Title: Functional Family Therapy for Families of Youth (age 11-18) with behaviour problems
Funder: Health and Social Care Research and Development Division (HSC R&D) of Public Health Agency, Northern Ireland

Abstract: There has been an increase in the number of children and young people in care. The number of children in care has reached an all-time high, with care applications climbing year after year (CAFCASS, 2012). Whilst the number of children in care has been rising, educational attainment for this group is significantly lower than the general population. English figures show that at Key Stage One (Age 8) 71% of looked after children achieved level two or above in reading (DfE, 2014, p.1), whereas in the population as a whole this figure was 90% (DfE, 2014, p.10). Similarly, 61% of children in care achieved the recommended level in writing and 72% achieved this in mathematics. All of these were considerably lower than the figures presented for the general population (86% and 92% respectively). Achieving well educationally is important in the short term, but it also has enormous long term consequences. Thompson (2007) noted that positive educational experiences and achievement could be seen as protective factors contributing to resilience, better outcomes in later life and psychological and emotional wellbeing (Berridge, 2002; Meyer, 1999). Those children with poor educational attainment are at higher risk of becoming marginalised and socially excluded through lack of access to jobs, low income and lack of support. They are also more likely to become homeless and have poor emotional health (Action for Children, 2014). It is therefore crucial for children who have been placed in care to achieve at a standard which is consistent with their peers who are not in care in order for them to achieve the qualifications and schooling necessary to rise above the issues and problems which they may face. The Department for Education (DfE, 2014a;b) have emphasised the need for early intervention and preventative measures in recent policy and practice documents. Alongside these developments the Department of Education Northern Ireland published Every School a Good School: A Policy for School Improvement (DENI, 2008). This policy initiative centred on six key areas for schools: effective leadership; high quality teaching; tackling barriers to learning; self-evaluation; support to help schools improve; and increasing engagement. To provide the best education possible it was acknowledged that ‘schools cannot be expected to tackle them single-handedly and we will work to ensure that schools receive the support they need from other agencies’ (DENI, 2008, p.23), thus putting the education of children in care at the forefront of the agenda and ensuring a holistic, ecological view of learning was employed. In England, Northern Ireland and many other parts of the world (including Canada and USA) government bursaries are available for every looked after child in school (DfE, 2010; Salisbury, 2013). In England one ‘of the Government’s key priorities is to introduce a pupil premium to support all disadvantaged pupils, who continue to underachieve compared with their peers’ (DfE, 2010, p.4). In 2013, The Independent Review of the Common Funding Scheme (Salisbury, 2013) proposed that schools should be given additional funding for each looked after pupil enrolled in their school. The review said that it was a ‘glaring anomaly’ that they had not been previously allocated increased funding (Salisbury, 2013, p.37). DENI (2013) implemented these recommendations in Northern Ireland. This increased awareness of children in care is not unique to the UK, in Canada an increased awareness has been reflected in policy developments (Ferguson and Wolkow, 2012). Similarly, Swedish studies have reflected the growing awareness in Scandinavian countries (Franzen, Vinnerljung and Hjerm, 2008). Given this background it is vitally important that we map out the types of interventions which are available to children in care in order to improve their educational attainment. There are no existing Cochrane reviews on this topic. Home based programmes have not been given any attention in previous reviews. A review by Liabo, Gray and Mulcahy (2013), focussed only on school based interventions for older children, and included studies published until 2010. By not taking home interventions into account this programme will have missed studies which focus on carer led activities or book gifting programmes. Due to the nature of being in care, home interventions are popular. Another review, by Forsman and Vinnerljung (2012) reviewed literature published until 2010. Here, studies were included which did not include a control group, and so direct comparisons were not possible and gains were not directly attributable to the programmes being evaluated. No attempt was made at meta-analysis and this was a scoping review. These reviews occurred before important policy changes relating to children in care and their education. They also do not account for research which has been carried out in the last 6 years. This review will therefore focus on all educational interventions which have been delivered to children in care during their time in formal education (3-18). Participants will be between 3 and 18 years of age and in full time education. Studies which include children in care and a matched control group of in care participants will be included. The interventions are likely to be varied, however they must include, as a core aim, the improvement of one or more facets of educational attainment. Primary outcome domains will therefore include reading, cognitive function, number skills and other attainment measures. These interventions may be delivered in any setting and any duration or frequency of exposure will be considered.


Research activity codes: 3.1 PRIMARY PREVENTION INTERVENTIONS TO MODIFY BEHAVIOURS OR PROMOTE WELL-BEING
Health categories: DISPUTED AETIOLOGY AND OTHER