCF Programme Managers.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

46

4.7 Characteristics of successful projects are likely to include:

•

Clarity of objectives and programme design, and consistency

•

Project part of the core activity of the service (not an add-on)

•

Professionalism and stability of workers

•

Work well with partners and other agencies

•

Involving participants in significant learning, creative experiences and change of attitudes

•

Intensity of programme and high levels of attendance of young people

•

Involvement of parents for programmes targeted at children with problems

•

Effective liaison with, and support from, related services and professionals

•

Sound resources and finances

•

Successful programmes are also likely to be committed to continuous improvement, to be able to demonstrate

flexibility to respond to changing circumstances, and to co-operate with evaluation proposals.

4.8 High intensity / frequent contact have been features of a number of projects which have received positive evaluation scores.

These include Community Food Workers (BU13); Hyndburn Park Better Reading (HY/DI124), which provided three fifteen

minute reading sessions per week; the Excluded Children's Project (BU14), which delivered three sessions per week and

weekend contact for very challenging young people; and Groundwork (PE111) which also ran three sessions per week for

young people. Very intensive contact has also been provided for children supported by the Nurture Projects (PR/HY20,

HY169 and PE170).

4.9

A combination of several positive factors appears to have been a feature of projects which have worked well. Examples

include Moorside Primary School (WL27) where a combination of targeting children with problems, individual work with

parents and children, a programme of out of school activities and effective liaison with teaching staff, produced positive

results. The Excluded Children's Project (BU14), already mentioned, working with disruptive 10 - 14 year olds, using a

similar mix of individual and group work, showed determination to stick with children to achieve improvements in

behaviour, and managed to liaise well with schools, courts and the police: again with positive results. A third example is the

Preston Parenting Project (PR161) which demonstrated successful outcomes, targeting families needing support and

offering a range of one to one and group support, and running parent training and summer play schemes.

4.10

It is noteworthy that a number of projects have made effective use of local people and volunteers. Community Food

Workers (BU13) recruited and trained local people as part-time community food workers, under professional supervision.

Business in the Community (PR95) used volunteers from business as reading partners/pupil mentors. BSR Family Support

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

47

(PE149) trained volunteers to provide practical and social support for the whole family. These projects all received the

highest Intervention score. The Education Learning Activity Centre (BU55), a project wholly run by volunteers, with help

from parents and in liaison with the local school, was also rated positively.

Unit costs

4.11

The average cost per beneficiary per quarter was calculated from the Children’s Fund monitoring database by first

averaging the money spent per quarter, then averaging the number of beneficiaries reported by the projects, and then

dividing the average cost per quarter by the average number of beneficiaries per quarter. This method was selected as

many of the beneficiaries may be receiving services for more than one quarter and may be counted more than once if the

quarterly figures were simple added up for the year. However, there were some limitations, as the number of beneficiaries

were not reported by seven projects (e.g. where the money spent was on equipment or other type of investment), and

some projects appeared to include large numbers of children where the intervention included the distribution of publicity

materials (e.g. the Child Accident Prevention Scheme (PR179) where the average number of beneficiaries per quarter

was reported to be 4000.

4.12 Bearing in mind these limitations, the average cost per child per quarter across all projects was found to be round about

£300, calculated for 163 projects in the period up to December 2004. In the enclosed table of projects (Appendix 2), the

unit cost ranges from £5 to £3132, indicating that some interventions are rather expensive when compared to others, and

that some interventions are achieving very positive results at a lower cost. The GRIP project (MA48) appears to be fairly

expensive at a cost of £957 per quarter per beneficiary; however, project outcomes are positive and provide good value

for money when compared with the potential costs to the communities and to the criminal justice system if the young

people had continued to offend at the same level as previously. Similarly, the Nurture Groups (PR/HY20, HY169, and

PE170) appear to be expensive, but have been proven to be effective particularly with children with special educational

needs. With regard to school-related projects, it appears that school-based projects are not only effective, but also provide

very good to excellent value for money. In Hyndburn Park School (HY/DI124), for example, a control group design was

used indicating that children benefiting from the Children’s Fund project at the school were achieving better outcomes

then their peers who were not receiving the Children’s Fund project’s services.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

48

SECTION 5: COMMISSIONING, MAINSTREAMING AND REPLICATION

5.1 The Children's Fund was developed as an experimental project able to test out effective and less effective strategies for

supporting children and families, primarily at Level 2 and 3. This section aims to highlight practice developed by LCF

projects, where a clear evidential base has been established, which can be recommended for mainstreaming and replication.

