Ready to Read 2014 impact report

Ready to Read 2014 Evaluation Report Jenny Riley, Head of Community Impact, United Way Australia November 2014

~ Parent, North St Marys

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 2 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 4 Evidence Base ............................................................................................................................... 5 Data Collection Methods ................................................................................................................ 9 Results and Analysis.................................................................................................................... 10 1.

Project Inputs .................................................................................................................................... 10

2.

Parent Survey .................................................................................................................................... 11

3.

Parent Focus Groups ......................................................................................................................... 15

4.

Community Stakeholders .................................................................................................................. 25

Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 27 Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 30 References .................................................................................................................................. 31 Appendices .....................................................................................................................................

Appendix 1: Ready to Read theory of change...............................................................................................

Appendix 2: Questions for the Parent Phone Survey ...................................................................................

Appendix 3: Demographic details of the Ready to Read Parent Population at September 2014 ................

Appendix 4: Questions for the Focus Groups ...............................................................................................

Appendix 5: Questions for the Community Stakeholders ............................................................................

1|Page

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Executive Summary Ready to Read program aims to ensure that children start school ready to learn to read so that they may succeed in life. To reach these ends, the program combines books, parent support and community-level change. These initiatives are based on evidence that children are more likely to start school ready to read if they have a positive association with books; parents or caregivers read regularly with them; parents seek reading activities outside the home; and parents have shared reading skills along with a positive attitude towards reading.

Four main methods were used to collect data for this evaluation. This included internal reports, parent phone survey, parent focus groups and semi-structured interviews with community stakeholders.

The results of the follow up survey across the three sites: 

   

On average, prior to the books arriving, 40% of children, aged 2-5 years old asked to be read to daily. In comparison, children who had received books for greater than 6 months, on average, asked to be read to 77% of the time.

16% increase in parents reporting reading daily with their children.

Reduction in the % of parents attending weekly reading activities, however library usage did increase slightly.

Parents increased shared reading behaviours from 65% to 83% across the 3 sites.

Parents talking about shared reading with other parents (an indicator of positive attitude) almost doubled from 40% to 80%.

All the results, other than attending activities, trended positively in comparison to the baseline data.

The large shifts of children asking to be read to were validated in the focus groups.

The themes of the focus groups were split in three: children, family and other areas. The most significant change reported through the focus group was a greater proportion of children asking to be read to and an increased interest/respect/love for books since the program began.

The second biggest shift was the impact of shared reading on relationships in the home. Parents reported more shared reading time, more book sharing between siblings, more quiet time in the house, greater engagement with Fathers and a sense of pride in their children. Parents also reported an increase in their shared reading skills and other families shared reading skills, especially those with low literacy or from a non-English speaking background. Many parents reported that they had not been read to as a child and were self-conscious of being a story-teller but were getting better at it.

Generally, there was a strong sense that the whole family was benefitting through the arrival of monthly books.

Despite time restraints being raised as the main barrier to reading, parents talked about reading becoming part of their daily routines and increased engagement of other family members. In terms of attending reading activities, many said not knowing the events were on and the events being at the wrong time for them presented barriers to attendance. There was really positive feedback about the 2|Page

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

book program itself, especially the quality of the books and gratitude for the program given the cost of books.

Overall it appears community, parent and child outcomes have improved over the duration of the project to date. Other than attending activities, all the behaviours according to the follow up survey trended positively, two extremely well and the main lead indicator, children asking to be read to, was later validated in the focus groups. The focus groups provided a rich amount of information about the impact on the family and the internal feedback loops of children asking to be read to, parents reading more, parents attitudes shifting and so on. This was supported again by the community organisation The community organisation review also found that organisations are more coordinated and to some extent aligned in their approach to increasing early literacy development.

With these lead indicators trending positively we can only assume that we are on track to halving the % of children who commence school developmentally vulnerable in these communities by 2018 (on the 2012 number). To assist this assumption, prep-entry data from the local schools for 2013, 2014, 2015 is now critical to understanding our impact.

The limitations of this evaluation include that the majority of the process was undertaken internally therefore there is likely reciprocity bias (in the survey and focus group feedback) and the timing of the baseline and follow up survey may have seasonal differences. There was also a small sample of community partners engaged.

Some of the key recommendations of this evaluation (complete list on page 27) are:

     

the program is making positive change and should continue the findings should be shared with relevant stakeholders UWA should continue to engage parents and obtain their input into the design of the project the program should seek objective data from the school to validate the findings that changes are taking place the activities of the coordinators, especially events, should be reviewed in light of the findings activity is present.

3|Page

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Introduction The Ready to Read program aims to ensure that children start school ready to learn to read so that they may succeed in life.

Ready to Read (UWA) place-based, early intervention program to address one of the most important school readiness areas, language development. The program takes a social ecology approach which places the child at the centre and as such aims to change outcomes for children, their parents and relevant community stakeholders. To reach these ends, the program combines books, parent support and community-level change initiatives. The theory of change for the program is presented in Appendix 1.

Based on the research outlined in the Evidence Review, the four main preconditions for achieving the intended long term impact are: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Children love books and reading (indicated by children asking to be read to) Parents reading daily to their children Parents seeking reading activities outside the home Parents having the skills and positive attitude towards shared reading

The Ready to Read program incorporates ation Library (DPIL), a book distribution program originating in the USA and currently operating in the UK, USA, Canada and now Australia. DPIL delivers age-appropriate books directly into the home of 0-5 year olds. All children under the age of 5 are provided access to the program if they live in a given postcode and suburb. As we received feedback that excluding some children was resulting in a negative impact at the end of 2013, Ready to Read allows 20% of children outside the postcode and suburb to join the program.

Ready to Read was launched in Acacia Ridge in May 2013, QLD. The following month Eumemmerring, VIC (expanded into Doveton in October) and North St Marys, NSW also joined the program. These three communities were selected based on the following criteria: -

Over 13.6%1 of children are developmentally vulnerable in the language domain of the 2012 Australian Early Development Index.

Organisations were interested in working with us (or we had a history of working in the community) There was n The community was within 50km of the CBD

This Evaluation Report outlines the inputs and outcomes of the program for 2014 across the three Ready to Read sites. The data collection methods used for this review included surveys and focus groups with parents, and semi-structured interviews with community stakeholders. The report revisits the evidence behind Ready to Read, outlines the findings and provides an analysis of the data collected and concludes with recommendations for the program in 2015 and beyond.

1

Double the national average of 6.8%.

4|Page

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Evidence Base Ready to Read was developed from the research presented here against the following topics: brain development in the early years, the impact of shared reading on literacy development, access to books to encourage shared reading and book distribution programs to get the books into homes. It also presents evidence to support parent behaviour and community level change.

Brain development happens in the early years

brain expands 100%, rapidly creating new synaptic connections responsible for major cognitive and emotional function, language acquisition and movement (Schore, 2009). These connections are made through stimulation and interaction with the parent or primary carer, and continue to form rapidly during the first 3 years of life (Shanker, 2012).The quality and quantity of experiences during these critical early years therefore has a direct impact on their brain development (Perry, 2004) and in turn has impact on cognition and learning throughout life.

Shared reading leads to better reading readiness at school Language development and vocabulary acquisition is a critical factor in building reading proficiency, and is strongly associated with positive performance and academic achievement upon entering primary school. The process of learning new words starts in infancy and continues throughout childhood, and is associated with an environment that promotes repeated experience and exposure to literacy activities such as shared reading (Senechal et al., 1996; Greenough et al., 1987, p. 540).

Early intervention is considered to be the most cost-effective strategy for producing higher reading results in school (Trovillo, 2006). The most successful early intervention programs combine strategies that target both the child and parent to foster the development and sustainability of a literacy environment (Watson & Tully, 2008).

