Sign Up For Newsletter

Blueprints For Healthy Youth Development logo

Bounce Back Newham

A school-based group intervention to improve emotional well-being and behavior among children with emergent mental health difficulties.

Program Outcomes

  • Internalizing

Program Type

  • Skills Training
  • Social Emotional Learning

Program Setting

  • School

Continuum of Intervention

  • Selective Prevention

Age

  • Late Childhood (5-11) - K/Elementary

Gender

  • Both

Race/Ethnicity

  • All

Endorsements

Blueprints: Promising

Program Information Contact

Suus-anna Harskamp
Suusanna.Harskamp@newham.gov.uk
Hiwot Ameneshoa
Hiwot.Ameneshoa@newham.gov.uk

Bounce Back Newham
https://bouncebacknewham.co.uk/
HeadStart Newham
London, UK
https://headstartnewham.co.uk

Program Developer/Owner

HeadStart Newham
London Borough of Newham


Brief Description of the Program

Bounce Back Newham is a school-based group intervention to help children improve their understanding of resilience and well-being, build confidence and friendships, and acquire skills to make positive behavior changes. The program targets children (ages 9-11) with at least one indicator of emerging mental health difficulties. Over 10 weekly sessions, groups of children (up to 15) learn about different aspects of their life that relate to their mental well-being and emotional resilience (e.g., sleep hygiene, friendships). They then set weekly goals for personal behavior change and develop plans for achieving those changes.

Outcomes

At posttest, Study 1 (Humphrey & Panayiotou, 2022) found that participants in the program, relative to participants in the control group, reported significantly reduced:

  • emotional symptoms

Brief Evaluation Methodology

Study 1 (Humphrey & Panayiotou, 2022) examined the program using a cluster randomized controlled trial. Schools were randomly assigned to either receive the program (n = 12) or continue practice as usual (n = 12). Measures of emotional symptoms, behavioral problems, self-esteem, and problem solving were collected at baseline and posttest. 

Study 1

Humphrey, N., & Panayiotou, M. (2022). Bounce Back: Randomised trial of a brief, school-based group intervention for children with emergent mental health difficulties. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 205-210. doi:10.1007/s00787-020-01612-6
 


Risk Factors

Individual: Antisocial/aggressive behavior, Body Image Concerns, Bullies others, Hyperactivity, Poor Diet, Victim of bullying

School: Low school commitment and attachment

Protective Factors

Individual: Academic self-efficacy, Clear standards for behavior, Coping Skills, Exercise, Problem solving skills, Prosocial involvement, Skills for social interaction

School: Rewards for prosocial involvement in school


* Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program

See also: Bounce Back Newham Logic Model (PDF)

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details

Study 1 (Humphrey & Panayiotou, 2022) did not test for differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender.

Bounce Back Newham is a British program and has not been assessed by Blueprints for dissemination readiness in the United States.

To deliver best practice Bounce Back in schools the following training is needed:

Academic Resilience Approach training with school staff (whole-school staff training) on the importance of resilience building with young people and to understand how to recognize young people who may have emerging mental health difficulties.

Practitioner training (3-hour training) delivered by a senior youth practitioner who has experience delivering Bounce Back in schools. The training aims to:

  • give attendees an overview and understanding of the intention behind delivering Bounce Back: what is it trying to achieve?
  • share best practice and skills on adapting moves and skills based on young person support needs
  • clarity on how to use the program resources and materials: what do we have and how do we use it?
  • give attendees experience of participating in at least some of the program activities: how does it feel to take part?

Source: Washington State Institute for Public Policy
All benefit-cost ratios are the most recent estimates published by The Washington State Institute for Public Policy for Blueprint programs implemented in Washington State. These ratios are based on a) meta-analysis estimates of effect size and b) monetized benefits and calculated costs for programs as delivered in the State of Washington. Caution is recommended in applying these estimates of the benefit-cost ratio to any other state or local area. They are provided as an illustration of the benefit-cost ratio found in one specific state. When feasible, local costs and monetized benefits should be used to calculate expected local benefit-cost ratios. The formula for this calculation can be found on the WSIPP website.

Start-Up Costs

Initial Training and Technical Assistance

It would be best practice to deliver Bounce Back as part of a school's whole school approach to wellbeing strategy, and in settings which have received foundation Academic Resilience Approach (ARA) training. Ideally, this training would be delivered to the whole school community.

Moreover, as Bounce Back is a targeted intervention for pupils with emerging mental health difficulties, schools/organizations seeking to refer pupils would need to understand and be trained in identifying emerging mental health needs in children.