5.2 Analysing projects according to the Every Child Matters Outcomes Framework has some limitations. The five outcomes

each contribute to an integrated whole. A strong case can be made that a number of LCF projects contribute to all five

outcomes. This would appear to be self-evident, for example, the Lord's House Farm, and for a number of Be Healthy

projects. The argument would appear to hold good for most Enjoy and Achieve and Make a Positive Contribution projects,

as well.

5.3 However, quite appropriately, projects have had to be categorised according to a main ECM Outcome. While this works well

enough for some, others can seem to be slightly straight-jacketed. One point of tension is between community-based

projects categorised as either Enjoy and Achieve or as Make a Positive Contribution where there is a good deal of overlap

between project objectives. This is particularly so for some projects which were originally designed to prevent crime or

tackle anti-social behaviour. While some projects have remained focused on crime prevention, others have promoted

diversion and involvement in creative activities, partly because of concerns about focusing on negative aspects of behaviour.

Some projects have negotiated a change in focus, while in others an element of drift may have been apparent.

5.4 The Outcomes Framework acknowledges that there is scope for the five Children's Outcomes to be buttressed by a wider

strategy for supporting families. Parents, carers and families are expected to promote healthy choice (Outcome 1); provide

safe homes and stability (Outcome 2); support learning (Outcome 3); and promote positive behaviour (Outcome 4). They

are also expected to be supported to be economically active (Outcome 5), and financial pressures on poorer families are

acknowledged.

5.5 This section makes reference to the Consultation Draft of A Plan for all the Children and Young People of Lancashire, the

production of which has been co-ordinated by Lancashire County Council on behalf of the Children and Young People’s

Strategic Partnership. The Plan sets out a number of county-wide key Priorities and highlights views of young people and

emerging local priorities. Evidence from the Children's Fund is one of a range of sources which can influence LCC's

mainstreaming and commissioning policies, particularly for children aged 5 - 13. Self-evidently, the priorities already

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

49

developed by other key stakeholders, Education, Health, Social Services and the Voluntary Sector also have a key

contribution to make to these developing policies.

(1)

Be Healthy (Outcome 1)

5.6 This outcome promotes children and young people's physical, mental, emotional and sexual health; healthy lifestyles;

choosing not to take illegal drugs; and the role of parents, carers and families in promoting healthy choices.

The County-wide Key Priorities are:

Reduce infant mortality rates particularly in those areas above the national average.

Improve access to the Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (LAA).

Increase the % of Lancashire's schools with National Healthy School Status (LAA).

Improve the impact of specialist intervention on vulnerable young people at risk of substance misuse (LAA).

Ensure that children and young people choose not to take illegal drugs, smoke or misuse alcohol.

Reduce teenage pregnancy rates particularly in the under 16 age group (LAA). ) Provided at

) the Urban

Increase the number of young people accessing sexual health services (LAA). ) Exchange

Preston

5.7 The LCC Draft Children and Young People’s Plan (CYPP) summarises relevant evidence:

What children and young people say is important:

•

Having a chance to eat a healthy diet and more choice about food in school.

•

Access to regular exercise and sport.

•

Not being affected by drink, smoking and drugs.

•

Getting help and support when needed.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

50

(i)

Healthy Lifestyles

5.8 The Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Community Food Workers Project (BU13) has provided clear evidence about

improvements in children's diet, as measured by the number of portions of fruit and vegetables eaten each day, following

involvement in After School Clubs involving children in growing and cooking food. The project is run by sessional staff and

involves a four-week programme for groups of twelve children in Years 4, 5 and 6 (Primary School). The project has been

run in communities with high numbers of people from South Asia. A major benefit has been sharing food cultures between

mainly white and mainly Pakistani Heritage communities. The project has attracted high level interest and support from

Health and Education.

•

The case for replicating After School Clubs based on the Community Food Project across Primary Schools in

Lancashire, including Extended Schools, is strong.

