Children and Youth Services Review 148 (2023) 106903
Available online 11 March 2023
0190-7409/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Career interventions and social well-being among non-engaged youth:
Examining the mediating effects of career competency
Steven Sek-yum Ngai
a,*, Chau-Kiu Cheung
b, Jianhong Mo
a, Lin Wang
a, Yuen-hang Ng
a, Pinqiao Wang
aaDepartment of Social Work, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
bDepartment of Social and Behavioral Sciences, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China
A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords:
Career intervention Social well-being Non-engaged youth Career competency
A B S T R A C T
Although it is widely acknowledged that non-engaged youth (NEY) face different disadvantages in their school- to-work transitions, less attention has been paid to examining the impact of career interventions on NEY’s career competency and social well-being. In our study, using data collected in the CLAP@JC community intervention project, we systematically investigated the effects of six career interventions—developing interest, awareness, and motivation (DIAM); semi-structured learning (SL); career counseling (CC); learning through service, vol- unteering, and caring (LSVC); workplace learning (WL); and facilitating pathway choice and implementation (FPCI)—on NEY’s social well-being directly or indirectly through career competency. Two types of data were collected: data about career competency and social well-being, namely from 665 NEY aged 13–29 who partic- ipated in both the baseline and four-month follow-up surveys, and aggregated data about career interventions from baseline to follow-up along with NEY’s demographic information provided by social workers responsible for supporting the participating NEY. Among our results, the effects of SL and WL on social well-being were significantly mediated by career competency, whereas the effect of LSVC directly contributed to social well-being instead of indirectly through career competency. Moreover, the effects of DIAM, CC, and FPCI were not signif- icant in promoting NEY’s career competency and social well-being. Overall, our findings suggest that career interventions involving learning through experience and deep interactions with relevant stakeholders in the workplace have more significant effects for improving NEY’s social well-being through career competency. The empirical findings of our study yield practical implications for future career interventions with NEY.
1. Introduction
Worldwide, economic globalization and advanced technology have shifted the labor market from manufacturing to service industries, which has resulted in a highly competitive job market and rapid job trans- formations (Hirschi, 2018; Wells, 2018). In turn, concerns about the relevance of education systems to meeting economic and societal needs, as well as the significant mismatch between the skill supply and labor market demand, are rising globally (Pavlova et al., 2017, 2018). As a consequence, compared with previous generations, young people today will face tortuous paths in their school-to-work transitions. Tradition- ally, the integration of young people into society involved a sequence of steps from school to work. However, such linear transitions from school to work are increasingly becoming diverse and individualized (Mascherini et al., 2012). As a result, young people are more likely than
adults to be unemployed (Pavlova et al., 2018). Furthermore, owing to the global recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, young people’s transitions into employment have become more difficult in recent years (Mann et al., 2020). Those adverse circumstances, especially for in- dividuals who are not in employment, education, or training (NEET), create considerable societal and individual challenges (Mascherini et al., 2012; Park et al., 2020). For that reason, NEET youth may experience an increasing possibility of unstable employment, lower health status, and poverty in the future (Hagquist, 1998; Huegaerts et al., 2018), which, in threatening massive social costs, indicate an urgent need for career intervention services (Medvide et al., 2019; Rieff & Peschner, 2020;
Serracant, 2014).
Likewise, non-engaged youth (NEY), including school dropouts, unemployed youth, and ethnic-minority youth, face various disadvan- tages in their school-to-work transitions and, in Hong Kong, are at risk of
* Corresponding author at: Department of Social Work, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Shatin, N.T., Hong Kong, China.
E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Sek-yum Ngai).
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Children and Youth Services Review
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.106903
Received 6 April 2022; Received in revised form 19 February 2023; Accepted 25 February 2023
becoming NEET youth (Mo & Lau, 2020; Ngai & Ngai, 2007). Hong Kong’s knowledge- and service-based economy demands graduates to have strong work skills and participate in continuing education and lifelong learning (Pavlova et al., 2018). Thus, the mismatch of in- dividuals’ vocational skills and the demands of the labor market has resulted in social withdrawal, a decline in occupational aspirations, low self-confidence, hopelessness, and passivity among young people, especially NEY (e.g., Ngai et al., 2014; Ngai & Ngai, 2007; Pavlova et al., 2018). Under such circumstances, NEY who manage to find part-time or intermittent jobs in the labor market are more likely to experience precarious, low-skilled work characterized by low pay, few protections, and limited opportunities for training and career progression (Interna- tional Labour Organization, 2020; Ngai et al., 2014). To leave work positions perceived as being unsatisfactory, NEY often switch from one precarious job to another and may eventually become NEET youth (In- ternational Labour Organization, 2020; Siu & Jin, 2022). More recently, under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, young people’s education-to-employment transitions have become even more chal- lenging in Hong Kong. For instance, the unemployment rate among young people aged 15–20 and 20–29 during the quarter from December 2021 to February 2022 in Hong Kong was 14.1 % and 5.8 %, respectively (Census and Statistics Department, 2022). Fostered by rising youth un- employment rates and the economic and societal consequences, there is a renewed sense of urgency to develop and implement services and in- terventions to bring young people, especially NEY, back into education, employment, and training in Hong Kong.
