ERIC ED524652: Social Capital and Young People. Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth. Briefing Paper 26

2011·0.46 MB·English

by  ERIC

LONGITUDINAL SURVEYS OF AUSTRALIAN YOUTH
BRIEFING PAPER 26
Social capital and young people
RONNIE SEMO, NCVER
OVERVIEW
Social capital refers to the attributes and qualities of family, social and community networks that facilitate cooperation
between individuals and communities. The quality of these networks and the extent to which individuals are engaged with
them are believed to have an impact on the educational and social development of children and young people. Some evidence
suggests that the influence of community networks can even help to offset some of the effects of socioeconomic disadvantage.
Its intangible nature makes measuring social capital difficult. Measuring the social capital of young people is even more
difficult because we tend to focus on the social capital of their parents and pay less attention to that of young people.
This briefing paper discusses how we can examine young people’s social capital using the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian
Youth (LSAY). The paper is divided into four sections. In the first, we look at two social capital frameworks to clarify the
various themes and complexities associated with social capital. In the second section we draw on these frameworks to
assess the suitability of using data from LSAY to investigate social capital and its relationship to youth transitions. The next
section summarises other social capital-related research that has used LSAY data. Finally, we draw some conclusions and
make some recommendations for future directions for LSAY in this area.
S • LSAY provides a strong platform for • High levels of social capital in young • Existing LSAY research shows that
T exploring the role of social capital in people are found to enhance the social capital gained through
H young people’s transitions to adulthood engagement, achievement and school networks translates into higher
and can be used to investigate participation in education over aspirations, better academic performance
G relationships between their social capital and above the influences of family and raised school retention, as well
and their educational and employment background, school type and as an increased likelihood of future
I
L
outcomes. Ideally, questions about social geographical location, demonstrating participation in education and training.
H
capital should be incorporated into that social capital has the potential to Young people can accumulate social
the LSAY data collection in early waves counteract the effects of disadvantage capital through their school networks—
G
to ensure that the impact of social to some extent. including with their peers and their
I capital on education and employment teachers and through the opportunities
H
outcomes is adequately measured. the school provides.
INTRODUCTION
Social capital refers to the attributes and qualities of is important in achieving wellbeing and educational
family, social and community networks that facilitate outcomes (Edwards 2004). Student networks can also
cooperation between individuals and groups. It is influence the choices young people make and provide
underpinned by the interactions between family them with opportunities (Bexley 2007).
members, friends, neighbours, communities and
‘Positive’ community networks encourage the
institutions such as schools, clubs and workplaces.
acquisition of social capital and explain why some
These interactions help to develop and support values
people from disadvantaged groups achieve educational
such as trust and reciprocity. The development of social
success, while others who lack these support networks
capital is further encouraged by access to educational,
are more likely to fail (Holland 2009). And the strong
cultural and information resources and to emotional
community networks that link parents, students and
and financial support, from both formal and informal
schools are found to increase retention rates and
networks. Possessing high levels of social capital has
attainment levels, even when controlling for other
been linked to better health, improved educational
background factors such as parental education and
outcomes, lower rates of child abuse, lower crime
income (Winter 2000; Productivity Commission
rates, increased productivity, and civic participation.
2003; Halpern 2005; Bexley 2007). At school, teachers
Social capital develops and occurs in several different influence student engagement by acting as role models,
types of networks, including: raising aspirations and influencing career goals and
• informal, such as family, friends or neighbours choices (Banks 2010).
• general, such as people within the general But social capital can also have negative effects. High
community levels of certain types of ‘bonding’ social capital can
• institutional, such as government or the media. pose a constraint, particularly among disadvantaged
communities. People may be tied to family and
The quality of the relationships in these various
community, making it difficult to move away from their
networks is determined by their ‘behavioural
current situation (Holland 2009), while some social
norms’—the rules and standards of behaviour (often
networks can also create obstacles for young people.
implicit) characterising the network. For example,
For example, young people can be connected to
an informal network might be characterised by trust
deviant social networks, or ‘gangs’, where they share
and reciprocity. Also important to the social capital
knowledge and skills about street crime. In such socially
accumulated through the network is the network’s
debilitating networks, criminal behaviour might be
size, density and diversity. Each of these aspects
considered acceptable or even expected.
promotes various degrees and types of social capital.
