Content uploaded by Patricia Snell Herzog
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patricia Snell Herzog on Dec 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Patricia Snell Herzog
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patricia Snell Herzog on Dec 02, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
“Just Reproduce After What I Taught You”: Spatial Segregation of Religious Youth
Socialization and the Reproduction of Social Inequality
Patricia Snell, University of Notre Dame
Patricia Snell
Center for the Study of Religion & Society
University of Notre Dame
811 Flanner Hall
Notre Dame, IN 46556
Phone: (574) 631-2695
Fax: (574) 631-9238
Email: psnell@nd.edu
1
Author’s Biography: Patricia Snell is Assistant Director of the Center for the Study of Religion
and Society and a doctoral student in the Department of Sociology at the University of Notre
Dame. She received her Bachelor of Arts in Sociology and Psychology from the University of
Arizona in 2000, her Master of Social Work in community practice from the University of
Denver in 2006, and her Master of Arts in Sociology from the University of Notre Dame in 2008.
Snell’s areas of interest are youth, community programming, urban spatial inequality,
geographical and cultural communities, and sociology of religion. Her scholarship deploys a
range of methodological and theoretical tools to examine the ways in which inequality maps
spatially, and how communities create and respond to their spatially stratified contexts. Snell’s
publications include books and articles published with Oxford University Press, Journal of
Classical Sociology, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Review of Religious Research,
and Journal of Adolescent Research.
2
Abstract: Researchers consistently find that educational and familial settings
unintentionally reproduce socioeconomic status via distinct socialization patterns
in their community contexts. Yet there are surprisingly few studies examining this
pattern as related to religious settings. This study extends the social reproduction
literature by examining intended socialization of religious-based youth programs
across socioeconomic status of the areas in which religious congregations are
located. Data analyzed are from the Northern Indiana Congregation Study, a high
response-rate phone survey with all religious congregations located within three
contiguous cities, combined with Census data for the postal code of the
congregation location, and in-person interviews with stratified-quota sampled
religious youth leaders. This analysis provides evidence for a spatially-stratified
pattern to religious youth socialization. Findings reveal how deeply
socioeconomic reproduction permeates social life, including even the youth
socialization practices of religious congregations, and indicates that low-income
youth may be particularly disadvantaged in their available religious socialization.
Keywords: socioeconomic inequality, community context, religion
3
Researchers have long identified that the United States entails a system of social
inequality that reproduces across generations. Youth born into low income households often
grow into adults with low incomes and vice versa. How do these social inequalities get
reproduced across generations? How do we explain the intergenerational transmission of
socioeconomic inequality? Research investigating family and educational settings finds
unintentional reproduction of social inequalities through patterned socialization styles. Parents
and teachers unknowingly replicate socioeconomic-based attitudes and behaviors and teach
children patterns of social inequalities. But if two primary social settings participate in the
reproduction of social inequalities, then what role does another primary social setting – religious
youth groups – play? Considering more than half of youth participate in a religious youth group
at some point during their adolescence (Smith, 2003), religious youth groups are another primary
socialization site worthy of investigation. Yet little attention has been given to the potential role
of religious settings in reproducing or contradicting broader patterns of social inequality.
This paper extends our knowledge about the intergenerational transmission of
socioeconomic inequality to a new social setting of religious youth groups and investigates the
understudied role of spatial inequalities. Drawing on contextual socioeconomic reproduction
theories and empirical investigations, this analysis examines the relationship between the
socioeconomic context of religious congregations and their youth group programming purposes
and goals. I explore the hypothesis that, similar to familial and educational settings, religious
congregations may contribute to the social reproduction of the economic system via provision of
distinct socialization styles in youth programming that teach different labor market skill sets.
This paper thus extends our understanding of the multiple institutional spheres that are both
formed by and help to reproduce structures of socioeconomic inequality by adding religious
youth socialization as a potential mechanism of socioeconomic reproduction.
4
Socioeconomic Reproduction in Familial Settings
Researchers investigating socioeconomic reproduction within familial settings find that
life outcomes such as delayed marriage, lower divorce rates, and lower fertility rates vary based
on position within the stratification system (e.g. Edin & Kefalas, 2005). Social scientists also
find that the meaning and understanding of marriage and parenthood, including the “dream of
marriage” as a romantic ideal versus an economic arrangement, and aspirations to parenthood as
a mutually-beneficial relationship versus an attainable milestone, relate to higher and lower
socioeconomic statuses (e.g. Plantin, 2007; Rubin, 1976). Researchers additionally find that
parent socialization styles relate to their socioeconomic backgrounds. Parent socialization
patterns are theorized as resulting from an acquired labor market mentality in which blue collar
labor is seen as requiring a direct, discipline-focused supervision style that promotes laborers
who are comfortable taking orders and following directions, while white collar positions
typically promote independence and self-direction orientations (Kohn, 1963). Similarly, Janoski
and Wilson (1995) find that self-oriented (focused on professional attainment), versus
community-oriented (focused on service and neighborly participation), parent socialization styles
are socioeconomically influenced. Lareau (2003; 2000) investigates this pattern and finds
parental socialization styles differ by socioeconomic status positions. She finds the styles to be
rule-abiding and mostly adult-child-separated lives in working class families or adult-child
connected and highly activity-scheduled lives in middle class families.
Though spatial context is often understudied in social stratification investigations,
researchers find that differences in parenting styles need to be understood within the
neighborhood context in which the children and parents live (e.g. Garcia-Coll & Pachter, 2002).
Applying the concepts of social disorganization theory, Roche, Ensminger, and Cherlin (2007)
find that differences in parental styles may result from perceptions of levels of violence, safety,
5
and delinquency within the community. Parents engage in directive socialization styles in
disorganized neighborhoods to protect their children from the risks of becoming involved in
deviant behavior. They find evidence that parental perceptions of the need for directive parenting
may be accurate in that their findings indicate that disengaged parenting styles were related to
increased delinquency and problems at school when located in disorganized neighborhoods. Due
to the increased opportunities to engage in delinquency in these contexts, the researchers
conclude that youth are more vulnerable to the effects of disengaged parenting. Their findings
indicate that parental socialization style may be an adaptive behavior caused by perceptions of
the neighborhood in which they are located. This finding is confirmed by Garbarino, Bradshaw,
and Kostelny (2005), who also find community influences on parenting styles and argue that
enhanced parental monitoring strategies lessen negative outcomes for youth located in areas with
high rates of poverty and deviance. This research supports the idea that the socialization style
parents employ may reflect adaptive responses to contextual differences, but they may also have
the unintended consequence of conditioning youth for stratifed occupational positions later in
life.