Characteristics of NEY, including unstable unemployment, inac- tivity, and a lack of ambition, have created a host of disadvantages for and barriers to their social well-being (Caroleo et al., 2020; CLAP@JC, 2017; Mascherini et al., 2012). Social well-being, referring to one’s in- dividual evaluation of their social situation and functioning in society, encompasses numerous elements, including feelings of belonging to society and the belief that one can contribute to society (Britton &
Coulthard, 2013; Chaves et al., 2018; Coulthard et al., 2011). In our study, we focused on three types of social well-being: social con- tribution—young people’s deeds for the benefit of society (Ngai et al., 2017), social integration—young people’s sense of belonging to a group or society (Galderisi et al., 2015), and civic engagement—young peo- ple’s participation in activities for the common good (Ma et al., 2016;
Malinenko et al., 2018; Ngai et al., 2017). In that regard, providing NEY with career intervention services to address their difficulties in educa- tion or employment and encourage them to re-engage with society may be a promising approach (Mascherini et al., 2012).
In recent years, several strategies have been implemented in Hong Kong to prepare diverse young people for productive school-to-work transitions (Education Bureau, 2014; Information Services Depart- ment, 2016). However, only a few previous studies have investigated the impact of career interventions on NEY’s career competency—that is, each individual’s collective abilities to navigate transitions through education into productive and meaningful employment (Ngai et al., 2021)—as well as social well-being. In our study, we aimed to fill that gap by utilizing a sample of NEY from CLAP@JC, a territory-wide project aimed at empowering NEY to become active navigators of and change agents in their career and life development pathways (see Sec- tion 2.2 and the Acknowledgements for details about the project), to examine the effects of career interventions on social well-being, as well as the mediating effects of career competency in the associations be- tween career interventions and social well-being.
2. Literature review
2.1. Relationships between career interventions, career competency, and social well-being
A rich body of literature addresses the positive impact of engaging in different career interventions on an individual’s social well-being,
particularly in the dimensions of civic engagement, social integration, and social contribution. By offering young people civic experiences and exposing them to the real world of work, career interventions can strengthen the link between them and the rest of the community, thereby promoting civic engagement (Hayden & Ledwith, 2014). In addition, by facilitating self-understanding and career identification, career interventions inspire young people to recognize the purposes of serving others and contributing to society through their occupations (Dik et al., 2011; Falco & Steen, 2018). Regarding NEY, research has shown that participating in workplace learning and career development courses can promote their integration into the labor market (European Network of Public Employment Services, 2015) and address their need for social integration by facilitating their development of relationships with others possessing interests and traits similar to their own (Quimby
& O’Brien, 2004). Moreover, career interventions that combine aca-
demic learning and community service can provide young people with opportunities that help them to build active civic memberships and contribute to society (Jobs for the Future, 1999; Ma et al., 2016; Philp &
Gill, 2020). Overall, the contribution of career interventions to young people’s social well-being has been supported by past studies. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of a more comprehensive model linking different types of career interventions and the three as- pects of social well-being—civic engagement, social integration, and social contribution—in the literature, especially in the context of Hong Kong.
As stated earlier, career competency refers to each individual’s col- lective abilities to navigate through education into productive and meaningful employment. Unlike self-efficacy, which describes a per- son’s perceived ability to succeed in given tasks and tends to be very narrowly tied to situation-specific goals (D’Souza et al., 2020), career competency represents a strong sense of personal agency and empha- sizes the active role of the individual in pursuing their own career and life goals, which requires self-understanding and self-reflection, the ability to engage in career-related activities and identify career options, and the ability to explore, plan, and manage education and career pathways (Akkermans et al., 2013; Ngai et al., 2021). The literature consistently shows the positive impact of career interventions on the development of youth’s career competency (Akkermans et al., 2013;
Choi et al., 2015; Detgen et al., 2021). In particular, career interventions have been shown to benefit youth’s career competency by improving their self-awareness (Folsom & Reardon, 2003; Whiston et al. 2017) and access to career-related resources and information (Bempechat et al., 2014; Kamm et al., 2019; Muskin, 2004). For example, the career intervention of volunteering offers a platform for young people to learn skills and abilities needed in the workplace (Truskauskaite-Kunevi˙ ˇciene ˙ et al., 2018). Meanwhile, by exposing young people to a real-world work environment, the career intervention of workplace learning not only enables young people to integrate academic knowledge with practical experience but also to acquire new skills for effective career pathway planning and management (Jackson & Wilton, 2016; Koivisto et al., 2011; Usher, 2012; Wessel et al., 2003).
In today’s information society, individuals’ career development has changed from static and linear to dynamic and nonlinear (Wen et al., 2022). Given drastic changes in the contemporary social environment, many career guidance researchers have proposed working to enhance individuals’ self-understanding, career exploration, career planning, and career management and thereby help them to establish purpose in life and begin creating meaningful lives for themselves (Savickas, 2012;
Savickas et al., 2009; Wen et al., 2020). In that way, young people are encouraged to “get a life” and bridge transitions by fully using their career competency to equip themselves with essential skills in order to better match the needs of the labor market and contribute to society (Savickas, 2012, 2016). Career competency functions by means of instigating a motivational process and focuses on evaluating the per- sonal ability to control and have an impact on the environment as a means to achieve certain goals (Akkermans et al., 2013).
