Santos Social Problems - Copy

7/29/2019 Santos Social Problems - Copy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/santos-social-problems-copy 1/48

PAPER TITLE: Bridging Social Capital, Social Networks, and the Sociology of

Emotions to Understand Child Development: An Exploratory Analysis of a Social

Capital-Building Program

ABSTRACT

The social capital approach has been criticized for its conceptual ambiguity and

methodological flaws. Not surprisingly, research has shown mixed findings regarding the

positive effects of “social capital” on children’s educational, social and health outcomes.

In an effort to address some of these limitations, we propose a reconceptualization of the

social capital notion, which emphasizes the distinction between structure and content.

Unlike studies which use the notion of social capital in isolation from other available

concepts in sociological theory, we link it to concepts developed in other research

traditions: social support (institutional support); network analysis (network density and

network connectivity); and the sociology of emotions (secure social bond and emotional

capital). We use this theoretical integration to explain how social relationships can make

resources available for child development. Drawing on data about the Families and

Schools Together (FAST) program, we show the fruitfulness of reconstructing the social

capital theory by learning lessons from this case study. Our findings suggest that

improvements in the quality of the parent-child social bond mediate the association

between positive changes in parental social support networks and a reduction in child

behavioral difficulties. In other words, changes in the dynamics of the parent-child bond

can be understood as a (micro) process by which social resources available in parental

social support networks are channeled to children, thus potentially becoming a form of

“social capital” for them. Theoretical and policy implications derived from our study are

discussed.



What is the relationship between parental social networks and child development?

Can these networks be regarded as “social capital” for children? Following Coleman

(1988, 1990), countless scholars in the fields of sociology, education, and health, argue

that phenomena such as mutual trust, shared cultural expectations, and information

channels, can be considered “social capital” for social actors. For Coleman, these

phenomena are resources because they facilitate individuals’ or organizations’ actions,

helping them achieve their goals. As these resources have the value of assets for

individuals and organizations, they can be regarded as “capital.” Unlike other forms of

capital (for instance, physical and human), social capital “inheres in the structure of

relations between actors and among actors” (Coleman 1988: S98. Emphasis added).

Several scholars have highligthed different conceptual and methodological

problems in Coleman’s social capital theory (Almedom 2005; Ball 2003; Dika and Singh

2002; Portes 1998). Nevertheless, we argue that there are five even more crucial

analytical problems in this theory: a) the reification of the social capital notion; that is to

say, a concept is treated as an object, as if it had real life in the real world (for instance, in

the common statement: “social capital inheres in social relationships”); b) it is easily

assumed that any (social) resource should be considered “capital;” c) there is a strong

tendency to label any form of (positive) sociability as “social capital,” which leads

scholars to conflate structure (the pattern which social relationships take) and content

(the meaning and practices enacted through social relationships); d) the concept of social

capital is used in isolation from other available concepts in sociological theory, which

makes researchers more likely to use it for taxonomic purposes. In other words, this

concept basically describes, rather than explain practices and social processes; e) the

2



(micro) processes by which social resources are channeled through social networks and

affect individual outcomes remain unclear.

We contend that these issues need to be addressed in order for this theory to be

able to explain (and not only describe) social phenomena. In an effort to overcome some

of these limitations, we propose a reconceptualization of the social capital notion, which

emphasizes the distinction between structure and content, and that suggests that the key

question to ask is “under what conditions or circumstances does something count as

‘social capital’ and for whom?” Moreover, we argue that a reconstruction of the social

capital theory requires linking this notion with concepts developed in other research

traditions: social support (institutional support); network analysis (network density and

network connectivity); and the sociology of emotions (social bond and emotional capital).

Why is it important a theoretical reconstruction of the social capital approach as it

relates to children? First, as Alejandro Portes (1998: 2) has argued, “the concept of social

capital has become one of the most popular exports from sociological theory into

everyday language.” This notion has entered into public and political discourse, being

used ideologically by organizations such as the World Bank and International Monetary

Fund (Harriss 2002). These organizations seem to suggest that poverty and

underdevelopment can be overcome by “building social capital” among the poor (Wall,

Ferrazi, and Schryer 1998). We posit that unless social scientists critically examine all the

assumptions underlying the social capital approach, they will be reinforcing its

ideological use, thus inadvertently serving the interests of white middle- and upper-class

families.

3



Second, most of the research on social capital has focused on adult ties,

neglecting the role of children in contributing to activate the resource potential of their

own personal networks, which include their relatives and friends (Leonard 2005). Third,

relatively few studies have critically analyzed programmatic interventions aimed at

building social capital among elementary school students and their families (Terrion

2006).

Using as case study data about the Families and Schools Together (FAST)

program, we seek to show the fruiffulness of reconstructing the social capital theory.

This theory (re)construction process involves three steps: first, the main assumptions

underlying the social capital approach are critically scrutinized; second, its redefined core

concepts are linked with other available concepts in sociological theory in order to build

an integrated framework; third, after critically analyzing our case study, we try to learn

from it, to enhance our theory’s explanatory power, as suggested by Burawoy’s extended

case method (1998). Therefore, this paper is not aimed at making causal claims and

statistical generalizations to larger populations, nor at making the case for the success of

the FAST program, but at learning lessons from the case to (re) construct theory, which

can then be used (and tested) by other researchers to critically study different cases.

Drawing on data about the FAST program, we ask five questions: (1) Are changes

in the availability of supportive resources (trust, advice, emotional aid, favors) provided

by parental networks associated with a reduction in child behavioral difficulties (taken as

an indicator of child development)? (2) Are changes in the quality of the parent-child

social bond associated with a reduction in child behavioral difficulties? (3) Do changes in

the parent-child social bond work as an intervening variable between changes in parental

4



social support networks and a reduction in child behavioral difficulties? (4) Is the

association between changes in parental social support networks and a reduction in child

behavioral difficulties conditional on parental SES (“Bourdieu’s interaction effect

hypothesis”)? (5) Is the association between changes in the quality of the parent-child

social bond and a reduction in child behavioral difficulties conditional on parental SES

(“Coleman’s interaction effect hypothesis”)? Applying our perspective to data about the

FAST program, we show that what counts as “social capital” is context-specific. It is the

analysis of the intersection between institutions (which are not neutral), networks (their

structure and content), and social bonds in specific contexts or situations, which help us

determine what works as “social capital” (or as social liability) for whom. At the

empirical level, our findings suggest that improvements in the quality of the parent-child

social bond mediate the association between positive changes in parental social support

networks and a reduction in child behavioral difficulties. In other words, changes in the

dynamics of the parent-child bond can be understood as a (micro) process by which

social resources available in parental social support networks are channeled to children,

thus potentially becoming a form of “social capital” for them.

After building our theoretical model, we describe the data and statistical methods

used in the study. Then, guided by our theoretical perspective, we critically analyze a

programmatic intervention aimed at building social capital among elementary school

students and their families. Finally, we discuss some theoretical and policy implications

from our study.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

5



A Reconceptualization of the Notion of Social Capital

The notion of social capital has been criticized for its conceptual ambiguity

(Almedom 2005; Ball 2003; Dika and Singh 2002; Portes 1998). For instance, according

to James S. Coleman, phenomena such as organizations, trust relations, neighborhood

normative structures and authority relations constitute forms of “social capital.” Coleman

(1990: 304) declared that “ social organization constitutes social capital facilitating the

achievement of goals that could not be achieved in its absence or could be achieved only

at a higher cost” (emphasis added).

If social organization constitutes social capital, then, virtually any form of

sociability can be regarded as such (Portes 1998). The all-encompassing character of this

notion limits its analytic potential. Combining the most insightful ideas developed by

Pierre Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman himself, we propose this definition of social capital:

“social capital” consists of the network of social relationships (structure) with the

potential for the emergence and development of socially valued scarce social

resources (content), which individuals and organizations within the network can

mobilize to meet their needs.

There are five important features of this definition. (1) It distinguishes structure

from content, which are two dimensions of social capital.1 Structure refers to the pattern

(shape, form) which social relationships (networks) take, while content relates to

normative (shared values and social norms, deployment of sanctions), cultural-symbolic

(mutual trust, expectations for reciprocity, shared obligations) and informational

resources (channels of information) deployed through the social network. We argue that

structure and content are interdependent. Analyzing structure as if it were devoid of

6



content is misleading; focusing on content without taking into account the structure of

relations which make it possible is one-sided. (2) Some network structures are more

likely to make resources available than others. (3) Both connections and the social

resources channeled through them are socially valued. This implies both the existence of

boundary-making processes (Tilly 1998) by which social actors determine who is inside

and who outside the network, and meaning-making processes related to the question

“what is valued in what contexts by whom?” The second process implies that what counts

as “social capital” for some actors can be a liability for others (Bankston 2004; Portes

1998). (4) Both connections and social resources are scarce. If they were easily available

for everybody, they would no longer be a form of social “capital.” This scarcity opens the

door for power dynamics (social exclusion) between social actors. For instance, outsiders

to a given social network are normally not allowed to gain access to crucial resources

such as information about job opportunities. (5) The idea of mobilization of social

resources suggests that an ongoing process involving actors’ agency is at play. That is to

say, the resources potentially available in a given network are to be activated and used in

specific contexts to yield actual benefits.

