Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Young People and Social Capital
Figen Deviren
Social Inequalities
Young people and social capital
• Why the research was necessary
• The descriptive results
• Regression results
• Conclusions
Why conduct the research?
General perception of young people is ‘disengaged’
Quantitative Researchyoung people have low social/civic participation
Qualitative ResearchJRF – differing results
Home Office Citizenship Survey 2003
Research questions specific to young people
•Issues on political agenda•Informal social activity •Social networks•Voluntary activity•Social participation•Civic participation •Trust
NS Omnibus Survey – 10 month survey
• October 2003 – young people only
• November 2003 and February 2004 – all respondents
• Sample size – 3712 of which 483 were aged 16 to 24
Descriptive results
Figures presenting the differing results for
• young people aged 16 to 24
• older people aged 25 and over
• Ttests of proportion conducted to assess significance
Issues on the political agenda
Do you talk about the f ol lowing i ssues?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
None of these
Bullying*
Quality of education/ training*
Racial prejudice
Illegal drug-taking
Wars taking place in the world*
Terrorist attacks in the world*
Crime*
percentage
Age 16-24
Age 25+
Do you talk about the following issues?
0 20 40 60 80 100
Hunger in poor countries*
Government benefits*
Cruelty to animals*
Bullying*
Quality of education/training*
Wars taking place in the w orld*
Terrorist attacks in the w orld*
Crime*
percentage
Age 16-24
Age 25 and over
Percentage interested in i ssues on the pol i ti cal agenda
0
5
10
15
20
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
number of i s s ues (0- 12)
Age 16-24
Age 25+
Informal social activity
Have you done any of these f or f un?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
None of these
Attended a l ive f ootbal l match
Went to an amusement ar cade*
Hung ar ound with f r iends*
P layed a spor t*
P layed snooker , dar ts or pool*
Went to a par ty, nightclub or disco*
Went to a f r iend's house*
Went to a pub, r estaur ant, cinema or concer t*
Went shopping with other s*
per c entage
Age 16-24
Age 25+
Have you done any of these for fun?
0 20 40 60 80 100
Went to an amusement arcade*
Hung around w ith friends*
Played a sport*
Played snooker, darts or pool*
Went to a party, nightclub or disco*
Went to a friend's house*
Went to a pub, restaurant, cinema orconcert*
Went shopping w ith others*
percentage
Age 16-24
Age 25 and over
Number of people you could talk to?
0 10 20 30 40 50
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
percentage
Age 16-24
Age 25 and over
Social Networks
Social networks
Who would you talk to i f / when you wer e r eal l y upset?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
No-one
Spouse*
School/ college teacher
Family member*
Work colleague/ boss
Brother/ sister*
Boyf riend/ girlf riend*
Parent or guardian*
A f riend*
per c entage
Age 16-24
Age 25+
Who would you talk to if/when you were really upset
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Spouse*
Family member*
Brother/sister*
Boyfriend/girlfriend*
Parent or guardian*
A friend*
percentage
Age 16-24
Age 25 and over
Social Networks
Voluntary activityVoluntary (unpaid) activi ties wi thin the past 12 months
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Looking af ter someone who
is sick
Wr i ting letter s/ f or m fi l l ing
f or someone
Keeping in touch with
someone housebound*
Decor ating or r epair s f or
someone
Household jobs or gar dening
f or someone
Shopping f or someone*
None of these
Loooking af ter chi ldr en f or
someone
per c entage
Age 16-24
Age 25+
Social participation In the last year , have you done any of the f ol lowing
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Bought fair trade/ charity goods*
Given money/ goods to the homeless
Sponsored someone else*
Given money/ goods to other charitable
causes*
Recycled used materials*
per c entage
Age 16-24
Age 25+
Civic participation Civic engagement (showing concern for an issue in the past 12 months)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
None of these
Other
Thought about it but didn't do anything
Attended a tenants'/local residents' group
Helped organise a petition
Contacted the media
Contacted a local councillor/MP
Contacted the appropriate organisation
Attended a public meeting
Took part in a protest
Attended a school/college/club committee
Signed a petition
percentage
Age 25+
Age 16-24
Trust
A lot or a f ai r amount of trust in .
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Gover nment
Rel igious leader s
Cour ts
P ol ice
T eacher s/ lectur er s
per c entage
Age 25+
Age 16-24
Summary
Crime and terrorism/wars were the issues of most concern – more older people discussed more issues.
Young people lead more active social lives and have larger social networks.
Support is drawn from different sources for the two age groups.
Older people were more likely to participate in acts of charity or citizenship.
There were no differences in trust, teachers and the police were trusted by the majority and the government by the minority.
