Thesis Defense

Julie ClementsCapstone DefenseMarch 24,2010

Addressing Youth (Dis)-Engagement

In the City of New Westminster

1

Presentation Overview

•Youth Engagement Backgrounder•Policy Problem•Research Approach• Survey Objectives and Data•Results and Analysis•Policy Options and Evaluation•Recommendations•Conclusion

2

Background

Youth Engagement: The meaningful engagement and sustainable involvement of young people in shared decisions. (McCreary 2009)

Youth Engagement is shown to influence positive aspects of community such as:

• Citizenship• Civic Competence• Moral Development• Self Esteem• Trust/ Reciprocity• Networks

Social Capital: Features of social life that enable

participants to act together to pursue shared objectives

3

Background continuedThe way youth experience civic engagement is different from previous generations

The measures of political party membership, voter turnout, and membership/ activity in political organizations are inadequate to measure civic engagement of today’s youth

Broader research definitions of civic engagement are needed and should correspond with the everyday experiences of youth

Better measures identified include community belonging, civic knowledge, interest in participation, belief in the efficacy of engagement, and intention to participate.

4(Bell 2005, Mackinnon et. al 2007, McCreary 2009, Cote 2006)

Policy ProblemPolicy Problem: Insufficient youth engagement in New Westminster planning and decision making

Evidence:Less than 1% of respondents in the 2009 consultation of the New Westminster Downtown Plan were under the age of 25 years (n=1000+).

Number of New Westminster Youth Designated facilities =0.

The Youth Advisory Committee (YAC), struggles with engagement efficacy and communication

New Westminster Youth have zero municipally designated adult allies with a policy focus.

5

Policy Problem: Frame of ReferenceWhen compared to other Lower Mainland Municipalities the lack of youth engagement in New Westminster is comparably low:

New Westminster

Maple Ridge

Burnaby Surrey Vancouver

Youth Population 2840 5200 12 790 28 255 29 490

Youth Outreach Services No Yes Yes Yes Yes

Staff with policy focus No No No No Yes

Number of Youth Facilities 0 2 4 3 24

Number of youth per designated facility

**Projected2840

2600 3198 9418 1282

6

Research Approach• Descriptive Research• Participants: Administered to grade 10, 11, and 12 students

• Ethical Considerations• Response Rate

• Representative

Population

1526

Sample

332

Percent of Population:

21.7%7

Number of Surveys Distributed

385

Sample Collected

332

Response Rate

86.2%

Survey Objectives

•To gain a local perspective•To gather data using youth as the source•Large sample •To conceptualize youth engagement using a

participatory approach

Community Belonging

Civic Knowledge

Interest In Participation

Belief in the Value of

youth engagement

Intention to participate

8

Variables

Measures of Youth Engagement

• Community Belonging

• Civic Knowledge• Interest in Civic

Participation• Belief in the value of

engagement• Intention to

participate in the future

Factors Affecting Youth Engagement

• Age (grade)• Gender• Socio-economic

status• Neighborhood

Location• Minority Status

9

Results: Participatory DataParticipatory Variable Distribution (n=332)

Community Belonging 67.3% Belonging

32.7% No Belonging

Civic Knowledge 25.9% Good

35.8% Limited

38.3% None

Interested in Civic Participation 47.3% Interested

52.7% Not Interested

Belief in the Value of Youth Engagement

Believe Youth should be involved in planning and decision making 77.2% Believe

22.8% Do not believe

Belief that youth input can impact council decisions 47.3% Believe

52.7% Do not Believe

Believes city staff will take youth input seriously 30.9% Believe

68.5% Do not believe

Intention for Future Engagement

Intention to vote in the next municipal election

74.2% plans to vote

26.8% no plan to vote

Intention to Participate in Online Polling 63.1% will participate

36.9% will not participate10

Analysis

•Grade/ Gender Divide

•Engagement Marginalization determined by SES and Minority Status

•Gap in Civic Education

•Mechanism of Engagement Matters

11

Grade/ Gender Divide

12

Avg Grade 10 and 11

Grade 12

Avg Grade 10 and 11

Grade 12

Avg Grade 10 and 11

Grade 12

Avg Grade 10 and 11

Grade 12

Avg Grade 10 and 11

Grade 12

Grade 11

Grade 12

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

46.9

62.0

53.1

61.6

56.0

63.0

49.8

62.3

55.1

67.3

61.358.7

53.2

38.0

47.0

38.4

44.0

37.0

50.3

37.7

44.9

32.7

38.741.3

Female (%)

