Date post: | 19-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | jclements1983 |
View: | 445 times |
Download: | 2 times |
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