Socioeconomic Reproduction in Educational Settings
Similar to social science research investigating social reproduction in familial settings,
many researchers examine social stratification in the educational system (e.g. Crosnoe & Huston,
2007; Ainsworth & Roscigno, 2005). They find that youth who live in inner cities, with higher
concentrations of poverty and lower socioeconomic status, are more likely to be concentrated in
higher poverty schools (e.g. Salvatore & Deenesh, 2007), have lower achievement on major
education indicators, and higher dropout rates (e.g. Roscigno, Tomaskovic-Devey & Crowley,
2006; Parcel & Dufur, 2001). Socioeconomic status also relates to overall school quality, such
that children of high socioeconomic status parents are more likely to attend higher quality
6
schools (e.g. Kahlenberg, 2001; Anyon, 1997; Entwisle, Alexander & Olson, 1997; Chubb &
Moe, 1990) as well as receive higher instructional quality (Gamoran, 1992; Gamoran, 1987;
Gamoran, 1986). Many researchers conclude that educational contexts provide students with
stratified socialization toward higher or lower status positions (e.g. Nesbit, 2006; Thomas &
Moran, 1988; Rosenbaum, 1975), which cause them to form socioeconomically-influenced
attitudes and perceptions (for further discussion see for example Kalmijn and Kraaykamp, 2007;
Grodsky & Jones, 2007).
Bowles and Gintis (1976) relate social class backgrounds to types of reward structures,
finding evidence that teachers reward youth for traits and behaviors that correspond to various
occupational tracks. Children of working class parents are rewarded for obedience and
conformity to predetermined rules, while professional class are rewarded for being assertive and
initiating discussions. Bernstein (1971) finds that parental socialization patterns result from
differing levels of education in which distinct styles of speech are rewarded, such that working
class families speak in concrete and relatively simple language structures that focus on position
orientations while middle class families speak in elaborate and abstract language structures that
focus on person orientations. Anyon (1980; 1981) investigated elementary school teacher
practices and found that teachers in schools located in working-class communities assigned work
that focused on mechanical and unexplained routine tasks. Middle-class school teachers taught
children how to put in their own words the rules outlined by externally created textbooks.
Professional-class located school teachers geared assignments to children’s interests, inviting
their participation in creating lessons. Executive schools developed intellectual capabilities.
Numerous studies find connections between quality-of-educational settings and
residential socioeconomic spatial patterns (e.g. Ainsworth & Roscigno, 2005). For example,
Roscigno, Tomaskovic-Devey, and Crowley (2006) argue that schools are located in places that
7
vary by local opportunity structures. Rather than examining only the structural data typically
available on socioeconomic status, they give credence to the subjective experience of
socioeconomic environments by using subjective measures to explore educational outcomes in
relation to perceptions of community status. They find that schools are spatially stratified in the
quality of education they are able to provide.
Socioeconomic Reproduction of Religious Settings?
Despite the prevalence of research examining disparities in socialization patterns of
familial and educational social settings, research examining the relationship of social
stratification to religious-based youth programming is scarce to non-existent. The mere fact that
more than half of American youth participate in religious youth groups at some point during their
pre-adult years (Smith, 2003) indicates the need for sociological research to examine the
relationship between socioeconomic status and socialization in religious settings. Yet the
sociology of religion literature has not examined the role of socioeconomic inequality in
religious youth programs. The closest it comes to addressing this is one study that examines rates
of participation in religious activities based on socioeconomic backgrounds of youth (Schwadel,
2008), and one study that examines the role of pastoral education background in hiring patterns
(Perl & Chang, 2000). However, even these studies do not directly address potential cultural
differences in religious youth socialization driven by inequality. Instead, most of the literature
focuses only on denominational affiliation as the key variable (e.g. Goreham, 2004; Dean &
Yost, 1991; Hoge et. al., 1982).
Other than some dated speculation about the socioeconomic socialization connection
(Campolo, 1989), the literatures examining youth religiosity within the fields of sociology,
psychology, or youth ministry do not examine the role that socioeconomic status might play in
the type of programming and socialization provided to youth within religious congregations (e.g.
8
Larson, Hansen & Moneta, 2006; King & Farrow, 2004; O'Connor, Hoge & Alexander, 2002;
Roehlkepartain & Scales, 1995; Erickson, 1992; Chromey, 1990). In the literature on attitudes,
beliefs, and practices of youth ministers (e.g. Lambert, 2004; Strommen, Jones, & Rahn, 2001;
Hoge et. al., 1982), we see a lack of attention to the socioeconomic status context of religious
congregations. Nor does the social stratification literature seriously examine the role of religious
contexts in youth socialization. This is surprising, given that religious congregations are a
primary site of community life in the U. S. (Putnam, 2000), and extensive literature exists
regarding differential socioeconomic status socialization patterns in other primary social settings.
DATA AND METHODS
Defining Community Context
To address this lack of attention to social inequality in religious youth socialization, the
educational and familial settings literatures indicate it is necessary to examine the role of
neighborhood and community contexts. Studying a social phenomenon within a geographic
context is something that originated within sociology primarily via the researchers of the original
Chicago school through their extensive use of maps and conceptualization of social phenomenon
as located concentrations (Bulmer, 1984; Faris, 1967). Park and Burgess (1921) described
community contexts as exerting influences upon residents, net of their individual characteristics.
