UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
______May 25 , 20 _____07
I,______Tamara D. Madensen ______, hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the degree of:
______Doctorate of Philosophy ______in: ______Criminal Justice ______It is entitled: ______Bar Management and Crime: Toward______a Dynamic Theory of ______Place Management and Crime Hotspots______
Approved by: ______John E. Eck, Chair ______Ronald V. Clarke ______Pamela Wilcox ______John D. Wooldredge ______
Bar Management and Crime: Toward a Dynamic Theory of Place Management and Crime Hotspots
A Dissertation Submitted to the
Division of Research and Advanced Studies Of the University of Cincinnati
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctorate of Philosophy (Ph.D.)
In the Division of Criminal Justice Of the College of Education, Criminal Justice, and Human Services
May 2007
by
Tamara D. Madensen
B.A., California State University, San Bernardino, 1999 M.A., California State University, San Bernardino, 2001
Dissertation Committee: Professor John E. Eck (Chair) Professor Ronald V. Clarke Professor Pamela Wilcox Professor John D. Wooldredge ABSTRACT
Theory and research in the area of environmental criminology have suggested that people who own or manage particular locations can influence crime at these places. This dissertation extends our understanding of the role of place managers in two ways. First, a specific definition of place
management is offered. Second, the relationships between the elements of this definition are
explicated in a proposed theory of place management in bars. Data collected from bars in
Cincinnati, Ohio are used to examine the plausibility of the theory. Findings indicate a strong
relationship between place management practices and levels of crime and disorder at these
locations. The study concludes with the proposal of a general theory of place management and
suggestions for future research and theoretical development.
i ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank Dr. Pamela Wilcox, Dr. John Wooldredge, and Dr. Ronald Clarke for agreeing to serve on my committee. I deeply appreciate the time and thoughtful comments they provided during this process. I am also grateful for their guidance throughout my doctoral studies.
There have been many other faculty members who have helped me during the course of my studies. I am especially indebted to Dr. Michael Benson, Dr. Mitchell Chamlin, Dr. Francis Cullen, Dr. Robin Engel, Dr. Graham Farrell, Dr. Bonnie Fisher, Dr. James Frank, and Dr. Edward Latessa. These individuals have had such a tremendous impact on both my personal life and professional career. Thank you.
I would like to thank Officer Paul Byers of the Cincinnati Police Department who has been tremendously helpful to me and many other doctoral studies who desperately need data.
Troy and Carrie Payne have assisted in my efforts to produce this document. Carrie, you are a word processing guru. Troy, thank you for running around Cincinnati with me, trying to convince people we were worth talking to, and for carrying the “heavy stuff” while we walked from bar to bar.
I appreciate the patience and support of Gloria Estes and Stephanie Bilyk, our best friends, who waited for over four years for our return and continue to wait for this to be over.
I could not have completed this project without the help and support of Darwin Morgan. You are an amazing friend and the best copy editor in the world. I owe you more than you could ever possibly know.
I would like to thank my parents, Diane and Dusty Sorensen, who worked so hard to help me through college. This has been an amazing journey. Thank you for your support.
My Vicki Madensen, who moved from sunny California to dreary Cincinnati, Ohio and never complained; who fixes me each time I break (band-aids and Advil always close by); who has listened to me talk incessantly about my ideas over countless dinners; who lived without me, only to support me and wait for me while I finished my work; I love you. I could not do these things without you.
Finally, I would like to dedicate this work to my mentor, chair, and friend, Dr. John Eck. It has been such an honor to be your student. Thank you for investing so much time and energy in me. I hope to always be “on your whiteboard.” You are simply a wonderful and amazing person. I am so lucky to know you and your family. Thank you for everything.
ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 Overview of Study ...... 3 CHAPTER 2 THE IMPORTANCE OF PLACE AND ITS MANAGEMENT ...... 6 Early Studies of Crime Places...... 6 Places Become Important...... 8 The Emergence of Place Management as an Important Construct ...... 13 Why Study Place Management? ...... 14 CHAPTER 3 DEFINING PLACE MANAGEMENT AND ITS APPLICATION TO BARS ... 16 Definition of Place Management ...... 16 Bars, Crime, and Managers...... 20 Concentration of Crime in and Around Bars ...... 20 Management in Bars ...... 24 Effective Place Management Strategies...... 28 Linking Place Management to Crime ...... 30 CHAPTER 4 A DYNAMIC THEORY OF PLACE MANAGEMENT IN BARS...... 32 Implications for Testing the Theory...... 40 Hypotheses ...... 43 CHAPTER 5 METHODS...... 47 Data ...... 47 Place Manager Survey ...... 47 Site Observation Survey ...... 48 Official Crime Statistics...... 48 Sample...... 49 Data Collection Procedures...... 50 Analysis...... 51 Significant Effects...... 55 Strengths and Limitations of the Data...... 56 CHAPTER 6 CINCINNATI BARS: PLACE AND MANAGEMENT CHARACTERISTICS. 58 Place and Business Characteristics ...... 58 Building Characteristics...... 60 Business Characteristics...... 60 Management Characteristics...... 62 Employees...... 63 Additional Security ...... 64 Patrons...... 64 Levels of Disorder...... 65 Distributions of Crime ...... 67 Response to Crime Events ...... 76 Differences across Places...... 79
iii CHAPTER 7 SETTING THE STAGE: INITIAL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS THAT SHAPE THE ENVIRONMENT...... 80 Property Characteristics Influence Staff, Training, and Security ...... 81 Activities and Entertainment Influence Staff Decisions ...... 85 Activities and Entertainment Influence Marketing Strategies ...... 87 Bar Location Influences Marketing Strategies...... 88 Immediate Setting Characteristics Influence Outside Enforcement ...... 89 CHAPTER 8 UNDER PRESSURE: PROMPTING MANAGEMENT ACTION...... 94 Manager Networks and Experience Influence Management Reaction...... 95 Existing Resources Influence Management Reaction...... 97 Outside Enforcement Influences Management Reaction...... 99 CHAPTER 9 BAR MANAGEMENT, CRIME, AND DISORDER...... 102 Property and Staffing Characteristics Influence Crime and Disorder...... 104 Activities and Entertainment Influence Crime and Disorder...... 114 Bar Location and Marketing Strategies Influence Crime and Disorder...... 120 Manager Networks and Experience Influence Crime and Disorder ...... 128 Existing Resources Influence Crime and Disorder ...... 134 Outside Enforcement Influences Crime and Disorder ...... 135 Summary of the Relationships between Bar Management, Crime, and Disorder ...... 136 CHAPTER 10 SPATIAL DYNAMICS OF BAR MANAGEMENT AND CRIME...... 140 CHAPTER 11 CONCLUSIONS ...... 153 Place Management in Bars...... 153 A General Theory of Place Management...... 158 Testing and Building Theories of Place Management ...... 164 Future Research and Policy...... 168 REFERENCES ...... 170 APPENDIX A BAR PLACE MANAGEMENT SURVEY ...... 181 APPENDIX B BAR SITE OBSERVATION SURVEY ...... 195 APPENDIX C ADDITIONAL HYPOTHESIS TESTS...... 199
iv LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1. The crime triangle...... 12 Figure 2.2. Eck and Weisburd’s (1995) crime and place study classification...... 13 Figure 4.1. Theory of place management in bars...... 34 Figure 6.1. Distribution of all Part I and Part II crimes across Cincinnati bars...... 68 Figure 6.2. Distribution of physical violence incidents across Cincinnati bars...... 68 Figure 6.3. Distribution of threatened violence incidents across Cincinnati bars ...... 69 Figure 6.4. Distribution of robberies across Cincinnati bars ...... 70 Figure 6.5. Distribution of property offenses across Cincinnati bars ...... 71 Figure 6.6. Distribution of calls to police per week across Cincinnati bars ...... 73 Figure 6.7. Distribution of the number of customers asked to leave on a typical Friday night across Cincinnati bars ...... 75 Figure 6.8. Distribution of the number of regulatory agency visits across Cincinnati bars ...... 77 Figure 6.9. Distribution of the number of Liquor Control Board visits across Cincinnati bars ... 78 Figure 10.1. Distribution of bars across Cincinnati ...... 142 Figure 10.2. Distribution of cars with and without physical violence incidents...... 144 Figure 10.3. Layered depiction of physical violence incidents across bars...... 145 Figure 10.4. Distribution of bars with and without threatened violence incidents...... 146 Figure 10.5. Layered depiction of threatened violence incidents across bars ...... 147 Figure 11.1. The relationship between neighborhood context, place management, and crime.. 157 Figure 11.2. A general theory of place management...... 160
v LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1. Bar variables predictive of violence in previous research ...... 26 Table 3.2. Interventions included in the “The Accord”...... 29 Table 4.1. Research hypotheses...... 46 Table 5.1. Description of variables...... 53 Table 6.1. Cincinnati bar characteristics...... 59 Table 6.2. Bar disorder index scores...... 66 Table 6.4. Descriptive statistics for crime variables...... 75 Table 6.5. Descriptive statistics for regulatory agency visits ...... 78 Table 7.1. Property size variables correlation matrix ...... 82 Table 7.2. Bivariate correlations between bar size and number of employees...... 83 Table 7.3. Formal training variables regressed on bar size...... 84 Table 7.4. Bivariate correlations between bar size and total number of security features ...... 85 Table 7.5. Bivariate correlations between number of activities and number of employees ...... 86 Table 7.6. Formal training variables regressed on activities variables...... 86 Table 7.7. Bivariate correlation between number of security features and number of activities .87 Table 7.8. T-tests for differences in mean number of advertisement mediums by uncommon specialty/activities...... 88 Table 7.9. T-tests for differences in mean number of advertisement mediums by bar type...... 89 Table 7.10. Bivariate correlations between level of outside enforcement and crime/disorder..... 90 Table 7.11. T-tests for differences in number of regulatory visits by common type of violence or no recent crime problems reported ...... 90 Table 7.12. Bivariate correlations between Liquor Control Board visits and crime/disorder ...... 92 Table 7.13. Significant relationships between types of initial management decisions...... 93 Table 8.1. Manager intervention variables regressed on manager experience variables...... 96 Table 8.2. Chi-Square tests of relationship between manager networks and attempt to address negative events...... 97 Table 8.3. Manager intervention variables regressed on number of manager associations...... 97 Table 8.4. Chi-Square tests of relationship between bar financial status and attempt to address negative events...... 98 Table 8.5. Manager intervention variables regressed on outside enforcement variable...... 99 Table 8.6. Chi-Square tests of relationships between outside enforcement and manager prevention efforts...... 100 Table 8.7. Significant relationships between outside factors and management action...... 101 Table 9.1. Bivariate correlations between patron/maximum occupancy ratio and crime/disorder ...... 105 Table 9.2. Bivariate correlations between disorder measures and crime...... 105 Table 9.3. Bivariate correlations between patron/staff ratio and crime/disorder...... 106 Table 9.4. T-tests for differences in level of restroom and interior disorder by outside training provided to staff ...... 107 Table 9.5. T-test for difference in number of calls to police per week by outside training provided to security staff...... 108 Table 9.6. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by bar use of security...... 110 Table 9.7. Bivariate correlations between number of security features and crime/disorder...... 110
vi Table 9.8. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar checks identification at the door ...... 112 Table 9.9. T-tests for differences in disorder levels by whether employees are required to wear uniforms ...... 113 Table 9.10. T-tests for differences in disorder levels by whether employees are allowed to drink ...... 114 Table 9.11. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by food availability...... 116 Table 9.12. Chi-Square tests of relationships between crime/disorder and food availability..... 116 Table 9.13. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar offers competitive games ...... 117 Table 9.14. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar offers dancing...... 117 Table 9.15. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar charges a cover ...... 118 Table 9.16. T-test for difference in number of customers asked to leave by bar sponsored drinking games...... 119 Table 9.17. T-tests for differences in disorder by patron age ...... 121 Table 9.18. Bivariate correlations between proportion of male patrons and crime/disorder...... 122 Table 9.19. Bivariate correlations between proportion of white patrons and crime/disorder..... 123 Table 9.20. Bivariate correlations between proportion of “regulars” and crime/disorder...... 124 Table 9.21. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar attracts ideal customers ...... 125 Table 9.22. Bivariate correlations between the cost of the cheapest alcoholic drink and crime/disorder ...... 126 Table 9.23. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar accepts cash only..... 127 Table 9.24. Bivariate correlations between number of years under current ownership and crime/disorder ...... 130 Table 9.25. Bivariate correlations between percentage of workers employed at least 6 months and crime/disorder ...... 130 Table 9.26. Bivariate correlations between number manager associations and crime/disorder . 131 Table 9.27. T-test for difference in number of patrons asked to leave by member of business association...... 131 Table 9.28. T-tests for differences in crime/disorder by work with other drinking establishments ...... 132 Table 9.30. T-tests for differences in disorder by business making a profit...... 135 Table 9.31. Significant relationships between bar management practices and crime and disorder ...... 139 Table 10.1. Chi-Square tests of relationship between bar location and violence ...... 149 Table 10.2. T-test for difference in number of property crimes by bar location ...... 150 Table 10.3. T-tests for differences in level of disorder and calls to police by bar location and building characteristics ...... 151 Table 11.1. Support for hypotheses ...... 154 Table C.1. T-tests: Security trained by outside company ...... 200 Table C.2. T-tests: Security trained by management...... 201 Table C.3. T-tests: Employees trained by outside company...... 202 Table C.4. T-tests: Employees trained by management ...... 203 Table C.5. T-tests: Bar employs security staff...... 204 Table C.6. T-tests: Bar employs off-duty police...... 205
vii Table C.7. T-tests: ID checked at door ...... 206 Table C.8. T-tests: Use pour control devices...... 207 Table C.9. T-tests: Employees wear uniforms...... 208 Table C.10. T-tests: Employees allowed to drink...... 209 Table C.11. T-tests: Food available for purchase ...... 210 Table C.12. T-tests: Full meals available for purchase...... 211 Table C.13. T-tests: Bar offers competitive games...... 212 Table C.14. T-tests: Bar offers dancing...... 213 Table C.15. T-tests: Bar sponsors drinking games ...... 214 Table C.16. T-tests: Bar charges cover...... 215 Table C.17. T-tests: Most patrons in their 20s...... 216 Table C.18. T-tests: Bar attracts ideal customers ...... 217 Table C.19. T-tests: Bar accepts cash only...... 218 Table C.20. T-tests: Work with other drinking establishments ...... 219 Table C.21. T-tests: Business making a profit...... 220
viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
This is a study of how the actions of place managers influence crime at places. This investigation expands upon recent theoretical developments and research findings that stress the importance of places and place characteristics for understanding and preventing crime. Crimes tend to cluster at particular places, and these concentrations are related to social and physical features of “micro”-settings that provide opportunities for crime (1995). The term “place” as it is used throughout this paper refers to locations that have a designated purpose (e.g., restaurant, apartment, park, school, etc.) and some type of boundary, either physical or symbolic, that separates the location from nearby surroundings. It is usually geographically defined by a single land parcel, building, or address and is rarely larger than a single block face. Research has demonstrated that place characteristics are the product of the decisions and actions of those who own or manage these locations. Thus, understanding how places are managed is critical to crime prevention.
“Place manager” is a concept developed by Eck (1994) to describe individuals who have some responsibility for controlling and monitoring behavior at specific places and distinguish these individuals from others, such as guardians and handlers, who also can prevent crime but do not control places (see also, Clarke & Eck, 2005; Felson, 1995). Felson (1995) has suggested that there are four categories, or levels, of place managers: (1) managers with “personal” responsibility are usually the owners of properties; (2) those with “assigned” responsibility are
employees specifically assigned to regulate behavior at a location; (3) managers with “diffuse”
responsibility are other employees who work at a location but whose job description does not
include controlling the behaviors of others; and (4) managers with “general” responsibility are
strangers or other citizens who visit places during the course of their routine activities. Managers
1 at the top of the list have more authority and interest in controlling behaviors at their places than those at the bottom. Nevertheless, all of these “managers” have the ability to discourage crime
(Felson, 1995).
Until Eck’s (1994) work, place management of specific locations was not explicitly recognized as an important concept in crime theories, though the basic ideas had already been integrated into problem-oriented policing (Eck, 2003). Although the concept was introduced more than a decade ago as an important part of routine activities theory, little work has been
done to specify the mechanisms through which management activities impact crime. Existing
theories do not tell us when or where we should expect place management to matter, what types
of management activities matter more than others, what factors influence place management
decisions, or how best to encourage change in place management practices.
To begin to address these deficiencies, it is necessary to define place management,
describe the process of place management, and examine the behaviors of place managers to
determine which actions appear to increase or decrease criminal activities in the places they
control. While place managers exist in almost every type of environment, management practices
in bars will be used to explore this relationship in the present study. Bars were chosen for three
reasons. First, crime tends to be concentrated in and around these locations (e.g., Graham, La
Rocque, Yetman, Ross, & Guistra, 1980; Homel & Clark, 1994; Roncek & Maier, 1991;
Sherman, Schmidt, & Velke, 1992). Second, there is some evidence to suggest that management
practices in bars influence crime (see Graham, Bernards, Osgood, & Wells, 2006). Third,
research has found that improving bar management can produce substantial reductions in crime
(e.g., Graham, Jelley, & Purcell, 2005; e.g., Graham et al., 2004).
2 Overview of Study
As noted, place management is a part of routine activities theory (Eck, 1994; Felson,
1995) which is, in turn, an integral part of environmental criminology (Brantingham &
Brantingham, 1993), a perspective whose primary theories include routine activities theory
(Cohen & Felson, 1979; Felson, 1986), situational crime prevention (Clarke, 1997; Cornish &
Clarke, 2003), rational choice perspective (Cornish & Clarke, 1986), and crime pattern theory
(Brantingham & Brantingham, 1991). In this dissertation, these theories will provide a context.
But as the goal is to elaborate on place management, there will not be a detailed systematic review of these theories or their literatures. Instead, these theories will be discussed as needed throughout.
This study begins with a historical overview of research on crime and place. Chapter 2 attempts to explain why the relationship between crime and specific place characteristics, including the management of those places, was ignored by most researchers in early criminological studies. This is followed by a summary of literature linking neighborhood and place characteristics to crime. A discussion of the importance of context and immediate environments for crime events follows. The second chapter concludes with justifications for the study of place management.
A definition of place management is presented in Chapter 3. After a brief explanation of the role place management plays in the context of crime pattern theory, I define place management as a set of four interrelated processes: (1) physical space organization, (2) regulation of conduct, (3) access control, and (4) resource acquisition. A review of the literature on bars and crime is presented to demonstrate the importance of place management (i.e., the four processes) in these settings. While previous research provides valuable insight into relationships
3 between specific actions of managers and crime, I argue that stronger theoretical models are needed to describe the mechanisms that link place management activities to crime.
A framework for understanding place management is presented in Chapter 4. I introduce
a theory of place management in bars that describes (1) the factors that influence place manager
behaviors and (2) how managers’ decisions and actions interact with existing conditions to
influence crime opportunities. The general hypotheses explored in this study are drawn from this
model and listed at the end of the chapter.
The fifth chapter describes the methods that will be used to explore the hypotheses and
plausibility of the proposed theory. The data used in this study were collected through manager
interviews and site observations made at bars in Cincinnati, Ohio. Descriptions of the data,
sample, data collection procedures, and methods of analysis are provided. Chapter 5 concludes
with a discussion of the strengths and limitations of the data.
Chapter 6 provides an overview of the data used in the analyses. Data from bar
observations and management surveys are summarized to describe business characteristics,
management practices, and levels of disorder among Cincinnati bars. Official crime statistics and
manager reports of calls for service and problem patrons are used to examine the distribution of
crime across these establishments. Reaction to problems in the establishments is described using
data concerning management efforts to intervene in violent events or prevent future crime
incidents. Finally, data related to regulatory inspections of the bars are provided.
Chapters 7 through 9 assess whether the data correspond with the relationships predicted
by the proposed theory of place management. Overall, the data support the plausibility of the
theory. Chapter 7 examines the relationship between various types of management decisions and
finds that later management decisions are significantly associated with decisions that were made
4 previously or concurrently. Factors that influence manager reaction to negative events are examined in Chapter 8. The analyses reveal that management networks and regulatory inspections are significantly associated with whether or not managers respond to problems at their establishments. Chapter 9 examines the impact of management decisions and practices, the type of patrons attracted to the bar, and other outside influences on levels of crime and disorder at the establishments. Over 80 significant relationships were found in the analyses used to explore the relationships among these constructs.