Shared reading is the most commonly cited homedevelopment (Sultzby & Teale, 1991; Zygouris-Cole, 2001). The effects of storybook reading on literacy achievement is statistically significant in promoting language and cognitive development for children at age 14, 24 and 36 months, accounting for 8% of the achievement variance in kindergarten and first grade (Raikes et al., 2010; Kalb & C. Van Ours, 2006; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994).

Children whose homes provide few reading and sharing opportunities are at higher risk of developing reading difficulties later on in school (Snow et al., 1998).

Frequency of shared reading is important Shared reading promotes supportive contexts for learning; studies have found parents who engage with their children in storybook reading at least once a week correlate with early reading achievement and greater literacy development (Kindle, 2010; Paratore, 2005; Senechal et al., 2008).

While shared reading activities are encouraged to take place once a day, the overall impact of shared reading is so significant that a study done by Seneschal and Cornell (1993) found that one shared reading session alone increases a 4 and 5 year old s receptive vocabulary (Senechal & Cornell, 1993). Therefore literacy achievement correlates with stronger vocabulary development as a result of reading rather than direct vocabulary inst Books can help create shared reading experiences The difference in frequency of shared reading activities is impacted by the availability of books in the home. A number of studies have found that children from lower socioeconomic families have fewer 5|Page

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

books in the home, suggesting a relationship between learning difficulties and the home literacy environment (Anderson & Stokes, 1984; Heath, 1982; Teale & Sulzby, 1986; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). For example, 48% of families receiving public assistance reported having no alphabet books for their pre-schoolers, whereas only 3% of professional parents reported no books of this type (McCormick & Mason, 1986).

Simply having more books in the home makes a difference for literacy related outcomes in pre-school kids (Neuman 1999; Payne 1994; Senechal 1998; Scarborough & Dobrich 1994). The number of achievement, supporting the growth of vocabulary and reading skills (Neuman, 1999; Senechal et al., 1996). Children with more books in the home also show greater gains in concepts of writing and narrative. (Neuman, 1999).

A study done by Evans et al. (2010) found that children who grow up with at least 20 books in the home reach an overall higher level of educational attainment than those without, regardless of the al. discovered that children who grew up without books completed on average 7 years less schooling than those who had up to 500 books (Evans et al., 2010). Evans et al. (2010) also equated the advantage of larger home libraries on literacy development as some significant as the difference in h 500 books is as important as the difference between parents who have three years of education versus having 15 or 16 years (Evans et al., 2010).

Book distribution programs can have positive impacts Goldfeld et al. (2012) found that successful book distribution programs incorporate between 10 and -5 year old children over a 5 year period.

In one study of DPIL, the key outcome of the program was the importance of DPIL as a source of books. In a High Scope study of DPIL participants in South Dakota, Georgia and Tennessee, 34% of families reported that their home library consisted primarily of the IL books (High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 2003). The same study also saw successful outcomes regarding increased literacy activity, including an average 40-50% increase in reading frequency to children in each of the three states. Additionally, over two-thirds of respondents reported having at least 51 books in their homes, indicating the influence of IL in fostering a home literacy environment (High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 2003). In Tennessee, 64% of pre-kindergarten teachers surveyed reported that children in Imagination Library showed better overall learning preparedness in reading, thinking, listening and social skills (Tennessee Board of Regents, 2007). The correlation between the number of books in the home and educational outcomes is statistically significant among participants in the IL program.

Other studies have found a positive correlation between the length of enrolment and number of times race, parental nation of birth and primary language. Children enrolled for 4 months or more in the DPIL program in Syracuse, NY were 85.2% likely to be read to 3 times per week as compared to 59.7% of children enrolled for less than 4 months (Ridzi, Sylvia, & Singh, 2011).

Support parent behaviour change In addition to the provision of hardware i.e. books, the Ready to Read program seeks to support parents to read to their children. Evidence tells us that knowledge or awareness of an issue may not always result in desired behaviour change. Factors such as motivation, belief, and opportunity

6|Page

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Gramann (2007) suggests four activities to encourage effective parent engagement. First, parents must be encouraged to read early and often to their children. They must be taught how to engage in shared-reading activities and assisted to locate age-appropriate books for story time. Finally, parents must have repeated exposure to reading promotion messages to ensure behaviour change is sustained.

The following interventions have shown to improve the effectiveness of the shared reading message in adult groups: 



Ideas promoted through trusted local opinion leaders result in greater percentages of behaviour change. In a study of 18 different medical trials, using opinion leaders resulted in a 12% increase in compliance among the intervention group (Flodgren et al., 2011).

Peer knowledge transfer has been extensively used in initiatives to reduce behaviour related to drug abuse and HIV/AIDS. A 1991 study found that peer education of HIV/AIDS prevention methods resulted in a 10% reduction of individuals who engaged in unprotected intercourse (Kelly et al., 1991).

Other methods to improve behaviour change in adults include:  

Providing feedback on behaviour cha achievement and efficacy.

Creating positive associations with behaviour change.

A position paper released by the Literacy and Social Inclusion Project in the UK outlined elements of

 

 

All parents would talk to their babies and toddlers, sing and encourage their chatter.

All parents and carers would value books and enjoy sharing them with children.

They would encourage early writing and drawing. Parents with literacy and numeracy problems would have access to informal family learning opportunities in local venues.

Primary schools would identify at-risk children early and provide support via programs delivered by school staff and volunteers such as reading mentors. They would build relationships with parents of at-risk children.

Professionals such as pre-school and childcare workers and library staff would encourage children to read for pleasure and support parents who have literacy needs.

Community mobilisation Successfully engaging local professionals is essential for ensuring children are ready to learn to read at school. To this end, the third and final element of the Ready to Read program is community mobilisation. There is an evidence base to suggest that by engaging the wider community we can improve social capital, thereby improving social outcomes (Hoffmann-Ekstein, 2007; Vinson, 2007).

Two well documented community programs include Communities for Children and Communities That Care.

7|Page

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Muir et al (2010: 66-71) provides a summary of learnings from Communities for Children that inform our Ready to Read model: 1. Program/project implementation - Program/projects/activities were community-focused: community-based and allowed community members to contribute to the design, implementation and management of the project.

- NGOs which delivered programs and activities were well established, respected and locally known as effective in implementing projects and recruiting families.

- Agencies benefited from implementing changes as projects progressed and lessons were learnt through early feedback, evaluation and experience.

- Quality staff were essential, and in particular needed to be:  knowledgeable about the local community  effective leaders  competent managers of people and finances  able to network with other organisations  effective facilitators  culturally competent.

- Funding for service coordination activities helped greatly in getting agencies to work together.

- Having a leader to facilitate coordination of services is essential to successful collaboration.

- Services were taken to families, rather than waiting for families to come to them.

- Engagement of community members in strategic roles when they were not employees of community organisations was extremely challenging for projects and initiatives.

2. Data collection and evaluation - Data definitions were complex and difficult to standardise across the initiative.

- Quantity of data collection was very challenging for many service providers, especially small NGOs. - Too little funding was made available for local evaluations.

- Lack of expertise for evaluations.

- Lack of control groups.

- Low response rate from service providers to surveys switch to computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI).

- Lack of pre and post data on outcomes for children and families.

3. Funding and timelines - Short-term funding affected the recruitment and retention of staff, capacity to deliver flexible and effective services and commitment of other agencies to the program.

4. Sustainability - Sustainability within 5 years is unrealistic.

- Require a paid facilitator to ensure the sustainability of some service networks and service co-ordination.