Researchers generally agree that socioeconomic divides exist in spatial configurations, resulting
in inferior outcomes for disadvantaged geographical areas (e.g. Acevedo-Garcia et. al 2003;
Cutler & Claeser, 1997). However, disagreements exist in nearly every other component of
investigation in this area, including confusions about even basic terminology of segregated
neighborhoods, concentrated poverty, inner-city areas, urban underclass, and ghettos (e.g.
Sampson, Morenoff & Gannon-Rowley, 2002; Massey & Denton, 1993; Wilson, 1999).
9
Though many researchers agree on the importance of examining neighborhood effects on
a host of social outcomes, there is no consensus at this point on how to best operationalize
neighborhoods and communities in a way that adequately represents the lived experiences of
neighborhood boundaries for people living in the areas but also connects adequately to the data
available to perform the desired analyses (Jarrett, 2000). The existing literature examining this
topic has focused primarily on analyses using aggregated Census data (Sampson, Morenoff, &
Gannon-Rowley, 2002). Yet even those who analyze Census data disagree about what level of
unit to use – tract, postal code, or block (Lee et. al, 2008). This is primarily because geographic
units need to be tailored to the context under investigation (Ross et. al, 2004). In addition, though
many neighborhood-effects researchers acknowledge selection bias complications, they tend to
disagree about the extent of the problem, or even whether or not they actually present a problem
or should be studied as an important component of investigation in this area (e.g. Clampet-
Lundquist & Massey, 2008; Ludwig et. al, 2008; Sampson, 2008). There is also no readily
available model within this literature for how to examine neighborhood effects on
organizational-level data, such as on religious congregations.
Despite these complications, we can glean some coherence for an approach to analyzing
socioeconomic neighborhood relationships to religious congregation youth socialization. First,
geographic space is socioeconomically complex, requiring analyses based on theoretically-
grounded assumptions rather than easily accessible data (Campbell, 2000). Second,
socioeconomic status is embedded in spatially-related patterns, and perceptions about
community characteristics, or feelings of “collective efficacy” and social cohesion, are a primary
mechanism through which contexts influence outcomes (Ross, Mirowksy, & Pribesh, 2001;
Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Third, the face-validity issues in macro-level, aggregated
neighborhood data imply the need for locally-focused and subjectively geographically-oriented
10
studies that have the ability to investigate contextual effects in greater detail, by employing
qualitative data on perceptions of community contexts (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004; Jarrett,
2000). Finally, the combination of literatures on neighborhood and community contextual
effects, and socioeconomic reproduction via differential socialization patterns in familial and
educational settings, together arguably indicate the importance of examining the socioeconomic
context of religious settings as related to their youth socialization patterns.
Northern Indiana Congregation Study
I analyze data from the Northern Indiana Congregation Study (NICS). NICS consists of:
(1) a phone survey census of all congregations (N=272) located within the boundaries of three
mid-sized contiguous cities in northern Indiana, with a 98.9 percent response rate, (2) in-person
interviews with 42 youth ministers, 40 of whom were stratified-quota sampled from the 177
congregations who reported having organized youth groups in the phone survey and two of
whom were added in to the sample due to their role as youth ministers for two local “para-
churches,” or religious organizations not located within any specific congregation or
denomination; and (3) U.S. Census data linked to the location of the religious congregation. See
Snell et al. (2009) for further methodological detail.
The phone survey was completed with a 98.9 percent response rate via repeated contact
attempts, including visiting initial non-responding congregations onsite to complete the survey.
The survey consisted of 40 questions about characteristics of the congregation. We then
combined collected data with Census (2000) data on the area by linking the postal code for the
congregation. The postal-code area was used to represent the geographic context of religious
congregations. As discussed further below, we determined that for purposes of this study the
postal code of the religious congregation well represented community context.
11
The in-person interview guide consisted of 32-questions, with suggested follow-up
probes, on topics such as youth minister perceptions of the community, youth generally, youth
within their congregation, activities provided for youth at their congregation, purposes and goals
of their youth ministry program, enjoyable and disliked elements of their work, and visions for
the future of their youth program. We stratified-quota sampled the interview participants to
achieve a full distribution of geographical, congregational, youth group, and youth minister
characteristics, and the present analysis focuses specifically on the 40 interviews with youth
ministers based in religious congregations. Table 1 represents the youth minister stratification
criteria.
[Table 1 About Here]
One of the most telling findings of this research project derives from youth minister
responses to the question: “What would you say are the general goals and objectives of the youth
program? In other words, if you had to say after teenagers at our [church/congregation] have
finished our youth program, I would like them to be…x, y, or z. what would you say?” This
question is the primary basis of the analysis presented here, which employs an inductive coding
scheme with the interview data, revealing the existence of four youth group categories. After
systematically coding transcribed responses to this purpose and goals question, I labeled the
responses as falling into one of the following four types of youth groups: Moral Character,
Divine Relationship, Congregant Relationship, and Critical Thinker. This typology incorporates
the clustering of a set of keywords and statements described in further detail below.
RESULTS
Youth group socialization styles tend to fall into one of four main youth group categories:
Moral Character, Divine Relationship, Congregant Relationship, and Critical Thinker. Moral
Character groups tend to provide practical directives aimed at changing skills and behavior.
12
Divine Relationship groups provide meaning and purpose by connecting youth to the sacred via
divine relationships. Congregant Relationship groups tend to see youth as primarily needing a
place to connect and be in relationship with other congregants. Finally, Critical Thinker groups
focus on developing critical and cognitive understandings of their faith teachings.
Moral Character Youth Groups
In the first of the youth group types, which I label “Moral Character” youth groups, youth
ministry purposes and goals were desiring to develop in youth strong moral characters by
developing specific skills and behaviors. In focusing on specific skills and behavior, these youth
groups had an essentially practical nature, as evidenced by this youth minister statement: “We
basically try to teach them stuff that they can use in life.” Youth ministers in this category
described youth group as a place to provide training focused on teaching youth moral and
practical skills and behaviors. Typical activities provided by groups in this category were
teaching computer skills, providing tutoring for school, and giving behavioral advice for staying
out of fights and staying in school. One youth minister stated, “The general goal is to move them
from an emotionally controlled behavior, to more of a factual controlled behavior.” The Moral
Character groups were characterized by a focus on controlled behaviors.
