Issuu

Just for Joy Programme Evaluation

By tialt // there is an alternative September 2026

Just for Joy - Programme Evaluation

Summary 3 Introduction and Context 5 The Just for Joy Approach 7 Evaluation Approach 8 Key Outcomes 9 1. Communication and Self-Expression 9 2. Confidence, Agency and Choice-Making

3. Emotional Regulation and Transitions

4. Relationships and Teamwork

5. Quantitative Measures

CONTENTS

Emerging Impacts 13

Emerging Impacts for Children

Emerging Impacts for School Staff

Emerging Impacts for Schools and Partner Organisations

Remaining Challenges

Evaluation Methodology

Delivery Model: Individual Vs Group

Uneven Impact and Impact Measurement Across Children

Possible Futures

Further Formalise the Staff ‘Legacy’ Role

Consider Resourcing and Sensory Load

Make Explicit, Evidence-based Choices About Delivery Ratio

Revisit the Evaluation Toolkit

Consider Scope and Fit for Ages and Stages

Report by tialt - there is an alternative

Summary Just for Joy was a trauma-informed clowning programme led and projectmanaged by Blue Cabin, working in partnership with Gateshead Virtual School (GVS), TimbaDash Theatre and three SEND partner schools: Dryden School, Gibside School and Cedars Academy. Building from a pre-existing TimbaDash Theatre programme model, the partnership brought a unique opportunity for each organisation to learn from each other in the context of focusing on care experienced young people in SEND settings. TimbaDash Theatre artists Elena, Liv and Jonah led the sessions, performing as the clowns Boggle, Pip and Toot. The project was entirely funded by the North East Mayoral Strategic Authority. Across a total of ten weeks of weekly 1:1 ‘Clowning Connections’ sessions between January and June 2026, building towards whole-class ‘Joyful Jamboree’ goodbye parties, the programme worked towards seven aims:

01 Promoting self-expression through creativity

02 03

Encouraging teamwork and relationship building

Building confidence

04 05

Supporting emotional regulation

Enhancing verbal and nonverbal communication

Easing transitions

06 07

Promoting curiosity in trying new things and finding ‘wonder’ in the everyday

Just for Joy - Programme Evaluation

Core components

Activities

Participants

Key outcomes

Emerging impacts

Possible futures

•

Weekly 1:1 and paired ‘Clowning Connections’ sessions in sensory/immersion rooms

•

Communication tools: widget cards, the ‘Clown Clock’, sound buttons, visual choice boards

•

Culminating ‘Joyful Jamboree’ class parties and goodbye rituals

•

Evolving evaluation: post-its, Joyful Jotters, trial feedback forms, interviews, artist self-report scoring

•

‘Joyful Legacies’: Toolkits and resources for teachers to continue to provide clowning activities in classrooms

•

Sensory and light play, music-making and instrument exploration

•

Emotion card and sound-button work for emotional literacy

•

Storytelling, puppetry, magic and slapstick play

•

Corridor and transition games; whole-class performance in the final weeks

•

Care experienced children with SEND

•

TimbaDash Theatre artists (Elena, Liv, Jonah)

•

School staff, including class teachers, TAs, and Gateshead Virtual School (Rebecca, Adele)

•

Blue Cabin project management (Amy)

•

Strong, well-evidenced progress in communication, confidence and emotional regulation

•

Good evidence for curiosity/wonder and self-expression, concentrated in different data sources per school

•

More mixed evidence for development of peer relationships

•

Engaging a culture of learning through play within schools

•

Cross-organisation learning and development between partners

•

For children: individually documented growth in trust, communication and regulation, several with named breakthrough moments witnessed independently by teachers

•

For school staff: a genuine, in several cases unprompted, uptake of clowning and play-based techniques into everyday practice

•

For schools and partners: headteacher advocacy for continuation, new ways of partnership working and early conversations about developing an ongoing offer

•

Formalise the emerging ‘legacy’ role that trusted school staff took on organically at some sites

•

Revisit the evaluation toolkit for future cohorts, balancing rigour against the burden on stretched school staff

•

Make explicit design choices about delivery ratio (1:1 versus paired/group) based on desired impacts

The following report provides further context for the Just for Joy project, defines the programme model and presents findings relating to the key outcomes and emerging impacts. Remaining challenges and recommendations for future iterations of the programme are also considered.

