EGOS 06 1

Dynamics of employment-related community trust – gender and experience in UK Coalfield Communities

Gráinne Collins

Employment Research Centre, Trinity College Dublin

Michael Grimsley

Sheffield Hallam University

Anthony Meehan (presenting author)

The Open University

EGOS 06 2

Motivation

Community regeneration, well-being & sustainability• understand dynamics (esp. of empowerment & engagement)• evaluate policy and identify levers for sustainability and

regeneration

4 Capitals: Fixed, Environmental,

Human, Social

Community context anddemographics

Trust

Socio-economic boundary of Employment

Gender effects

EGOS 06 3

Data SourcesSouth Yorkshire Social Capital Survey

Wave 1 (2000) (Green, Grimsley, Suokas, 2000) 4220 households, 2984 working age Wave 2 (2004) (Gilbertson, Green, Grimsley, Manning, 2005) 3771 households, 2431 working age

Common sub-sample 1071, working age 586

Motorways

M1M1M1M1M1M1M1M1M1 A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1A1

M18M18M18M18M18M18M18M18M18

M180M180M180M180M180M180M180M180M180

Barnsley

Rotherham

KendrayKendrayKendrayKendrayKendrayKendrayKendrayKendrayKendrayDarfieldDarfieldDarfieldDarfieldDarfieldDarfieldDarfieldDarfieldDarfield

ThurnscoeThurnscoeThurnscoeThurnscoeThurnscoeThurnscoeThurnscoeThurnscoeThurnscoe

RawmarshRawmarshRawmarshRawmarshRawmarshRawmarshRawmarshRawmarshRawmarsh

BrinsworthBrinsworthBrinsworthBrinsworthBrinsworthBrinsworthBrinsworthBrinsworthBrinsworth

IntakeIntakeIntakeIntakeIntakeIntakeIntakeIntakeIntake

DenabyDenabyDenabyDenabyDenabyDenabyDenabyDenabyDenaby

MaltbyMaltbyMaltbyMaltbyMaltbyMaltbyMaltbyMaltbyMaltby

Doncaster

MoorendsMoorendsMoorendsMoorendsMoorendsMoorendsMoorendsMoorendsMoorends

% of ward population living in most deprived 5th of EDs(DETR Index of Local Deprivation, 1998)

40 to 8316 to 39 .9

0.1 to 15 .90

SOUTH YORKSHIRE COALFIELD COMMUNITIESPattern of Deprivation

EGOS 06 4

ProfileTable 1. Economic (Employment) Status: Working age Study Area and UK

Women (%) Men (%)

Study Area UK Study Area UK

1999 2003 1999 2003 1999 2003 1999 2003

Economically Active

Full-time Work 17 21 36 62* 44 47 61 64*

Part-time Work 27 26 27 5 4 5

Self-employed 1 0 4 5 4 2 12 14

Unemployed 5 6 4 3 11 13 6 5

Economically Inactive

50 47 28 27 36 33 16 17* UK 2003 figures combine F/T and P/TSource: Gilbertson et al (2005) p 35; NOMIS: http://www.nomisweb.co.uk/

• 3-4 percentage point increase in full-time employment• rising unemployment (against UK trend)• falling economic inactivity – but still about twice UK norm

EGOS 06 5

Arenas of Community Trust

political, economic & social institutions

vert

ical

tru

stcommunity – family, friends, neighbours

Braithwaite & Levy, 1998;Grimsley, Meehan et al, 2003

horizontal trust

• Trust in employers?• Gender differences?

EGOS 06 6

Arenas of Community Trust

• Persistent evidence of distinct vertical and horizontal arenas• Order of magnitude (x10) increase in contribution of Employer Trust to

Horizontal Trust

Table 2. Components of Community Trust 2000-2004: vertical (1) and horizontal (2) trust dimensions in the two waves (working age only)

2000 2004

Trusted Party Trust Component 1

Trust Component 2

Trust Component 1

Trust Component 2

Local Politicians

0.88 -0.06 0.94 -0.07

Local Council 0.88 -0.07 0.94 -0.03

Employers 0.52 0.11 0.39 0.36

Neighbours 0.15 0.58 0.21 0.65

Friends -0.01 0.81 0.00 0.82

Family -0.11 0.73 -0.19 0.75

N = 2984Correlation(1,2) = 0.18

Variance explained = 56%

N = 2431Correlation(1,2) = 0.24

Variance explained = 64%

EGOS 06 7

Trust 2000-2004 (tables 3 and 4)

• Horizontal Trust (HT) (relatively high scores persist - family & friends effect)– small decline (2 or 3%); fall more pronounced for employed, and for men.

