ALCOHOL, ETHNICITY, AND VIOLENCE: The Role of Alcohol Availability for Latino and Black Aggravated...

The Sociological Quarterly

46

(2005) 479–502 © 2005 Midwest Sociological Society

479

The Sociological Quarterly ISSN 0038-0253

Blackwell Publishing Ltd.Oxford, UK and Malden, USATSQThe Sociological Quarterly0038-02532005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.2005463479502Original Article

Alcohol, Ethnicity, and ViolenceAmie Nielsen, Ramiro Martinez, Jr., and Matthew Lee

*Direct correspondence to Amie L. Nielsen, Department of Sociology, University of Miami, P.O. Box 248162,

Coral Gables, FL 33124, telephone: (305) 284-6158; fax: (305) 284-5310; e-mail: [email protected]

ALCOHOL, ETHNICITY, AND VIOLENCE: The Role of Alcohol Availability for Latino and Black Aggravated Assaults and Robberies

Amie L. Nielsen*

University of Miami

Ramiro Martinez, Jr.

Florida International University

Matthew T. Lee

University of Akron

This article is one of the first to assess the impact of alcohol availability, an important but under-

studied neighborhood element, and other social disorganization measures for Latino and black

aggravated assault and robbery victimizations. Using data from Miami, Florida, for 1996 and 1997,

we find that although most predictors have similar effects on the outcomes for both groups, higher

alcohol availability rates are associated with more Latino but not black victims. To explain this find-

ing, we relate the criminogenic influence of alcohol to contextual features of Latino and black

neighborhoods, thereby integrating qualitative observations and quantitative data. Higher concen-

trations of recent immigrants are also related to fewer black assault victims, more Latino assault

victims, but not to robberies for either group.

In the past two decades, social scientists have increasingly focused on two areas—communities and crime, and race and crime. Some studies have concurrently focused onthese areas with macro-level research examining and comparing black and white crimerates, or investigating the role of disadvantage for crime in predominately white and blackneighborhoods (e.g., see Krivo and Peterson 1996; Lee, Martinez, and Rosenfeld 2001;McNulty 2001). However, most research on the race–violence relationship is conductedat the city level, disallowing consideration of local context, or is conducted in places out-side the Sunbelt. Such research settings have largely been untouched by importantchanges in the racial/ethnic/immigrant composition of the U.S. population (Waldinger2001). A more significant omission in the race–violence literature is the failure to exam-ine neighborhood-level Latino violence victimization, a critical oversight given racial andethnic differences in victimization (Rennison 2002) and this group’s growth. Indeed,since 1980 the Latino population more than doubled in size, and Latinos are now the larg-est ethnic minority group in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). This popula-tion growth was heavily fueled by immigration, a factor long thought to influence

480


46


Alcohol, Ethnicity, and Violence

Amie Nielsen, Ramiro Martinez, Jr., and Matthew Lee

neighborhood crime, and a process that historically and contemporaneously trans-formed communities and cities (Shaw and McKay 1942). Despite this population changeand its importance for social disorganization theory, the implications of recent immigra-tion and Latino crime have received little systematic attention from academics (for excep-tions, see Alaniz, Cartmill, and Parker 1998; Lee et al. 2001; Martinez 2002).

Another omission in the literature concerns consideration of the role of alcohol avail-ability, an important but, until recently, a sporadically examined neighborhood charac-teristic that may contribute to or exacerbate social disorganization and in turn shapeviolence in black and Latino communities. The role of alcohol in understanding race/ethnic violence patterns is a largely missing feature in most neighborhood studies of vio-lence, even though alcohol outlets tend to be overrepresented in disadvantaged ethnicminority and new immigrant communities (LaVeist and Wallace 2000; Peterson, Krivo,and Harris 2000; Zatz and Portillos 2002). A handful of studies examine alcohol and com-munity violence but none simultaneously consider Latino and black violence. This lackof research contributes to a knowledge gap concerning race/ethnicity and violence at theneighborhood level. In the face of scholarly calls to better understand differences in“manifestations of social organization and disadvantage” across areas inhabited by mem-bers of different racial/ethnic and immigrant groups (Krivo and Peterson 2000:558; seealso Alaniz et al. 1998), much remains to be understood about communities, alcohol andviolence, especially the roles of race/ethnicity and immigration.

To help fill this void, we merge several traditions in social science research and exam-ine the role of social disorganization theory—including recent immigrants—and alcoholavailability for nonlethal violence in Miami, Florida. Further, we consider the two mostfrequently reported violent crimes—aggravated assault and robbery—and disaggregateby ethnicity to examine victimization for Latinos and blacks. In addition, our study usesdata from a place well suited for such an investigation—the city of Miami, a majority–minority city with high levels of poverty, immigrants, and violent crime. With the Latinopopulation’s projected growth, other cities will increasingly come to resemble places likeMiami (Waldinger 2001), rather than cities in the Midwest or Northeast that traditionallyhave served as settings for studies of violence. Our method relies primarily on statisticalanalyses of census and official police data, but we place our findings in context by linkingoutcomes to our own observations of ethnic neighborhood differences. Although quan-titative data allow us to

identify

the independent effects of theoretically important vari-ables, our firsthand knowledge of Miami’s local conditions helps us to

explain

themeaning of these effects.

BACKGROUND AND THEORY

Social Disorganization Theory

The observation that neighborhood characteristics are linked to crime dates back to theturn of the last century. In their classic work, Shaw and McKay (1942) identified poor eco-nomic conditions, population turnover, and racial/ethnic heterogeneity as key structuralfactors that disrupt the ability of neighborhoods to exert social control. This situation,




46


481

termed social disorganization, accounted for high crime and delinquency rates in someChicago neighborhoods. Shaw and McKay’s classic work is still relevant for studying race/ethnicity, immigration and crime since communities with high levels of immigrants hadhigher delinquency and crime rates than other areas, a finding they attributed to the con-fluence of factors associated with disorganized areas into which these groups settled.Indeed, the small amount of recent research shows that higher levels of Latino and/orimmigrant concentrations typically have no effects on or are associated with lower levelsof violence (Alaniz et al. 1998; Sampson and Raudenbush 1999; Lee et al. 2001; Morenoff,Sampson, and Raudenbush 2001). Further, a key finding of Shaw and McKay’s work wasthat the same areas of Chicago had high crime and delinquency rates over time, regardlessof which racial/ethnic/nativity group lived there. As groups moved out of disorganizedareas and into more organized ones, their delinquency and crime rates dropped and werecomparable with other residents, thus reflecting structural and contextual factors, ratherthan nativity, for crime.

More recent work on social disorganization theory postulates that the same processesimpact black and white crime rates. Indeed, while racial and ethnic differences in violentcrime rates are well established (e.g., Rennison 2002), Sampson and Wilson (1995:41)state that “the sources of violent crime appear to be remarkably invariant across race androoted instead in the structural differences among communities, cities, and states in eco-nomic and family organization.” However, most studies that examine race-specific vio-lence outcomes have not done so at the community level (e.g., Ousey 1999; Krivo andPeterson 2000), and differences in factors related to violence for whites and blacks wereinterpreted as reflecting the groups’ very different structural positions (Krivo andPeterson 2000). Yet, Sampson and Wilson’s arguments, by extension, should hold forother ethnic minority groups, such as Latinos, at the community level. Latinos are moreeconomically similar to blacks than are whites, even though they are generally better offthan blacks in cities like Miami, one of the most impoverished in the United States (U.S.Bureau of the Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau 2000) and other places where disadvan-tage is pervasive for both groups (see Martinez 2002). To further understand this issue, itis therefore important to examine social disorganization and ethnic-specific violence in alocation that has many Latinos and a large concentration of immigrants, populationsother cities will increasingly come to possess (Waldinger 2001).

To date only a few neighborhood-level studies have examined whether similar factorsinfluence race-specific violence outcomes, and fewer have considered ethnic-specific out-comes. Almgren et al. (1998) found similarities and differences in predictors of black andnonblack homicides in Chicago, while McNulty (2001) found that most measures simi-larly impacted race-specific violence rates in Atlanta. Krivo and Peterson (1996) exam-ined the role of racial composition and economic disadvantage for serious crime rates(1989–91) in Columbus and found that local conditions similarly impacted violent crimein predominately white and predominately black neighborhoods.