Report by tialt - there is an alternative

Introduction and Context In 2025, Blue Cabin Local Authority advisor Joanne Stoddart’s annual data report on trends for care experienced people in the UK indicated an increasing population of care experienced children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). Blue Cabin responded by strategically prioritising care experienced people with SEND and sought partnership opportunities and funding to develop a programme in response. Just for Joy was a trauma-informed clowning programme led and project-managed by Blue Cabin, working in partnership with Gateshead Virtual School (GVS), TimbaDash Theatre and three SEND partner schools: Dryden School, Gibside School and Cedars Academy. Building from a pre-existing TimbaDash Theatre programme model, the partnership brought a unique opportunity for each organisation to learn from each other in the context of focusing on care experienced young people in SEND settings. The project was entirely funded by the North East Mayoral Strategic Authority. Delivery centred on weekly, individually tailored ‘Clowning Connections’ sessions, generally held in sensory or immersion rooms (and, where needed, corridors, libraries, gardens or outdoor spaces, following the child’s lead). Artists worked in pairs as clown characters Boggle, Pip and Toot, with each session responsive to the child in front of them rather than delivered to a fixed script. As the programme progressed, this built toward whole class ‘Joyful Jamboree’ goodbye parties in the final two weeks at each school, extending the relational work built in 1:1 sessions into a group and peer setting.

The programme worked toward seven stated aims:

Enhancing verbal and nonverbal communication

Promoting self-expression through creativity

Building confidence

Encouraging teamwork and relationship building

Easing transitions

Supporting emotional regulation

Promoting curiosity in trying new things and finding ‘wonder’ in the everyday

Photography: Lorem Ipsum Image: Lorem Ipsum

Just for Joy - Programme Evaluation

The three settings are specialist schools rather than mainstream settings with additional support. Dryden School serves students with severe or profound and multiple learning difficulties, several of whom also have communication difficulties, autism, or physical and complex medical needs. Cedars Academy Trust supports a wide range of additional needs including physical, sensory and medical conditions, speech, language and communication needs, autism, and complex learning needs often linked to emotional vulnerability. Gibside School, a primary-age specialist provision, supports children with an Education, Health and Care Plan across a similarly broad range, including severe and profound and multiple learning disabilities, autism, cerebral palsy, Down’s syndrome, speech and language needs, and complex needs associated with emotional vulnerability and trauma. Most children present with a combination of needs rather than a single diagnosis, and the case examples referenced throughout this report

are illustrations of individual presentation and progress, rather than representative “types” of children and young people. This context also explains why a sensory, play-based, largely non-verbal approach was a considered alignment building from existing practice. TimbaDash Theatre describes its own mission as creating “immersive, sensory theatre experiences designed for young people with learning disabilities,” built on principles of sensoryrich, multi-sensory engagement; removing barriers to participation regardless of ability; co-creating with young people rather than performing at them; and using sensory engagement, music and storytelling in ways aligned with SEND best practice to support communication, self-expression, confidence and emotional regulation. Just for Joy sits within this broader practice rather than being a one-off intervention designed from scratch. One of the artists defined the programme in the following way:

“Just For Joy uses trauma-informed clowning and play to create relational moments of connection, communication and regulation for children. The approach complements counselling within school settings by providing non-verbal, play-based opportunities for expression and co-regulation, particularly for children who find traditional talking therapies challenging.” - Artist reflection 6

Report by tialt - there is an alternative

The Just for Joy Approach Sessions typically began with recognition and ritual where children were greeted by name, and met at the classroom door or in the corridor, often before the clowns had changed persona. Sessions were built around choice: children were offered options between music, play, storytelling or stillness, using visual tools (‘widget’ cards, a ‘Clown Clock’ showing the shape of the session, sound buttons, and later a visual party board) that gave children with limited verbal communication a route to directing their own sessions. These tools were introduced independently and at different points at each school, suggesting the tools were being developed responsively at each site rather than rolled out as a single fixed ‘model of practice’. Sensory play, music-making, storytelling, puppetry and slapstick magic were recurrent methods, but the artists were consistently explicit that the content mattered less than the relational approach: following the child’s lead, welcoming silence and repetition, and recognising how a fleeting moment of eye contact or a single word can become a pathway of communication between the clown and the child.