As such, the costs of specialist ARA trainers need to be considered to undertake this in school settings which do not already have this in place. The amount of input needed by schools will depend on the level of training/experience. Assuming a school needs full training in ARA, time estimates of specialist trainer to be considered are:

  • Whole school audit - interview with school lead and write-up (half a day)
  • Provision mapping - what does the school have and how does this fit in (2 hours)
  • Whole school training on Academic Resilience (2.5 hours prep and delivery)
  • Staff and pupil audit sharing session - specifically around pupil voice (2.5 hours prep and delivery)
  • Bounce Back and context - making the most of the program (2.5 hours prep and delivery)
  • Understanding the research need, identification processes and referral criteria (1 hour)
  • Mid-point review (2 hours)
  • Post intervention report sharing and next steps (1 hour)

Bounce Back implementer training (3-hour session) is delivered by an experienced practitioner whose travel costs to and from venue/setting in which intervention delivery occurs must be considered.

Bounce Back online resources/ information - free/no cost.

Curriculum and Materials

Bounce Back has 15 session plans (for skills and moves), gifts/rewards for each pupil such as magnets, badges, post cards and notebooks, and a personal journal which inform the content and work of the intervention sessions. The cost reports for 2018-2019 stated that overheads for 32 (525 pupils) schools were £50,435 - £55,340, although, no breakdown of what was specifically included as an overhead cost was provided (items, quantity, time).

There are some known costs for specific items which are core to the delivery of Bounce Back. Note that costs will vary depending on value added tax/inflation and the prices of those who are commissioned to undertake the manufacture/printing.

Bounce Back printed journal for pupils:

  • 42 pages printed (on color page 9p per page)
  • In 2017, 750 journals cost £2,336 (£3.15 per journal)

Bounce Back resources:

  • Magnets for pupils - In 2017, 750 magnets cost £323.00 (£0.43 per pupil)
  • Ring binder folders - In 2017, 500 ring binder folders cost £2,313 (£4.60 per pupil)

Other materials needed for intervention:

  • Pens (per pupil)
  • Post it notes (pack per groups)
  • Flipchart paper
  • Badges, magnets, post cards (per pupil)
  • Food (weekly order)
  • Photocopying - service level agreement
  • Printing - service level agreement

Licensing

No information is available

Other Start-Up Costs

Training for school staff usually takes place in school during assemblies or in classrooms and could be free of charge or charged by the school setting.

Practitioner training takes place in a private room which can accommodate the number of attendees and costs may vary depending on the setting used.

Intervention Implementation Costs

Ongoing Curriculum and Materials

See Curriculum and Materials above.

Staffing

Per internal cost-review report for 2018-2019 school year:

HeadStart Newham cost of staffing for Bounce Back in 32 schools was £565,257 - £656,920.
HeadStart Newham cost of delivery for Bounce Back in 32 schools was £58,887 - £64,614.

Practitioner delivery time considerations:
20 hours delivery time
10 hours administration time (case notes and school updates, 1 hour for every session)
= 30 hours contact time

School support time considerations:

Time for school to support sessions and liaise/communicate, e.g. learning mentors/teaching assistants. Estimated to be:

  • One school lead contact (3 hours) - Introduction, check-in, and follow-up/review meetings.
  • One member of staff (learning mentor) (1.5 hours per week for total of 15 hours) - Pick up, debrief and take youth practitioner back to class.

Additional staff administration time should be considered for referrals, training, school assemblies, and facilitating sessions with parents to celebrate pupil progress.

Other Implementation Costs

Bounce Back needs to be delivered in a private room able to accommodate up to 15 pupils per session.

The cost of the space could vary depending on the setting, e.g. if within schools this may be free of charge. Community settings would be charged at a local rate.

Implementation Support and Fidelity Monitoring Costs

Ongoing Training and Technical Assistance

Not applicable.

Fidelity Monitoring and Evaluation

Fidelity: Bounce Back has a set of standards and competencies which practitioners refer to when implementing the intervention. For instance, 'Shadowing forms' - practitioner sets and meets learning objectives with options to support and stretch young people.

There are feedback mechanisms which support meaningful delivery. In-room school staff (e.g., learning mentor) work closely with the practitioner feeding back session progress for group/individuals weekly via email. They have face-to-face meetings at the start of the program to discuss baseline needs and at the end of the program to reflect on progress/outcomes. Additionally, young people are instrumental in feedback; during each session there is a wellbeing check-in and closing time where students share what they enjoyed and learned.

Outcome Evaluation: The current measurement tools used to assess the outcomes of the intervention are freely available to be used.

However, HeadStart Newham purchased a license with Snap Surveys in order to set up and manage a digital survey collection platform and commissioned the company to build a bespoke report function to report on individual group process.

Time will be needed for printing pre- and post-intervention surveys and data evaluation/report writing (approximately 2 days).

Ongoing License Fees

Not applicable.