As it can be seen, this reconceptualization addresses the analytical problems

encountered in previous definitions of social capital: it limits the range of social resources

that can be (potentially) considered “capital” (scarcity criterion); it avoids the reification

of the social capital notion by distinguishing structure from content, and by suggesting

that meaning-meaking processes on the part of social actors are crucial to determine what

counts as social capital for whom (contingent value of social capital -Burt 1997-); it leads

7



us to specify what types of structure and content, and their interrelationships, can become

“social capital” for actors in some contexts.

Social Support Networks as Social Capital

Focusing exclusively on the patterns (structure) which social networks can take,

as if they were devoid of content, is one-sided. Social support research gives us some

insights about content by uncovering the supportive value of social ties for individuals,

who can ask relatives, neighbors, friends, acquaintances, for emotional aid,

companionship, advice, information, economic help, etc (Hurlbert, Haines and Beggs

2000; Wellman and Wortley 1990). This social help is especially important in times of

personal, family or social crisis (for instance a non-routine situation such as a hurricane).

Some authors (Stanton-Salazar 2001) have proposed that some social support

networks are a response to social exclusion from institutional resources. The idea is that

in the U.S., several stratifying forces such as economic exclusion (unemployment and

underemployment, increasing income inequality), residential segregation, and class- and

race-based hierarchical discourses isolate low-income and minority parents and students

from institutional resources and strategic gatekeepers (for instance, employers, school

staff). In this context, these actors will mobilize available kinship and friendship

networks to survive (Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn and Duncan 1994; Stack 1974). These

social support networks can count as social capital for them insofar as they provide them

with social resources (for instance, emotional or material aid) to defend against social

exclusion (and its consequences) arising from power inequalities in society.2

8



Network Structural Properties that Facilitate the Emergence and Flow of Social

Resources

Analyzing content (resources that work as social support for actors) without

taking into account the structure of relations which make it possible, is one-sided too.

Density and connectivity are two basic network structural properties which generally

make people more likely to interact, to share norms, beliefs, symbols, and values, to

develop mutual trust, and to share and circulate information in a timely manner. These

properties also make social control more likely.

Network density (Wasserman and Faust 1994) is defined as the proportion of

possible ties present in a given network. Dense networks create more opportunities to

interact and socialize than sparse ones. This, in turn, facilitates the generation of shared

symbolic, cultural and normative structures that affect members’ behavior (Granovetter

1992). Dense networks also facilitate the timely flow of information. For instance, news

of malfeasance will spread quickly, whereas such news can be concealed for a long time

in sparse networks. Since most of the members of the network know what everybody

else is doing, they have a better ability to monitor (social control) and shape their

behavior, and to deploy social sanctions timely (Granovetter 2002).

Network connectivity is defined as the minimum number of actors who, if

removed from the network, would disconnect it (Harary, Norman and Cartwright 1965;

Moody and White 2003). A collectivity is weakly connected when each person is

connected to every other actor in the network through few intermediaries. For example,

each person might have ties to a charismatic leader, and be connected only through this

leader to every other member of the network (Moody and White 2003). A collectivity has

9



a higher level of connectivity when all pairs of actors within the network are connected

through multiple paths which do not depend on the same person. For instance, the

network in Figure 1a is weakly connected since all the paths connecting actors 1-5 to

actors 7-9 pass through a single actor (6). In other words, if actor 6 were removed, the

network would get disconnected. By contrast, the network in Figure 1b has higher

connectivity since there are multiple paths connecting actors 1-3 to actors 7-9. That is to

say, we would need to remove actors 4, 5 and 6 to have the network disconnected.3

[Fig. 1 about here.]

Linking Structure and Content: Highly Connected and Dense Parental Social

Support Networks as Resource for Child Development

Connectivity and density are two network structural properties that can contribute

to children development and socialization. Coleman (1988), writing about school-related

networks, suggested that intergenerational closure, which occurs when parents come to

know the parents of their children’s friends, is crucial for childrearing. Intergenerational

closure can be understood in terms of network connectivity: multiple paths link every

pair of actors (parents and children) within the network. These multiple paths allow

information to flow freely and timely, increasing the likelihood that normative ideas can

be exchanged, reinforced and enforced. By contrast, networks in which parents are

connected to each other only indirectly through their children will likely have weaker

normative regulation. Children in such networks occupy a powerful position, controlling

the flow of information (Coleman 1990; Moody and White 2003).

Networks exhibiting intergenerational closure are also dense networks. As stated

above, they create more opportunities to interact and socialize than sparse networks.

10



Mutual trust , understood as the capacity to rely on others (Bryk and Schneider 2002;

Granovetter 2002; Tsuzuki 2005), can emerge when people, through frequent interaction,

get to know each other better. Mutual trust, in turn, facilitates the sharing of cultural

expectations, norms and information that can help parents guide and monitor their

children’s development and socialization.

Over time, parents can also develop a shared sense of obligation (Coleman 1988;

Kao 2004) to support one another. They can provide each other with emotional aid,

companionship, advice, information and favors. For example, if the parents of child A

know the parents of children B, C and D, interact with them on a regular basis, trust each

other, and share cultural expectations regarding the collective socialization and

childrearing of children in the community, they can ask them to watch their children, who

are hanging out in the neighborhood, while they go to work. Moreover, often times

parents of children B, C and D will feel entitled to look after child A even without having

been asked to do so. If teachers and school staff are also part of the parental social

support network, an exchange of information about school expectations, childrearing

patterns, normative ideas, and cultural codes can take place and improve the quality of

the family-school relations, which, in turn, will contribute to child development.4

A Secure Parent-Child Social Bond as the Primary Supportive Relationship

Parental social support networks tell only part of the story regarding child

development. Social control (monitoring) is, doubtless, an important mechanism by

which parental social networks influence child socialization (Coleman 1990; Domina

2005; McNeal 1999; Sampson, Morenoff, and Earls 1999). We argue, however, that

without a secure parent-child social bond (Phelps and Scheff 2004; Scheff 1990) social

11



control is insufficient to aid child development (for instance, it will not be as efficient as

we might think to prevent or reduce behavioral difficulties).

But what is a “secure social bond?” Human beings are constitutively dependent

on the needs for security, affection and recognition (Honneth 1995; Maslow 1968). They

initially actualize these needs through the primary social bonds forged within the family.

Going beyond a utilitarian view which reduces everything to a cost-benefit logic, the

social bond theory proposes maintenance of bonds as the most primary human motive. At

every social encounter, the social bond is either being maintained, strengthened, repaired,

or damaged (Scheff 1997).

A secure social bond is a relationship in which the maintenance of the bond is an

issue for both parties. It requires not only intellectual but also emotional mutual

understanding (“attunement”). Mutual understanding does not necessarily mean

agreement, nor lack of conflict, but emphatic intersubjectivity. That is to say, a secure

bond requires to be able to put oneself in someone else’s shoes. It also entails a balance

between the needs of the individual and the needs of the relationship. As Scheff (1990)

has put it, “it involves being able to maintain ties with others who are different from

self.” A secure social bond involves mutual trust and mutual respect. In such a

relationship, every person has wisdom and affection to offer (Phelps and Scheff 2004).

These ideas about a secure social bond apply to the parent-child relationship. A

secure parent-child social bond is at play when parents and children are able to reach

mutual cognitive and emotional attunement. When parents are able to put themselves in

their children’s shoes and vice versa. In such a relationship, parents and children learn

12



from each other. They treat each other with respect (Sennett 2003) and feel positively

recognized (Honneth 1995) in their respective roles of “parents” and “children.”

A secure parent-child social bond provides children (and parents) with emotional

support, which help them to actualize their needs for security, affection and recognition.

A secure parent-child bond constitutes the primary supportive relationship for human

beings. Within the context of childrearing and socialization, a secure parent-child social

bond, through nurturing linguistic and meta-linguistic interaction (conversation, listening,

playing, expression of affection through affectionate touching, etc.), constitutes a crucial

context for parents to inculcate and/or convey, tacitly, positive values and role models,

which, in turn, can help prevent children’s behavioral difficulties.

Over time, a secure parent-child social bond can become emotional capital (Reay

2002); that is to say, a stock of emotional resources (such as mutual empathy and trust)

from which children (and parents) can spontaneously draw upon. Emotional capital

constitutes a durable source of emotional support for children. Moreover, children who

actively draw upon their available emotional capital are probably less likely to develop

behavioral problems later on.5

Link between Parental Social Support Networks and the Parent-Child Social Bond

We argue that parents embedded in dense and highly connected social support

networks, in which they can find and develop trust relations, advice, information about

childrearing, affection and behavioral help (favors), are endowed with critical resources

to build a secure social bond with their children. For example, they can improve the

quality of the communication with their children as a result of the information and advice

they receive from their social support network (Xu, Tung and Dunaway 2000). A secure

13



parent-child social bond, in turn, affects positively child development. Within this context,

we contend that it is possible to understand the dynamics of this bond as a (micro)

process (intervening variable) linking parental social support networks and child

development (in particular one of its manifestations: child behavior).

