Changes in Personal Social Networks across Individuals Leaving Their Street Gang: Just What Are Youth Leaving Behind?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Background
2.1. Desistance
2.2. Desistance in the Context of Gang Members
2.3. Social Networks and Gangs
3. Methods
3.1. Sample and Survey Design
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Gang Leaving and Disengagement
3.2.2. Other Group Characteristics
3.2.3. Delinquency and Crime
3.2.4. Personal Network Composition
3.2.5. Changes in Social Networks
3.2.6. Demographics
3.3. Analytic Strategy
4. Results
4.1. Baseline Characteristics
4.2. Gang Leaving and Disengagement
4.3. Changes in Network Composition
5. Limitations
6. Discussion
7. Materials and Methods
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Baerveldt, Chris, Ronan van Rossem, Marjolein M. Vermande, and Frank M. Weerman. 2004. Students’ delinquency and correlates with strong and weaker ties. A study of students’ network in Dutch high schools. Connections 26: 11–28. [Google Scholar]
- Bersani, Bianca E., and Elaine Eggleston Doherty. 2018. Desistance from offending in the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Criminology 1: 311–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bjorgo, Tore. 2002. Exit Neo-Nazism: Reducing Recruitment and Promoting Disengagement from Racist Groups. Paper 627. Olso: Norwegian Institute of International Affairs. [Google Scholar]
- Bjorgo, Tore, and John Horgan. 2009. Leaving Terrorism Behind: Individual and Collective Disengagement. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Blau, M. Peter. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity. New York: Free Press. [Google Scholar]
- Bottoms, Anthony, Joanna Shapland, Andrew Costell, Deborah Holmes, and Grant Muir. 2004. Towards desistance: Theoretical Underpinnings for an Empirical Study. The Howard Journal 43: 368–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bouchard, Martin, and Aili Malm. 2016. Social Network Analysis and Its Contribution to Research on Crime and Criminal Justice. Oxford Handbooks Online. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bushway, Shawn D., and Paternoster Ray. 2013. Desistance from crime: A review and ideas for moving forward. In Handbook of Life-Course Criminology. Edited by Chris L. Gibson and Marvin Krohn. New York: Springer, pp. 213–31. [Google Scholar]
- Butts, Jeffrey A., Caterina Gouvis Roman, Lindsay Bostwick, and Jeremy R. Porter. 2015. Cure Violence: A public health model to reduce gun violence. Annual Review of Public Health 36: 39–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Carson, Dena C., and J. Michael Vecchio. 2015. Leaving the gang: A review and thoughts on future research. In The Wiley Handbook of Gangs. Edited by Scott H. Decker and David C. Pyrooz. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
- Decker, Scott H., and Barrick Van Winkle. 1996. Life in the Gang: Family, Friends, and Violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Decker, Scott H., and Janet Lauritsen. 2002. Leaving the gang. In Gangs in America, 3rd ed. Edited by Ronald Huff. Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 51–67. [Google Scholar]
- Decker, Scott H., David C. Pyrooz, and Richard K. Moule Jr. 2014. Disengagement from gangs as role transitions. Journal of Research on Adolescence 24: 268–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebaugh, Helen Rose F. 1988. Becoming an Ex: The Process of Role Exit. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Google Scholar]
- Eidson, Jillian L., Caterina G. Roman, and Meagan Cahill. 2017. Successes and challenges in recruiting and retaining gang members in longitudinal research: Lessons learned from a multisite social network study. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 15: 396–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Esbensen, Finn-Age, and Huizinga David. 1993. Gangs, drugs, and delinquency in a survey of urban youth. Criminology 31: 565–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farrall, Stephen. 2002. Rethinking What Works with Offenders: Probation, Social Context, and Desistance from Crime. Devon: Willan Publishing. [Google Scholar]
- Feld, Scott L., J. Jill Suitor, and Jordana G. Hoegh. 2007. Describing Changes in Personal Networks over Time. Field Methods 19: 218–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleisher, Mark S. 2002. Women in Gangs: A Field Research Study. Final Report to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. Normal: Illinois State University. [Google Scholar]