Gender difference in HT has become statistically significant and seems independent of employment status.

• Vertical Trust (VT) (mid-range scores)

– static for workless; moderate increases for employed (5%); more pronounced increase (4%) for men. Gender difference reduced to marginal significance.

• Employer Trust (ET) (mid-range scores)– static for workless; moderate increases for employed (7%); more

pronounced increase (5%) for men. Gender difference reduced to marginal significance.

EGOS 06 8

Drivers of Trust

influence: the extent to which people feel able to influence

personal control:

the extent to which people feel a sense of personal control in their life

information: how well informed people feel

• Particularly strong drivers in relation to vertical trust

EGOS 06 9

Elements of Empowerment

Well-informedness

Personalcontrol

Influence

Informedchoice of action

Informedparticipation

Efficacy(contingency)

Empowerment

EGOS 06 10

Trust and Empowerment 2000-2004 (table 5)• Empowerment Score (ES) (mid-range scores)

– marginal increase for workless; moderate increases for employed (4.5%); more pronounced increase (4%) for women. Gender difference has become statistically significant.

• Empowerment is positively related to all forms of trust – people with relatively low empowerment are much more likely to express

relatively low levels of trust.

• Empowerment, Employment and Exclusion– by 2004, the reduced proportion of people expressing relatively moderate or

low levels of empowerment were much more likely to express relatively low levels of trust, especially Employer Trust, and this was particularly so for workless people.

EGOS 06 11

Trust and Empowerment Factors 2000-2004 (tables 6 and 7)• Workless people exhibit persistently more negative responses on all

empowerment factors, especially in relation to Employer Trust.

• Amongst workless, sense of community influence exhibited large relative decline.

• For women and men, well-informedness is important driver for Employer Trust; and magnified effect for those in work.

• For women, sense of personal control in life appears as persistent, possibly dominant driver for trust, especially Employer Trust.

EGOS 06 12

Longitudinal Sub-sample 2000-2004 (figures 2-4)

• Note small numbers in some categories.

Wave 2

Wave 1

EmployedTotal

(men : women)

WorklessTotal

(men : women)

Employed 226(68 : 158)

54(16 : 38)

Workless 77(14 : 63)

229(79 : 150)

EGOS 06 13

Employment Experience Employer Trust and Vertical Trust

7722622954 7722622954N =

Workless to employed

Employed

Workless

Employed to workless

95% CI

10.5

10.0

9.5

9.0

8.5

8.0

7.5

7.0

w1 Vert trust

w2 Vert trust

7722622954 7722622954N =

Workless to employed

Employed

Workless

Employed to workless

95% CI

4.0

3.8

3.6

3.4

3.2

3.0

2.8

w1 Trust

employers

w2 Trust

employers

• Powerful effect of gaining employment• Non-significant effect of negative/unchanging experience

EGOS 06 14

Employment Experience andHorizontal Trust

7722622954 7722622954N =

Workless to employed

Employed

Workless

Employed to workless

95% CI15.0

14.8

14.6

14.4

14.2

14.0

13.8

13.6

13.4

w1 Hor trust

w2 Hor trust

• Difficult to discern an employment experience effect on Horizontal Trust

EGOS 06 15

Gender and Experience

workless toemployed

[M:14; F:63]

employed[M:68; F:158]

workless[M:79; F:150]

employed toworkless

[M:16; F:38]

Wave 1 to wave 2: Employment status

1.0

0.5

0.0

-0.5

95

% C

I Ch

an

ge

wa

ve

1 t

o 2

Tru

st

loc

al e

mp

loy

ers female

maleGender

• For women, there is a statistically significant positive linear trend in Employer Trust levels for and increasingly positive employment experience (see also table 8).

EGOS 06 16

Women, Employment and Empowerment

• For women, change in Employer Trust is driven by change in sense of personal control in life and positive employment experience (tables 8 and 9).

Working age at wave 1 & wave 2[N = 406] women

Frequency Employment (FT, PT, self): change from wave 1 to wave 2, experiential change & employer trust change

Adjusted* estimate Significance

Employed to workless

38 -0.467 0.014

Workless to employed

61 0.461 0.003

No change (base) 307 0 NA

Change: level of “informedness” 0.040 0.396

Change: satisfaction with level of control

0.118 0.011

Change: degree of influence -0.013 0.748

EGOS 06 17

‘Spill-over’ of Employer Trust?