For example, wide-ranging or ‘diverse’ networks can Mobility—moving from one area to another—has an
promote social capital by enabling access to a range of interesting relationship to social capital. While high levels
other networks and resources (Stone & Hughes 2002). of mobility can sever network ties and disrupt family
connections and reduce a family’s stock of social capital
Many studies have found that the size and quality of a
(Halpern 2005), being mobile can also facilitate the
child’s immediate social networks impact significantly
formation of new ties and relationships (Edwards 2004).
on his/her educational attainment. For example, higher
levels of parental involvement in their education support An important criticism of the concept of social capital
better educational outcomes, promote positive attitudes is that children and young people have not been fully
and encourage aspirations (Halpern 2005). considered in social capital theory. The importance
of parents’ social capital to their children is over-
Parents’ education levels are also important.
emphasised—children are largely seen as recipients
Research using LSAY data shows that young people
of their parents’ social capital, rather than determiners
whose parents have higher educational levels and
of their own (Morrow 1999; Holland 2009). It is
occupational status are more likely to participate in
therefore difficult to know at which point ‘inherited’
education (Marks et al. 2000; Fullarton 2002; Dockery
social capital wanes and when young people begin to
2005, Curtis & McMillan 2008). A child’s education is
produce their own.
also influenced by his/her parents’ aspirations for him/
her, in addition to the impact of background factors This discussion highlights the potential for using the
such as socioeconomic status, ethnicity, region, school concept of social capital to examine the dynamics
sector and gender (Marks, McMillan & Hillman 2001). of youth transitions. Although this is not easy, given
the range of dimensions, relationships, and qualities
These influences are not limited to family. Friendships and
that inform social capital, it is crucial that the central
participation in community activities can help to reduce
elements of social capital are captured and analysed and
the influence of parental social capital and encourage the
that their relationships and importance understood.
accumulation of social capital specific to the individual
Here an analysis of longitudinal data can be fruitful, for
(Halpern 2005). Building networks through community
these data allow us to assess the relative significance of
participation, including social and leisure activities,
different influences on outcomes (Banks 2010).
2
MEASURING SOCIAL CAPITAL AND SOCIAL CAPITAL FRAMEWORKS
The complexity and diversity of the various networks cultural resources, which might translate into higher
of social relations means that social capital can be levels of social capital. However, this relationship is not
viewed as a multidimensional concept (Stone 2001). entirely clear and we find that the correlation between
Social capital theory itself suggests that different types socioeconomic status and social capital is not always
of relationships and norms operate across different strong (White & Kaufman 1997). The presence of
network types (Stone & Hughes 2002), so a range educational, cultural and information resources does
of measures are required to capture the different not automatically equate to better stocks of social
elements of social capital. capital. Importantly, social capital is concerned with
how students, parents, teachers and the community
A complex concept such as social capital requires
interact to make use of these resources (OECD 2001).
that we draw on a theoretically informed framework
Further work needs to be undertaken to test the
with the capacity to define and identify the important
validity of social capital measures and to explore the
components of social capital and the relationships that
various relationships in more detail (Biddle et al. 2009).
exist between them as well as organise them into a
logical structure (Trewin 2001). Two prominent social capital frameworks are
described: one developed by the Australian Bureau
It is also important to consider how social capital can
of Statistics ([ABS], Edwards 2004), the other by the
vary across diverse groups of people—with differences
Australian Institute for Family Studies (Stone & Hughes
in age, gender, health, family circumstances, education,
2002). We look at these two frameworks because they
employment and location (Stone & Hughes 2002;
are comprehensive and have been developed for use
Productivity Commission 2003). For example, it might
in the Australian context; they also offer a possible suite
be expected that those from higher socioeconomic
of indicators for measuring social capital.
