Empowerment Research
with Children & Adolescents
Methodologies for a new era summer school
School of Applied Social Studies, University
College Cork
24 June 2011
Matt Morton
Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention,
University of Oxford
Aims
Conceptualize youth emp’t (frameworks &
defining features)
Review theory & evidence on youth emp’t
Review tools & approaches to measuring emp’t
process
Review tools & approaches to measuring emp’t
outcomes/impacts
Growing interest





UNCRC (Art. 12)
UK Youth Matters
African Union, Afr. Youth Charter
World Bank (World Dev’t Rep., ‘07)
Jordan, Nat’l Youth Strategy
CONCEPTUALIZING EMPOWERMENT
Defining youth emp’t
"Empowerment is the expansion of assets and
capabilities of young people to participate in,
negotiate with, influence, control, and hold
accountable institutions that affect their lives.”
- used by World Bank & UNICEF
Model 1: Lofquist’s ‘Spectrum of
Attitudes’
Objects
Recipients
Resources
Done to…
Done for…
Done with…
Exercise on Social Work Practice
Social
workers…
Examples
Feelings/respo
nses
Treated as…
Objects
Treated
as…Recipient
s
Treated as…
Resources/Par
tners
Youth emp’t in context
Process factors influencing implementation of youth empowerment in programming
Organizational culture
Empowerment-based
External
influences
- Culture
- Funding
- Policy
Process
promoters
(for staff)
- Cooperation
- Professional
development
- Opportunity
structures
Process
mechanisms
(for youth)
Process
output
Outcomes
- Flexibility
- Support
- Opportunity
structures
Youth
participation
Developmental
assets
Staff attitudes
toward youth
Model 2:
Hart’s
Ladder of
Children’s
Participation
Model 3: Wong et al’s Typology of
Youth & Empowerment (TYPE)
Pyramid
Shared
control
Adult
control
Vessel
- Lack of youth
voice &
participation
- Adults have
total control
Symbolic
- Youth have
voice
- Adults have
most control
Pluralistic
- Youth have
voice and
active
participant role Independent
- Youth and - Youth have
adults share voice and active
participant role
control
Autonomous
- Adults give
-Youth have
youth most
voice and active
control
participant role
- Youth have
total control
Youth
control
Considerations for studying youth
emp’t
Emp’t is defined by process, not content
Models increasingly emphasize role of adults in
facilitating emp’t process
Multiple degrees of participation at multiple
levels of analysis

Evaluations of youth emp’t programs emphasize
setting-level processes
Youth emp’t in cross-cultural
context
 Beyond ‘WEIRD’ (Western, educated, industrialized,
rich & democratic) societies (Henrich et al 2006)
 Context collectivist/individualist,
hierarchical/horizontal?
 Roles and conceptions of youth in the cultural
context? (empowered via ‘natural’ society roles)
 Males & females have dif’t opportunity structures?
 Practical impediments to youth participation (e.g.,
transportation, working, safety, etc.)
THEORY & EVIDENCE ON YOUTH
EMPOWERMENT
Passive interventions don’t work
• Drug educationonly (e.g.,
DARE)
• “Scared straight”
• Short-term/oneoff interventions
w/o follow-up
Theory
Empowerment theory (Zimmerman 2000)
Strengths perspective theory to social work
practice (Healy, 2005)
Social learning/cognitive theory (Bandura 1986)
Self-determination and choice theory (Glasser
1999)
Role theory (Biddle 1986)
Supportive evidence for youth
emp’t theory
Top factors related to out-of-school program
participation with teens (Deschenes et al 2010)

Many leadership opportunities & Relevance of
program agenda
Higher program empowerment related to higher
youth outcomes (Smith & Akiva 2008)
Qualitative research indicating benefits for youth,
programs, and communities from emp’t (FosterFishman et al 2005)
Note: these studies do not demonstrate causality
Neurobiological perspectives
Risk-reward seeking
Ernst et al.,
2006
Effects of youth empowerment programs (YEPs) on self-efficacy & self-esteem of
adolescents (10-19)
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
Search results
From search: 8,789 citations
Included: 3 studies (including Jordan RCT)
Excluded school-based: 3 studies
Main reasons for exclusion:


Intvn: Lacked regular youth participation in decisionmaking
Study: Not experimental/quasi-experimental
controlled design
With School-based Excluded Studies (k=6)
SECONDARY
PRIMARY
Outcome area
# studies
Favors
#
measured Intvn
outcomes p < .05
Favors
Control
p < .05
General self-efficacy
3 (n=210)
3
0
0
Specific self-efficacy
2 (n=1,129)
3
1 (n=813)
0
Self-esteem
1 (n=316)
1
0
0
Social supports and
connections
2 (n=443)
5
0
0
Social skills
3 (n=483)
5
1 (n=40)
0
Emotional intelligence
1 (n=43)
1
1 (n=43)
0
Coping and problemsolving skills
1 (n=40)
1
1 (n=40)
0
Civic engagement
2 (n=856)
3
0
0
Academic
performance
1 (n=695)
1
1 (n=695)
0
Antisocial behavior
5 (n=1,991)
11
6 (n=1,951)
0
Findings
Very few studies; more needed
Largely null results on developmental assets
More favorable results from (excluded) schoolbased YEP studies, but evidence v limited
Research concentrated in USA
MEASURING PROCESS IN YOUTH
EMPOWERMENT
Implementation considerations
Staff preparation



Level and quality of training?
Clarity & understanding of Th of Chg across staff?
Org culture of emp’t (including for staff)?
Youth emp’t