Neighborhood-level effects are explored in Chapter 10. While this study could not thoroughly assess the impact of context on crime or place manager decisions, spatial analyses and significance tests suggest that neighborhood characteristics alone do not dictate whether or
not crime will occur at a particular location. Differences in place management practices appear to
produce different levels of violence at bars that share similar environments.
This study concludes with a four-part discussion. First, explanations for nonsignificant
findings are provided along with an assessment of the overall level of support found for the
proposed theory of place management in bars. Second, the proposed theory is modified to
explain management practices in all types of facilities. A general theory of place management is
offered. Third, more appropriate methods of analyses are suggested for future tests of the theory.
Also, theoretical advancements in the form of “middle-range” theories are proposed. Fourth, this dissertation concludes with a brief discussion of the impact this theory may have on future research and policy.
5 CHAPTER 2 THE IMPORTANCE OF PLACE AND ITS MANAGEMENT
The importance of locations of criminal offenses has been recognized in criminological studies since the early 1800s when French scholars first analyzed distributions of crime (see
Guerry, 1833; Quetelet, 1842). The interpretation of the role and significance of place as it relates to crime, however, has been slow to evolve. Despite the early recognition of place as a factor in the commission of a criminal offense, notable advancements in theory and research on the topic have occurred only relatively recently. Examining the evolution of the concept of place
management is useful for understanding why the concepts of “place” and “place management”
are important, and how theories focusing on places differ from seemingly related theories that
have a longer tradition.
Early Studies of Crime Places
The dominant paradigm for criminological theory and research throughout the 20th century addresses why some individuals are more inclined to offend than others. As Clarke
(1983) notes, most criminological theories seek to explain why and how some people acquire a disposition to offend. According to competing schools of thought, this may happen as a result of individual differences in physiological functioning, psychological development or impairments, or sociological influences. The role of sociological influences has received the dominant share of theoretical attention, the roots of which are often credited to the work of two Chicago School criminologists: Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. McKay. The designation of place as a side note rather than a major explanatory variable for crime events, as well as the lack of attention paid to those who own places where crimes occur, is arguably a result of Shaw and McKay’s interpretation and explanation of early delinquency data.
6 Shaw and McKay (1972) studied the distribution of delinquency rates in cities beginning in the 1930s and throughout the next several decades. They spent a great deal of time analyzing the spatial distribution of crime events.1 They came to the conclusion that crime and delinquency were caused by the social conditions of particular places, not the racial or ethnic origins of individuals. While place was a critical factor in their analyses, Shaw and McKay focused mainly on social interactions in high crime areas. They claimed that areas transitioning from residential places to centers of business and industry suffered from the breakdown of social controls, which they termed “social disorganization.” In a review of Shaw and McKay’s work, Snodgrass (1976) notes that the theorists never attempt to directly link business and industrial invasion with the causes of delinquency. Because Shaw and McKay saw the process that created the transitional zones as inevitable, their theory did not recognize that human action was responsible for this process. Thus, the responsibilities of land owners who refused to invest in properties that they planned to sell to encroaching enterprises were ignored. This meant that the importance of the physical characteristics of specific places and the actions of those who owned and managed these places did not become the central focus of their theory or part of their subsequent proposals for reducing criminal activity.2
Had Shaw and McKay focused on the criminogenic role of properties and the management of these locations, subsequent criminological theories may have placed greater emphasis on these external influences. The answer to why some neighborhoods generate more
1 Shaw and McKay incorporated a variety of spatial analysis techniques to depict and analyze delinquency data: maps depicting one residential spot per delinquency, rate maps that showed the number of offenders per hundred individuals of the same age and sex in square mile areas, radial maps that showed the rate of delinquency at regular intervals along major axes drawn from the city center, and zone maps that showed the rate of delinquency in concentric zones drawn at one-mile intervals from the city center (Snodgrass, 1976). 2 In a footnote, Snodgrass (1976) cites Betty Mannheim’s study of the Chicago Area Project where it was noted that the resident “committees” formed as an outcome of Shaw and McKay’s work could not “call a halt to urbanization and to the industrializing processes which contribute to the break-down of social controls, which create areas of housing shortage, slum conditions, unemployment, and similar conditions” (p. 15).
7 crime than others, much like the transitional zones described by Shaw and McKay, may simply be because some neighborhoods contain more places that provide opportunities for crime.3 Still, the following questions remain:
- To what extent is crime concentrated at particular places?
- Why do some places provide more (or better) crime opportunities than other places?
- Who is responsible for creating these opportunities?
- What can be done to reduce opportunities for crime at these places?
This description of early research into the causes of crime is not meant to imply that the function of place has been completely ignored. On the contrary, several recent theoretical developments and related research have explicitly examined the relationship between place and crime. These advancements have generated interest in examining how those who own or manage places create opportunities for crime.
Places Become Important
Many criminologists have employed a “macro” approach to examining the characteristics of high-crime areas (e.g., Cohen, Felson, & Land, 1980; Greenberg, Rohe, & Williams, 1982;
Messner & Blau, 1987; e.g., Shaw & McKay, 1972; White, 1990). These researchers have focused on characteristics of neighborhoods, census tracts, or larger units of analysis that are correlated with crime. Oscar Newman (1972), like Jane Jacobs (1961), concluded that certain neighborhood design principles could reduce crime in residential areas.4 Felson and Cohen’s
3 This does not mean that neighborhood level influences are not meaningful. A discussion of the importance of context follows. 4 Jacobs (1961) argued that urban residential areas should orient buildings to encourage surveillance by residents, separate public and private spaces into clearly differential domains, and situate public places in proximity to intensively used areas to reduce crime. Expanding upon Jacobs’ work, Newman (1972) maintained that the use of real and symbolic barriers to separate residential neighborhoods into manageable units, the creation of opportunities for residential surveillance, the creation of nonstigmatizing exterior designs in low income housing projects, and the
8 (1979) initial proposal of routine activities theory was originally tested at an aggregated level using the index crime rate for all 50 states. However, an aggregate-level focus alone does not help us to understand why crime occurs at particular places. As noted by Eck (1994), “Places are not scaled down neighborhoods and neither are neighborhoods simple aggregations of places”
(p.14). The number of residential units with burglar alarms might help to explain residential burglary rates across neighborhoods, but it does not explain why some homes with alarms are burgled more often than other homes with similar security features; nor does it explain why homes without alarms are differentially targeted.
There is growing recognition that the characteristics of larger areas are important to the explanation of criminal events when they are considered together with the characteristics of the individual places within them. These aggregate characteristics structure the “context” in which the offense occurs. More recent work has incorporated both contextual and place characteristics to explain crime concentration and the likelihood of offending/victimization (e.g., Miethe &
McDowall, 1993; Sampson & Wooldredge, 1987; Smith & Jarhoura, 1989; Wilcox Rountree,
Land, & Miethe, 1994). These multi-level models generally have significantly greater explanatory power above contextual models alone. Multi-level research suggests that offender target selection is a multi-level, sequential process, from neighborhood to street-block to site selection (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1993; Taylor & Gottfredson, 1987; Wright & Decker,
1994). These findings have encouraged further refinements of crime theories. Wilcox, Land, and
Hunt (2003) recently proposed a dynamic multicontextual criminal opportunity theory that integrates macro-level social control theories with micro-level routine activities theories.
placement of residential areas near safe or nonthreatening areas would promote space that would be defended by residents (i.e., “defensible space”) and reduce criminal activity. While some of these principles have been applied at the “place” level, they were originally proposed to explain the crime rates of neighborhoods or large residential areas.
9 While contextual factors provide the “backcloth” for criminal events (Brantingham &
Brantingham, 1991), a number of authors have argued that the characteristics of the immediate social and physical setting (i.e., place) in which the crime occurs most directly influences offender decision making (Clarke, 1983, 1997; Miethe & Meier, 1994; Sacco & Kennedy, 1998).
The rational choice perspective, as put forth by Cornish and Clarke (1986), maintains that offenders choose targets and the methods they will use to commit an offense based on their assessment of the risks and rewards offered by a specific criminal opportunity. This puts the emphasis on the most immediate context – place – while deemphasizing the importance of more distal contexts. Specific criminal opportunities, by definition, must be present at some places and absent at others. Wright and Decker’s (1994) qualitative study of active burglars in St. Louis found that these individuals often seized “good” crime opportunities even when they had not planned on committing an offense. The burglars defined “good” opportunities based on specific place (i.e., residential) characteristics that they had come to associate with low risk of detection and high rewards.5
The concentration of crime at specific places further supports the notion that place characteristics can attract crime. A great deal of research has confirmed that the distribution of crime in cities, neighborhoods, and even along single blocks is not random. Hot spot analyses of heterogeneous sets of places in Boston (Pierce, Spaar, & Briggs, 1988), Minneapolis (Sherman,
Gartin, & Buerger, 1989), and Milwaukee (Sherman et al., 1992) reveal that crime is highly concentrated at a small number of places. For example, in Minneapolis, over half (50.4%) of all calls to police came from only 3.3% of the city’s addresses in 1986 (Sherman et al., 1989).
5 Cornish and Clarke (1987) have labeled these constellations of opportunities, costs, and benefits offenders associate with particular types of crime as “choice structuring properties.”
10 Recently, Eck, Clarke, and Guerette (2007) have shown that crime concentrations are also common among homogeneous places; what they call “facilities.”
Why is crime concentrated at some places, but not at others with similar characteristics?
Drawing from the rational choice perspective and routine activities theory, crime pattern theory attempts to explain the uneven distribution of crime events over time, space, and between similar targets by focusing on place characteristics and offender search patterns (see, Brantingham &
Brantingham, 1993). According to crime pattern theory, crime is a function of criminal opportunities discovered by offenders as they move about in society. Offenders form an awareness space based on their everyday activities. Places that provide attractive crime opportunities and fall within this awareness space are more likely to be targeted and, thus, have higher concentrations of crime.
The importance of place in the criminal event was implied to some degree in Felson’s and colleagues early work in the context of routine activities theory – offenders and victims must
“meet,” or come together at the same time and place, in order for a crime to occur (Cohen &
Felson, 1979; Felson, 1986). However, the theoretical connection between crime and place was not made explicit in the theory until proposed by Eck (1994) in a study of places used for drug dealing. Eck examined the systematic differences between places that were used and places that were not used to deal drugs. He proposed, and subsequently demonstrated, that the characteristics of places and the actions of those responsible for controlling behavior in these places (i.e., owners and managers) largely determined where drug dealing occurred (see also Eck
& Wartell, 1998). Eck proposed the explicit addition of place and place managers to routine activities theory.
11 Eck (1994; Eck, 2003) argues that routine activities theory should be depicted as a double-layered triangle, also known as the “crime triangle” (see Figure 2.1). The inner layer represents the “elements” that must be present for a crime event to occur, while the outer layer represents the types of “controllers” that may prevent the crime from occurring. In order for any crime to occur, all outer elements must be weak or absent when all inner elements are present
(Eck, 2003). The intervention of only one controller can be enough to prevent a crime event from occurring, suggesting that a focus on place and the managers of places is important to understanding and addressing crime problems.
Figure 2.1. The crime triangle
Source: Clarke and Eck, 2005
Eck’s expansion of routine activities theory, along with the recognition that crime tends
to be highly concentrated at very specific places, has led researchers to more closely examine the
connection between crime and place. In a review of the literature, Eck and Weisburd (1995)
classified these studies under two broad categories and five subcategories: those that focus on
12 offender target selection and mobility, and those that focus on place features, clustering, and type
(i.e., facilities - see Figure 2.2). A common theme throughout these studies, studies of crime and
place that have been published since this review (see Clarke, 1997 for additional case studies),
and studies of interventions that effectively reduce crime at places (see Eck, 2002), is that there
are features of places that attract criminals and provide the opportunity structures necessary to
commit crime. Furthermore, most of these place characteristics are formed as a direct result of
the decisions and actions of individuals who own and manage these places.
Figure 2.2. Eck and Weisburd’s (1995) crime and place study classification
Crime and Place Studies
Offenders Places
target selection mobility features clustering facilities
Source: Eck and Weisburd, 1995
The Emergence of Place Management as an Important Construct
Recent criminological research has repeatedly demonstrated the importance of place to
criminal activities. Since much of what occurs at specific places is the outcome of decisions
made by those who own these properties (e.g., the purpose of the place, who is allowed to enter,
what type of activities are permitted, etc.), it is no surprise that most researchers who study the
relationship between crime and place now recognize that lack of active management of behavior
in places acts to facilitate crime (e.g., Block & Block, 1995; Clarke, 1992, 1997; Danner, 2003;
13 Eck & Weisburd, 1995; Felson, 1995; Mazerolle, Kadleck, & Roehl, 1998; Mazerolle & Roehl,
1998; Sherman, 1995). While researchers have called for place managers to take a prominent role in preventing crime (see Felson, Berends, Richardson, & Veno, 1997), the specific functions of “effective” place managers have yet to be articulated in the criminological literature.
Why Study Place Management?
A large body of work demonstrating the importance of place and neighborhood influences has been collected over the past several decades. From this body of literature, researchers now know that place management matters. Studies of the use of nuisance and drug abatement statutes, as well as other civil remedies, against landlords and owners of high-crime properties have shown that increasing place manager awareness and involvement can bring about substantial reductions in crime. Eck (2002) systematically reviewed the evaluation literature on place-focused interventions. The interventions that had the strongest indications of success (as measured by rigor of the evaluation designs used and their outcomes) were those that influenced owners of rental apartments with drug dealing. Though evaluations of bar management interventions employed weaker designs, they showed similar results; changing place management can reduce crime at places. Police coercion of place managers to control criminal and disorderly behavior at their properties, a tactic known as “third party policing,” is now a common police practice proven to effectively reduce incidents of crime and disorder (Buerger,
1998). Mazerolle and Ransley (2006) conducted a systematic review of the international evaluation literature and found consistent strong evidence that intervention with place owners is associated with drug and violent crime reduction, though not with property crime reduction.
14 Despite the fact that researchers are more cognizant of the link between place management and crime, little has been accomplished in terms of theoretical development since
Eck’s introduction of this concept over a decade ago. Other than Felson’s (1995) attempt to classify types of place managers (as well as type of guardians and handlers) based on varying degrees of responsibility for preventing crime, place management continues to be used as an umbrella term to describe the activities of those who own and manage properties. Existing theory fails to specify the mechanisms that allow management activities to prevent or reduce crime. It also does not identify the types of place management activities that matter for crime control, nor does it suggest which activities do not. Crime problems at places tend to be highly specific
(Goldstein, 1990), yet there is no theoretical guidance to suggest whether the relationship between place management and crime control varies across different type of places. Furthermore, existing theoretical frameworks do not provide direction for researchers who wish to study place management activities. A search of outside literature, namely of publications in the business and management disciplines, revealed that studies concerning effective management remain silent on the issue of crime.6 This gap in the literature leaves much work to be done in terms of both theoretical development and the identification of effective place management practices.
6 An extensive literature search of publications in the areas of business and management was conducted using multiple search engines and journal catalogs specific to these disciplines. “Effective management” of places is discussed, but only in terms of successful marketing strategies, profit maximization, and other activities related to the legitimate functioning of the business – the relationship of these activities to crime is not discussed. The security literature, while addressing crime control, does not address the primary focus of this research – everyday management decisions that affect crime.
15 CHAPTER 3 DEFINING PLACE MANAGEMENT AND ITS APPLICATION TO BARS
Though “place” and “place manager” have been carefully defined, there is a great deal of ambiguity over the meaning of “place management,” a term generally used to describe the activities of managers. In this chapter, I will provide a definition of place management that focuses on place manager decisions. It describes management as a set of four interwoven processes. In the next chapter, I will describe how these processes apply to management decisions in the context of bars. But first I will examine studies of bars and drinking establishments to demonstrate that there already exists a body of literature pointing at the importance of place management in these types of facilities. As I will show, this literature suggests a variety of management practices serve to create or block crime, but the list of practices is not well organized or theoretically grounded.
Definition of Place Management
Place management has previously been described as regulating behavior at places (Eck &
Weisburd, 1995) or the control of behavior in a specific location (Clarke & Eck, 2005).
Unfortunately, these descriptions of place management are vague and do little to illuminate specific mechanisms by which managers influence crime. Most environmental criminologists would agree that those who are tasked with controlling behavior in specific environments, such as a shopkeeper, school teacher, or bar bouncer,7 are generally responsible for the manipulation of physical and social characteristics that influence opportunity structures for crime and other behaviors. But how are crime opportunity structures created by place managers?
7 A more detailed discussion of the types of individuals who act as “place managers” will be presented later in this paper as specific management practices are explored and analyzed.
16 At the most abstract level, place managers create or block opportunities for crime through their authority to control their space. Eck and Clarke (2005), expanding on Brantingham and
Brantingham (1995), suggest three mechanisms by which places can become hotspots. Each highlights a different manner in which place management may influence crime. First, managers can create crime opportunities inadvertently by increasing the number of potential targets at a location. A retailer, for example, by stocking large numbers of desirable items or by inviting large numbers of patrons can increase the number of crimes at her location. These actions can produce high-crime places that are referred to as “crime generators.” For example, subway systems bring large numbers of people together, thus increasing the number of opportunities for offenders and targets to come together in time and space. Place managers of these locations must alter the physical or social characteristics of this environment (e.g., install security cameras, allow access to paying customers only) to reduce the likelihood of offending/victimization at these places.
Second, managers can create environments that specifically attract offenders. Crime generators create hotspots by providing an abundance of targets, whereas “crime attractors” bring together a large number of offenders. Outpatient drug clinics and homeless shelters for alcoholics are at high risk of being crime attractors because of the clientele these places cater to.
Third, managers can create crime opportunities by failing to establish or enforce rules of conduct. Managers that fail to set behavioral expectations and/or do not provide guardians or handlers to address potential misconduct by those who behave inappropriately can facilitate criminal activity. These actions can produce high-crime places that are referred to as “crime enablers.” Managers who are absent or fail to enforce rules in places such as school yards, sports
17 stadiums, or public pools permit inappropriate behavior that can lead to incidents of crime and disorder.
While the above examples illustrate that place managers create crime opportunities by failing to protect targets, attracting potential offenders, and/or by failing to maintain control of people’s behavior, we must remember that the primary focus of most place managers is not crime control.8 Place managers are usually tasked with everyday responsibilities that appear to have very little to do with crime prevention. For example, place managers may be responsible for ensuring that a restaurant remains profitable by attracting more customers, educating elementary school children, managing a public bus system, or caring for nursing home patients. However, the opportunities for crime described above are created as a result of decisions made by managers as they carry out their everyday tasks.
Let us consider a few examples of how everyday management decisions can prevent crime. A lifeguard is primarily employed to enhance the safety of beach or pool users. But by enforcing, for example, a no-glass bottle rule (designed to reduce broken glass foot injuries) the lifeguard also regulates alcohol consumption at the location. A bank manager’s decision to clearly demark where patrons should line up for service improves bank functioning, but it also serves to reduce conflict among patrons. Signage in an amusement park, designed to facilitate patrons finding the attractions they desire, can also control access to non-public areas, thus reducing theft from these locations. A casino’s use of chips increases the casino’s returns, but also reduces cash theft from gamblers. Decisions managers make each day to maintain their businesses often directly or indirectly influence crime at places. Therefore, the following definition of place management aims to include all forms of management activities.
8 The exception to this, of course, are those hired to work as security.
18 Place management is a set of four processes that owners, their employees, and others use
to organize the physical and social environment of a location so that the functions of the
place can be carried out. Managers can use these four processes either separately or in
combination. These processes are:
(1) PHYSICAL SPACE ORGANIZATION -- the organization and design of the
physical space and structure, including location selection, construction, repair,
and upkeep;
(2) REGULATION OF CONDUCT -- the promotion and prohibition of activities,
including activities that are sought after and those that are undesirable;
(3) ACCESS CONTROL -- the inclusion and exclusion of people; and
(4) RESOURCE ACQUISITION -- the acquisition of money and other resources
that can be used for 1 through 3, as well as any profit.