Studies have also revealed that career competency is positively correlated with social well-being (e.g., Iwanaga et al., 2017, Mascherini et al., 2012). For example, Ngai et al. (2021) found that career compe- tency was positively associated with three outcomes of social well-being:
social contribution, social integration, and civic engagement. Research has additionally shown that individuals who have high career compe- tency and are well established in their roles at work are more likely to have higher civic engagement—for instance, by actively participating in volunteer organizations (Brand & Burgard, 2008; Pavlova & Silbereisen, 2014). Beyond that, career planning and management skills can facili- tate young people’s positive social integration (Skorikov, 2007).
Research has shown that individuals with high competency in navi- gating school-to-work transitions are more externally integrated, meaning that they have closer connections with friends and family as well as participate more in volunteer work in community service settings (Braxton et al. 1995; Savickas, 2005).
As shown, a great deal of research has suggested that career in- terventions benefit the development of youth’s career competency, including their ability to understand themselves, to engage with others in career-related activities, and to establish and manage a career plan (e.
g., Akkermans et al., 2013; Choi et al., 2015; Detgen et al., 2021). Along similar lines, studies have also revealed associations between career competency and outcomes of social well-being, including civic engage- ment and social integration (e.g., Iwanaga et al., 2017, Mascherini et al., 2012). Career interventions indeed enhance and help to develop young people’s self-understanding, connections with others, and engagement with the world of work, all of which can support them in better inte- grating into society. In addition, career competency obtained from career interventions may encourage and enable young people to serve others and make contributions to society while pursuing their career and life goals. Thus, it is likely that career interventions promote young people’s social well-being through the mediator of career competency obtained in those interventions. However, to our knowledge, relatively few studies have investigated the potential mediating role of career competency in the relationship between career interventions and social well-being. In response, we aimed to address that research gap by developing an integrated model of career interventions, career compe- tency, and social well-being among NEY in Hong Kong.
2.2. The CLAP@JC community intervention project and its guiding framework
As mentioned in the Introduction, the CLAP@JC project aims at empowering NEY to become active navigators of and change agents in their career and life development pathways. It adopts key elements from career construction theory (CCT) and social cognitive career theory’s model of career self-management (CSM), both of which stress the role of personal agency—that is, individuals’ capacities to engage in fore- thought, intentional action, and self-reflection (Bandura, 2006)—in career development and management. In particular, CCT endorses the constructivist view of individuals as proactive shapers of their career experiences and encourages them to actively identify their career in- terests, competency, values, and, in turn, career identity in an effort to find meaning in life and a purpose in their careers based on a holistic sense of identity that encompasses both work lives and non-work pur- suits (Fusco et al., 2021; Savickas, 2012). By contrast, CSM underscores the intricate relationships between various cognitive, personal, and contextual factors and the ways in which individuals direct their career development and manage career changes through adaptive career competency to tackle personal and environmental constraints (Lent &
Brown, 2013). In line with those theories, the CLAP@JC project has produced a guiding framework, the Youth Development and Interven- tion Framework (YDIF), which conceives career development as a self- directed process of construction and emphasizes NEY’s personal agency in that process to navigate the opportunity structures for learning and/or work (CLAP@JC, 2017).
The YDIF outlines four dynamic processes of career devel- opment—engagement, self-understanding, career and pathway explo- ration, as well as planning and career management (see Fig. 1). During that progression, young people can develop adaptive career compe- tency, encounter diverse learning experiences, embrace adventures, and transform their interests and passions into multiple pathways along which they can pursue and achieve meaning in life with the support and companionship of social workers and career professionals (CLAP@JC, 2017). Specifically, engagement refers to the process in which young people ignite or reignite their motivation to get involved in building careers by participating in career intervention activities to strengthen connections with others and engage in activities and experiences rele- vant to career and life planning. By contrast, self-understanding refers to the process in which young people enhance their awareness of interests, competencies, and values needed to choose career pathways that can actualize their potential through career intervention activities that expand their horizons and sense of worth. Meanwhile, career and pathway exploration denotes the process in which young people learn to combine their interests, competencies, and values into a coherent pic- ture and integrate it with a compatible pathway (e.g., further study, career options, and serious leisure) through career intervention activ- ities that empower them to recognize multiple pathways and engage with partners in multiple sectors (e.g., school, community, government, business, and parents). Last, planning and career management refers to the process through which young people learn to master the skills and competency (e.g., skills to obtain and synthesize information, make decisions, and set realistic goals) through career intervention activities, thereby enabling them to make informed decisions and implement pathway choices. It is worth noting that the order of the processes is nonlinear such that individuals can go back and forth between the processes to experience them in different ways.
With reference to the literature on career interventions and the YDIF framework, six tailored career interventions have been formulated.