• Evidence of positive relation between Employer Trust and expressed trust in other relations, both vertical and horizontal (top of table 12).

Working age N = 586

Adjusted Odds ratios with lower & upper 95% CITrust change: 2000 & 2004 [N]

Variables Categories N in model

Local politiciansDecrease [165]

base:Increase [199]

Local council Decrease [146]

base:Increase [212]

Neighbours Decrease [112]

base:Increase [160]

HorizontalDecrease [125]

base:Increase [174]

Trust in local employers:2000 & 2004

Decreased 129 1.43[0.80 to 2.56]

1.54[0.84 to 2.81]

2.07[1.02 to 4.23]

1.81[0.91 to 3.57]

Unchanged 276 1.41[0.85 to 2.31]

2.23[1.33 to 3.75]

1.47[0.83 to 2.60]

1.12[0.66 to 1.92]

Increased 181 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

Gender Males 177 0.87[0.54 to 1.40]

0.70[0.42 to 1.17]

0.93[0.51 to 1.68]

1.08[0.62 to 1.88]

Females 409 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

EGOS 06 18

Summary Points• Caveats: distinctiveness of area; women express higher trust than men.

• Trust in Vertical and Horizontal arenas correlated; ‘overlapping contribution’ of individual trust relations, e.g. and noticeably, employers.

• Changed rather than enduring experience has most perceptible effects.

• Trust explained in part by Empowerment.

• Impact of employment change, esp. loss of employment, in Employer and Vertical trust more significant for women. Explained by importance to women of personal control in life.

• Some ‘spill-over’ of Employer Trust to other trust relations.

EGOS 06 19

Discussion Points• Relative responsiveness of workless/employed and women/men

suggestive of hysteresis effect in trust dynamics.

• Changing contribution of Employer Trust to Horizontal Trust may be explained by:– convergence of HT for workless and employed;– role of workplace in production of trust.

• Empowerment and basis constructs point to means to ‘manage’ trust promotion.

EGOS 06 20

Main ‘Findings’• Changing community trust levels are related to experiences of gaining losing

work and the consequent effect on sense of empowerment.

• These effects are gendered and differences appear rooted in relative importance of personal control in life and well-informedness for women and men, respectively.

• Suggestive evidence of dynamic (positive) ‘spillover’:

employment change employer trust change community trust change.

A Research Question• How does the organisation of work (and its relation to the way women and

men experience community living) contribute to community-level trust production?

EGOS 06 21

Some Reserve Slides:

EGOS 06 22

Hysteresis in brief:

+ve experience

Trust

-ve experience

• If trust is low and experience is negative, little changes.• If trust is high and experience is positive, little changes.• If experience is positive, trusts grows (rapidly at first).• If experience is negative trust collapses and there is no easy shortcut to

recovery.

EGOS 06 23

well-informedness

vertical trust horizontal trust

414172410301052N =

Sense of being well-informed.

very well informed

fairly well informed

not well informed

poorly informed

95%

CI V

ert

ical tr

ust

.6

.4

.2

-.0

-.2

-.4

-.6414172410301052N =

Sense of being well-informed

very well informed

fairly well informed

not well informed

poorly informed

95

% C

I H

ori

zon

tal t

rust

.4

.3

.2

.1

0.0

-.1

-.2

-.3

-.4

EGOS 06 24

personal control

8372219435590140N =

Sense of personal control

strongly agree

agree

neither

disagree

strongly disagree

95%

CI H

oriz

onta

l tru

st

.2

.1

0.0

-.1

-.2

-.3

-.48372219435590140N =

Sense of personal control

strongly agree

agree

neither

disagree

strongly disagree

95%

CI V

ertic

al tr

ust

.4

.2

0.0

-.2

-.4

-.6

-.8

vertical trust horizontal trust

EGOS 06 25

influence

vertical trust horizontal trust

7112114617631146N =

Sense of ability to influence

strongly agree

agree

neither

disagree

strongly disagree

95%

CI V

ertic

al t

rust

.4

.2

0.0

-.2

-.4

-.6

-.87112114617631146N =

Sense of ability to influence

strongly agree

agree

neither

disagree

strongly disagree

95%

CI H

oriz

onta

l tr

ust

.3

.2

.1

-.0

-.1

-.2

-.3