Articulation of Forms of Capital: Interaction Effects

For both Bourdieu (1986) and Coleman (1988), social capital works in

combination with other forms of capital. Bourdieu’s framework leads us to expect higher

benefits from their social networks for upper-class families than for working-class ones.

Bourdieu argues that social capital consists of a network of social relationships through

which social actors can have differential access to institutions’ (for instance, schools),

organizations’ (for example, the alumni of an elite school) and/or individuals’ cultural,

linguistic, economic and social capital. For example, in the U.S., while the networks of

middle-class and upper-class parents are significantly more likely to include educators

and other professionals, the networks of working-class and poor families tend to

emphasize kinship ties (Horvat, Weininger, and Lareau 2003). These connections allow

middle- and upper-class families to have access to crucial information about schools and

childrearing, to multiple professional languages (linguistic capital), and possibly to new

connections. For these parents and their children, the social resources embedded in their

networks have a multiplier effect (Bourdieu 1986). In line with these ideas, McNeal

(1999) found that the ameliorating influence of school-related parental involvement on

dropping out from high school was more effective for higher-SES than for lower-SES

students.

14



Bourdieu’s insights lead us to suggest the next hypothesis regarding child

development (behavior):

Bourdieu’s interaction effect hypothesis: Due to class differences in the

composition (structure) and quality of resources (content) of parental social

support networks, these networks will affect more positively middle- and upper-

class children’s behavior than working-class and poor children’s.

In Coleman’s formulation, on the other hand, financial capital (family’s economic

resources) and human capital (adults’ educational background) may be irrelevant to child

outcomes “if parents are not an important part of their children’s lives” (1988: S110). We

could also highlight the other side of the coin: the parent-child bond may be

inconsequential to child outcomes without parental financial and educational capital. For

example, college-educated parents are more likely than their low-income counterparts to

get access to information about childrearing, which is a critical resource to build a secure

bond with their children. This hypothesis has been supported by Teachman, Paasch and

Carver (1997), who found that the effects of parent-child discussion about school issues

on reducing the likelihood of dropping out from high school are stronger for high-SES

than for low-SES families.

Our extension of Coleman’s ideas leads us to suggest the next hypothesis

regarding child development (behavior):

Coleman’s interaction effect hypothesis: class differences in parental education

and income are likely to enhance (or magnify) the positive influence of the

parent-child social bond on child behavior.

15



Social Support and Institutions: Institutional Support

The idea of articulation of forms of capital suggests that social class position

works in combination with parental social support networks and the parent-child social

bond to influence child development. Social institutions, however, can compensate or

mitigate this interaction effect by providing multiple forms of support to low-income and

minority families. Stanton-Salazar (2001) has distinguished several forms of institutional

support: funds of knowledge, bridging , advocacy, role modeling , emotional and moral

support , among others. The basic idea is that institutions such as schools can provide

these families with relevant resources (such as information) and connections to learn how

to relate with, and benefit from, other mainstream institutions (for example, the job

market).

The bridging form of social support deserves special consideration (Stanton-

Salazar 2001). The idea is that institutions can connect communities, families and

individuals to gate-keepers (such as employers), to other social networks and to

opportunities for exploring various mainstream institutions (for instance, university

campuses). Multiple links (paths) across institutions, community organizations and

families allow them to share resources to work together for the purposes of child

development (Warren 2005).6

The relationships between institutions and families, however, are not neutral. For

example, educational institutions are class-biased because middle- and upper-classes

have (historically) demonstrated a capacity to “impose” advantageous standards of

evaluation on schools (Bourdieu 1984; Lareau and Weininger 2003). They are also race-

biased because minority students are usually defined in terms of deficiencies (“at-risk

16



students”) and their parents’ cultural backgrounds are neglected or considered “inferior”

or “dangereous” (Ferguson 2001; Lipman 1998). The argument is that institutions can

only be effective in providing multiple forms of support to low-income and minority

families, if they make explicit, criticize, and try to dismantle their taken for granted class-

and race-biased presuppositions.

Building Social Capital: Changes in Social Relationships

For both Coleman and Bourdieu, social networks, and the resources channeled

through them, have a dynamic nature. Coleman (1990: 321) argued that “social

relationships die out if not maintained; expectations and obligations wither over time; and

norms depend on regular communication.” Likewise, for Bourdieu (1986: 249) social

connections are not naturally given, rather, “[they are] the product of an endless effort at

institution.” Implicit in the work of these scholars is also the idea that new connections

can be established. Building upon these ideas, several researchers have suggested that

social capital can be “created” and “built up” in communities where it is lacking, or

“enhanced” when it is already available (Flap and Völker 2004; Putnam, Feldstein, and

Cohen 2003; Warren, Thompson, and Saegert 2001).

In order to achieve analytical rigor, we suggest to distinguish several aspects

when talking about “building social capital.” (1) Changes in the quality (content) of

existing social relationships: strength of tie (strong or weak -Granovetter 1973-); nature

of social exchanges (instrumental, non-instrumental); degree of mutual trust (Bryk and

Schneider 2002; Granovetter 2002; Tsuzuki 2005) and emotional attunement (Scheff

1997).7

(2) Changes in the pattern (structure) of a given network of actors (for instance,

changes in network density and network connectivity). (3) Changes in the composition

17



(structure) of actors’ networks. If new connections are established, the question to ask is:

“to whom is one newly connected?” For example, if low-income parents get to know

other parents in the school context, do all these ties occur among low-income parents? Is

there a mix of same-class with cross-class ties? This is important, since some authors

suggest that new ties can make more of a difference if they connect to people vertically

higher in the social hierarchy or class structure (Lin 1999).

In summary, we have built a theoretical framework by reconceptualizing the

social capital notion, and by linking it to other available concepts in sociological theory.

In what follows, we will illustrate the analytical potential of our theoretical model by

analyzing data about a programmatic intervention aimed at building social capital among

elementary school students and their families. Moreover, as stated above, the goal is to

learn from (and not only about) the case to help reconstruct the social capital theory.

DESCRIPTION OF THE FAMILIES AND SCHOOLS TOGETHER (FAST)

PROGRAM

FAST for elementary school is an early intervention/prevention program aimed at

creating or enhancing parent to child, parent to parent, and parent to school social

relationships, regardless of parents’ ethnic or socioeconomic background, as a way of

building protective factors against school failure, juvenile delinquency and substance

abuse during adolescence. FAST is a socially inclusive, multi-family group (MFG)

process (McDonald 2002).

The FAST program is typically implemented in 3 stages: (a) active outreach to

engage parents; (b) an 8-week program of weekly, multi-family group meetings; and (c) 2

18



years of monthly parent-led, multi-family group meetings. This paper uses data about the

8-week program element of the FAST program when it is implemented on a school-wide

basis, rather than with selected groups within schools.

Each implementation of FAST involves a multi-family group of 5-10 families.

Those families form a "hub" in the family-school network. In the school-wide

implementation of FAST, hubs are formed by or within classrooms. Hence, all multi-

family group clusters are based on families whose children are in the same grade and

class. In what follows, we will describe how the FAST program builds (or enhances)

parent-child, parent-parent, and parent-school relationships.

Parent to Child Relationship

The MFG intervention includes coaching parents of young children to deliver 15

minutes of a non-directive, play therapy activity originally developed by Hanf and Kling

(1973) as part of a parent-training program. The parents are coached to let the child

initiate the topic of play. The parents follow the child’s lead, describing the child’s

activities without asking questions, criticizing, or offering direction, or teaching. This

activity improves the parent-child bond and reduces problem behaviors (Kumpfer 1994).

At the core of the multi-family group process proposed by FAST is this one-to-one

parent-child play time of 15 minutes, without interruption, repeated each week for 8

weeks. FAST sessions last approximately two and a half hours and include a meal,

singing, family activities, and parent support groups.8

Parent to Parent Relationship

Parents are more likely to utilize newly learned parenting behaviors if they are

socially supported. Peer groups and mutual self-help groups are effective strategies for

19



building amongst peers (Ephross and Vassil 2004). Two strategies are used during each

weekly session of FAST over the 8 week MFH process. First, parents are paired off

(either based on existing relationships -e.g., husband-wife- or new pairs are formed for

single parents). Each person in the pair takes time to speak, without interruption, about

anything that they choose. After that, the second person in the pair has a turn at

uninterrupted speaking with an attentive listener. Parents also meet in a group each week

to discuss issues they identify as important to them. These interactions can help

parenting skills as well as reduce parental stress.