First, developing interest, awareness, and motivation (DIAM) refers to activities that allow young people to experiment, discover, and develop their interests through experiences and self-reflection, thereby building awareness and motivation for career development. Second, semi- structured learning (SL) denotes activities such as workshops and mentorship programs that enrich young people’s self-understanding and enhance their knowledge of multiple pathways as well as career plan- ning and management strategies. Third, career counseling (CC) refers to activities that take place at individual or group levels that help in- dividuals arrive at decisions about their careers. CC may involve advising and assisting individuals in preparing individualized career or education plans based on their awareness and exploration of their values, attitudes, skills, and knowledge about the job market. Fourth, learning through service, volunteering, and caring (LSVC) provides young people with experiential learning experiences that engage them in volunteer work in community service settings. LSVC aims to strengthen young people’s skills and enhance their awareness and participation in career development while connecting them with rele- vant stakeholders. Fifth, workplace learning (WL) refers to various programs offering exposure to work and work-related experiences (e.g., company tours, job shadowing, and internships), which afford youth the opportunities to explore workplaces, experience authentic work prac- tices, understand different careers and work ethics, acquire professional knowledge and skills, and ultimately become better prepared for the world of work. Sixth and last, facilitating pathway choice and imple- mentation (FPCI) denotes a series of activities, including career talks and career expos, which prepare and support young people in pursuing their education and career goals by way of exploring different education and career pathways (see Appendix A for details about the six career in- terventions). In the CLAP@JC project, social workers and youth decide together what type(s) of intervention(s) they will attend, and in which order, based on each youth’s individual needs. Participating in all six types is allowed but not required. In any case, youth are ultimately
assisted in formulating action plans and implementing those plans to achieve their goals (CLAP@JC, 2017).
To ensure the standardization and quality of the delivery of those career interventions, the CLAP@JC project has formed a research team housed in a university with which we, the authors, are affiliated. We thus took responsibility for evaluating the project’s effectiveness and consolidating the career intervention protocols according to the YDIF framework. Subsequently, social workers with prior experience with providing career interventions to NEY were deployed from six local NGOs and trained in a 3-day capacity-building program covering several topics, including the heterogeneity of NEY, the YDIF, the application of YDIF-based interventions and service delivery skills, and the engage- ment of key stakeholders (e.g., teachers, parents, community leaders, and business partners). The training involved a primary trainer with support from the research team; the trainer was a veteran career guid- ance professional and conversant in career interventions in various Chinese contexts. To ensure the integrity of the social workers’ practice with the YDIF and in the interventions, regular quarterly meetings were conducted to monitor their progress and address any questions or challenges that they had encountered during service delivery.
Based on the literature review and the CLAP@JC’s framework, the hypotheses of our study were as follows:
Hypothesis 1: Career interventions (i.e., DIAM, SL, CC, LSVC, WL, and FPCI) have a positive, direct effect on NEY’s social well-being (i.
e., social integration, social contribution, and civic engagement).
Hypothesis 2: Career interventions (i.e., DIAM, SL, CC, LSVC, WL, and FPCI) have a positive effect on NEY’s social well-being (i.e., social integration, social contribution, and civic engagement) via the positive mediation effect of career competency.
3. Method
3.1. Participants and procedure
Our target participants were NEY in Hong Kong, including school dropouts, unemployed youth, and ethnic-minority youth, who face various disadvantages in their school-to-work transitions and are at risk of becoming NEET youth (Mo & Lau, 2020; Ngai & Ngai, 2007). A total
of 665 participating NEY in the CLAP@JC project, all aged 13–29 (M = 19.48, SD =3.156), were recruited to participate in our study. Data collection proceeded in two ways. First, social workers responsible for supporting NEY participants helped to fill in an administrative record form to record the demographic information of participants and the frequency of career interventions that participants had received monthly. Second, data were collected directly from participating NEY in two waves with an average interval of four months between the baseline survey (i.e., T1) and the follow-up survey (i.e., T2). The rationale behind the four-month period is to provide intensive interventions for NEY aimed at strengthening their career competence and promoting their social well-being. We also chose that time frame to make our in- terventions comparable with the current international standards, including the time frame used by the Youth Guarantee (YG) Scheme of the European Union. The YG Scheme is committed to promoting the employability of NEY and helping them to find quality education, employment, or workplace learning opportunities within four months (Arnkil & Curth, 2016). Both the YG Scheme and the CLAP@JC project understand that it becomes more difficult for NEY to re-engage with the labor market and community the longer that they remain inactive in those contexts. Therefore, providing intensive interventions as early as possible is imperative to strengthening NEY’s career competence and promote their social well-being. Both data sets for each participant were combined with reference to identification numbers assigned to partici- pants in order to conduct further analysis. The participants were informed about the purpose and procedures of the study, and parental consent was obtained for participants<18 years old. The study was conducted in line with the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Survey and Behavioral Research Ethics Committee of the Chinese University of Hong Kong (Protocol code SBRE-20–176;
approved on December 8, 2020).
Of the 665 participants, 52.3 % were male. Most of the participants (82.3 %) were Chinese, although 17.7 % of them were ethnic minorities of South or Southeast Asian decent (e.g., Pakistani, Indonesian, or Fili- pino). Most (78.4 %) were born in Hong Kong and had been residents there for a median of 17 years. Regarding their level of education, the majority of participants (79.7 %) had attended secondary school or received higher education. As for their employment status, 43.5 % were unemployed, 34.8 % were students, 17.4 % were in regular employment, Fig. 1.Conceptual framework.