8|Page

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Data Collection Methods Four main methods were used to collect data for this evaluation. This included internal reports, parent phone survey, parent focus groups and semi-structured interviews with community stakeholders.

1. Internal reports Each month the Dolly Parton Imagination Library Administrator reports on the number of children engaged in the program and the number of books distributed. The Community Impact Coordinators report partnerships and events in their monthly reports.

2. Parent phone survey A total of 227 parents from across North St Marys, Doveton/Eummemmering and Acacia Ridge participated in the baseline survey in February and March 2014. Some of the participants had been in the program for several months at the time of the survey, however they were asked to respond to the questions as if it were prior to receiving the books. The baseline survey was conducted by an external contractor.

A total of 913 parents, who had been enrolled in the DPIL program for longer than 6 months in Ready to Read communities, North St Marys and Doveton/Eumemmerring were all contacted to be asked to participate in follow up survey in September and October 2014.

In both phone surveys, many parents were unable to be contacted due to phones being disconnected, parents not picking up the phone or not returning the calls. If answer the phone on the first attempt, two subsequent attempts were made. For some families a text message was sent in advance so parents knew who was attempting to make contact.

The follow up survey was conducted by the local UWA Community Impact Coordinator, a casual contractor and volunteers. A standardised list of questions was asked (see appendix 2) based on baseline survey. Of a total of 227 parents in the survey, 13 identified as either being from Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander heritage. A breakdown of the surveyed parents age, gender and English speaking status is provided in Tables 1, 2 and 3 below.

Table 1: Age of parents participating in the Parent Survey Location Acacia Ridge Doveton/Eumemmerring North St Marys

Under 20 3 1 4 2%

21-30 9 24 25 58 26%

31-40 12 39 30 81 36%

Over 40 4 8 4 16 7%

Unknown 62 3 3 68 30%

Table 2: Gender of children participating in the Parent Survey Location Acacia Ridge Doveton/Eumemmerring North St Marys

Males 42 39 36 117 (52%)

Females 45 38 27 110 (48%)

Total 87 77 63 227 (100%)

9|Page

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Table 3: Language background of parents participating in the Parent Survey Location Acacia Ridge Doveton/Eumemmerring North St Marys

English 86 43 55 184 (80%)

Non-English 1 34 11 46 (20%)

Total 87 77 63 227 (100%)

The demographics of the sample group surveyed is roughly equivalent to the full population of 913 parents (provided in Appendix 3).

3. Parent focus group A total of 38 parents participated in 6 focus groups in September 2014. The parents were recruited through existing networks, the phone survey or parent ambassador group. All parents, except 3, had received DPIL books for longer than 3 months.

All but one of the participants were women (despite attempts to recruit men, most parents engaged in this program are women). Around 25% of participants from CALD backgrounds aged mid-20s to mid40s, which is representative of the broader Ready to Read population.

The parent focus groups were undertaken in easily accessible, quiet locations in the community and were facilitated by the local UWA Community Impact Coordinator for each location. Childcare was provided in the room and food and drinks were available. Parents were offered a $30 voucher for their participation. All sessions except one, were taped and transcribed.

The focus groups in Acacia Ridge were undertaken on a Saturday, the others on a weekday. A copy of the questions is found in Appendix 4.

4. Community stakeholder review This process was undertaken by an external volunteer known to UWA. After an initial briefing by Head of Community Impact, the consultant contacted 15 community stakeholders from across the three communities and interviewed 10 for a 30-45 min phone interview. A copy of the questions is found in Appendix 5.

Results and Analysis 1. Project inputs North St Marys Total children % of current children enrolled Books Events Partners engaged

163 56%

Doveton/ Eumemmerring 758 63%

2274 4 8

4733 4 13

Acacia Ridge

Total

321 1242 62% 66% 2820 6 14 20 41

10 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Overall we have reached 60% of the population in each of these communities, which is on track to achieve our aim of engaging 65% within 2 years of being in a community, and 85% within 3 years.

2. Parent survey The results of the follow up survey are presented against the four selected outcomes or preconditions for change: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Children love books and reading (indicated by children asking to be read to) Parents reading daily to their children Parents seeking reading activities outside the home Parents having the skills and positive attitude towards shared reading

This section also includes a brief summary of the biggest changes from the baseline survey and follow up survey.

1. Children love books and reading (indicated by children asking to be read to) To remove the variable of child development (i.e. children asking to be read to because they were getting older), we compared the same age groups at different points in time. Point A, prior to book program to point B, being in the program longer than 6 months. We looked at 3 age groups and the data is presented in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Asking to be read to by age group, pre and post surveys

2-3 year olds 3-4 year olds 4-5 year olds Average

Prior to books

6 months +

Change

43%

81%

38%

46%

81%

35%

30% 40%

70% 77%

40% 38%

On average, prior to the books arriving, 40% of children aged 2-5 years old asked to be read to daily.

In comparison, children who have received books for greater than 6 months, on average, asked to be read to 77% of the time. This is a 37%, or almost double, increase. The greatest change was in the 45 year old age group. Prior to receiving the books, 30% of 4-5 year olds asked to be read to daily, whereas, after receiving the books, 70% of 4-5 year olds asked to be read to daily. This is a change of 40%.

11 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

2. Parents reading daily to their children Table 5: Reading behaviour, per site, at baseline and follow up NSM

Average reading time parents read daily to their children during their playtime every day

B/L 1020mins

F/U 20 Plus

DE Change Up

B/L 510mins

F/U 1020mins

AR Change Up

B/L 1020mins

F/U 20 Plus

Overall Change Up

B/L 1020mins

F/U 1020mins

Change The same

53%

61%

8%

43%

63%

20%

46%

66%

20%

47%

63%

16%

81%

75%

-6%

66%

53%

-13%

72%

80%

8%

73%

69%

-4%

NB: AR = Acacia Ridge, DE = Doveton/Eumemmering and NSM = North St Marys.

Across the 3 sites, the average reading time shifted up a category i.e. for NSM and AR from 10-20 mins to 20mins plus and for AR from 5-10mins to 10-20mins. Overall the average remained the same, around 10-20mins.

In DE and AR, there was a 20% increase the number of parents reporting they read daily with their children. This was significantly more than the 8% increase in North St Marys, however overall each in the 3 sites reported a 16% increase of parents reporting to reading daily.

In both NSM and DE, the % of parents not reading during playtime every day reduced from 81% and 66% to 75% and 63% respectively. However this number increased in Acacia Ridge.

3. Parents seeking reading activities outside the home We asked two questions about reading activities outside the home, one about library attendance and one about attending reading activities in the community. The results are presented in Table 6 below.

In NSM and DE we saw a reduction in the number of children who had never been to a library. In NSM, this number dropped from 63% to 47% and from 40% to 22% in DE. However, in AR we saw this number increase from 47% to 54%.

We saw a small increase in the % of children visiting a library once a week in NSM and DE and again a small decrease in Acacia Ridge. We saw a small reduction in the % of children who have never participated in a reading event in NSM and AR and large decrease of 20% in AR, with an overall decreased from 69% to 60%.

Across the 3 sites there was a reduction in the % of parents attending weekly reading activities from 16% to 3% in NSM, from 42% to 7% in DE and 18% to 15% AR. These figures are interesting and not what was expected given the investment of time in setting up events. It could be that providing books into the homes has led to parents not seeking reading activities outside the home, perhaps feeling they are no longer necessary! Given this occurred across the three sites it does rule out an interviewer error. This requires follow up and discussion with parents.