The main focus of these youth groups was to show youth how to make good choices in
their lives. One youth minister stated, “First and foremost, I would want them to choose good
things for their lives. You can make so many bad decisions, but hopefully I have instilled in them
the fact that you can be cool and still choose to do right things.” The idea seems to be to teach
youth basic skills as a means to help them become moral citizens. Another youth minister
described, “Our goal is to teach them how to be good citizens in their community. That is the big
thing, getting them to be people of character.” Thus, the Moral Character youth group type is
reflected by youth ministers who describe a primarily practical orientation to teaching skills and
13
behaviors that show youth how to act out their faith teachings as moral citizens by upholding
their responsibilities to society. I categorized youth groups as Moral Character when the youth
ministers stated keywords and phrases such as “skills and behavior,” “good moral characters,”
“citizens,” “useful,” “meet their needs,” “function,” “moral examples.”
Divine Relationship Youth Groups
The second youth group type I label “Divine Relationship” youth groups. The purpose
and goal of these groups is to provide the means for youth to experience relationships with God
and/or Jesus/Christ.i One youth minister stated, “For them to accept Christ on their own – that is
our main goal.” Another describes, “I would say the goal is to have a personal relationship with
Jesus, to listen, to worship Him, and to learn more about Him.” The goal of the youth group is to
teach teenagers about this relationship so that youth can come into a meaningful relationship
with the divine. One youth minister stated, “I would like them to become aware of God’s love,
and I would like for them to examine more how God’s love plays into their lives. If we give them
any insight into a God that loves them so desperately, then we have done our job.”
The goal as stated by one youth minister in this category is: “to bring the youth to a
knowledge of Jesus Christ and to provide meaningful experiences that would help them grow
towards being a well-rounded person in society.” The focus, as well as the means for achieving
the goal, is distinctly related to an emphasis on the relationship with the divine, not acquiring
moral and practical skills. As one youth minister stated, the goal is to make youth be “more
conscious of their individual relationships with God.” Another described, “After teenagers in our
church have finished here, I want them to be in love with Jesus and this church. And I want them
to live out of that love relationship. That is what I want, real simple.” Thus, the youth ministers
in this category see themselves as helping to make youth more aware of their relationship to God
as the primary means of achieving other desired outcomes for youth. Thus, youth ministers in the
14
Divine Relationship youth group types focus on making youth aware of their relationship with
the divine. I categorized youth groups into this type when interview responses to the purposes
and goals question emphasized keywords and phrases such as “relationship to God/Jesus,” “feel
loved by God,” or “communicate with God” as the primary focus.
Congregant Relationship Youth Groups
The third youth group type, “Congregant Relationship” youth groups, is related to the
second but shares some distinct characteristics warranting a separate category. Congregant
Relationship youth groups also describe forming relationships as one of their primary goals, but
they differ in emphasizing interpersonal relationships with people within the congregations as the
primary means of achieving the goal. One youth minister stated, “I would like for them to find a
church community and to be a part of that.” Another said, “We want them to develop good, godly
relationships with others.” This quote demonstrates the crucial shift to focusing more on
relationships with other people as the means of participating in a relationship to the divine.
The goal for these groups is encouraging youth to participate in relationships with other
congregants and congregation leaders. One of the primary means through which this is desired is
for youth to experience a relationship with the youth minister. As one youth minister stated, “So,
[I want to be] having that direct impact on the kids, since I know every one of them, and getting
to know them and encouraging them.” Another said, “If they can see that you like them, that you
really care about them, that you are open to them, and not just there to form them, to remake
them into your own image, or that kind of thing – I have rarely met a teen that did not respond.
They hunger for that kind of intimacy.” In this sense, this group of youth ministers sometimes
even articulate their distinctness from the Moral Character youth groups described earlier by
stating specifically that their goal is not to shape them into their own image by having behaviors
reflecting external standards, but rather to connect with them in a personal and intimate bond.
15
Thus, the goal of the youth minister is to create a relationship with youth, to relate in a mutually-
engaging connection. I categorized youth groups into this type when youth ministers stated
keywords and phrases such as “relationship with me,” “relationships with each other,” “buddies,”
“friends,” and “making contact in the community here.”
Critical Thinker Youth Groups
The final youth group type I label “Critical Thinker” youth groups. These groups are
characterized by a focus on youth cognitively understanding, comprehending, and asking
challenging questions of their faith. One youth minister stated, “Understanding their faith is
probably number one; it is making sure that they understand who they are and their responsibility
within the community.” For these youth ministers it is central to their work that youth be able to
articulate their personal faith beliefs to the youth minister as well as to others in their lives.
Another described the purpose of participation this way: “I would say that they would be able to
defend their faith and be able to share with others the gospel of Jesus Christ and also understand
what it means to be an adult, even though they are not there yet.” These youth ministers describe
their focus as teaching youth to ask questions to engage in deeply thinking about their faith.
Another common theme is youth establishing a deeper foundation for their faith and
congregational commitment. One youth minister stated the goal is to “grow in faith, become
good members. We want kids to plug into a congregation, to stop shifting around and grow roots
in a church.” This theme of tree and plant metaphors is common across this group of youth
ministers, and they often use the language of growing roots downward and sprouting upward to
describe their aims. This foundation and upward growing image is typified by a quote from one
who stated that the goal is to “help them develop a foundation that enables them to grow
spiritually as they go on into the future.” The idea is that youth asking challenging questions of
their faith will both aid their faith in growing deeper, as in sinking stronger roots in their
16
foundation, as well as growing upward and outward, as in allowing them to articulate their faith
more broadly. I categorized youth groups into this type when youth ministers stated keywords
and phrases such as “know how to talk about their faith,” “have knowledge,” “ask questions,”
“challenge,” “grow,” “think,” and “make decisions.”
In summary, the typology consists of four categories of youth leader specified purposes
and goals: Moral Character, Divine Relationship, Congregant Relationship, and Critical Thinker.