Other Implementation Support and Fidelity Monitoring Costs

No information is available

Other Cost Considerations

No information is available

Year One Cost Example

Funding Overview

No information is available

Foundation Grants and Public-Private Partnerships

HeadStart Newham is funded by The National Lottery Community Fund and London Borough of Newham. BounceBack is one of the targeted interventions which is funded by this partner.

Program Developer/Owner

HeadStart NewhamLondon Borough of Newham3rd Floor West Wing Newham Dockside1000 Dockside RoadLondonE16 2QUUnited KingdomHeadstart.ProgrammeTeam@newham.gov.uk

Program Outcomes

  • Internalizing

Program Specifics

Program Type

  • Skills Training
  • Social Emotional Learning

Program Setting

  • School

Continuum of Intervention

  • Selective Prevention

Program Goals

A school-based group intervention to improve emotional well-being and behavior among children with emergent mental health difficulties.

Population Demographics

Children (ages 9-11, years 5 and 6 in the United Kingdom) with at least one indicator of emerging mental health difficulties.

Target Population

Age

  • Late Childhood (5-11) - K/Elementary

Gender

  • Both

Race/Ethnicity

  • All

Race/Ethnicity/Gender Details

Study 1 (Humphrey & Panayiotou, 2022) did not test for differences in program effects by race, ethnicity, or gender.

Other Risk and Protective Factors

Seeking help, supporting others, self-esteem, encouraging youth voice, developing responsibility, being a champion of self and others, sparking interest in social activiism

Risk/Protective Factors

Risk Factors

Individual: Antisocial/aggressive behavior, Body Image Concerns, Bullies others, Hyperactivity, Poor Diet, Victim of bullying

School: Low school commitment and attachment

Protective Factors

Individual: Academic self-efficacy, Clear standards for behavior, Coping Skills, Exercise, Problem solving skills, Prosocial involvement, Skills for social interaction

School: Rewards for prosocial involvement in school


*Risk/Protective Factor was significantly impacted by the program

See also: Bounce Back Newham Logic Model (PDF)

Brief Description of the Program

Bounce Back Newham is a school-based group intervention to help children improve their understanding of resilience and well-being, build confidence and friendships, and acquire skills to make positive behavior changes. The program targets children (ages 9-11) with at least one indicator of emerging mental health difficulties. Over 10 weekly sessions, groups of children (up to 15) learn about different aspects of their life that relate to their mental well-being and emotional resilience (e.g., sleep hygiene, friendships). They then set weekly goals for personal behavior change and develop plans for achieving those changes.

Description of the Program

Bounce Back Newham is a school-based group intervention to help children improve their understanding of resilience and well-being, support them to build confidence and friendships, and acquire skills to make positive behavior changes. The program targets children (ages 9-11) with at least one indicator of emerging mental health difficulties as assessed by the professional referring them on the basis of guidance used in HeadStart Newham. Bounce Back Newham is based on the academic resilience framework and focuses on 5 core resilience skills: 1) planning for success, 2) learning from experience, 3) staying motivated, 4) dealing with tricky situations, and 5) being able to ask for help. In addition, the intervention promotes 10 resilience "moves": 1) staying in control and keeping cool, 2) tackling difficult relationships, 3) planning and achieving your dreams, 4) sleeping better, 5) noticing the good things in life, 6) being more active, 7) doing what you are good at, 8) having positive relationships and finding your crowd, 9) eating healthily, and 10) finding someone to trust and talk to.

Over 10 weekly sessions, groups of children (up to 15) work through the 10 different resilience moves and 5 resilience building skills and how these link to maintaining their wellbeing and emotional resilience. Using an active learning approach, each child sets a weekly personal challenge (one of the 10 resilience moves) and they rate their progress towards achieving it. This involves them working through the following cycle: 1) plan, 2) move, 3) think, and 4) learn. Lessons are guided by trained youth practitioners and the program workbook (provided to all participants).

Theoretical Rationale

Bounce Back is built on the academic resilience framework, which states that resilience among young people experiencing adversity can be fostered by providing support for their basic, belonging, learning, coping, and core-self needs.

Brief Evaluation Methodology

Study 1 (Humphrey & Panayiotou, 2022) examined the program using a cluster randomized controlled trial. Schools were randomly assigned to either receive the program (n = 12) or continue practice as usual (n = 12). Measures of emotional symptoms, behavioral problems, self-esteem, and problem solving were collected at baseline and posttest. 

Outcomes (Brief, over all studies)

Study 1 (Humphrey & Panayiotou, 2022) found that participants in the program, relative to participants in the control group, reported significantly reduced emotional symptoms at posttest. 

Outcomes

At posttest, Study 1 (Humphrey & Panayiotou, 2022) found that participants in the program, relative to participants in the control group, reported significantly reduced:

  • emotional symptoms

Mediating Effects

Not examined.

Effect Size

Study 1(Humphrey & Panayiotou, 2022) found a small effect of the program (d = -.21) on emotional symptoms.

