Case study: quantitative data collection

• The programme delivered 109 Money Charity workshops across 25 schools, aiming to improve young people’s attitudes, confidence and knowledge about managing money.
• The evaluation used a mixed methods design: 30 schools were randomised to receive workshops and 29 acted as controls, with completed baseline and follow-up surveys from over 1,500 students plus teacher surveys, observations, interviews and case studies.
• Quantitative data collection methods underpinned the outcome evaluation through pre/post surveys, reliable outcome scales and statistical comparison of intervention and control groups. 
• They also supported the process evaluation via student/teacher surveys and delivery data.
• Outcome findings showed no measurable impact on the primary outcome (attitudes and intended behaviours), but clear positive impacts on students’ confidence and perceived knowledge of savings, credit, planning and budgeting.
• Limitations included reliance on self-report, high student attrition, five intervention schools dropping out, and most students receiving only one workshop.
• Yet, the study still detected meaningful improvements in confidence and perceived knowledge.

The Money Charity’s Workshops in Schools programme delivered financial education to young people aged 14–19 across England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The programme consisted of one‑hour, consultant‑led sessions covering budgeting, planning, savings and credit, along with student finance or independent living for post-16 students.

The aim was to help students:

• develop positive attitudes and behaviours towards money (the primary outcome)
• increase knowledge of savings, credit, budgeting and financial products
• build confidence in managing their money.

New workshop consultants were recruited and trained to deliver 109 modular-based workshops across 25 schools.

• Assess the impact of the programme on students’ attitudes, confidence and knowledge about managing money.
• Understand how the workshops were delivered, how students and teachers experienced them, and what supported effective delivery.

• Randomisation of schools to receive workshops (30) or act as controls with no workshops (29 provided data).
• Mixed‑methods data collection: baseline and follow‑up student surveys, teacher surveys, workshop observations, consultant interviews and case‑study visits.
• Statistical analysis of outcomes and thematic analysis of qualitative data.

• Workshops had no measurable impact on students’ self‑reported attitudes and behaviours towards money (the primary outcome).
• However, they did increase students’ confidence managing money and perceived knowledge of savings, credit, planning and budgeting.
• Delivery was as intended, though with some variation in uptake and scheduling. It was also well received, though participation and follow‑up response rates were lower than planned.
• Workshops were generally easy for schools to host, low‑cost to deliver, and were seen to help raise the profile of financial education.

The evaluation was informed by quantitative data with additional qualitative insights.

Quantitative data were collected from students before and after workshop delivery, and from teachers via a survey carried out alongside delivery.

As part of qualitative data collection, the research team observed workshops at four schools. At the end of the project, reflective case studies were undertaken at six schools receiving the workshops, each involving researcher visits, one teacher interview and a student focus group.

The first evaluation aim noted above was on assessing the effectiveness of the programme – the purpose of outcome evaluation. Quantitative methods are particularly useful in outcome evaluation, as they quantify the outcomes of interest. In this evaluation, they are divided into primary and secondary outcomes.

The second aim was to understand what supported effective delivery – the purpose of process evaluation. Quantitative data also contributed to this, though most of the data collected for this purpose was qualitative and is not covered further in this case study. 

Quantitative data to evaluate programme outcomes were collected via student surveys.

Survey design 

The student survey was developed by the evaluation team and assessment specialists to align with both The Money Charity’s theories of change and our Outcomes Framework for Children and Young People.

The team identified the core outcomes the workshops were intended to influence and drafted items to capture them. These were refined through cognitive interviews to ensure students understood the concepts and vocabulary.

Pre‑ and post‑intervention surveys

Students completed a baseline survey before randomisation and a follow‑up survey after workshops. These surveys generated quantitative measures of attitudes, behaviours, confidence and knowledge, enabling the analysis of measured changes. This avoided the potential bias of asking participants to self-report changes.

Data collection was a mix of online and on paper. More than 600 intervention students and 1,000 control students completed both surveys, across 25 schools per group.

Developing robust outcome measures

Researchers undertook analysis of baseline survey items to create five reliable outcome scales and produced a knowledge score based on three quiz questions. These measures enabled meaningful, standardised and comparable analysis across schools.

Randomised control group

Schools were randomly allocated to receive the workshops or act as controls, which was done separately by key stage and consultant area. This ensured that the groups were equivalent to each other at the baseline.

This design meant that any divergence in follow‑up scores could be attributed with greater confidence to the workshops rather than to external factors. This was central to showing whether the workshops caused changes in students’ confidence, knowledge and attitudes, moving the evaluation from the measurement of changes to demonstration of impacts.

Schools and students in the control group received the workshops after data collection was complete. This waitlist design helped overcome ethical concerns of including a control or comparison group, and helped maintain school engagement while preserving the integrity of the comparison.

Statistical analysis of programme effects 

The evaluation used statistical methods to estimate effect sizes and test the significance of differences between intervention and control groups for the outcome given in their aims.

Challenges observed

The study was robust in design, but its ability to detect impact was constrained by:

• reliance on self‑reported measures of intended behaviour rather than observed behaviour
• five schools dropping out of the intervention group and high student attrition (53%) between baseline and follow-up surveys
• most students only receiving one workshop.

Despite these challenges, the study found meaningful impacts on confidence and perceived knowledge.

Quantitative data to understand how implementation of the workshops shaped their effectiveness were based on student and teacher surveys. Delivery data were also used to assess implementation.

Student survey 

To support the process evaluation, questions were included at the end of the student follow-up survey. These quantified students’ views on clarity, relevance, enjoyment and usefulness, providing a representative picture across schools.

Teacher survey

Quantitative data were collected from teachers in intervention schools via a survey which ran alongside workshop delivery. This captured numerical ratings of workshop quality, ease of organisation and perceived benefits, and helped identify consistent strengths in delivery (such as consultant knowledge and clarity).

Due to the small sample, the data were reported as numbers rather than percentages.

Delivery data

Administrative data were used to assess how programme effectiveness related to the number of workshops young people experienced. Booking and delivery records quantified the number of workshops delivered, types of workshops taken up and variation in uptake across schools. This enabled assessment of how closely delivery matched the intended model.

Data analysis

Analysis highlighted logistical challenges (such as IT access and timetabling) that helped explain variation in delivery conditions, and may have influenced participation and implementation. They also provided a framework for interpreting qualitative data and ensured the findings were grounded in the wider picture.

The requirement to complete baseline surveys before booking workshops created communication challenges and delays which may have influenced participation in and implementation of the programme. 

This evaluation highlights how using quantitative data:

• supported meaningful question design, with age‑appropriate indicators and survey questions aligned with the theory of change and outcomes framework, informed by existing sources and tested, and responses summarised into statistically reliable constructs for reporting outcomes
• measured change using standardised questions before and after the programme, rather than relying on self-reported change
• supported causal inference including through the randomised control group, strengthening the ability to attribute change to the programme
• built credibility with clear reporting of sample sizes, attrition, group comparability, and the use of advanced methods of statistical analysis and significance testing.
• showed policy and practice relevance, as it quantified impacts and helped stakeholders assess significance and practical assessment of scalability, all of which supported decisions about wider rollout.

You can view the full report: Randomised controlled trial evaluation of The Money Charity's workshops in schoolsOpens in a new window.

You can also read a summary of the report on our evidence hub.