backgrounds have greater access to economic and
THE AUSTRALIAN BUREAU OF STATISTICS FRAMEWORK
The ABS framework for measuring social capital (see denseness of the network; network transience and
figure 1) is centred on networks composed of family mobility; and the relationships that exist with people in
(both within and outside the household), friends and positions of power.
acquaintances, neighbours, colleagues, organisations
Network transactions: these are the interactions that
and groups (including government, not-for-profit and
occur within networks and between organisations
commercial), people in general or acquaintances.
and include: the provision of financial or emotional
This framework views social capital as a resource
support; the sharing of knowledge, information and
that draws on and feeds back into other types of
introductions; negotiation; and dealing with conflict.
resources. It distinguishes between four network
Also included in network transactions are the
attributes: qualities; structure; transactions; and broad
sanctions applied when accepted social behaviours
network types.
have been ignored.
Network qualities: these identify the types of behaviour
Network types: this is a higher classification, one which
and values that improve the functioning of networks,
overlaps other framework attributes and encompasses
such as trust, reciprocity, efficacy, cooperation and
bonding, bridging and linking social capital. Bonding
acceptance of diversity and inclusiveness. Social, civic
social capital refers to the relationships between similar
and economic participation and community support
groups of people; bridging social capital indicates ties
and friendships are also identified as network qualities.
between groups of people who have less in common.
Network structure: this includes information about Linking social capital is described as the ‘vertical’
the size of the network; the frequency and mode of relationships with those in authority whose aim is
communication within the network; the openness or accessing financial resources or power.
3
Figure 1 ABS social capital framework
Culture and political, legal and institutional conditions
Culture Political
e.g. Language e.g. Separation of powers
History Universal adult suffrage
Gender Social capital Transparency of political
Religions process
Sports 4 Network types Rule of law
Cultural events Representative elected
4.1 Bonding
Arts government
4.2 Bridging
4.3 Linking
3 Network 1 Network qualities
transactions Network composition 1.1 Norms
3.1 Sharing support Family Trust/trustworthiness
Physical/financial – In-household Reciprocity
assistance – Ex-household Sense of efficacy
Emotional support Friends Cooperation
Encouragement Neighbours Acceptance of diversity
Integration into Colleagues Inclusiveness
community Organisations/groups 1.2 Common purpose
Common action – Government Social participation
3.2 Sharing knowledge – Not for profit Civic participation*
Skills & information – Commercial Community support*
Introductions People in general Friendship
3.3 Negotiation Aquaintances Economic participation
3.4 Applying sanctions (* includes voluntary work)
2 Network structure
2.1 Size
2.2 Openness/density
2.3 Communication mode
Legal
2.4 Transience/mobility
e.g. Independent judiciary
2.5 Power relationships
Criminal, civil, contract, property and Institutional
constitutional law e.g. Agents of policy implementation
Protection against arbitrary arrest and detention and review (e.g. Ombudsman,
Transparency of legal process Administrative Appeals Tribunal)
International conventions and agreements Institutions for the promotion of
Freedoms of: speech; assocation; assembly; religion; economic stability (e.g. Reserve
the press; movement Bank, International Monetary Fund)
Right to a fair trial, legal representation,
presumption of innocence
Regulatory mechanisms and framework
Positive effects of social capital Negative effects of social capital
e.g. Network development e.g. Social exclusion or intolerance of
Identity and sense of belonging difference (unbalanced bonding)
Increased knowledge/ Reduced family functioning
understanding (unbalanced bridging)
Increased confidence in Corruption (unbalanced linking)
community capacity to achieve Community breakdown
goals
Community resilience
Satisfactory locus of control
Lowering of transaction costs
Conflict resolution
Source: Based on
Edwards (2004).