Male (%)

Belonging Interest Youth involved Affect decisions

Staff serious

Intent to vote

Social Marginalization by wealth

13

Feels a Sense of Community Belonging

Good Civic Knowledge

Interested in Civic Participation

Believe Youth Should Participate

Believe Youth Input will Influence Decisions

Believe Staff will take youth input seriously

Intends to Vote

Will Participate in an Online Poll

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

AVG of medium low to high wealthLow Wealth

Social Marginalization by minority status

14

Feels a Sense of Community Belonging

Good Civic Knowledge

Interested in Civic Participation

Believe Youth Should Participate

Believe Youth Input will Influence Decisions

Believe Staff will take youth input seriously

Intends to Vote

Will Participate in an Online Poll

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Non-Visible MinorityVisible Minority

Gap in Civic Education

15

None Limited Good0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

38.3 35.8

25.9

Civic Knowledge

Perc

ent

26.2%

20.0%15.4%

15.4%

13.8%6.2% 3.1%

Not enough knowledge/ experience

Too young

Youth won’t take it se-riously

Youth are not interested

Not mature enough

Involving youth will make the process inef-ficient

It’s not our place

Knowledge

Social Capital

Mechanism of Engagement

16

Text voting Contact elected officials

Attend/speak at a council meeting

Join YAC Attend a meeting or youth event

Online Polls0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

27.4

23.0

16.4

10.7

29.9

63.1

72.6

77.0

83.6

89.3

70.1

36.9

YesNo

Policy Objective

Policy Objective:

To increase meaningful youth engagement in municipal planning and decision making in the City of New Westminster

17

Criteria and MeasuresCriteria Measure Weight Value

Effectiveness: Youth Acceptability

If substantially less than the majority (≤40%)40%<Youth indicated acceptability<60%

If substantially greater than the majority (≥60%) 1.0

Low Medium High

51015

Equity

Effectiveness at providing and supporting engagement based on age, gender, neighbourhood, SES, and

minority status 1.0

3 points per criterion (max 15)

Youth Education and Development

No youth education componentIncreases civic knowledge or builds social capital

Increases civic knowledge and builds social capital1.0

LowMedium High

51015

Online AccessibilityNo online component

Provides information onlineIncludes web tools for online engagement and info

1.0LowMedium High

51015

Cost to the City of New Westminster

Lowest Cost option relative to othersSecond highest costing option relative to others

Third highest costing option relative to othersHighest Cost Option relative to others

0.6

Low M-LM-HHigh

3579

Administrative Complexity

Requires structural change to municipal operationsMinimal changes to municipal operations 0.6

DifficultEasy

36

18

Policy Alternatives

Four Policy Options for the

City Of New Westminster1.

Youth Engagement

Guide

2.New

Westminster Civic Youth

Policy

3. Youth

Advisory Committee

Ammendments

4. Municipal

Youth Outreach Staff

19

Policy Analysis

Criteria

Option 1: Youth Engagement

Guide

Option 2:Civic Youth Policy

Option 3:YAC mandate and

communication

Option 4:Youth Outreach

Staff Position

Effectiveness: Youth Acceptability 15 (High) 15 (High) 5 (Low) 15 (High)

Equity15 (5/5) 15 (5/5) 12 (4/5) 15 (5/5)

Youth Education and Development 15 (High) 5 (Low) 15 (High) 15 (High)

Online Accessibility5 (Low) 10 (Med) 15 (High) 10 (Med)

Cost9 (Rank 1-best) 5 (Rank 3) 7 (Rank 2) 3 (Rank 4-worst)

