1. Paul Juarez, PhDPaul Juarez, PhD, Department of Family & Community Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN Kimberly Bess, PhD, Human and Organizational Development Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN Brandon Hill, BA, Oasis Center, Nashville, TN Vicente Samaniego, MPH, Department of Family & Community Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Nashville, TN Adam Voigt, Human and Organizational Development Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN This study was funded by the NCIPC/CDD (5U49CE001022). The views expressed in this presentation do not necessarily reflect the official policies of the DHHS or endorsement by the US Government

2.  I. Study Background  II. Previous Studies  III. Purpose of this Study  IV. Social Network Concepts  V. Methodology  VI. Preliminary Results  VII. Conclusions  VIII. Next Steps

3.  NUPACE is the Nashville Urban Partnership Academic Centers for Excellence on Youth Violence Prevention funded by the National Center for Injury Prevention & Control (NCIPC)  Employs a multi-disciplinary approach to youth violence prevention  Conducts research & surveillance on youth violence  Fosters collaboration between academic institutions and local community partners to help develop, implement, and evaluate promising prevention efforts.  Promotes collaboration to mobilize and empower communities to address youth violence.

4.  This research grew out of previous research that examined the relationship between community assets and youth violence  Community assets were initially conceptualized as the physical and built environments  Youth focus group participants were more likely to identify individuals as assets they would turn to than agencies or places in their neighborhoods or communities

5.  Social networks depict elements of a youth’s connectedness with others, such as friends, family, and school & agency personnel  The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between social networks and risk for youth violence.  For the purpose of this study, risk for youth violence prevention was operationalized as safe places, caring adults/mentors, and job training/work opportunities.  The primary hypothesis addressed by this study was that strong social networks associated with personal safety, caring adults, and job training/youth employment opportunities are independently and collectively associated with lower risk to youth for interpersonal violence.

6.  "Ego" is an individual "focal" node. Egos can be persons, groups, organizations, or whole societies.  "Neighborhood" is the collection of all nodes to whom the ego has a connection.  Size of ego network is the number of an ego’s neighbors, plus the ego itself.  Number of directed ties is the number of connections among all the nodes in the ego network.  Number of ordered pairs is the number of possible directed ties in each ego network.  Density is the number of ties divided by the number of pairs.  Betweenness is an aspect of the larger concept of "centrality."

7.  Youth were asked to complete a brief survey with questions on risk for violence taken from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey  Youth then were asked to complete a form to identify people in their social network by:  Category of relationship (family member, relative, friend, clergy, school/agency personnel)  Strength of their relationship (very close, close, not as close) for each of the 3 areas  Sociograms were then completed in small groups where youth were asked to identify from those people in their network they had identified, who they were most likely to turn to for advice or assistance relative to:  Safe Places  Mentoring  Job training/careers or employment opportunities  The sociogram was constructed as a series of concurrent circles (like an archery target with them in the bulls eye)

8.  Youth were asked to place a sticker in the appropriate circle of the sociogram for each person identified in their network by the likelihood they would be to turn to them for safety, mentoring or employment.  After stickers were placed on the sociogram, youth were asked to:  draw a line between each of the persons in their social network that know each other and  rate how well persons in their network know each other on a 3-point scale

9.  Demographics (n=79)  Sociograms were completed for 83 youth, but only 79 surveys were completed  Youth attended 10 high schools and 1 that was home schooled  GradeRace/Ethnicity 9 th 12%Black77% 10 th 15%White25% 11 th 28%Latino 4% 12 th 22%Asian 3%  Gender Female55%Male45%

10.  Youth Risk Behavior Survey  During the past 12 months, how many times has someone threatened or injured you with a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on school property? At least once- 8.7%  During the past 12 months, did your boyfriend or girlfriend ever hit, slap, or physically hurt you on purpose? Yes- 7.4%  How many days have you missed or been truant from school in the past month? About 30% stated at least once: 1 (11.1%) 12-more times (6.2%)

11. TOTAL N = 79Non-BlackBlack FemaleMean # Ties4.8 Lowest Risk 8.03 Highest Risk SD4.56.46 Total N1529 MaleMean 5.446.54 SD2.74.79 Total N926

12. TOTAL N = 79Non-BlackBlack FemaleMean # Ties108.45 Effective Size4.643.94 Efficiency.42.44 Total N1529 MaleMean9.225.73 Effective Size4.872.7 Efficiency.45.5 Total N33.9426

13. TOTAL N = 79Non-BlackBlack FemaleMean # Ties7.66.14 Effective Size4.253.0 Efficiency.59.48 Total N1529 MaleMean7.225.35 Effective Size4.52.89 Efficiency.46.55 Total N926

14. TOTAL N = 79 Non-BlackBlack FemaleMean # Ties12 - Most9.72 - Middle Effective Size 7.984.5 Efficiency.64.41 Total N1529 MaleMean9.78 - Middle7 - Least Effective Size 5.373.5 Efficiency.48.49 Total N926

15.  Blacks are at greater reported risk of youth violence than whites  There is little difference in mean # of ties between white males and females Safety (10 vs. 9.22) Mentoring (7.6 vs 7.22)  There are differences in # of ties between blacks and whites/other for all 3 areas  Black males have fewer ties in all 3 areas than white males and females and black females

16.  Analyze the relationship between # and type of social ties and risk for youth violence using the YRBS questions  By demographic characteristics  By safety, mentoring, and employment networks  Replicate the study oversampling for those at greatest risk for youth violence  Present results at the American Public Health Association conference in Philadelphia PA in two weeks