12 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Table 6: Baseline results compared with follow up results for selected outcomes NSM B/L of children have never been to a library Parents and children are able to visit a local library every week Children have never participated in a reading event with other children parents attend weekly reading activities

F/U

DE Change

B/L

F/U

AR Change

B/L

F/U

Overall Change

B/L

F/U

Change

63%

47%

-16%

40%

22%

-18%

47%

54%

7%

50%

41%

-9%

7%

13%

6%

18%

21%

3%

18%

17%

-1%

14%

17%

3%

67%

63%

-5%

69%

49%

-20%

70%

69%

-1%

69%

60%

-9%

16%

3%

-13%

42%

7%

-36%

18%

15%

-3%

28%

9%

-19%

NB: AR = Acacia Ridge, DE = Doveton/Eummemmering and NSM = North St Marys.

4. Parents having the skills and positive attitude towards shared reading As an indicator of parents skills, the survey asked if parents undertook a range of shared reading behaviours when reading with their children. These included: -

talking about the pictures encouraging children to repeat words asking the child what they think will happen next talking about the book afterwards

The results are presented in Table 6 as an aggregate, where a parent reported undertaking the above behaviours more than 50% of the time. Overall, we found parents increased shared reading behaviours from 65% to 83% across the 3 sites.

Table 7: Parent skills, per site, at baseline and follow up NSM B/L parents report undertaking shared reading skills >50% of the time parents never or rarely speak about reading to their children with other parents

F/U

DE Change

B/L

F/U

AR Change

B/L

F/U

Overall Change

B/L

F/U

Change

65%

76%

11%

66%

85%

19%

67%

86%

19%

65%

83%

18%

56%

13%

-43%

67%

29%

-38%

63%

18%

-45%

61%

20%

-41%

NB: AR = Acacia Ridge, DE = Doveton/Eummemmering and NSM = North St Marys.

As an indicator of a positive attitude towards shared reading , we asked the parents if they talked about reading to their children with other parents. As shown in Table 6 above, there was a 38-45% decrease in parents who never spoke about reading to other parents.

13 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

In summary The biggest changes from the baseline included: -

Double the average % of children ask to be read to (from 40% to 77%) Double the number of parents talk about shared reading with parents (from 40% to 80%).

Room for improvement: -

60% of children in the 3 communities have never participated in a reading event with other children 41% of children have not been to a library.

14 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

3. Parent focus groups The 9 key themes from the 6 parent focus groups are provided here in approximate frequency of discussion.

1. Children

asking to be read to

When asked about the most significant change since receiving the books all parents across the groups talked about the change in their children , especially sitting still and asking to be read to.

book too-Doveton#1

bring them up to me. Doveton#1 -reads it constantly.

Doveton#2

book to his dad or me and will just sit there. North St Marys #1

and read it to him. North St Marys #1 xx will bring a book to you and say read it. Read it to me! North St Marys #1 They just w just want to read now. North St Marys #2 He just always w North St Marys #2

in the house, so when they all get their books, my two boys come at me and say, hey mom read my book, read my book, and I read that one, read that one, and read mine again over and over again. North St Marys #2 I believe my daughter has shown a lot more in a long--length of time now to read the books. Acacia Ridge#1

--she, yeah, she can sit for

He was not initially interested in sitting down, but my other kids began prep school so once he started to show interest now he also has his own book. Acacia Ridge#1

--she it till the page is finished; she turned the page and run away. Now, I teach her I show her this Acacia Ridge#1

15 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Some parents from non-English backgrounds commented about using the books to talk in two languages: The biggest thing he like asks questions and then he sit down sometimes and he turns the page and he like is both languages he has made up a story himself. Acacia Ridge#1

t--she imitates, she would choose the book and she will read it many, many Acacia Ridge#1

me about

Doveton#2

2. Children

having an increased interest in books

xx was in love with the first book she got, she took it everywhere around the house. Unfortunately a Doveton#1

likes to take the book with him and, of picture and know what that picture is about. North St Marys#2

read it everywhere -

Doveton#1 Doveton#1

ped pages out of the North St Marys #1

no,

Acacia

Ridge#1

Some cited children were asking for books over toys:

North St Marys#1

16 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

3. Relationships in the home

siblings

After children asking to be read to and loving books, the next significant theme to emerge was the relationships in the home between siblings and between the children and parents.

There are many families with 2 or more children enrolled in DPIL and thus some siblings have already graduated from the program. Some of those siblings can get jealous when younger children continue to participate in the program but generally the results were still positive. When asked about the most significant change one parent said she had to buy more books for the older sibling!

Yes, I have to buy more books. I have to go to Target more to buy more books. It seems like we go to North St Marys #1

Others commented that they had to buy bigger bookshelves and create special bookshelves.

Parents talked about siblings sharing books and older children reading to younger children: Older kids want to see what book the little one gets and they tell stories. Doveton#2 my 9 year old wants to read more and has improved his reading by reading with his younger brother.

Doveton#2

there trying to read together. I just say two but I know not next year but the year after X Z Y can have his turn. North St Marys #2

My daughter used to get them until she turned 5 and now she wonders why her brother gets them old her they could share and they do. North St Marys #1 My 9 year old is spending more time with my 3 yr old reading. Doveton#2

can share together. North St Marys #1 If I am busy I get all 3 kids to share book and read together so I hear them. Doveton#2

ust playing games all the time, so I want my children to sit down and spend time on reading and writing activities as well rather than just giving it computer games. Acacia Ridge#1

In fact one parent reporting the younger child would only be read to by an older sibling!

brother read. same learning stage with what they are doing in class at the moment. I find both boys benefit. North St Marys#1

17 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

However, some siblings

: special needs; she barely understands the concept of -yearDoveton#1

and can be a barrier: Makes it difficult for me to separate him and have the others sit down and focus on them all. It to read you know. Bedtime is eight o'clock that evening is the most busy part of the day. North St Marys#1

4. Relationships in the home

child and parent

In terms of the relationship between the parent and child, an awe-like interest emerged from some parents and engagement of Fathers was also spoken about: He looked at the pictures, the whole book, and he remembered the whole book. That really freaks me out when I see kids do that I think, how do you remember so much but I guess their little brains.

North St Marys #1

North St Marys#2

love it. I love trying to teach him. North St Marys#2 Well now that I have time with him every morning, it North St Marys#2

these nice times. Remembering how my mum used to read to us four kids. And now having it with my North St Marys#2

18 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Some parents reported greater interaction with the Dads:

get but a little time together during the week but when the books come he goes into her room while r a few days they sit down and read it together. North St Marys#2 My husband works and he is busy, with 5 kids its busy but he does spend some time with the little one and reads to him. Doveton#2 around the corner and they dig right in to Acacia Ridge#1

just sit together and they read their book. Acacia Ridge#1

In this example the reading was helping the father improve his confidence with reading: I think because all his life he had such a challenge to read and write, he shied away from books and

relaxed with it and he enjoys it. North St Marys #2

19 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

5. Children impacting on parents attitudes and shared reading skills Parents noted a change in their attitude (towards the children and books) and shared reading skills, within the relational or feedback system between the parent and child and the book:

courage to say I and read the book. North St Marys #2

pretty surprised. North St Marys #1 Our attitude toward reading is a lot more positive and I think the kids look forward to reading too, which is right. Acacia Ridge#1 Now I listen while cooking dinner encourage my youngest child to read to me or talk about the pictures. Doveton#2 As parents we see books now as important and event I learn from them and it improves my reading.

Doveton#2

Parents from non-English backgrounds noticed they are learning new things: my little learn a lot. Acacia Ridge#1

because they were not read to:

awkwardness that I may feel or just getting there and doing it and spending that time with them.

North St Marys#2

Not really something people realize they like until Acacia Ridge#1

I create stories out of all the books I read to xx Doveton#1

engaged in the story.

