Original article
The protective value of social capital against teen pregnancy: a state-level analysis

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2005.05.031Get rights and content

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate whether social capital may explain differences in teen pregnancy rates in the contiguous United States.

Method

State-level correlational analyses were conducted. Predictor variables included social capital, income inequality, and poverty.

Main Outcome Measure

State-level rates of pregnancy for girls 15–19 years old.

Results

In bivariate analyses, social capital was inversely correlated with teen pregnancy rates. The obtained correlation was strong (r = −.78) and achieved significance (p < .001). Poverty and income inequality were also significantly correlated with teen pregnancy rates, but the magnitude of these correlations was lower. In a linear regression model, poverty failed to retain significance; however, income inequality achieved significance and produced a Beta value of .24 (p = .017). Social capital was nonetheless a much stronger multivariate predictor of teen pregnancy rates (producing a Beta value of −.672).

Conclusion

Findings from this state-level analysis suggest that social capital may explain differences between states with respect to teen pregnancy rates. Thus, social capital may play an important role in the prevention of teen pregnancy. This initial finding warrants subsequent empirical investigations designed to identify strategies that can be employed to foster the creation of social capital in communities and entire states.

Section snippets

Social capital

Putnam’s state-level 14-item index of social capital was developed for the 48 contiguous states [12]. This dataset is a comprehensive depiction of social capital at the state level in the 1990s, forming an index ranging from very low social capital (−2.0) to very high social capital (+2.0). The measure is a combination of fourteen variables that span the domains of community organizational life, involvement in public affairs, volunteerism, informal sociability, and social trust.

Data sources

To avoid

Variance in teen pregnancy rates

In 1999, for the 48 contiguous states, the mean rate of pregnancy for adolescents aged 15 to 19 years was 78.0 per 1000 population (SD = 18.6). The median was 77.5 per 1000 and state-specific rates ranged from 41 per 1000 to 116 per 1000. The obtained distribution was normal (i.e., skewness and kurtosis ratios were each well below an absolute value of 2.0; .44 for skewness and 1.34 for kurtosis).

Bivariate associations

As expected, social capital was inversely correlated with teen pregnancy rates. The obtained

Discussion

This state-level analysis found an exceptionally strong relationship between social capital and teen pregnancy rates. The finding clearly warrants more intensive investigations designed to identify causal mechanisms that may currently be represented by the construct of social capital. Also, the potential for confounding variables to explain the relationship between social capital and teen pregnancy rates should be explored. Although our findings suggest that poverty and income inequality are

Conclusion

Findings from this state-level analysis suggest that social capital may explain differences between states with respect to teen pregnancy rates. Thus, social capital may play an important role in the prevention of teen pregnancy. This initial finding warrants subsequent empirical investigations designed to identify strategies that can be employed to foster the creation of social capital in communities and entire states.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Professor Robert Putnam of Harvard University for making his measure of social capital available as a public use data set (www.bowlingalone.com).

References (24)

  • L. Robin et al.

    Behavioral interventions to reduce incidence of HIV, STD, and pregnancy among adolescentsa decade in review

    J Adolesc Health

    (2004)
  • D.R. Holtgrave et al.

    Social determinants of tuberculosis case rates in the United States

    Am J Prev Med

    (2004)
  • Alan Guttmacher Institute. U.S. teenage pregnancy statistics [cited 2004 Jul 14]. Available from:...
  • S.J. Ventura et al.

    Highlights of trends in pregnancies and pregnancy rates by outcomeestimates for the United States, 1976–96

    Natl Vital Stat Rep

    (1999)
  • S.J. Ventura et al.

    Declines in teenage birth rates, 1991–1998update of national and state trends

    Natl Vital Stat Rep

    (1999)
  • Adolescent pregnancy—current trends and issues1998

    Pediatrics

    (1999)
  • J.S. Santelli et al.

    Sexually transmitted diseases, unintended pregnancy, and adolescent health promotion

    Adolesc Med

    (1999)
  • C. Stevens-Simon et al.

    Adolescent pregnancy

  • L.S. Zabin et al.

    Adolescent pregnancy

  • D. Kirby et al.

    Manifestations of poverty and birthrates among teenagers in California zip code areas

    Fam Plann Perspect

    (2001)
  • M.W. Kreuter et al.

    Social capital theoryimplications for community-based health promotion

  • Cited by (51)

    • Social Determinants of Health and Adolescent Pregnancy: An Analysis from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health

      2016, Journal of Adolescent Health
      Citation Excerpt :

      For example, previous research supports an empirical relationship between adolescent pregnancy and living in a single-parent home [23–27]. However, some nonsignificant results in this study, including poverty and incarceration, have shown mixed findings in prior research [28–34]. Differences in outcomes could vary on the basis of the measures used and differences in study design.

    • Are social organizational factors independently associated with a current bacterial sexually transmitted infection among urban adolescents and young adults?

      2014, Social Science and Medicine
      Citation Excerpt :

      Research into structural level factors suggests that relationships between structural factors and health outcomes seem to endure even when controlling for individual risk factors and despite changing populations (Sampson, 2003). The structural level factors explored have largely focused on neighborhood measures of socioeconomic status (e.g., poverty concentration, disadvantage), which are important but challenging to address (Crosby and Holtgrave, 2006). A handful of other studies have explored social organizational factors (Berkman and Kawachi, 2000; Cohen et al., 2000; Crosby et al., 2003; Ellen et al., 2005; Putnam, 2000; Sampson, 1997).

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text