It remains to be seen if these findings will hold for other cities or for other ethnicgroups (e.g., Latinos), as few have considered these issues. However, Lee and colleagues(2001) examined census tract homicide victim counts for blacks and Latinos in El Paso

482


46




(1985–94), Miami (1985–95), and San Diego (1985–95). The results revealed that withinand across cities, there were similarities and differences in effects of predictors on the out-comes. For example, residential instability, poverty, and percentage of female-headedhouseholds had varying levels of significant influence for Latino and black homicides inall three cities. A proxy for disorganization—percentage of new immigrants (those whoarrived in the United States between 1980 and 1990)—was associated with fewer Latinohomicide victims in El Paso and black homicides in Miami, greater numbers of blackhomicide victims in San Diego, and was not related to the other homicide outcomes in thecities.

Beyond this study involving homicide, to our knowledge, no multivariate researchhas explicitly examined and compared community predictors of violence for Latinosand other racial/ethnic groups. However, despite some ethnic differences in predictorsof homicide (Lee et al. 2001), we expect that generally similar community level factorswill exert a comparable impact on nonlethal violence victimization for blacks andLatinos. That is, following the arguments of Sampson and Wilson (1995), Krivo andPeterson (2000), McNulty (2001), and Velez, Krivo, and Peterson (2003), we shouldfind that social disorganization, including alcohol outlets, and other community con-ditions have similar effects on violence for both groups, given their general socioeco-nomic similarities.

Alcohol Outlets and Social Disorganization Theory

Despite its recognized important role for violence (see Parker 1995), macro-level researchon the alcohol–violence relationship has generally focused on nations, cities, and otherspatial entities.

1

Such research typically shows that greater alcohol availability is related tohigher violence levels even after accounting for other theoretically relevant variables (e.g.,Parker 1995; Scribner, MacKinnon and Dwyer 1995; Lipton and Gruenewald 2002). Forexample, Scribner and colleagues (1995) found that in separate ordinary least squaresregression analyses, on-site, off-site, and total alcohol outlet density were significant pre-dictors of assaultive violence (homicide, rape, aggravated assault, and robbery) in 1990for 74 cities in Los Angeles County. The effects of outlet density were present even aftercontrolling for median income, percentages of female-headed households, unemployed,blacks, and Latinos, and control variables. In addition to alcohol availability, percentageof blacks and percentage unemployed were positively related to assaultive violence. In aneffort to replicate this study in New Jersey cities, Gorman et al. (1998) used the 1990 cen-sus data and 1994 alcohol outlet rates and violence data. They found that percentage ofblacks and percentage of Latinos had positive effects, and median income and percentageunemployed had negative effects, but that total alcohol outlet density was not related toassaultive violence. Lipton and Gruenewald (2002) found the density of bars, but notliquor stores, was positively associated—while the number of restaurants was negativelyassociated—with hospitalization rates for assaults in zip codes in four California areas.Residential stability and social disadvantage were also positive and significant, andimmigrant presence (percentage of Latinos and percentage foreign born) was negativeand significant.




46


483

The relationship between alcohol availability and violence is best examined at smallerunits of analysis than the city (e.g., Gorman et al. 2001). The relatively small number ofneighborhood-level (i.e., census tracts or block groups) studies show that alcohol outletsare significantly related to violence even after taking into account a variety of theoreticaland control variables. For example, Peterson et al. (2000) found that bars had positivemain and interactive effects on most violent crime rates in Columbus with commonlyused control variables in the models. For aggravated assault and robbery, other positive(except as noted) and significant predictors included percentage of blacks, economic dep-rivation (assaults only), residential instability, retail/employment institutions (assaultonly, negative), interaction between recreation centers and extreme economic depriva-tion (negative), and interaction between bars and extreme economic deprivation. Otherstudies have also shown that alcohol availability is related to violence and crime in “rust-belt” settings (Roncek and Maier 1991; Gorman et al. 2001), and in the South (Scribneret al. 1999; Costanza, Bankston, and Shihadeh 2001; Zhu, Gorman, and Horel 2004). Forexample, Costanza et al. (2001) found liquor stores, but not taverns, to be associated withrobbery and aggravated assault in Baton Rouge after controlling for percentages of renters(significant for assault), boarded up dwellings, and other measures.

Other studies have examined the role of alcohol availability for violence in areas withgreater concentrations of Latinos and/or immigrants. Alaniz et al. (1998) found that off-site outlet rates were positively related to 1993 nonlethal youth violence rates in threesmall California cities with sizable Latino populations. While percentage foreign bornand race/ethnic composition were not related to violence, professional occupation rate(negative) and divorce rate (positive) were significant. Gorman et al. (2001) found totalalcohol outlet density, residential instability, and the welfare rate to be related to violentcrimes in Camden, but that percentages of blacks, of Latinos, of poverty, and of othervariables were not. Alcohol availability predicted violent crimes in San Antonio andAustin, net of community social structural characteristics and control variables. InAustin, the percentage of those in poverty was the only other significant predictor. In SanAntonio, the percentage of Latinos was positively related—while the percentage ofowner-occupied housing and young males was negatively related—to violence (Zhu et al.2004). Yet, despite examination of racial/ethnic/immigrant concentration, no studies todate have considered whether alcohol availability similarly impacts ethnic-specific com-munity violence, an important omission in light of studies that demonstrate the impor-tance of disaggregating violence data by race/ethnicity (Ousey 1999; Krivo and Peterson2000; Lee et al. 2001; McNulty 2001).

There are several ways that alcohol outlets may contribute to violence from a socialdisorganization perspective. We view alcohol availability as a dynamic element that con-tributes to community social disorganization. That is, alcohol outlets and alcohol useexacerbate existing conditions in disorganized areas, and they undermine levels of com-munity organization through their possible accompanying implications (e.g., publicconsumption). We delineate these processes below.

The selective disinhibition approach offers one mechanism through which alcoholuse impacts individuals, with the concomitant inference that this leads to more victims

484


46




at the macro level, especially in disorganized communities (Parker 1993, 1995; Alanizet al. 1998). This approach focuses both on alcohol’s effects on individuals and on situ-ational norms and social contexts. In some contexts, drinking may selectively disinhibitactive constraint, or restraint needed to stop violent behavior in situations with ambig-uous or conflicting norms concerning its use (Parker 1993, 1995). Locations wherealcohol is consumed often have ambiguous norms concerning violence, althoughcrime in the local community may be affected as people leave alcohol outlets andengage in, or are victims of, violence. As such, selective disinhibition may help explainwhy alcohol increases the likelihood of violence in some situations regardless of com-munity disorganization.

However, selective disinhibition, alcohol availability, and use may exacerbate condi-tions found in disorganized neighborhoods and lead to increased violence. In communi-ties with more situations conducive to violence, a greater number of people may commitor be victims of such acts on the street or when they return home (Peterson et al. 2000).For example, in neighborhoods where violence is routine, the presence of intoxicatedpersons with money to spend on alcohol may provide targets for robbers and others whosee violence as an acceptable form of conduct. Further, as recent work demonstrates,cultural contexts of extremely disadvantaged and socially isolated communities ofteninclude a “code of the street” or “cognitive landscapes” conducive to the use of both non-lethal and lethal violence to obtain and/or maintain status (Sampson and Wilson 1995;Anderson 1999). Thus, disadvantaged, socially isolated, and disorganized areas mayprovide ambiguous or even supportive norms concerning use of violence in particularsituations (e.g., Anderson 1999; Sampson and Wilson 1995; Krivo and Peterson 1996).Furthermore, as Fagan (1993:186) notes, daily interactions in such communities provide“an unending supply of the triggers, motivations, and arousal to escalate routine conflicts[into violent ones],” and alcohol tends to “lead to thematic interpretations of personalinteractions supportive of violence.” Thus, selective disinhibition and greater alcoholavailability (a proxy for consumption; see Gruenewald, Ponicki, and Holder 1993), maylead to more victims in communities and may exacerbate crime-facilitating conditions indisorganized neighborhoods.

