Students from different racial and ethnic identities, family education levels, and social classes grow up with distinct knowledge, aspirations, support, and expectations related to higher education (Cataldi et al., 2018; Hines et al., 2019; Maldonado, 2022; Mishra, 2020; Soria, 2015; Yosso, 2005). For students with privileged social identities, higher education is viewed as a birthright, which ultimately leads the same students to have higher aspirations for educational attainment and efficacy in their abilities to meet their educational goals compared to marginalized students (Cataldi et al., 2018; Dufur et al., 2016; Ornstein, 2019; Schroeder & Saw, 2016; Soria & Stubblefield, 2014). In line with those expectations, the parents of privileged students provide a “concierge” experience bolstered by social capital to facilitate their children’s entrance into higher education, including access to exclusive higher education infrastructure (Hamilton et al., 2018). Students from privileged backgrounds also benefit from legacy admissions into institutions and social organizations, attend better-resourced schools with more college preparatory resources, and have ready access to academic and social resources to support their admission to prestigious institutions (e.g., letters of recommendation; Alon, 2009; Armstong & Hamilton, 2013; Bowen & Bok, 1998; Hamilton et al., 2018). Marginalized students experience barriers in accessing the same types of social capital and thus experience greater systemic disadvantages in higher education (Armstong & Hamilton, 2013; Bowen & Bok, 1998; Soria, 2015; Thiem & Dasgupta, 2022).

The disparities in students’ pre-college social capital continue as students are enrolled in higher education. As a function of their “concierge” services, parents of privileged students can easily connect their children to other adults who provide career guidance and opportunities (e.g., internships) and help their children obtain access to elite university programming and experiences not available to all students (Armstong & Hamilton, 2013; Hamilton et al., 2018). Moreover, college students from privileged identities have been intensively socialized to engage independently in behaviors and activities to develop their ongoing social capital while enrolled in higher education. Many of those same students enroll in college already involved in student activities and clubs and can ultimately leverage their social capital to assist with obtaining internships and gateways into prestigious careers regardless of their academic majors (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Hamilton et al., 2018; Stuber, 2011). With their socialization for independence and networking connections, it is easier for privileged students to interact with faculty, staff, and institutional agents who support their development of additional social capital (Dika, 2012; Soria & Stebleton, 2013; Stanton-Salazar, 1997). Thus, marginalized students are structurally disadvantaged when it comes to acquiring social capital in higher education (Armstrong & Hamilton, 2013; Stuber, 2011).

While institutional agents (e.g., faculty, staff, advisors) in higher education can disrupt the system of social reproduction by transmitting or negotiating the transmittal of social capital (Dika, 2012; Harper, 2008; Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2011), students from systemically excluded and marginalized identities are not as likely to network with institutional agents because they experience greater difficulty interacting with faculty and staff and finding networks on campus who share their background and experiences (Soria & Stebleton, 2012, 2013). Students from marginalized backgrounds sometimes experience indifference or hostility from faculty, perceive faculty and administrators as gatekeepers who make education more challenging for students, and fear negative repercussions when meeting with faculty, including feelings of incompetence (Longwell-Grice, 2003; Longwell-Grice & Longwell-Grice, 2007–2008).

Because marginalized students experience more barriers in accessing institutional agents, it is important to examine whether institutional programs and opportunities, such as community service, could be a means for students to experience social capital development. At present, there is a deficit in the community service literature regarding the potential for community service to promote college students’ social capital, although scholars have documented many benefits of community service participation. For instance, undergraduates who participate in community service gain enhanced critical thinking skills, academic skills, civic responsibility, self-efficacy, multicultural awareness, and leadership abilities (Astin & Sax, 1998; Soria & Johnson, 2017; Soria et al., 2013; Soria et al., 2019; Soria et al., 2023). Undergraduates who participate in community service also benefit from enhanced social outcomes, including a higher sense of belonging, interpersonal skills, perspective-taking, and prosocial values (Horn, 2012; Cooks & Schrarrer, 2006; Soria et al., 2012; Soria et al., 2023).

The relational and contextual processes of community service provide in situ learning and development opportunities via social interactions and relationships with others (Cooks & Schrarrer, 2006). Community service participation offers opportunities for students to interact with a wider network of individuals in their community, become aware of their own identities as members of a community with a stake in the greater good, witness how people can work collectively to resolve problems, and connect with their classmates, staff, and faculty in novel settings (Flanagan et al., 2014). Therefore, within the social experience of community service, students may be well-positioned to expand their social networks and connections with others, thereby increasing their social capital.