These four youth group types can be thought of under a cross classification system of types of
skills ranging from interpersonal to moral and cognitive, crossed with religious orientation to the
this-worldly or mundane and the other-worldly or spiritual. Figure 1 represents this cross
classification scheme showing that Moral Character and Congregant Relationship groups share
in common their focus on this-worldly aspects of their faith, while Divine Relationship and
Critical Thinker focus on other-worldly aspects. Though for different outcomes, a focus on
interpersonal skills is shared by both Divine Relationship and Congregant Relationship groups,
while a focus on moral/cognitive skills is shared by Critical Thinker and Moral Character groups.
[Figure 1 About Here]
Spatial Inequality
Throughout the course of interviewing, it was apparent that these youth group types were
not evenly distributed geographically. Congregational location is the main characteristic, among
all of the measured congregational and youth minister characteristics, that reveals a patterned
association with the described purpose and goals reported by each type of youth group. The three
cities that the NICS studied compromise high levels of socioeconomic inequality that are clearly
differentiated spatially by segregated geographical location. Figure 2 displays three maps of
Census data that demonstrate the extent to which the three contiguous cities show economic and
racial spatial stratification by postal code location. In the top map, the layout of the average
17
annual household income shows the concentration of wealth ($80,000-$100,000) in the suburb
located in the upper northeast corner of the map. The next shade gradient, directly north and
south of the inner-city, constitutes postal codes with an average household income of $40,000-
$80,000. Following those are the $20,000-$40,000 average household earnings postal codes
located to the east and west of the inner-city. The lowest average annual income postal codes are
located in the center of the map with an average of $0-$20,000. This pattern is nearly reversed in
the middle map displaying percent of population below poverty. The highest concentration of
poverty (31-40 percent) is located in the center of the map, with the area slightly northeast
showing a concentration of 21-30 percent. Spreading outward from center are postal codes with
11-20 percent below poverty level. The lowest concentration of poverty (0-5 percent) is located
in the northeast corner.
[Figure 2 About Here]
The degree of racial spatial stratification in the area is displayed in the bottom map. This
shows the extent to which the postal codes located in the northern, southern, and eastern outskirts
of the area are almost entirely majority white, with a less than 10 percent combined minority
population. The minority concentration increases moving to the west and center of the map, with
the highest minority concentration located in the center and due west of center postal codes.
These two areas, as well as the areas due northwest, have a majority black population, and the
nearly linear strip located directly south represents a significant Hispanic concentration. These
maps depict the extent to which income, poverty status, and race and ethnicity are significantly
concentrated unevenly throughout the area.
Place Socioeconomic Status
To represent these socioeconomic geographical concentrations, I created an ordinal
variable using a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures of socioeconomic status
18
location based on geographical, Census, and qualitative interview data. Because the variable is
used to represent both geographical location and concentrations of socioeconomic status , I label
it “placeSES,” and label the four ordinal categories as “low,” “mid-low,” “mid-high,” and “high.”
I created this variable by aggregating sets of postal codes, using geographic location as well as
socioeconomic data compiled from a number of U.S. census variables, including concentration
of income/poverty, education level, occupation types, race and ethnicity, population density,
family size, and housing units owned or rented. Thus, this variable represents a merger of both
geographically nested configurations of interaction, and socioeconomic status.
The variable is constructed using the geographical location of the congregation within the
three contiguous cities by aggregating postal codes based on regional distinctions of central,
north, south, east and west and also accounts for a number of quantitative Census variables. I
grouped postal codes into each of these four categories based on both their regional location and
their combination of Census data, relying primarily on concentrations of income and poverty
levels, types of occupation, educational degrees, and race and ethnicities. Thus, the low
placeSES grouping has the lowest average household income, highest average percent below
poverty, lowest average educational degrees, highest percent minority race and ethnicity, and
highest percentages in manual labor and production occupations. All these measurers move
progressively higher (e.g. income) or lower (e.g. poverty level) spanning from mid-low to mid-
high, with the occupations shifting to predominantly service, sales, and management positions.
The validity of this construction is reinforced by an analysis of the youth minter
perceptions of community context divided across the placeSES categories. When asked about
their impression of the local community, low-placeSES based youth ministers made comments
such as “I think there is a real caste system in this area depending on where you live” and “I
think there are real communities of need, and the distribution of wealth is at least in some areas
19
deprived.” They offered lists of problems, including a lack of jobs, vacant houses, homelessness,
drunks wandering the streets, a poor school system, community disconnects and divisions. The
youth ministers based in the mid-low placeSES areas mentioned a number of similar problems
but were more likely to describe some opportunities as well. As one youth minister described, “It
is a good community life, but you can tell that if things don’t start to change right now it could
get worse” (180). In the mid-high located congregations, youth ministers were more likely to
describe the community as one with a number of positives and saw the few negatives as, “similar
to any other city.” They described “two kinds of distinct communities” and “a huge difference in
economical status of people living here.” The youth ministers based in high placeSES locations
rarely mentioned any problems in their communities. In one youth minister interview, after a
long string of positives mentioned about the community, the interviewer asked “Do you sense
there are any problems?” The youth minister replied, “No, not that I am aware of.” The youth
ministers in high placeSES areas described the community as “having a lot to offer,” and made
comments such as “it is a nice little town. It’s homey.” Thus, the community perceptions split
across the four placeSES areas, falling into the general categories from low to high, of describing
the community as in crisis and suffering, a mixed bag of problems and opportunities, having
problems no different than any other city, and generally not a place with major problems
Socialization Pattern of Socioeconomic Status
The placeSES categorization represents geographic and socioeconomic information of
the area, and has the face validity of differences in youth minister conceptions of their
community context and youth based in each area. Analyzing youth groups across this placeSES
variable demonstrates a non-random distribution of youth minister described purposes and goals
of youth group by congregational location. Figure 3 shows the breakdown of four youth group
types as a function of their placeSES categorization. This chart shows how the pattern of Moral
20
Character, Divine Relationship, Congregant Relationship, and Critical Thinker youth groups
move across the placeSES categories from low to high. The Moral Character youth groups are
predominant in low and mid-low placeSES locations, Divine Relationship primarily in low and
mid-low, Congregant Relationship nearly exclusively in mid-high, and Critical Thinker nearly
exclusively in high. The Pearson chi-squared statistic for this relationship is 55.8, significant at a
0.001 level. Due to the relatively small sample size, I also ran a Fischer’s exact test, which also
returned a 0.001 significance level.
