Figure 1. Conceptual Youth Engagement Framework and Study Measures

POTENTIAL MODERATORS OF THE RELATION BETWEEN YOUTH ENGAGEMENT AND POSITIVE OUTCOMES

Linda Rose-Krasnor1, Michael Busseri1, and Mark Pancer2 The Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement / 1Brock University / 2Wilfrid Laurier University

The Centres of Excellence are a Health Canada-funded program. The opinions expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect those of Health Canada.

Abstract

In the context of a new, multi-component framework for youth engagement, we examined whether associations between youth engagement and positive developmental outcomes were moderated by financial risk and hypothesized sustaining factors. The level of financial risk and two of the three sustaining factors were found to moderate associations between engagement and several outcomes. The engagement-outcome relationship was strongest among youth at financial risk, those reporting low engagement support, and those reporting less positive engagement attitudes. Engagement may buffer the effects of relative disadvantage in youths’ intrapersonal, social and economic environment.

Introduction

• Youth engagement may be defined as meaningful and sustained involvement in an activity, focusing outside the self.

• Rose-Krasnor, Busseri, and Pancer (2003) proposed and tested a structural model of youth engagement, comprising initiating, sustaining, and outcome factors (see Figure 1). Results indicated that engagement was predicted by initiating and sustaining factors, and engagement predicted skills, well-being, and social interaction outcomes.

• Engagement effects, however, may not be similar for all youth.

• In the current study, we expected that relations between engagement and outcomes would be greater for youth who were financially at risk than for their more advantaged peers.

• Based on work by Pancer and Pratt (1999) we also expected that the engagement effects would be greatest for youth who had strong personal and social support for engagement.

Participants and Procedures

• Convenience sample of 192 youth who applied to attend one of three national youth conferences voluntarily completed a 40-min. survey.

• The survey was mailed to potential participants prior to the conference and either returned by mail or completed upon arrival.

• Median respondent age was 17 years (range = 14 to 19 yrs); 76% were female.

Discussion

• We found stronger engagement-outcomes relations among youth identified as at-financial risk for basic needs, compared to those not at risk. This was observed for two types of outcomes - personal skills and well-being.

• We also found stronger engagement-outcomes relations among youth who reported low sustaining factors. This was observed for two types of outcomes - personal skills and social interaction frequency, with the particular importance of engagement support and attitudes respectively.

• One explanation is that through involvement, relatively disadvantaged youth (financially at risk, low supports) are exposed to opportunities, positive experiences, and supports that are missing from their typical environment.

• Thus, engagement may augment positive development among relatively disadvantaged youth (e.g., Mahoney, 2000). For non disadvantaged youth, the relative benefits of engagement may be less if they have access to resources, opportunities outside of engagement (Smoll et al., 1993).

Initiating factors Youth engagement

Sustaining factors

Positive outcomes

Figure 2 – General Form of the Moderated Engagement-Outcome Relationship

For 4 of 6 interactions, the engagement-outcome relationship was stronger among those low in the moderating variable, compared to those high in the moderating variable.

Social support

Support for involvement

Engagement attitudes

Youth efficacy

Personal skills

Well-being

Social interactions

Personal values

Social responsibility

Religiosity

Neighborhood quality

General

Political

Local/community

Multiple Regression Results Step 1 Step 2 .

Outcome Moderator Predictor R2 b p R2

Personal skills Financial risk Engagement.28 .13 .080 .29Initiating .20 .009Sustaining .29 .001Moderator -.06 .714Interaction term .28 .088 *

Social interactions Engagement.21 .06 .412 .21Initiating .14 .064Sustaining .31 .001Moderator -.04 .820Interaction term .18 .306

Well-being Engagement.32 -.01 .936 .33Initiating .24 .001Sustaining .39 .001Moderator -.06 .714Interaction term .38 .087 *

Personal skills Sustaining Engagement.27 .18 .007 .29factor Initiating .24 .001

Sustaining .29 .001Interaction term -.12 .037

Social interactions Engagement.21 .13 .055 .22Initiating .16 .038Sustaining .31 .001Interaction term -.10 .097

Well-being Engagement.33 .03.641 .33Initiating .26.001Sustaining .39.001Interaction term .05.345

Limitations

• Cross-sectional data: What came first, adjustment or engagement? What really causes what? Are relationships reciprocal over time?

• Interactions were not statistically robust.

• Limited range of outcome measures; risk behaviors? physical health?

MODERATORS

Financial Risk

Sustaining Factors

Analysis – Testing Financial Risk and Sustaining Factor as Moderators

• Step 1: DV = outcome, IVs = engagement, initiating, sustaining factors, moderator

• Step 2: Add moderator x engagement interaction term

• Models were tested separately for each moderator and each outcome

• Noteworthy interactions: p < .10 for interaction term (*)

• Simple slope effects computed following Aiken and West (1991)

Results

4 out of 6 interactions were noteworthy …

1. The relation between engagement and personal skills was stronger among those at risk for basic needs (b = .41) compared to those not at risk (b = .13).

2. The relation between engagement and well-being was stronger among those at risk for basic needs (b = .27) compared to those not at risk (b = .01).

3. The relation between engagement and personal skills was stronger among those low in sustaining factorsa (b = .30) vs. those high in the sustaining factor (b = .06).

aOf the four sustaining factor indicators, support for involvement was a significant moderator.

4. The relation between engagement and social interactions was stronger among those low in sustaining factorsb (b = .23) vs. high in the sustaining factor (b = .03).

bOf the four sustaining factor indicators, engagement attitudes was a significant moderator.

High in moderator

Low in moderator

High EngagementLow Engagement

Ou

tco

me

Implications

• Engagement may buffer the effects of relative disadvantage such that more positive outcomes are predicted from more frequent engagement among disadvantaged youth.

• Adult mentors, schools, and community organizations may find it valuable to make special effort to recruit and include youth from all levels of advantage - in particular at-risk youth who may benefit the most from engagement.