4
AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF FAMILY STUDIES
The Australian Institute of Family Studies identifies composition. These network types are: informal (friends,
network characteristics and network qualities (for family, neighbours); general (strangers, civic groups);
example, trust and reciprocity) as the key measurable and institutional (legal system, the church, police,
dimensions of social capital (see figure 2). These key media, government). Informal, general and institutional
characteristics and qualities are seen to mediate networks are broadly characterised as ‘bonding’,
the relationship between the determinants and the ‘bridging’, and ‘linking’ ties respectively. Each network
outcomes of social capital (Stone & Hughes 2003). type displays a series of structural characteristics that
include the network’s size and its density (that is, how
Three discrete network types are identified in much the
network/s may overlap) and diversity.
same way as the ABS framework describes network
Figure 2 Australian Institute of Family Studies summary of core measures of social capital and illustrative examples of its
determinants and outcomes
Social capital
Illustrations of hypothesised Networks in which trust and Network characteristics Illustrations of hypothesised
determinants of social capital reciprocity operate (across network types) outcomes of social capital
Personal characteristics: Informal ties: Size and extensiveness, e.g. Individual/family wellbeing:
• age • Kinship ties • number of informal ties • capacity to ‘get by’
• sex • Family in-law • how many neighbours (e.g. meet child care
• health • Friends know personally needs)
Family characteristics: • Neighbours • number of work contacts • capacity to ‘get ahead’
• relationship status • Workmates Density and closure, e.g: (e.g. gain opportunities for
• marital status – characterised by familiar/ • family members know change)
• presence of children personal forms of each other’s close friends Public wellbeing
Resources: negotiated trust and • friends know one another • public health
• education reciprocity • local people know one Vibrant civic life:
• employment Generalised relationships: another • volunteerism
• home ownership • Local people Diversity, e.g: • community cooperation
Attitudes and values: • People in general • ethnic diversity of friends Neighbourhood/area
• tolerance of diversity • People in civic groups • educational diversity of wellbeing:
• shared goals – characterised by groups a person is a • tolerance of diversity
Characteristics of area: generalised trust and member of • reduced crime
reciprocity • cultural mix of local area
• rural/urban Political wellbeing:
• level of socio-economic Institutional relationships: • participatory democracy
advantage • Relations with institutional • quality governance
• proportion of networks in systems Economic wellbeing:
local area • Ties to power • prosperity
• knowledge of local area – characterised by trust in • reduced inequality
• safety of local area institutions
Source: Cited in Stone and Hughes (2002).
Despite measuring similar constructs, the two and its determinants (for example, geographic
frameworks are structured quite differently. The Australian location) and outcomes (for example, community
Institute for Family Studies distinguishes between three cooperation). The ABS does not make this distinction
network types, and then measures the network attributes between its measures of social capital but provides a
for each type separately. In contrast, the ABS framework more comprehensive suite of measures.
is structured around network attributes and examines
We can use these frameworks to look at existing LSAY
network types within these attributes.
research on social capital and youth transitions and
The Australian Institute for Family Studies framework at the same time explore the suitability of LSAY data
also differentiates between measures of social capital items for measuring social capital.
5
MEASURING SOCIAL CAPITAL USING LSAY
In response to a growing interest in the impact of cohort which could be useful in measuring elements
social capital on youth transitions, a series of social of social capital. This includes the questions specifically
capital questions was designed and developed for the designed to measure social capital as well as other
LSAY 2003 cohort. These questions were included in standard LSAY questions with a clear connection
the 2004 phone interviews of approximately one- to social capital issues. These include items such as
quarter of the LSAY 2003 cohort (approximately the influence of family and friends and whether the
2500 respondents). In 2005 and 2006, social capital respondent accessed careers advice or did work
questions were asked of the entire cohort. These social experience. Appendix B outlines these questions,
capital questions are listed in appendix A. indicates their broad relationship to measures of social
capital and identifies the waves in which they appear.1
Table 1, which draws on the frameworks and measures
Questions introduced specifically to measure social
developed by the ABS and the Australian Institute for
capital are highlighted.