Acacia Ridge#1

I read a lot more to XX now. North St Marys#1

20 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

6. Barriers to reading Some parents reported busyness and work getting in the way of reading: Juggle with time, other kids, home responsibilities, schedule for events, school, sport, shopping.

Doveton#2 Doveton#1

do

Doveton#1

However, parents discussed strategies of engaging the other children (getting older siblings to read to younger ones), listing their chores for the day and in

for them and I enjoy it. Doveton#2

Parents were as

and the issue of adult illiteracy was raised:

very good readers then they are not going to want their little kids to know that are they? So, the easiest way to do that is by not reading to them and showing them their weakness. North St Marys#1

7. Family time and routines Despite the barriers parents were seeing the benefits of the joy of reading and change in relationships in the household and forming new routines and ways of being.

Language, literacy are just so important. It provides bonding time. It has really, really helped. If you want it to be something that your children grow up doing later, then you have to do it now. North St Marys #2

We read so much more every morning now. We have about a half an hour reading time now. On a North St Marys #2

books. North St Marys.#2 Helps me get into a fun routine for them. North St Marys#2 It just made us more as a family unit, with my husband especially too engaged without it; he could brought us closer together, yeah. Acacia Ridge#1 Now my kids read more and the younger ones look at the book that arrives. Doveton#2

21 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

8. Reading activities/services In terms of activities outside the home, for those that got to the events the feedback was positive: We went down to the park and he loved the animals, and my daughter too, there was face painting and all that stuff that they had, the play park and everything. North St Marys #1

National reading day that sort of thing. Acacia Ridge#1 Too many posters on the wall I glance and

Doveton#2

I only found out about it yesterday, I was looking up things to do with pre-schoolers in this area and the (inaudible) City website came up and finally found my way into finding out that the Playday comes here. North St Marys #2 I lived on this road for four years and never got anything in my box about what they [neighbourhood centre] do. North St Marys #2

Some parents suggested social media: For all you got to do is like a page and every time you put something up . . . and it's not like you have to go searching for that it's there. Once you like that page you get that newsfeed every time. North St Marys#1

It was also suggested that events be on the weekend and more community engagement:

maybe Saturday morning. In the afternoon is probably--they have [inaudible], so some programs.

Acacia Ridge#1

Maybe for working parents, on the weekends, yeah, you know people love free events. Like you can go to an event--- like if it's for free, and the kids are enjoying themselves, and you know, make a little donation to you guys, or something. Something like that you know these books can't be have got to be expensive, I don't know how you guys are doing it, but I thank you. But, I think it would be lovely, to ask people for a little donation, yeah, maybe run a cupcake stand. Doveton#1

22 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Some though reported just being too busy: -

Doveton#1

Fines were seen as a barrier to using the library:

Doveton#1.

- kids lose books so I get fined, lost school library book waiting to be fined.. Doveton#2

And op shop books being poor quality: Doveton#1.

9. Book program itself Finally a number of comments relating to the books program itself were made. One of the special elements of DPIL was the children having the book addressed and delivered to them: . . . it was the first time that he realized that we got a book in the mailbox, like he kind of realized that he was going to get it, and now he checks the mailbox every day to look for a book. It was the first time

the mail. North St Marys #2

Doveton#2

xx just loved getting them; having it addressed to her and so she could open it and that it was hers.

She just loved that bit. North St Marys#1

send it in the mail and then I would call the girls and say your new books are here and they really want to open the package and, also I found this, yeah, they have a lot more interest in the books now compared to before when. Acacia Ridge#1

The tip sheets were useful for those parents needing some ideas of how to engage their children:

read it. quite comedic. It helps me to sort of use the book in So to have those prompts, I can sit there and read it to her and say alright, try and get this because 23 | P a g e North St Marys #2

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Parents also remarked positively on the quality of the books:

Doveton#1

Llike really good quality like they have in daycare and in the library and things. North St Marys#2 The stories are really short and very visual with really more informative as they get older. Acacia Ridge#1

by the quite the popular writer. Acacia Ridge#1

But some found the books a little hard to understand:

it was about. I was trying to read it to xxx and he was asking what does that mean? I wonder what it North St Marys#1

Or little out of date and reinforcing traditional gender norms: Peek-awashing so much... Acacia Ridge#1

However, in one focus group a parent questioned the appropriateness of a tractor book for her little girl, but later reflected it was a good thing: Doveton #1

Parents liked the hardback books for the younger children and asked about plastic books.

In another focus group a parent was concerned other parents were missing out because of fear that the program would cost: What you are doing is amazing, and I mentioned to my neighbour that they were giving away free books think that there might be a catch, they hear free books and they think that there is no such thing as free, and do you remember the old book clubs that used to go around when I was in school, where you would get a new book a month and then eventually you would get charged. North St Marys #1 24 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Some of the other issues relating to the program included: -

the occasional missing book moving out of area and no longer being eligible friends out of area and not being eligible age-appropriateness of the books

Overall though, parents were grateful for the program, especially given how expensive books are: These books have got to be expensive, I don't know how you guys [UWA] are doing it, but I thank you. North St Marys #1 When go to shop to buy book, they canand be quite expensive.

They cansome be 15books dollars formany a ten I thinkyou choice arethe very good, likealots of pictures colorful things they like; too page book, and I was saying 15 dollars like that should bring milk for a couple of days, you know, grow up in school. Acacia Ridge#1 deprive North St Marys#1

Doveton#1

25 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

4. Community Stakeholders The summary of the community stakeholder findings:  Feedback about the program and about United Way was overwhelmingly positive. It is clear that the broader program aspects and the leadership provided are valued very highly, over and above the provision of good quality, free books.  There is good alignment of objectives between all stakeholders yet whilst the AEDI goal is related objectives are understood and articulated well. Community collaboration is rarely mentioned as an objective, albeit recognised and called out by everyone as an outcome and a strength.  United Way is not perceived as delivering much by way of reading skills, but neither is it expected to. The capacity and focus of different groups to do this better is recognised but not always fully leveraged.  The delivery of great quality books is the outstanding benefit of the program, both with regard to parent sign up and child excitement. Yet every respondent believes the books themselves are only a part of achieving the ultimate objectives.  A significant majority believe that the community organisations are working significantly better than before the program and in most cases the actions of the United Way Community Coordinators are held up as the major factor. More effort and ideas to get local business involved is requested.  and complimentary to their other activities. Time and competing priorities are the main challenges facing participation, particularly from schools.  United Way is valued enormously by everyone and would be missed significantly if it left the program. The main reasons are: resources (including but not limited to the books), knowledge, networks, support (formal and informal), energy, innovation, a bi-partisan approach, community events and leadership.  The quantitative data is interesting and this summary describes the main findings, but true quality and depth of understanding will come best from reading the verbatim comments.

26 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Conclusion Overall the results of the evaluation exercises are highly positive and the focus group data corroborated the survey results in a number of areas. The main finding from both the survey and the focus group was the significant change the book program had on children and their relationship to reading. According to the follow-up survey, children who have been receiving the books are almost twice as likely to ask to be read to as their peers.

The other significant finding was parents who have been in the program longer than 6 months are twice more likely to talk about shared reading with other parents. We also saw positive increases in terms of daily reading and shared reading behaviours. In terms of room for improvement, almost twothirds of children in the 3 communities have never participated in a reading event with other children and 2 in 5 of children have not been to a library.

One concerning finding between the baseline and the follow up survey was the apparent decrease in % of parents seeking reading activities outside the home, raising the question of whether books in the home removed the impetus to go out and find reading activities. However, it is also possible that given the baseline survey was undertaken in February/March following the summer holidays there is a seasonal bias in the results (the follow up was undertaken in September following winter and no holidays).