Such conditions and their accompanying culture and norms related to violence arenot restricted to poor black communities, but may include disadvantaged communitiesinhabited by Latinos and other groups (Anderson 1999:31; Baumer et al. 2003). Althoughalcohol is consumed in many communities, outlets are concentrated in poor ethnicminority communities, providing potential fuel to an already potent mix (e.g., Anderson1999; LaVeist and Wallace 2000; Zatz and Portillos 2000). To the extent that Latinos andblacks in Miami reside in disadvantaged and disorganized communities with norms sup-portive of violence and an ample supply of alcohol, the latter’s availability should posi-tively impact ethnic-specific violence.

Alcohol outlets may also facilitate more violence in disorganized areas by undermin-ing community organization. Outlets may reduce collective efficacy and the ability toexert social control (Lipton and Gruenewald 2002). Sampson and Raudenbush(1999:612–13) define collective efficacy “as the linkage of cohesion and mutual trust with




46


485

shared expectations for intervening in support of neighborhood social controls.” Theynote that structural conditions, such as residential instability and economic disadvan-tage, undermine collective efficacy and thereby help increase crime and disorder. Alcoholoutlets, as businesses that attract community outsiders and serve as locations for manytypes of violence, may be another community characteristic that damages collective effi-cacy and the ability to exert social control. Additionally, alcohol outlets are establishmentsthat may reduce property values and thus increase population mobility. They are alsosources of physical and social disorder (e.g., broken bottles, public drinking), factors thatmay play a causal role in further disorganizing communities (Sampson and Raudenbush1999).

2

Disorder may help to loosen or weaken community norms and trust, with alcoholoutlets thereby helping undermine efficacy and increase violence (Lipton and Grue-newald 2002; but see Sampson and Raudenbush 1999).

In sum, then, alcohol availability may increase violence beyond traditionally exam-ined social disorganization measures through two different processes.

3

Outlets and con-sumption may exacerbate violence in communities with norms conducive to violence viaselective disinhibition. Alternatively, or perhaps simultaneously, alcohol outlets mayincrease social disorganization levels by undermining social control and/or collective effi-cacy. While we are not able to distinguish between these mechanisms, research suggeststhe importance of considering the role of alcohol availability for violence.

However, despite the well-recognized importance of this issue (Hawkins et al. 2000;Parker 1993), to date no studies have specifically examined community-level relation-ships between alcohol and Latino and black violence, but rather have focused only onoverall violence while perhaps controlling for racial/ethnic/immigrant composition.

4

Indeed, as discussed above, there are strong theoretical reasons why alcohol availabilitymay be positively related to both black and Latino violence. Thus, we move beyond theextant literature by examining community-level relationships among social disorganiza-tion, alcohol availability, and Latino and black violence. In doing so, we not only examinerace- and ethnic-specific nonlethal violence, the most frequently occurring types, but wealso focus (when possible) on ethnic-specific predictors.

DATA AND METHODS

Data

The unit of analysis is the census tract, a commonly used proxy for neighborhoods (e.g.,Lee et al. 2001; Kubrin 2003; Peterson et al. 2000). We examine the 70 census tracts in thecity of Miami with 500 or more residents, a threshold that eliminates areas or islands withonly a few residents and helps stabilize violence counts.

Data for all independent variables except alcohol outlets were obtained from 1990census information (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990).

5

The State of Florida LicensingBureau provided alcohol outlet data (e.g., addresses) for all liquor licenses current in 1996by type of establishment. Information for aggravated assault and robbery victimsfor 1996 and 1997 was obtained from the Miami Police Department Research Unit(robberies of businesses are excluded). Addresses for victimizations and outlets were

486


46




geocoded into the census tract in which they occurred or were located, respectively, aggre-gated to compute the number in each tract, and merged with census information.

Because our data are events known to the police, they exclude victimizations notreported to police. The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimates that in1996, 55 percent of aggravated assaults (those with a weapon or producing serious injury)and 54 percent of robberies were reported (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm).

6

However, there are few ethnic differences in reporting (Baumer 2002;Rennison 2002).

Variables

The dependent variables are race-/ethnic-specific robberies and aggravated assaults, thetwo most prevalent types of criminal violence. Following recent examples involving race/ethnic disaggregated data at the community level (e.g., Lee et al. 2001), we use victimcounts as outcomes. For each dependent variable, average annual tract victimizationcounts were calculated by dividing the total number of victims in 1996 and 1997 by two.The number of black or Latino residents was highly skewed or nonexistent, and use ofrace-/ethnic-specific rates would be problematic (see Osgood 2000). While there may besome overlap in groups (i.e., black Latinos), in Miami, most Latinos are white (i.e., in1990, 12 percent of Latinos were black) (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990). As such, overlapbetween the two groups does not pose a serious problem for our results.

Alcohol availability is measured by alcohol outlet rates. This is the measure typicallyused in neighborhood level analyses (e.g., Roncek and Maier 1991; Alaniz et al. 1998;Peterson et al. 2000). We examine total alcohol outlet rates, which includes both on-site(e.g., bars) and off-site (e.g., liquor stores) outlets per 1,000 tract population. We do so asboth types of outlets could contribute to violence through their disorganizing effects forcommunities, and there were no substantive differences from the results presented wheneach was separately included in the models. We use the natural log of the total rate in theanalyses.

Some of the other independent variables are based on the total population whileothers are race/ethnic specific. In keeping with prior research on community violence,including studies that considered the role of alcohol availability, we examine several mea-sures relevant to social disorganization theory (e.g., Peterson et al. 2000; McNulty 2001;Morenoff et al. 2001; Kubrin 2003). We construct black and Latino disadvantage indexes.For each group, the index is created by adding standardized scores (z-scores) from ethnic-specific measures of percentage in poverty, of female-headed households, and of adults(25 and older) who are high school dropouts.

7

“Residential instability” is an additiveindex based on standardized scores for percentage of vacant housing units and percentageof population turnover (number of people who lived in different housing units in 1990than in 1985 divided by the total population). “Recent immigrant” is the percentage of thetract population that arrived in the U.S. between 1980 and 1990. We also include adummy variable measure for “downtown” location, coded 1 for yes and 0 for no. Thismeasure is relevant to our study given that these tracts are mixed-use areas with manycommercial, financial, and tourist-related businesses and activities, including alcohol

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/




46


487

outlets, despite having the minimum number of residents for inclusion. Race/ethnic-specific measures of percentage of young (18 to 24 years) and male are included as controlvariables. We also include the number of black or Latino tract residents, respectively, tocontrol for victimization risk. Natural logs of these variables are used.

Analysis

In the analyses, we correct for problems associated with spatial autocorrelation. In partdue to the arbitrariness of geographic boundaries such as census tracts, violence is notrandomly distributed in space as events occurring in one location are often influenced bythose happening nearby. This may result in clustering of high violence areas together(positive spatial autocorrelation) through spillover or diffusion processes, or in clusteringof low-violence tracts near a high-violence tract (negative autocorrelation) because offactors such as police activities that displace events. Failing to control for such externalprocesses that may impact violence by correcting for spatial effects can produce errone-ous results (Anselin et al. 2000). To correct for potential problems associated with spatialautocorrelation, we created spatial lags for race-/ethnic-specific measures of aggravatedassault and robbery and incorporated them into the multivariate analyses.

8

The analyses, with the outcomes comprised of the number of victims, entail use ofPoisson-based regression analyses. The Poisson regression diagnostics indicate that neg-ative binomial regression is the most appropriate technique to use (Osgood 2000). Wefirst provide results from models with alcohol outlets excluded and then present resultswith it included in the analyses. This enables examination of possible changes in othervariables with this predictor included. We also test coefficients across Latino and blackmodels for both outcomes using the formula provided by Paternoster et al. (1998).

