Table 3.

Incidence Rate Ratios from Poisson Models Predicting the Number of Kin and Non-Kin Additions and Losses Between Rounds 2 and 3.

	# Kin Network Members		# Non-Kin Network Members

	(1) Additions	(2) Losses	(3) Additions	(4) Losses
Concentrated disadvantage	1.03	1.11^*	1.07	1.07^*
	(.04)	(.06)	(.05)	(.03)
Residential instability	.97	1.00	.99	.98
	(.03)	(.04)	(.03)	(.03)
Perceived neighborhood social ties	.87^***	1.03	1.22^***	1.03
	(.03)	(.03)	(.05)	(.03)
Urbanicity (Ref = Urban)
Suburban	1.02	1.00	.92	.99
	(.07)	(.06)	(.06)	(.04)
Rural	1.06	1.07	.84^*	.98
	(.07)	(.08)	(.07)	(.06)
Age	.98	1.16^**	.95	1.00
	(.06)	(.06)	(.07)	(.05)
Female	1.05	.87^**	.86^*	.99
	(.06)	(.04)	(.05)	(.03)
Educational attainment (ref = less than high school)
High school or equivalent	.98	.88^†	.84	.93
	(.09)	(.06)	(.10)	(.06)
Some college	.85	.88^*	1.00	.92
	(.08)	(.05)	(.10)	(.06)
Bachelor’s or more	.78^*	.77^**	.99	.93
	(.08)	(.06)	(.11)	(.06)
Black	1.26^*	1.14^†	.79^*	.97
	(.13)	(.08)	(.09)	(.05)
Hispanic	1.15	.97	.74^**	.94
	(.08)	(.08)	(.08)	(.06)
Income	1.05	.95	.92^*	1.00
	(.04)	(.03)	(.03)	(.03)
Retired	.97	1.02	.98	.91^†
	(.08)	(.07)	(.09)	(.05)
Widowed	1.09	.95	.91	.91^†
	(.11)	(.08)	(.09)	(.05)
Respondent moved to a different tract R2➔R3	.96	1.06	1.20^**	1.07^*
	(.06)	(.08)	(.07)	(.03)
Residential tenure	1.01	1.00	1.00	1.00
	(.01)	(.01)	(.02)	(.01)
Number of household members	1.03	1.02	.97	.98
	(.02)	(.02)	(.03)	(.02)
Number of children	1.10^***	.99	.92^**	1.02^*
	(.02)	(.01)	(.02)	(.01)
F(df)	29.17^*** (25, 47.8)	9.34^*** (25, 47.9)	14.65^*** (25, 47.9)	3.43^***(25, 47.9)
N	2,325	2,165	2,325	1,489

^†

p < .10;

p < .05;

^**

p < .01;

^***

p < .001 (two-sided tests). 95% confidence intervals in parentheses.

All models control for the inverse Mills ratio, self-rated health, marital/partner status at Round 2, retirement between Rounds 2 and 3, widowhood between Rounds 2 and 3, and number of kin (models 1 and 2) and non-kin (models 3 and 4) network members at Round 2.