51²è¹Ý

Background to the study

This literature review was commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and SportÌý (DCMS), and conducted by SQW, a research and policy consultancy, and the UniversityÌý of Warwick, with support from UK Youth, a national youth infrastructure charity.

The literature review was commissioned to build understanding of the impact of differentÌý youth activities on young people, and to identify what makes programmes effective.

This study is one of three ‘Youth Evidence Base’ research projects (the other two studiesÌý are, respectively, an analysis of longitudinal data examining the contemporaneous andÌý long-term impacts of youth activities on young people, and a local-level analysis examiningÌý the impact of youth club closures on young people and their communities).^{[footnote 1]}

We conducted searches and screening of literature evidence, from 22 major researchÌý databases, indexes and collections, before mapping results, quality appraising the studiesÌý and analysing findings.

Throughout the study, we worked with a Youth Panel, recruited by UK Youth. The YouthÌý Panel helped to shape the study’s scope and supported the study team in interpreting theÌý key findings.

Study scope

Our review focused on open access youth provision, where the objective of the activity is about a young person’s personal, educational, social and emotional growth. ActivitiesÌý targeting ‘elite’ skills (for example in sport or music) for their own sake, medical or clinicalÌý studies and school-based interventions were deemed out of scope. This is not to say thatÌý these wider studies would not have something potentially useful to say about the impactÌý of activities targeting young people.

This review focused on studies involving randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi experimental methods. This means that while there is a rich evidence base which includesÌý qualitative methodologies, surveys, and secondary data studies, we have not incorporatedÌý these into our review.

Activity areas

This report presents findings in six activity areas (see Table 1), categories identified by theÌý study team in dialogue with DCMS and our Youth Panel. Some studies sat across moreÌý than one activity area where they focused on programmes with multiple strands.

Table 1: Number of studies by activity area

Group	Number of studies
Citizenship, community service and volunteering	11	Ìý
Music, arts, recreation and community	6	Ìý
Employment, skills and enterprise	12	Ìý
Mentoring, coaching and/or peer support	34	Ìý
Residentials and camps	9	Ìý
Sports and physical health	13	Ìý
Total	85 category entries (77 studies)	Ìý

Outcome areas

Many studies focused on multiple outcomes and outcome areas. We recorded only areasÌý where there was an explicit and substantial focus on the outcome area (such as aÌý dedicated research question and outcome measure), yet still found that most programmesÌý targeted two or more outcome areas, with 121 category entries for 77 studies (see TableÌý 2, below).

Table 2: Number of studies by outcome area

Outcome area	Number of studies
Social and personal skills outcomes	30	Ìý
Mental health and wellbeing outcomes	29	Ìý
General health outcomes	17	Ìý
Educational outcomes	16	Ìý
Employment and employability outcomes	15	Ìý
Crime and anti-social or risky behaviour outcomes	14	Ìý
Total	121 category entries (77 studies)	Ìý

Evidence of Impact

This evidence base highlights how well-designed youth activities can have beneficialÌý impacts for young people across a range of personal, social, educational, and economic outcomes. This aligns with other elements of the Youth Evidence Base research^{[footnote 2]}, whichÌý have highlighted some of the ways in which youth activities impact upon young people andÌý their wider communities. We provide insights regarding activity-specific impacts, below.

Interpreting outcomes

The majority of the youth activities we reviewed had multiple aims and outcomes. EvenÌý outcomes that ostensibly relate to similar themes, such as ‘social skills’ or ‘personalÌý development’, were reported differently because of how outcomes are defined andÌý measured.

Typically, youth provision seeks to support a range of outcomes in tandem. Activities’ mainÌý aims were often indirectly linked to the activity focus, for example with football being usedÌý to increase teamwork and social skills. This could be considered the ‘what’ and the ‘why’ of particular interventions.

Furthermore, different stakeholders and beneficiaries may use different language toÌý describe a similar effect. For example, youth practitioners might describe an activity inÌý terms of ‘building trusted relationships’; policymakers might talk about ‘social cohesion’;Ìý young people, though, might simply talk about ‘seeing friends’.

These considerations make comparing outcomes across studies challenging.Ìý

Reflections on the evidence base

The evidence base is skewed towards larger programmes with pre-defined structuresÌý because these tend to be the programmes in receipt of public funding and which are consequently evaluated. This skew represents a gap in the evidence base, as we knowÌý anecdotally from our research partners and Youth Panel that high quality smallerÌý programmes may well also generate impact for young people.

Our findings indicate that open access youth activities are often particularly beneficial forÌý young people from disadvantaged and marginalised backgrounds. Many of theÌý programmes included in our study were designed and evaluated with these groups in mind.Ìý These programmes are designed to address a perceived deficit in the skills or experiencesÌý of certain young people. This model of programme provision appears to work better inÌý some cases (e.g., mentoring), than others (e.g., progression to employment). This underlines the observation that, while beneficial, youth provision cannot completelyÌý compensate for societal and structural inequalities.

Activity impact summary

Further to the headline impact findings (see above), below we provide key findings aboutÌý impact by youth activity area:

Citizenship, community service and volunteeringÌý

• Evidence for youth engagement activities indicated small but consistently positiveÌý impact across a range of outcomes. For example, studies of the National CitizenshipÌý Service identified impact of youth activities on volunteering intentions, inter-ethnicÌý relations and social trust, and life satisfaction.