9

As noted above, our focus is on identifying relationships among features of social dis-organization, especially the impact of alcohol outlets, and Latino and black aggravatedassaults and robberies. However, our observations of social life in Miami’s ethnic neigh-borhoods over the past 10 years provide us with a unique opportunity to place our find-ings in the context of local conditions not fully captured in census data, thereby allowingus to explain aspects of these relationships in a way that most purely statistical studiescannot. While we do not claim to have relied on a specific ethnographic method or formalcoding scheme, our informal observations are consistent with published literature onMiami’s communities (e.g., the black population is more segregated in areas that lackviable business districts than is the Latino population). We offer this descriptive materialwith the modest aim of providing readers a more detailed understanding of the natureand types of conditions residents of these neighborhoods face. Because of its informalnature, we include this material in the conclusion rather than in the results.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the correlations for variables used in the black-specific analyses. Thebivariate results indicate that black aggravated assault and robbery victims are positivelyand highly correlated (.826). Consistent with social disorganization theory both are

488


46




TAB

LE 1

.

Zer

o-O

rder

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r B

lack

Vio

len

ce

Agg

rava

ted

assa

ult

a

Rob

bery

a

Inst

abili

ty

inde

x

Dis

adva

nta

ge

inde

x

a

Perc

enta

ge

of re

cen

t

imm

igra

nts

Tota

l

alco

hol

outl

ets

(ln

)D

own

tow

n

Perc

enta

ge

of y

oun

g

mal

es

a

Nu

mbe

r

per

son

s

(ln

)

a

Agg

rava

ted

assa

ult

a

1.0

Rob

bery

a

.826

**1.

0

Inst

abili

ty in

dex

.191

.239

*1.

0

Dis

adva

nta

ge in

dex

a

.378

**.3

17**

.264

*1.

0

Perc

enta

ge o

f rec

ent i

mm

igra

nts

-

.437

**

-

.197

.134

.178

1.0

Tota

l alc

ohol

ou

tlet

rat

e (l

n)

.133

.093

.399

**.2

78*

-

.212

1.0

Dow

nto

wn

loca

tion

.055

-

.006

.459

**.0

70.0

27.4

24**

1.0

Perc

enta

ge o

f you

ng

mal

es

a

.178

.176

.216

.251

*

-

.057

.437

**.3

68**

1.0

Nu

mbe

r of

per

son

s (l

n)

a

.693

**.6

82**

.395

**.3

82**

-

.237

*.2

14.0

66.3

25**

1.0

Mea

n43

.914

28.5

79.0

00.0

0026

.626

1.75

0.1

005.

274

4.75

6

Stan

dard

dev

iati

on64

.468

40.9

641.

641

.720

14.3

63.6

54.3

025.

605

3.10

3

a

Bla

ck-s

peci

fic

mea

sure

.

*p

<

.05,

**p

<

.01.




46


489

positively related to the black disadvantage index. However, only robbery is correlatedwith residential instability, and percentage of recent immigrants is negatively associatedwith black assaults and is not related to robberies. Total alcohol outlet rates are not relatedto either black aggravated assaults or robberies. Downtown location and percentage ofyoung males are not significant, although the number of black residents is positivelyrelated to both outcomes. For the independent variables, residential instability is posi-tively associated with black disadvantage, while total outlet rate is positively related toinstability, disadvantage, downtown location, and percentage of young black males.

10

Table 2 shows the correlations for variables used in the Latino-specific analyses.Latino aggravated assault and robbery counts are highly related (.850). Disadvantage isnot related to Latino violence at the bivariate level, although residential instability is pos-itively associated with robberies, and percentage of recent immigrants is positively relatedto both outcomes. Total alcohol outlet rate is positively related to Latino robbery but notto aggravated assault victims. In addition, the number of Latino residents is positivelyassociated with both outcomes, while neither downtown location nor percentage ofyoung males are significant. Among the predictors, Latino disadvantage is positivelyrelated to residential instability. Total outlet rate is positively associated with residentialinstability, Latino disadvantage, and downtown location, but is negatively related to thenumber of Latinos. Percentage of recent immigrants is not associated with Latino disad-vantage, residential instability or with total alcohol outlet rate, but is positively related topercentage of young males and number of Latino residents.

We now consider our multivariate analyses. Table 3 shows the results of the negativebinomial regression analyses for ethnic-specific aggravated assault victim counts. Models1 and 2 exclude the alcohol outlet rate, while Models 3 and 4 include the variable. Thisenables examination of possible changes in effects of traditional neighborhood predictorswith alcohol outlet rate included in the analyses.

Model 1 shows the results for black aggravated assault victim counts. For blacks, thedisadvantage index, downtown location and number of residents are significantly andpositively related to aggravated assault victims, while percentage of recent immigrants isa significant negative predictor. In other words, taking into account the effects of othervariables, black aggravated assaults are more numerous in tracts with greater black disad-vantage, fewer immigrants, larger numbers of black residents, and in downtown Miami.Further, the spatial lag is significant, indicating that the number of assaults on blacks in agiven tract is influenced by the number in nearby tracts.

The findings for Latino aggravated assaults are presented in Model 2. Consistent withsocial disorganization theory, in the multivariate analysis both the instability index andLatino disadvantage emerge as positive and significant predictors of Latino assaults.Thus, areas with greater residential instability and disadvantage have more Latino assaultvictims. Further, areas with more Latino residents have more such victims. The spatial lagis also significant, indicating that the number of Latino assaults in a tract is influenced bythe numbers in tracts nearby. The percentage of recent immigrants and downtown loca-tion are not related to the number of Latino victims. Overall, in comparing the effects ofpredictors for the two ethnic groups, residential instability and percentage of recent

490


46




TAB

LE 2

.

Zer

o-O

rder

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r La

tin

o V

iole

nce

Agg

rava

ted

assa

ult

a

Rob

bery

a

Inst

abili

ty

inde

x

Dis

adva

nta

ge

inde

x

a

Perc

enta

ge

of re

cen

t

imm

igra

nts

Tota

l

alco

hol

outl

ets(

ln)

Dow

nto

wn

Perc

enta

ge

of y

oun

g

mal

es

a

Nu

mbe

r

per

son

s

(ln

)

a

Agg

rava

ted

assa

ult

a

1.0

Rob

bery

a

.850

**1.

0

Inst

abili

ty in

dex

.157

.262

*1.

0

Dis

adva

nta

ge in

dex

a

.172

.139

.260

*1.

0

Perc

enta

ge o

f rec

ent i

mm

igra

nts

.530

**.3

65**

.134

-

.034

1.0

Tota

l alc

ohol

ou

tlet

rat

e (l

n)

.133

.395

**.3

99**

.277

*

-

.212

1.0

Dow

nto

wn

loca

tion

.064

.225

.459

**.0

74.0

27.4

24**

1.0

Perc

enta

ge o

f you

ng

mal

es

a

.102

.060

-

.104

.123

.320

**

-

.231

-

.280

*1.

0

Nu

mbe

r of

per

son

s (l

n)

a

.485

**.3

61**

-

.095

-

.231

.653

**

-

.284

*

-

.110

.265

*1.

0

Mea

n24

.571

33.0

93.0

00.0

0026

.626

1.75

0.1

006.

334

7.33

5

Stan

dard

dev

iati

on20

.251

22.4

081.

641

.848

14.3

63.6

54.3

022.

863

1.71

3

a

Lat

ino-

spec

ific

mea

sure

.

*p

<

.05,

**p

<

.01.




46


491

TAB

LE 3

.

Neg

ativ

e B

inom

ial R

egre

ssio

n R

esu

lts

for

Eth

nic

-Spe

cifi

c A

ggra

vate

d A

ssau

lts

Bla

cks

(1)

Lati

nos

(2)

Bla

cks

(3)

Lati

nos

(4)

Inst

abili

ty in

dex

-

.009

(.0

40)

+

.111

* (.

053)

-

.020

(.0

46)

.067

(.0

51)

Dis

adva

nta

ge in

dex

a

.546

** (

.117

).4

13**

(.1

10)

.535

** (

.120

).3

37**

(.1

04)

Perc

enta

ge o

f rec

ent i

mm

igra

nts

-

.018

** (

.004

)

+

.006

(.0

07)

-

.017

** (

.005

)

+

.012

* (.

007)

Dow

nto

wn

.567

** (

.213

).0

70 (

.291

).5

69**

(.2

19)

+-

.120

(.2

63)

Perc

enta

ge o

f you

ng

mal

es

a

-

.010

(.0

13)

-

.018

(.0

27)

-

.015

(.0

16)

-

.015

(.0

26)

Nu

mbe

r of

per

son

s (l

n)

a

.454

** (

.044

).3

55**

(.0

74)

.462

** (

.047

).3

40**

(.0

70)

Spat

ial l

ag.0

27**

(.0

06)

.051

* (.