This definition has several important implications. First, it imbeds crime prevention in a set of other activities rather than separating it from normal practice (as is often the case with security research). This is fully in keeping with the spirit of routine activities theory, which describes how everyday non-crime activities influence crime. Second, it draws attention to the specific function of a place and highlights that there is great diversity in place functions. It implies that understanding legitimate place function is critical to understanding crime at a place,
and how it can be prevented. This second implication leads to a third; we need to be highly place
specific in studying place management. This is in keeping with a central tenant of situational
crime prevention (Clarke, 1997): the need for crime specificity. Studies of heterogeneous
collections of places are far less likely to produce useful findings than studies of homogeneous
place sets (Eck et al., 2007). The specific ways in which these processes are carried out, and the
19 degree to which each process matters with respect to preventing crime, depends on the type of place or facility in which they are applied. The types of places I will examine in this study are
public drinking facilities, commonly referred to as bars and taverns.
This study considers how these processes relate directly to the development of crime
opportunity structures. Specifically, I will examine how these processes are applied in drinking
establishments and how they influence crime. The next section examines research on alcohol and
crime, particularly with regard to drinking establishments. We will see that existing research can
be readily interpreted as supportive of the importance of the processes that define place management.
Bars, Crime, and Managers
There are several reasons why the study of bars will prove useful to developing a greater understanding of management practices and help to draw conclusions from which a theory of place management can be developed. First, research has shown that crime tends to cluster in and around alcohol-serving establishments. Second, there is some empirical and qualitative evidence to suggest that management decisions and practices in bars have a direct effect on crime and disorder at these establishments. Finally, strategies aimed at improving place management at locations that serve alcohol have proven to be effective in reducing criminal behavior at these facilities. Evidence of each of these assertions is presented below.
Concentration of Crime in and Around Bars
The relationship between bar density and crime has been well documented. There is much evidence to suggest that areas with higher concentrations of alcohol-serving establishments
20 have more crime than areas with fewer of these types of facilities. For example, an increase in violent crime, including robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault, was found to be correlated with an increase in the density of bars and nightclubs in the Ybor City Historic District in Tampa, Florida (Danner, 2003). Studies conducted in Cleveland, Ohio, have twice demonstrated that crime is significantly higher on blocks with bars when compared to blocks without bars, even while controlling for other block characteristics traditionally associated with higher rates of crime9 (Roncek & Bell, 1981; Roncek & Maier, 1991). More specifically, Roncek and Maier (1991) found that the presence of one bar doubles the risk of murder and rape, increases the likelihood of assault and robbery by 20 percent, and increases the likelihood of
grand theft and auto theft by 13 percent on a single street block. An Australian study of assaults
and break-ins found that blocks containing bars have 25 times more assaults than blocks
containing none (Devery, 1992). A more sophisticated spatial analysis of crime data by Kumar
and Waylor (2002) revealed that both the density and probability of all crime types decline
exponentially as the distance from alcohol-serving establishments increases.
Other researchers have found the same correlation between bars and crime using hospital
data. In California, Lipton and Gruenewald (2002) found that areas with greater densities of bars
had significantly higher rates of hospitalizations for assault. Similarly, Tatlow, Clapp, and
Hohman (2000) found a significant relationship between the number of liquor outlets in each San
Diego County, California, zip code and the number of alcohol-related hospital admissions.
While this research suggests that there is some correlation at the block or neighborhood
level between the presence of bars and crime, other studies suggest that crimes are concentrated
within bars as well. In a random telephone survey of adults in Ontario, Canada, Graham and
colleagues (2002) found that individuals who had been involved in an incident of physical
9 For example, percent single households, percent female-headed households, mean value of rental housing, etc.
21 aggression in the previous 12 months were more likely to have experienced this aggression in a bar or nightclub than any other social context. This supported an early finding by Pernanen
(1991), who examined police and interview data and determined that a high rate of aggressive incidents occurred in public drinking establishments. An analysis of Milwaukee and Kansas City crime data show serious crime is roughly ten times more likely to happen in taverns than elsewhere (Sherman et al., 1992). Also, Parks (2000) found that 24 of 46 women who drank in bars one or more times per week, reported experiencing at least one incident of aggression over a
12-week period.
Research demonstrates that crime is highly concentrated in and around drinking establishments; however, crime is not equally distributed across all bars. In a review of the distribution of tavern crime in Milwaukee, Sherman, Schmidt, and Velke (1992) report that half of the 9,232 crimes attributed to taverns between the years 1986 and 1989 came from just 16 percent (n = 176) of the city’s 1,077 taverns, while 76 taverns had no reported crimes and 43 percent (n = 465) had less than one reported offense per year. Also, in Kansas City, 13 percent of the city’s 535 taverns produced 50 percent of the 11,338 offenses between the years 1985 and
1989, while 80 taverns had no reported crime and 23 percent had less than one reported offense per year. The Kansas City data also show that, when broken down by crime type, violent crime is even more highly concentrated at a small number of all taverns (Sherman et al., 1992). An observational study of 185 bars conducted by Graham et al. (1980) in Vancouver revealed no incidents of aggression were witnessed in the majority of bars (n = 115), with 160 incidents of aggression concentrated in only 70 bars. In Sydney, Australia, Homel and Clarke (1994) also conducted an observational study and found that 79.5% of all assaults witnessed were observed at only 17.8% of the bars.
22 Why is crime more highly concentrated at some bars than at others? Sherman (1995) outlines four theories that can be used to explain high-crime taverns:
(1) Patron hypothesis – high crime bars are where high crime people tend to congregate;
the amount of crime associated with a particular bar depends on the number of
offenders within it (Fishbine & Joelson, 1978).
(2) Neighborhood hypothesis – bars in bad neighborhoods will generate more crime than
bars in good neighborhoods; patrons leaving the bars are more likely to be attacked; a
neighborhood’s subculture of violence may make otherwise peaceful people more
likely to challenge one another (Skogan, 1986).
(3) Management hypothesis – management can influence who frequents the bar and how
they behave regardless of neighborhood characteristics (Eck, 1994; Marsh, 1980).
(4) Behavior setting theory – the characteristics of the patrons, neighborhood, and
management will create a standard for behavior that will either encourage or inhibit
misbehavior (Barker, 1968; Cavan, 1966; Wicker, 1979).
As a whole, the growing body of research on crime at bars reports at least partial support for each of these theories. However, most studies seem to suggest that specific management practices and bar characteristics – which are created and maintained by managers – are strongly correlated with crime at these locations. These results are consistent with the definition of place management presented earlier and the idea that variations in management practices influence crime in drinking establishments. Owners/managers decide what type of customers their business will cater to (access control), choose the neighborhood their business will be located in (physical space organization),10 and decide what types of behaviors will be tolerated within the “behavior
10 While this is true, it must also be acknowledged that some neighborhoods, on occasion, can change dramatically in relatively short periods of time. Still, choosing the location of a business, and the decision to remain in that
23 setting” (regulation of conduct). The next section offers a summary of the findings gathered from the bar and crime literature that recognizes the importance of management decisions in these environments.
Management in Bars
The link between alcohol and crime has been well-documented. Higher levels of crowd intoxication have been found to be positively related to the frequency of aggression in bars
(Graham, Osgood, Wells, & Stockwell, 2006). A study of men aged 18 to 30 found that individuals who reported higher levels of alcohol consumption were likely to experience more serious and more harmful aggressive incidents than those reporting lower levels of consumption
(Leonard, Collins, & Quigley, 2003). Additionally, interviews of university students suggest that alcohol makes individuals less aware of risks, more willing to take risks, more stimulated, more emotional, and more aggressive (Graham & Wells, 2003). However, most studies have come to reject the notion that aggressive behavior is caused by the pharmacological effects of alcohol
alone (Graham, West, & Wells, 2000; Tomsen, Homel, & Thommeny, 1991).
Kalin (1972), Boyatzis (1975) and Taylor and Gammon (1976) first recognized and
suggested that alcohol-related aggression may also be a function of situational determinants
(Graham et al., 1980). In Vancouver, British Columbia, Graham and colleagues (1980)
confirmed this notion with the first large-scale observational study of bars. The authors
maintained that the barroom environment is best viewed as an ecological system, with no single
variable causing aggression among patrons. Systematic observations of 95 situational predictors
made over a three month period in the summer of 1978 allowed the researchers to identify a
location is made by the business owner. As such, location selection can be considered one of the first place management decisions. Whether it is the most important decision is a different question.
24 barroom environment highly correlated with aggression. “This environment was characterized by very permissive decorum expectations, unpleasant, unclean and inexpensive physical surroundings, higher percentages of American Indians and unkempt patrons than in other bars, a tense atmosphere, patrons drinking rapidly and becoming highly intoxicated, downtown location, poor ventilation, shabby décor with no theme, people talking loudly to themselves, tables crowded together in rows and unfriendly barworkers” (p. 288-289).
Since this initial study, 11 other studies of barroom violence have been published. The most recent of these studies was also conducted by Graham, Bernards, Osgood, and Wells
(2006). As part of their review of the literature, the authors provided a list of all variables of bar environments found to be related to violence. Table 3.1 was derived from Graham et. al. (2006).
It lists 68 variables under six major headings: (1) bar location and capacity, (2) characteristics of
patrons, (3) staff variables, (4) serving practices and aspects of closing time (which includes
controlling levels of intoxication), (5) physical characteristics, and (6) social characteristics.
Even a cursory glance at this list allows the reader to confirm that the actions of place managers
in bars are directly related to crime. All of these variables stem from decisions made by
managers and can be manipulated, at least to some degree, by those who manage the bar
environment.
25 Table 3.1. Bar variables predictive of violence in previous research * Bar location and capacity Physical environment Social environment Bar location1,4,7,9 Noise level1,8,9 Intoxication of patrons1,3,4,5,9 Bar capacity4 Inconvenient bar access4 Rowdiness4,9 Crowding4,5,6,8,9 Roughness and bumping4 Characteristics of patrons Patrons moving about/high General permissiveness1,2,5,9 Younger patrons7,8,9 turnover1,5,9 Swearing1,4,5 Proportion of underage females4 Smokiness, poor ventilation1,4,8,9 Bar staff acceptance of deviant Groups of males/groups of male Extent premises unclean and behavior4 strangers3 messy1,4,5,8,9 Sexual activity4,5,9 Ethnicity of patrons1 Low expenditure and maintenance1 Sexual contact1,5,9 Unkempt patrons1 Frequent occurrence of aggression Sexual competition4,5,9 Marginal patrons4 in line-ups2,9 Round buying4 People talking to themselves1 Temperature (too warm)8 Illegal activities8 Proportion of males in manual Darkness4,8 Drugs being used or sold1 working gear3 Seating style1 Drug dealing4 Social class of customers7 Inadequate seating4,5 Prostitution1 Shabby decore1 Hostile atmosphere/conversation1 Staff variables Pleasantness1 Environment not open to strangers1 Low bar staff to patrons ratio4 Comfortableness3,5 Presence of hostile males4 Number of bar staff9 Cheerfulness/friendliness of patrons5 Presence of bouncers4,8,9 Serving practices and aspects of Bored patrons3,4 Ability of bar workers to closing time control/diffuse situations1 Serving a large amount right before Activities Lack of staff coordination9 closing7,8,9 Pool playing/billards1,7,8,9 Lack of monitoring9 Aggression frequently occurs Dancing1,8,9 Lack of professional boundaries by outside after closing2,7 Type of entertainment1,5 servers/bartenders9 Number of people hanging around Poor quality entertainment3 Lack of professional boundaries by after closing9 Availability of meals/snacks1,3,4,5 security staff9 Lack of public transportation 4,5,7 High proportion of male staff1,8 Cheap drinks3,8 Friendliness of bar staff1 Refusal of service to intoxicated Aggressive or poorly patrons4,5 trained/managed bar staff3 Lack of responsible beverage service practices4,5
1Graham et al., (1980) and Graham (1985) – analysis of quantitative data from observation in 1978 Vancouver, B.C., Canada 2Graham et al. (2000) and Graham & Wells (2001) – content coding of observations in the late 1990s London, Ontario, Canada 3Homel, Tomsen & Thommeny (1992) and Tomsen, Homel, & Thommeny (1991) – qualitative analyses of observations in 1989, in Sydney, NSW, Australia 4Homel & Clarke (1994) – analyses of quantitative data from observations in the early 1990s in Sydney, Australia 5Homel et al. (2004) – analyses of quantitative data from observation in 1994 and 1996 in three cities in Queensland, Australia 6Macintyre & Homel (1997) – analyses of incidents recorded by a private security company in Surfers Paradise, Queensland 7Marsh & Kirby (1992) – qualitative analyses based on observations in five communities in England 8Quigley, Leonard, & Collins (2003) – comparisons of violent and non-violent bars identified by survey respondents in Buffalo, New York, 1998-2000 9 Graham et al. (2006) – quantitative analyses of data from observations in Toronto, Canada *Table adapted from an earlier version of the following publication: Graham, K., Bernards, S., Osgood, D. W., & Wells, S. (2006). Bad nights or bad bars? Multi-level analysis of environmental predictors of aggression in late- night large-capacity bars and clubs. Addiction, 101(11), 1569-1580.
26 Perhaps the most obvious example of active place management in bars is the role played by those hired to specifically control access and behavior in these locations. These security personnel, more commonly known as bouncers, can help to reduce crime in and around bars. A study of two urban college bars in a northeastern industrialized city found that the bar that provided a greater level of guardianship and stricter controls for those entering the facility through the use of effective bouncers, produced less predatory offending than the comparison bar
(Fox & Sobol, 2000). However, the presence of bouncers does not always reduce offending. An examination of bar security staff behavior during aggressive incidents by Wells, Graham, and
West (1998), led the researchers to identify four categories of security staff: (1) “Good” security staff who were able to identify trouble makers, communicate effectively with other staff, and effectively deal with problem situations; (2) “Neutral” security staff who permitted incidents of aggression to escalate before intervening, lacked teamwork, and failed to use strategic approaches to prevent aggression; (3) “Bad” security staff who treated patrons unfairly, inconsistently enforced bar rules, and lacked good judgment; and (4) “Ugly” security staff who often lost their tempers, were verbally or physically abusive, bullied or harassed patrons, and generally treated patrons with disrespect. Graham et al. (2005) also found that some bar staff exacerbated situations by using high levels of aggression, even when dealing with non- aggressive patrons.
Although it is clear that place managers have the ability to create environments that facilitate crime, it has also been shown that they can manipulate settings to reduce crime opportunities. The next section reviews three successful crime reduction efforts that produced changes in place management at bars to reduce crime.11
11 This is not an exhaustive review of crime reduction strategies. Since it is reasonable to assume that all efforts to reduce crimes in and around bars have not been formally documented or published, and since many of these
27 Effective Place Management Strategies
Several researchers have found that traditional police enforcement of laws in and around alcohol-serving establishments alone does not generally produce substantial or sustainable reductions in crime. Enforcement aimed at reducing the sale of alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons (Burns, Flaherty, Ireland, & Frances, 1995; McKinght, 1988; McKinght &
Sttreff, 1994) and police strategies targeting underage drinking at bars (Burns et al., 1995) have not helped to decrease crime associated with these activities. While police raids at nuisance bars have been shown to reduce drug dealing at these locations, these reductions were evidenced only during active periods of enforcement and were not sustained after the special enforcement was withdrawn (Cohen, Gorr, & Singh, 2003). Danner’s (2003) conclusion after studying violent crime at bars was that “Saturating the streets of Ybor with police officers has probably had some deterrent effect on violent crime there, but internal bar security and patron management can inhibit violence before it is ‘taken out in the street.’” (p. 26). There have been several studies that suggest traditional enforcement coupled with improvements in place management, or even improvements in place management alone are more effective than using only traditional enforcement practices.
An evaluation of Operation NETFORCES (Nightclub Education & Enforcement Task
Force on Ordinances, Regulations, Codes, and Environmental Safety) initiated by the Raleigh
Police Department in 2002 to pressure bar owners and managers to improve safety at their establishments demonstrates the importance of place manager cooperation in crime reduction efforts (Herman Goldstein Award Submission, 2004). During the year following the implementation of the intervention, calls for service decreased more than 40 percent (415 to 238
strategies use similar intervention methods, these three case studies were chosen in particular to demonstrate (1) different types interventions used and (2) the value of targeting place managers of problem facilities.
28 calls) in places where the owners or managers were cooperative and took immediate action to correct health or safety violations identified by the NETFORCES team. In bars and nightclubs with uncooperative owners, calls for service increased slightly (524 to 569) and seven establishments had to be temporarily shut down.
In Geelong, the second largest city in the state of Victoria, Australia, “pub hopping” had
become associated with fights, intimidation, and other crimes and incivilities (Felson et al.,
1997). Police worked with bar managers to implement a 12-point policy, called “The Accord”
(see Table 3.2 for the list of interventions used). While other Australian cities experienced
increases in serious assaults, in Geelong serious assaults declined from 117 to 64 per 100,000
population over a 5 year period following the implementation of the interventions.
Table 3.2. Interventions included in the “The Accord” The Core Policy: 1. Cover charges to enter bars after 11pm (if they have live entertainment after 1am) 2. Denial of reentry for those who have exited 3. No free drinks 4. Limitations on promotions 5. No extended happy hours 6. Uniform minimum price per drink Supplementary Policy: 7. Enforcing laws against open containers on the street 8. Seizing fake, altered, or borrowed ID cards 9. Issuing summons for use of illegal IDs 10. Alcohol-free entertainment provided for underage youths on selected licensed premises 11. Calling taxis or friends for rides home 12. Uniform adherence to liquor laws by service personnel
The Safer Bars program aimed at reducing aggression in bars in Toronto, Canada, required bar owners/managers to complete a 92 question risk assessment workbook to identify environmental risks and then address these issues in their establishments (Graham et al., 2005;
Graham et al., 2004). A three-hour training session was also provided at the bars to teach bar
29 staff how to effectively deal with problem patrons (e.g., identifying and responding to early signs of aggression, dealing with intoxicated persons). Analysis of pre- and post-training questionnaires found significant participant improvement in knowledge and attitudes related to preventing aggression. Also, there was a significant reduction in incidents of severe and moderate aggression following the intervention.
Linking Place Management to Crime
The literature clearly indicates that (1) crime is associated with bars, (2) these crimes are disproportionately concentrated at a few bars, (3) management activities of bar owners and staff
have repeatedly been linked to violence and other crimes at these locations, and (4) efforts to
improve place management at high-crime bars have proven successful in reducing crime. This
study builds on these findings and explores management practices in bar settings with the goal of
developing a framework that will clearly articulate the relationship between place management
decisions and crime. Despite the growing body of literature cited above, Block and Block (1995)
argue that “there has yet to be a definitive study that disentangles the separate and interactive
effects on violence levels of the characteristics of the people who patronize a tavern or liquor
store, the social and physical characteristics within the place, and the space or physical
environment in which the place is embedded” (p. 149). This lack of “definitive” findings is likely
due to the overall weakness of the theories used to guide these studies.
Existing theories, such as those outlined by Sherman, Schmidt, and Velke (1992), are, at
best, vague in describing the causal mechanisms that link place management activities to crime.
Consequently, previous studies have adopted a relatively theory free/data driven approach.12
12 Justifications for including specific measures as controls or predictors are often based on significant correlations found in previous studies, rather than tests of specific hypotheses derived from theory.
30 These exploratory studies have identified relationships between the specific actions of managers and crime. Nevertheless, further progress is unlikely unless a richer theory of place management is developed that (1) explicates the mechanisms of place management, (2) guides the design of future studies, (3) assists in the interpretation of research findings, and (4) can inform crime reduction policy and practice.
Based on findings from previous bar studies, and personal observations of bar environments and discussions with bar managers,13 I will now propose a dynamic theory that describes place management in bars. This theory will more clearly show how management decisions influence events, and how these events and other outside influences impact management decisions in these establishments. The processes of physical space organization, regulation of conduct, access control, and resource acquisition are all incorporated in the theory, but are embedded in the specific types of decisions that are made in the course of owning and operating a bar.
13 The observations and discussions referenced were made during the data collection process described in the methods section (Chapter 5).
31 CHAPTER 4 A DYNAMIC THEORY OF PLACE MANAGEMENT IN BARS
The preceding definition of place management provides a typology of the decisions and activities carried out by managers. However, the types of decisions and activities listed are not independent; nor are they made independent of circumstances created as a result of earlier choices. Place management is a dynamic process, not a static condition. Therefore, the characteristics of a place at any particular time represent the cumulative effects of previous management decisions.
Existing place characteristics are akin to archeological artifacts or the physical evidence from a crime: they hint at the history that led to the current situation, but they do not give a complete picture. And just as the archaeologist and the detective must impose a theory on their artifacts and evidence to deduce the history, so we will have to create a theory that will help explain current place characteristics. The theory must explain why managers made particular decisions in the past and what circumstances prompted those decisions. I will now attempt to develop a framework upon which such a theory can be built.