Administrative Complexity 3 (Diff) 3 (Diff) 6 (Easy) 3 (Diff)

TOTAL SCORETotal out of 75

62 53 60 61

20

Recommendations

•Policy options are complimentary and have each shown large potential to increase Civic Youth Engagement in New Westminster

• Implementation is proposed in Stages:

Stage 1:

Youth Engagement Guide

Stage 2:

YAC amendments

Stage 3:

Youth Outreach Staff

Stage 4:

Civic Youth Policy

21

Short term

Long term

Conclusion

• Currently there is insufficient youth engagement in New Westminster

• Municipal government should be concerned over the lack of youth engaged as social capital is at stake

• Policy options proposed, are informed from the survey analysis

• Recommendations give the City of New Westminster viable options to increase engagement in the long and short term.

22

23

Thank you,your questions

are invited

Definitions of Social Capital• Definitions of Social Capital most widely used are

those of:Pierre Bourdieu

• Multi-dimensional view of capital with respect to class: economic, cultural, symbolic, and social.

• Use of social capital by individuals implicates social class status.

James Coleman• Social capital is defined by its function: facilitating collective or

individual action generated by relationships, reciprocity, trust, norms.

Robert Putnam • Features of social life: networks, norms, and trust- that enable

participants to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives

24

Descriptive Research

• Focused on describing Youth Engagement in New Westminster by comparing and specifying patterns for subgroups:

• Based on participatory measures of community belonging, civic education, interest in participation, belief in the efficacy of engagement, and intent to participate.

• Also by factors of age, gender, SES, neighborhood, and minority status

25

Survey Reliability and Validity Reliability: the same result is obtained on

repeated occasions.• Categorical data• Issues of reliability addressed by careful question wording (pilot)• Another option could have been the test-retest method with more time

Validity: does it measure what it was intended to measure?• Content validity- used proxies which would measure different aspects of

the concept of Youth Engagement• Construct Validity- How well the measures conform with theoretic al

expectations.

26

Measurement and Statistical AnalysisMuch of the data collected with the Youth Engagement Survey is categorical, that is with nominal level variables (not ranked)

Explanation: • Time constraints for survey administration was limited per class by the New

Westminster School District (SD#40)• Youth may be reluctant to provide precise information but may provide it more

general forms (ie categorical data)

Test Statistics:• Chi Squared (χ2) Test Statistic

• Measures goodness of fit: compares frequency distribution with a theoretical distribution

• Measures independence: whether the two variables in the cross-tabulation are independent from each other.

27

Sample Characteristics

28

Characteristic Study (%)Population (%)

(2006 Census)

Females Males

52.447.6

51.348.6

Visible MinoritiesNon-Minorities

33.0 67.0

32.7 (adjusted for aboriginals)67.3

QueensboroughSapperton

DowntownQueens Park

Brow of the Hill

7.29.35.7

14.84.8

9.57.8

15.36.8

16.5

Grade is on p 22

Types of Literature

29

Think Tank Research• Canadian Policy Research Network: Democratic Renewal Series• Canada West Foundation: Next West Generation, political identities of western

Canada’s young adults (5)• CD Howe Institute: Drop-outs, the Achilles heel of Canada’s high school system• McCreary Centre Society: A Seat at the Table, qualitative via focus groups

International Studies• Shaw et al. (2002)- looking at at citizenship among urban youth• O’Toole et al. (2003)-US, lit review on studies researching decline of political

participation• Wilson- UK, power relationships within participation, lit review

Canadian Studies• Gurstein et al. (2003)- Study out of UBC using case studies of youth

based organizations in Lower Mainland• Bell –Web site case studies, identifying best practices

Ethical Responsibility

30

The ethical responsibility I had toward the youth respondents were:

•Voluntary participation- youth were explicitly given the opportunity to refuse participation or withdraw participation after beginning

•Informed Consent-given through signed forms

•No harm- communicated that refusal to participate would not affect their school marks, and if they felt uncomfortable with the questions they could choose to withdraw.

•Confidentiality- there is no way of identifying any particular student by their answers. Also directed to NOT put name or student number anywhere on the survey