029)

.027

** (

.006

).0

40 (

.026

)

Tota

l alc

ohol

ou

tlet

rat

e (l

n)

——

.075

(.1

43)

+

.401

** (

.132

)

Con

stan

t

-

.465

-

.959

-

.616

-

1.44

6**

Log

likel

ihoo

d

-

227.

115

-

259.

419

-

226.

859

-

254.

081

Lik

elih

ood

rati

o

c

2

167.

76**

b

64.4

0**

b

168.

27**

c

75.0

7**

c

a

Eth

nic

-spe

cifi

c.

b

7 df

.

c 8 df

.

+Sig

nifi

can

tly

diff

eren

t eff

ects

(p

< .0

5, o

ne-

taile

d) fo

r et

hn

ic g

rou

ps.

*p <

.05,

**p

< .0

1, o

ne-

taile

d.

Not

e:N

um

bers

in p

aren

thes

es a

re s

tan

dard

err

ors.

492 The Sociological Quarterly 46 (2005) 479–502 © 2005 Midwest Sociological Society

Alcohol, Ethnicity, and Violence Amie Nielsen, Ramiro Martinez, Jr., and Matthew Lee

immigrants have statistically different effects for black and Latino aggravated assaults inthe first two models. This suggests that these variables play different roles with regard tovictimization for the two ethnic groups.

Models 3 and 4 of Table 3 show the results for ethnic-specific aggravated assaults withtotal alcohol outlet rate included in the analyses. For blacks, the results in Model 3 andModel 1 are nearly identical, and alcohol outlets are not associated with the number ofaggravated assault victims. For Latinos, however, this is not the case. As Model 4 shows,alcohol availability emerges as a positive and significant predictor of Latino aggravatedassaults: there are more such victims in areas with greater alcohol outlet rates.

With alcohol outlet rate in the analysis, there are four notable changes in the resultsfor Latinos. First, residential instability is no longer statistically significant. Second, thesize of the coefficient for Latino disadvantage is about one fifth smaller than that in Model2, although it remains significant. This suggests that some of the effects of disadvantageon Latino victims is explained by the presence of alcohol outlets. In addition, percentageof recent immigrants is now a significant and positive predictor of Latino aggravatedassaults. Finally, the spatial lag is no longer statistically significant.

In comparing the effects of predictors for ethnic-specific outcomes in Models 3 and 4,three variables have different effects across groups. First, the impact of total alcohol out-lets on Latino aggravated assaults is larger than on black assaults. Percentage of recentimmigrants has opposite effects on black assault than on Latino assault victims. In addi-tion, downtown location has different effects on black and Latino victimization.

Table 4 shows the results for ethnic-specific robberies. Model 1 presents the results forblack robbery victims and Model 2 shows the results for Latino robberies. In Model 1, theonly significant predictors are downtown location, number of persons, and the spatiallag. That is, there are more robberies of blacks in neighborhoods located in the heart ofMiami, in areas with greater numbers of black residents, and the number of robberies isinfluenced by those in nearby locations. Notably, the disadvantage index and percentageof recent immigrants are not related to the number of black robbery victims.

In the results for Latino robbery counts shown in Model 2, four variables are signifi-cant: residential instability, Latino disadvantage, number of persons, and the spatial lag.After controlling for the other predictors, Latino robberies are more numerous in areaswith greater residential instability, greater disadvantage, and more Latino residents. Thenumber of robberies is also influenced by the number of Latino victims in nearby loca-tions. However, the extent to which robberies in nearby tracts influences the number infocal tracts is greater for crimes involving black than Latino victims.

In Models 3 and 4, total alcohol outlet rate is included in the analyses. Significant vari-ables for black robbery in Model 3 are identical to those in Model 1: downtown location,number of black residents, and the spatial lag. Total alcohol outlet rate is not related to thenumber of black robbery victims. However, as shown in Model 4, total alcohol outlet rateis a significant positive predictor of Latino robberies: there are more such victims in tractswith higher outlet rates, although this variable’s effects are not significantly different forLatino and black robberies. Only one other variable, the number of Latino residents, isrelated to Latino robberies. Similar to the assault results, with alcohol outlet rate in the

Amie Nielsen, Ramiro Martinez, Jr., and Matthew Lee Alcohol, Ethnicity, and Violence

The Sociological Quarterly 46 (2005) 479–502 © 2005 Midwest Sociological Society 493

TAB

LE 4

.N

egat

ive

Bin

omia

l Reg

ress

ion

Res

ult

s fo

r E

thn

ic-S

peci

fic

Rob

beri

es

Bla

cks

(1)

Lati

nos

(2)

Bla

cks

(3)

Lati

nos

(4)

Inst

abili

ty in

dex

.052

(.0

46)

.103

* (.

052)

.019

(.0

52)

.062

(.0

47)

Dis

adva

nta

ge in

dexa

.135

(.1

32)

.232

* (.

106)

.099

(.1

36)

.138

(.0

93)

Perc

enta

ge o

f rec

ent i

mm

igra

nts

-.00

6 (.

005)

-.00

2 (.

007)

-.00

2 (.

005)

.004

(.0

06)

Dow

nto

wn

.487

* (.

248)

.382

(.3

30)

.477

* (.

256)

.042

(.2

80)

Perc

enta

ge o

f you

ng

mal

esa

.012

(.0

13)

.024

(.0

27)

-.00

5 (.

017)

.029

(.0

24)

Nu

mbe

r of

per

son

s (l

n)a

.270

** (

.047

).2

51**

(.0

67)

.297

** (

.052

).2

36**

(.0

61)

Spat

ial l

ag.0

94**

(.0

11)

+.0

43*

(.02

6).0

90**

(.0

11)

+.0

35 (

.022

)

Tota

l alc

ohol

ou

tlet

rat

e (l

n)

——

.246

(.1

56)

.512

** (

.120

)

Con

stan

t-1

.516

**-.

076

-2.0

01**

-.78

9

Log

likel

ihoo

d-2

16.0

72-2

86.9

75-2

14.6

80-2

77.6

99

Lik

elih

ood

rati

o c2

148.

13**

b40

.20*

*b15

0.92

**c

58.7

6**c

a Eth

nic

-spe

cifi

c.b 7

df.

c 8 df

.

+Sig

nifi

can

tly

diff

eren

t eff

ects

(p

< .0

5, o

ne-

taile

d) fo

r et

hn

ic g

rou

ps.

*p <

.05,

**p

< .0

1, o

ne-

taile

d.

Not

e:N

um

bers

in p

aren

thes

es a

re s

tan

dard

err

ors.



analysis, residential instability, and the spatial lag are no longer significant predictors ofLatino robberies. Latino disadvantage is also no longer significant. However, in compar-ing Models 3 and 4, only the spatial lag has different effects for black and Latino robberycounts.

The positive effects of alcohol availability for Latino violence raises the question ofwhether Latinos are especially at risk for violence in disorganized communities with highoutlet rates. For example, extreme disadvantage interacted with the number of bars topredict overall violent crime, rape and robbery rates in Columbus (Peterson et al. 2000).In order to further examine this issue, we created interaction terms for high alcohol avail-ability and the three other social disorganization measures and entered each term in sep-arate analyses for Latino aggravated assaults and robberies. The results showed that noneof the interactions were related to either victimization outcome, indicating that Latinosare not at especially high risk of violence in very disorganized communities with highrates of alcohol availability.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

This is one of the first papers to examine the effects of alcohol availability and other fac-tors on ethnic-specific violence at the community level. Social disorganization theorysuggests that the effects of disorganization should be similar regardless of a neighbor-hood’s racial/ethnic composition (Shaw and McKay 1942; Sampson and Wilson 1995)even though only a few studies have examined ethnic- or race-specific violence at thislevel (Almgren et al. 1998; Lee et al. 2001; McNulty 2001; Kubrin 2003). Alcohol availabil-ity is another important factor that adds greater complexity to understandings of com-munity-level violence (Roncek and Maier 1991; Alaniz et al. 1998; Peterson et al. 2000),and some have suggested the importance of examining its role for race, ethnicity and vio-lence (Parker 1993; Parker and Cartmill 1998; Hawkins et al. 2000).

