The purpose of this article is to examine the relationship between alcohol availability and gang violence. The goal of this study is to examine this relationship and the possibility that alcohol policy can prevent gang violence. Gang crimes and retail outlets were geocoded, and analyzed in conjunction with U.S. census data on race, ethnic diversity, family structure, poverty, and housing composition. A spatially aware pooled cross-sectional and time-series design was utilized. A relationship between alcohol outlet density and youth gang activity was found, as were relationships between youth gang activity and family structure, vacant housing and owner-occupied housing. Existing regulations on density of alcohol outlets may reduce or prevent gang-related violence. This possibility could give new life to policy levers that are under pressure from the alcohol industry and others in the alcohol policy arena.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlanizM. L.CartmillR. S., and ParkerR. N. (1998). Immigrants and violence: The importance of neighborhood context. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 20, 155–174, May, 1998.
2.
BrewerD. D.HawkinsJ. D.CatalanoR. F. & NeckermanH. J. (1995). Preventing serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offending: A review of evaluations of selected strategies in childhood, adolescence, and the community. In Sourcebook on serious, violent, and chronic juvenile offenders, ed. HowellJ. C.KrisbergB.HawkinsJ. D. and WilsonJ. J.61–141. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
3.
CliffA. D. & OrdJ. K. (1973). Spatial Autocorrelation. London: Pion.
4.
ElhorstP. (2003). Specification and estimation of spatial panel data models. International Regional Science Review, 26, 244–268.
5.
EsbensenF. & OsgoodD. W. (1997). National evaluation of GREAT: Research in brief. Washington, DC: NIJ.
6.
FaganJ. (1990). Intoxication and aggression. In Drugs and crime: Crime and justice: A review of research, ed. TornyM. and WilsonJ. Q.Volume 13, 241–320. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7.
GoldM. & MattickH. (1974). Experiment in the streets: The Chicago Youth Development project. Ann Arbor, MI: ISR.
8.
HolderH. D. (1999). Prevention aimed at the environment. In Addictions: A comprehensive guidebook, ed. McCradyB. S. and EpsteinE. E.573–594. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
HowellJ. C. (1998). Promising programs for youth gang violence prevention and intervention. In Serious and Violent Juvenile Offender, ed. LoeberR. and FarringtonD. P., 284–312. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10.
KleinM. W. (1995). The American street gang: Its nature, prevalence, and control. New York: Oxford University Press.
11.
KleinM. W. (1969). Gang cohesiveness, delinquency, and a street-work program. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 6, 135–166.
12.
KleinM. W. & MaxsonC. J. (2006). Street gang patterns and policies. New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
KobrinS. (1959). The Chicago Area Project: A 25-year assessment. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 322, 19–29.
14.
LivingstonM.ChikritzhsT. & RoomR. (2007). Changing the density of alcohol outlets to reduce alcohol related problems. Drug & Alcohol Review26(5): 557–566.
15.
MillerW. B. (1962). The impact of a total community delinquency control project. Social Problems, 10, 168–191.
16.
ParkerR. N. (2002). Project BRIDGE local evaluation, 1994 to 1999. Presley Center Papers. Riverside, CA: University of California.
17.
ParkerR.N. (Forthcoming). Alcohol and Violence: The Nature of the relationship and the promise of prevention. Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press (manuscript under contract).
18.
ParkerR. N.AsencioE. K.PihK. K. H. & WojtalewiczC. (2005). Evaluating a comprehensive gang intervention: The application of GIS and spatial analysis to program assessment in criminal justice. Presley Center Papers. Riverside, CA: University of California.
19.
ParkerR. N. & RebhunL.-A. (1995). Alcohol and homicide: A deadly combination of two American traditions. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
20.
SchlossmanS. & SedlakM. (1983a). The Chicago Area Project revisited. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.
21.
SchlossmanS. & SedlakM. (1983b). The Chicago Area project revisited. Crime and Delinquency, 29, 398–462.
22.
ShawC. R. & McKayH. D. (1931). Social factors in juvenile delinquency: Report on the causes of crime. Volume 2 in National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO.
23.
SpergelI. A. (1964). Racketville, Slumtown, Haulberg: An exploratory study of delinquency subculture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
SpergelI. A. (1986). The violent youth gang in Chicago: A community approach. Social Service Review, 60, 94–131.
25.
SpergelI. A. (1991). Youth Gangs: Problems and Responses. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
26.
SpergelI. A. (1995). The youth gang problem: A community approach. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
27.
SpergelI. A. (1999). Youth gangs: Problems and response. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
SpergelI. A. & AlexanderA. (1993). National Youth Gang Suppression and Intervention Program. Rockville, MD: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
29.
SpergelI. A. & CurryG. D. (1993). The National Youth Gang Survey: A research and development process. In The gang intervention handbook, ed. GoldsteinA. P. and HuffC. R.359–392. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
30.
SpergelI.A.ChanceR.EhrensaftK.RegulusT.KaneC.LaseterR.AlexanderA. & OhS. (1994). Gang Suppression and Intervention: Community Models. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. NCJ 148202.
31.
ThompsonD. & JasonL. (1988). Street Gangs and Preventive Interventions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 15(3), 323–333.