Parent to School Relationship

Parent involvement with schools reflects multiple complex relationships across

systems (Epstein 1996; Henderson and Mapp 2002). Principals, teachers, and social

workers are committed to parent involvement, but are often frustrated with unsuccessful

efforts to achieve this involvement. Parents may be seen as not caring about their child’s

schooling, rather than recognize economic and social policies as obstacles (Pena 2000).

For instance, social stressors of poor housing, dangerous neighborhoods, poor

transportation, and lack of “living wage” employment may interfere with parental

participation in parent-teacher conferences.

Three key elements of the FAST program address these barriers to parent

involvement in order to establish parent-school relationships. First, the FAST

implementation team is charged with the task of identifying adaptations of the program

that will accommodate parents’ material circumstances. These adaptations may include

provision of transportation and childcare, as well as selecting a time and day for holding

the FAST sessions each week that accommodates most parents’ schedules. Second, the

20



requirements that the team both culturally represent parents (for instance, by speaking

their language) and include them as team members further support team efforts to

establish relationships of trust with participant families. The school partner for the

collaborative team has the functional role of forming a bridging link between family

networks and school networks. Finally, the strategies used to implement activities help

parents to connect the cultures of home with the cultures of school for their children

(Valenzuela and Dornbusch 1994).

METHODOLOGY

Data Collection

We used data collected during Spring of 2004 to evaluate an implementation of

the Families and Schools Together (FAST) program in the state of Wisconsin. The

program targets the whole family. For this reason, all family members were invited to

participate, including mothers, fathers, and siblings. FAST invited families through

schools and contacted them through home visits. Of those families that expressed interest

in participating, 95% attended at least one session, and 88% of families that attended at

least one session “graduated” from the 8-week program. Both parents and teachers

completed a survey about their social relationships, their social support resources, and

demographic information, among other topics. A hundred and eighty two families

completed the pre-test and 160 the post-test survey. Considering the way parents were

recruited and the survey information collected, the sample for this study is non-

probabilistic; therefore, we cannot make statistical generalizations to larger populations.

Likewise, we cannot make any causal claims about the effects of the FAST program due

21



to the absence of a control group (the information was gathered only from those parents

that participated in the FAST program).

Analytic Sample

We have restricted our sample to elementary school students taking into account

that this sub-population was the main target of the FAST program. We have also limited

our sample to those families that participated in at least 6 sessions (out of 8 sessions) and

“graduated” from FAST.

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and range for the variables used

in the analysis.

[Table 1 about here.]

Variables

Dependent variable

The dependent variable in our study is child behavior, which we use as an

indicator of child development. We understand “child behavior” as a set of practices

whose “appropriateness” or “normality” can be judged from different frames of reference

(social, psychological, medical). For example, from a psychological/developmental

perspective, a six-year old child’s tendency to play alone could be something to be

concerned about.

We used the Difficulties scale component of the Strengths and Difficulties

Questionnaire developed by Goodman (1997) as a measure of child behavior.9

Overall,

this instrument gives us an indication of potential child’s behavior problems:

psychological, conduct-related and peer-related. The Cronbach's alpha of reliability for

this scale was equal to 0.82 both for the pre-test and post-test. The Difficulties scale

22



comprises 4 sub-scales of five items each (Emotional Symptoms, Conduct Problems,

Hyperactivity and Peer Problems). The categories for the items of each subscale were

0=not true; 1=somewhat true; 2=certainly true. Each subscale was summed if at least 3

items were completed by respondents. Scores range from 0 to 10. The Total Difficulties

Scale is an additive index of these 4 subscales. The scale was computed if at least values

for three subscales were present. Scores range from 0 to 40. A higher score in this scale

indicates a behavior with more difficulties.

Independent variables

Collective-level (network-based; organizational; institutional) variables are

certainly needed to measure social capital (Sampson et al. 1999; Warren et al. 2001).

However, given data limitations we measured it at the individual-level. In spite of this,

we have preserved our relational view of social capital. We chose predictors such as

parental social support and parent-child social bond that refer directly, or indirectly, to

social relations.

We used the social support scale developed by Sherbourne and Stewart (1991) to

measure parental social support networks. This instrument measures the perceived social

support one would get if help were needed in everyday life. The Cronbach's alpha of

reliability for this scale was equal to 0.93 and 0.94, for the pre-test and post-test

respectively.

This scale includes three dimensions of social support: trust/advice (4 items),

emotional (3 items) and behavioral (4 items). Trust/advice is defined at the social tie

which a person can count on to talk about and overcome personal problems and crisis. It

is a tie that presupposes trust and empathic understanding (“someone you can count on to

23



listen to you when you need to talk”; “someone to confide in or talk about yourself or

your problems”). Emotional support entails a tie that make the expression of positive

affect, especially affection and love, possible (“someone who shows you love and

affection”; “someone to love and make you feel wanted”). Behavioral support is the

social bond a person can count on to ask for favors such as material aid or behavioral

assistance (“someone to help you if you were confined to bed”; “someone to take you to

the doctor if you needed it”).

The categories for the items of each dimension (subscale) were 0=never;

1=sometimes; 2=often; 3=always. We averaged these items to obtain a score for each

subscale. Scores can range from 0 to 3. We constructed a total social support variable,

which is the average of the scores respondents got in each subscale.10

Scores range can

from 0 to 3. A higher score in this scale corresponds to stronger social support. We want

to emphasize that our measure of “total social support” gives us good insights into the

role played by trust, nurturing and caring in parental social support processes.

Researchers in the sociology of education typically use more academically-

oriented measures of the parent-child social bond (for example, Teachman et al. 1997;

McNeal 1999) to predict educational outcomes (cognitive or non-cognitive). In line with

our theoretical framework, we consider that the emotional dimension of this relationship

is crucial for understanding child behavior. For this reason, we used the parent-child

relationship scale developed by McDonald and Moberg (2002), which gives us good

insights into the role played by trust, nurturing and caring as emotional support for

children. The Cronbach's alpha of reliability of this scale was equal to 0.91 and 0.93 for

the pre-test and post-test respectively.

24



Conceptually, this instrument has two dimensions: a vertical axis (3 items) related

to authority (“getting my child to respect me has been”; “getting my child to do what I

want”), and a horizontal axis (4 items) related to communication, listening, empathic

understanding, and expression of positive feelings (“listening to my child”; “showing

affection and love to my child”). The categories for the items of each dimension ranged

in a continuum from 1 to 10 (1=most difficult, 10=very easy). We constructed a parent-

child social bond index.11

An additive score was created for every observation for which

there was a response to at least four items. This additive score was divided by the number

of items over which the sum was calculated. Scores can range from 1 to 10. A higher

score in this scale can be interpreted as indicating the presence of a more secure social

bond.

Regarding our control variables, a parental socioeconomic index was created by

averaging parental income and parental education variables.12

Scores range from 1 to 6.

A higher score in this scale corresponds to a higher SES. Dummies for race and gender,

as well as a continuous measure for family size were also used as controls.

We also used as a control a variable measuring parents’ satisfaction with the

FAST program (“all things considered, how satisfied were you with FAST?”). We named

this variable “FASThappy.” The idea was that parents probably tended to rate their

children’s behavior as a function of their level of subjective satisfaction with the FAST

program.

Finally, considering that one of our research questions is whether the influence of

parental social support networks and parent-child bond on child behavior vary on the

25



basis of parental SES, we created interaction terms by multiplying the SES scale by each

of these variables.

Statistical Models

Considering that in this study we explore whether changes in the availability of

supportive resources provided by parental networks, and changes in the quality of the

parent-child bond are associated with a reduction in child behavioral difficulties, we used

OLS regression to estimate a change score model.

This model may be written as:

y2-y1 = ß0 + ß1(socsupp2-socsupp1) + ß2 (parchild2-parchild1) + ß3 (Controls)+ e

which represents the change score in child behavioral difficulties (y2-y1) for a given

individual regressed on the change score in parental social support (socsupp2-socsupp1)

and parent-child social bond (parchild2-parchild1), as well as on relevant controls. The

term e represents an error term for unobserved characteristics.

Our models assess, therefore, whether pre-post changes in child behavioral

difficulties (dependent variable) are associated with pre-post changes in parental social

support and parent-child social bond (independent variables of interest). As we are using

non-probabilistic data, we will consider the estimates (statistical significance and strength

of coefficients) provided by our regression models as criteria of reference to assess how

the relationships of interest work for the sample under study.

Missing Values

We used the multiple imputation method (Allison 2002) to estimate missing data

values of some independent variables by using available nonmissing data from other

relevant predictive variables.13

This procedure was carried out using STATA.

26



RESULTS

[Table 2 about here.]

Table 2 reports five models that explore the associations among pre-post changes

in parental social support, the parent-child social bond and child behavioral difficulties.

The base model looks at the association between gains in parental social support and a

reduction in child behavioral difficulties without any controls. The second assesses

whether the association between gains in parental social support and a reduction in child

behavioral difficulties is explained away by various controls: the child’s racial group,

socioeconomic background and gender.