Our results generally demonstrate the broad applicability of social disorganizationtheory for Latino and black violence victimization as several measures have similar effectson violence for both groups. Residential instability is not usually related to either out-come for blacks or Latinos, suggesting that a key tenet of disorganization theory must berevised to capture the effects of the presence of alcohol outlets. Furthermore, higher levelsof group-specific disadvantage are associated with more aggravated assault but not withrobbery victims; this is somewhat surprising since the latter is likely linked more directlyto economic deprivation. This can be explained from a routine activity standpoint(Cohen and Felson 1979), as areas with attractive robbery targets (e.g., tourists, personswith money) are widely distributed across Miami, rather than concentrated in disadvan-taged neighborhoods. If robbers select targets while engaged in their daily activities,victims may well be found throughout the city.

As expected, we uncovered similarities in results across groups consistent with priortheoretical work (Sampson and Wilson 1995; Krivo and Peterson 2000; McNulty 2001;Velez et al. 2003). However, this is not the case with respect to the relationship betweenimmigration and alcohol availability—community factors of particular interest in this



study—and violence. Immigration continues to be an overlooked aspect of social disor-ganization theory (Martinez and Lee 2000b). In this study, more newcomers meant fewerblack assault victims. For Latinos, however, recent immigration contributes to moreaggravated assaults (after taking into account the concentration of alcohol outlets).This is at odds with the limited research in this area (Alaniz et al. 1998; Sampson andRaudenbush 1999; Lee et al. 2001; Morenoff et al. 2001).

The protective effects of immigrant concentration for violence have led some scholarsto conclude that instead of having disorganizing effects on communities, immigrationmay stabilize neighborhoods and reduce crime (Lee et al. 2001; Martinez and Lee 2000b).According to this view, immigration may encourage new forms of social organizationthat offset the effects of criminogenic social and economic conditions in neighborhoodsinto which immigrants often first move. Our results suggest that this may be the case formost types of nonlethal violence involving blacks. Martinez and Lee (2000a) showed thatHaitian and Jamaican immigrants have lower homicide offending rates than AfricanAmericans and that most offenses were intraracial/ethnic for these groups. To the extentthat these groups reside in areas with African Americans and that nonlethal violencereflects similar underlying processes, this may help explain the findings of immigrantconcentration for black assaults (see also Lee 2003).

Of particular importance in this study are the effects of alcohol availability for group-specific violence. Contrary to expectations, our results show the importance of alcoholavailability for Latino violence but not for black violence. Higher alcohol outlets rates areassociated with more Latino aggravated assault and robbery victims. Further, alcoholavailability appears to account for the effects of residential instability and contagion pro-cesses (i.e., the spatial lag) for Latino violence. It also partially accounts for the impact ofLatino disadvantage, reducing its effects on assaults and rendering it nonsignificant forrobbery. For Latinos, then, alcohol availability has important effects on violence, perhapsincreasing selective disinhibition at the individual level to ultimately lead to more victimsand/or undermining collective efficacy and ability to exert social control (Sampson andRaudenbush 1999).

For black victimization, the situation is different since alcohol availability is notrelated to assaults or to robberies. The ethnic difference in results is unexpected given theassumed ambiguous norms concerning violence in Miami’s extremely disadvantagedcommunities (e.g., Sampson and Wilson 1995; Anderson 1999; Baumer et al. 2003).While high overall, disadvantage particularly impacts Miami’s black residents (e.g., Leeet al. 2001), and it may simply be that conditions are so bad that alcohol plays no role forblack victimization. An examination of differences in Miami’s predominately black andLatino contexts suggests that levels of disadvantage in black, but not Latino, communitiesin Miami exceed a “tipping point” beyond which alcohol or additional disadvantage ordisorganization can impact violence (Krivo and Peterson 2000).11

Miami’s Local ConditionsThe local conditions in the city of Miami strongly suggest an underclass black population.Levels of poverty and disadvantage are high overall, but especially for blacks. While



Latinos also live in impoverished conditions, their situation is better than that for blacks.The Cuban ethnic enclave provides jobs to Latino newcomers and opportunities for eco-nomic incorporation, even if into low-wage service jobs (e.g., Portes and Stepick 1993).Thus, Latinos are poor but working and, in part because of this, typically are not consid-ered to be members of the underclass (Moore and Pinderhughes 1993; Martinez 2002).Miami’s black communities are extremely segregated. Almost three quarters (71.3 per-cent) of the city’s blacks live in three major neighborhoods (Overtown, Liberty City, andLittle Haiti) that are themselves inhabited almost exclusively by blacks. Within the threepredominately black communities, poverty levels are extreme (about 45 percent in 1990compared to 35 percent for blacks in other areas). For the city overall, more than half (54percent) of tracts had residential populations comprised of 10 percent or less of blacks. Incontrast, for Latinos only 17 percent of tracts had less than 10 percent Latino residents,reflecting less segregation and concentrated poverty (Sampson and Wilson 1995).

In order to better understand the implications of these ethnic differences, we nowprovide a brief description of the major residential areas for blacks and Latinos in Miami,drawing on the literature as well as on our direct observations. Observations were madeover a 10-year period involving numerous explorations of Miami’s neighborhoods withthe specific intent of determining the extent to which local conditions matched informa-tion provided by census statistics, especially with regard to viability of business districts,presence of vacant buildings, and nature of the housing stock.

Of the three predominately black neighborhoods, two (Overtown and Liberty City)have virtually no business infrastructure, and the third (Little Haiti) primarily consists ofsmall shops that employ only one or a few people. Even Little Haiti, however, is “weak”economically and politically (Portes and Stepick 1993). Rather than large, establishedbusinesses that offer essential services (e.g., grocery stores, banks), these areas have smallstores such as pawnshops and liquor stores. There are few restaurants, and most placesthat sell food are small takeout businesses. Many buildings are vacant (boarded up, cov-ered with graffiti, or fire damaged) while some of the existing businesses are run down(peeling paint). In what remains of Overtown—it was decimated by construction of I-95through the area’s heart in the 1960s (Dunn 1997)— many former businesses are defunct,vacant lots are filled with trash and debris, and homeless “camps” are present in the eve-nings particularly under causeways heading to Miami Beach, under I-95, and near thenew American Airlines Arena. Omni Mall was built in the late 1970s on Overtown’s edgeto provide amenities, but most stores eventually closed (e.g., JCPenney), and the mallitself was closed by 1999 (Garcia 2000). Indeed, Overtown has been described as a com-munity “in a continuous state of social and economic decline” (Dunn 1997:339). Whilesome government offices are located in the area, most employees are present onlyduring the day and leave by the evening. The Miami Arena, in which the Miami Heat andUniversity of Miami men’s basketball team used to play, sits empty most of the time andis surrounded by vacant parking lots.

With regard to housing, multistory buildings in Liberty City have been describedelsewhere as “concrete monsters” (Dunn 1997:341). Many such buildings are located oneafter another; most are comprised of apartments, and some buildings are public housing.



People hang out on exterior walkways of the buildings and congregate on corners. Anactive prostitution scene is found on the edge of Liberty City (Biscayne Drive). A fewhigh-rise apartment buildings were recently built in Overtown in the hopes of attractinga more socioeconomically diverse population. Little green space is present in the areaexcept for weeds growing in scattered patches.

In contrast to blacks, Latinos are more residentially dispersed in Miami. Two mainLatino communities in the city are Little Havana and the Latin Quarter. Over one third(37.7 percent) of Latinos in Miami live in these two neighborhoods. Differences in disad-vantage for those living in these communities compared to elsewhere in Miami are not asextreme as for blacks but are still bad (i.e., 31.5 percent of Latinos in the two areas live inpoverty compared to 27.2 percent of Latinos living elsewhere). These communities haveboth residential and business areas. While there are numerous apartment buildings, thereare also many single-family homes and duplexes located in the areas. Businesses arepresent, including many small shops, bigger stores, cafes, and restaurants and fewerliquor stores are present than in the black communities. A few businesses are vacant, butmost are operating. Men in particular congregate near restaurants that serve café cubanoand those providing outdoor seating. Bustling street activity is evident day and night.Unlike Overtown, there are no homeless camps in Little Havana or the Latin Quarter.