2.5 % were self-employed or temporarily employed, and 1.8 % were homemakers. As for their NEY groups, 92.9 % were youth with a single disadvantage, whereas the remaining 7.1 % were youth with multiple disadvantages. Among the NEY with a single disadvantage, 19.7 % were ethnic minorities (i.e., young people of non-Chinese ethnicity in Hong Kong), 17.6 % were unemployed (i.e., youth without a paid job), 15.0 % were potential school dropouts (i.e., students who were absent from school for at least seven consecutive days but would occasionally attend), 13.5 % were school dropouts (i.e., young people who left the formal education system early), 12.0 % were youth offenders (i.e., young people who commit crimes and have been arrested), 8.2 % had special education needs (i.e., young people diagnosed with special ed- ucation needs by helping professionals), 5.7 % were young mothers (i.e., young women who enter motherhood unprepared), and 1.2 % were living in residential care settings (i.e., young people admitted to resi- dential care due to chronic family poverty, dysfunctional and disrupted family situations, abuse, and/or neglect). Table 1 presents the full descriptive statistics of the socioeconomic variables of the participants in our study.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Career interventions
Career interventions refer to activities designed to enhance young people’s career development by helping them to explore, create, and implement a variety of career-related decisions (Gati & Levin, 2015). In our study, the frequency of career interventions was measured by asking the social workers responsible for supporting participating NEY to respond to the following question on an administrative record form:
“What kinds of career intervention has this young person received in the past month?” Six types were listed: DIAM, SL, CC, LSVC, WL, and FPCI.
The next question was “How many sessions of each career intervention has this young person received in the past month?” With the mutual agreement between our research team and the social workers
responsible for supporting participating NEY, each career intervention lasting 30 min or more was counted as a single session. For each type of career interventions, the intervention sessions that participating NEY received from Months 0 (i.e., baseline), 1, 2, 3, and 4 (i.e., follow-up) were added together to compute the score (i.e., the total number) of career interventions, with larger values indicating more career in- terventions received.
3.2.2. Career competency
Career competency refers to the collective abilities needed to navigate transitions through education into productive, meaningful employment (Ngai et al., 2021). Measuring career competency involved using 17 items developed by Ngai et al. (2021) and by asking participating NEY to rate their ability to do a list of things over the past month. Sample items included “Participate in activities that are helpful to my career and life development,” “Verify my interests, competencies, and values through daily life self-observations,” “Choose the most suitable career and life development pathway according to personal and environmental fac- tors,” and “Continuously develop my competencies, interests, values, and understanding of the work world.” Each item was measured on a 5- point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not confident at all) to 5 (highly confident). Career competency was measured in both baseline and follow-up surveys, in which the Cronbach’s alphas of the scale were 0.967 and 0.962, respectively.
3.2.3. Civic engagement
Civic engagement, which refers to young people’s participation in activities for the common good, was assessed by using six items adapted from the Civic Engagement Scale (Ngai et al., 2017). Participants were invited to rate their level of civic engagement over the past month.
Sample items included “Became an active member in the community”
and “Devoted myself to improving the community.” Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Civic engagement was measured in both baseline and follow-up surveys, in which the Cronbach’s alphas of the scale were 0.959 and 0.957, respectively.
3.2.4. Social contribution
Social contribution, which refers to young people’s deeds for the benefit of society, was assessed by using five items adapted from the Social Contribution Scale (Ngai et al., 2017). Participants were invited to rate their level of social contribution over the past month in response to items such as “Did something beneficial for the community” and
“Helped someone in the community.” Each item was measured on a 5- point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Social contribu- tion was measured in both baseline and follow-up surveys, in which the Cronbach’s alphas of the scale were 0.953 and 0.956, respectively.
3.2.5. Social integration
Social integration refers to young people’s sense of belonging to a group or society and was assessed by using four items adapted from the Social Integration Scale (Ngai et al., 2017). Participants were asked to rate their level of social integration over the past month in response to items such as “Had friends with whom I could chat” and “Felt accepted by my friends.” Each item was measured on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). Social integration was measured in both baseline and follow-up surveys, in which the Cronbach’s alphas of the scale were 0.793 and 0.817, respectively.
3.2.6. Control variables
Social demographic variables included gender, age, ethnicity, whether born in Hong Kong, educational level, employment status, NEY group, and the baseline outcome variables (i.e., civic engagement, social contribution, and social integration), all of which controlled in our study.
Table 1
Background characteristics of study participants (N =677).
Characteristics Percentage
(%)
Gender Female 52.3
Male 47.7
Ethnicity Chinese 82.3
Non-Chinese 17.7
Whether born in Hong
Kong Yes 78.4
No 21.6
Education level Primary level 0.3
Junior secondary level 18.6
Senior secondary level 61.4
Diploma or certificate courses 9.0 Higher diploma or associate degree 7.1
Bachelor or above 2.3
None of the above 1.4
Employment status Regular employment 17.4
Unemployed 43.5
Student 34.8
Self-employed or temporarily
employment 2.5
Homemakers 1.8
NEY groups Single disadvantage group (SG) 92.9
G1: Young mothers 5.7
G2: School dropouts 13.5
G3: Potential school dropouts 15.0 G4: Ethnic minority youth 19.7
G5: Youth offenders 12.0
G6: Youth living in residential care
settings 1.2
G7: Youth with special education needs 8.2
G8: Unemployed youth 17.6
Multiple disadvantage group 7.1
Age (years) M =19.48 SD =3.156
3.3. Data analysis
Descriptive statistics were first analyzed in Stata 16 to understand the background characteristics of the participants. Next, the established conceptual framework was tested using structural equation modeling in Mplus 8.3. Both the measurement and structural models were evaluated by using four indicators of goodness of fit. The first was the chi-square coefficient, in which a related p value shows how close the hypothe- sized model is to the perfect fit (Bollen, 1989). The second was the comparative fit index (CFI), with values exceeding 0.90 indicating a good model fit (Bentler, 1990). The third was the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), with values<0.08 indicating a close fit (Kline, 2015). Last, the fourth was the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), with values<0.08 indicating a good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
4. Results
4.1. Validity of measurement
The measurement model of the latent constructs (i.e., career com- petency, civic engagement, social contribution, and social integration) was examined before conducting further analysis to test the hypothe- sized structural model. The results of confirmatory factor analysis illustrated that the measurement model showed an excellent fit to the data (χ2 =3,340.780, df =1916, p <.0001, χ2/df =1.744, RMSEA = 0.033, CFI =0.954, SRMR =0.051). Table 2 indicates that all observed variables were significantly loaded on the corresponding latent con- structs, thereby signifying that the selected indicators represented the underlying constructs in a statistically reliable manner.