14

The third model explores whether the

association between gains in parental social support and a reduction in child behavioral

difficulties is partially or totally mediated by improvements in the parent-child social

bond. Model four takes into account the potential “subjective bias” parents might have

introduced into their assessments of their children’s behavior. Finally, by including

interaction terms, model five takes into consideration the possibility that the association

between gains in social capital (parental social support and parent-child social bond) and

a reduction in child behavioral difficulties is conditional on parental SES.

Our base model indicates that there is a statistically significant negative

association (ß1= -1.161, p<0.10) between changes in parental social support and changes

in child behavioral difficulties.15

For example, parents one standard deviation above the

mean gain in parental social support would see their children reduce their (possible)

behavioral difficulties by 1.39 points more than a parent one standard deviation below the

mean gain in parental social support. Overall, this model explains less than 3% of the

variance of changes in child behavior. However, it suggests that children whose parents

27



have higher gains in parental social support would show higher rates of reduction of their

behavioral difficulties.

Model 2 suggests that after controlling for background variables, gains in parental

social support are still negatively associated with changes in child behavioral difficulties.

Likewise, it is worth noticing that there is a positive statistically significant association

between SES and changes in child behavioral difficulties. This means that the higher the

parental SES, the less the reduction in child behavioral difficulties. For example,

comparing two hypothetical white male students whose parents show average gains in

parental social support, one whose parent ranks one standard deviation below the mean

SES and one whose parent ranks one standard deviation above the mean SES, we find

that the former would reduce his behavioral difficulties by 2.72 points, whereas the latter

only by 0.85 units. This finding could reflect a ceiling effect: if high-SES students started

the study with almost “optimal” behavior, they may have experienced little change over

the course of the study.

Model 3 explores whether the association between changes in parental social

support and changes in child behavioral difficulties is partially or totally mediated by

changes in the parent-child social bond. It is important to note that the explained variance

goes from 9.6% to 24%. We see that changes in the parent-child bond explain the

association between gains in social support and a reduction in child behavioral difficulties.

The size of the parental social support coefficient decreases by approximately 73% (from

ß1= -1.201 to ß1= -0.320). Likewise, gains in the parent-child social bond make statistically

insignificant the positive association between SES and changes in child behavioral

difficulties.

28



Gains in the parent-child social bond are negatively associated with changes in

child behavioral difficulties (ß2= -1.437). For instance, comparing two hypothetical white

male students whose parents have mean SES and show average gains in parental social

support, one whose parent ranks one standard deviation above the mean gain in parent-

child social bond and one whose parent ranks one standard deviation below, we find that

the former would reduce his behavioral difficulties by 3.83 units more than the latter.

Model 4 assesses the possibility that parents tended to rate their children’s

behavior as a function of their level of subjective satisfaction with the FAST program (as

measured by the “FASThappy” variable). If that were the case, the association among

changes in parental social support, the parent-child social bond and child behavioral

difficulties would melt away. We see that even though the inclusion of this variable

reduces the size of the “changes in the parent-child bond” coefficient by approximately

7%, the latter remains statistically different from zero and strongly associated with

changes in child behavioral difficulties.

Finally, model 5 does not support our expectation that the association between

changes in social capital (parental social support and parent-child bond) and changes in

child behavioral difficulties is conditional on parental SES, since the relevant interaction

terms are not statistically different from zero.

DISCUSSION

Our case study suggests that the FAST program may have helped participant

families and their children to “build social capital” at three levels. First, by helping

parents and children develop a communicative setting, mutual trust (Bryk and Schneider

29



2002; Granovetter 2002; Tsuzuki 2005) and emotional attunement (Scheff 1997) were

fostered, which in turn helped improve the quality (content) of the parent-child social

bond; second, by forming multi-familiy group clusters (“hubs”) within schools,

connections among parents were made possible, which in turn improved the availability

of supportive resources (such as trust, advice, information about childrearing, affection

and behavioral help); third, by linking

families to institutional agents such as school partners, social workers, and other

professionals who volunteered in the FAST program; these agents may have provided

these families with different forms of institutional support : funds of knowledge, bridging,

advocacy, role modeling, emotional and moral support, among others (Stanton-Salazar

2001). As a result of the bridging processes taking place among families, and between

families and institutional agents, parental (social support) networks may have increased

their density and connectivity.16

As suggested by Moody and White (2003) highly

connected networks facilitate resource flow and can reduce (although not eliminate)

power inequalities.

Our theoretical framework can help us critically discuss each of the social capital-

building levels just mentioned. Regarding the parent-child social bond, is it really the

case that a secure bond was forged? As stated in our reconceptualization of the social

capital notion, what counts as “social capital” for some actors can be a liability for others.

For this reason, meaning-making processes related to the question “what is valued in

what contexts by whom?” have to be studied. Since we do not have (ethnographic) data

about how children interpreted and experienced the sequence of actions taking place as

part of the FAST program, the reality of a secure social bond is still an open question.17

30



Moreover, we should take into account that the parent-child social bond is part of

broader class-based, deeply rooted, childrearing patterns. In the U.S., the “concerted

cultivation” (middle-class) and “accomplishment of natural growth” (working-class)

patterns consist of two different ways in which families relate to institutions (schools,

neighborhoods, etc) for the purposes of raising their children (Lareau 2003).18

Is it

realistic to think that the FAST program (or any other similar program aimed at building

social capital) can alter successfully these patterns (in particular the “accomplishment of

natural growth”) without simultaneously changing the material (economic) and cultural

(discourses) conditions sustaining them?

Regarding connections among parents, their social support role make them a

potential form of social capital, particularly for low-income and minority parents as long

as they provide them with social resources to defend against social exclusion arising from

economic inequality, residential segregation, and isolation from institutional resources

and strategic gatekeepers. That being said, how durable are these supportive ties? Is this

issue related to the degree of mutual trust and emotional attunement (content) parents

achieved during the FAST program?19

Moreover, low-income parents do also need ties

promoting social leverage (Briggs 1998; Domínguez and Watkins 2003); that is to say, a

set of connections that can potentially facilitate upward mobility by either providing

direct access to opportunities to education, training and employment, or by enabling

access to other connections (strategically positioned social actors or institutional

gatekeepers), which in turn can help these parents gain access to available opportunities.

Interclass networks, those comprising actors from different social classes,

increase opportunities not only for social support, but also for social leverage (Burt 1987;

31



Wellman and Gulia 1999). In this context, did the FAST program enable changes in the

social class composition of actors’ networks? How heterogeneous were the multi-familiy

group clusters regarding parents’ class background? Did they occur only among same-

class parents? As the multi-familiy groups were recruited and formed through schools,

we can use information on the proportion of families eligible for free lunch at the school

level as a proxy for interclass opportunities for contact.20

The median value for the

variable measuring the percentage of families eligible for free lunch at each school is

41.5, which gives us some indication that interclass opportunities for contact did exist.21

However, we cannot tell with the data at hand whether these opportunities translated into

actual interactions within the multi-family group clusters.

Regarding bridging processes linking the families that participated in the FAST

program with institutional agents (school staff, social workers), two crucial questions are

in order: (1) As the relations between families and institutions are not neutral, did

institutional agents make explicit, criticize, and try to dismantle their own taken for

granted class- and race-biased presuppositions? (2) Did institutional agents provide

families with opportunities to learn about, and to link with well-connected neighborhood

institutions (Small 2006), as well as with other strategic gatekeepers (employers,

professionals) outside the school setting? With regard to the first question, a crucial

principle of the FAST program is its recognition of cultural exclusion and derived power

inequalities as pervasive obstacles for low-income and minority families; for this reason,

the FAST team implementing the program at each school makes every effort to represent

appropriately, in its composition and activities, the culture, ethnicity and language of the

participants. The idea is to view parents’ cultural backgrounds not as sets of deficiencies,

32



but as resources and assets to be used to solve problems. This process of cultural

inclusion conveys, tacitly, recognition (Honneth 1995; Maslow 1971) and respect

(Sennett 2003) toward the participants in the FAST program. Ultimately, the goal is to

create conditions for the emergence of relational power (the “power to” get things done

collectively) given the existence of unilateral power (the “power over” others) (Warren

2005). As important as the above-described process of cultural inclusion (respect) may be,

it does not necessarily entail a critique of the class-based and racialized discourses (oral

and written) deployed in schools, which portray working-class minority students and their

parents as sets of deficiencies; nor necessarily does challenge the taken for granted

hierarchical relation between white (supposedly superior) and black 22

(supposedly

inferior) cultures and histories (Lipman 1998). Processes of cultural inclusion require that

schools, as institutions, challenge their own taken for granted class- and race-biased

standards of evaluation (Bourdieu 1984; Ferguson 2001; Lareau and Weininger 2003),

which favor white middle- and upper-classes. For this reason, the FAST program will

probably have only a short-term impact on this matter unless schools commit and be able

to incorporate into their culture and curricular structures the history, language,

experiences and struggles of subordinated groups in the U.S. society.