A recurring observation across all three schools’ reflections is the artists altering their own plans mid-session in response to a child’s mood, energy or sensory state. Each session was designed to be a series of offers for engagement as opposed to following a set structure. There was never any pressure or expectations from the artists in terms of how the young people chose to engage. Instead, they wanted to create an environment where each child had agency to engage at their own pace. This allowed the artists to create a bespoke offer adapted to meet the needs of each child. Across all three schools, teaching staff were actively encouraged to observe, join in and pick up techniques from the artists as sessions went on, rather than simply supervise or observe. At one school, a teaching assistant undertaking a Level 5 TA apprenticeship was present at almost every session across the programme and her role evolved from support presence to active co-facilitator, independently using clowning techniques with children by the programme’s final weeks and describing this as “a legacy of the project.” In her endof-programme interview, she described concrete changes to her own classroom practice as a result:

“I honestly think Just for Joy has been really helpful with the children... I think it’s just really helped children to explore their own ways of playing, allow them to express their own choices... I feel like it should be everywhere, especially with the younger ones because their needs are so complex.” – Teaching Assistant Other school staff described taking the clowns’ child-led approach back into their own practice, indicating a genuine capacity-building effect running alongside the direct work with children.

Just for Joy - Programme Evaluation

Evaluation Approach This report draws on a range of material generated within Just for Joy delivery across the three schools between January and June 2026. An evaluation plan was developed at the beginning of the programme, but methods and approaches were iterated to suit the settings and capacity as delivery continued. The following sources inform this analysis:

Photography: Lorem Ipsum Image: Lorem Ipsum

•

Weekly artist reflections (narrative accounts, recorded after each session) covering ten weeks at Dryden School and Gibside School and seven weeks at Cedars Academy Per-visit artist feedback forms - structured scoring (emotional wellbeing, engagement, motor and cognitive skills) plus tagged qualitative fields, completed after each individual session across all three schools

•

Teacher ‘trial’ feedback forms, piloted partway through the programme at each school

•

Teacher-authored ‘Joyful Jotters’ and ‘Spot the Joy’ post-it notes, capturing in-the-moment observations

•

Two recorded and transcribed teacher interviews (Dryden School and Cedars Academy)

•

A cross-school ‘silent discussion’ staff reflection activity, using shared prompt questions across all three schools

•

Process-level reflections from the artists themselves (covering evaluation, CPD, logistics, delivery model and resources)

•

A mid-project reflection session between TimbaDash Theatre and Blue Cabin, covering partnership, project management and organisational learning

Because these sources were collected in different formats, at different points in the programme, and with different levels of consistency across the three schools, this report treats the three sites as a single combined narrative, drawing out comparative differences where they contribute to the overall impact narrative, rather than presenting three parallel case studies.

Report by tialt - there is an alternative

Key Outcomes four themes, reflecting how the evidence naturally clustered across the artist reflections, feedback forms, teacher observations, team reflection spaces and interviews. Within each theme, the strength and consistency of evidence is presented. Where some outcomes are well evidenced across all three schools and multiple independent sources, others rest on less consistent or more school-specific evidence.

‘Outcomes’ refer to the changes that were observable over the course of the 10-week programme period.

The seven intended outcomes of Just for Joy are grouped below into

1. Communication and Self-Expression Communication is the most consistently and strongly evidenced outcome across the whole programme, and the one with the clearest before-and-after markers for individual children. In one school, a child known throughout the programme as largely non-verbal spontaneously said ‘music’ and ‘party’ unprompted in the final two weeks, described by the artists as “huge”, and independently corroborated in his teacher’s end-of-programme interview, who described his journey as “from completely just not even acknowledging to... requesting things.” In another school, a child progressed from a handful of distress vocalisations in week one to using dozens of words within three weeks (e.g., animal sounds, nursery rhyme fill-ins, his own name) and by week seven was reported by his teacher to be pressing buttons and calling lifts around the school purely because of the sessions, indicating unprompted skill transfer outside the clown room altogether.