• Other youth engagement activities related to citizenship, community service andÌý volunteering found small to medium effects on self-efficacy, social self-efficacy,Ìý resilience, and wellbeing.

• Two studies of uniformed activities support a tentative positive conclusion that theseÌý have a range of beneficial impacts across a range of outcomes such asÌý communication, teamwork, self-confidence, resilience, civic-mindedness, happiness,Ìý empathy and resourcefulness.

• The relatively weak evidence for interventions which were intended to reduce riskyÌý behaviours suggested mixed or modest impact.

Music, arts, recreation and community activities

• All studies in this section reported positive impacts of the intervention, with studiesÌý suggesting an impact across a range of personal, social, and educational outcomes,Ìý including improved education and skills, and improved mental health.

• However, there was some variability in the strength of the impact within some studiesÌý across different outcomes and different cohorts.

• Evidence quality in this area was weak and, while there is encouraging evidence ofÌý impact across multiple areas, more research is needed for robust estimates.

Employment, skills and enterprise

• Most studies in this area indicated a positive impact across a range of personalÌý development, social and employment skills outcomes – particularly for recent summerÌý employment schemes.

• Evidence for summer employment schemes suggested that employment reducesÌý criminal justice involvement and decreases rates of violent-crime arrests. Heller (2014)Ìý estimates a 43% reduction over 16 months (3.95 fewer arrests per 100 youths).Ìý

• Evidence for summer employment also suggested impact on community engagement,Ìý social skills, aspirations, job readiness and school attendance, with effects seeminglyÌý accentuated for at-risk or disadvantaged students.

• Evidence on other employment and enterprise interventions suggests that youthÌý activities can increase income generation activity, develop financial skills and lowerÌý illegal drug use, binge alcohol use and rates of school absenteeism.

Mentoring, coaching and peer support

• Overall, there was consistent evidence of the positive impact of mentoringÌý programmes, particularly including peer mentoring. Over two thirds of studies lookingÌý at mentoring interventions indicated that these had a positive impact.

• Estimates of impact for the Big Brothers Big Sisters programme suggest small positiveÌý impacts on reducing depressive symptoms (d = 0.15); reductions in the likelihood ofÌý starting to use illegal drugs (45.8%) and alcohol (27.4%); and being 32% less likely toÌý have hit someone. Studies of multi-component interventions which included mentoringÌý reported medium to large effect sizes on a range of outcomes including self-efficacy,Ìý connectedness, resilience and wellbeing, although there were some limitations in theÌý evidence’s robustness for these particular estimates.

• The findings on group mentoring and peer support programmes were notable givenÌý their combination of cost effectiveness and potential impact on wider social (e.g.,Ìý meeting new peers) and personal (e.g., self-confidence) outcomes beyond thoseÌý reported above.

• Other studies of community-based and informal mentoring and peer support initiativesÌý also suggest small positive benefits on outcomes such as school attendance and socialÌý skills, as well as no effect or negative effect on these or other outcomes.

• The findings related to sexual health programmes or programmes to reduce substanceÌý use or violence were more mixed, sometimes generating positive impacts on targetÌý outcomes, but sometimes producing no significant outcome and, in one case, negativeÌý impact. However, many found small effects on a diverse range of outcomes includingÌý health, standard of living, sexual health knowledge, earnings, decreased rates ofÌý violence, self-confidence and knowledge of personal and social issues.

• Evidence in this category was stronger given the volume of studies, consistency inÌý approaches, and the size of many studies. There were, however, several studies withÌý mixed or null findings, including one which found a small negative effect on academicÌý achievement of an afterschool programme designed to improve academicÌý performance.

Residentials and camps

• Most studies in this area reported positive impacts of interventions, particularly onÌý mental health and wellbeing. Seven out of nine studies measured the impact of thisÌý activity area on mental health and wellbeing, six of which demonstrated impact.

• However, some studies reported variable impact around some social outcomes or riskyÌý behaviours, particularly entrepreneurial related schemes.

• Estimates of impact on wellbeing outcomes such as self-efficacy and reduction inÌý depressive symptoms tended to be small but were consistently reported acrossÌý studies. One study found that effects were temporary, being no longer evident three months after the intervention.

• Evidence in this category was less strong relative to other categories, with limitationsÌý highlighted in quality appraisal across several studies.

Sports and physical health

• Overall, evidence suggests interventions of this type can have a positive impact onÌý physical and mental health and wellbeing. However, 3 of the 13 studies reported no orÌý negative impact on physical activity levels.

• Estimates for increases in physical activity levels tended to be small, of increasedÌý activity of around 5 to 10 minutes per day. Some studies reported no impact or negativeÌý impact.

• Three studies reported improved self-esteem, mental wellbeing or life satisfaction andÌý others reported reductions in problem behaviours and aggression, increases inÌý belonging and higher motivation.

• The quality of evidence was mixed, with many studies of small scale, and there wereÌý many issues with study design such as allowing young people to choose whichÌý treatment arm and activities they were involved in.