[Figure 3 About Here]
The youth group types listed in Figure 4 are dispersed across denomination type and
youth minister gender and educational background. Religious congregations with each of the
youth group types are composed of a number of each of the religious tradition types, as defined
by Steensland et al. (2000) and each of the four youth group types are led by youth ministers
with educational backgrounds ranging from high school degrees to doctoral degrees with the vast
majority of any type having bachelors or masters degrees. These alternative explanations (youth
group types, congregational denomination, youth minister education level, and youth minister
gender) are all not statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
Thus, the analysis reveals a significant relationship between the community
socioeconomic context of the religious congregations and their youth socialization efforts to such
an extent that a simplified version of the typologies can be thought of as low placeSES based
youth groups roughly equaling the Moral Character type. This is exemplified by the following
Moral Character type and low placeSES based youth minister statement:
We train people to function. In other words, ‘just reproduce after what I taught
you,’ that is what we are endeavored to do. I can even get the teenagers to
understand what I am teaching. I teach it simple enough that an uneducated
person or a young person can comprehend what I am teaching.
21
The relationship between the typology and placeSES location is not perfectly matched, and there
are some discrepancies and exceptions. However, even some of the apparent discrepancies to the
larger pattern show evidence of the pattern itself, as the youth minister quotes that show a
mixture of different types of stated purposes and goals are roughly correlated with the location of
the congregation in the intersection of placeSES categories.
Nevertheless, moving near to the center of the mid-low placeSES areas, even across the
different denomination types and youth minister characteristics, shifts us toward Divine
Relationship youth minister discourse. Youth ministers in these areas make statements such as, “I
would say basically I just want them to have a closer relationship with Christ and with the
church, period. And all of these things that we do – the prayer, the fellowship, the service – those
are ways to accomplish that goal.” The center of the mid-high placeSES location, also containing
congregations and youth ministers of diverse traditions and backgrounds, reveals the same
consistency in youth minister statements typifying the Congregant Relationship youth groups.
“Youth group just gives the kids another adult who is in their life. I am in their life, and this other
person will be in their life. And so there are two adults outside of the family that they can talk to,
vent to, help with.” There is also a clear distinction of high placeSES located youth ministers
articulating Critical Thinker youth group purposes and goals. “We feel like everything is a step
by step process and whatever your next step is, it is for you to make the next right choice. And
we want our kids to know how to do that and to be equipped to make those tough choices.” This
evidence indicates that there is a significant relationship between socioeconomic community
context and youth-minister articulated purposes and goals, such that the type of religious youth
socialization available in each area moves across the continuum of typological purposes and
goals. In short, the spatial location of religious congregations is significantly related to the youth
ministry vision and programming intentions of those congregations.
22
DISCUSSION
This analysis provides evidence that the pattern of inequality in religious settings mirrors
previous findings in educational and familial settings, finding a socioeconomic-contextual
pattern to youth socialization. The socioeconomic status location of the religious congregation is
significantly correlated with the type of intended religious youth socialization. A significant
relationship exists between the spatial stratification pattern of socioeconomic inequality and
youth socialization styles of religious settings. The distinctions in available activities and
socialization styles are likely to result in long-term differences for participating youth. Though
this study does not specifically examine the next link in the chain between socialization styles
and social reproduction, the current analysis supports the idea that youth may experience
differential access to occupational and other life skills via their religious youth group
participation. The youth ministers are structuring their youth groups to try to aid participating
youth in the way they think will be best for them, and this likely even results in short-term gains,
such as better behaviors in school for low-income based youth participators or more relationships
for mid-high based youth participators. However, there is clearly a possibility that these short-
term gains may lead to long-term differences in educational and occupational outcomes.
Drawing on studies in other settings, it is likely that a focus on obedience and
performance of specific skills and behaviors will support the low-skilled training preparation that
low-income youth receive at home and at school. Mid-low based youth programming could lead
youth to withdraw from this-worldly concerns such as better grades or higher wages, while mid-
high based youth programming prepares youth to engage in this-worldly activities, especially
with the adults in their surroundings. This may have the long-term benefit of teaching youth to
create change within systems and work toward improvement by engaging their peers, colleagues,
and future supervisors. Youth programming in high located congregations may provide youth
23
with long-term preparation to become critical thinkers in school and work places, with practice
engaging big-picture questions and thinking innovatively about information. This may support
parental and educational training to become leaders of organizations and gear participating youth
toward higher socioeconomic status positions.
The findings of this investigation provide evidence of spatially stratified religious youth
socialization that warrants further investigation. Differences in socialization style available in
affluent- to poverty-concentrated areas unintentionally reproduce socioeconomic inequality. This
is especially true insofar as we can assume that youth in lower socioeconomic areas would be
least likely to be able to participate in congregations in other areas, and therefore would be most
susceptible to potentially inequality-reproducing spatial stratification patterns. Therefore, this
study extends social inequality literature by identifying religious youth groups as another
potential mechanism of socioeconomic inequality reproduction.
24
REFERENCES
Ainsworth, J. W., & Roscigno, V. J. (2005). “Stratification, school-work linkages and vocational
education.” Social Forces, 84, 257-284.
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educational reform. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Anyon, J. (1981). “Social class and school knowledge.” Curriculum Inquiry, 11, 3-42.
Anyon, J. (1980). “Social class and the hidden curriculum of work.” Journal of Education, 162,
67-92.
Acevedo-Garcia, D., Lochner, K. A., Osypuk, T. L. & Subramanian, S. V. (2003). “Future
directions in residential segregation and health research: A multilevel approach.”
American Journal of Public Health, 93, 215–21.
Bernstein, B. (1971). Class, codes and control: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of
language. Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist America. Educational reform and the
contradictions of economic life. BasicBooks.
