Table 7: Impact on Adolescent Mental Health and Hope

||Strengt<br>(SDQ) Sca<br>index|hs and Diffi<br>le: Total di<br>(Standardi|culties<br>fficulties<br>zed)|SD<br>Pro<br>(S<br>|Q Sub-Sca<br>social beha<br>tandardize|le:<br>vior<br>d)|Childr<br>Total Sc|en's Hope<br>ore (Stand|Scale:<br>ardized)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||All<br>(1)|Boys<br>(2)|Girls<br>(3)|(4)<br>All|Boys<br>(5)|Girls<br>(6)|All<br>(7)|Boys<br>(8)|Girls<br>(9)|
|Panel A: Endline||||||||||
|_CHOICES_|-1.338***|-1.827***|-0.797|-0.195|-0.314|-0.116|0.080|-0.050|0.182|
||(0.45)|(0.59)|(0.49)|(0.16)|(0.23)|(0.20)|(0.30)|(0.30)|(0.43)|
||[0.01]|[0.01]|[0.12]|[0.32]|[0.23]|[1.00]|[1.00]|[1.00]|[1.00]|
|_EMB (marginal)_|0.466|0.700|0.181|0.279*|0.645**|-0.050|-0.064|0.006|-0.145|
||(0.45)|(0.66)|(0.49)|(0.15)|(0.27)|(0.19)|(0.24)|(0.36)|(0.26)|
||[0.41]|[0.41]|[1.00]|[0.09]|[0.02]|[1.00]|[1.00]|[1.00]|[1.00]|
|Control group mean|-0.11|0.41|-0.63|0.09|-0.05|0.23|0.03|0.09|-0.03|
|Adjusted R<sup>2</sup>|0.10|0.11|0.10|0.14|0.15|0.14|0.06|0.08|0.04|
|<br>Observations|2,643|1,285|1,358|2,643|1,285|1,358|2,643|1,285|1,358|
|Panel B: Midline||||||||||
|_CHOICES_|-1.061**|-1.019**|-1.109|-0.050|0.029|-0.130|0.497**|0.518**|0.452|
||(0.43)|(0.50)|(0.76)|(0.22)|(0.27)|(0.28)|(0.20)|(0.22)|(0.35)|
||[0.02]|[0.05]|[0.20]|[1.00]|[1.00]|[1.00]|[0.02]|[0.02]|[0.27]|
|_EMB (marginal)_|0.718*|0.899*|0.556|-0.243|-0.195|-0.263|-0.065|-0.077|-0.018|
||(0.38)|(0.50)|(0.54)|(0.17)|(0.26)|(0.22)|(0.24)|(0.29)|(0.36)|
||[0.07]|[0.08]|[0.41]|[0.16]|[0.77]|[0.30]|[1.00]|[1.00]|[1.00]|
|Control group mean|-0.07|0.32|-0.42|0.07|-0.06|0.18|0.06|0.17|-0.04|
|<br>Adjusted R<sup>2</sup>|0.18|0.19|0.17|0.32|0.31|0.33|0.02|0.01|0.02|
|<br>Observations|1,987|939|1,048|1,987|939|1,048|1,987|939|1,048|
|ANCOVA<br>Notes: * significant at 10|Yes<br>% level ** signi|Yes<br>ficant at 5%|Yes<br>level *** sign|Yes<br>ificant at 1%|Yes<br>level|Yes|Yes|Yes|Yes|

(1) CHOICES=1 if adolescent was assigned to CHOICES only or CHOICES+EMB treatment groups. EMB=1 if adolescent was assigned to CHOICES+EMB group, effectively giving the marginal impact of the EMB program in addition to the CHOICES program.

(2) ANCOVA estimation controls for the level of the outcome variable. All regressions include district fixed effects and a set of controls measured at baseline: dummy for whether household has multiple adolescents and age of respondent.

(3) Standard errors are clustered at the community level and are reported under the coefficient in parentheses. Sharpened q-values that correct p-values for the false discovery rate (FDR) are in square brackets. A sharpened q-value of 1.00 indicates the null hypothesis is not rejected at any level of FDR.

(4) Outcomes in Table 4 columns 1 and 2 are created from the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) which is a behavioral screening questionnaire consisting of 25 statements developed by Goodman (1997) that aggregates 4 sub-scales: emotional problems, conduct problems, hyperactivity/inattention, peer problems into an index of “Total Difficulties Scale” (0-20). The sub-scale that measures prosocial behavior is also shown. The Children’s Hope Scale (CHS) is a six-item scale developed by Snyder et al. (1997) that measures a child's perception that their goals can be met. All index measures have been standardized as per the method from Kling et al. 2007.

35