Latinos live throughout the city of Miami, except for the three black communities.While there are some apartment buildings, most housing is comprised of single-familyhomes or duplexes. Most houses have one or more vehicles parked outside. A local gro-cery store chain (Sedanos) serves these areas, as do regional chains (Publix and Winn-Dixie). While there are a few businesses that offer bail bonds and beepers, many othertypes of businesses (e.g., banks, hairdressers, restaurants, bars, gas stations, fast foodchains, pharmacies) are evident in the one- and two-story strip malls/complexes andfree-standing structures adjacent to the primarily Latino residential areas. Much of theadvertising and store signs are in Spanish or in English and Spanish.

Altogether, then, the quantitative results and above description demonstrate thatthere are important differences in the contexts and apparent levels of disorganization inneighborhoods in which Miami blacks and Latinos reside. These differences may haveimplications for violence. Our observations suggest that the census data used in the mul-tivariate analyses do not fully capture some of these contextual elements, but by placingour results in this context our article offers several avenues for future research on violenceand social disorganization. First, it suggests the importance of moving beyond consider-ing just whites and blacks to include Latinos in racial- and ethnic-specific analyses (seealso Hawkins et al. 2000; Lee et al. 2001; Velez et al. 2003). It also suggests the importanceof considering the role of alcohol availability as a disorganizing community factor andexamining its effects on race- and ethnic-specific violence in other settings. Whether eth-nic differences in effects of alcohol will be evidenced across sites, as well as for lethal vio-lence, remains to be explored. This is an important issue as the size of the Latinopopulation, and other immigrant groups, continues to grow (U.S. Census Bureau 2000),and because of the prevalence of outlets in minority and disadvantaged communities(LaVeist and Wallace 2000; Peterson et al. 2000; Zatz and Portillos 2000). This study also



indicates the need to better capture contextual processes not generally or fully denoted inquantitative data by combining statistical analyses with knowledge of local conditionsgained through direct observations.

In sum, our research suggests the importance of continuing efforts to identify factorsthat influence community violence, including for immigrant, racial, and ethnic groups.Our findings also show the value of taking into account alcohol availability and the role ofimmigration for neighborhood crime. While this and other studies represent importantstarting points for trying to identify and understand factors that influence racial- andethnic-specific violence at the neighborhood level, much work remains.

NOTES

1Because so few people become violent after drinking, the relationship between alcohol and vio-

lence may be most usefully examined at the macro-level (see Parker 1995).2Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) refer to the presence of bars as fruitful to examine but focus on

mixed land use (commercial and residential). They state that mixed land use is “a robust but

understudied correlate of crime . . . theoretically relevant to understanding collective efficacy as

well. It may be, for example, that the capacity of residents to achieve common purpose is limited

not because of lack of internal effort but simply the structural constraints imposed by the density

of commercial traffic and land-use patterns inhospitable to social interaction and surveillance” (p.

622). We do not dispute this possibility but posit that alcohol availability specifically plays a key

role for violence.3It is possible that alcohol outlets reflect social disorganization. For example, as Velez et al. (2003:

650) note, politically efficacious “affluent communities are positioned to garner law enforcement,

other protective services . . . and zoning restrictions that limit the encroachment of bars, other

establishments with liquor licenses. . . .” We cannot explicitly address this issue because of data

limitations, but encourage future research to do so. However, we argue that alcohol availability

plays a causal role for community level violence. Both the theoretic processes described and the

consistent empirical findings showing alcohol availability to be significant net of social disorgani-

zation and other variables strongly suggest that it has an important and independent role for

violence.4One macro-level study assessed alcohol’s impact on race-specific violence. Parker and Cartmill

(1998) examined changes in U.S. white and nonwhite homicide rates over time and found that per

capita spirit and wine consumption were related to changes in white rates, and per capita beer

consumption was related to changes in nonwhite rates.5The 2000 census data are closer in time than the 1990 census to 1996 and 1997, the years for the

violence data. We use 1990 census information for the predictors because of the theorized tempo-

ral ordering of their effects on our outcomes. This could be problematic if tract populations

shifted drastically from 1990 to 2000 (see Kubrin 2003). Fortunately, there is substantial stability

in sociodemographic characteristics of tracts over time. For example, the percentage of black res-

idents is significantly correlated for 1990 and 2000 (r = .9) as is the percentage of Latinos (r = .9).

The other variables in our models are also strongly correlated with minor exceptions (results

available upon request) (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau 2000).6The actual number of crimes is greater than that reported to police. There are few ethnic differ-

ences in the reporting of violence (Baumer 2002; Rennison 2002) or police notification across

areas based on disadvantage (Baumer 2002). Undocumented persons may be less likely to report



crimes (Davis and Erez 1998); as Cubans comprise about half of Miami’s Latinos, this may not be

a serious concern (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990; U.S. Census Bureau 2000). However, caution

should be used in interpreting our results.7As in other violence research, we construct disadvantage indexes rather than use separate mea-

sures of socioeconomic conditions because of collinearity concerns. Factor analysis results using

principal components extraction methods indicate that for both groups the variables load on a

single factor. For ethnic-specific measures of percentages of poverty, of female-headed house-

holds, and of adults who are not high school graduates, factor loadings were .85, .78, and .50,

respectively, for blacks and .92, .83, and .80, respectively, for Latinos. Factor analyses involving

other variables, however, show that disadvantage elements differ somewhat for the two groups.

Identical analyses as those shown using various disadvantage indexes produced similar results.8While there are problems with spatial diagnostics for count data (Kubrin 2003), they suggest the

presence of spatial autocorrelation. To correct for this, we created spatial lags by first using Stata

(Statacorp 2001) to estimate fitted values of each dependent variable. The fitted values were

imported into Spacestat (Anselin 2001). Centroid coordinates for each tract were used to create a

distance matrix, which was transformed into an inverse distance matrix. As no limits were

imposed, the weight each tract received was based on the distance between tracts. The matrix was

row-standardized so weights for each tract summed to 1. The weights were used to create spatial

lag averages based on fitted tract values of ethnic-specific outcomes. The lags were incorporated

in the respective negative binomial regression analyses (Anselin et al. 2000).9The formula is z = b1 - b2/÷ + .

10As some correlations between the independent variables are substantial, we used OLS regression

to test for collinearity. Variance inflation factors in all models were below 4.11A reviewer questioned whether alcohol availability, rather than disadvantage, had exceeded a tip-

ping point. Additional analyses (results available upon request) show that in black contexts, it is

disadvantage and not alcohol availability that may have surpassed a tipping point (i.e., outlets are

not related to black violence at any level of availability).

REFERENCES

Alaniz, Maria L., Randi S. Cartmill, and Robert Nash Parker. 1998. “Immigrants and Violence:

The Importance of Neighborhood Context.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 20: 155–

74.

Almgren, Gunnar, Avery Guest, George Immerwahr, and Michael Spittel. 1998. “Joblessness,

Family Disruption, and Violent Death in Chicago, 1970–90.” Social Forces 76: 1465–93.

Anderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City.

New York: W. W. Norton.

Anselin, Luc. 2001. Spacestat: Software for Spatial Econometric Modeling, Version 1.91. Ann Arbor,

MI: TerraSeer.

Anselin, Luc, Jacqeline Cohen, David Cook, Wilpen Gorr, and George Tita. 2000. “Spatial Analyses

of Crime.” Pp. 213–62 in Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice, vol. 4, Criminal Justice

2000, edited by David Duffee. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Baumer, Eric P. 2002. “Neighborhood Disadvantage and Police Notification by Victims of

Violence.” Criminology 40: 579–616.

Baumer, Eric, Julie Horney, Richard Felson, and Janet L. Lauritsen. 2003. “Neighborhood

Disadvantage and the Nature of Violence.” Criminology 41: 39–72.

SEb12 SE2

2



Cohen, Lawrence E. and Marcus Felson. 1979. “Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine

Activities Approach.” American Sociological Review 44: 588–607.