Bulmer, M. (1984). The Chicago school of sociology: Institutionalization, diversity, and the rise
of sociological research. University of Chicago Press.
Campbell, C. D. (2000). Social structure, space, and sentiment: Searching for common ground in
sociological conceptions of community. In D. A. Chekki, Community structure and
dynamics at the dawn of the new millennium. Stamford, CN: JAI Press Inc.
Campolo, A. (1989). Growing up in America: A sociology of youth ministry. Zondervan
Publishing House.
Chromey, R. (1990). Youth ministry in small churches. Group Books.
25
Chubb, J. & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Brookings Institution.
Clampet-Lundquist, S., &Massey, D. M. (2008). “Neighborhood effects on economic self-
sufficiency: A reconsideration of the moving to opportunity experiment.” American
Journal of Sociology, 114, 107-143.
Crosnoe, R. & Huston, A. C.. (2007). “Socioeconomic Status, Schooling, and the Developmental
Trajectories of Adolescents.” Developmental Psychology, 43, 1097-1110.
Cutler, D. M. & Glaeser, E. L.. 1997. “Are ghettos good or bad?” Quarterly Journal of
Economics, 112, 827–72.
Dean, K. C. & Yost, P. (1991). “A synthesis of the research on, and a descriptive overview of
Protestant, Catholic, and Jewish religious youth programs in the United States.” Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development, Washington, DC.
Edin, K. & Kefalas, M. (2005). Promises I can keep: Why poor women put motherhood before
marriage. University of California Press.
Entwisle, D., Alexander, K. & Olson, L. (1997). Children, schools and inequality. Westview
Press.
Erickson, J. A. (1992). “Adolescent religious development and commitment: A structural
equation model of the role of family, peer group, and educational influences.” Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 31, 131-152.
Faris, R. E. (1967). Chicago sociology 1920-1932. Chandler Publishing Co.
Gamoran, A. (1992). "The variable effects of high school tracking." American Sociological
Review, 57, 812-28.
Gamoran, A. (1987). "The stratification of high school learning opportunities." Sociology of
Education, 60, 135-55.
26
Gamoran, A. (1986). "Institutional and instructional effects of ability grouping." Sociology of
Education, 59, 85-98.
Garbarino, J., Bradshaw, C. P., & Kostelny, K. (2005). “Neighborhood and community
influences on parenting.” In Tom Luster and Lynn Okagaki (Eds.), Parenting: An
ecological perspective (2nd ed). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Garcia-Coll, C., & Pachter, L. M. (2002). “Ethic and minority parenting. In Marc H. Bornstein
(Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4. Social conditions and applied parenting. Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Goreham, Gary A. (2004). “Denominational comparison of rural youth ministry programs.”
Review of Religious Research, 45, 336-348.
Grodsky, Eric, and Melanie T. Jones. (2007). “Real and imagined barriers to college entry:
Perceptions of cost.” Social Science Research, 36, 745-766.
Hoge, D. R., Heffernan, E., Hemrick, E., Nelsen, H. M., O’Connor, J. P, Philibert, P. J., &
Thompson, A. D. (1982). “Desired outcomes of religious education and youth ministry in
six denominations.” Review of Religious Research, 23, 230-254.
Janoski, T. & J. Wilson. (1995). “Pathways to voluntarism: Family socialization and status
transmission models.” Social Forces, 74, 271-292.
Jarrett, R. L. (2000). “Neighborhood effects models: A view from the neighborhood.” In Dan A.
Chekki (Ed.) Research in community sociology Vol. 10: Community structure and
dynamics at the dawn of the new millennium. Jai Press Inc.
Kahlenberg, R. (2001). All together now: Creating middle class schools through public school
choice. Brookings Institution Press.
27
Kalmijn, M., & Kraaykamp, G. (2007). “Social stratification and attitudes: a comparative
analysis of the effects of class and education in Europe.” British Journal of Sociology, 58,
547-576.
King, P. E., & Farrow, J. L. (2004). “Religion as a resource for positive youth development:
Religion, social capital, and moral outcomes.” Developmental Psychology, 40, 703-713.
Kohn, M. L. (1963). “Social class and parent-child relationships: An interpretation.” American
Journal of Sociology, 68, 471-480.
Lambert, D. (2004). “Determining research needs in North American Christian youth ministry: A
Delphi study.” The Journal of Youth Ministry, 3, 65-96.
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. University of California
Press.
Lareau, A. (2000). “Social class and the daily lives of children: A study from the United States.”
Childhood, 7, 155-171.
Larson, R. W., Hansen, D. M., & Moneta, G. (2006). “Differing profiles of developmental
experiences across types of organized youth activities.” Developmental Psychology, 42,
849-863.
Lee, B. A., Reardon, S. F., Firebaugh, G. Farrell, C. R., Matthews, S. A. & O’Sullivan, D. (2008).
“Beyond the Census tract: Patterns and determinants of racial segregation at multiple
geographic scales.” American Sociological Review, 73, 766-791.
Ludwig, J., Liebman, J. B., Kling, J. R., Duncan, G. J., Katz, L. F., Kessler, R. C. &
Sanbonmatsu, L. (2008). “What can we learn about neighborhood effects from the
moving to opportunity experiment?.” American Journal of Sociology, 114, 144-188.
Massy, D. S. & Denton, N. A. (1993). American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the
underclass. Harvard University Press.
28
Nesbit, T. (2006). “What’s the matter with social class?” Adult Education Quarterly, 56, 171-
187.
O'Connor, T. P., Hoge, D. R. & Alexander, E. (2002). “The relative influence of youth and adult
experiences on personal spirituality and church involvement.” Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion, 41, 723-732.
Northern Indiana Congregation Study. (2007). Principal Investigator: Patricia Snell, Co-
Investigators: Christian Smith, Kari Christoffersen, and Carlos Tavares. Center for the
Study of Religion & Society, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN.
Parcel, T. L., & Dufur, M. J. (2001). “Capital at home and at school: Effects on student
achievement.” Social Forces, 79, 881-911.
Park, R. & Burgess, E. (1921). Introduction to the science of sociology. University of Chicago
Press.
