Figure 1. Conceptual Youth Engagement Framework and Study Measures

1. POTENTIAL MODERATORS OF THE RELATION BETWEEN YOUTH ENGAGEMENT AND POSITIVE OUTCOMES Linda Rose-Krasnor1, Michael Busseri1, and Mark Pancer2The 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. • 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) 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. High in moderator Low in moderator Outcome • 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. Multiple Regression Results Step 1 Step 2 . Outcome Moderator Predictor R2 b p R2 Personal skills Financial risk Engagement .28 .13 .080 .29 Initiating .20 .009 Sustaining .29 .001 Moderator -.06 .714 Interaction term .28 .088 * Social interactions Engagement .21 .06 .412 .21 Initiating .14 .064 Sustaining .31 .001 Moderator -.04 .820 Interaction term .18 .306 Well-being Engagement .32 -.01 .936 .33 Initiating .24 .001 Sustaining .39 .001 Moderator -.06 .714 Interaction term .38 .087 * Personal skills Sustaining Engagement .27 .18 .007 .29 factor Initiating .24 .001 Sustaining .29 .001 Interaction term -.12 .037 Social interactions Engagement .21 .13 .055 .22 Initiating .16 .038 Sustaining .31 .001 Interaction term -.10 .097 Well-being Engagement .33 .03 .641 .33 Initiating .26 .001 Sustaining .39 .001 Interaction term .05 .345 Low Engagement High Engagement • 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). Figure 1. Conceptual Youth Engagement Framework and Study Measures General Political Local/community Personal skills Well-being Social interactions Initiating factors Youth engagement Positive outcomes Personal values Social responsibility Religiosity Neighborhood quality MODERATORS Financial Risk Sustaining Factors • 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? Sustaining factors Social support Support for involvement Engagement attitudes Youth efficacy • Results • 4 out of 6 interactions were noteworthy … • 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). • 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). • 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. • 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. • 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.