- Giordano, Peggy C., Stephen A. Cernkovich, and L. Jennifer Rudolph. 2002. Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology 107: 990–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giordano, Peggy C., Stephen A. Cernkovich, and Ryan D. Schroeder. 2007. Emotions and crime over the life-course: A neo-median perspective on criminal continuity and change. American Journal of Sociology 112: 1603–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Giordano, Peggy C., Wendi L. Johnson, Wendy D. Manning, Monica A. Longmore, and Mallory D. Minter. 2015. Intimate partner violence in young adulthood: Narratives of persistence and desistance. Criminology 53: 330–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Granovetter, Mark. 1983. The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory 1: 201–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krohn, D. Marvin. 1986. The Web of conformity: A network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Social Problems 33: S81–S93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krohn, D. Marvin, and Terry P. Thornberry. 2008. Longitudinal perspectives on adolescent street gangs. In The Long View of Crime: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research. Edited by A. Liberman. New York: Springer, pp. 128–60. [Google Scholar]
- Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. 2001. Understanding the desistance from crime. In Crime & Justice: A Review of Research. Edited by M. Tonry. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, vol. 28, pp. 1–69. [Google Scholar]
- Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. 2003. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Loeber, Rolf, and Marc Le Blanc. 1990. Toward a developmental criminology. In Crime and Justice. Edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, vol. 12, pp. 375–437. [Google Scholar]
- Marsden, Peter V. 1990. Network data and measurement. Annual Review of Sociology 16: 435–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maruna, Shadd. 2001. Making Good. How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington: American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
- Maruna, Shadd. 2004. Desistance from crime and explanatory style: A new direction in the psychology of reform. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 20: 184–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maruna, Shadd. 2016. Desistance and restorative justice: It’s now or never. Restorative Justice International Journal 4: 289–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathews K. Michael, Michael C. White, Rebecca C. Long, Barlow Soper, and C. W. Von Bergen. 1998. Association of indicators and predictors of tie strength. Psychological Reports 83: 1459–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarty, Christopher. 2002. Measuring structure in personal networks. Journal of Social Structure 3: 1. [Google Scholar]
- McCarty, Christopher. 2003. EgoNet. Personal Network Software. Available online: http://sourceforge.net/projects/egonet/ (accessed on 10 April 2013).
- McNeill, Fergus. 2006. A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology and Criminal Justice 6: 39–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McNeill, Fergus. 2016. Desistance and Criminal Justice in Scotland. In Crime, Justice and Society in Scotland. Edited by H. Croall, G. Mooney and M. Munro. London: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- McNeill, Fergus, and Beth Weaver. 2010. Changing Lives? Desistance Research and Offender Management. SCCJR Project Report No.03/2010. Glasgow: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research. [Google Scholar]
- Melde, Chris, and Finn-Age Esbensen. 2014. The relative impact of gang status transitions: Identifying the mechanisms of change in delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 51: 349–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paternoster, Ray, and Shawn Bushway. 2009. Desistance and ‘feared self’: Towards an identity theory of criminal desistance. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 99: 1103–56. [Google Scholar]
- Pyrooz, David C., and Scott H. Decker. 2011. Motives and methods for leaving the gang: Understanding the process of gang desistance. Journal of Criminal Justice 39: 417–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pyrooz, David C., Scott H. Decker, and Vincent J. Webb. 2014. The ties that bind: Desistance from gangs. Crime and Delinquency 60: 491–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roman, Caterina G., Hannah J. Klein, and Kevin T. Wolff. 2018. Quasi-experimental designs for community-level public health violence reduction interventions: A case study in the challenges of selecting the counterfactual. Journal of Experimental Criminology 14: 155–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Roman, Caterina G., Meagan Cahill, and Jillian L. Eidson. 2016. Street Gang Definitions across Two US Cities: Eurogang Criteria, Group Identity Characteristics, and Peer Group Involvement in Crime. In Gang Transitions and Transformations in an International Context. Edited by Cheryl L. Maxson and Finn-Age Esbensen. New York: Springer, pp. 15–32. [Google Scholar]