When a place is created or “born,” a series of initial decisions are made about the
intended functioning of the place. Initial management decisions will determine how the place is
used and who uses it. Let us consider the general order and impact of these decisions for
someone who decides to open a bar. The decision to open a bar is influenced by outside factors
such as present market conditions (are there people with disposable income who can spend
money at my establishment?), perceived demand for such an establishment (are these people
willing to spend money at my establishment?) and the personal preferences of the individual (do
I want to open a bar?). The choice to open or manage a bar is associated with a set of decisions
32 that will determine the specific characteristics of the business. A diagram of this decision process is presented in Figure 4.1.
To open a bar for business, managers must choose the “theme” of the bar,14 decide where the bar will be located, and determine what the bar will look like (i.e., the physical layout and characteristics of the property). The decision of where to locate the bar is influenced by the presence of existing competitors (how many other bars are there in this area?), the location of customers (will those who would be willing to patronize the bar be able to reach my business?), and the price of property (where can I afford to open my business?). This decision will also be, at least in part, influenced by the theme or purpose of the establishment. For example, a loud nightclub will do well in an industrial or commercial neighborhood, but will cause problems or not be permitted to operate in or near a residential neighborhood. Similarly, a bar catering to upper-class clientele would not be expected do well if opened next to a homeless shelter or in a college neighborhood, but would likely draw customers if located near high-priced lofts in a central business district. Gay or lesbian bars might draw unwelcome attention in some neighborhoods, but not in others.
14 The decision concerning the bar’s theme may also be the product of current market conditions and the perceived demand for a particular type of establishment. It may also simply be determined by the type of clientele the owner wants to attract, the existing theme (if the place was already a bar when purchased), or some other idiosyncratic influence (e.g., the owner likes Irish whisky, or Elvis). However, this decision should remain separate, theoretically, from the decision to own/run a bar in general, since a manager may later decide to change the theme of his or her bar based on incidents that occur at the establishment.
33 Figure 4.1. Theory of place management in bars
Current market Demand for Personal interests conditions service/product of possible owner
Decision to Property values open /run a bar
Property Location of
ies Bar theme Bar location characteristics competition trateg s
Staff, Training, Activities/ Marketing Location of Security entertainment strategies customers s/current n
decisio Immediate Setting
past Types of Events patrons Reconsider
Management reaction
Known Costs of Profit/benefits External solutions change of circumstance pressure
Networks, Existing Direct harm to Enforcement by experience resources manager outsiders
34
Decisions concerning the physical properties and layout of the bar are also influenced by the theme of the establishment. For example, a dance club will require large open spaces for dancing, a jazz lounge will need a stage for live performances, a sports bar will require television monitors with unobstructed viewing areas, and a neighborhood pub will need bar stools and/or tables and chairs for patrons. Decisions to include physical features like multiple restrooms and metal detectors at the front door are also the product of the size and type of crowd the manager
believes the bar’s theme will attract. These decisions may be made sequentially or
simultaneously.15
The types of marketing strategies used by bar managers are influenced by the activities
and entertainment16 provided at the location (which are generally a product of the bar’s theme).
For example, managers of bars televising sports games will want to purchase television ads
during the “big game,” while managers of clubs with drag shows will want to advertise in
magazines read by the gay community. However, marketing strategies are also influenced by the
location of the bar relative to the location of potential customers. Generally, bars physically closer to the everyday activities of desired clientele need less marketing to sustain business. For example, a sports bar in or directly outside of a sports stadium will need few advertisements to attract the attention of potential customers. However, a sports bar in a residential suburban
neighborhood may need to purchase radio, television, or magazine ads to make sports fans aware
of the establishment. A gay bar in a straight neighborhood might underplay its presence by
presenting a nondescript and uninviting front, and rely on word of mouth for its advertising.
15 Initial decisions that tend to be made closer together in time are grouped together by shaded rectangles in Figure 4.1. 16 Food services are included under this heading. Some bars also consider themselves diners (e.g. the Pub and Grille).
35 Management decisions about staff are influenced by both the physical characteristics of the bar and the types of activities/entertainment provided. Physical features of bars, such as size and layout can affect management decisions concerning staffing levels. Larger bars and bars with outside seating might require wait staff in addition to bartenders (and/or more of both of these types of employees). The type of activities/entertainment offered also influence the staffing decisions of managers. Bars that offer full meals need cooks, dance clubs need DJs, and clubs with high-profile music acts need security to protect the performers. The amount and type of training the manager decides to provide are also a function of managers’ perceptions that the staff can adequately perform the duties required by these physical features and activities. Also, managers may decide to add extra security (either additional staff or security features that can be manipulated by staff – e.g., security cameras) based on bar characteristics.
The type of patrons attracted to the bar and events that occur at the establishment create an immediate setting that is determined largely by the marketing strategies used, the types of activities and entertainment provided, and staff ability to control patron behavior. Marketing is used to attract a particular type of customer, and particular types of customers may be more likely to behave in particular ways. For example, a manager that decides to market his bar to older, wealthy, single women will likely experience fewer “brawls” or physical bar fights than the manager who markets to 20-something sports fans (see Quigley, Leonard, & Collins, 2003).17
Violent incidents between patrons are also more likely to occur in places that offer competitive games (e.g., pool), or provide activities that bring people together in very close proximity (e.g., dancing), which increases the probability of physical contact (Graham et al., 2006). Also, the ability of staff to identify and effectively respond to problems will decrease problem incidents at
17 Marketing decisions also include the prices that will be charged for the products/services provided at the bar. Price decisions can be used to exclude particular groups of people (e.g., younger patrons, college students, lower-class patrons).
36 the bar (Graham et al., 2004) and, in turn, discourage potential troublemakers from frequenting the establishment.
Management reaction to positive and negative events, both immediate (to encourage or suppress) and following the event, can alter the likelihood of future events. Active place management involves the adjustment of existing conditions produced by previous decisions to control future events. Based on the specifics of the events, managers may reconsider one or multiple decisions that they believe created the conditions that caused or allowed the incident(s) to occur. The outcomes of decisions made later in the process are generally easier to manipulate
(i.e., staff and training, activities and entertainment, marketing strategies) and, therefore, are more likely to be altered than earlier decisions (e.g., determining business type, theme, location and physical characteristics).18
Why do some managers address problems at their bars while others do not? Eck, Clarke and Guerette (2007) suggest that the actions of managers are influenced by at least five factors:
(1) characteristics of the present situation or circumstance (i.e., the immediate setting), (2) knowledge of potential solutions, (3) the cost of change, (4) profit or other benefits associated with existing conditions, and (5) the degree to which they are held accountable for problems related to these conditions. The first of these has been described. Influences two through five are depicted in Figure 4.1 as directly influencing management reaction. Also shown are antecedent variables which affect these factors:
(1) Knowledge of potential solutions is influenced by peer and professional networks and
previous experience from which the manager can draw information – managers with
18 The exception to this would be minor changes that can be made to the physical environment, such as posting warnings or installing security cameras. However, changes requiring large scale construction projects (e.g., knocking down walls to increase visibility) are more difficult and, therefore, less likely.
37 larger networks and more experience tend to be more knowledgeable and better able to
develop appropriate solutions.
(2) Eck, Clarke and Guerette (2007) suggest that the costs of changes are important. The
absolute costs, however, may be less important than the relative costs – a comparison of
the absolute costs to available means to pay these costs. The relative cost of change to the
manager is related to his or her levels of existing resources – those with more resources
(e.g., bars that make more money) are less affected by these expenses and more likely to
attempt to address the problem.
(3) Profit or other benefits associated with existing conditions are influenced by the amount
of benefit or harm that the manager experiences as a result of incidents – if the manager
benefits by allowing the events to occur, or if the manager is not directly impacted, then
he or she is less likely to change things (they might try to enhance the occurrence of the
activities in these instances). Also, managers are less likely to act if they believe that
changes will have little or no impact on future events.
(4) The degree to which managers are held accountable for events is determined by the
intervention of outsiders – pressure to act may come from a variety of agencies and
individuals (e.g., police, regulatory agencies, licensing bureaus, angry residents); more
pressure makes managers more likely to react. With the exception of market pressures,
most accountability will relate to negative events, as perceived by outsiders.
This framework demonstrates the dynamic process of place management, explicates the linkages among types of place manager decisions, and shows the adaptive nature of this practice.
The four processes of place management outlined in the general definition presented in Chapter 3 are each represented in the framework. For example, physical space organization occurs when
38 decisions are made regarding location and property characteristics, regulation of conduct takes place through the activities provided and management reaction to patron behavior, access control is accomplished through marketing strategies and security features, and resource acquisition influences most, if not all, of these business strategies (and most likely prompted the decision to create such a place to begin with).
There are several implications of the present theory that must be noted. First, it imbeds crime concerns in a larger context and allows for differing perceptions of the events. For example, a bar owner might foster a certain level of rowdiness as a marketing decision. That these behaviors negatively impact outsiders might be of little concern to one owner (no management reaction), while taken seriously by another (management action – leading to reevaluation of previous decisions). One cannot understand how bars produce crime (or do not) independent of the normal business decisions of the bar owner and employees. Second, it involves feedback. Earlier decisions lead to outcomes that influence later decisions. As I will note later, this has major implications for testing this theory. Third, the influences unfold over time and at any given moment the impact of one input might not have had its full effect on downstream results. Each arrow depicted in Figure 4.1 implies direction, but the amount of time that will elapse before the full impact of the decision is realized may vary. At minimum, we can assume that there are fast cycles (e.g., impact derived from managers’ direct intervention in the immediate setting) and slower cycles (e.g., changes in marketing strategies to attract new customers or different types of patrons). Fourth, I have not specified functional forms among the constructs. Some of the concepts interact (e.g., costs of change and profit/benefits of circumstances), while others may have non-linear relationships (e.g., external pressure could have a threshold effect on management reaction, particularly with regard to formal regulatory
39 control). Identifying functional forms of relationships will require additional research that is beyond the scope of this dissertation. At the present, understanding of the relationships is too limited to confidently defend a particular functional form. This has implications for the analysis of this theory.
Implications for Testing the Theory
The theory presented in Figure 4.1 offers a typology of decisions made by place managers who operate bars and explains how particular types of decisions relate to other decision types and outside influences over time; thus, creating a dynamic system. The framework sequentially maps out the decision-making process of the bar owner or manager that continually transpires between birth (i.e., grand opening) and death (i.e., go out of business) of the establishment. While the theory specifies the linkages between decision types and the general order in which these decisions are made, it does not specify the type of decisions within each category that will lead to particular outcomes in the immediate setting. For example, the theory suggests that staffing decisions will influence events that occur at the bar, but not which staffing decisions or what types of events. The theory also does not specify the situations in which outside influences will trigger management response to problems occurring at the bar. We can assume that regulatory agencies may place pressure on managers of problem locations, but the type of agency, the type of pressure, and the amount of pressure likely to instigate management reaction is not identified by the theory. This suggests that formal testing of the theory will be complex. Rather than looking for a specific outcome, researchers testing this theory must look at
the processes involved.
40 The theory of place management presented in this chapter represents the first step in theory construction. The main contribution of this framework is that it urges the researcher or theorist to consider the implications of all manager decisions, demonstrates how these decisions are related, and provides a template for identifying the mechanisms that can explain crime in these locations. The precise causal mechanisms that link particular types of management decisions to particular outcomes must be discovered and explicitly outlined in specific and testable hypotheses. How these discoveries should be made using the current framework will be discussed in detail in the concluding chapter.
Given the nature of the theory, multivariate analysis may be an inappropriate tool for testing this theory. Using multivariate analyses to find partial correlations between different types of management decisions and some outcome variable (e.g., crime) may produce significant correlations between variables while controlling for others, but this would still fail to improve our understanding of why crime occurs at bars. Significant correlations between crime and place, patron, and management characteristics have already been found, many times (see Table 3.1).
Inferring underlying causality does not become easier, nor do our explanations become stronger as more and more significant correlations are observed (George & Bennett, 2005).
In this dissertation, I examine the plausibility of my theory of bar management and crime.
Before doing so, I must first distinguish between testing a theory and demonstrating its plausibility. While testing examines the validity of a theory, plausibility is only concerned with whether a theory is sufficiently interesting to warrant testing. An analogy can be drawn to criminal court proceedings. Testing is like a court trial. A court trial is a test of the prosecutor’s theory of the crime; in particular, whether the defendant was involved and how. Plausibility is
like the preliminary hearing. In preliminary hearings the prosecutor merely shows that there is
41 sufficient evidence that the defendant should be brought to trial. Similarly, establishing plausibility means that the theory has enough evidence to suggest that it is worth the time and effort required to test it. So, demonstrating plausibility simply means that the theory is worth considering further.
There are five types of evidence that can enhance the plausibility of a theory. This evidence can be assessed by answering five specific questions. First, is the theory logical? It should not contain self-contradictory statements and should not be a tautology. Second, does the theory account for findings from earlier studies? It should not contradict well-established
findings, and should fit them into a coherent story. Third, is the theory consistent with what we observe in everyday practice? Many social science phenomena are observable, at least in part.
We should be able to see parts of the theory in action. Fourth, is the theory consistent with simple statistical analysis? That is, can we find many of the correlations we would expect even without methodically eliminating alternative hypotheses? In other words, without introducing statistical controls or functional forms, does the theory fit the data? Finally, is the theory useful?
That is, does it suggest avenues for research or policy alternatives that would not be otherwise
considered?
Except for the first criterion, an affirmative answer is not required for all questions. It
simply must do well enough for others to pay attention to the theory. A theory might, for
example, suggest interesting policies, but there may be no data available to examine simple
associations, and existing research may be too weak to provide a good fit. If the theory is logical
and potentially useful, then it is worth testing. Thus, the purpose of the analyses that follow is to
determine the plausibility of the proposed theory to determine if further testing is warranted.
42 To explore the plausibility of the theory, I present a set of general hypotheses that derive from this framework. These hypotheses will form the basis for data analysis (described in
Chapter 5).
Hypotheses
Fifteen general hypotheses will be examined. The data do not allow for every relationship proposed in Figure 4.1 to be examined; however, most of the relationships can be at least partially explored. The hypotheses are organized below based on the order of analysis and discussion of each statement in later chapters. The first four hypotheses relate to the relationships between the initial management decisions (shaded portion of Figure 4.1) that subsequently influence the characteristics of the immediate setting.
H1: Property characteristics influence manager decisions concerning staffing, training, and
security.
H2: The number of activities offered at the bars influence manager decisions concerning
staffing, training, and security.
H3: The type of activities offered at the bars influence manager marketing strategies.
H4: Bar location, relative to the location of desired customers, influences manager
marketing strategies.
The assumption that negative events or conditions at the bar will instigate outside forces is addressed by the fifth hypothesis.
H5: Crime or high levels of disorder influences outside enforcement.
43 Hypotheses six through eight relate to the assumption that pressure to change negative characteristics of the bar (coming from outside enforcement or direct harm to the manager) and accessible knowledge and resources will influence managers’ reactions to negative events.
H6: Manager networks and experience influence management reaction.
H7: Manager resources influence management reaction.
H8: Outside enforcement influences management reaction.
Associations between initial management decisions and crime and disorder that occur in the settings created by these initial decisions are addressed by hypotheses nine through eleven.
H9: Property characteristics and staff, training, and security levels influence crime and
disorder.
H10: Bar theme and activities/entertainment influence crime and disorder.
H11: Bar location and marketing strategies that attract particular types of patrons influence
crime and disorder.
Hypotheses twelve through fourteen address the proposed relationships between outside influences and levels of crime and disorder at the bars.
H12: Manager networks and experience influence crime and disorder.
H13: Manager resources influence crime and disorder.
H14: Outside enforcement influences crime and disorder.
A general implication of the theory that has not been directly discussed is the two-way interaction between place and context. While research has demonstrated that context and place
44 characteristics influence crime in bars (see Graham et al., 1980), the causal process between the two is unclear. Formal tests of this relationship are not possible; however, hypothesis fifteen is explored by examining the spatial distribution of bars with high levels of crime and disorder.
H15: Neighborhood location causes crime and disorder.
If this hypothesis is true, then bars with high levels of crime and disorder should be
physically distant from bars with lower levels of crime and disorder. If it is not true, then we
would expect to see high and low crime/disorder bars randomly dispersed across the city. If both
place and neighborhood characteristics matter, we should expect the analysis to produce some
combination of these two outcomes (i.e., some, but not complete, clustering of high crime bars).
The relationships stemming from the proposed theory of place management, and
specified by the above hypotheses, are listed in Table 4.1. Since not all relationships will be
directly examined (not all variables measured, only examining bivariate correlations), the
constructs that will be compared are highlighted. The specific variables that will represent these
constructs in the analysis are discussed in Chapter 5.
45 Table 4.1. Research hypotheses H# RELATIONSHIP OUTLINED BY CAUSAL FRAMEWORK H1 Property characteristics → Staff, Training, Security
H2 Activities/entertainment → Staff, Training, Security
H3 Activities/entertainment → Marketing strategies
H4 Bar/customer location → Marketing strategies
H5 Events → Enforcement by outsiders
H6 Networks/experience → Known solutions/responses → Manager reaction
H7 Existing resources → Costs of change → Manager reaction
H8 Enforcement by outsiders → External pressure/accountability → Manager reaction
H9 Property characteristics → Staff, Training, Security → Events Property characteristics → Staff, Training, Security → Events
H10 Bar theme → Activities/entertainment → Events Bar theme → Activities/entertainment → Events H11 Bar/customer location → Marketing strategies → Types of patrons → Events
H12 Networks/experience → Known solutions/responses → Manager reaction → Events
H13 Existing resources → Costs of change → Manager reaction → Events
H14 Enforcement by outsiders → External pressure/accountability → Manager reaction → Events H15 Bar location = Events (not depicted in framework)
46 CHAPTER 5 METHODS
In this study, a data set is applied to the framework to determine how consistent the theory is with empirical observations. The data available provide a cross-sectional description of a population of bars. The theory is dynamic and does not predict relationships between specific variables. Consequently, the data are not sufficient or appropriate to formally test the theory. As argued previously, the data can only be used to examine simple bivariate relationships to determine the plausibility of the theory.
The hypotheses listed are examined using data describing the population of Cincinnati bars. These data were collected in the summer and early fall of 2006. A description of the data, sample, data collection procedures, and proposed methods of analysis follows. This is followed with a discussion of the data limitations and the potential implications of these limitations for the present study.
Data
Two data collection instruments were used to obtain information concerning management practices, the physical characteristics of bars, and the physical characteristics of the surrounding environment: (1) a place manager survey, and (2) a site observation survey.
Place Manager Survey
Interviews of bar owners, managers, bartenders, and security staff were conducted. These interviews provide detailed information on bar characteristics and management activities that could not be obtained through observations. A copy of the place manager survey instrument is presented in Appendix A. The survey is divided into nine sections and contains questions related
47 to: (1) ownership, (2) characteristics of the property, (3) business strategies, access control,
security, and transportation, (4) activities and entertainment provided, (5) food and drink served,
(6) number of employees and training, (7) number and demographics of patrons, (8) recent
enforcement by outside agencies, and (9) the financial status of the bar. This information was
collected in both qualitative and quantitative format.
Site Observation Survey
Physical attributes of the bar were documented based on observations of the interior,
exterior, and environment immediately surrounding the location. A copy of the site observation
survey instrument is presented in Appendix B. This survey is different from other site surveys
used in previous bar research. The focus of the instrument is on physical attributes of the
property only; it does not contain questions about patron behavior observed in the bar. The
survey is divided into four main sections: (1) characteristics of the exterior of the bar and the
immediate environment, (2) attributes of the building, (3) characteristics of the bar interior, and
(4) cleanliness/disrepair of restrooms.
Official Crime Statistics
Data were obtained from the Cincinnati Police Department for crimes reported and
documented between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006. These data include Part I and Part
II crimes documented at the address level. The interview and site observation data were linked to
the police crime statistics for each bar.19
19 Multiple indicators of crime and disorder were used. These are described under the analysis section of this chapter.
48 Sample
In this study, a “bar” was defined as a place that meets four conditions: (1) it is open to the general public, rather than restricted to members or rented out as a entertainment spot to private parties; (2) it serves hard alcohol for on site consumption;
(3) some proportion of patrons frequent the place for the primary purpose of consuming alcohol; and (4) there is a designated physical area within the place that serves as a drinking area (this could be the entire place, or a portion of the place). Places that did not meet all four conditions were not considered bars.