A near-identical, independently occurring version of this same behaviour (i.e., a different child pressing every button he passed on the way back to class after a session) was separately recorded in another school’s staff reflection notes, suggesting this is a genuine cross-site pattern rather than one child’s idiosyncrasy. Self-expression through creativity is well evidenced but less consistently documented in the artist notes. There were several examples of children recording and directing their own sounds, leading their own invented games and controlling music tempo and dynamics as a form of authorship. Curiosity and wonder is least often named explicitly in the case-level reflections, but shows up strongly in the artist self-report data: ‘highly curious’ and ‘enjoys sensory play’ are among the most frequently applied tags across all three schools’ feedback forms, and torches, shadows, lights and magic recur as sources of sustained fascination throughout every school’s narrative.

Photography: Lorem Ipsum Image: Lorem Ipsum

Just for Joy - Programme Evaluation

2. Confidence, Agency and Choice-Making Confidence-building is heavily represented in every data source, and the artists’ own selfreport tags are consistent across all three schools: ‘makes choices’ and ‘expresses preferences’ are the two most frequently applied confidence tags. This consistency may reflect genuine, comparable impact, but could equally reflect a shared observational habit among the artists. Individual growth stories further illustrate the observations. In one case a child moved from a silent observer to leading songs and showing his nose and hat to teachers, another child was described by his class teacher as having ‘thrived’ and ‘flourished’ over the ten weeks, coming out of his shell despite being ‘often really shy in class’.

Not every child’s confidence growth was clearly linear and consistent. One child showed gradual, effortful progress that both the artists and his class teacher independently attributed to anxiety about making the perceived wrong choice. Examples like this highlight how bespoke and individualised progression appears for each child in each school context.

Photography: Lorem Ipsum Image: Lorem Ipsum

Report by tialt - there is an alternative

3. Emotional Regulation and Transitions Emotional regulation and easing transitions were addressed directly and repeatedly through the programme’s visual tools (e.g., the Clown Clock, widget boards, and later the visual party board), all designed explicitly to help children anticipate and process the beginning and end of a session. Several children showed clear, teachercorroborated improvements in selfregulation and managing session endings over the ten weeks. Others showed a more complex picture. One child’s engagement and joy grew steadily and dramatically across the whole programme, but a persistent tendency to bite when overexcited was recorded in four separate weekly reflections; his artist self-report scores on emotional regulation dipped rather than climbed in the programme’s later weeks even as his relational engagement (and his teacher’s emotional response to the final session) suggested the opposite. This is an important nuance for interpreting the artist scoring data overall - a numerical dip does not always mean reduced impact and may instead reflect development in a separate outcome within an otherwise strongly positive story.

More broadly, artist self-reported trajectories are not uniformly upward at every school. One school shows an almost universal positive trend across tracked children; another is mostly positive with some plateaus; another shows a genuinely mixed picture, with several children showing peaks followed by declines rather than steady growth. In most of these cases the narrative reflections offer a plausible explanation; one child’s dips coincide with deliberate pair-session trials that did not suit him as well as 1:1 delivery, another’s coincides with a sibling-pairing trial that her own support staff said reduced her engagement (“perhaps having her sibling there meant focus wasn’t on her”). Alongside this, different artists would track different children’s journeys on different days, indicating a further complicating factor in the reliability of this type of data within these settings. This is discussed further under Remaining Challenges.

Just for Joy - Programme Evaluation

4. Relationships and Teamwork Peer relationship-building shows significant, but more school-specific, evidence. One school ran the most deliberate programme of peer-pairing experiments and one pair indicated a documented shift from a ‘fractious’ relationship to sustained cooperative play across five weeks. Another school’s sessions remained predominantly 1:1 throughout, limiting the evidence base for this aim there.

The third school ran the most systematic trial of pair and group delivery of the three, although the artists concluded that group delivery, while valuable for some purposes, consistently produced shallower engagement than 1:1 sessions for the specific children in this programme. This finding is echoed, independently, in the cross-school staff reflection and in the artists’ own end-ofprogramme process notes.

5. Quantitative Measures The chart below shows aggregate Numbers are based on artist estimates, quantitative measures for all children taking which are subjective and do not take part in Just for Joy across three dimensions account for other variables that could affect (Emotional Wellbeing, Engagement, and a child’s mode of participation (e.g., being Motor/Cognitive skills), from Session 1 to activated by something before or outside Session 10. While broadly showing progress of the session); not all children participated across all main outcome areas from to the same extent, therefore some have 10 sessions 1-10, there are also a number of recorded observations, others have two or Programme-wide average of artist scores (1–5), by session number per child caveats to mention. three. Likewise, in one school observations were only recorded for seven sessions.