- Roman, Caterina G., Scott H. Decker, and David C. Pyrooz. 2017. Leveraging the pushes and pulls of gang disengagement to improve gang intervention: Findings from three multi-site studies and a review of relevant gang programs. Journal of Criminal Justice 40: 316–36. [Google Scholar]
- Ronald, Clarke V., and Derek B. Cornish. 1985. Modeling offenders’ decisions: A framework for research and policy. Crime and Justice 6: 147–85. [Google Scholar]
- Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 1990. Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review 55: 609–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 2003. Life-course desisters? Trajectories of crime among delinquent boys followed to age 70. Criminology 41: 301–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 2016. Turning points and the future of life-course criminology: Reflections on the 1986 criminal careers report. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 53: 321–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sarnecki, Jerzy. 2001. Delinquent Networks: Youth Co-Offending in Stockholm. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Sierra-Arévalo, Michael, and Andrew V. Papachristos. 2017. Social Networks and Gang Violence Reduction. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 13: 373–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soyer, Michaela. 2014. The Imagination of Desistance: A Juxtaposition of the Construction of Incarceration as a Turning Point and the Reality of Recidivism. The British Journal of Criminology 54: 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spergel, Irving A. 1995. The Youth Gang Problem: A Community Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Sweeten, Gary, David C. Pyrooz, and Alex R. Piquero. 2013. Disengaging from gangs and desistance from crime. Justice Quarterly 30: 469–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teruya, Cheryl, and Yih-Ing Hser. 2010. Turning points in the life course: Current findings and future directions in drug use research. Current Drug Abuse Reviews 3: 189–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Valasik, Matthew, Shannon E. Reid, Jenny S. West, and Jason Gravel. 2018. Gang activity regulation and the group nature of gang violence. In International Handbook of Aggression: Current Issues and Perspectives. Edited by Jane Ireland, Carol A. Ireland and Philip Birch. New York, NY: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Valente, W. Thomas. 2010. Social Networks and Health: Models, Methods, and Applications. New York: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Vigil, James D. 1988. Barrio Gangs: Street Life and Identity in Southern California. Austin: University of Texas Press. [Google Scholar]
- Warr, Mark. 1996. Organization and instigation in delinquent groups. Criminology 34: 11–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wasserman, Stanley, and Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Weaver, Beth. 2012. The relational context of desistance: Some implications and opportunities for social policy. Social Policy & Administration 46: 395–412. [Google Scholar]
- Weaver, Beth. 2016. Offending and Desistance: The Importance of Social Relations. New York: Routledge. [Google Scholar]
- Weaver, Beth, and Fergus McNeill. 2015. Lifelines: Desistance, social relations, and reciprocity. Criminal Justice and Behavior 42: 95–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Weerman, Frank. M. 2011. Delinquent peers in context: A longitudinal network analysis of selection and influence effects. Criminology 49: 253–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Weerman, Frank M., Cheryl L. Maxson, Finn-Age Esbensen, Judith Aldridge, Juanjo Medina, and Frank Van Gemert. 2009. Eurogang Program (Manual Background n.d.)Manual Background, Development, and Use of the Eurogang Instruments in Multi-Site, Multi-Method Comparative Research. Available online: http://www.umsl.edu/~ccj/eurogang/Eurogang_20Manual.pdf (accessed on 15 December 2012).
