. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Sep 10.

Published in final edited form as: Field methods. 2012 Apr 20;24(2):175–193. doi: 10.1177/1525822X11433997

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Attributes and Network Characteristics by Recruitment Category

Attribute	Description	Cross-Links	All Direct Recruits (DR)	DR 0-1	DR 2+
Sex	Female	43.48	46.32	35.35	67.44*
Race:	White	47.83	62.82*	65.86	56.98
	Black	30.43	17.29*	14.80*	22.09
	Hispanic	17.39	14.51	14.20	15.12
	Other	4.35	5.37	5.14	5.81
Age	Years	31.38	28.63*	29.10*	27.72*
Risk Group:	IDU	31.52	54.67*	48.64*	66.28*
	Prostitute^a	3.26 [7.50]	25.65* [55.38]*	15.11* [42.74]*	45.93* [68.10]*
	Pimp^a	15.22 [26.92]	6.56* [12.22]*	6.34* [9.81]*	6.98* [21.43]*
Network Characteristics
Sex/Drug ties:	At least one	96.74	97.82	96.68	100
	Two or more	95.51	88.74	85.00	95.93
	^↑Average #	16.80	12.25*	6.12*	24.04*
^↑Local net density		0.22	0.15*	0.14*	0.17*
^↑Race heterogeneity		0.27	0.30	0.27	0.36*
^↑Closeness centrality		0.20	0.19	0.18*	0.21*
Component membership:	In largest component	98.88	64.06*	49.06*	93.02*
	In largest bi-component	88.76	46.50*	26.25*	85.47
N		92	503	331	172

NOTE: All numbers present the percent of members within each category that have the described characteristic, except those noted with (^↑), which present avearage values. Significance calculations are based on a multinomial logistic regression, without controls. An asterisk (*) denotes significant difference from cross-links (Column I). Where Columns III–IV are significantly different from each other, they are bold-underlined.

For “pimps” and “prostitutes,” we also report [in brackets] the gender-specific percentage (i.e., the percent of in-category males who are pimps and of females who are prostitutes).