4.2. Test of the structural model
The hypothesized structural model was demonstrated to fit the data very well (χ2 =4,871.117, df =2956, p <.0001, χ2/df =1.648, RMSEA
=0.031, CFI =0.944, SRMR =0.053). In total, 32.6 %, 34.2 %, and 48.4 % of the respective variance in civic engagement, social contribu- tion, and social integration were explained by the model. The unstan- dardized, standardized, direct, indirect, and total effects of our study are shown in Tables 3 and 4, while the standardized solution for the struc- tural model is presented in Fig. 2.
The results indicate that the total effects of SL on civic engagement (total effect: β =0.144, p <.01), social contribution (total effect: β = 0.211, p <.001), and social integration (total effect: β =0.168, p <.01) were significant. In particular, the direct effect of SL on social contri- bution was significant (β =0.130, p <.01), meaning that the more SL received, the higher the level of social contribution shown. The results also indicate that the indirect effects of SL on civic engagement (indirect effect: β = 0.075, p <.001), social contribution (indirect effect: β = 0.081, p <.001), and social integration (indirect effect: β =0.102, p
<.001) via career competency were significant. To be specific, SL received was positively associated with career competency (β =0.194, p
<.001), which, in turn, contributed to a higher level of civic engage- ment (β =0.388, p <.001), social contribution (β =0.416, p <.001), and social integration (β =0.526, p <.001).
The results also reveal that the total effects of LSVC on civic engagement (total effect: β =0.129, p <.01) and social contribution (total effect: β =0.096, p <.05) were significant. In particular, the direct effects of LSVC on civic engagement (β =0.107, p <.01) and social contribution (β =0.072, p <.05) were significant, meaning the more LSVC received, the higher the level of civic engagement and social contribution shown. However, the results also illustrate that the total effect of LSVC on social integration was not significant (total effect: β = 0.057, p >.05), nor were the indirect effects of LSVC on civic engage- ment (indirect effect: β =0.022, p >.05) and social contribution (indi- rect effect: β =0.024, p >.05) via career competency.
Table 2
Results of measurement model.
Latent
constructs Observed variables Factor
loading T1
Factor loading T2 Career
competency (CARC)
CARC1: Understand my competencies and interests through participating in activities.
0.874 0.832
CARC2: Continuously participate in my selected activities and new experiences.
0.869 0.856
CARC3: Participate in activities that
are helpful to my CLD. 0.902 0.885 CARC4: Understand the CLD
planning process and steps. 0.851 0.854 CARC5: Consider different CLD
pathway choices based on my attributes (e.g. interests).
0.901 0.869
CARC6: Maintain a sense of hope in achieving CLD aspirations and goals.
0.888 0.851
CARC7: Verify my interests, competencies and values through daily life self-observations.
0.895 0.842
CARC8: Choose CLD pathway and direction according to self- attributes (e.g. interests, competencies).
0.905 0.882
CARC9: State learning and training approaches that equip me to achieve CLD goals.
0.842 0.866
CARC10: Compare different CLD pathways according to personal and environmental factors.
0.887 0.870
CARC11: Choose the most suitable CLD pathway according to personal and environmental factors.
0.889 0.869
CARC12: Identify personal limitations and social barriers that I encounter when pursuing CLD goals.
0.829 0.820
CARC13: Know the necessary steps in making CLD decisions well, and understand the strengths and limitations of my decision-making methods.
0.882 0.840
CARC14: Use self-management skills (e.g. interpersonal skills, team work, time management, dependability, honesty, and problem-solving ability) to facilitate my performance and development in the workplace.
0.812 0.788
CARC15: Obtain relevant support and guidance to resolve difficulties related to CLD in future.
0.851 0.851
CARC16: Continuously develop my competencies, interests, values and understanding of the work world.
0.862 0.844
CARC17: Cope with future’s CLD transitions and changes, and the stress involved.
0.825 0.788
Civic engagement (CE)
CE1: Participated in voluntary
work. 0.841 0.828
CE2: Devoted efforts to my
community. 0.891 0.864
CE3: Participated in community
action project. 0.920 0.912
CE4: Became an active member in
the community. 0.917 0.901
CE5: Participated in community
service organizations. 0.917 0.925 CE6: Devoted myself to improving
the community. 0.875 0.896
(continued on next page)
The results additionally indicate that the total effect of WL on social integration via career competency was significant (total effect: β = 0.092, p <.05). To be specific, WL was positively associated with career competency (β =0.103, p <.05), which consequently contributed to a higher level of social integration (β =0.526, p <.001). Career compe- tency fully mediated the association between WL and social integration.
