Local Evaluation of Children's Services Learning from the Children's ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

When citing this report please show authorship in full as follows:Spicer, N., and Smith, P. (2006)The National Evaluation of the Children’s Fund (NECF) ran from January 2003 toMarch 2006. A large number of people were involved in a variety of ways. Here welist members of the team who worked on either part-time or full-time bases during thethirty-nine months of the evaluation.NECF Team MembersThis report has been produced with the help of members of the Birmingham-based NECFresearch team.Lul Admasachew *David Allan*Professor Marian Barnes (Deputy Co-Director)Hanne BeirensAdrian BlackledgeLiz Chilton*Jane CoadLaura Day-AshleyProfessor Anne Edwards (Director)Ruth EvansTony FieldingRachel HekNathan HughesLucy LovelessNatasha MacNabAngus McCabe*Maggie McCutcheonKate Morris (Project Manager)Paul MasonKath PinnockGill PlumridgeHiromi YamashitaThe report draws on work undertaken by the whole team. Those who have particularlycontributed to producing it are marked by*.NECF can be contacted at –The National Evaluation of the Children’s FundGround FloorThe Watson BuildingThe University of BirminghamEdgbastonBirmingham B15 2TTTel0121 414 8089 – Amanda Owen-Meehan, Senior Project AdministratorEmail A.Owenmeehan@bham.ac.uk
AcknowledgementsNECF would like to thank the following people for the time they gave to theevaluation. It was much appreciated.• The children, young people and their families.• The practitioners who worked with the children and young people.• Local evaluators.• Members of partnership boards and other strategic groups.• The programme managers and their teams.• Regional managers and their teams.• NECF reference groups who gave on-going feedback as analyses developed.
Page 1 and 2: RESEARCHLocal Evaluation ofChildren
Page 6 and 7: ContentsExecutive SummaryIIntroduct
Page 8 and 9: Local Evaluation of the Children’
Page 10 and 11: 10. Local evaluators highlighted th
Page 12 and 13: 20. Some evaluators involved childr
Page 14 and 15: successes of partnerships’ work (
Page 16: 38. Conditions reinforcing effectiv
Page 19 and 20: Children’s Fund initiative, namel
Page 21 and 22: engaging with policy makers, practi
Page 23 and 24: starting points and timetables of d
Page 25 and 26: 1. Process evaluation: critical ass
Page 27 and 28: time commitments and pressures amon
Page 29 and 30: tantamount to auditing when origina
Page 31 and 32: to a certain extent, because I was
Page 33 and 34: acknowledge that findings presented
Page 35 and 36: methods that were seen as being app
Page 38 and 39: Chapter 2: Methods Adopted by Child
Page 40 and 41: place. In one Wave One evaluation t
Page 42 and 43: provided by projects weakened the a
Page 44 and 45: confidently attribute any trends in
Page 46 and 47: A Wave Two evaluation report descri
Page 48 and 49: • Recruitment of the researcher:
Page 50 and 51: drawn on by evaluators include semi
Page 52 and 53: Chapter 3: How Local Evaluation Sup
Page 54 and 55:
participation and work towards the
Page 56 and 57:
highlighted in Table 1). These incl
Page 58 and 59:
of had an impact. So we used a case
Page 60 and 61:
Similarly an evaluator of a Wave Tw
Page 62 and 63:
Evaluators sometimes struggled to a
Page 64:
6. A number of factors inhibit eval
Page 67 and 68:
A number of evaluations described h
Page 69 and 70:
4.2 Key Messages from Local Evaluat
Page 71 and 72:
for staff, typically dedicated part
Page 73 and 74:
Where partnership working was descr
Page 75 and 76:
strategic changes in children’s s
Page 77 and 78:
9. Evaluators reported that some co
Page 79 and 80:
The importance of providing finding
Page 81 and 82:
National Evaluation of the Children
show all

Local Evaluation of Children's Services Learning from the Children's ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?