Table 5.

Antisocial outcomes model results

	Unstandardized		Standardized
	Estimate	SE	Estimate	SE
Measurement model
YES activities -> A1 (photovoice)	1.00		0.49**	0.09
YES activities -> A2 (neighborhood advocate)	1.60	0.32	0.79**	0.04
YES activities -> A3 (cultural traditions)	1.64	0.29	0.81**	0.05
YES activities -> A4 (summer project)	1.78	0.35	0.88**	0.04
YES activities -> A5 (community assets)	1.79	0.33	0.88**	0.03
PE->I1 (leadership efficacy)	1.00		0.57**	0.03
PE->I2 (civic efficacy)	0.95	0.08	0.62**	0.03
PE->I3 (self esteem)	0.87	0.10	0.48**	0.04
PE->IN1 (mentor relationships)	0.48	0.15	0.21**	0.06
PE->IN2 (adult as resources)	1.54	0.21	0.48**	0.05
PE->IN3 (resource mobilization)	0.93	0.10	0.66**	0.03
PE->B1 (leadership behavior)	1.33	0.13	0.54**	0.03
PE->B2 (community engagement)	1.82	0.17	0.59**	0.03
PE->B3 (school engagement)	1.28	0.10	0.76**	0.02
Structural model✦
YES activities->PE	0.30	0.09	0.41**	0.06
PE->Aggressive behavior (T2)	−0.18	0.10	−0.09✧	0.05
PE->Delinquent behavior (T2)	−0.25	0.06	−0.12**	0.03
Indirect effects
YES activities->PE->Aggressive behavior	−0.05	0.03	−0.04✧	0.02
YES activities->PE->Delinquent behavior	−0.07	0.02	−0.05*	0.01

^*p<.05, p<.001

^✦We controlled for sex (male reference group), age, and race/ethnicity (African American reference group): African American students were more likely to engage in aggressive and delinquent behavior, other sociodemographics were not associated with the outcomes. T1 outcomes were associated with T2.

^✧p<.10,

^*p<.05,

^**p<.001.

PE=psychological empowerment.