- Wellman, Barry, and Scot Wortley. 1990. Different strokes from different folks: Community ties and social support. American Journal of Sociology 96: 558–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Young, Jacob T. N., and Frank M. Weerman. 2013. Delinquency as a consequence of misperception: Overestimation of friends’ delinquent behavior and mechanisms of social influence. Social Problems 60: 334–56. [Google Scholar]
1 | In most cases with PNRD, only the ego is the respondent, and all of the information about the alters and their ties to other alters is obtained from the ego. In contrast, in a survey-based whole network or sociocentric design, every node or actor in the network is a respondent, and information about the ties between nodes (i.e., alters) is obtained from the alters themselves (although sociometric data can be analyzed with an ego-centric focus). |
1. What are __________’s nicknames or other names that friends and family use to refer to __________? |
2. How old is __________? |
3. What grade or year is __________? |
4. Is ___________ male or female? |
5. Can you name one thing to describe __________ so that we can tell the difference between this __________ and another __________? |
6. Who is __________? (relationship) |
7. Does __________ live in your neighborhood? |
8. Does __________ live with you? |
9. How did you meet __________? |
10. Is __________ of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin or descent? |
11. What country was __________ born in? |
12. How much time do you spend each week hanging out with __________? |
13. How much do you like __________? |
14. If you needed some information or advice about something, is __________ someone you could go to? |
15. How likely is it that __________ carries a gun (including in his/her car)? |
16. Has __________ ever sold illegal drugs such as marijuana, cocaine, or crack? |
17. How likely is it that __________ has been in a gang fight over the last year? |
18. How likely is it that __________ is currently in a gang? |
19. How likely is it that you use drugs with __________? |
20. How likely is it that you drink alcohol with __________? |
21. When you are with __________, what do you do most often? |
22. When you are with __________, what else do you do most often? |
23. Have you ever in your life committed a crime with __________? Please think of any crime that you know is against the law. |
24. How supportive do you think __________ is of you being involved in a group of friends such as a gang or crew that participates in illegal activities such as a gang or crew? If you are not in a group like this or if __________ doesn’t know you are, how supportive do you think __________ would be if s/he knew you were in this kind of group? |
Wave 1 | N | |
---|---|---|
Demographics | ||
Philadelphia site (versus DC) | 57.89% | 228 |
Average age | 19.35 | 228 |
Male | 65.07% | 228 |
African American | 64.91% | 228 |
Hispanic/Latino(a) | 19.74% | 227 |
Married or in serious relationship | 35.37% | 228 |
Has child(ren) | 31.0% | 228 |
Of those with children, supports them | 60.0% | 228 |
Lives with parents and/or other family | 83.41% | 228 |
In school or has job | 59.03% | 227 |
Individual offending and group behavior | ||
Sold drugs | 40.27% | 226 |
Stole a motor vehicle | 30.09% | 226 |
Carried a gun, last 6 months | 34.65% | 227 |
Used force or weapon to rob | 47.35% | 226 |
Attacked someone to seriously hurt, kill | 46.02% | 226 |
Gang fight | 58.41% | 226 |
Arrested for robbery or aggravated assault | 32.02% | 227 |
On probation or parole | 34.80% | 227 |
Group has committed any of 7 crimes, a last 6 months | 69.91% | 225 |
Group claims territory | 58.22% | 225 |
Group protected each other, last 6 months | 76.44% | 225 |
Group defended an area against other groups, last 6 months | 52.89% | 225 |
Respondents’ Alters Who… | Average Proportion b (S.D.) | Freq. Reporting No (0) Alters with Characteristic No. (%) | Freq. Reporting All Alters with Characteristic No. (%) |
---|---|---|---|
Are male | 0.67 (0.26) | 5 (2.20%) | 32 (14.10%) |
Are African American | 0.76 (0.31) | 12 (5.29) | 67 (29.52) |
Are Hispanic/Latino | 0.27 (0.31) | 62 (27.31) | 7 (3.08%) |
Are respondent’s parents | 0.06 (0.11) | 124 (54.63) | 0 |
Are family | 0.45 (0.34) | 21 (9.25) | 23 (10.13) |
Are peers | 0.46 (0.31) | 27 (11.89) | 5 (2.20) |
Are mentorly | 0.01 (0.03) | 201 (88.55) | 0 |
Live with respondent | 0.17 (0.21) | 62 (27.31) | 1 (0.44) |
Carry a gun | 0.39 (0.34) | 41 (18.06) | 13 (5.73) |
Is in a gang | 0.28 (0.30) | 62 (27.31) | 6 (2.64) |
Commit crimes with respondent | 0.27 (0.32) | 76 (33.48) | 8 (3.52) |
Sell drugs | 0.29 (0.31) | 53 (23.35) | 9 (3.96) |
Are supportive gang lifestyle | 0.62 (0.34) | 18 (7.93) | 44 (19.38) |
You spend lots of time with | 0.59 (0.28) | 2 (0.90) | 21 (9.42) |
You go to for advice | 0.60 (0.27) | 4 (1.79) | 17 (7.62) |