Family Studies, identifies questions from the LSAY 2003
Table 1 Social capital and social capital-related themes, LSAY 2003 cohort, waves 1–6
Informal networks Generalised networks Institutionalised networks
Network qualities (trust and reciprocity)
• Connectedness with school4 • Neighbourhood trust, generalised • Trust in police1
trust and conflict1
• Student teacher relations4 • Connectedness with tertiary
community4
• Connectedness with employment
networks4
Network characteristics (participation2, size, density, diversity, transactions)
• School friendships1 • Participation in activities (including • Frequency of going to church/place
extracurricular activities, sport, of worship4
• Friends and friendship groups1
community-based activities,
• Frequency of going to the library4
• Participation in school-based volunteer work)4
activities4 • Frequency of access to the media3
• Outcomes of volunteer work3
• Frequency of interacting with friends • Influence of the media in thinking
• Accessed careers advice3
and family1 about the future3
• Participated in work experience3
• Importance of family and friends1 • Friendships and the tertiary
• Participated in workplace learning3 community4
• Influence of family and friends in
thinking about the future3
• Job seeking and the use/availability
of family, friend and school
networks4
• Friendships and employment
networks1
Notes: 1 Includes questions specifically designed to measure social capital.
2 The ABS framework recognises participation as a network quality, while the AIFS framework categorises participation
as an ‘outcome’ of social capital. This briefing paper categorises participation as an attribute of network structure, on the
premise that higher levels of participation would increase the size of an individual’s networks.
3 Includes standard LSAY questions which are clearly related to social capital.
4 Encompasses both questions designed to measure social capital and social capital-related questions.
1 Social capital questions designed for inclusion in the 2004 interviews but dropped in 2005 have not been included as these
questions were only asked of one-quarter of the respondents. The identification of questions in this appendix is subjective, and
provides a guide to the social capital-related items contained in LSAY. It may not cover ALL questions relating to social capital, as
identification of these questions is subject to social capital theories and/or frameworks referenced.
6
In 2006, Curtis reviewed the LSAY data items designed In addition, the response options for the social capital
specifically to measure social capital (Curtis 2006a, questions were not very well defined and were not
2006b, 2006c, 2006d), as denoted by note 1 in table 1. always able to differentiate between the categories.
Curtis found that some core elements of social capital For example, the question about being treated fairly in
were well represented by these data items, although, class by teachers could not differentiate well between
like other research that attempts to measure social response options ‘1 Strongly agree’ and ‘2 Agree’.
capital, Curtis also found a range of problems.
Curtis also found that, while only a few of the data
First, not all social capital constructs were well items fit well with the social capital constructs, these
captured by the data items. Almost all of the questions items did highlight some useful dimensions of social
relating to network structure focused on informal capital. Curtis concluded that further work could
networks, while questions relating to generalised and be done to strengthen the suite of data items, and
institutionalised network structures were limited. In could include additional items that would provide
addition, there were no apparent measures of network more precise measures to ensure that all dimensions
diversity. Questions relating to network qualities of social capital are represented. He also suggested
were also unbalanced: most measures of network revising the response options and undertaking further
quality were related to levels of trust, but measures of analysis to examine age-related differences in stocks
reciprocity overlooked. of social capital.
The measurement properties of the social capital Notwithstanding the shortcomings of the data items
items were also problematic, partly because there specific to social capital, a range of other related
were too many different response options. For items collected in the LSAY questionnaires—such
example, questions about the importance of friends as participation in voluntary work—represent
and family members used an 11-point scale from 0 elements of the concept of social capital. These
to 10, where 0 was ‘not important’ and 10 was ‘very data items have been used quite successfully to
important’. Questions about relationships with other demonstrate how the possession of social capital
people used a seven-point scale to determine the assists youth transitions. Ideally, these questions
number of occasions that respondents spent with their should be included in the early waves to ensure that
friends or family, ranging from ‘1 Every day’ to ‘7 Never’. the impact of social capital on later education and
And questions about the likelihood a respondent employment outcomes is properly measured.
would be treated fairly by police took values from ‘1
Very likely’ to ‘4 Not at all likely’.