Perl, P., & Chang, P. M. Y. (2000). “Credentialism across creeds: Clergy education and
stratification in Protestant denominations.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
39, 171.
Plantin, L. (2007). “Different Classes, Different Fathers?” Community, Work & Family, 10, 93-
110.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
Simon & Schuster.
Roche, K. M., Ensminger, M. E. & Cherlin, A. J. (2007). “Variations in parenting and adolescent
outcomes among African American and Latino families living in low-income, urban
areas.” Journal of Family Issues, 28, 882-909.
Roehlkepartain, E. C. & Scales, P. C. (1995). Youth development in congregations: An
exploration of the potential and barriers. Search Institute.
29
Roscigno, V. J., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., & Crowley, M. L. (2006). “Education and the
inequalities of place.” Social Forces, 84, 2121-2145.
Rosenbaum, J. E. (1975). “The stratification of socialization processes.” American Sociological
Review, 40, 48-54.
Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J. & Pribesh, S. (2001). “Powerlessness and the amplification of threat:
Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust.” American Sociological Review, 66,
568-591.
Ross, N. A., Houle, C. Dunn, J. R. & Aye, M. (2004). “Dimensions and dynamics of residential
segregation by income in urban Canada, 1991-1996.” The Canadian Geographer/Le
Geographe canadien, 48, 433-445.
Rubin, L. B. (1976). Worlds of pain: Life in the working-class family. Basic Books.
Sampson, R. J. (2008). “Moving to inequality: Neighborhood effects and experiments meet
social structure.” American Journal of Sociology, 114, 189-231.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D. & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). “Assessing neighborhood effects:
Social processes and new directions in research.” Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 443-
478.
Sampson, R. J., and Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). “Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the
social construction of broken windows.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 319-342.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W. & Earls, F. (1997). “Neighborhoods and violent crime: A
multilevel study of collective efficacy.” Science, 277, 918.
Saporito, S. & Sohoni, D. (2007). Mapping educational inequality: Concentrations of poverty
among poor and minority students in public schools. Social Forces 85(3): 1227-1253.
Schwadel, P. (2008). “Poor teenagers’ religion.” Sociology of Religion, 69, 125-149.
30
Smith, C. (2003). “Religious participation and parental moral expectations and supervision of
American youth.” Review of Religious Research, 44, 414-424.
Snell, P., Smith, C., Tavares, C. & Christoffersen, K. (2009). “Denominational differences in
congregational youth ministry programming and evidence of systematic non-response
biases.” Review of Religious Research, 51, 21-38.
Steensland, B., Park, J. Z., Regners, M. D., Robinson, L. D., Wilcox, B., & Woodberry, R. D.
(2000). “The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art.”
Social Forces, 79, 291-318.
Strommen, M., Jones, K. & Rahn, D. (2001). Youth ministry that transforms:
A comprehensive analysis of the hopes, frustrations, and effectiveness of today's youth
workers. Zondervan/Youth Specialties.
Thomas, W. B., & Moran, K. J. (1988). “Social stratification of school knowledge in character
training programs of South Buffalo, New York, 1918-1932.” Journal of Education, 170,
77.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. Zip code tabulation areas for Indiana in 2000.
ZCTA_USCB_2000_IN, 1:100,000, Polygon Shapefile, by Chris Dintaman, 2003.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. American Factfinder. Decennial Census 2000. ONLINE. 2000.
Census Bureau. Available: http://factfinder.Census.gov.
Wilson, W. J. (1999). “When work disappears: New implications for race and urban poverty in
the global economy.” Ethnic & Racial Studies, 22, 479-499.
31
Table 1. Youth Minister Sample Characteristics
Youth & Youth Leader Data # % Congregational Data # %
Youth Attendance Congregation Size
1-10 6 15 Very Small (0-75) 6 15
11-25 16 40 Small (76-150) 11 28
26-100+ 18 35 Medium (151-470) 9 23
Youth Group Attendance Large (471-1199) 6 15
1-10 8 21 Very Large (1200+) 8 20
11-25 18 45 Denomination Types
26-100+ 14 35 Catholic/Orthodox 8 20
Volunteer Youth Leader Conservative Protestant 10 25
None 11 28 Black Protestant 9 25
One 2 5 Mainline Protestant 10 23
Two 4 10 Non-Christian 3 8
Three or More 23 58 Majority Race/Ethnicity
Paid Part-time Youth Leader White 29 73
None 29 73 Black 9 23
One 9 23 Hispanic 2 5
Two 1 3 Multiracial Congregation 9 23
Three or More 1 3 2nd Racial Group
Paid Full-time Youth Leader White 3 33
None 25 63 Black 4 44
One 14 35 Hispanic 1 11
Two 0 0 Other 1 11
Three or More 1 3 Budget Per Person
Youth Leader Gender $0-1,000 13 33
Male 26 65 $1,001-2,000 13 33
Female 14 35 $2,000-3,000+ 4 10
Youth Leader Education Don't Know / Refused 10 25
High School or GED 3 8 Initial Non-response
Bachelors 21 53 Phone 36 90
Masters 14 35 Onsite/Phone after onsite 4 10
Doctorate 2 5 N 40 100
Source: Northern Indiana Congregation Study (NICS) 2007.
32
Figure 1. Youth Group Typology Cross Classification by Spiritual/Mundane and Type of Skills
33
Figure 2. Census Data Maps
Top: Avg. Annual Household Income By Postal Code.
Middle: Percent Below Poverty Line By Postal Code.
Bottom: Percent of Population Racial Minority By Postal Code.
Source: Northern Indiana Congregation Study 2007 and U.S. Census Bureau 2000.
34
Figure 3. Youth Minister Interview Counts by Youth Group Typology and PlaceSES
35
i Not all of the religious congregations we interviewed were Christian, but as Christian denominations are the predominant
dominations in the area they also represent the predominant youth minister statements quoted and therefore there are a
number of statements that include references to the divine named as Christ or Jesus. However, the references to the divine in
this category remained generally similar across Christian and Non-Christian denomination types.