The survey results may include a degree of reciprocity bias. However, the focus group discussions do support the survey findings about a greater proportion of children asking to be read to. This was the most unprompted reported by parents. In addition, parents spoke about children having an increased interest/respect/love for books since the beginning of the program.

Specifically the parents spoke of children talking about books, asking for books over toys, asking to be read to, reading to other children, carrying the books around the house and treating books with greater respect.

The second biggest theme of the focus groups and not addressed in the survey, but consistent in the literature, was the impact of shared reading on relationships in the home. Across all 3 sites, parents reported a change in the relationships between siblings and between themselves and their partners with their children. Parents reported more shared reading time, more sharing of books between siblings, more quiet time in the house, greater engagement with Dads and a sense of pride in their children. Parents reported being in awe of what their children could achieve reading and coincidently p important beforehand). A positive feedback loop seemed to appear in the parents stories. Parents also reported an increase in their skills and other families skills, especially those with low literacy or coming from a non-English speaking background. An interesting finding was the hesitancy or coyness about hey had not been read to as a child and were self-conscious, but were getting used to it. Generally, there was a sense that the whole family was benefitting through the arrival of monthly books.

In terms of barriers to reading, parents reported shortness of time bought about by multiple demands of multiple children in the household, daily chores, juggling work and other commitments. However, many parents talked about reading becoming part of daily routines and the engagement of other family members i.e. older brothers and sisters, Dads and grandparents, to overcome this.

27 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

In terms of attending reading activities, which seemed to have reversed since the baseline according to the survey, parents reported multiple reasons for not attending, not knowing the events were on and the events being at the wrong time for them i.e. not on weekends. In the focus groups some parents attended the libraries but a number reported they did not attend because they had library fines, validating the findings in the survey.

There was really positive feedback about the book program itself, especially the quality of the books and gratitude for the program given the cost of books. Some feedback was given about the book choice; some parents felt the books are too old for some children. Feedback was provided about the books being limited to one particular geographic area and children who need the program (out of area) not being eligible.

These comments about the book program were echoed by community organisations, they valued the program highly, thought the books are high quality and lead to child excitement, and they would like to see it expanded beyond the current geographic scope. Other key feedback from the community organisations was that organisations are now more coordinated. However, local business engagement was seen as a gap. Generally UWA was not seen as improving the skills about shared literacy in the community, rather as a resource mobiliser (i.e. books, volunteers, networks, knowledge, energy). The community organisati

Overall comment Overall it appears community, parent and child outcomes have improved over time. Other than attending activities, all the behaviours according to the follow up survey trended positively, two extremely well and the main lead indicator, children asking to be read to, was later validated in the focus groups. The focus groups provided a rich amount of information about the impact on the family and the internal feedback loops of children asking to be read to, parents reading more, parents attitudes shifting and so on. This was supported again by the community organisation review where und that organisations are more coordinated and to some extent aligned in their approach to increasing early literacy development.

With these lead indicators trending positively we can only assume that we are on track to halving the % of children who commence school developmentally vulnerable in these communities by 2018 (on the 2012 number). To assist this assumption, prep-entry data from the local schools for 2013, 2014, 2015 is now critical to understanding our impact.

Limitations of the process Significant changes were reported in the survey in a very short period of time (the baseline was conducted in January-March 2014 and the follow up in September 2014). It could be there is a fair amount of bias (i.e. reciprocity bias) in the responses. We also queried if there was a seasonal variation i.e. that the baseline was taken just after the summer holidays, so participation in events may have been higher. The community stakeholder review engaged ten community workers that were referred by the Community Coordinators themselves.

28 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Next steps This evaluation presents data on lead indicators, that is, the precursors for what we hope leads to the long term impact of reducing the % of children commencing school not ready to learn to read. The next AEDI report is due out in 2016 which will provide population level data for each of these communities. In the mean time we will be seeking to partner with the local primary schools to access prep entry data that ideally can validate our contribution to making a difference in these communities.

A question raised by this evaluation is the design of the project especially the work of the coordinators. Each year UWA invests in a local Community Impact Coordinator for 2 days a week to: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

Launch the program though a community event Sign up parents Advertise the program through local networks Engage local providers to sign up parents and use the books in community activities (i.e. playgroups etc) Advocate and explain the program to (albeit some suspicious) parents and community stakeholders Set up 4 x community reading events a year Engage local provides to join UWA in Paint the Town Read in the local community (except for North St Marys where it was operating) and Engage parent ambassadors in Paint the Town Read and DPIL.

Significant child and parent outcomes have been achieved through the parents and children receiving the books and info sheets etc. in just 12 months. It appears very few (as a % of the whole) have been engaged in the community events. We have also just launched Paint Doveton Read and Paint The Ridge Read community reading campaigns.

The community organisations reported that UWA aligned and added value to their existing programs.

They believe UWA brings resources, expertise, networks, energy to the effort to improve early literacy and argue that the books alone are not enough in achieving the overall aims (i.e. reduce the % of those not ready to learn to read at school). However the results indicate that perhaps the books may be a significant component in bringing about the community change the community are accessed by a small minority.

Other than using the local community networks to access parents for sign ups, what role does UWA have in engaging and mobilising them to what end?

29 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Recommendations Recommendations arising from the findings of this report for the implementation of Ready to Read in 2015 and beyond include: 1. General a. Keep the book delivery up! This is making a real difference to children and families. b. Share the findings of this report with the parents and community workers involved in the program about their behaviour changes to increase their sense of achievement and efficacy. c. Follow up with parents engaged in the focus groups as future parent ambassadors. d. Look to get objective data from the primary schools to corroborate that children in DPIL are more ready to read. e. Consider the theory of change of the program, especially the role of events, and if the coordinators should be focused on recruiting the final 20%.

2. Events a. Talk to parents about why they are seeking less reading activities outside the home to understand this finding. b. Start running events after hours and on weekends. c. Sort out communication to parents about activities and events they do not know they are on (no more posters). d. Consider community book swaps.

3. Partnerships a. Talk to local libraries about an amnesty on fines etc. b. Look at partnerships that can support adult literacy in the community. c. Look to create more local business partnerships.

4. Communications a. Set up a Facebook group in North St Marys. b. Content information helping parents with multiple kids i.e. reading with older kids and babies around, dealing with sibling jealousy of not receiving books. Perhaps consider sending a letter to the older kids acknowledging their role. c. Tips for engaging (busy and tired) Dads in reading. d. e. Sign ups some people still think that they will be charged for signing up. f.

5. The books a. Look at the age-appropriateness of books (some reported that the books were too old). b. Is it possible to get plastic books for baths?

6. The evaluation process a. Training on the focus groups and surveys, great variability in approach, quality of questions, prompting etc. b. Support to ensure quality of recordings and those recordings are not lost. c. Clarity on deadlines ensuring time between surveys and focus groups. d. Instructions on process. e. There were no questions about text messages, inserts or emails in the focus groups.

30 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

References Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Anderson, A., & Stokes, S. (1984). Social and institutional influences on the development and practice of literacy. In: Goelman H, Ober A, Smith F (Eds.). Awakening to Literacy. Exeter, NH: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd. Andreasen, A. (2002). Marketing social marketing in the social change marketplace. Journal of Public Policy and

Marketing, 21(1), 3-12.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1997). Aspects of literacy: Profiles and perceptions, Australia, 1996, ABS Catalogue No. 4226.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics Canberra.

Australian Early Development Index. (2011). A snapshot of early childhood development in Australia: Reissued

March 2011. Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations.

Berlin, G., & Sum, A. (1998). Towards a more perfect union: Basic skills, poor families, and our economic future.