5.9 The Grow and Sow Project (PE/EM152) in Pendle has achieved positive results in improving children's dietary health, in

enabling children to feel fit and healthy, and wanting to learn more about healthy lifestyles. Feedback from large numbers of

schools has been excellent. The project advocates that every school should have its own garden, and that each class

should be involved in gardening once per week. The project has received support from the local Primary Care Trust and

accessed Lottery funding to support families with limited garden space growing vegetables.

•

This project is imaginative, energetic and visionary, and deserves to be mainstreamed and widely replicated.

5.10 The Health and Fitness Project (BU52) based in Burnley aims to improve lifestyles, diet and fitness levels and to reduce

obesity for Primary School children in the Burnley area. The key feature of this project is focusing on both lifestyle and

recreational (sporting) activities. The project has been intelligently designed and has worked with substantial numbers of

children. Clear evidence has been found about the project's positive impact on the fitness of children taking part.

•

This project merits mainstreaming and replication.

5.11 The Lancashire Healthy Schools Project (PE132) has been able to demonstrate improvements in children's awareness of

the importance of healthy eating and physical activities, and of the dangers of smoking for a majority of children. More than

a third of children have increased their intake of fruit and vegetables. The project has been run in fifteen schools in deprived

wards. Schools can identify their own priorities, for example healthy eating or emotional well-being. The project has proved

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

51

effective in both High Schools and Primary Schools of different sizes. Best results have been linked to targeting younger

children.

•

This project is being mainstreamed by Pendle Primary Care Trust from April 2006 to a much larger number of

schools. The model developed by the project should be considered for mainstreaming across the county, although

there are concerns about the resource being stretched too thinly if a much higher ratio of schools per project worker is

required.

(ii)

Children's Emotional Health

5.12 LCF has made substantial investments in Nurture Groups (PR/HY20, HY169, PE170), which provide selected young

children with an alternative school-based experience of nurturing and support, run by LCC Educational Psychologists for

children aged 5 - 7 in Primary Schools in East Lancashire. Nurture Groups have been particularly successful in improving

the emotional health of children with special needs and there is also evidence of improvements for most children involved in

number and reading skills. The lead Educational Psychologist has argued for roll-out of training in the principles of Nurture

Groups and the development of a continuum of nurturing provision in schools across Lancashire. Nurture Group costs are

high. Nurture Groups make links with parents, but do not engage with them closely, and benefits are unlikely to be

experienced by other siblings in the family.

•

LCF has developed a successful model for running Primary School-based Nurture Groups. Direct replication is

unlikely to be affordable because of high costs. The strongest case is for mainstreaming learning from Nurture

Groups and for investing in a programme of training for school staff in nurturing principles.

5.13 The Coastal Child and Adolescent Therapeutic Service (WY15) has been able to demonstrate improvements in

behaviour for a large majority of children and young people, particularly for those with the highest level of problems.

Parental satisfaction levels have been very high. The project is now mainly supporting Secondary School age children,

providing substantial levels of intervention through one-to-one support, group work and family counselling, aiming to improve

children's emotional health. Inter-agency links, particularly with the Children and Adolescent Mental Health Service

(CAMHS) are strong. The service is delivered through an independent voluntary trust employing a very well-qualified multi-

agency staff team. CCATS provides a unique front line children's mental health service to secondary (not currently to

Primary) Schools in the Fleetwood area. Experience has demonstrated the importance of funding needing to "travel" with

children needing support, rather than being project-based.

Lancashire Children's Fund: Final Report – May 2006

Nationwide Children's Research Centre

University of Huddersfield

52

•

Similar developments county-wide are to be strongly encouraged, although commissioning multi-agency teams with

similar high-level qualifications could be problematic.

(iii)

Further Commissioning Implications

5.14 LCF projects promoting children's healthy lifestyles can help develop county-wide strategies, particularly towards achieving

Healthy School Standards. The need for strategic alliances between Health and Education to fund healthy lifestyle

programmes is emphasised. The Coastal Child and Adolescent Therapeutic Service provides a model front line service for

improving children's emotional health. Although LCF school-based projects contribute to improving children's mental health

<div style="position:a