Every bar within Cincinnati city limits was included in the sampling frame. Multiple data sources were used to create this list of places, including alcohol licensing information from the
Division of Liquor Control (within the Ohio Department of Commerce), a list of bars reviewed by CinWeekly (a weekly tabloid that annually writes reviews of local bars), and on-line yellow pages. Initial identification of bars began with the alcohol licensing information. However, many places with alcohol service permits are not “bars.” For example, restaurants without physical
“bars,” art galleries, golf courses, athletic clubs, and large concert venues were included in the data obtained from the Division of Liquor Control. Therefore, the type of permit granted, the
CinWeekly magazine reviews, yellow pages, and researchers’ knowledge of particular places were used to sort the bars from non-bars. For the locations that could not be classified using
these methods, phone calls or site observations of the actual locations were made. If any further
ambiguity existed, an employee was contacted during a site visit and asked whether or not they
considered the place to be a drinking establishment. Those who answered in the negative were
excluded.
49 Of the 1254 places in Cincinnati with alcohol licenses, 264 were classified as a bar using the above definition. Bars that were not open during the year 2005 were excluded, along with several locations that closed down before data collection efforts began. A total of 239 bars were included in the final set of locations. This is the population of Cincinnati bars.20
Data Collection Procedures
Place manager interviews and site observations were conducted between July and
October of 2006. A letter was mailed to the bars approximately two weeks before an initial
attempt was made to contact the manager or owner of each establishment. This letter explained
the purpose of the study and informed the bar owner/manager that a researcher from the
University of Cincinnati would contact them to set up an interview appointment. Personal
contacts following the mailing were made two different ways. Some appointments were made
through telephone calls to owners or managers if they could be reached by phone. Other
appointments were set during visits to the establishments. These visits were conducted by a
“scout” team, usually made up of two researchers. If someone who worked at the bar was willing
to complete the survey during the initial visit, the interview and site observations were conducted at that time. If not, an appointment was made for another research team to return at an agreed upon date and time. All sites were visited by a scout or research team at least once.
Most of the interviews were conducted in-person. Only two interviews were conducted over the phone. Three of the interviews were conducted at an off-site location (e.g., at a local coffee shop). Research teams consisted of one male and one female graduate student.21
20 As of May, 2006 21 This made the site observations of the restroom characteristics easier and less obtrusive, although exceptions to the male/female pairings were made when researchers of one gender were unavailable.
50 Typically, one researcher conducted the interview while the other walked through the bar and around the exterior of the building to complete the site observation form.22
All types of place managers were interviewed, but only one place manager was interviewed at each bar. At the initial contact, we asked to speak to someone who knew about everyday management practices at the establishment. We were referred to, and subsequently interviewed, owners, managers, bartenders, and security personnel.23 A total of 199 bars are represented in the data. This constitutes an 83.26 percent response rate for the population.
Analysis
Both qualitative and quantitative data are used in the analysis. Qualitative descriptions of events, intervention methods, and other information gathered during discussions with managers were used to supplement the quantitative findings. Content analysis of the narratives was conducted to quantify particular management behaviors (e.g., whether or not the manager indicated that the establishment was a “neighborhood” bar). Qualitative data are used to provide examples, provide greater understanding of quantitative information, and in the interpretation of the final results.
Given the nature of the theory being examined – a dynamic system that evolves over time and cannot be assumed to have arrived at a stable state – formal testing of the theory is not feasible. Instead, the data analysis involves rather simple methods designed to explore the utility of the theory. Conclusions regarding the plausibility of the theory are made on the basis of the examination of all hypotheses.
22 Unless the researchers felt uncomfortable or unsafe at the location, then they stayed together during both the interview and the site observations. 23 This method was used since most of the questions could be answered by anyone who worked at the bar. The intention of the study was not to explore the activities of different types of place managers. Job titles were not documented in order to protect the identity of the respondent.
51 Simple descriptive and bivariate statistics were used to examine the proposed relationships. There was tremendous variability and often extreme outliers in the bar and management characteristics across the places examined. Also, violence and high levels of disorder were relatively rare. As a result, many of the variables were highly skewed. Q-Q plots of the variable values were examined to determine if they approximated normal distributions.
Since the majority of the variables plotted did not reflect a normal distribution individually or when plotted in relation to other variables, Spearman’s rho correlation coefficients were reported in place of Pearson correlation coefficients. Also, since the proposed theory under investigation does not make assumptions concerning the functional forms of the relationships, and Spearman’s rho does not assume a linear relationship (unlike Pearson), this statistic was used throughout the analyses.
Bivariate significance tests were also used to detect significant relationships. The type of test used, logistic regression, t-test, or Chi-square, was based on the level of measurement of the specific dependent and independent variables being examined. Spatial analysis of the data (e.g., determining if bars with particular characteristics tend to cluster together) was conducted using
Geographic Information Systems software. The specific variables and measures of the constructs listed in the hypothesis summary table are presented in Table 5.1.
52 Table 5.1. Description of variables CONSTRUCT MEASURE(S) /VARIABLE Activities/entertainment /# Activities - Count of all available activities (dancing, live entertainment, drinking games, pool, darts, videogames/poker, cornhole, bocce ball, jukebox, TV monitors, other reported weekly or monthly activities) /Unique activities - Uncommon activities available at bard - Uncommon bar specialtyd /Competitive games - Pool, darts, cornhole, or bocce ball availabled /Physical activities - Dancing offered at bard /Entertainment cover - Bar charges coverd /Drinking games - Bar sponsors drinking gamesd Bar/customer location /Neighborhood bar - Respondent characterization of place as neighborhood bard Bar theme /Food service - Food available for purchased - Full meals available for purchased - Free munchies providedd Events /Disorder - Exterior disorder index (count of whether broken lights, structural problems, litter, large pieces of junk, overflowing trashcans, graffiti, chipping paint, boarded windows, or broken exterior fixtures/decorations were visible on or around the exterior of the building) - Interior disorder index (count of whether broken seats/tables, visible graffiti, or broken lights visible inside the building) - Restroom disorder index (count of whether graffiti, dirty floors, leaking pipes, holes in the stall walls, broken doors, no toilet paper, no hand soap, no paper towels, inoperable toilets, broken mirrors, broken lights, litter, or damaged walls /Manager reports were present in any of the restrooms) - Number of people asked to leave – typical Friday night - Number of people physically removed – typical Friday night /Police statistics - Number of calls to police per week - Incidents of physical violence over two year period (all crimes classified as assault, domestic violence, gross sexual imposition, improperly discharging a firearm, kidnapping, murder, rape, sexual battery, or sexual imposition) - Incidents of threatened violence over two year period (all crimes classified as aggravated menacing, ethnic intimidation, criminal endangering, inducing panic, and menacing by stalking) Manager reaction /Prevention efforts - Managers or employees intervene in violent incidentsd - Manager has tried to prevent future incidentsd Manager resources /Financial status - Bar making profitd - Bar making profit or breaking evend Marketing strategies /Advertisements - Number of different methods of advertisement reported /Effectiveness - Bar attracts ideal customerd /Practices - Cost of cheapest drink - Cash only bard
53 Table 5.1. Description of variables (cont.) CONSTRUCT MEASURE(S) /VARIABLE Networks, experience /Manager experience - Number of years/months the current owner has owned the bar - Percentage of current employees working at the bar for at least six months /Manager networks - Owner/manager belongs to bar or business associations - Number of associations the owner manager belongs to - Work with other bars to attract customersd Outside enforcement /Regulatory visits - Number of visits made by regulatory agencies in past 12 months - Number of visits made by Ohio Liquor Control Board in past 12 months Patrons /Demographics - Most patrons in their 20s versus other or mixed age categoriesd - Percentage of male patrons – typical Friday night - Percentage of white patrons – typical Friday night - Percentage of regular patrons – typical Friday night Property Characteristics /Bar size - Square footage of bar - Maximum occupancy - Average number of patrons served – typical Friday night /Level of activity - Number of patrons/number of staff – typical Friday night Staff, training, security /Employees - Total number of employees - Number of employees working – typical Friday night - Uniforms required - Allow employees to drinkd /Training - Employees trained by managementd - Employees trained by outside organizationd - Security trained by managementd - Security trained by outside organizationd /Security - Security feature index (count of whether bar has burglary alarm, robbery alarm, access codes, cash control procedures, staff behavioral controls, security, off-duty police, weapons for staff, surveillance cameras) - Bar employs security personneld - Bar hires off-duty police officersd - ID checked at doord - Pour control devices usedd d Dichotomous measure
As shown in the table under the construct heading “events,” there are eight specific variables used as measures of negative characteristics of the immediate setting and events: exterior disorder, interior disorder, restroom disorder, number of people asked to leave on a typical Friday night, the number of people physically removed on a typical Friday night, the number of calls to police per week, incidents of physical violence, and incidents of threatened violence. Levels of disorder are expected to be high in places where managers have created
54 environments that attract patrons who damage property or in places where managers have neglected their properties over time, with the highest levels occurring where both conditions are present. Asking patrons to leave, physically removing patrons, and calls to the police are indicators of the level of problems faced by managers at these locations, but it also suggests that these settings attract problem individuals and can serve as a gauge of management reaction to these problems. These different interpretations of the same variables are considered in the descriptions of the findings. Finally, to be able to draw from previous research findings concerning crime in bars, violence-related crimes are examined in this study. Since violence is a relatively rare event, violent crimes were grouped into two categories: physical violence incidents and threatened violence incidents.
Significant Effects
For any given hypothesis, there are at least four reasons why the analysis may fail to find the proposed relationship. First, the theory driving this analysis may be wrong; place management does not matter. However, this explanation is unlikely to be true considering the findings of previous research reviewed earlier in this paper. Second, the concept of place management may be operationalized incorrectly in the theory. Perhaps important types of bar management decisions have not been identified or the relationships between them have been misspecified. Third, important interaction effects may not be identified by the theory or properly controlled for in the analysis, thus obscuring significant correlations. Fourth, the data used to test the relationships may be inadequate. The weaknesses of the data are discussed below.
55 Strengths and Limitations of the Data
There are six major weaknesses of the data used in this study. First, the data collection instruments were developed and the data were collected before the theoretical framework was constructed. Therefore, not all of the constructs and proposed relationships were measured, nor are all of the available measures ideal. However, the first fourteen hypotheses that stem from the theoretical framework will allow us to examine most of these linkages with variables that measure elements of these constructs.
Second, cross-sectional data are used in this study. Unfortunately, the data cannot describe the history or trajectory of the places examined. Since place management is a process that unfolds over time, cross-sectional data is less desirable than longitudinal data. But in the absence of the latter, we can look for correlations that would be expected based on the hypothesized relationships. The system of relationships described by the theory may be correct, but the bar system in Cincinnati during the second half of 2006 might not be in a stable state, thus obscuring the long term stable relationships suggested by the theory.
Third, the interviews and site observations did not include observations of actual management practices or patron behavior. There is no way to determine how truthful the managers were during the interviews. We also do not know whether their perceptions or explanations of bar activities accurately reflect the events they described.
Fourth, the measures may not be specific enough to capture the types of manager decisions and activities that matter. If gross management practices matter, the data should confirm the hypothesized correlations. However, subtle tweaking of the immediate setting is not likely to be reflected by the measures used. Only detailed narrative accounts or direct
56 observations of the immediate setting can detect the subtle interaction of all variables relevant to negative events (Homel & Clark, 1994).
Fifth, due to the number and spatial clustering of the bars, formal multi-level analysis (i.e, hierarchical linear modeling) including both place and neighborhood characteristics cannot be conducted. Instead, mapping and characteristics of the immediate environment (i.e., observations of the surrounding neighborhood) and statistical comparisons of bars in different locations will be used to assess neighborhood effects.
Sixth, the development of the theory followed the collection of the data (though the analysis was conducted after theory development). Consequently, it would be impossible to use the data as an independent test of the theory, even if the data were perfectly suitable for testing the theory. It is possible that some elements of the theory are the result of some peculiarities of
Cincinnati bars, and are not generalizable. A rigorous test of this theory will require data from other cities and time periods.
Despite these weaknesses, this is the first study that uses data obtained directly from place managers to study place management in bars. Many observational studies of bar environments have been conducted, and findings from these studies can be used to support and supplement the data used in the present study. The findings from the present evaluation will be used to explore the proposed theory of place management in bars and help draw inferences from which more specific theories of place management in bars can be developed. The analyses are presented in chapters 6 through 10. Chapter six begins with a description of place management practices and the characteristics of Cincinnati bars.
57 CHAPTER 6 CINCINNATI BARS: PLACE AND MANAGEMENT CHARACTERISTICS
This chapter describes the characteristics and place management practices of Cincinnati bars, based on surveys of 83 percent of these bars. The chapter is divided into four sections. The first provides statistics describing the purpose and theme of the businesses, building and management characteristics, advertisement practices, employees, security, patrons, bar activities, physical disorder, and the financial status of the bars. These data show that bars are quite diverse.
The second section uses data gathered from police records and manager interviews to describe the distribution of crime events across the bars. The data show that crime is highly concentrated among a few bars. The third section describes management responses to these crime events.
While most managers who have experienced crime problems report trying to prevent future incidents or attempting to intervene when these incidents do occur, many admit that they have done nothing. The fourth section describes recent regulatory inspections. Almost all bars have been subject to such inspections, but there was great variation in the number of visits reported across these establishments. This chapter concludes with a discussion concerning the importance of the differences found among the establishments surveyed.
Place and Business Characteristics
In general, the characteristics of the places examined were quite diverse. In this section, we will look at this diversity in greater detail. The narrative will follow the order of the characteristics presented in Table 6.1, starting with general building characteristics, moving through descriptions of the businesses and management practices, and concluding with statistics concerning the levels of disorder observed at the establishments.
58 Table 6.1. Cincinnati bar characteristics Business characteristics n Min Max Mean Median Building Year building constructed 135 1700 2004 1915 1910 Major renovations since year 2000 195 0 12 1.65 1.00 Square footage 104 200 25000 3553 2600 Maximum occupancy 192 30 1275 196 140 Patron to maximum occupancy ratio 185 .07 10.70 1.23 0.86 Business Years in business 198 .25 145 24.83 15 Neighborhood bard 199 0 1 .20 .00 Uncommon specialtyd 199 0 1 .20 .00 Uncommon activityd 199 0 1 .04 .00 Number of activities available to patrons 189 0 9 4.70 5 Food availabled 199 0 1 .85 1.00 Full meals availabled 166 0 1 .77 1.00 Management Years under current ownership 195 .08 52 10.79 7 Belong to bar/business associationsd 185 0 1 .46 .00 Number of manager bar/business associations 185 0 6 .71 0 Work with other drinking establishmentsd 198 0 1 .23 .00 Number of advertisement mediums 194 0 6 2.07 2 Employees Percentage of employees retained over 6 months 196 0 100 77.90 83.97 Total number of employees 197 1 275 20.25 12 Average number of employees working Friday nights 198 1 39 6.12 4 Patron to staff ratio 191 8 375 50.53 37.5 Employees trained by managementd 194 0 1 .49 .00 Employees trained by outside organizationd 194 0 1 .10 .00 Employees required to wear uniformsd 198 0 1 .45 .00 Bar hires security personneld 196 0 1 .36 .00 Average number of security staff on Friday nights 71 0 18 2.49 2 Security trained by managementd 69 0 1 .35 .00 Security trained by outside organizationd 69 0 1 .10 .00 Bar hires off-duty police officersd 199 0 1 .19 .00 Additional security Security feature index 162 0 8 3.5 3.5 Patrons Percentage of male customers 196 10 100 60.20 60 Percentage of white customers 193 0 100 72.77 85 Percentage of regular customers 197 0 100 55.18 50.00 Average number of customers served on typical Friday night 191 15 2000 252.33 150 Levels of disorder Exterior 172 0 7 1.13 1.00 Interior 193 0 3 .45 .00 Restroom 181 0 9 1.72 1.00 NOTE: d indicates dichotomous measure
59 Building Characteristics
Of the managers who knew the history of the bars, less than 20 percent of the facilities had been built in the last 50 years (n = 26), while almost 47 percent (n = 63) were over 100 years old. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that over 69 percent of all establishments had undergone at least one major renovation since the year 2000; 48.5 percent of these places
experienced two or more major renovations. The square footage of the bars ranged from 200 to
25,000 square feet (median = 2,600 sq ft). The maximum occupancies of the facilities examined ranged from 30 to 1,275, with a median maximum occupancy of 140. The majority of the bars
(over 70 percent) had maximum occupancies ranging from 50 to 300. A comparison of the number of patrons served on a typical Friday night to the maximum occupancy of the establishment produced a median patron to maximum occupancy ratio of .86.24
Business Characteristics
The length of time the bars had been in business at the time of the interviews varied greatly. While the median length of time these establishments had been in business was 15 years, the oldest bar had been in business for over 145 years, with over 25 percent of the places
functioning as bars for 30 years or longer. Fewer than 10 percent of these facilities had been open for less than two years. Approximately 20 percent of the bars were described by the managers as “neighborhood” bars. These establishments claimed to rely mostly on the patronage of those who lived close by. In total, 40 respondents classified their establishments as a
“neighborhood bar” and 39 claimed to offer some unique atmosphere or uncommon specialty.
For example, some bars sold mainly expensive wines, were blues or jazz clubs, provided over 50
24 While used as a proxy measure, this ratio is not a perfect measure of crowdedness or fullness of these establishments since the “number of patrons served” variable is a rough estimation of the number of customers that patronize the establishment throughout the night.
60 types of beers, provided a forum for original live music, were multi-level dance clubs, or offered laundry services on the premises.25 Only a few claimed to offer some unique activity not commonly found in a bar environment, such as basketball, bowling, car racing, volleyball, or swimming (n = 7).
The most common form of entertainment offered at these establishments, besides eating and drinking, was television monitors (82.9 percent), followed by jukeboxes and video/poker games (both at 57.3 percent of the establishments), live entertainment (43.7 percent), pool tables
(40.2 percent), dance floors (36.2 percent), establishment sponsored drinking games (7 percent) and corn hole26 or bocce ball (6.5 percent). On average, the bars offered a total of five different types of patron activities.27 Competitive activities (pool, darts, or corn hole/bocce ball) were offered at 48.2 percent of all the bars surveyed. One bar owner claimed that “eating to get thirsty again” was the only non-drinking activity patrons engaged in at his establishment. While eating is not classified as a traditional “bar activity,” over 50 percent of the managers (n = 105) reported offering free snacks, such as pretzels, popcorn, or nuts, to paying customers.
Only 59.3 percent (n = 118) of the bars (n = 199) appeared to rely on alcohol sales as the primary source of income. The other bars offered customers a more even mix of food and alcohol (n = 46),28 or were mainly restaurants with supplemental bars (n = 33). Two of the bars in this sample did not fit neatly into any of these categories; one was primarily a bowling alley and the other a coffeehouse.29 Almost 85 percent of all the establishments had some food available for purchase. Over 75 percent of places that served food offered full meals for
25 Gay bars were not automatically included in this category, although an all-male, leather, bear, gay bar was included. 26 This is an alternative form of bean bag toss that is popular in Cincinnati. 27 With weekly and yearly events each counting as one additional activity. 28 For example, a neighborhood pub and grill. 29 Unless stated otherwise, these establishments will be grouped in the “restaurant with supplemental bar” category for the purpose of analysis since selling alcohol is not the main function of the place.
61 purchase.30 Finally, most of the bars seemed to be doing well financially. The vast majority of those interviewed claimed that their businesses were making a profit (n = 130) or breaking even
(n = 45), while only a small number claimed to be losing money at the time of the survey (n =
16).
Management Characteristics
There was great variation in length of time these establishments had operated under
current ownership. One bar had been purchased less than a month before the interview took
place,31 while one establishment had been operating under the same ownership for more than 52 years. However, the median length of time these places had been in business under current ownership was seven years.
Less than half of the respondents (n = 85) reported that current owners or managers belonged to any bar or business owner associations. Of those who did report such associations,
54 belonged to one, 20 belonged to two, and 11 belonged to three or more. Slightly more than 23 percent (n = 46) reported working with other drinking establishments to attract customers. When asked about their advertisement practices, most respondents (75.9 percent) reported currently advertising their business in at least one medium (i.e., city magazine, newspaper, television, radio, internet, or some other medium such as a community newsletter). The median number of advertisement forums used by the bar owners was two.