SOCIAL CAPITAL-RELATED STUDIES USING LSAY
There has been no single LSAY research report with capital and their impact on aspects of youth transitions.
a focus on social capital and youth transitions, but This section summarises the research related to social
LSAY and other studies do capture elements of social capital that has made use of LSAY data.
SCHOOL NETWORKS
Several studies consider school networks using LSAY by their general satisfaction with school, motivation,
data—either the relationship between student and attitudes to their teachers, views on school provision
teacher, or student engagement with the school—and of opportunities, and sense of achievement) are shown
the effects they have on student outcomes (Fullarton by Khoo and Ainley (2005) to have higher educational
2001, 2002; Khoo & Ainley 2005; Thomson & Hillman intentions and aspirations and a corresponding
2010; Semo & Karmel 2011). Fullarton (2002) found increase in education and training participation.
that a good school environment (as measured
High levels of engagement were also found to reduce
by a positive school climate, high-quality teachers
the negative effects of socioeconomic and Indigenous
and effective discipline) affects levels of student
status (Fullarton 2002). Semo and Karmel (2011) also
engagement. Semo and Karmel (2011) identified
demonstrated that, even when controlling for standard
that males and females with strong bonds with their
socioeconomic characteristics such as parental
school teachers at age 15 are more likely to participate
education and occupation, high levels of social capital
in education and training at age 17 than their peers
in the form of student–teacher relations had a positive
with weak student–teacher bonds. Students with
effect on future participation in education and training.
positive attitudes towards their school (measured
7
International studies further support the proposition Using LSAY data, Fullarton (2002) showed that
that school networks influence educational outcomes students who participate in extracurricular activities
above and beyond the effects of a student’s have higher levels of school engagement, with
background. Schools where there are greater levels subsequent effects on academic achievement, while,
of trust between teachers and students have been according to Khoo and Ainley (2005), participation in
shown to have better academic outcomes, even when such activities is likely to raise educational aspirations
controlling for background characteristics (Bryk, Lee and participation in education. Semo and Karmel’s 2011
& Holland 1993, p. 314, cited in OECD 2001). Other research highlighted that high levels of participation in
studies show that within disadvantaged communities school-based activities at age 15 increase the likelihood
school effects on achievement were greater than of being involved in education and training at age 17—
family background influences (Fuller & Heyneman in addition to the influences of family background,
1993, cited in OECD 2001). Putnam also found a school type and geographical location.
strong and significant correlation between measures
These findings underscore the importance of school
of social capital and quality of learning, even when
networks and a positive school experience. As
controlling for family and school background, including
Thomson and Hillman stress, schools ‘foster the social
race, income, education level, family structure and
and emotional development of young people, as well
school sector (Putnam 2000, cited in OECD 2001).
as their academic development’, and the influence of
These studies suggest that school networks can help to
these networks is long lasting (2010).
moderate the aspects of social background that might
impact negatively on a young person’s outcomes.
INFORMAL NETWORKS
Family networks play a crucial role in the educational Friends and relatives are also influential in helping
and social development of children and youth. young people to find employment, and when thinking
The norms and values of young people are shaped about how to help young people find work. Using
by those of the home, and parental involvement LSAY data, Dockery and Strathdee (2003) found
and expectations can help to raise the educational that informal networks are important for young
outcomes of their children. International studies job seekers, particularly males, and asking friends or
indicate that parental involvement (as measured by relatives about employment was the most common
support, values in the home, and parents’ expectations) job-search method used by young people—although
can act as a buffer against the negative effects of low these jobs do not necessarily lead to desirable career
socioeconomic status (White & Kaufman 1997). paths, training and promotional opportunities.
Sui-Chu and Willms (1996) found that measures of
parental involvement had an effect on achievement
that was independent of a child’s family background.
This finding does little to confirm the view that parents
with low socioeconomic status are less involved in
their children’s schooling.