In addition, the results show that the total effects of WL on civic engagement (total effect: β =0.017, p >.05) and social contribution (total effect: β =0.071, p >.05) via career competency were not sig- nificant. Nevertheless, the indirect effects of WL on civic engagement (indirect effect: β =0.040, p <.05) and social contribution (indirect
effect: β =0.043, p <.05) via career competency were significant.
Last, contrary to our expectations, the direct and indirect effects of the career interventions of DIAM, CC, and FPCI on civic engagement, social contribution, and social integration via career competency were not significant. Concerning the covariates, except those for the baseline outcomes variables, the direct and indirect effects of the other covariates including gender, age, ethnicity, whether born in Hong Kong, education level, employment status, and NEY group on career competency and social well-being were not significant.
5. Discussion
In our study, we examined the direct and indirect effects of six career interventions on three outcomes of social well-being—civic engage- ment, social contribution, and social integration—among NEY in Hong Kong. Among our results, the direct effects of LSVC on civic engagement and social contribution were significant, whereas the direct effect of LSVC on social integration was not. Beyond that, the indirect effect of LSVC through career competency to social well-being outcomes was also not significant. Moreover, the indirect effects of SL and WL via career competency on social well-being outcomes were significant, whereas most of the direct effects were not significant except for the path from SL to social contribution. Last, neither the direct nor the indirect effects of DIAM, CC, and FPCI on social well-being outcomes were significant.
Therefore, both Hypotheses 1 and 2 were partly supported. In what follows, we discuss our results and their theoretical and practical implications.
5.1. How LSVC relates to career competency and social well-being The results illustrate that the career intervention of LSVC was posi- tively and significantly associated with civic engagement, which partly supported Hypothesis 1. The finding is consistent with the results of Table 2 (continued)
Latent
constructs Observed variables Factor
loading T1
Factor loading T2 Social
contribution (SC)
SC1: Did something beneficial to
the community. 0.909 0.911
SC2: Created something beneficial to my community through daily activities.
0.934 0.931
SC3: Contributed something
important to society. 0.925 0.919
SC4: Contributed to the
community. 0.926 0.929
SC5: Helped someone in the
community. 0.801 0.820
Social integration (SI)
SI1: Felt accepted by my friends. 0.727 0.688 SI2: Hung out with friends. 0.723 0.775 SI3: Thought that I am able to play a
role in society. 0.589 0.680
SI4: Had friends with whom I could
chat. 0.796 0.781
Note. T1 =Baseline (Month 0); T2 =Follow-up (Month 4); CLD =Career and life development.
Table 3
Unstandardized and standardized path coefficients.
Predictors Outcome variables
Model 1
(Career competency T2) Model 2
(Social integration T2) Model 3
(Social contribution T2) Model 4
(Civic engagement T2)
b β p b β p b β p b β p
Gender −0.006 −0.005 0.887 −0.111 −0.082 <0.05 −0.112 −0.058 0.119 −0.009 − 0.005 0.898
Age 0.000 −0.036 0.259 0.000 0.022 0.667 0.000 0.043 0.191 0.000 0.014 0.745
Ethnicity −0.159 −0.110 0.063 −0.298 −0.168 0.052 −0.260 −0.104 0.083 −0.321 − 0.137 <0.05 Whether born in Hong Kong 0.000 −0.034 0.273 0.000 −0.035 0.103 −0.001 −0.047 <0.05 −0.001 − 0.095 <0.001 Education level 0.045 0.081 <0.05 0.011 0.015 0.639 −0.045 −0.050 0.233 −0.046 − 0.050 0.148 Employment status −0.017 −0.040 0.363 −0.025 −0.048 0.212 −0.076 −0.108 <0.01 −0.043 − 0.064 0.074 Young mothers −0.076 −0.033 0.571 −0.053 −0.019 0.698 0.063 0.016 0.719 0.165 0.045 0.300 School dropouts −0.085 −0.057 0.283 −0.089 −0.049 0.386 −0.015 −0.006 0.920 0.040 0.017 0.748 Potential school dropouts 0.010 0.007 0.893 −0.117 −0.066 0.305 0.005 0.002 0.972 0.031 0.013 0.817 Ethnic minority youth −0.442 −0.322 <0.001 −0.102 −0.061 0.586 −0.052 −0.022 0.805 0.107 0.048 0.591 Youth offenders −0.082 −0.056 0.254 −0.050 −0.028 0.635 0.077 0.030 0.581 0.075 0.032 0.552 Youth living in residential care settings 0.098 0.025 0.372 0.092 0.019 0.582 0.393 0.057 0.154 0.405 0.062 0.120 Youth with special education needs −0.207 −0.105 <0.05 −0.127 −0.052 0.336 0.209 0.061 0.254 0.200 0.062 0.219
Unemployed youth 0.102 0.071 0.226 −0.120 −0.068 0.333 0.036 0.014 0.831 0.066 0.028 0.656
DIAM −0.033 −0.069 0.077 0.016 0.028 0.468 −0.037 −0.043 0.258 0.014 0.018 0.625
SL 0.110 0.194 <0.001 0.046 0.066 0.168 0.129 0.130 <0.01 0.064 0.069 0.151
CC −0.007 −0.018 0.630 0.032 0.066 0.091 −0.051 −0.075 0.059 −0.022 − 0.034 0.403
LSVC 0.053 0.058 0.114 0.030 0.027 0.515 0.115 0.072 <0.05 0.158 0.107 <0.01
WL 0.118 0.103 <0.05 0.054 0.038 0.314 0.056 0.028 0.540 −0.043 − 0.023 0.569
FPCI −0.010 −0.010 0.812 −0.057 −0.051 0.207 −0.055 −0.034 0.419 −0.062 − 0.042 0.292
CARC T1 0.290 0.374 <0.001 −0.150 −0.158 <0.05 −0.130 −0.105 0.069 −0.130 − 0.103 0.067
SI T1 0.371 0.421 <0.001 −0.078 −0.062 0.186 −0.095 − 0.080 0.083
SC T1 0.029 0.044 0.648 0.242 0.258 <0.01 0.132 0.151 0.083
CE T1 −0.020 −0.030 0.748 0.082 0.085 0.367 0.199 0.222 <0.05
CARC T2 0.644 0.526 <0.001 0.723 0.416 <0.001 0.627 0.388 <0.001
R2 0.237 0.484 0.342 0.326
Note. DIAM =Developing interest, awareness and motivation; SL =Semi-structured learning; CC =Career counselling; LSVC =Learning through service, volun- teering, and caring; WL =Workplace learning; FPCI =Facilitating pathway choice and implementation; SI =Social integration; SC =Social contribution; CARC = Career competency; T1 =Baseline (Month 0); T2 =Follow-up (Month 4).