With regard to the second question (links among participant families, well-

connected neighborhood institutions, and out-of-school institutional agents), the FAST

program capitalizes spontaneously on its own network of connections and staff to help its

participants forge ties with institutional agents (Terrion 2006). However, effective

bridging processes require a more systematic orientation aimed at enabling multiple paths

(Moody and White 2003) linking disadvantaged families with well-connected

33



neighborhood institutions (Small 2006), non-proft organizations and diverse institutional

agents. These multiple paths should allow individuals and collective actors to mobilize

and share resources to solve individual and collective problems (Warren 2005). Moreover,

to enhance their potential, these bridging processes should take place at multiple levels:

local, regional, and national (Warren, Thompson, and Saegert 2001). In this context, it

cannot be overemphasized the crucial role of one form of institutional support: funds of

knowledge and information (Stanton-Salazar 2001) about how to connect with, and

benefit from, well-connected neighborhood institutions, non-proft organizations and

diverse institutional agents. That is to say, in addition to their own cultural codes and

discourses, working-class and minority children and their families should develop

competence in using hegemonic discourses (spoken and written) and interaction styles to

their own advantage (Delpit 1988). As Lipman (1998: 276) has put it, “the goal is fluency

in multiple discourses” (emphasis added).

Having critically scrutinized each of the social capital-building levels related to

the FAST program, we now switch to discuss an important finding emerging from our

quantitative data. Model 3 suggests that it is possible to understand a secure parent-child

social bond23

as a bridge (intervening variable) between parental social support networks

and child behavioral difficulties. Parents embedded in social support networks are

endowed with critical resources (such as information and experiences about childrearing)

to build a secure social bond with their children. A secure parent-child bond, in turn, help

prevent or reduce child behavioral difficulties. Moreover, changes in the dynamics of the

parent-child social bond can be understood as a (micro) process by which social

resources available in parental social support networks are channeled to children, thus

34



potentially becoming a form of “social capital” for them. In this context, it cannot be

overemphasized that children play an active role in the dynamics of a (secure) parent-

child bond. For instance, they actively negotiate and activate the stock of emotional

resources or emotional capital (Reay 2004) potentially available through this two-way

bond. Therefore, unlike those views which focus almost exclusively on social control

(monitoring, surveillance) as a mechanism by which parental social networks influence

child socialization (Coleman 1990; Domina 2005; McNeal 1999), we argue that without a

secure parent-child social bond (Phelps and Scheff 2004; Scheff 1990) social control is

insufficient to aid child development (in this case, to prevent or reduce behavioral

difficulties).

In line with Coleman’s and Bourdieu’s insights about the articulation of different

forms of capital, we included interaction terms in model 5 to explore the possibility that

the association between changes in social capital (parental social networks and parent-

child bond) and changes in child behavioral difficulties is conditional on parental SES.

Our results did not support this “articulation of forms of capital” hypothesis. A possible

explanation for this finding is that the FAST program may have provided low-income

and minority families with multiple forms of institutional support, which neutralized the

articulation of forms of capital. For young children, who are at an early stage of their

psychosocial development, supportive parental networks and secure parent-child social

bonds, built up (or strengthened) in the school context, may effectively influence child

behavior regardless of social class background.

Despite our data seem to suggest, we still think that one of the reasons why social

resources can be considered “capital” is its ability to articulate with other forms of capital

35



(linguistic, cultural, economic, among others). Since social networks are always

linguistically-mediated, relationships, language and cultural schemes are inextricably

intertwined, and yield differential benefit (value) to social actors depending on their

position in society’s class structure. It is this differential value (multiplier effect, in

Bourdieu’s formulation) which makes social resources “capital.” And given that actors

move across different cross-cutting social circles and institutional spheres where different

interests are at stake, what counts as “social capital” is always contingent and contested.

As stated in the introduction to this paper, its main goal is to learn lessons from a

case to (re) construct theory (Burawoy 1998), rather than make causal claims and

statistical generalizations to larger populations. That being said, we want to acknowledge

two methodological limitations regarding our data. The first issue has to do with what can

be considered “measurement error.” Having used parents’ ratings of their children’s

behavior as a dependent variable, we could say that this variable is contaminated with

measurement error since parents probably introduced subjective bias into their

assessments of their children’s behavior. We tried to account for this possibility by

introducing a variable measuring parents’ satisfaction with the FAST program (model 4).

The statistical significance and strength of the parent-child bond coefficient stayed

virtually unaffected after the “FASTHAPPY” variable was controlled for. The inclusion

of this control does not resolve the measurement error issue, however. For this reason, we

consider it is better to interpret our dependent variable as the perception parents have on

their children’s behavior at two points in time (pre- and post-test).

A second methodological issue we want to highlight is the selectivity bias

problem.24

This risk is high given the non-probabilistic character of our sample. We tried

36



to find some indication of this problem by estimating the odds parents had of

participating and completing the FAST program (“post-test”), given their background

characteristics (SES, race, and gender). We did find some indication of selectivity bias.

For instance, college educated parents were 7.5 times more likely to participate and

complete the FAST program than parents who only completed high school. Therefore, we

could say that if all parents with only high school education had participated and/or

completed the FAST program, we would have found a (stronger) “SES effect” on

changes in child behavioral difficulties. Hence, we could suggest that those low-SES

parents that participated and completed the FAST program shared with the other middle

and upper-class participants unmeasured characteristics such as motivation, a strong

commitment with their children’s well-being, availability of time, etc, which happen to

be correlated with child behavior (or with their perception about it).

CONCLUSION

In this paper we have attempted to overcome five crucial analytical problems in

the social capital theory: the reification of the social capital notion, the unexamined

assumption by which any social resource is considered “capital,” the conflation of

structure and content, the use of the social capital notion in isolation from other available

concepts in sociological theory, the lack of clarity about possible (micro) processes by

which the social resources channeled through social networks affect individual outcomes.

To accomplish this goal, we have proposed a reconceptualization of the social capital

notion, in particular the key distinction between structure and content, which has helped

us critically scrutinize the FAST program. A basic insight underlying this

reconceptualization is that what counts as “social capital” is context-specific. It is the

37



analysis of the intersection between institutions (which are not neutral), networks (their

variable structure and content), and social bonds in specific contexts or situations, which

will help us determine what works as “social capital” (or as social liability) for whom.

Moreover, we have argued that a reconstruction of the social capital theory requires

linking this notion with concepts developed in other research traditions: social support

(institutional support); network analysis (network density and network connectivity); and

the sociology of emotions (social bond and emotional capital). We believe that this

theoretical integration has proven to be useful to explain how social relationships can

make resources available for child development. At the same time, this theoretical

reconstruction still has to address satisfactorily some unresolved issues: to provide more

rigorous criteria to assess whether something counts as (social) “capital” and for whom

(Smith and Kulynych 2002); to systematize the conditions or circumstances under which

social resources become “capital;” and to specify the ways in which different forms of

capital articulate with each other and have a “multiplier effect” for social actors.

Three main policy implications emerge from this paper. (1) A theoretical critique

and reconstruction of the social capital approach is needed to avoid its ideological use.

“Social capital-building” processes will not have the positive consequences on actors’

lives their advocates expect them to have, unless issues of power, meaning and history

are made explicit and practically incorporated in any programmatic intervention, and

linked to institutions’ functioning. (2) The emotional dimension of social relationships

has to be centrally included in any “social capital-building” implementation, especially

when children are involved. Maintenance of bonds, as the most primary human motive

(Scheff 1997), cannot be reduced to a cost-benefit logic. (3) A challenge for any program

38



aimed at building social capital (the FAST program included) is to be able to recruit those

low-SES families that either are not as motivated as the ones who volunteer to participate

in it, or do not have the conditions (for instance, time) to be able to participate even if

they want to do so. Finally, we hope that scholars, policy makers and program evaluators

will find our conceptual model useful to critically analyze, design, or evaluate programs

aimed at “building social capital,” especially among elementary school students and their

families.

39



REFERENCES

Allison, Paul D. 2002. Missing Data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Almedom, Astier M. 2005. "Social capital and Mental Health: An Interdisciplinary

Review of Primary Evidence." Social Science & Medicine 61:943-964.

Ball, Stephen J. 2003. Class Strategies and the Education Market: The Middle Classesand Social Advantage. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Bankston, Carl. L. III. 2004. "Social Capital, Cultural Values, Immigration, and

Academic Achievement: The Host Country Context and ContradictoryConsequences." Sociology of Education 77:176-179.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.------. 1986. "The Forms of Capital." Pp. 241-258 in Handbook of Theory and Research

for the Sociology of Education, edited by J. Richardson. New York: Greenwood

Press.Briggs, Xavier de Souza. 1998. “Brown Kids in White Suburbs: Housing Mobility and

the Many Faces of Social Capital.” Housing Policy Debate 9: 177-221.Burawoy, Michael. 1998. "The Extended Case Method." Sociological Theory 16:4-33.