Involvement in decision-making (What extent? All or
some youth?)
Safe and flexible setting?
Opportunities for mastery experiences?
Feelings of engagement & meaningfulness?
Support & preparation?
Example research tools
Involvement & Interaction Rating Scale (Survey
on Youth-Adult Partnerships) – Jones & Perkins
(2005)
Learner Empowerment Survey – Fymier et al
1996
Youth Program Quality Assessment (PQA)
(quality settings, observer rating) – Blazevski &
Smith 2007
Qualitative research needed…
 Better understanding of how concept “youth emp’t”
is socially constructed in dif’t contexts (see Hart
2008)
 Deeper understanding of the context and conditions
in which youth emp’t is supported or hindered

Investigating youth emp’t in terms of ‘diffusion of
innovation’
 Exploring ‘active ingredients’ and explaining
outcomes

Hypothesis generating for quantitative studies
MEASURING IMPACTS IN YOUTH
EMPOWERMENT
4.2. Questscope Non-Formal Education Theory of Change
INPUTS
Participatory
methodology
• Flexible curriculum
• Questscope
training & support
on empowerment
Supportive adults
• Trained
professional
facilitators
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
Social/
developmental
• Facilitate
participatory
strengths-building
activities (e.g.,
leadership games;
sports, cultural, &
vocational activities;
camps and
experiential trips)
Exposure
• 2+ days per
week youth
attendance,
approx. 3 hours
per day
Physical center
• Comfortable,
changeable space
designated for NFE
Involve youth in
decision-making
processes
Funding
• Ministry of
Education funding of
space & facilitators
• Questscope grants
& donations for
quality assurance
and programming
Learning
• Facilitate dialoguebased participatory
lessons in
curriculum areas
(e.g., math, Arabic,
English, religion,
science)
ASSUMPTIONS
Responsiveness
• Youth feel
empowered &
engaged in
program
Prosocial
environment
• Safe, positive
setting, including
supportive social
facilitator-youth &
youth-youth
interactions
PROXIMAL
OUTCOMES
DISTAL
OUTCOMES
Increased...
Increased...
Developmental
assets
• Self-efficacy
• Prosocial behavior
• Social supports
(friends, family, local
adults)
• Social skills
Social inclusion
• Integration into formal
education, vocational
training, and/or stable
employment
Literacy & academic
ability
Decreased...
Behavioral difficulties
• e.g., Conduct
problems, peer
problems
Civic engagement
• community &
democratic
participation
Long-term impact
• Contributions to
improved family,
community, and society
level indicators (e.g.,
economic & health)
1. The policy and funding context is amenable to quality implementation.
2. Youth empowerment is culturally acceptable among key stakeholder groups.
3. Empowerment-based programming can attract, retain, and engage participants.
4. The program can change outcomes with a particularly marginalized population.
Example outcomes
 Psychological emp’t (Walker et al 2010)
 Youth assets (Oman et al 2010)
 Self-efficacy (specific & general)
 Social supports (peers, family, school, community)
 Prosocial (empathy, helping)
 Civic engagement (service, advocacy)
 Academic performance (grades, attendance)
 Antisocial behavior (e.g., conduct problems,
delinquency, substance abuse)
INVOLVING YOUTH IN RESEARCH &
EVALUATION
Approaches to youth participation
in research
Youth-led research projects
Youth staff help design and implement research
projects
Youth representatives on stakeholders advisory
boards for research projects
Separate youth advisory boards for research
projects
Jordan Youth Action Committee
Out-of-school youth
graduating from NFE
Committed & trained staff
8-week training
Small groups with adult (univ student)
facilitators
Youth determined own research
questions & methodologies
Thank you!
matthew.morton@spi.ox.ac.uk
References
 Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
 Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent Development in Role Theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67-92.
 Deschenes, S. N., Arbreton, A., Little, P. M., Herrera, C., Baldwin Grossman, J., Weiss, H. B., et
al. (2010). Engaging older youth: Program and city-level strategies to support sustained
participation in out-of-school time. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project and
Public/Private Ventures.
 Ernst, M., Pine, D. S., & Hardin, M. (2006). Triadic model of the neurobiology of motivated
behavior in adolescence. Psychological Medicine, 36(03), 299-312.
 Foster-Fishman, P., Nowell, B., Deacon, Z., Nievar, M., & McCann, P. (2005). Using Methods That
Matter: The Impact of Reflection, Dialogue, and Voice. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 36(3), 275-291.
 Glasser, W. (1999). Choice Theory in the Classroom. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
 Hart, R. (2008). Stepping Back from ‘The Ladder’: Reflections on a Model of Participatory Work
with Children. In A. Reid, B. Jensesn, J. Nikel & V. Simovska (Eds.), Participation and Learning.
New York: Springer Netherlands.
References continued
 Healy, K. (2005). Social work theories in context: Creating frameworks for practice. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
 Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral
and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), 61-83.
 Oman, R., Veseley, S., Tolman, E., Aspy, C., & Marshall, L. (2010). Reliability and validity of the
youth asset survey: An update. American Journal of Health Promotion, 25(1), e13-e24.
 Smith, C., & Akiva, T. (2008). Quality accountability: improving fidelity of broad developmentally
focused interventions. In M. Shinn & H. Yoshikawa (Eds.), Toward Positive Youth Development:
Transforming Schools and Community Programs. New York: Oxford University Press.
 Walker, J. S., Thorne, E. K., Powers, L. E., & Gaonkar, R. (2010). Development of a Scale to
Measure the Empowerment of Youth Consumers of Mental Health Services. Journal of Emotional
and Behavioral Disorders, 18(1), 51-59.
 Zimmerman, M. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community levels
of analysis. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology. New York:
Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.