30 Full meals are defined as offering more than appetizers or bar food (e.g., bags of chips or pretzels). 31 The interview was conducted with a bartender who had worked at this establishment for over 22 years. As a general rule, interviewers attempted to speak with employees who had worked at the establishment for a year or more.
62 Employees
The percentage of current employees that worked at the establishments for more than six months ranged from 0 to 100 (median = 83.97 percent). Overall retention of employees appears relatively high. Less than 17 percent of the bars reported that 50 percent or more of their staff had been hired in the previous six months. While the number of current employees ranged from
1 (n = 7) to over 100 (n = 3),32 the average number of those employed by these facilities was 12
and the average number of employees scheduled to work on a typical Friday night was 4. Patron
to staff ratios on Friday nights varied from 8 to 350, but the median ratio was 37.5. Almost half
of the bars claimed that all employees were trained by management (n = 96). Only 19
establishments trained their employees using an outside organization. The remaining bars
reported not training their employees, not hiring employees unless they are trained elsewhere, or
allowing other employees to train new hires. Approximately 45 percent of the managers
interviewed required employees to wear uniforms or badges.
Slightly more than a third of the drinking establishments reported having some type of
civilian security personnel currently on payroll (n = 71).33 Of the bars that had employed this type of security, almost a third scheduled three or more bouncers or doormen to work on a typical Friday night. Of the 69 individuals who responded to the training question, 34.8 percent claimed security staff was trained mostly by management and 21.7 percent claimed they were trained mostly by an outside organization, while the remaining respondents admitted that these individuals were not formally trained. About 19 percent (n = 38) of the bars hired off-duty
Cincinnati police officers to work as security.
32 Bars with over 50 employees were almost all large chain restaurants or places that included banquet facilities. 33 This does not include hiring off-duty police officers.
63 Additional Security
In addition to security personnel and off-duty police officers, many managers used other security features to protect their establishments. These security features include burglary alarms, robbery alarms, cash register access codes, formal cash control procedures,34 internal and external surveillance cameras, and various weapons kept behind the bar or carried by staff. A general security feature index ranging from 0 to 8 was created by summing the number of different types of security features listed above.35 The median number of security features used by the bars was 3.5, with only four bars scoring a 7 and three bars scoring an 8 on the index.36
Patrons
As previously noted, the sale of alcohol was not the primary function of every establishment surveyed. Thus, the minimum age limit for patrons was not consistent across all places. While 38.7 percent of the businesses had a minimum age limit of 21 (n = 77), most of the establishments surveyed reported having no age limit (n = 79) or an age limit that varied by the time of day (n = 29). Age limits tended to vary because many of the establishments were food- oriented, or only alcohol-oriented after a certain hour (usually 10:00 pm). A few establishments had a minimum age limit of 18 (n = 13) and one establishment required patrons to be 25 years or older to enter. An overwhelming majority of the bars reported drawing a mixed-age crowd (n =
136). Only 14.6 percent of the establishments (n = 29) reported a customer base mostly in their
40s and 8.5 percent (n = 17) claimed to attract a crowd mostly in their 30s. The least reported
34 This variable represents the use of time-delayed safes, multiple bank deposits on high-volume days, formal limits on cash kept in registers, or other explicitly stated controls noted by the respondent. 35 This includes security personnel and off-duty police officers. 36 Five bars scored 0 on the index.
64 patron age category was the 20-something crowd, with only 8 percent of establishments (n = 16) claiming this to be the average age of their customers.
Most respondents reported attracting a relatively even distribution of male to female patrons. Over half (53.8 percent) claimed that approximately 50 to 60 percent of their patrons were male on a typical Friday night. Most bars reported that the majority of their patrons on
Friday nights were white (median = 85 percent), although 13.5 of the establishments reported that most of their patrons were non-white (four bars reported serving no white customers and four bars reported serving no non-white customers). The percentage of regular customers present on a typical Friday night varied from 0 to 100, but the median percentage of regular patrons was
50.00. There was great variation in the average number of patrons served on a typical Friday night, with the number of customers ranging between 15 and 2000; however, most bars (55.7 percent) reported serving somewhere between 50 and 200 customers.
Levels of Disorder
The physical site surveys revealed that most of the bars had relatively low or non-existent levels of physical disorder. The majority of these establishments were visibly clean and in good condition. Three disorder indexes were created to measure the general cleanliness and condition of the properties: exterior disorder, interior disorder, and restroom disorder. The majority of the bars scored a zero or one on each of the indexes, with zero indicating no signs of disorder. 37 A breakdown of the percent and number of bars by disorder index score is presented in Table 6.2.
37 For example, if a bar had a restroom with graffiti, broken lights, no hand soap, and another restroom with an overflowing trashcan, the bar would score a 4 on the restroom disorder index.
65 Table 6.2. Bar disorder index scores Disorder % (n) Disorder % (n) index score index score Exterior Restroom 0 37.2 (74) 0 34.7 (69) 1 21.1 (42) 1 19.6 (39) 2 16.1 (32) 2 11.1 (22) 3 7.0 (14) 3 10.1 (20) 4 2.5 (5) 4 6.0 (12) 5 2.0 (0) 5 2.0 (4) 6 0.0 (4) 6 3.5 (7) 7 0.5 (1) 7 3.0 (6) Interior 8 0.5 (1) 0 61.3 (122) 9 0.5 (1) 1 29.6 (59) 2 4.5 (9) 3 1.5 (3)
66 Distributions of Crime
Figure 6.1 shows the distribution of Part I and Part II crimes documented by the
Cincinnati Police Department at each bar over a two year period: from January 1, 2005 to
December 31, 2006.38 While a total of 573 crimes occurred in these locations, it is clear from the
skewed distribution that most bars experienced few crimes while a few bars experienced many
crimes. To be more specific, 83.7 percent of the bars (n = 154) had five or fewer documented
crimes, with 43 of these bars (23.4 percent of the total sample) having no crimes documented
throughout the two year period. On the other hand, 5.2 percent of the bars (n = 10) had 10 or
more crimes occur throughout the two year period. These ten bars accounted for more than 25
percent of all crime experienced by the entire sample of bars.
There is an even greater concentration in the distribution of crime events across bars
when the crimes are broken down into subcategories. The distribution of incidents of physical
violence39 is presented in Figure 6.2. There were no violent incidents at 62 percent (n = 114) of the establishments throughout the two year period. There was only one violent incident in 23.4 percent (n = 43) of the bars, and only 14.6 percent (n = 27) experienced two or more violent incidents. Incidents where violence was threatened occurred in only 27.7 percent (n = 51) of the drinking establishments.40 Figure 6.3 shows the concentration of these incidents across all bars
over the two year period.
38 Crime data from the Cincinnati Police Department could not be used for 15 of the bars for two reasons: (1) some bars shared addresses with other businesses and the data did not contain suite numbers – or suite numbers do not exist, and (2) crimes that occurred at hotels may or may not have occurred at the hotel bar. These bars were excluded from all analyses that relied on Part I and Part II crime data. 39 This variable includes all crimes classified as assault, domestic violence, gross sexual imposition, improperly discharging a firearm, kidnapping, murder, rape, sexual battery, or sexual imposition. 40 This variable includes all crimes classified as aggravated menacing, ethnic intimidation, criminal endangering, inducing panic, and menacing by stalking.
67 Figure 6.1. Distribution of all Part I and Part II crimes across Cincinnati bars
30 20% of the bars produced 25 56.02% of all crimes
es 20 m i cr
of 15 ber m
u 10 N
5
0 1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 Cincinnati Bars (n = 184)
Figure 6.2. Distribution of physical violence incidents across Cincinnati bars
9
s 20% of the bars 8 produced dent i 7 75.36% of all physical violence incidents e inc 6 enc l o i 5 l v a c i 4 s y 3 ph f o
r
e 2 b m
u 1 N 0 1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 Cincinnati Bars (n = 184)
68 Figure 6.3. Distribution of threatened violence incidents across Cincinnati bars
4 s 20% of the bars produced dent i 80.28% of all threatened
e inc 3 violence incidents enc l o i
ed v 2 en eat r h t
of 1 ber m u N 0 1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 Cincinnati Bars (n = 184)
This study is concerned with violent offenses that occur within the immediate setting that can generally be assumed to have been instigated (or not prevented) as a result of the interaction between patron behavior, management response, and other setting characteristics that develop as a result of these interactions. Therefore, the types of crimes examined in subsequent chapters will
be the incidents of physical and threatened violence described above. However, it is interesting
to note that both the distribution of robberies and the distribution of property offenses41 closely resemble the concentrations found in the previous crime categories. These distributions are depicted in Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.5. Only 24 bars were robbed and only two of these bars experienced two robberies. There were no documented incidents of property theft or damage at
41 This variable includes all crimes classified as grand theft, theft, petit theft, tampering with coin machines, license plate theft, criminal mischief, vandalism, and vehicle theft.
69 45.1 percent (n = 83) of the bars. Conversely, 68.9 percent of the 270 property offenses occurred at only 22.6 percent (n = 42) of the locations.
Figure 6.4. Distribution of robberies across Cincinnati bars
3 <20% of the bars produced 100% of all robberies s e i 2 bber o r of ber
m 1 u N
0 1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 Cincinnati Bars (n = 184)
70 Figure 6.5. Distribution of property offenses across Cincinnati bars
25 20% of the bars produced s 20 62.22% of all property
nse offenses e f of y t 15 oper
pr 10 of er b m
u 5 N
0 1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 Cincinnati Bars (n = 184)
These concentrated distributions of crimes are not surprising. Highly skewed, J-curve distributions of crime42 have been previously documented for numerous types of crimes at various types of facilities (e.g., bars, retail stores, apartment complexes, motels – see Eck,
Clarke, and Guerette, 2007). These distributions follow what is commonly referred to as the 80-
20 rule.43 Such distributions are extremely common in nature and human activity and can often be characterized by power laws (Eck, Clarke, and Guerette, 2007). Violent and violence-related offenses at the bars in Cincinnati appear to follow this same principle: about 20 percent of the bars produced 75.4 percent of all physical violence incidents and 20 percent of the bars produced
80.28 percent of all incidents of threatened violence at these locations. While the distributions of robberies (see Figure 6.4) does not appear to approximate the J-curve as well, researchers have
42 So named because the distributions, when plotted as in Figures 4 through 8, resemble a backwards J. 43 The 80-20 rule suggests that approximately 20 percent of particular things produce approximately 80 percent of particular outcomes (Kock, 1999).
71 found that infrequent crimes will produce J-curve concentrations that are not readily apparent unless many years of data are available (Eck, Clarke, and Guerette, 2007).
When managers were asked how often the police are called to their respective establishments, most said the police were rarely called, if ever. However, 8.5 percent (n = 17) reported that the police were called to the bar at least once a week. Of these 17 bars, nine reported calling once a week, four reported calling twice a week, two reported calling three times per week, one reported calling four times and one reported calling seven times. This distribution, which again approximates a J-curve distribution, is depicted in Figure 6.6. It should be noted, however, that 8 of the 17 bars reported that most of these calls for service were related to events that occurred outside of the bar and did not involve employees or patrons of the establishment
(e.g., drug dealing across the street).44 Relatedly, 27.6 percent (n = 55) of the managers
characterized the neighborhood surrounding their establishments as somewhat unsafe or very
unsafe and expressed concern over events that occurred close to, but not in or directly in front of,
their establishments.
44 This is one reason why police statistics concerning calls for service were not analyzed. It is reasonable to view calls for service as proactive action taken by place managers. Since it is impossible to determine who placed the calls (managers or patrons), where the actual incident took place (at the bar or across the street), or whether multiple calls represent a single incident or multiple incidents (some calls are represented in the data more than once), analyses were restricted to documented Part I and Part II crimes.
72 Figure 6.6. Distribution of calls to police per week across Cincinnati bars
8 <20% of the bars 7 produced
k 100% of all calls to e 6 police per week we r
e 5 p e
lic 4 o p
o 3 t lls 2 Ca 1
0 1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181 Cincinnati Bars (n = 197)
Despite the fact that most managers did not report making frequent calls to police for assistance, only 15.6 percent (n = 31) reported having no crime problems in the last six months.
Most of the managers reported experiencing at least one problem in or directly outside of their establishment during the six months prior to the interview. A list of these problems and the percentage of managers that reported experiencing these problems are presented in Table 6.3.
Although many managers reported experiencing a wide range of problems in the recent past, only 16.1 percent (n = 32) admitted that there was a particular type of violent incident that regularly occurred in the establishment. Fights between patrons was the most common type of frequently occurring violent incident reported (n = 24). Of the 119 managers who could recall the last violent incident that took place in their establishment, 23.5 percent (n = 28) of these incidents reportedly occurred during the month prior to the interview, 37.8 percent (n = 45)
73 occurred within the previous six months, 15.1 percent (n = 18) occurred within the previous twelve months, and 23.5 percent (n = 28) occurred more than a year before the survey.
Table 6.3. Problems reported as occurring in or directly outside the bar % reporting problem (n) Offense 58.3 (116) Loitering 48.2 (96) Vandalism 36.7 (73) Fights 34.2 (68) Car thefts 29.1 (58) Drug use 26.6 (53) Drug dealing 25.1 (50) Theft from patrons 15.1 (30) Domestic violence 15.6 (31) Prostitution 11.6 (23) Shootings 9.5 (19) Robberies of patrons 5.5 (11) Gambling 2.5 (5) Robberies of bar
Managers were also asked to report the average number of customers that were asked to
leave or had to be physically removed from the bar on a typical Friday night. Only 32.7 percent
(n = 61) reported asking people to leave and only 6.5 percent (n = 9) reported physically
removing people on a weekly basis. Again, these responses produced the J-curve distribution
found for other problems associated with the establishments. The distribution of the number of
individuals asked to leave is depicted in Figure 6.7.45 The findings suggest that, on average, 142 people are asked to leave a bar in Cincinnati on a typical Friday night. The vast majority of the people asked to leave seem to leave without the use of physical force; only about 10 require physical ejection on a typical Friday night.
45 Too few bars reported regularly physically removing people to create a meaningful graph of the distribution of these incidents.
74 Figure 6.7. Distribution of the number of customers asked to leave on a typical Friday night across Cincinnati bars
12 20% of the bars e produced av
e 10 85.21% of all customers l
o asked to leave 8
6 ons asked t r
pat 4 of er b
m 2 u N
0 1 21416181101121141161181 Cincinnati Bars (n = 195)
Descriptive statistics for the crime variables are provided in Table 6.4. The statistics again show that crime, particularly violent crime, is a relatively rare event concentrated at relatively few places. The median number of crimes that occurred in the bars was zero for all crime categories except the two largest: total crime and property crime. The next section examines differences in manager reaction to these events.
Table 6.4. Descriptive statistics for crime variables Crime variables n Min Max Mean Median Total Part I and Part II crimes 184 0 28 3.11 2.00 Physical violence incidents 184 0 8 0.75 0.00 Threatened violence incidents 184 0 3 0.39 0.00 Robberies 184 0 2 0.14 0.00 Property offenses 184 0 20 1.47 1.00 Calls to police per week 197 0 7 0.17 0.00 Customers asked to leave on a typical Friday night 195 0 10 0.73 0.00 Customers physically removed on a typical Friday night 195 0 2 0.05 0.00
75
Response to Crime Events
More than half of the managers interviewed (63.3 percent) claimed that they have tried in some way to prevent crimes experienced in the past from occurring again in the future.
Qualitative reports of their methods of intervention reveal that managers have used a wide variety of prevention techniques, including working with the police, hiring extra security, increasing lighting, adding surveillance cameras, posting signage to warn both patrons and potential offenders, rapid graffiti removal, staff training to increase general awareness, and installation of alarm systems.46
When the managers described the most common or last violent incident that occurred at
their business, they were also asked whether or not they, or other employees, intervened in these
incidents. Of the 159 who provided answers to these questions, only slightly more than half said
that they intervened (n = 83). The rest of the respondents indicated that the employees made no
attempt to physically or verbally intervene in the violent incidents they witnessed.
Regulatory Agency Inspections
At the end of each interview, the respondents were asked to report how many times
various regulatory agencies visited their establishments in the previous 12 months. Regulatory
agencies include the Cincinnati Fire Department, the Cincinnati Health Department, Ohio Liquor
Control Board, Cincinnati building code inspectors, or other agencies (e.g., Occupational Safety
and Health Administration - OSHA, Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms). Based on the
responses of the 163 managers who were able to recall the number of visits conducted by these
agencies it was determined that the majority of bars (74.3 percent) experienced between two and
46 A more detailed discussion of these and other methods of intervention is presented in Chapter 9.
76 nine visits by these agencies. The total number of regulatory visits to these locations varied between zero and 33 inspections; however, only a few bars reported one (n = 11) or no (n = 5) regulatory visits, and only a few reported nine visits or more (n = 26).
The distribution of all regulatory visits across Cincinnati bars is depicted in Figure 6.8.
While the distribution still approximates a J-curve, the concentration of visits among the bars is not as pronounced as some of the crime distribution concentrations. This is likely because the focus of these regulatory visits is not strictly-crime related. There is great variation in the reasons these visits are conducted, from new building and renovation inspections, to employee reports of unsanitary or unsafe working conditions, to yearly health inspections.
Figure 6.8. Distribution of the number of regulatory agency visits across Cincinnati bars
35 20% of the bars produced 30 45.04% of all s t
i regulatory visits s i 25 V
y 20 genc A y 15 or t
gula 10 e R
5
0 1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 Cincinnati Bars (n = 163)
Figure 6.9 shows the distribution of Ohio Liquor Control Board visits across Cincinnati bars. The purposes of these visits are generally more specific and include testing alcohol
77 integrity, detecting underage drinking, and ensuring that places are operating within the restrictions placed on the alcohol license permits granted to the establishments. Therefore, we find that these visits are more heavily concentrated among the bars than the total number of regulatory visits (compare Figure 6.9 to Figure 6.8). Descriptive statistics associated with regulatory agency visits can be found in Table 6.5.
Figure 6.9. Distribution of the number of Liquor Control Board visits across Cincinnati bars
6 20% of the bars produced
s 5 t
i 62.24% of all liquor s i board visits
d V 4 ar o B l
o 3 r ont
C 2 quor
Li 1
0 1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 Cincinnati Bars (n = 178)
Table 6.5. Descriptive statistics for regulatory agency visits Type of visit n Min Max x Median All regulatory agency visits 163 0 33 5.62 5.00 Liquor Control Board visits 178 0 5 0.55 0.00
78 Differences across Places
The theory of place management presented in Figure 4.1 suggests that variation in management decisions creates important and discernible differences between similar types of places. The descriptives presented above confirm that these differences exist. What remains to be determined is whether these differences are related to each other and whether they are related as suggested in the proposed framework. These relationships are examined in the chapters that follow.
79 CHAPTER 7 SETTING THE STAGE: INITIAL MANAGEMENT DECISIONS THAT SHAPE THE ENVIRONMENT
Decision to open /run a bar
Property Bar theme Bar location characteristics
Staff, Training, Activities/ Marketing Security entertainment strategies
I argued previously that bar managers make a series of initial decisions, following their choice to own or operate a bar, that ultimately determines how their establishments are used and who uses them. These decisions can be grouped into six major categories related to (1) bar
theme, (2) bar location, (3) property characteristics, (4) staff, training, and security, (5) activities
and entertainment, and (6) marketing strategies. I also argued that these decisions are not made
independently of each other. Data related to four of the proposed relationships between these
decision categories are analyzed in this chapter: (1) property characteristics and staff, training, security, (2) activities/entertainment and staff, training, security, (3) activities/entertainment and marketing strategies, and (4) bar location and marketing strategies. Additionally, the hypothesized relationship between negative events at the bar, which result from these early decisions, and levels of outside enforcement, which in turn may prompt managers to reevaluate their initial decisions, is examined. The bivariate analyses that follow provide evidence that these initial decisions are related as hypothesized.
80 Property Characteristics Influence Staff, Training, and Security
Decision to open /run a bar
Property Bar theme Bar location characteristics
Staff, Training, Activities/ Marketing Security entertainment strategies
The theory suggests that staffing decisions are influenced by the physical characteristics of the bar. To explore this hypothesis, data concerning a very general property characteristic, the size of the bars, were compared to measures of staffing levels, employee training, and the level of security present in the establishments. A reasonable assumption concerning the relationship between property size and staffing is that larger establishments will require more employees.