Ford Foundation Project on Social Welfare and the American Future. New York: Ford Foundation.

Bird, V. & Ackerman, R. (2005). Every which way we can: A literacy and social inclusion position paper. London: National Literacy Trust.

BookStart National Impact Evaluation Report. (2009). BookStart. Retrieved October 25, 2012, from http://booktrustadmin.kentlyons.com/downloads/NationalImpactEvaluation09.pdf BookStart Online. (2012). BookStart FAQs. Retrieved November 8, 2012 from http://www.bookstart.org.uk/about-us/faqs/ Burgess, S. R. (2002). Shared reading correlates of early reading skills. Reading Online, 5(7). Retrieved January 16, 2007, from http://www.readingonline.org Cahir, S., Davies, L., Deany, P., Tange, C., Toumbourou, J., Williams, J., Rosicka, R. (2003). Communities That Care: Helping communities build better futures for children and young people. Communities That Care.

Parkville: Victoria.

Cooper, J.D. (1997). Literacy: Helping children construct meaning . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

http://www.letsread.com.au/About/Development-of-Let-s-Read

31 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Dickinson, D., & Smith, M. (1994). Long-term effects o

-income

sion. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104 122.

Duursma, E., Augustyn, M., & Zuckerman, B. (2008). Reading aloud to children: The evidence. Arch Dis Child, 93(7), 554-557.

Evans, M.D.R., Kelly, J., Sikora, J., & Treiman, D. (2010). Family scholarly culture and educational success: Books and schooling in 27 nations. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility (28), 171-197.

Effectiveness

Flodgren, G., Parmelli, E., Doumit, G.,

of the use of local opinion leaders to promote evidence-based practice and improving patient outcomes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2011, 8.

Funnell, S., & Rogers, P. (2011). Purposeful program theory: Effective use of theories of change and logic

models. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Goldfeld, S., Napiza, N., Quach, J., Reilly, S., Ukoumenne, O., Wake, M. (2011). Outcomes of a universal shared reading int

Pediatrics 127(3), 445-453.

Goodall, J., & Vorhaus, J. (2010). Review of best practice in parental engagement. Research Report for the Department of Education.

Greenough, W.T., Black, J.E., & Wallace, C.S. (1987). Experience and brain development. Child Development, 58(3), 539-559.

Grunewald, R., & Rolnick, A. (2003). Early childhood development: Economic development with a high public return. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved November 2, 2012, from http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3832 Hart, B., & Risley, R.T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children.

Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Heath, S.B. (1982). Ways with word. London, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

High/Scope Educational Research Foundation (2003). Literacy outcomes and the household literacy environment: An ev Hoffmann-Ekstein, J. (2007). Pathways to community participation. Australian Research Alliance for Children & Youth.

Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS). (1998). Social marketing: An effective tool in the global response to HIV/AIDS. Population Services International (PSI).

32 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades.

Journal of Educational Psychology. 80, 437-447.

Kalb, G., & C. Van Ours, J. (2012). Reading to young children: A head-start in life. Retrieved October 21, 2012, from http://www.uow.edu.au/content/groups/public/@web/@commerce/@research/documents/doc/uo w130117.pdf

learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing Company.

Kelly, J., St. Lawrence, J., Diaz, Y., Stevenson, Y., Hauth, A., Brasfield... & Andrew, M. (1991). HIV risk behaviour

reduction following intervention with key opinion leaders of population: An experimental analysis.

American Journal of Public Health, 81(2), 168-171.

Kindle, K. (2010). Vocabulary development during read-alouds: Examining the instructional sequence. Literacy

Teaching and Learning 14(1-2), 65-68.

Lee, N., & Kotler, P. (2011). Social marketing influencing behaviors for good. California: Sage Publications, Inc.

and knowledge about reading. In W.H. Teale & E. Sulzby, Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (90115). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

McGee, L. M., & Schickedanz, J. A. (2007). Repeated interactive read-alouds in preschool and kindergarten. The

Reading Teacher, 60, 742 751.

Morrow, L.M. (1997). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Muir, K., Katz, I., Edwards, B., Gray, M., Sarah, W., Hayes, A. (2010). The national evaluation of the Communities for Children initiative. Family Matters (84).

National Cancer Institute (2008). The role of the media in promoting and reducing tobacco use. Tobacco Control Monograph No. 19. Bethesda, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute.

Neuman, S.B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly 34(3), 286-311.

Paratore, J. R. (2005). Approaches to family literacy: Exploring the possibilities. The Reading Teacher, 59, 394396.

33 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

Perry, B. (2004). Understanding traumatized and maltreated children, the core concepts . Train The Trainer

Series. The Child Trauma Academy www.childtrauma.org Raikes, H., B.A. Pan, G. Luze, C.S. Tamis-LeMonda, J. Brooks-Gunn, J. Constantine, L.B. Tarullo, H.A. Raikes and E.T. Rodriguez. (2006). Mother-child bookreading in low-income families: Correlates and outcomes during the first three years of life. Child Development, 77, 924-953.

Reach Out and Read: About Us. (2012). Retrieved October 31, 2012, from http://www.reachoutandread.org/about-us/ Ridzi, F., Sylvia, M., & Singh, S. (2011). Imagination Library: Do more books in hand mean more shared book reading? Center for Urban and Regional Applied Research Working Paper.

Scarborough, H.S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 12, 245-302.

Schore A.N. (2009). The Neurobiology of Childhood Trauma and Attachment. Course Notes. Australian

Childhood Foundation Senechal, M., & Cornell, E.H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. Reading

Research Quarterly, 28, 360-375. year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445-60.

Senechal vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3), 520-36.

Senechal, M., Pagan, S., & Lever, R. (2008). Relations among the frequency of shared reading and 4-year-old

Early Education and Development, 19(1), 27-44.

Shanker, S. The Importance of Self Regulation. Seminar 29 May 2012. ACT Australia Community Connections Solutions Australia.

Snow, C., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). The process of learning to read . Preventing Reading Difficulties.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Social Marketing Institute: Success Stories. Website Authored by Alan Andreasen. Retrieved October 23, 2012, from http://www.social-marketing.org/success.html

34 | P a g e

Ready to Read Impact Report 2014

(Eds), The role of assessment and measurement in early literacy instruction (pp. 83-109). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

-child

Sulzby, E., & Teale, W.H. (1987).

t functioning. Ann Arbor, MI: Spencer Foundation.

Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. (1991). Emergent literacy. In R. Barr, M Kamil, P. Mosenthaw, P.D/ Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, 2, 727-758. New York: Longman.

Teale, W.H., & Sulzby, E. (Eds.) (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Tennessee Board of Regents. (2007).

.

Transport Accident Commission. Drink Drive Campaign History. Retrieved October 23, 2012, from http://www.tac.vic.gov.au/jsp/content/NavigationController.do?areaID=13&tierID=2&navID=2A36BD 797F00000100181F5BA273AB6A&navLink=null&pageID=452 Trovillo, T. (2006). Family connection partnership evaluation results report. Jasper County, GA: Jasper County Family Connection.

Understanding children in context: The ecological model of human development. Yosemite Community College

(Handout). Retrieved November 8, 2012, from http://virtual.yosemite.cc.ca.us/childdevelopment/Cheryl/Sp10/EcologicalHandout.pdf Vinson, T. (2007). Dropping off the edge: The distribtution of disadvantage in Australia. Jesuit Social Services/ Catholic Social Services Australia.

Watson, J., & Tully, L. (2008). Prevention and early intervention update: Trends in recent research. Sydney: NSW Department of Community Services, Centre for Parenting and Research.

Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the pre-school years. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Whitehurst, G.J., & Lonigan, C.J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848872.

Zygouris-Cole, V. (2001). Emergent literacy. Florida Literacy and Reading Excellence Center. Retrieved October 23, 2012, from http://education.ucf.edu/mirc/Research/Emergent%20Literacy.pdf

35 | P a g e

Appendices Appendix 1: Ready to Read theory of change Inputs UWA infrastructure

Processes Reading Experiences •

UWA resources

Volunteers and community members

• •

•

Parent recruitment Book delivery Role modelling & Practicing reading Community events

Activities Parents/Caregivers •

•

•

Oversight Funds

Design and Research

• •

•

Governance Planning, Coordinating and Project Management Monitoring & Evaluation

•

•

Mobilising • • • •

Stakeholder liaison Building local networks Partnership building Volunteer recruitment

•

• •

•

Enablers • •

Marketing and promotion Fundraising

Design and distribute parental education, reading tips & reminders (national) Parent Ambassador activities Engage hard to reach parents via partners • Skill up parents Community through Buildevents strong & sustainable (modelling) coalitions ( i.e.

PTTR) Community calendar of events Community awareness campaign Skill up workers/vols Best practice reading events in institutions i.e.

Library, playgroups Best practice reading in playgrounds, shops, markets, public places

Promoting

• • • •

Good stories/results Local media stories Social marketing Social media

Shorter-term Outcomes Parent/Caregivers • Parent believes it is important and necessary to read to child • Parent has increased skills in reading to their child** • Increased access to books & reading tips • Explore/read IL books together • Increased availability of reading activities and parents are accessing them • Supportive network of parents where book reading is everyday activity

Community • Workers and volunteers skilled in reading to children • Community organisations and local businesses collaborating and sharing practice/opportunities /resources • Community staff optimistic about the program and possible outcomes

Longer-term Outcomes

Impact

Child •

Child loves books and stories**

•

Child & Parent have regular reading time together** Increased positive parent/child interaction

Parent and Child •

Parent • • • •

•

Increased understanding of role as first educator Increased parental confidence in reading to child Increased literacy activities in the home Parent and child seek more book experience outside the home** Increased advocacy by parents to encourage/support other parents to read

Community •

• •

•

Increased community culture about reading and school readiness Increased community awareness of reading Community and business mobilised to improve early years literacy Integration of health professional, community agencies and business into R2R

We half the percentage of children in our target communities who are not ready to learn to read by 2018 (on 2012 figures)

Appendix 2: Questions for the Parent Phone Survey 1) Child's BOS ID?* _________________________________________________ 2) Does your child go to a playgroup or childcare? ( ) Yes ( ) No 3) Since you started receiving books, how often do you attend reading events in your community where you and your child could join others in reading?* ( ) Every week ( ) Every couple of weeks ( ) Monthly ( ) A couple of times in the last 6 months ( ) Not at all 4) Since you started receiving books, how often do you attend the library with your child?* ( ) Every week ( ) Every couple of weeks ( ) Monthly ( ) A couple of times in the last 6 months ( ) Not at all 5) If not, would you mind saying why? ____________________________________________ 6) Since you started receiving books, how often has your child ask to be read to?* ( ) Couple of times a day ( ) Everyday ( ) 5-6 times a week ( ) 3-4 times a week ( ) 1-2 times a week ( ) Less than once a week ( ) Not at all ( ) Not applicable 7) Since you started receiving books, how often do you read at their sleep time?* ( ) Couple of times a day ( ) Everyday ( ) 5-6 times a week ( ) 3-4 times a week ( ) 1-2 times a week ( ) Less than once a week ( ) Not at all 8) Since you started receiving books, how often do you read during their playtime?* ( ) Couple of times a day ( ) Everyday ( ) 5-6 times a week ( ) 3-4 times a week ( ) 1-2 times a week 1|Page

( ) Less than once a week ( ) Not at all 9) Since you started receiving books, on an average how long do you read to your child?* ( ) Less than 5 mins ( ) 5-10 minutes ( ) 10-20 mins ( ) Over 20 mins ( ) Not at all 10) Since you started receiving books, when you read with your child, how often do you :*

Always

Almost Always

Often

Sometimes

Never

Not Applicable

talk about the pictures?

()

()

()

()

()

()

encourage them to repeat words?

()

()

()

()

()

()

ask your child what they think will happen next?

()

()

()

()

()

()

talk about the book afterwards?

()

()

()

()

()

()

talk about

()

()

()

()

()

()

books and reading with other parents?

11) Finally, do you have any feedback on the program?

2|Page

Appendix 3: Demographic details of the Ready to Read Parent Population at September 2014

And a pretty even split between boys and girls:

Girls 48% Boys 52%

The highest number are between 1-2 years and the fewest under 1. The other age ranges are pretty even around 20%.

Under 1 1-2 years 2-3 years 3-4 years 4-5 years

13% 24% 22% 19% 21%

n=119 n=219 n=200 n=173 n=191

7% identify as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders 58 language groups are represented, 73% speak English at home, followed by 4% Dari, 4% Tamil and 3% Arabic.

   

3% are under 20 36% are 21-30 33% are 30-39 7% are over 40

3|Page

Appendix 4: Questions for the Focus Groups Introduce yourself and United Go around the circle and ask everyone to give their name, how many children, how old their children are, and when they first signed up to the program.

Ask your questions: 1. Tell me about a memorable experience of receiving books 2. Since receiving the books what has been the most significant change for you, your child or your family?

3. How have your habits or attitudes changed since you started receiving books?

4. How have your home relationships changed since you started receiving books?

5. Since you started receiving books, what keeps you from reading to your child more often?

6. What would encourage you to be more engaged in community reading events which are part of Paint the Town REaD? 7. What are the barriers to engaging more with Paint the Town REaD activities?

8. Do you have anything to add?

4|Page

Appendix 5: Questions for the Community Stakeholders Intended Community Level Outcomes from Ready To Read

Question to Stakeholder

Alignment of objectives between all participants.

How do you describe the ultimate objective of our work together with the programme?

How do you describe the Ready to Read programme to other people (parents, community groups, business etc.)?

What does success look like in your community?

Workers and volunteers skilled in reading to children

What support has UWA provided to your organisation/volunteers in relation to skills?

What has changed? (i.e. have you learnt anything working with UWA?) What else would make a difference?

On a scale of 1 4, how important to engaging families is the delivery of the free books, as distinct from the other programme aspects?

In your opinion, on a scale of 1 4, how important is the delivery of the free books to achieving the outcome objectives?

Community organisations and local businesses collaborating and sharing practice/opportunities/resources

Over the past 12 months, on a scale of 1 to 4 how would you rank the sharing of practice, opportunities and resources with and between community organisations?

Please share an example of something that has changed for the better. difference.

What else would make a difference?

Community members/staff optimistic and interested about the program and possible outcomes*

On a scale of 1 to 4, how optimistic are you that together the community will halve the language vulnerability as measured by AEDI in 2018?

What part does this program play in achieving this objective?

What will you do differently going forward?

Integration of health professional, community agencies and business into R2R

On a scale of 1 to 4, how do you feel the community goal has been taken up by all organisations in the community?

Did organisations, workers, Committees & volunteers have the capacity and resources required to successfully participate in the pilot? If not, what were the barriers?

Were there any unintended outcomes of the pilot?

United Way learns lessons to improve effectiveness in the community

On a scale of 1 miss us?

4, if United Way left this programme tomorrow, would you

Why? What would be missing?

On a scale of 1 4, would you recommend engaging with United Way to a colleague?

Why? What is the benefit?

Open Forum

Is there anything else you would like to say?

5|Page