COMMUNITY NETWORKS
It is widely recognised that community activities have a part-time job while at school (Anlezark & Lim
such as volunteering are significant aspects of social 2011), leaving limited time for volunteering. Brown,
capital (Edwards 2004),with their importance Lipsog-Mumme and Zajdow’s (2003) research also
recognised through high school certificates such identified that young people from non-metropolitan
as the International Baccalaureate and the South areas were more likely to volunteer than their
Australian Certificate of Education. When undertaking metropolitan counterparts, which may be a reflection
these qualifications, students gain life skills and work of the stronger community bonds found in rural and
opportunities. They also gain recognition in their remote communities. Respondents from Catholic
certificate for participation in community-developed and independent schools were also more likely to
programs or through self-directed community learning, volunteer. Brown, Lipsog-Mumme and Zajdow (2003)
such as taking care of a family member, supporting a assert that volunteering is an essential element of
refugee family, or volunteering for a community project. active citizenship and is therefore important in building
social capital for both individuals and communities.
Using LSAY data, Brown, Lipsog-Mumme and Zajdow
These findings illustrate how determinants of social
(2003) found relatively low levels of volunteering
capital—for example, location or school type—can
among 15 and 16-year-olds, with six per cent of girls
affect social capital outcomes such as volunteering.
and four per cent of boys volunteering. This may
relate to the high proportion of young people who
8
Community networks can be extended to encompass by the Australian and Victorian governments to
partnerships between governments and communities. address the problem of school retention and school
One such example is the Indigenous Consumer failure in Victoria (Seddon & Billett 2004). Local
Assistance Network (ICAN), which works with learning and employment networks connect schools,
government, corporate and community sectors to employers, education and training providers and
provide consumer education, advocacy and financial individuals to assist in young people’s transitions—and
counselling services to Indigenous people across simultaneously address the needs of local businesses
Australia. Another example is the local learning and the community.
and employment networks (LLENs), jointly funded
COMMUNITY EFFECTS
The communities in which young people live can affect Communities and neighbourhoods may also affect
subject choices and also subsequent education and employment outcomes. Using LSAY data, Andrews,
labour market outcomes. Fullarton and Ainley (2000) Green and Mangan (2003) found that, after controlling
highlight the importance of the subjects that senior for family characteristics and student achievement,
secondary students undertake in ‘provid[ing] them living in high-income neighbourhoods had a positive
with the knowledge and skills on which to base fulfilling effect on employment. This persisted only until about
personal lives, successful labour market outcomes age 21, which may indicate the threshold at which a
and the opportunity to contribute to the well-being young person’s, rather than their parents’ social capital,
of the society in which they live’. LSAY data show that comes into play. In contrast, they found that living in
location and school type influence subject choices, low-income neighbourhoods had lasting negative
with students from non-metropolitan areas more likely effects on employment. These findings indicate the
to undertake health, home science and agriculture poorer employment and information networks that
subjects. Catholic school students, on the other hand, can reside in low-income areas and emphasise the
take on more subjects due to additional studies in importance of finding ways to overcome the potential
religion (Fullarton & Ainley 2000). intergenerational transfer of disadvantage prevailing in
poor communities (Andrews, Green & Mangan 2002).
LOCATION, MOBILITY AND FAMILY
Hillman and Rothman (2007) reported that young students who: moved away from non-metropolitan
people living in non-metropolitan areas with limited areas; remained in non-metropolitan areas; and
services (including educational facilities) were more moved away but later returned. This suggests that
likely to relocate to major cities to pursue post-school the loss of bonds from informal networks can be
study, thus severing important relationship bonds. exchanged, to an unknown extent, by the more
Students from non-metropolitan areas also reported diverse networks that exist in metropolitan areas,
higher levels of financial difficulty and had poorer levels potentially enhancing the bridging capabilities of these
of educational attainment than other students (Hillman non-metropolitan students.