previous studies, which have shown that participation in voluntary service is positively related to civic responsibility and civic engagement (Battistoni, 2017; Chung & McBride, 2015; Einfeld & Collins, 2008;
Huda et al., 2018). The result is also in line with the findings from a past meta-analysis of 62 studies, which indicated that students who
participated in voluntary work in community service settings demon- strated significant gains in civic engagement (Celio et al., 2011). Along similar lines, the results showed that LSVC was positively and signifi- cantly associated with social contribution. That finding is also consistent with the results of previous research showing that voluntary service can Table 4
Direct, indirect, and total effects.
Effect Civic engagement T2 Social contribution T2 Social integration T2
b β p b β p b β p
Effects from DIAM to Social well-being
Direct effect 0.014 0.018 0.625 − 0.037 − 0.043 0.258 0.016 0.028 0.468
Indirect effect −0.021 −0.027 0.092 − 0.024 − 0.029 0.086 −0.022 −0.036 0.087
Total effect −0.007 −0.008 0.827 − 0.061 − 0.072 0.071 −0.005 −0.009 0.840
Effects from SL to Social well-being
Direct effect 0.064 0.069 0.151 0.129 0.130 <0.01 0.046 0.066 0.168
Indirect effect 0.069 0.075 <0.001 0.080 0.081 <0.001 0.071 0.102 <0.001
Total effect 0.133 0.144 <0.01 0.208 0.211 <0.001 0.117 0.168 <0.01
Effects from CC to Social well-being
Direct effect −0.022 −0.034 0.403 − 0.051 − 0.075 0.059 0.032 0.066 0.091
Indirect effect −0.004 −0.007 0.634 − 0.005 − 0.008 0.634 −0.005 −0.010 0.631
Total effect −0.026 −0.041 0.313 − 0.056 − 0.083 0.042 0.027 0.056 0.194
Effects from LSVC to Social well-being
Direct effect 0.158 0.107 <0.01 0.115 0.072 <0.05 0.030 0.027 0.515
Indirect effect 0.033 0.022 0.130 0.038 0.024 0.127 0.034 0.030 0.116
Total effect 0.192 0.129 <0.01 0.154 0.096 <0.05 0.064 0.057 0.193
Effects from WL to Social well-being
Direct effect −0.043 −0.023 0.569 0.056 0.028 0.540 0.054 0.038 0.314
Indirect effect 0.074 0.040 <0.05 0.085 0.043 <0.05 0.076 0.054 <0.05
Total effect 0.031 0.017 0.715 0.141 0.071 0.160 0.130 0.092 <0.05
Effects from FPCI to Social well-being
Direct effect −0.062 −0.042 0.292 − 0.055 − 0.034 0.419 −0.057 −0.051 0.207
Indirect effect −0.006 −0.004 0.813 − 0.007 − 0.004 0.813 −0.006 −0.005 0.812
Total effect −0.068 −0.046 0.246 − 0.062 − 0.039 0.355 −0.063 −0.056 0.220
Note. DIAM =Developing interest, awareness and motivation; SL =Semi-structured learning; CC =Career counselling; LSVC =Learning through service, volun- teering, and caring; WL =Workplace learning; FPCI =Facilitating pathway choice and implementation; T2 =Follow-up (Month 4).
DIAM
SL
WL
Civic Engagement
R2=32.6%
Social Contribution
R2=34.2%
0.388***
0.416***
0.072*
0.194***
0.103*
Social Integration
R2=48.4%
CC
FPCI LSVC
0.130* *
0.107**
Career Competency
0.526***
Control variables:
-Gender -Age-Ethnicity -Whether
born in Hong -EducationKong -Employment
status -Baseline
outcomes variables -Baseline
mediator variable -NEY
subgroups
Fig. 2. Standardized solutions for the structural model. Note. DIAM =Developing interest, awareness and motivation; SL =Semi-structured learning; CC =Career counselling; LSVC =Learning through service, volunteering, and caring; WL =Workplace learning; FPCI =Facilitating pathway choice and implementation.