Regression
Analysis was conducted using Stata
•Logistic regression•Multinomial logistic regression - multiple categories of dependent variable
Reference Categories - difficulties with small n
Correlation and weighting issues
Regression results
Trust
Characteristics Rate ratio 95% Confidence interval
numberof cases
Rate ratio 95% Confidence interval
number of cases
Age16-24 1.00 - 163 1.00 - 23725-69 0.85ns 0.57 - 1.26 1188 0.81ns 0.56 - 1.18 1465
Marital statussingle, divorced, widowed 1.00 - 564 1.00 - 804married/cohabiting 1.38** 1.11 - 1.72 787 1.2ns 0.97 - 1.48 898
Highest level of Educationno qualifications 1.00 - 366 1.00 - 491below degree level 1.66*** 1.29 - 2.14 748 1.51*** 1.18 - 1.93 903degree or higher degree 2.05*** 1.36 - 3.09 237 1.93*** 1.29 - 2.89 308
Sexmale 1.00 - 608 1.00 - 678female 1.13ns 0.91 - 1.40 743 1.40** 1.14 - 1.73 1024
NS_SECmanagerial and professional occupations 1.00 - 464 1.00 - 575intermediate occupations 0.70* 0.50 - 0.97 288 0.68* 0.49 - 0.94 340routine and manual occupations 0.57*** 0.42 - 0.78 494 0.58*** 0.43 - 0.79 622not classified 0.61ns 0.36 - 1.04 105 0.79ns 0.48 - 1.31 165
Low trust is the comparison groupSignificance of difference from the comparison group *p<0.05, **p<0.01 ***p<0.001, ns not significant
Medium trust High trust
Figure 7: TrustLogarithmic scale
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
Female A level and below Degree Intermediate occupations Routine/manual occupations
Od
ds
rati
o
Characteristics Rate ratio 95% Confidence interval
number of cases
Rate ratio 95% Confidence interval
numberof cases
Rate ratio 95% Confidence interval
number of cases
Age16-24 1.00 - 172 1.00 - 202 1.00 - 7425-69 1.10ns 0.59 - 2.04 843 1.44ns 0.78 - 2.67 1257 3.43*** 1.74 - 6.74 958
Marital statussingle, divorced, widowed 1.00 - 518 1.00 - 647 1.00 - 422married/cohabiting 1.75** 1.19 - 2.57 497 2.05*** 1.40 - 3.00 812 2.08*** 1.41 - 3.07 610
Education levelno qualifications 1.00 - 390 1.00 - 396 1.00 - 246below degree level 1.66* 1.11 - 2.48 514 2.12*** 1.42 - 3.16 803 2.62*** 1.73 - 3.97 558degree or higher degree 3.28* 1.30 - 8.24 110 4.40** 1.79 - 10.83 260 7.10*** 2.85 - 17.65 228
Full-time part-time workfull-time 1.00 - 682 1.00 - 1032 1.00 - 685part-time 1.42ns 0.86 - 2.34 268 1.35ns 0.82 - 2.22 364 1.94** 1.18 - 3.20 307
NS_SEC
managerial and professional occupations 1.00 - 201 1.00 - 542 1.00 - 407intermediate occupations 1.48ns 0.74 - 2.96 204 0.88ns 0.45 - 1.73 300 0.90ns 0.45 - 1.79 215routine and manual occupations 1.08ns 0.60 - 1.95 500 0.46** 0.26 - 0.82 500 0.53* 0.29 - 0.95 340not classified 1.19ns 0.33 - 4.33 110 0.84ns 0.23 - 3.03 117 0.85ns 0.22 - 3.21 70
No interest is the comparison groupSignificance of difference from the comparison group *p<0.05, **p<0.01 ***p<0.001, ns not significantlow interest = interest in 1-4 issuesmedium interest = interest in 5-8 issueshigh interest = interest in 9-12 issues
Medium interestLow interest High interestIssues on the political agenda
Difference in social capital for those aged 25 and over relative to young people
Logarithmic scale
0.01
0.10
1.00
10.00
Issues on thepolitical agenda
Informalsociability
Socialparticipation
Voluntary activity Civic participation Social networks
od
ds
rat
io
Figure 11: The impact of educational attainment on dimensions of social capitalLogarithmic scale
1.00
10.00
100.00
Issues on thepolitical agenda
Informalsociability
Socialparticipation
Voluntary activity Civicparticipation
Social networks Trust
od
ds
rati
o A level and below
Higher education
Other significant relationships
Married/cohabiting respondents• discussed more political issues
• conducted more voluntary activities
• were more involved in social participation
than single people
The economically inactive and those with health
problems had less active social lives
Conclusion
Young people have more active social lives
Young people have a larger number of people to turn to when upset
Level of education has an association with the levels of participation
Useful addresses:
• www.statistics.gov.uk/socialcapital
• www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/nojournal/Social_capital_young_people.pdf