Generalizability

Study 1 (Humphrey & Panayiotou, 2022) examined the program among 9- to 11-year-old children with at least one indicator of emerging mental health difficulties in Newham, England.

Potential Limitations

Study 1 (Humphrey & Panayiotou, 2022)

  • Small number of clusters (24), but ICCs were extremely small and analyses adjusted for the clusters
  • Some secondary measures have suboptimal reliability
  • No tests for differential attrition, though used FIML for estimation of missing data

Notes

There is another program named Bounce Back on the Blueprints registry. These programs contain some similarities, yet are distinct. Bounce Back Newham was developed and originally disseminated in Newham, a borough of London, U.K.

Endorsements

Blueprints: Promising

Program Information Contact

Suus-anna Harskamp
Suusanna.Harskamp@newham.gov.uk
Hiwot Ameneshoa
Hiwot.Ameneshoa@newham.gov.uk

Bounce Back Newham
https://bouncebacknewham.co.uk/
HeadStart Newham
London, UK
https://headstartnewham.co.uk

References

Study 1

Certified

Humphrey, N., & Panayiotou, M. (2022). Bounce Back: Randomised trial of a brief, school-based group intervention for children with emergent mental health difficulties. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 31, 205-210. doi:10.1007/s00787-020-01612-6
 

Study 1

Evaluation Methodology

Design:

Recruitment: Schools were recruited through the broader HeadStart programme in England. Schools taking part in this program in Newham, England were eligible to participate. Of the 25 possible schools, 24 agreed to participate. Within those schools, children needed to have at least one indicator of an emerging mental health difficulty (as reported by their teacher) in order to be eligible for the program (this was a requirement to be a part of the HeadStart programme).

Assignment: Schools were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control condition by an independent research associate. Twelve schools (n = 160 children) were randomly assigned to receive the program. The other twelve (n = 166 children) were assigned to a waitlist control condition where they were told to continue business as usual.

Assessments/Attrition: Assessments were completed at baseline and at posttest after the 10-week program. Covariates (e.g., sex, ethnicity) were obtained from administrative records. There was no attrition at the school level. At the individual level, 45 children (13.8%) did not complete the posttest measures.

Sample:

All schools were described as mainstream, state-funded primary schools. At the individual level, the sample was balanced with respect to sex (49.1% male) and predominantly non-White (17.8% of children were White). Overall, 31.9% of children were eligible for free school means and 19.3% had special education needs. Most children were in Year 5 of school (9-10 years of age; 68.7%).

Measures:

Outcome measures were comprised of self-report scales completed by the children. Emotional symptoms and behavioral difficulties were assessed via the Me and My Feelings measure. Problem solving and self-esteem were assessed via the Student Resilience Survey. Internal consistency reliabilities of the scales often fell below .70.

Analysis:

Program effects were assessed using multi-level models, nesting children within school. Although the study was not explicit, the covariates appeared to include the baseline outcome, ethnicity, free school meal eligibility, sex, special education needs status, and year (5th vs. 6th). The level-2 sample size of 24 is likely not large enough to accurately estimate the standard errors, and the result may be to overstate the significance of the tests. Authors noted, however, that the intraclass correlation between clusters was very low (0.003).

Intent-to-Treat: The researchers followed an ITT approach by using FIML estimation and all participants. Treatment-of-the-treated results were also reported using compliance average causal effect estimation, but the results were similar to the ITT results.

Outcomes

Implementation Fidelity:

Quantitative measures of implementation fidelity were not provided. In terms of dosage, children attended, on average, 7.8 of 10 lessons (SD = 2.03).

Baseline Equivalence:

The conditions were equivalent with respect to special education needs, free school meal eligibility, ethnicity, and year group. There was a significant difference with respect to sex - there were more females in the intervention condition (54.2%) relative to the control condition (40.1%).

Differential Attrition:

There was no attrition at the school level. At the individual level, 25 children (15.1%) in the control condition and 20 children (12.5%) in the treatment condition did not complete the posttest. Missing data were imputed using full information maximum likelihood, but no tests were done to check for differential attrition.

Posttest:

As posttest, children in the treatment condition reported significantly reduced emotional symptoms compared to children in the control condition (d = -.21). Greater compliance with the program predicted stronger effects on emotional symptoms. There were no other significant program effects.

Long-Term: Not tested.

Contact

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development
University of Colorado Boulder
Institute of Behavioral Science
UCB 483, Boulder, CO 80309

Email: blueprints@colorado.edu

Sign up for Newsletter

If you are interested in staying connected with the work conducted by Blueprints, please share your email to receive quarterly updates.

Blueprints for Healthy Youth Development is
currently funded by Arnold Ventures (formerly the Laura and John Arnold Foundation) and historically has received funding from the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.