This rapid review looked at levels of school non-attendance of children with a social worker in the UK, including risk factors and effectiveness of interventions to improve attendance. Findings show a significant increase in absenteeism for children with social workers and multiple risk factors. The findings suggest that there is a lack of recent interventions targeting school non-attendance for these children, and a lack of research into the risk factors of school non-attendance and what can be done to mitigate them. We recommend that policymakers look at how they can best support those on the ‘front line’ of school non-attendance, including foster carers, schools and teachers.
This rapid review looks at 23 papers on the school non-attendance of children with a social worker in the UK. Whilst previous research has found a correlation between school attendance and higher academic achievement, poorer attendance is known to affect children from vulnerable groups, particularly those with a social worker, who would likely stand to benefit most from education. This review considers children who are on a Child in Need (CiN) plan, Child Protection Plan (CPP) or Children Looked After (CLA). Published alongside the review is a report produced by young people, who were recruited to review the report, provide feedback on accessibility and language, and produce their own responses to the rapid review. This report contains their responses and reflections on the findings.
This rapid review had three aims:
A grey literature search was conducted, as well as a systematic search for studies across eight electronic social science, sociology and education databases. The review was also limited to including empirical research (randomised controlled trials, observational studies and qualitative studies) that have been published since 2010 involving school-age children between the ages of 4 and 17 in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and/or Wales.
Extent of absence among CSW:
Risk factors for non-attendance among CSW were identified as:
Effectiveness of existing interventions to improve attendance:
The findings suggest that there is a lack of recent interventions targeting school non-attendance among CSW in the UK, as well as a lack of research into the risk factors of school non-attendance and what can be done to mitigate them. It is recommended that policymakers look at how they can best support those on the ‘front line’ of school non-attendance, including foster carers, schools and teachers.
This rating is based on information that programme providers have supplied about the components and requirements of their programme. Based on this information, EIF rates programmes on a scale from 1 to 5, where 1 indicates the least resource-intensive programmes and 5 the most resource-intensive.
1: A rating of 1 indicates that a programmes has a low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.
2: A rating of 2 indicates that a programme has a medium-low cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.
3: A rating of 3 indicates that a programme has a medium cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.
4: A rating of 4 indicates that a programme has a medium-high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.
5: A rating of 5 indicates that a programme has a high cost to set up and deliver, compared with other interventions reviewed by EIF. This is equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.
Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.
The evidence ratings distinguish five levels of strength of evidence. This is not a rating of the scale of impact but of the degree to which a programme has been shown to have a positive, causal impact on specific child outcomes.
Level 2: Recognises programmes with preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome, but where an assumption of causal impact cannot be drawn.
Level 2+: The programme will have observed a significant positive child outcome in an evaluation meeting all of the criteria for a level 2 evaluation, but also involving a treatment and comparison group. There is baseline equivalence between the treatment and comparison‐group participants on key demographic variables of interest to the study and baseline measures of outcomes (when feasible).
Level 3: Recognises programmes with evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous evaluation – that is, where a judgment about causality can be made.
Level 3+: The programme will have obtained evidence of a significant positive child outcome through an efficacy study, but may also have additional consistent positive evidence from other evaluations (occurring under ideal circumstances or real world settings) that do not meet this criteria, thus keeping it from receiving an assessment of 4 or higher.
Level 4: Recognises programmes with evidence of a long-term positive impact through multiple rigorous evaluations. At least one of these studies must have evidence of improving a child outcome lasting a year or longer.