Indeed, scholars have proposed that the social dynamics present in community service participation may enhance social capital among college students. Campbell (2000) hypothesized that community service participation would increase adolescents’ social capital via norms of reciprocity and thicker networks of social connectedness between youth and adults in their community; however, Campbell did not directly test the hypothesis using measures of social capital but instead analyzed whether individuals who volunteered when they were younger were likely to volunteer in adulthood. Flanagan et al. (2014) used direct measures of social capital and discovered that fifth through 12^th grade students who engaged in community service had higher rates of social capital than students who were not as involved. Burnett (2006) and Cuskelly (2008) found that adults who volunteered for community sports clubs generated individual and organizational social capital; however, their samples did not include college students. Similarly, Henness et al. (2013) examined the social capital benefits of community service among rural youth and adults but did not examine the effects of service for college students. Given the critical role of social capital in college students’ success in higher education and beyond, it is therefore important to address the gap in research related to the potential benefits of community service in college students’ social capital development.

Although many researchers over the last three decades have demonstrated the benefits of college students’ participation in community service, few have considered the potential influences of students’ self-selection biases in their analyses. College students who engage in community systematically differ from their peers who do not participate in community service based upon their demographic characteristics, pre-college experiences, and other collegiate experiences (Horn, 2012; Meyer et al., 2019; Soria et al., 2019; Wilson, 2000). Those systematic differences may contribute directly or indirectly to differences in the outcomes associated with students’ participation in community service, making it difficult to gauge the effectiveness of community service above and beyond students’ characteristics or experiences. Therefore, in this study I used quasi-experimental procedures to address and limit the potential biases in students’ participation in community service as I explored whether there are effects of community service participation on undergraduates’ social capital development.

While individual theorists have provided unique nuances to their conceptualizations of social capital, at its core social capital reflects the resources available to individuals in their network (Bourdieu, 1980; Coleman, 1988; Putnam, 1994). Social capital is theorized to have both individual and collective benefits to society (Coppe et al., 2022). In Coleman’s view, individual social capital can only flourish when trust and norms of reciprocity (collective social capital) are present in social organizations or networks. Community service experiences may facilitate norms of trust and reciprocity among participants and community members (Campbell, 2000), providing ideal collective social capital conditions to foster college students’ individual social capital. Bourdieu understood that social inequalities and competition for scarce resources lead individuals to have different levels of access to social capital—those with higher economic and cultural capital are more likely to have advantageous positions in society that provides greater access to valuable social capital. As applied in the present study, I analyzed whether the potential benefits of community service participation were uniform across students from privileged and marginalized identities to examine whether community service could be leveraged to achieve greater parity in students’ social capital development.

Putnam (2000) proposed that there are distinctions in social capital based upon the types of social networks and function of social capital. Bonding social capital in closer networks and relationships (e.g., friendships) can build a sense of support, belonging, community, and solidarity for individuals. Bridging social capital among looser, more distant connections (e.g., faculty, staff, community members) can facilitate access to resources and information. Bonding social capital helps individuals to “get by” while bridging social capital helps individuals to “get ahead” (Putnam, 2000). Bonding social capital is often established among more homogenous groups whereas bridging capital is more likely to occur within heterogeneous groups (Coffé & Geys, 2007). Participation in community service has the potential to facilitate bonding social capital through opportunities to develop friendships and connections with classmates and bridging social capital for students through enhanced opportunities to develop networks among community members, campus staff, or faculty who may also be engaged in those efforts (Campbell, 2013; Flanagan et al., 2014). However, community service may have differential effects on students’ outcomes based upon their race and ethnicity, parents’ or guardians’ education, and social class (Chittum et al., 2022; Soria et al., 2019; Valentine et al., 2021), so it is important to examine whether the effects may be conditional upon those demographic characteristics. Further, it is important to consider the role of institutional agents, such as faculty, in improving marginalized students’ social capital development (Stanton-Salazar, 1997, 2001). These theoretical frameworks provided the rationale for analyzing the potential effects of community service participation on college students’ social capital development, the analytic approaches selected, and the potential benefits of the results for marginalized and disenfranchised students in higher education contexts.

I first used the “lavaan” package in R (Rosseel, 2012) for a confirmatory factor analysis on the social capital development items. The factorial model had acceptable fit (CFI = .981, TLI = .959, RMSEA = .060, SRMR = .028; Kline, 2015). The social capital development factor had good reliability (α = .874, ω = .876), which is congruent with related research (Soria & Cole, 2023).