Managers that choose to operate larger establishments will need to maintain higher staffing levels.
Three measures of property size were selected for analysis. The first and most general measure is the square footage of the establishments. The second measure used, maximum occupancy, is a more accurate measure of the total space available for patron use. This measure adjusts for space taken up by tables, chairs, and other features of the bar that limits the amount of room through which people may move freely. The third measure of size used is the average number of customers the bar usually serves on a typical Friday night. While not a direct measure of size, this variable is an indirect measure of physical space and patron density.47 The average number of customers captures both the space available and the amount of activity that this space
47 Obviously, larger bars can handle a larger number of patrons on any given night.
81 can handle on a typical high-volume night. The three property measures are correlated, but these correlations are not perfect (see Table 7.1).
Table 7.1. Property size variables correlation matrix Variables Square Maximum Friday night footage occupancy customers Square footage 1.00
Maximum occupancy .595*** 1.00 (.000) Friday night customers .333*** .431*** 1.00 (.001) (.000) NOTE: Entries are Pearson’s r with p values in parentheses. ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
Two variables were used to measure bar staffing levels. First, the total number of
employees on payroll provides an estimate of the number of individuals the managers have
available to work at the establishment. The second variable, the number of employees that
typically work on a Friday night, provides a more detailed measure of the number of employees
management feels is needed to operate the business on a busy night.
The relationships between these measures are reported in Table 7.2. All of the
correlations examined are positive and significant. The strength of the relationship between bar
size and staffing levels increases as the measures move from the more general (square footage)
to the more specific (average number of customers served).
82 Table 7.2. Bivariate correlations between bar size and number of employees Variables n r sig Square footage Total # of employees 104 .438*** .000 # employees working – typical Friday night 104 .471*** .000
Maximum occupancy Total # of employees 190 .519*** .000 # employees working – typical Friday night 191 .614*** .000
Average # customers served – typical Friday night Total # of employees 191 .656*** .000 # employees working – typical Friday night 190 .650*** .000 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
Decisions concerning staff training may also be influenced by the physical characteristics
of bars. If larger bars need more employees and draw larger crowds, the direct control of owners
or upper management over any single individual in the establishment at any given time is
diminished. To compensate for this loss of control, management may train their employees to act
in their place. Formal training of employees to act as effective place managers may be provided
directly by management or an outside organization paid for by management.
The relationship between bar size and management decisions to formally train their
employees is reported in Table 7.3. Of the 12 specific relationships examined using logistic
regression analysis, only one relationship is significant. Bars that serve more customers on a
typical Friday night are more likely to have employees that have been formally trained by a
member of management. Bar size does not appear to affect management decisions to use an
outside company to train their staff or to formally train their security staff (i.e., doormen or
bouncers). However, it appears that if larger properties are used as intended (meaning that they
attract more customers) managers of larger bars are more likely to provide formal training than
managers of smaller bars.
83
Table 7.3. Formal training variables regressed on bar size Variables n B s.e. sig Employees trained by management Square footage 102 .000 .000 .824 Maximum occupancy 187 .000 .001 .836 Average # customers served – typical Friday night 187 .002** .001 .007
Employees trained by outside organization Square footage 102 .000 .000 .227 Maximum occupancy 187 .002 .001 .099 Average # customers served – typical Friday night 187 -.001 .001 .595
Security staff trained by management Square footage 37 .000 .000 .730 Maximum occupancy 68 -.001 .001 .237 Average # customers served – typical Friday night 65 .001 .001 .309
Security staff trained by outside organization Square footage 37 .000 .000 .125 Maximum occupancy 68 .001 .011 .506 Average # customers served – typical Friday night 65 .001 .001 .374 NOTE: B indicates binary logistic regression coefficient value. **p<.01.
Managers of larger facilities may also attempt to increase control over behavior in their
establishments by adding features specifically designed to prevent crime and disorder. The
relationship between the security feature index and the three bar size measures are presented in
Table 7.4. While the relationship between the number of different types of security features and
the overall square footage of the establishments is not significant, bars with a higher maximum
occupancy capacity and bars that serve more customers are significantly more likely to use a
greater number of security features. Again, this relationship is strongest when the number of
customers measure is used.
84 Table 7.4. Bivariate correlations between bar size and total number of security features Variables n r sig Security feature index Square footage 85 .172 .116 Maximum occupancy 158 .174* .029 Average # customers served – typical Friday night 157 .239** .003 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. *p<.05; **p<.01 (2-tailed).
Activities and Entertainment Influence Staff Decisions
Decision to open /run a bar
Property Bar theme Bar location characteristics
Staff, Training, Activities/ Marketing Security entertainment strategies
The decision to offer particular types of activities to patrons may affect decisions concerning staffing levels. As mentioned previously, cooks and waitresses are usually required to
provide food; extra security is needed for popular live performers. However, most activities
provided to bar patrons do not generally require constant employee oversight. For example, other
than providing change for pool tables or the jukebox (for those machines that do not yet accept
credit cards), or occasionally changing the television station, traditional bar activities tend to
keep patrons busy and reduce employee-patron interaction. This may explain the significant and
negative relationships found between the total number of activities offered by the bar and
staffing level measures (see Table 7.5). Managers who offer more activities to patrons appear to
require fewer employees to run their businesses.
85
Table 7.5. Bivariate correlations between number of activities and number of employees Variables n r sig Total number of available activities Total # of employees 188 -.348*** .000 # employees working – typical Friday night 189 -.261*** .000 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
If bar activities reduce the level of patron-employee interaction, this may also explain
why managers who offer more activities are less likely to provide formal training to their
employees (see Table 7.6). These managers are significantly less likely to personally train their
employees or to pay for professional training for their security staff. However, the number of
patron activities does not appear to influence management decision to train their employees
using an outside organization or to personally train security personnel.
Table 7.6. Formal training variables regressed on activities variables Variables n B s.e. sig Total number of available activities Employees trained by management 187 -.123* .063 .050 Employees trained by outside organization 187 -.047 .102 .647 Security staff trained by management 65 .099 .124 .423 Security staff trained by outside organization 65 -.288* .140 .039 NOTE: B indicates binary logistic regression coefficient value. *p<.05.
If patron-employee interaction is limited in bars with more activities, how can managers identify potential problems and diffuse or respond to them as quickly as possible? One possible solution would be to adopt additional forms of security (i.e., surveillance cameras, weapons for staff, alarms, staff focused strictly on security-related tasks). According to the data presented in
Table 7.7, this seems to be the strategy used by managers in such situations. Bar managers who offer more patron activities are also more likely to use additional security features.
86 Table 7.7. Bivariate correlation between number of security features and number of activities Variables n r sig Security feature index Total number of available activities 189 .248** .002 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. **p<.01 (2-tailed).
Activities and Entertainment Influence Marketing Strategies
Decision to open /run a bar
Property Bar theme Bar location characteristics
Staff, Training, Activities/ Marketing Security entertainment strategies
It was hypothesized that bars that provide unique or uncommon activities or
entertainment (e.g., car racing, swimming) would be more likely to advertise than bars that do
not provide these activities. A comparison of means reveals that bars with uncommon activities tend to use more advertisement mediums than bars without these types of activities. However, this difference fails to reach statistical significance (see Table 7.8). It was also hypothesized that bars that claimed to have a unique specialty or theme, which influences the types of activities that occur in these locations (e.g., expensive wine or cigar bar, jazz or blues club), would also report using more advertisement forums. Again, a comparison of means finds that bars with such specialties tend to use more advertisement mediums than bars without these types of activities, but this difference is not significant (see Table 7.8).
87 Table 7.8. T-tests for differences in mean number of advertisement mediums by uncommon specialty/activities Variables n x t df sig Uncommon bar activitiesa Yes 7 2.43 -1.564 11.2 .146 No 187 2.06 Uncommon bar specialty Yes 36 2.15 -1.389 192 .166 No 158 1.99 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. sig 2-tailed.
This null finding may be an artifact of the available measures. Managers of these bars
may not advertise in more mediums, but they may purchase more advertisements in specific
mediums that cater to the specific demographic looking for their uncommon activities or
specialties. For example, a jazz club manager may purchase more advertisements than managers
of any other bar type, but invest their resources strictly in commercials aired on local jazz radio
stations. More detailed measures are needed to better examine this proposed relationship.
Bar Location Influences Marketing Strategies
Decision to open /run a bar
Property Bar theme Bar location characteristics
Staff, Training, Activities/ Marketing Security entertainment strategies
In addition to unique specialties and activities, the location of the bar in relation to its
intended customers may affect managers’ marketing strategies (see Figure 4.1). From this
88 assumption, I argue that bars catering to patrons who live close by (i.e., neighborhood bars) will require fewer advertisements to attract potential customers. A t-test finds support for this hypothesis (see Table 7.9); neighborhood bars advertise in fewer mediums than non- neighborhood bars. The difference between the mean number of advertisement forums used by neighborhood and non-neighborhood bars is significant.
Table 7.9. T-tests for differences in mean number of advertisement mediums by bar type Variables n x t df sig Neighborhood bar Yes 40 1.52 2.379* 191 .018 No 155 2.21 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
Immediate Setting Characteristics Influence Outside Enforcement
Immediate Setting
Types of Events patrons
Management reaction
Known solutions Costs of Profit/benefits of External /responses change circumstance pressure
Networks, Existing Direct harm to Enforcement experience resources manager by outsiders
The proposed theory of place management suggests that characteristics of the immediate
setting will influence the level of outside enforcement experienced by any particular
89 establishment. Observable and measurable characteristics of these settings that could logically prompt enforcement by outside agencies include measures of disorder, unruly patron behavior requiring manager intervention, calls to police, and incidents of violence and threatened violence. Bivariate correlations between these variables and the number of regulatory agency visits conducted over a 12 month period provide very little support for this hypothesis.
The data presented in Table 7.10 show that only the number of customers asked to leave on a typical Friday night is significantly related to the total number of regulatory visits experienced by the bars. Additionally, no significant relationships were found between the number of regulatory visits and bars reporting a common type of violence or recent crime problems (see Table 7.11).
Table 7.10. Bivariate correlations between level of outside enforcement and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Number of yearly regulatory agency visits Level of exterior disorder 172 -.059 .487 Level of interior disorder 193 .031 .696 Level of restroom disorder 152 -.007 .934 Number of customers asked to leave 162 .166* .035 Number of customers physically removed 195 -.112 .156 Number of times police called per week 197 .006 .935 Incidents of physical violence 153 -.042 .602 Incidents of threatened violence 153 .017 .838 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
Table 7.11. T-tests for differences in number of regulatory visits by common type of violence or no recent crime problems reported Variables n x t df sig Common type of violence reported Yes 26 5.23 .457 161 .648 No 137 5.70 Recent crime problems Yes 140 5.80 1.175 161 .242 No 23 4.54 NOTE: sig 2-tailed.
90
If the theory is correct, then one of the following explanations is also likely correct. First, the factors that prompt regulatory action may not be captured by general measures of crime and disorder used here. A constellation of very specific conditions may trigger outside inspections and enforcement; however, the data available do not provide measures of these circumstances.
Perhaps the number of people asked to leave indirectly represents this constellation of conditions and provides the closest proxy to such a measure. It should also be noted that the data available can only provide the number of visits and not whether regulatory action was taken against the establishment.
A second explanation may be that the measure of regulatory visits used is inadequate or inaccurate. Qualitative notes taken from manager interviews suggest that this may be the case. A few bar owners reported that changes made during renovations or when attempting to open a bar for the first time prompted numerous visits by many different agencies, particularly building code inspectors and the fire department. One owner could not even provide an estimate of the number of times his establishment was visited after renovating his establishment (“I lost count”).
Another bar was visited over 20 times by health inspectors to try to rid the building of a “bug problem” that the owner claimed originated from apartments above his establishment. Also, some hotel bars reported experiencing more regulatory visits that were related more to issues concerning the hotel than the bar itself.
In an attempt to remove the effects of these “unrelated” inspections, a second analysis of outside enforcement was conducted using only the number of Liquor Board inspections conducted in the last 12 months. These inspections were concentrated among the bars; 105 bars reported no inspections, 56 bars reported one, and 17 bars reported two or more (max = 5). Like the general enforcement measure, this measure is not related to levels of disorder, customers
91 physically removed, calls to police, incidents of threatened violence, reports of a common type of violence, or absence of recent crime problems. Also like the previous measure, the number of
Liquor Control Board visits is significantly related to the number of people asked to leave.
However, this second analysis finds slightly more support for the original hypothesis, as the number of Liquor Control Board visits is also significantly related to the number of incidents of physical violence (see Table 7.12).
Table 7.12. Bivariate correlations between Liquor Control Board visits and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Number of Liquor Control Board visits Number of customers asked to leave 176 .243** .001 Incidents of physical violence 164 .168* .031 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. *p<.05, ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
Overall, the findings suggest that initial management decisions are related to each other as proposed in the framework. The significant relationships found between the specific measures of these decision categories are presented in Table 7.13. The findings confirm that (1) property characteristics are related to staff, training, and security decisions, (2) activities and entertainment provided are related to staff, training, and security decisions, and (3) bar location is related to marketing strategies. While the data do not confirm the proposed relationship between activities/entertainment and marketing strategies, it is likely that more specific measures of marketing strategies will refute this null finding in subsequent studies. Additionally, events that occur as a result of initial management decisions (i.e., incidents of physical violence) are related to the level of outside enforcement experienced by the bar (i.e., visits conducted by the
Ohio Liquor Control Board). The next chapter examines whether outside factors, like regulatory agency visits, influence management reaction to events that occur at their properties.
92 Table 7.13. Significant relationships between types of initial management decisions Larger bars More activities provided to patrons More employees on payroll Fewer employees on payroll More employees working on a typical Friday night Fewer employees working on a typical Friday night More security features Managers less likely to train employees Security less likely to be trained by outside organization More security features
Busier bars Neighborhood bar – close proximity to customers More employees on payroll Fewer advertisement mediums More employees working on a typical Friday night Formal training of employees by management More security features
Number of regulatory visits More Liquor Control Board inspections More customers asked to leave More customers asked to leave More incidents of physical violence
93 CHAPTER 8 UNDER PRESSURE: PROMPTING MANAGEMENT ACTION
Management reaction
Known solutions Costs of Profit/benefits of External pressure /responses change circumstance /accountability
Networks, Existing Direct harm to Enforcement by experience resources manager outsiders
It was suggested earlier that some managers address crime problems at their bars while
others do not. The descriptive statistics presented in Chapter 6 support this statement: 63.3
percent of managers claimed to have tried in some way to prevent crimes experienced in the past
from occurring again in the future, but 36.7 percent did not. Further, only half of the managers
claimed to verbally or physically intervene in violent incidents (52.2 percent intervening vs. 47.8
percent not intervening). This chapter examines three of the four factors the theory predicts are related to prompting management action: manager networks and experience, existing resources, and enforcement by outsiders.
The main limitation of the analyses is that there are no measures of the following variables: known solutions/responses, costs of change, profit/benefits of circumstance, or external pressure/accountability. The inability to conduct direct examinations of the proposed relationships resulted in limited support found for the hypothesized relationships. A discussion of these analyses and results follows.
94 Manager Networks and Experience Influence Management Reaction
Management reaction
Known Costs of Profit/benefits of External solutions change circumstance pressure
Networks, Existing Direct harm to Enforcement by experience resources manager outsiders
The ability to develop and implement an effective response to a problem can be strengthened as the place manager (1) learns which responses are effective and which are not through trial and error over time and/or (2) develops networks with other managers who may also have knowledge of potential solutions to particular problems. The theory suggests that those who are aware of potential solutions are more likely to respond to problems they experience.
However, the available data provide only partial support for these assumptions.
The analyses did not find a significant “experience” effect. There is no significant relationship between the number of years the bar has been under the same management and management response to violent incidents or crime problems. Nor is there a significant relationship between the percentage of employees who have worked at the establishment for six months or more and management response to these incidents (see Table 8.1).
One possible explanation for these null findings is that the functional form assumed by logistic regression analysis is incorrect. For example, it may be that both the very inexperienced and very experienced are less likely to intervene, because the former is not yet aware of effective solutions and the latter become less and less involved in daily operations as they near
95 retirement.48 Or, some existing interaction effects are not identified by the framework. For example, perhaps knowledge alone is not enough to prompt management action; however, knowledge coupled with higher levels of existing resources would do so. However, it is important to remember that the theory suggests experience should affect management response only if managers have identified potentially useful strategies after having dealt with similar problems over time. There is no data available concerning managers’ knowledge of possible interventions.
Table 8.1. Manager intervention variables regressed on manager experience variables Variables n B s.e. sig Manager or employees intervene in violent incidents Years under current management 158 -.019 .017 .253 % employees working 6 months or more 157 -.009 .006 .168
Manager has tried to prevent future incidents Years under current management 184 -.021 .015 .176 % employees working 6 months or more 187 -.001 .006 .932 NOTE: B indicates binary logistic regression coefficient value.
The data provide greater support for the assertion that management networks encourage
management reaction to problems experienced in their establishments. Bar managers that have
relationships with other bar managers or belong to business owner associations are more likely to
attempt to address negative events than managers that do not have these peer and professional
networks (see Table 8.2). Only one of the four hypothesized relationships, while in the expected
direction, failed to reach significance. Additional analyses reveal that while managers who have
established these peer networks were more likely to attempt to address potential problems, the
number of associations to which he or she belongs is inconsequential (see Table 8.3).
48 A chi-square test of the relationship between under current ownership for 1 year or less and prevent variable failed to support the idea that this applies only to the most inexperienced managers.
96 Table 8.2. Chi-Square tests of relationship between manager networks and attempt to address negative events Variables n χ2 sig Belong to bar/business owner associations Manager or employees intervene in violent incidents 150 1.720 .190 Manager has tried to prevent future incidents 174 5.406* .020 Work with other establishments to attract customers Manager or employees intervene in violent incidents 158 3.941** .047 Manager has tried to prevent future incidents 187 7.311** .007 NOTE: df =1. *p<.05, **p<.01 (2-tailed).
Table 8.3. Manager intervention variables regressed on number of manager associations Variables n B s.e. sig Number of associations manager belongs to Manager or employees intervene in violent incidents 159 -.016 .065 .809 Manager has tried to prevent future incidents 188 .066 .055 .223 NOTE: B indicates binary logistic regression coefficient value.
Existing Resources Influence Management Reaction
Management reaction
Known solutions Costs of Profit/benefits of External /responses change circumstance pressure
Networks, Existing Direct harm to Enforcement by experience resources manager outsiders
The data provide only one viable measure of managers’ existing resources: the current
financial status of the bar. While businesses may be making a profit, it is not possible to establish the magnitude of these earnings. A slight profit may not be enough to allow management to implement the interventions necessary to address their particular problems. Since almost 80 percent of the managers claimed to be making a profit at the time of the survey, it is reasonable to assume that there may be great variation in this profit margin. Also, the financial status of the
97 business does not represent the personal financial resources of the owner. Another problem with the data is that there are no measures of the costs associated with effective management response relative to existing resources.
Nonetheless, an analysis of the relationship between financial status and management attempts to address negative events was conducted. The relationships examined were not significant (see Table 8.4).49 In fact, of the 15 managers that claimed to have experienced recent crime problems and to be losing money, 8 said they had used some intervention to prevent future incidents and 7 claimed to have done nothing. It appears that lack of financial resources has virtually no effect on managers’ willingness to address these incidents.50 However, the data suggest that having some financial stability or success may encourage greater management response. Although the relationship failed to reach significance, a slightly higher percentage of those making a profit (67.7 percent) and breaking even (66.7 percent) claimed to have tried some strategy to reduce problems experienced at their establishments. Better measures are needed to accurately assess this proposed relationship.
Table 8.4. Chi-Square tests of relationship between bar financial status and attempt to address negative events Variables n χ2 sig Current financial status of bar Manager or employees intervene in violent incidents 155 2.217 .330 Manager has tried to prevent future incidents 181 1.247 .536 NOTE: df =2. sig 2-tailed.
49 These relationships remain insignificant when financial status is converted into a dichotomous variable, with the middle category “breaking even” assigned to either the “making a profit” or “losing money” category. 50 The data do not permit an examination of the effectiveness of the strategies used by the managers who claimed to respond to problem events. Those with fewer resources may be less effective when they attempt to intervene than those who can afford more expensive interventions.