Burt, Ronald S. 1987. “Social Contagion and Innovation: Cohesion versus StructuralEquivalence.” American Journal of Sociology 92: 1287-1335.

------. 1997. "The Contingent Value of Social Capital." Administrative Science Quarterly

42:339-365.Bryk, Anthony S. and Barbara Schneider. 2002. Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for

Improvement . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Coleman, James S. 1988. "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of Sociology 94(supp.):S95-S120.

------. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Delpit, Lisa D. 1988. " The Silenced Dialogue. Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other

People's Children." Harvard Educational Review 58:280-298.

Dijkstra, AnneBert and Jules L. Peschar. 2003. "Social Capital in Education: TheoreticalIssues and Empirical Knowledge in Attainment Research." Pp. 58-81 in The

International Handbook on the Sociology of Education: An International Assessment of New Research and Theory, edited by C. A. Torres and A.

Antikainen.Dika, Sandra and Kusum Singh. 2002. "Applications of Social Capital in Educational

Literature: A Critical Synthesis." Review of Educational Research 72:31-60.

Domina, Thurston. 2005. "Leveling the Home Advantage: Assessing the Effectiveness of Parental Involvement in Elementary School." Sociology of Education 78:233-249.

Dominguez, Silvia, and Celeste Watkins. 2003. "Creating Networks for Survival and

Mobility: Social Capital among African-American and Latin-American Low-Income Mothers." Social Problems 50:111-135.

Ephross, Paul H. and Thomas V. Vassil. 2004. "Group Work with Working Groups." Pp.

400-414 in Handbook of Social Work with Groups, edited by C. D. Garvin, L. M.Gutierrez, and M. J. Galinsky. New York: Guilford Press.

Epstein, Joyce. L. 1996. "Perspectives and Previews on Research and Policy for School,

Family, and Comunity Partnerships." Pp. 209-246 in Family-School links: How

40



Do They Affect Educational Outcomes?, edited by A. Booth and J. F. Dunn.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Ferguson, Ann A. 2001. Bad Boys: Public Schools in the Making of Black Masculinity.

Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Flap, Henk and Beate Völker (Eds.). 2004. Creation and Returns of Social Capital. A

New Research Program. London and New York: Routledge.Goodman, Robert. 1997. "The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research

Note." Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 38:581-586.

Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78: 1360-1380.

------. 1992. "Problems of Explanation in Economic Sociology." Pp. 25-56 in Networks

and Organizations: Structure, Form and Action, edited by N. Nohria and R. G.Eccles. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

------. 2002. "A Theoretical Agenda for Economic Sociology." Pp. 35-59 in The New

Economic Sociology: Developments in an Emerging Field , edited by M. Guillen,R. Collins, P. England, and M. Meyer. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Hanf, C. and J. Kling. 1973. "Facilitating Parent-Child Interaction: A Two-StageTraining Model." University of Oregon Medical School. Unpublished manuscript.

Harary, Frank, Robert Z. Norman, and Dorwin Cartwright. 1965. An Introduction to theTheory of Directed Graphs. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Harriss, John. 2002. Depoliticizing Development: The World Bank and Social capital .

London: Anthem Press.Henderson, Anne T. and Karen L. Mapp. 2002. A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of

School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Annual

synthesis, 2002. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Lab.Honneth, Axel. 1995. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social

Conflicts. Cambridge, Mass.: Polity Press.Horvat, Erin, Elliot Weininger, and Annette Lareau. 2003. "From Social Ties to Social

Capital: Class Differences in the Relations between Schools and Parent

Networks." American Educational Research Journal 40:319-351.Hurlbert, Jeanne , Valerie Haines, and John Beggs. 2000. "Core Networks and Tie

Activation: What Kinds of Routine Networks Allocate Resources in Nonroutine

Situations?" American Sociological Review 65:598-618.

Kao, Grace. 2004. "Social Capital and Its Relevance to Minority and ImmigrantPopulations." Sociology of Education 77: 172-183.

Klebanov, Pamela, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, and Greg Duncan. 1994. "Does Neighborhood

and Family Poverty Affect Mothers' Parenting, Mental Health, and SocialSupport?" Journal of Marriage and the Family 56:441-455.

Kumpfer, Karol L. 1994. Strengthening American Families: Promising Parenting and

Family Strategies for Delinquency Prevention. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice.

Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family life. Berkeley, CA:

University of California Press.Lareau, Annette and Elliot Weininger. 2003. "Cultural Capital in Educational Research:

A Critical Assessment." Theory and Society 32:567-606.

41



Leonard, Madeleine. 2005. "Children, Childhood and Social Capital: Exploring the

Links." Sociology 39:605-622Lin, Nan. 1999. "Social Networks and Status Attainment." Annual Review of Sociology

25:467-487.

Lipman, Pauline. 1998. Race, Class, and Power in School Restructuring . Albany: State

University of New York Press.Maslow, Abraham H. 1968. Toward a Psychology of Being . Princeton, N.J.,: Van

Nostrand.

------. 1971. The Further Reaches of Human Nature. New York,: Viking Press.McDonald, Lynn. 2002. "Research Background of each FAST Activity for Multi-Family

Group Meetings." Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

McDonald, Lynn and D. Paul Moberg. 2002. "Social Relationships Questionnaire."Madison, WI: FAST National Training and Evaluation Center.

McLeod, Jane and Karen Kaiser. 2004. "Childhood Emotional and Behavioral Problems

and Educational Attainment." American Sociological Review 69:636-658McNeal, Ralph B., Jr. 1999. "Parental Involvement as Social Capital: Differential

Effectiveness on Science Achievement, Truancy, and Dropping Out." Social Forces 78:117-144.

Minuchin, Salvador and Michael P. Nichols. 1993. Family Healing: Strategies for Hopeand Understanding . New York: Touchstone.

Moody, James and Douglas R. White. 2003. "Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A

Hierarchical Concept of Social Groups." American Sociological Review 68:103-127.

Pena, Delores C. 2000. "Parent Involvement: Influencing Factors and Implications."

Journal of Educational Research 94:42-54.Phelps, Andrew and Thomas J. Scheff. 2004. "The Challenge of Bonding, Shame and

Social Death." Paper presented at the International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology Conference, New York City.

Portes, Alejandro. 1998. "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern

Sociology." Annual Review of Sociology 24:1-24.Putnam, Robert D., Lewis M. Feldstein, and Don Cohen. 2003. Better Together:

Restoring the American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Reay, Diane 2004. "Gendering Bourdieu's Concept of Capitals? Emotional Capital,

Women and Social Class." The Sociological Review 52: 57-74.Sampson, Robert , Jeffrey Morenoff, and Felton Earls. 1999. "Beyond Social Capital:

Spatial Dynamics of Collective Efficacy for Children." American Sociological

Review 64:633-660.Scheff, Thomas J. 1990. Microsociology: Discourse, Emotion, and Social Structure.

Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

------. 1997. Emotions, the Social Bond, and Human Reality: Part/Whole Analysis.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press

Sennett, Richard. 2003. Respect. In A World of Inequality. New York: W.W. Norton.

Sherbourne, Cathy D. and Anita Stewart. 1991. "The MOS Social Support Survey."

Social Science & Medecine 32:705-14.

42



Small, Mario Luis. 2006. "Neighborhood Institutions as Resource Brokers: Childcare

Centers, Interorganizational Ties, and Resource Access among the Poor." Social Problems 53:274-292.

Smith, Stephen Samuel, and Jessica Kulynych. 2002. "It May be Social, But Why is it

Capital? The Social Construction of Social Capital and the Politics of Language."

Politics & Society 30:149-186.Stack, Carol. 1974. All of Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New

York: Harper & Row.

Stanton-Salazar, Ricardo. 2001. Manufacturing Hope and Despair: The School and KinSupport Networks of U.S-Mexican Youth. New York: Teachers College Press.

Teachman, Jay D., Kathleen Paasch, and Karen Carver. 1997. "Social Capital and the

Generation of Human Capital." Social Forces 75:1343-1359.Terrion, Jenepher L. 2006. "Building Social Capital in Vulnerable Families: Success

Markers of a School-Based Intervention Program." Youth & Society 38:155-176.

Tilly, Charles. 1998. Durable Inequality. Berkeley: University of California Press.Tsuzuki, Kazuharu. 2005. "Some Conceptual Problems of Social Capital: Tie, Strength of

Tie and Trust." Sociological Theory and Methods 20:81-95.Valenzuela, Angela, and Sanford M. Dornbusch. 1994. "Familism and Social Capital in

the Academic Achievement of Mexican Origin and Anglo Adolescents." Social Science Quarterly 75:18-36.

Wall, Ellen, Gabriele Ferrazzi, and Frans Schryer. 1998. "Getting the Goods on Social

Capital." Rural Sociology 63:300-322.Warren, Mark 2005. "Communities and Schools: A New View of Urban Education

Reform." Harvard Educational Review 75:133-173.