Average scores by outcome domain

Sessions 8–10: two of three schools

4.40 Moto

4.17 Emo

Score (1–5)

4.00 Enga 3.59

3.05 2.90

2 1

Session number (per child)

/ Cognitive Emotional Wellbeing Engagement Scores are artistMotor estimates, averaged across all children observed at each session. The number of children observed varies by session, and one school recorded seven sessions only. Figures are indicative rather than statistically robust.

Report by tialt - there is an alternative

Taken together, the outcomes above point to emerging impacts across three distinct groups: the children themselves, the school staff around them, and the schools and partner organisations hosting the programme. We say ‘emerging’ impacts, because the relatively short delivery timeframe means there may be further impacts that become evident further on from the programme end point and evaluation.

For Children

For School Staff

Impacts refers to the larger-scale, or cumulative, changes that are observable as a result of the programme.

Emerging Impacts

For Schools and Partner Organisations

Emerging Impacts for Children Both artists and teachers independently document growth in trust, communication and self-regulation across several children and at all schools. Recurring indicators include: first spontaneous words or requests; unprompted transfer of session behaviours into daily school life (e.g., button-pressing, seeking out sensory equipment, leading peers); and visible growth in willingness to try new things and tolerate proximity and touch with previously unfamiliar adults.

For several children, particularly those with the most limited starting communication, the relationship with the clowns appears to have functioned as a genuine attachment, evidenced further by two children’s clear reluctance for the programme to end (e.g., one child repeatedly hiding the ‘goodbye party’ sign because, as his teacher read it, “he doesn’t want it to end”). These all indicate strong individual-level impacts of the programme and approach over and above the kinds of provision that would have been taking place within the settings anyway.

Just for Joy - Programme Evaluation

Emerging Impacts for School Staff An unprompted uptake of clowning and play-based techniques into everyday practice was most fully developed at one school through the Teaching Assistant’s embedded role, but echoed in some form at every school. The cross-school staff reflection activity captured this directly and repeatedly: staff described learning to ‘be fun and silly’, to let go of pre-assumptions and follow the child’s interest, and in one case, reported using clowning-derived approaches to help a child access an existing method more successfully than before (i.e., ‘bucket time’, an in-class method where novel items are pulled out from a bucket to support children’s attention and communication).

In one school a comment noted that staff supporting a class of older, more ‘streetwise’ young people felt the approach would be a poor fit for that specific cohort, indicating a useful boundary for understanding where this model does and does not translate.

Emerging Impacts for Schools and Partner Organisations At one school, the headteacher directly asked how the programme might continue on a more permanent basis and explored whether it could contribute to funded ‘counselling’ provision targets (leading to the trauma-informed clowning definition quoted earlier in this report). A member of staff who described herself as having been ‘scared of clowns’ at the outset of the project reported wanting to train as one herself by its end. The project has strengthened Blue Cabin’s understanding of the importance of combining clear project structures and communication systems with flexibility and specialist expertise. It has demonstrated the value of working closely with SEND specialists such as TimbaDash, particularly as SEND is not Blue Cabin’s area of core expertise, and has increased understanding of the different approaches and flexibility required when working with SEND schools.

The strength of the existing relationship with GVS was key in enabling the project to take place, highlighting the importance of established, trusted relationships with schools, particularly as working specifically with care-experienced young people in this way represented a new and unusual approach for the schools involved. Blue Cabin has always placed importance on building space within projects for staff wellbeing, reflection, debriefing and emotional processing into project planning, particularly when delivery is intensive, and all parties involved in this project have benefited from this approach.

Report by tialt - there is an alternative

Remaining Challenges Evaluation Methodology “We aren’t evaluators, so it’s been hard to create frameworks of evaluation... The needs of the children mean it’s hard to collect feedback from them directly. Teachers are at capacity, [so it’s] hard to gather feedback... asking and providing forms as this places pressure on teachers and can feed into the learning environment.” – Artist reflection This observation is corroborated independently at the project management level. The mid-project review recorded a ‘possible need to amend our artist data capture form for future projects’, while noting the team did not want to change tools mid-programme in case it affected the comparability of results. In practice, this showed up throughout the source material

