Youth Empowerment Programs for Improving Adolescents’ Self-Efficacy and Self-Esteem

TLDR

The review aims to evaluate evidence on how youth empowerment programs affect adolescents’ self‑efficacy and self‑esteem, and to highlight the need for better‑designed studies with larger samples and mixed‑methods evaluations. The authors performed systematic database searches and international outreach to locate experimental or quasi‑experimental community interventions that regularly involve youth decision‑making, and meta‑analyzed data from two self‑efficacy studies comprising 167 participants. The review identified only three eligible studies out of 8,789 citations, none of which showed significant effects on self‑efficacy or self‑esteem, and meta‑analysis of two studies (N = 167) confirmed no significant impact on self‑efficacy; secondary outcomes were inconsistent, leading to the conclusion that evidence for YEPs’ effects is insufficient.

Abstract

Objectives: Assess the state of evidence regarding impacts of youth empowerment programs (YEPs) on adolescents’ (ages 10–19) self-efficacy and self-esteem, as well as other social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes. Method: Systematic searches of databases combined with an international outreach to identify experimental or quasi-experimental trials of community interventions that regularly involved youths in decision making. Results: Of the 8,789 citations identified, 3 studies met the inclusion criteria. None reported significant effects on the review’s primary outcomes. Data from only two studies on self-efficacy could be meta-analyzed (combined N = 167). Results found no significant intervention effect on self-efficacy ( z = 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI]: [−0.12, 0.49]). Significant effects were found for some secondary outcomes, but these were inconsistent across studies. Conclusions: The review reveals insufficient evidence of YEPs’ impacts. Further research is needed using well-implemented models with clear theories of change, larger samples, and rigorous impact study designs complemented by mixed-methods process evaluation.