Warren, Mark, J. Phillip Thompson, and Susan Saegert. 2001. "The Role of SocialCapital in Combating Poverty." Pp. 1-28 in Social Capital in Poor Communities,

edited by S. Saegert, J. P. Thompson, and M. Warren. New York: Russell SageFoundation.

Wasserman, Stanley and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and

Applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Wellman, Barry and Scot Wortley. 1990. "Different Strokes from Different Folks:

Community Ties and Social Support." American Journal of Sociology 96:558-588.

Wellman, Barry and Milena Gulia. 1999. “The Network Basis of Social Support: A

Network is more than the sum of its ties.” Pp. 83-118 in Networks in the GlobalVillage: Life in Contemporary Communities, edited by B. Wellman. Boulder, CO:

Westview.

Xu, Xiaohe, H., Yuk-Ying Tung, and R. Gregory Dunaway. 2000. "Cultural, Human, andSocial Capital as Determinants of Corporal Punishment: Toward an Integrated

Theoretical Model." Journal of Interpersonal Violence 15:603-630.

43



Figure 1. Comparison of Two Networks’ Connectivity Levels

Figure 1a

1

2 3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1

2 3

45 6

7

8

9

Figure 1b

Note: Circles and squares represent actors within a social network. Lines connecting circles and squares represent relationsamong actors. These figures are based on Moody & White (2003).

44



Table 1. Variables Used in the Analysis: Descriptive Statistics

Variables N MeanStd.Dev. Min Max

Dependent Variable

Changes in childbehavioral difficulties 132 -1.51 4.64 -15 13

Social Capital Variables

Changes in parentalsocial support networks 132 0.08 0.60 -1.89 1.58

Changes in the parent-child social bond 132 0.95 1.35 -3 5

Control Variables

Family SES 132 3.27 1.36 1 6

Black 132 0.11 0.31 0 1

Asian 132 0.07 0.25 0 1

Latino 132 0.14 0.35 0 1

Female 132 0.47 0.50 0 1

FASThappy 132 8.91 1.34 2 10

45



Table 2. Unstandardized OLS Coefficients: Association between Changes in Child Behavioral Difficulties and Cha

Families and Schools Together (FAST project), Wisconsin (U.S.) 2004Independent Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Changes in parental social -1.161 * -1.201 * -0.320 -0.212

support networks (0.667) (0.698) (0.666) (0.650)

Black -0.795 -0.962 -1.179

(1.504) (1.381) (1.348)

Asian 1.697 1.176 1.608

(1.657) (1.525) (1.494)

Latino 0.632 0.985 1.515

(1.299) (1.195) (1.180)

SES 0.698 * 0.541 0.286

(0.353) (0.326) (0.331)

Female 0.404 0.258 0.017 (0.825) (0.758) (0.744)

Changes in the parent-child social -1.437 *** -1.339

bond (0.295) (0.290)

FASThappy -0.869

(0.318)

Changes in the parent-child social

bond*SES

Changes in parental social

support*SES

Constant -1.424 *** -3.954 ** -2.079 6.447

(0.404) (1.558) (1.481) (3.437)

R-square 0.023 0.097 0.245 0.289N 132 132 132 132

* p<0.10 , ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01 (two-tailed tests).

Note: Unstandardized regression coeficients, with standard error in parentheses.



NOTES

1 Along these lines, other scholars have suggested that one should differentiate channel from content

(Dijkstra and Peschar 2003).

2 We should keep in mind that these stratifying forces can also weaken (divide) these parents’ and students’familial and neighborhood networks, in which case they would not count as “social capital” for them.3 Network connectivity (Moody and White 2003) has important implications for resource flow and power

inequalities. Regarding resource flow, the basic insight is that networks with higher connectivity levelsmake the flow (transmission) of information (or other phenomena such as normative ideas) less vulnerable

to interruption or degradation, since all pairs of actors within the network are connected through multiple

paths which do not depend on the same person. By contrast, in weakly connected networks, a single

person’s failure to pass the information will disrupt the flow. Regarding power, networks with higher

connectivity levels make exclusionary control over the flow of resources less likely, because information

and resources can flow through multiple paths. By contrast, in weakly connected networks, actors that candisconnect them are also actors that can exert a monopolistic control over the flow of resources, which

generates power inequalities.4 We should express two caveats regarding parental social support networks. (1) Network density and

connectivity only have a potential for the emergence and development of social resources. Socialrelationships can channel both social resources (for example, information) and social risks (for instance, a

sexually transmitted disease); they can facilitate and/or constraint social action and cooperation. Conflict

over powerful positions within the network can erosion trust and generate distrust. Likewise, taken for granted racial stereotypes can generate a protracted distrust. (2) We have highlighted the ways in which

parents can draw upon their social support networks to better guide and monitor their children. But we

should also allow room for children’s agency. For example, they can spontaneously draw upon their

parents’ social support networks to get information and receive advice from their parents’ friends.5 It cannot be overemphasized that children are active agents who negotiate with their parents, in subtle

ways, the content and dynamics of the parent-child bond.6 These multiple links can be understood in terms of network density and connectivity..7 Coleman (1990: 304) argued that “social capital […] is created when the relations among persons changein ways that facilitate action.”8 Structural family systems theory (Minuchin and Nichols 1993) is integrated into the MFG approach so

that the parental hierarchy is supported and all information for initiating and guiding activities flowsthrough the parents. Team members are taught to respectfully coach parents through activities, including

the special play activity. The team members never lecture or issue directives to parents, because that would

send an implicit message that undermines the parental hierarchy by having another adult lecture to parents

and children at the same time.9 We did not use the “Prosocial Behavior” scale component for two reasons: it has both a lower Cronbach'salpha of reliability (0.63 for the pre- and post-test) and much less variance than the Difficulties scale, which

can make it difficult to identify statistical associations of interest.10 We consider that it is very important to distinguish which dimension, if any, of social support, mattersmore for child behavior. However, an exploratory factor analysis suggested that the items belonging to the

social support scale can be reasonably considered as part of one single dimension.11 We did this since an exploratory factor analysis suggested that the items belonging to the parent-child

relationship scale are part of one single dimension.12 Originally we treated parental education and parental income as separate variables. However, when we

constructed interaction terms between dummies for these variables and predictors of interest (such as

parental social support and parent-child social bond), the standard error for these interaction terms went up.

For this reason, we decided to create a composite SES variable derived from parental education and

parental income.13 The predictors we used to estimate the missing data values of some of our independent variables were:

parental education, parental income, gender, race, family size and marital status.

47



14 We also controlled for family size. This control did not change the association found between gains in

parental social support and a reduction in child behavioral difficulties.15 As a reminder, a lower score in the Difficulties scale corresponds to a behavior with fewer difficulties.16 Recall that I have conceptualized this process as changes in the pattern (structure) of a given network of

actors.17

Our findings regarding changes in the parent-child social bond could be read from even another skepticalviewpoint. Conceptually, the scale we used to measure the parent-child bond has two dimensions: a vertical

axis related to authority, and a horizontal axis related to communication, listening, empathic understanding,and expression of positive feelings. It might be that the vertical dimension is strongly conditioning parents’

perceptions of their children’s behavior (“if I get my child to do what I want, he behaves properly”). That isto say, as a consequence of their participation in the FAST program, children could be perceived as more

docile and obedient by their parents. If that were the case, we would not have necessarily a secure parent-

child social bond, but simply an invigorated authority relationship.18 The “concerted cultivation” pattern entails systematic efforts to foster and assess children's talents,opinions, skills, and psychological well-being; parents actively organize and monitor the educational and

leisure activities their children engage in. The “accomplishment of natural growth” pattern involves

providing the conditions under which children can grow, but leaving leisure activities primarily to children

themselves. Children hang out at the streets particularly with kin and often in heterogeneous age groupings,

which make them more likely to get involved in gang membership19 After parents complete the eight-week program, they will participate in FASTWORKS, a program which

consists of monthly multifamily meetings aimed at building and maintaining long-term support. For this

reason, FASTWORKS is run by FAST graduates with gradually decreasing staff assistance. A key issue to be investigated is whether, after FASTWORKS comes to an end, parents still keep in touch with each other,

and whether the ties forged are still activated when needed.20 We take this information as a point of reference, as our sample is non-probabilistic, and as such, it does

not necessarily reflect the patterns operating at the school level.21 The variable measuring the proportion of families elegible for free lunch in the schools of our sample is

skewed to the right (skewness=0.5)22 Or any other racial minority.23 Even tough we have cast doubts on whether a secure parent-child bond was actually deployed during theFAST program, we will assume that it did occur at least partially.24 Sample-selection bias occurs when the subjects included in a sample “self-select” on the basis of

unmeasured characteristics, which happen to be correlated both with the dependent variable under study (inour case, changes in child behavioral difficulties) and with other predictors of interest. As a result, the

estimated coefficients for the independent variables tend to be biased.

Santos Social Problems - Copy

Documents

Transcript of Santos Social Problems - Copy