Research and analysis

Youth provision and life outcomes: systematic literature review (executive summary)

Published 29 February 2024

Summary of key findings

This review located and screened over 25,000 studies from across 22 major research  databases and repositories. A total of 77 studies met the review criteria for relevance and  suitability. Studies were quality assessed, organised within six activity areas, and analysed  in-depth by area to better understand the impacts of open access youth activities.

1. The review provides convincing evidence to show that youth activities have  beneficial impacts for young people across a range of personal, social,  educational, and economic outcomes, although it should be noted that literature had limitations (see below).

2. There is more, and better-quality evidence for some types of youth activity. Mentoring  and peer mentoring, and summer employment schemes, have the strongest  evidence with more consistently positive impact findings.

3. There was also evidence (of varying strength) of positive impacts for programmes in the  areas of citizenship and community service; residentials and camps; and sports  and physical health.

4. There were several programmes with positive evidence of impact that had been  tested at scale, sustained over time and delivered across multiple contexts.  These programmes provide models for programme design and implementation from  which current and future provision can learn.

5. There was variation in impact in all activity areas, suggesting appreciable  differences in programme quality and implementation, and in the needs of the young  people involved.

6. Youth activities typically affect multiple personal, social, education and  economic outcomes for young people. Many outcomes, however, are either hard to  measure (e.g., resilience, social skills, wellbeing, and job readiness), indirect (e.g.,  developing social skills through community service or team sports), or relate to the  avoidance of negative outcomes (e.g., reducing substance abuse).

7. The evidence base was relatively weak because of the challenges of evaluating the  broad range of activities and outcomes supported through open access youth provision.  There were some examples of multiple studies of the same or highly similar programmes; much of the literature, however, was more disparate in terms of the  interventions assessed and outcomes measured. Only seven studies were rated as  providing high quality impact evidence. Most studies were rated as providing medium  (n=40) or low (n=30) quality evidence.

Background to the study

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

The literature review was commissioned to build understanding of the impact of different  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 studies  are, respectively, an analysis of longitudinal data examining the contemporaneous and  long-term impacts of youth activities on young people, and a local-level analysis examining  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 research  databases, indexes and collections, before mapping results, quality appraising the studies  and analysing findings.

Throughout the study, we worked with a Youth Panel, recruited by UK Youth. The Youth  Panel helped to shape the study’s scope and supported the study team in interpreting the  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. Activities  targeting ‘elite’ skills (for example in sport or music) for their own sake, medical or clinical  studies and school-based interventions were deemed out of scope. This is not to say that  these wider studies would not have something potentially useful to say about the impact  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 includes  qualitative methodologies, surveys, and secondary data studies, we have not incorporated  these into our review.

Activity areas

This report presents findings in six activity areas (see Table 1), categories identified by the  study team in dialogue with DCMS and our Youth Panel. Some studies sat across more  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
Music, arts, recreation and community	6
Employment, skills and enterprise	12
Mentoring, coaching and/or peer support	34
Residentials and camps	9
Sports and physical health	13
Total	85 category entries (77 studies)

Source: SQW and University of Warwick

Outcome areas

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

Table 2: Number of studies by outcome area

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

Source: SQW and University of Warwick

Evidence of Impact

This evidence base highlights how well-designed youth activities can have beneficial  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]}, which  have highlighted some of the ways in which youth activities impact upon young people and  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. Even  outcomes that ostensibly relate to similar themes, such as ‘social skills’ or ‘personal  development’, were reported differently because of how outcomes are defined and  measured.

Typically, youth provision seeks to support a range of outcomes in tandem. Activities’ main  aims were often indirectly linked to the activity focus, for example with football being used  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 to  describe a similar effect. For example, youth practitioners might describe an activity in  terms of ‘building trusted relationships’; policymakers might talk about ‘social cohesion’;  young people, though, might simply talk about ‘seeing friends’.

These considerations make comparing outcomes across studies challenging. 

Reflections on the evidence base

The evidence base is skewed towards larger programmes with pre-defined structures  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 know  anecdotally from our research partners and Youth Panel that high quality smaller  programmes may well also generate impact for young people.

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

Activity impact summary

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

Citizenship, community service and volunteering 

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

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

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

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

Music, arts, recreation and community activities

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

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

• Evidence quality in this area was weak and, while there is encouraging evidence of  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 personal  development, social and employment skills outcomes – particularly for recent summer  employment schemes.

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

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

• Evidence on other employment and enterprise interventions suggests that youth  activities can increase income generation activity, develop financial skills and lower  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 mentoring  programmes, particularly including peer mentoring. Over two thirds of studies looking  at mentoring interventions indicated that these had a positive impact.

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

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

• Other studies of community-based and informal mentoring and peer support initiatives  also suggest small positive benefits on outcomes such as school attendance and social  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 substance  use or violence were more mixed, sometimes generating positive impacts on target  outcomes, but sometimes producing no significant outcome and, in one case, negative  impact. However, many found small effects on a diverse range of outcomes including  health, standard of living, sexual health knowledge, earnings, decreased rates of  violence, self-confidence and knowledge of personal and social issues.

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

Residentials and camps

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

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

• Estimates of impact on wellbeing outcomes such as self-efficacy and reduction in  depressive symptoms tended to be small but were consistently reported across  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 limitations  highlighted in quality appraisal across several studies.

Sports and physical health

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

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

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

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

1. SQW (2024) Youth provision and life outcomes: A study of longitudinal research, and; SQW (2024) Youth  provision and life outcomes: A study of the local impact of youth clubs. ↩

2. SQW (2024) Youth provision and life outcomes: A study of longitudinal research, and; SQW (2024) Youth  provision and life outcomes: A study of the local impact of youth clubs. ↩