Delivery Model: Individual Vs Group Feedback from artists and teachers points fairly clearly toward 1:1 delivery producing deeper engagement than paired or group sessions for most of the children involved, particularly those with higher sensory sensitivity or lower tolerance for unpredictability. This created a tension with the Joyful Jamboree model, which aimed to move toward group and whole-class delivery in the programme’s final weeks. The artists’ reflections at all three schools note that children who thrived in 1:1 sessions were often visibly less engaged, or more likely to become overstimulated, in the class-based versions. This represents a choice that seems to have been made consciously (i.e., to build peer relationships and give children a chance to share the experience with classmates) rather than by oversight, but it is worth considering whether other approaches may also lead to social outcomes while maintaining strong engagement.

as inconsistently completed post-its and jotters by teachers, trial feedback forms that ran for only two or three sessions before being discontinued, and the variation in delivery contexts. None of this invalidates the findings in this report, but it does mean that quantitative comparisons between schools, or between weeks, should be read as indicative rather than statistically robust.

Uneven Impact and Impact Measurement Across Children Not every child’s trajectory was positive throughout, and the programme’s data should not be read as showing universal, linear improvement. One school in particular shows several children with mixed or declining scores across the programme, generally explainable by identifiable causes (e.g., pair-session trials, illness, external life circumstances) rather than the programme not being effective. However, this nuance would be lost if the aggregate data were presented as a simple upward trend. Similarly, the artist scoring categories do not map perfectly onto lived experience; e.g., a child whose joy and relational engagement grew dramatically can show a numerical decline in a composite ‘wellbeing’ score if that composite is weighted toward selfregulation items that remain a harder-fought goal for that individual child.

Just for Joy - Programme Evaluation

Possible Futures Just for Joy has generated a strong evidence base for its core relational approach, alongside clear and specific learning about how to strengthen delivery, evaluation and sustainability in future iterations. Several concrete suggestions emerged directly from the artists and school staff themselves over the course of the programme:

Further Formalise the Staff ‘Legacy’ Role Where a single trusted staff member was embedded across the whole programme the capacity-building effect on staff practice was substantially stronger and more concrete than elsewhere. The artists’ process notes propose developing this even more intentionally by developing a shareable ‘Clown Code of Conduct’ and set of ‘secret signals to help with regulation’, positioned as part of a formal CPD offer for all participating schools, with sessions structured around what teachers themselves want to learn.

Consider Resourcing and Sensory Load The artists’ reflections repeatedly identify too many objects or too much stimulus in a room as a driver of overstimulation, particularly in group settings. Their own proposed guideline (i.e., ‘three is the magic number’) alongside a redesigned, more portable resource trolley, could offer a lowcost and easily actionable solution for future programmes.

Make Explicit, Evidence-based Choices About Delivery Ratio Rather than treating 1:1, paired and group delivery as interchangeable formats to be used opportunistically (often driven by staffing availability rather than design), future iterations could use the findings presented here to decide deliberately when each format is used, and plan the Joyful Jamboree transition with more built-in flexibility for children known to find group settings overwhelming.

Photography: Lorem Ipsum Image: Lorem Ipsum

Report by tialt - there is an alternative

Revisit the Evaluation Toolkit

Consider Scope and Fit for Ages and Stages

Balancing the tension between rigorous data capture and the real capacity limits of stretched school staff is likely to require a smaller, simpler set of tools used consistently, rather than the range of postits, jotters, trial forms and interviews used somewhat inconsistently across this phase. Building in protected time for teachers to complete feedback (some of the richer content in this phase) and being explicit about which sources are for internal delivery use versus which will inform external reporting, may reduce the data-gathering pressure. Teaching staff and artists could explore developing an observation schedule, informed by this first phase, that is inclusive, light-touch, and aligned with the materials already being used in sessions. Another option is to embed an external evaluator from the beginning of the process who can support on data gathering, analysis and interpretation while remaining flexible throughout.

This first phase of Just for Joy has shown a strong fit for the SEND and care-experienced children it worked with across three schools, but at least one internal comment noted a specific cohort (i.e., older, more ‘streetwise’ young people on an early formal curriculum) for whom staff felt the approach would be a harder sell. Rather than treating the model as universally applicable, future planning could name explicitly which pupil profiles and settings it is designed for and collectively consider what adaptations may be required to extend the approach to other cohorts.

Just for Joy

Programme Evaluation