2005). These effects and outcomes are likely to reflect
Some studies show that attachment to family can hinder
the additional costs incurred in living away from home,
youth transitions. While strong bonds with family and
as well as the difficulties encountered in leaving behind
community are generally positive, aspects of these
support networks and in creating new networks.
relationships can have repercussions. For example,
Further research by Hillman and Rothman (2007) Hillman (2005) found that some students from tightly
suggests that the longer-term effects of originating bonded communities struggled in the first year of post-
from non-metropolitan areas may not be so bleak for school study due to difficulties in juggling study and caring
these students. They found that levels of employment for children or other family members.
at about age 23 were similar for non-metropolitan
9
CONCLUSIONS
To date, social capital frameworks have not fully reduce the negative effects of disadvantage. Good
considered the complexities of measuring the social student–teacher relations and school experiences,
capital of children and young people as entities participation in extracurricular activities and strong
separate from their parents. A review of the data community networks are all found to have generally
items contained in LSAY highlights an opportunity positive effects on youth transitions. Moreover, LSAY
to use longitudinal data to investigate young people’s research indicates that elements of social capital
accumulation of social capital and to identify key increase educational engagement, achievement and
transition points that distinguish between the social participation above and beyond the influences of
capital inherited from parents and that which they family background, school type and geographical
accumulate through other networks. location, demonstrating that social capital has the
potential to offset the effects of disadvantage.
LSAY research suggests that young people’s networks
have an impact on school transitions. School These findings recognise the more static nature
networks are shown to influence students’ levels of of family background such as parental education
engagement, which in turn are strongly influenced by or country of birth. However, the findings hint at a
their connectedness to their schools, the relationships positive outlook for young people, because they also
they have with their teachers, and the opportunities show us how non-family networks such as schools
the school provides. This translates into elevated provide opportunities for change, enabling individuals
aspirations, better academic performance and to exceed expectations founded on family background
increased school retention. and socioeconomic status. It is therefore desirable that
these resources and networks are identified so that
Community networks also affect subject choices
positive change, particularly for disadvantaged youth,
and employment prospects. Students from different
can be realised.
schools and locations are offered different subject
choices. And employment prospects are found to This briefing paper has demonstrated how LSAY has
be different for youth from low- and high-income the potential to provide a platform for testing social
communities. Young people can experience a loss of capital theories that relate to young people and youth
social capital and support networks when moving from transitions and, by doing so, contributes to the debate
non-metropolitan to metropolitan areas to undertake on the importance of social capital and successful
post-school study, and may also experience difficulties youth transitions. LSAY’s potential role rests on its
due to the extra cost of living away from home. having a consistent and reliable set of questions asked
from early waves of each cohort.
LSAY research emphasises the importance of school
and community networks, given their potential to
REFERENCES
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2001, Measuring Biddle, N, Davis, E, Myers, J & Dodhy, RS 2009, Exploring
wellbeing: frameworks for Australian social statistics, cat. measures of low social capital, cat.no.1351.0.55.024,
no.4160.0, ABS, Canberra. ABS, Canberra.
Andrews, D, Green, C & Mangan, J 2002, Neighbourhood Brown, K, Lipsog-Mumme, C & Zajdow, G 2003, Active
effects and community spillovers in the Australian youth citizenship and the secondary school experience:
labour market, LSAY research report no. 24, Australian community participation rates of Australian youth,
Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Victoria. LSAY research report no. 32, Australian Council for
Anlezark, A & Lim, P 2011, Does combining school and Educational Research, Camberwell, Victoria.
work affect school and post-school outcomes?, NCVER, Carlson, M 2006, ‘Family structure, father involvement and
Adelaide. adolescent outcomes’, Journal of Marriage and Family,
Banks, G 2010, ‘Advancing Australia’s “human capital vol.68, no.1, February.
agenda”’, lecture presented at the fourth Ian Little Curtis, D 2006a, ‘Validation of the Y03 2004 and 2005
lecture, 13 April 2010, Melbourne, viewed April 2010, social capital items’, unpublished paper, Australian
<http://www.apo.org.au/research/advancing-australias- Council for Educational Research, Camberwell,
human-capital-agenda>. Victoria.
Bexley, E 2007, Social capital in theory and practice, Centre ——2006b, ‘The structure of social capital and LSAY’,
for the Study of Higher Education, University of unpublished paper, Australian Council for Educational
Melbourne. Research, Camberwell, Victoria.
10