1. A RCT evaluation of The Letterbox Club in Northern Ireland Dr Karen Winter and Jennifer Mooney k.winter@qub.ac.uk jmooney06@qub.ac.uk Dr Karen Winter and Jennifer Mooney k.winter@qub.ac.uk jmooney06@qub.ac.uk

2. Poor educational outcomes Measures: attendance rates; suspensions; exclusions; attainment in tests, exams and formal qualifications Contributory factors: interplay of individual child; familial and care related characteristics Disability; abuse; trauma; physical/emotional ill health; poor familial relationships; multiple transitions; poor attachment; stigma; labelling; lack of support for carers Context

3. Legislation Policy and practice initiatives Macro level - structures and processes Micro level – direct to child interventions Concern with evidence, what works, cost effectiveness Initiatives

4. The Letterbox Club Once monthly parcel for 6 months May to October Books, stationery, number games Addressed to the child Personalised letter Interest level, not ability level Aims www.letterboxclub.org.uk

5. Contents

6. Letterbox Club began 2002 2003-2006 pilot work 2007 – national pilot funded by government 2008; 2010 evaluations by programme designers in England and Northern Ireland Gains in reading and number skills 2011 independent evaluation data in Northern Ireland – gains reported www.qub.ac.uk/cee Available research

7. Can the gains in reading and number skills be attributed directly to the Letterbox Club intervention? The gap

8. Comparison using standardised scores - limits Importance of control group – identical, random allocation, evenly balanced, variations accounted for Essential if we are serious about addressing inequality Next slides consider 3 elements to study design: the RCT, logic model and the process evaluation. The gap

9. Does not account for previous research around reading Assumes a linear movement Hinges on feelings of ownership Assumes children do not have access to materials Middle class deficit view of children in care Logic model Mismatch between inputs and anticipated outcomes?

10. Current study The RCT study

11. Flow chart RCT study participants

12. Measures Neale Analysis of reading ability Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (Garfield) Other data Age Gender Type of placement Trust area Logic model Data collected Placement moves Carer information Length of time in care Siblings/ foster siblings Letterbox fun days

14. Attitudes Ethics Collaborators Fieldworkers Results Responses to results RCT challenges

15. Interviews foster children and their carers Exploring: what actually happens at time of receipt of the parcel; engagement with parcels; views on parcel content; and ongoing support with the materials. Logic model Process evaluation

16. Further Studies- nurture groups and school based interventions Collaborations- with colleagues in Canada and REES centre (Oxford) Development of the programme Many Thanks! Logic model The Future