Costanza, S.E., William B. Bankston, and Edward Shihadeh. 2001. “Alcohol Availability and Violent

Crime Rates: A Spatial Analysis.” Journal of Crime and Justice 24: 71–83.

Davis, Robert C. and Edna Erez. 1998. Immigrant Populations as Victims: Toward a Multicultural

Criminal Justice System. National Institute of Justice Research Brief. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Justice.

Dunn, Marvin. 1997. Black Miami in the Twentieth Century. Gainesville: University Press of

Florida.

Fagan, Jeffrey. 1993. “Set and Setting Revisited: Influences of Alcohol and Illicit Drugs on the Social

Context of Violent Events.” Pp. 161–91 in Alcohol and Interpersonal Violence: Fostering Multidis-

ciplinary Perspectives, edited by Susan E. Martin. NIAAA Research Monograph No. 24.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Garcia, Bea. 2000. “Miami’s Omni Mall Returning—As Telecom Hub.” The Miami Herald, October

23, p. 23g.

Gorman, Dennis M., Paul W. Speer, Paul J. Gruenewald, and Erich W. Labouvie. 2001. “Spatial

Dynamics of Alcohol Availability, Neighborhood Structure, and Violent Crime.” Journal of

Studies on Alcohol 62: 628–36.

Gorman, Dennis M., Paul W. Speer, Erich W. Labouvie, and Apana P. Subaiya. 1998. “Risk of

Assaultive Violence and Alcohol Availability in New Jersey.” American Journal of Public Health

88: 97–100.

Gruenewald, Paul J., William R. Ponicki, and Harold D. Holder. 1993. “The Relationship of Outlet

Densities to Alcohol Consumption: A Time Series Cross-Sectional Analysis.” Alcoholism: Clini-

cal and Experimental Research 17: 38–47.

Hawkins, Darnell F., John H. Laub, Janet L. Lauritsen, and Lynn Cothern. 2000. Race, Ethnicity, and

Serious and Violent Juvenile Offending. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Krivo, Lauren J. and Ruth D. Peterson. 1996. “Extremely Disadvantaged Neighborhoods and Urban

Crime.” Social Forces 75: 619–50.

——. 2000. “The Structural Context of Homicide: Accounting for Racial Differences in Process.”

American Sociological Review 65: 547–59.

Kubrin, Charis E. 2003. “Structural Covariates of Homicide Rates: Does Type of Homicide Matter?”

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40: 139–70.

LaVeist, Thomas A. and John M. Wallace Jr. 2000. “Health Risk and Inequitable Distribution of

Liquor Stores in African American Neighborhoods.” Social Science & Medicine 51: 613–17.

Lee, Matthew T. 2003. Crime on the Border: Immigration and Homicide in Urban Communities. New

York: LFB Scholarly.

Lee, Matthew T., Ramiro Martinez, Jr., and Richard Rosenfeld. 2001. “Does Immigration Increase

Homicide? Negative Evidence from Three Border Cities.” The Sociological Quarterly 42: 559–80.

Lipton, Robert and Paul Gruenewald. 2002. “The Spatial Dynamics of Violence and Alcohol Out-

lets.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 63: 187–95.

Martinez, Ramiro Jr. 2002. Latino Homicide: Immigration, Violence, and Community. New York:

Routledge.

Martinez, Ramiro Jr. and Matthew T. Lee. 2000a. “Comparing the Context of Immigrant

Homicides in Miami: Haitians, Jamaicans, and Mariels.” International Migration Review 34:

794–812.



——. 2000b. “On Immigration and Crime.” Pp. 485–524 in The Nature of Crime: Continuity and

Change, vol. 1, Criminal Justice 2000, edited by Gary LaFree. Washington, DC: National Insti-

tute of Justice.

McNulty, Thomas L. 2001. “Assessing the Race–Violence Relationship at the Macro Level: The

Assumption of Racial Invariance and the Problem of Restricted Distributions.” Criminology 39:

467–90.

Moore, Joan and Raquel Pinderhughes. 1993. “Introduction.” Pp. xi–xxxix in In the Barrios: Latinos

and the Underclass Debate, edited by Joan Moore and Raquel Pinderhughes. New York: Russell

Sage Foundation.

Morenoff, Jeffrey D., Robert J. Sampson, and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 2001. “Neighborhood Ine-

quality, Collective Efficacy, and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence.” Criminology 39: 517–

59.

Osgood, D. Wayne. 2000. “Poisson-Based Regression Analysis of Aggregate Crime Rates.” Journal of

Quantitative Criminology 16: 21–43.

Ousey, Graham C. 1999. “Homicide, Structural Factors, and the Racial Invariance Assumption.”

Criminology 37: 405–26.

Parker, Robert Nash. 1993. “Alcohol and Theories of Homicide.” Pp. 113–41 in New Directions in

Criminological Theory, vol. 4, edited by Freda Adler and William S. Laufer. New Brunswick, NJ:

Transaction.

——. 1995. Alcohol & Homicide: A Deadly Combination of Two American Traditions. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Parker, Robert Nash and Randi S. Cartmill. 1998. “Alcohol and Homicide in the United States

1934–1995—Or One Reason Why U.S. Rates of Violence May Be Going Down.” The Journal of

Criminal Law & Criminology 88: 1369–98.

Paternoster, Raymond, Robert Brame, Paul Mazzerolle, and Alex Piquero. 1998. “Using the Correct

Statistical Test for the Equality of Regression Coefficients.” Criminology 36: 859–66.

Peterson, Ruth D., Lauren J. Krivo, and Mark A. Harris. 2000. “Disadvantage and Neighborhood

Violent Crime: Do Local Institutions Matter?” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:

31–63.

Portes, Alejandro and Alex Stepick. 1993. City on the Edge: The Transformation of Miami. Berkeley

and Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Rennison, Callie Marie. 2002. Hispanic Victims of Violent Crime, 1993–2000. Bureau of Justice

Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Roncek, Dennis W. and Pamela A. Maier. 1991. “Bars, Blocks, and Crimes Revisited: Linking the

Theory of Routine Activities to the Empiricism of ‘Hot Spots.’ ” Criminology 29: 725–53.

Sampson, Robert J. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1999. “Systematic Social Observation of Public

Spaces: A New Look at Disorder in Urban Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Sociology 105:

603–51.

Sampson, Robert J. and William Julius Wilson. 1995. “Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban

Inequality.” Pp. 37–54 in Crime and Inequality, edited by John Hagan and Ruth D. Peterson.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Scribner, Richard, Deborah Cohen, Stephen Kaplan, and Susan H. Allen. 1999. “Alcohol Availabil-

ity and Homicide in New Orleans: Conceptual Considerations for Small Area Analysis of the

Effect of Alcohol Outlet Density.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 60: 310–16.

Scribner, Richard, David P. MacKinnon, and James H. Dwyer. 1995. “The Risk of Assaultive

Violence and Alcohol Availability in Los Angeles County.” American Journal of Public Health

85: 335–40.



Shaw, Clifford R. and Henry D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: Uni-

versity of Chicago Press.

Statacorp. 2001. Stata Statistical Software: Release 7.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990. 1990 Census of Population and Housing. Summary Tape File 3a.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. 2000 Census of Population and Housing. Summary Tape File 3a.

Velez, Maria B., Lauren J. Krivo, and Ruth D. Peterson. 2003. “Structural Inequality and Homicide:

An Assessment of the Black–White Gap in Killings.” Criminology 41: 645–72.

Waldinger, Roger. 2001. “Strangers at the Gate.” Pp. 1–29 in Strangers at the Gates: New Immigrants

in Urban America, edited by Roger Waldinger. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Zatz, Marjorie S. and Edwardo L. Portillos. 2000. “Voices from the Barrio: Chicano/a Gangs,

Families, and Communities.” Criminology 38: 369–401.

Zhu, L., D. M. Gorman, and S. Horel. 2004. “Alcohol Outlet Density and Violence: A Geospatial

Analysis.” Alcohol & Alcoholism 39: 369–75.

ALCOHOL, ETHNICITY, AND VIOLENCE: The Role of Alcohol Availability for Latino and Black Aggravated...

Documents

Transcript of ALCOHOL, ETHNICITY, AND VIOLENCE: The Role of Alcohol Availability for Latino and Black Aggravated...