Next, I utilized propensity score matching techniques using the “MatchIt” package in R (Ho et al., 2021) to match students who participated in community service (the “treatment” group) with students who did not participate in community service (the “control” group). There are multiple methods available to produce matched sets and different methods can yield differences between the treatment and control groups. Austin (2011) recommended that researchers use several methods for the balance of covariates prior to final selection for outcome analysis. After reviewing different methods (i.e., optimal pair matching, optimal pair matching comparing Mahalanobis distances, nearest neighbor, and full matching), I proceeded with nearest neighbor matching because it provided the best overall balances in the covariates after matching, the most similar distributions of propensity scores between the treatment and control groups, and the smallest differences in propensity score distances between the matched pairs (Schultzetenberg et al., 2020). I used binary logistic regression to compute students’ individual propensity scores, the estimated probability that students participated in community service. I used one-to-one nearest neighbor matching without replacement so that students who participated in community service were matched to students who did not participate in community service (Austin, 2011). I used a caliper of 0.20, which represents the maximum tolerated difference between matched subjects (Greifer, 2022a). A caliper of 0.20 can eliminate between 98% and 99% of the bias (Austin, 2011).

When utilizing propensity score matching analyses, it is important to assess the similarity of the covariate distributions (or balance) between the “treatment” and “control” groups (Harder et al., 2010). I examined whether the matching procedures balanced the distribution of variables in both groups (students who did and did not participate in community service) by reviewing the standardized mean differences before and after matching. I detected no imbalances above 0.25 after matching (Austin, 2011; Harder et al., 2010). The percent balance improvement for each covariate was above 0.0 and indicated the balance did not become worse after matching (Greifer, 2022a). The empirical cumulative density functions (eCDF) statistics, which correspond to the difference in the overall distributions of the covariates between the groups, were close to zero, which indicates better balance (Greifer, 2022a). All statistics are reported in Table 2.

I also visually inspected the Love plot of the standardized mean differences and observed that the matching improved balance on all covariates because all were within a threshold of 0.10 (Greifer, 2022b; Figure 1). I inspected the empirical quantile-quartile (eQQ) plots of the covariate for the “treated” units and value of the covariate at the corresponding quantile in the “control” group, kernel density plots of the covariate values and density of the sample at the covariate values, and the histograms of the density of the propensity score distribution before and after matching (Figure 2). The visual evidence suggested that the covariates within the groups differed significantly before matching procedures were implemented. The matching techniques effectively decreased bias by making the groups of students who did and did not participate in community service more similar with regard to the covariates.

Finally, I analyzed the data using ordinary least squares regressions to examine the relationship between the independent and dependent variables. I did not utilize hierarchical linear modeling techniques, even though the students were enrolled at different institutions. I computed the intraclass correlation coefficient (an estimate of the proportion of between-institution variance compared to within-institution variance) using the bruceR package in R (Bao, n.d.). The coefficient was .010, suggesting greater independence of observations in the different groups of institutions. Scholars utilizing the MSL survey in prior studies have also discovered nominal between-institution differences (Dugan et al., 2013), so ordinary least squares regression is sufficient for the present analysis. I ran 15 separate ordinary least squares regressions—one for all students and 14 separated by students’ race/ethnicity, first-generation status, and social class. In the regression analyses, I also included the same covariates used in matching procedures (Horn, 2012; Soria et al., 2019) and whether or not the community service was completed as a part of a course (i.e., a service-learning class), given the important role of faculty in enhancing the social capital development among marginalized students (Soria & Stebleton, 2013; Stanton-Salazar, 2011). Adding the covariates in regression models post-matching has several benefits, including increasing precision in the estimates, reducing bias from residual imbalance, and generating robust estimates (Greifer, 2022b).

The results of the first ordinary least squares regression analysis for all students suggests that community service participation has significant (p < 0.05) and positive effects on students’ social capital development (Table 3). The results also suggest that community service has heterogeneous effects on students’ social capital development by their race and ethnicity. There were no statistically significant effects of community service on the social capital development of Middle Eastern or Northern African students’ social capital development. There were also no statistically significant effects of community service on the social capital development among students who did not have a race or ethnicity listed in the survey. However, there were statistically significant (p < 0.05) and positive effects of community service on African American or Black, Asian American, Latinx or Hispanic, multiracial, and White students’ social capital development. Among both continuing-generation and first-generation students, community service participation had significant (p < 0.05) and positive effects on their social capital development. Finally, the results suggested there are statistically significant (p < 0.05) and positive effects of community service participation on low-income or poor, working-class, middle-class, upper professional or upper middle-class, and wealthy students’ social capital development. All effects held controlling for the covariates used in propensity score matching and for the additional independent variable of whether the service completed was within a service-learning class.

The results of this study suggest that community service participation has significant and positive effects on undergraduates’ social capital development. Most students who participate in community service benefit from being more likely to intentionally seek out relationships with others from diverse backgrounds, build networks across professional fields, and identify shared interests between colleagues and/or friends for the benefit of mutual support. However, the results are not uniform across students based upon their race or ethnicity; in particular, community service did not have significant effects on social capital development among Middle Eastern or Northern African students or students who did not have a race or ethnicity listed in the survey. By and large, while community service participation may be a useful means for some students from marginalized identities to develop social capital in higher education—including African American or Black, Asian American, Latinx or Hispanic, multiracial, first-generation, low-income, and working-class students—it also appears as though community service participation also enhances social capital among privileged students as well.