You do not like | 0.11 (0.17) | 97 (42.73) | 0 |
Lives in neighborhood | 0.49 (0.27) | 7 (3.08) | 7 (3.08) |
Tie dispersion c (family, peers, mentors) | 0.29 (0.19) | - | - |
Freq. | Percent | |
---|---|---|
Self-reported left W1 group | 30 | 27.68% |
Self-reported left W1 group and never participates in anything group does | 13 | 43.33% |
Self-reported left W1 group but continues to participate in things group does | 17 | 56.67% |
Group-Leavers (n = 30) | Non-Leavers (n = 80) a | |||
Wave 1 % | Wave 2 % | Wave 1 % | Wave 2 % | |
Individual offending behavior, last 6 months | ||||
Sold drugs | 23.33 | 23.33 | 16.25 | 39.24 |
Stole a motor vehicle | 20.00 | 23.33 | 8.75 | 20.25 |
Carried a gun, last 6 months | 33.33 | 33.33 | 26.25 | 31.65 |
Used force or weapon to rob | 30.00 | 26.67 | 27.50 | 18.99 |
Attacked someone to seriously hurt, kill | 36.67 | 36.67 | 30.00 | 32.91 |
Gang fight | 33.33 | 26.67 | 22.50 | 27.85 |
a Missing data on one individual. | ||||
Gang-leavers, broken down by engagement: (last 6 months) | Disengaged (n = 13) | Still engaged (n = 17) | ||
Wave 1 % | Wave 2 % | Wave 1 % | Wave 2 % | |
Sold drugs | 23.08 | 7.69 | 23.53 | 35.29 |
Stole a motor vehicle | 23.08 | 7.69 | 17.65 | 25.29 |
Carried a gun | 38.46 | 7.69 | 29.41 | 52.94 |
Used force or weapon to rob | 30.77 | 7.69 | 35.29 | 41.18 |
Attacked someone to seriously hurt, kill | 46.15 | 15.38 | 29.41 | 52.94 |
Gang fight | 30.77 | 0 | 35.29 | 47.06 |
Does Not Participate n = 13 | Remains a Participant n = 17 | |
---|---|---|
Push Reasons for Leaving b | ||
Found new interests | 53.85% | 76.47% |
Bored | 30.77 | 47.06 |
It wasn’t what I thought | 30.77 | 52.94 |
Something happened I didn’t like | 38.46 | 47.06 |
Was hurt | 7.69 | 41.18 |
Friends/family hurt | 7.69 | 58.82 |
Police harassment/pressure | 15.38 | 41.18 |
Went to prison/jail | 15.38 | 41.18 |
Forced out by group | 7.69 | 23.53 |
Pull Reasons for Leaving b | ||
Got a job | 23.08 | 64.71 |
Expecting a baby/had a baby | 38.46 | 52.94 |
Made new friends | 38.46 | 52.94 |
Moved (home or school) | 7.69 | 35.29 |
Parent(s) made me | 15.38 | 25.29 |
Significant other made me | 23.08 | 52.94 |
Adult encouraged me to leave | 46.15 | 29.41 |
Summary | ||
Total pushes (mean) | 2.08 | 4.29 |
Total pulls (mean) | 1.92 | 3.24 |
% respondents listing pushes only | 7.69% | 0 |
% respondents listing pulls only | 7.69% | 0 |
Leavers, Disengaged n = 13 | Leavers, Still Engaged n = 17 | |
---|---|---|
Avg. number of W1 alters dropped by W2 | 13.92 | 12.71 |
Avg. percent of W1 alters dropped by W2 | 75.65% | 63.92% |
At W2, I didn’t name that W1 person because… a | ||
…I forgot to name that person | 38.02% | 28.69% |
…I already named 20 people | 6.00 | 14.36 |
…that person did something I don’t like | 4.64 | 4.93 |
…I changed my group of friends | 15.07 | 7.88 |
…that person moved | 12.19 | 11.12 |
…I don’t like that person | 2.14 | 2.28 |
…that person hangs out with people I don’t like | 7.83 | 2.73 |
…that person is an ex-boy/girlfriend | 0 | 2.45 |
…we grew apart | 1.56 | 1.88 |
…that person is in jail/prison | 1.71 | 2.65 |
…that person is deceased | 0 | 0 |
Relationship is over | 39.25% | 23.17% |
Average Change in Proportion a of Respondents’ Alters Who… | Leavers, Disengaged n = 13 | Leavers, Still Engaged n = 17 |
---|---|---|
Are respondent’s parents | 0.13 * | −0.04 |
Are family | −0.03 | −0.12 |
Are peers | −0.14 | 0.29 † |
Are mentorly | 0.40 *** | 0.28 *** |
Live with respondent | 0.00 | −0.01 |
Carry a gun | −0.20 | 0.05 |
Is in a gang | −0.31 ** | 0.05 |
Commit crimes with respondent | −0.16 | 0.06 |
Sell drugs | −0.24 * | 0.03 |
Are supportive gang lifestyle | −0.16 | 0.08 |
You spend lots of time with | −0.09 | −0.11 |
You go to for advice | −0.03 | 0.00 |
You do not like | −0.10 | −0.02 |
Lives in neighborhood | −0.08 | −0.09 |
Tie dispersion (family, peers, mentors) | 0.13 * | 0.33 *** |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Roman, C.G.; Cahill, M.; Mayes, L.R. Changes in Personal Social Networks across Individuals Leaving Their Street Gang: Just What Are Youth Leaving Behind? Soc. Sci. 2021, 10, 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10020039
Roman CG, Cahill M, Mayes LR. Changes in Personal Social Networks across Individuals Leaving Their Street Gang: Just What Are Youth Leaving Behind? Social Sciences. 2021; 10(2):39. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10020039
Chicago/Turabian StyleRoman, Caterina G., Meagan Cahill, and Lauren R. Mayes. 2021. "Changes in Personal Social Networks across Individuals Leaving Their Street Gang: Just What Are Youth Leaving Behind?" Social Sciences 10, no. 2: 39. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci10020039