The inconsistent results by race/ethnicity may be the result of several factors. Notably, the sample sizes were smaller among Middle Eastern or Northern African students and students who did not have a race or ethnicity listed on the survey, which reduces the statistical power and ability to find an effect. The size of the effects of community service were also smaller among some students of color compared to White students. Some community service experiences may reinforce structural injustices, reaffirm White privilege, and reinforce the subjugation of racially minoritized people and communities (Cahuas & Levkoe, 2017; Cann & McCloskey, 2017; Castillo-Montoya et al., 2021). While the survey did not capture details about the community service spaces students served in this study, racially minoritized students may encounter unexamined racist perspectives in predominantly White community service spaces where critical lenses and perspectives are not employed (Mitchell & Donahue, 2009; Mitchell et al., 2012). In those circumstances, the act of centering and prioritizing White students’ experiences and outcomes serves not only to reinforce the power and privilege of Whiteness in higher education, but it diminishes the potential developmental outcomes for racially minoritized students, who are often overburdened with teaching their peers about issues like racism and privilege, may struggle to navigate the complexities of service in White-framed “needy or problematic” communities that may include their own communities of upbringing, and endure unchallenged deficit assumptions about racially minoritized communities (Mitchell et al., 2012). In the service of Whiteness, racially minoritized students’ development outcomes may be neglected, contributing to the social reproduction of ongoing social capital disparities (Bourdieu, 1980).

The specific nature of students’ community service participation—including duration, type of organization, community, and other contextual factors—is unknown, which limits understanding of whether some of those factors may be supportive of students’ social capital development. Although I included the independent variable of whether students’ community service was completed in the context of a service-learning course, I observed that service-learning was not significantly associated with students’ social capital development in any of the 15 models. While faculty are institutional agents who can impart social capital among marginalized students (Soria & Stebleton, 2013; Stanton-Salazar, 2011), it may be the case that faculty-related social capital development has greater limitations than community-related social capital development. I encourage researchers to continue to explore the effects of different types of community service, including service conducted in the context of service-learning courses, on students’ social capital development.

Some have proposed that community service experiences expand undergraduates’ trust in community institutions (e.g., emergency services), trust in individuals, feelings of reciprocity, and networks, which can promote social capital (Coleman, 1988; D’Agostino, 2010). Within service environments, students are likely to work alongside the community partners—adults, staff, volunteer managers, or supervisors—who may actively mentor students to increase their social capital by intentionally connecting them with other networks (Swaminathan, 2007). It may be the case that community service participants received opportunities to engage with individuals from different backgrounds, which can facilitate bridging social capital (Putnam, 2000; Tinkler & Tinkler, 2020); however, the survey did not capture the composition of the communities in which students served, so it may also be the case that students served in homogenous communities or worked alongside others from similar backgrounds, which could diminish bridging social capital. Students may have served alongside others with a similar passion or interest in resolving a societal or community problem, which can facilitate bridging social capital (Putnam, 2000). While those two types of social capital were not distinguished in this study, I encourage researchers to explore the nuances of bridging and bonding capital and whether both may be potential outcomes of community service.

There are additional limitations to the study that provide rich opportunities for future research. The survey was administered during the COVID-19 pandemic, which likely limited students’ ability to participate in different types of community service and may have also hampered their social capital development. In the sample, 28.1% of students participated in community service, although in a previous administration of the MSL survey in 2018, the average was 42.3%. The selection of covariates in the logistic regression is subjective and propensity score matching reduces the sample size for the outcome analysis, which can introduce bias in the final models. While I used propensity score matching to address self-selection bias, the generalizations derived from self-selection in response to the MSL survey should be factored into cautious interpretations of the results.

Further, the data are limited by students’ self-reported responses to items related to their community service participation and social capital development. Critics have proposed that students may be overconfident or inaccurate in their self-assessment of experiential learning (Porter, 2011; Porter et al., 2011). The sample also included college students who were attending four-year institutions, so the results may not be generalizable to students enrolled at other institutions. The limited diversity of the sample may also make it difficult to generalize the results to students enrolled at campuses with higher demographic diversity. Consequently, I recommend that scholars continue exploring the benefits of community service participation among more diverse samples of college students enrolled at different types of institutions.

The results of this study provide some evidence for the potential ways in which community service participation can enhance undergraduates’ social capital development. While those results are promising, less than one-third of the students in the original sample participated in community service and not all students equally benefited from community service participation in terms of their social capital development. Therefore, I encourage higher education administrators, faculty, and staff to consider the ways in which community service opportunities could be more intentionally leveraged to promote students’ social capital development, especially among marginalized students.