98 Outside Enforcement Influences Management Reaction
Management reaction
Known solutions Costs of Profit/benefits of External /responses change circumstance pressure
Networks, Existing Direct harm to Enforcement experience resources manager by outsiders
The final variable hypothesized to influence management action is the degree to which
managers are held accountable through the intervention of outsiders. The level of intervention is
measured using the number of regulatory agency visits to the establishments in the 12 months
prior to the survey. While more regulatory visits do not seem to prompt immediate management
intervention in violent incidents, they do seem to encourage management response to crime
problems in general. Bar managers that experienced higher levels of outside enforcement were
more likely to have implemented a least one strategy to address a recent crime incident (see
Table 8.5).51 Again, there is no data concerning managers’ perception of outside enforcement efforts. Managers who take these visits seriously (i.e., feel more pressure to act) may be more likely to try to change their environments than managers who do not feel these agencies pose a threat to them or their businesses.
Table 8.5. Manager intervention variables regressed on outside enforcement variable Variables n B s.e. sig Number of regulatory agency visits Manager or employees intervene in violent incidents 131 .006 .035 .872 Manager has tried to prevent future incidents 156 .124* .053 .020 NOTE: B indicates binary logistic regression coefficient value. *p<.05.
51 An analysis of the effect of only Liquor Control Board visits did not produce a significant effect.
99 In an attempt to learn more about the types of management reaction that may be prompted by specific types of regulatory visits, Ohio Liquor Control Board visits were compared to security-related place management decisions. While these visits did not influence management training decisions (i.e., whether to or not to train staff personally or through an outside organization) or decisions to hire security personnel, visitation by the Liquor Board was significantly associated with the decision to check identification at the door (see Table 8.6).
Interviews with managers revealed that some who were previously cited by the Board were worried about underage drinking at their establishments due to the fines or possible suspension or revocation of their alcohol permits for such an offense.52
Table 8.6. Chi-Square tests of relationships between outside enforcement and manager prevention efforts Variables n χ2 sig Bar has had at least one Liquor Control Board visit Employees trained by management 174 .034 .853 Employees trained by outside organization 174 3.641 .056 Security trained by management 57 .193 .661 Security trained by outside organization 57 .404 .525 Employ security personnel 176 3.210 .073 Check ID at door 176 4.145* .042 NOTE: df =1. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
Overall, partial support was found for only two of the three relationships examined. The significant relationships between outside factors and management action are presented in Table
8.7. In support of the theory, the data suggest that managers who have developed networks and
managers who have been subject to a greater number of visits from outside regulatory agencies
are more likely to attempt to address negative events that occur at their establishments. While the
accuracy of the theory cannot be fully assessed without direct measures of each factor
52 Checking identification at the door was not significantly associated with total number of agency visits (B = .007, s.e. = .034, sig = .827) likely because underage drinking is targeted by the Liquor Board and not the other enforcement agencies.
100 hypothesized to influence management reaction, the available evidence suggests that many of the proposed relationships exist.
Table 8.7. Significant relationships between outside factors and management action Manager belongs to bar or business association Manager works with other drinking establishments More likely to try to prevent future incidents More likely to intervene in violent incidents More likely to try to prevent future incidents
More regulatory agency visits More likely to try to prevent future incidents More likely to enhance door security
101 CHAPTER 9 BAR MANAGEMENT, CRIME, AND DISORDER
Immediate Setting
Types of Events patrons
The central premise of this study is that bar managers create environments that either
prevent or facilitate crime. This chapter explores this assumption directly. The results presented
in previous chapters have demonstrated that manager decisions are influenced by prior and
concurrent management decisions, as well as outside stimuli triggered as a result of these prior
decisions. The following analyses examine which management decisions are related to crime and
disorder in bars. Specific bar characteristics and management behavior are compared to eight
crime and disorder-related variables: (1) level of exterior disorder, (2) level of interior disorder,
(3) level of restroom disorder, (4) number of customers asked to leave on a typical Friday night,
(5) number of customers physically removed on a typical Friday night, (6) number of calls to the
police per week, (7) number of physical violence incidents, and (8) number of threatened
violence incidents.53 The first six variables may indicate both the occurrence of negative events and managers’ response to these events. For example, high levels of exterior, interior, or restroom disorder may indicate only that management must continually deal with problem patrons, or these levels may signify manager neglect of the property that has produced a cumulative disorder effect over time. Similarly, the number of people asked to leave, people
53 All bivariate correlations, both significant and nonsignificant, are reported. However, due to the large number of bivariate significance tests (e.g., t-tests, binary logistic regression and chi-square tests), only the coefficients and p levels of the significant relationships are reported for these tests. All relationships not shown were insignificant (p>.05) and can be found in Appendix C.
102 physically removed, and calls to police can be used as a measure of negative events at the establishments.54 However, these measures are also indicators of active place management. In other words, managers who are willing to intervene and attempt to control behavior in their establishments will likely report asking more people to leave, physically removing more people, and making more calls for police service. These issues should be considered when interpreting the findings presented below. Nonetheless, the purpose of this chapter is to confirm that significant relationships exist between the types of decisions hypothesized to influence the characteristics of the immediate setting and the available measures of crime and disorder.
Problems with the measures will be addressed as explanations for observed relationships are
provided.
54 The number of customers asked to leave (r = 3.00, sig = .000, n = 180) and the number of customers physically removed (r = .179, sig = .016, n = 180) are both significantly and positive correlated with the total number of violent incidents, although calls to police are not. Managers may call police to report property crimes, other nonviolent incidents, or events that occur outside the bar thus explaining the lack of a significant correlation with the violence measures.
103 Property and Staffing Characteristics Influence Crime and Disorder
Property Bar theme Bar location characteristics
Staff, Training, Activities/ Marketing Security entertainment strategies
Immediate Setting
Types of Events patrons
Previous research has suggested that crowding is one of the most important predictors of violence in bars (Graham et al., 2006; Homel, Carvolth, Hauritz, McIlwain, & Teague, 2004;
Homel & Clark, 1994; Quigley et al., 2003). The data available for this study does not include physical observations of patron activity. However, we do have a measure of how crowded a bar is; the ratio of the average number of patrons served to bar maximum occupancy. This ratio is significantly correlated with only two of the disorder measures (see Table 9.1). It appears that bars that do more business, relative to their size, are more likely to have higher levels of interior and restroom disorder but do not have higher levels of crime.
The fact that bars operating closer to their capacity have higher levels of disorder is not unexpected. Bars with more patrons or higher patron turnover should expect to suffer more wear and tear or vandalism of their property. Routine activity theory predicts that busy places naturally bring more potential offenders into contact with potential targets (Felson, 1987). Also, as a bar’s activity moves closer to its capacity, strain is placed on staff and facilities, taxing management capabilities and allowing more disorder and crime. However, these visible signs of
104 disorder may also be indicators of ineffective place management. Interior and restroom levels of disorder are significantly related to violence and interior disorder is significantly related to threatened violence that occurs in these establishments (see Table 9.2). This suggests that those who do not repair their properties, or attract patrons who are more likely to damage property, are also more likely to own bars that facilitate crime.
Table 9.1. Bivariate correlations between patron/maximum occupancy ratio and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Patron to maximum occupancy ratio Level of exterior disorder 158 .150 .060 Level of interior disorder 179 .179* .017 Level of restroom disorder 171 .166* .030 Number of customers asked to leave 182 .017 .825 Number of customers physically removed 182 .055 .457 Number of times police called per week 184 .027 .715 Incidents of physical violence 170 .048 .537 Incidents of threatened violence 170 .073 .343 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
Table 9.2. Bivariate correlations between disorder measures and crime Variables n r sig Incidents of physical violence Level of exterior disorder 161 .068 .393 Level of interior disorder 178 .208** .005 Level of restroom disorder 168 .154* .047 Incidents of threatened violence Level of exterior disorder 161 .085 .283 Level of interior disorder 178 .253*** .001 Level of restroom disorder 168 .117 .132 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. *p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
Since the primary goal of most business owners is to attract customers to increase profits, having a high patron to maximum occupancy ratio is desired, even if this may increase property damage in their establishments. Bar managers that do attract large numbers of patrons can increase the number of employees working at their establishments to help reduce property
105 damage and control the behavior of unruly customers. Interestingly, lower patron to staff ratios only appear to reduce levels of exterior disorder at bars and are not significantly related to criminal activity (see Table 9.3). This finding is contrary to previous research that reports both the patron to staff ratio (Homel & Clark, 1994) and the number of staff generally (Graham et al.,
2006) are related to the number of violent crimes that occur at bars. This discrepancy may be the result of using manager interviews to obtain estimates of these figures instead of the direct observations methods used in previous research. Or, places with less staff relative to patrons may handle problems that begin inside the bar by simply pushing these problems outside. Unruly patrons or patron fights thrown out of the establishment may result in damage to the exterior of the property.
Table 9.3. Bivariate correlations between patron/staff ratio and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Patron to staff ratio Level of exterior disorder 164 .174* .026 Level of interior disorder 185 .004 .952 Level of restroom disorder 181 .077 .314 Number of customers asked to leave 188 .052 .479 Number of customers physically removed 188 -.133 .121 Number of times police called per week 190 -.041 .578 Incidents of physical violence 176 -.010 .892 Incidents of threatened violence 176 -.038 .617 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
In addition to hiring and scheduling more people to work, managers may provide formal
training to their employees to better monitor and control activities in their establishments.
Unprofessional behavior by bar employees (Graham et al., 2006) and poor training or management of bar staff (Homel, Tomsen, & Thommeny, 1992) has been linked to violent crime in the past. However, formal training by management had no effect on any of the crime or disorder variables in this study. Training of employees by outside companies had no effect on
106 crime but did reduce the overall levels of interior and restroom disorder (see Table 9.4). If levels of disorder within the bars are related to crime at these locations, and formal training reduces these levels of disorder, why does formal training not reduce crime as well? One reason may be the type of training provided to these employees. Much of the training provided by outside organizations is related to identifying underage drinkers and increasing general awareness of patron behavior, not diffusing situations that lead to violence.55 Additionally, managers who are willing or able to pay for outsiders to train their employees may have also invested significant amounts of money in their properties. Therefore, these managers may be more concerned with fines and permit suspensions associated with underage drinking or with people carving names into their investments than with whether their patrons are willing to harm each other.
Table 9.4. T-tests for differences in level of restroom and interior disorder by outside training provided to staff Variables n x t df sig Level of restroom disorder by Employees trained by outside companya Yes 19 .95 2.449* 28.1 .021 No 159 1.85 Security trained by outside companya Yes 13 1.54 2.390* 44.4 .021 No 51 2.59
Level of interior disorder by Employees trained by outside companya Yes 19 .21 2.485* 29.9 .019 No 170 .48 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
55 Most of these bars provided TIPS training (see www.gettips.com). This training focuses on the prevention of intoxication, drunk driving, and underage drinking. Preventing patron over-intoxication may help to reduce assaults, although the levels of intoxication addressed in these trainings should primarily prevent people from passing out in the bar. Even moderate levels of intoxication can encourage misbehavior (see Graham, 1985; Homel & Clarke, 1994; Homel et al., 2004; Graham et al., 2006a); thus, more than responsible serving practices may be necessary to prevent violence.
107 Training of security personnel by outside companies was significantly related one crime- related variable: calls to police (see Table 9.5). However, fewer calls does not necessarily mean that there are fewer violent incidents; only that when incidents do happen, these events are more likely to be handled internally by security personnel. Further analysis of the data supports this claim.
Table 9.5. T-test for difference in number of calls to police per week by outside training provided to security staff Variables n x t df sig Security trained by outside companya Yes 15 .00 2.060* 52 .044 No 53 .15 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
Better trained security personnel should theoretically help to reduce violence in bars.
However, many studies have found that the use of bouncers (even those who have been formally
trained) is associated with higher, not lower, levels of violence (Graham et al., 2006). The data
used in this study supports these findings. On average, there were more violent incidents in bars
that use bouncers than bars that do not use bouncers (see Table 9.6). There are two explanations
for this. First, bars that have more unruly patrons are more likely to hire bouncers in response to
the behavior of these individuals. In short, crime causes bouncers. Without longitudinal data, this
assumption cannot be tested. Second, the training provided to these individuals may be
ineffective or even encourage violent behavior. In brief, bouncers cause crime. A study of
bouncers and their training found that many programs simply require attendance and do not use
learning assessment methods. One bouncer was quoted as saying, “it’s impossible to fail, I could
send my dog on it and it would pass” (Hobbs, Hadfield, Lister, & Winlow, 2003).
108 In addition to more physical violence, the use of bouncers is also significantly related to
asking more patrons to leave, physically removing patrons, and higher levels of interior and
restroom disorder. The higher levels of disorder suggest that perhaps the use of bouncers is a
management response to patron misbehavior, if we can assume that the bouncers are not causing
the disorder and that the disorder is a reflection of patron behavior, not manager neglect (this
may be an incorrect assumption). The only crime or disorder variable related to the use of off-
duty police officers is the number of customers asked to leave. Hiring police officers to stand
outside the establishment56 may make managers less fearful and therefore more inclined to ask disruptive individuals to leave. However, the use of the officers had no significant effect on the number of violent crimes that occur at these locations.
The effect of security staff on crime may be enhanced or substituted by other security features such as alarms, formal cash control procedures, access codes or separate registers, and surveillance cameras. Analyses, using an index created by summing these variables, provide further support for the hypothesis that security is used by managers in response to undesirable patron behavior. The index is significantly and positively related to the number of customers asked to leave and the number of customers physically removed on a typical Friday night. These features do not appear to significantly reduce violence or disorder; however, unlike security staff, they do not appear to increase these levels either.
56 Police in Cincinnati cannot monitor the interior of the establishments due to a regulation prohibiting firearms in bars. They may enter the establishments only if their immediate assistance is needed.
109 Table 9.6. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by bar use of security Variables n x t df sig Number of physical violence incidents by Bar employs security personnela Yes 68 1.26 -3.331*** 85.4 .001 No 113 .45
Number of customers asked to leave by Bar hires off-duty police officersa Yes 38 1.51 -2.753** 44.7 .009 No 157 .54 Bar employs security personnela Yes 70 1.19 -2.748** 104.1 .007 No 123 .48
Number of customers physically removed by Bar employs security personnela Yes 70 .14 -2.989** 69 .004 No 123 .00
Level of interior disorder by Bar employs security personnela Yes 67 .61 -2.528* 130.3 .013 No 123 .36
Level of restroom disorder by Bar employs security personnel Yes 65 2.34 -3.127** 177 .002 No 114 1.37 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
Table 9.7. Bivariate correlations between number of security features and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Security feature index – staff variables removed Level of exterior disorder 149 -.114 .165 Level of interior disorder 166 -.132 .090 Level of restroom disorder 154 -.136 .094 Number of customers asked to leave 164 .263*** .001 Number of customers physically removed 164 .156* .046 Number of times police called per week 165 .021 .785 Incidents of physical violence 156 .151 .060 Incidents of threatened violence 156 .075 .352 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. *p<.05; ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
110 Three other security and staff characteristics controlled by management were found to be related to crime or disorder: checking identification at the door, use of employee uniforms, and allowing employees to drink.57 Not surprisingly, the significant relationships found between checking identification at the door and crime and disorder were the same significant relationships found between the crime and disorder variables and use of security personnel (see Table 9.8).
Bouncers and doormen are usually responsible for checking identification as patrons enter the establishment. Checking identification at the door and use of security are highly correlated (r =
.669, p = .000).
Lower levels of all three types of disorder were observed in places where managers required employees to wear uniforms or badges (see Table 9.9). This variable has not been measured in previous bar-related research (see Table 3.1), so no preexisting explanation of this relationship is available. However, I would argue that managers who care about employee appearance would also be more likely to care about the appearance of their properties.58 Still, this variable is unrelated to violence in the establishments.
57 One other variable examined, the use of pour control devices on bottles of alcohol, was only related to higher levels of exterior disorder (t = 2.025, 124.7, sig = .045, equal variances not assumed). 58 There is a significant relationship between the use of uniforms and offering full meals to patron, which is likely the result of restaurant standards in general (χ2 = 19.580, df = 1, sig = .000). Subsequent analysis will show that providing full meals is also significantly related to lower levels of interior and exterior disorder.
111 Table 9.8. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar checks identification at the door Variables n x t df sig Number of physical violence incidents by ID checked at doora Yes 72 1.28 -3.708*** 91.6 .000 No 111 .41
Number of customers asked to leave by ID checked at doora Yes 72 1.24 -3.205** 107 .002 No 121 .43
Number of customers physically removed by ID checked at doora Yes 72 .12 -2.534* 76.4 .013 No 121 .01
Level of interior disorder by ID checked at door Yes 70 .64 -3.128** 189 .002 No 121 .34
Level of restroom disorder by ID checked at door Yes 66 2.24 -2.580* 178 .011 No 114 1.44 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
112 Table 9.9. T-tests for differences in disorder levels by whether employees are required to wear uniforms Variables n x t df sig Level of exterior disorder by Employee uniforms requireda Yes 77 .62 5.147*** 150.8 .000 No 94 1.56
Level of interior disorder by Employee uniforms requireda Yes 87 .26 3.725*** 185.7 .000 No 105 .60
Level of restroom disorder by Employee uniforms requireda Yes 82 1.21 3.248*** 178 .001 No 99 2.15 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
Higher levels of exterior and interior disorder were observed in bars where employees are
permitted to drink while working (see Table 9.10). Obviously, drunken employees would be less
likely to notice patron behavior and prevent property damage. The data also suggest that
employees who are allowed to drink while working are significantly less likely to call the police.
The data do not allow an examination of whether this is because they are less likely to observe patron misconduct, are less likely to report crimes that occur (possibly due to the fact that they are afraid the police will find them overly intoxicated), or because crimes are generally less likely to occur at these locations.
113 Table 9.10. T-tests for differences in disorder levels by whether employees are allowed to drink Variables n x t df sig Level of exterior disorder by Employees allowed to drink Yes 33 1.70 -2.741** 168 .007 No 137 1.00
Level of interior disorder by Employees allowed to drink Yes 35 .69 -2.411* 189 .017 No 156 .39
Number of times police called per week by Employees allowed to drinka Yes 36 .00 3.376*** 159 .001 No 160 .21 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
Activities and Entertainment Influence Crime and Disorder
Property Bar theme Bar location characteristics
Staff, Training, Activities/ Marketing Security entertainment strategies
Immediate Setting
Types of Events patrons
As noted in the descriptions presented in Chapter 6, there is great diversity in the types of places included in this analysis. While bars that offer uncommon activities or specialties do not have significantly higher levels of violence and disorder, there are variations in these levels across bars related to the availability of food and the types of activities offered.
114 Bars that sell food as well as alcohol have lower levels of exterior disorder, and bars that offer full meals have lower levels of interior and exterior disorder (see Table 9.11). These relationships may reflect the level of resources available to establishments that serve food.
Managers of places that sell food were significantly more likely to report that their business was currently making a profit (χ2 = 4.925, df = 1, p = .026). These establishments may have the resources to quickly address signs of disorder as they occur.59 The data also show that places that offer full meals make more calls to the police per week. In light of previous analyses, this may be related to the fact that most restaurants or food-oriented establishments are less likely to employ bouncers (whose presence suppresses calls to the police when trained by an outside organization
– see Table 9.5). Lack of security personnel may force these managers to rely more often on police assistance when trouble occurs.
More of the crime-related variables were significantly related to food availability once the crime variables were collapsed into dichotomous measures.60 It appears that when food is available for purchase, patrons are less likely to be physically removed or asked to leave (see
Table 9.12). Offering full meals also seems to reduce the likelihood that patrons will be asked to leave. Places that serve full meals are also less likely to report physical violence. Physical violence was reported at 51.4 percent of the bars that do not offer full meals, but at only 31.5 percent of the places that do.
59 Or, customers that go to bars cause more disorder than those that go to restaurants. However, it is unlikely that these individuals only frequent bars and not restaurants. Behavior is likely influenced by differences across these settings. 60 For example, an incident of physical violence occurred at this location over the two-year analysis period: yes or no.
115 Table 9.11. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by food availability Variables n x t df sig Level of exterior disorder by Food available for purchase Yes 147 1.05 2.074* 170 .040 No 25 1.64 Full meals available for purchasea Yes 110 .89 2.359* 45.3 .023 No 34 1.56
Level of interior disorder by Full meals available for purchasea Yes 125 .32 2.597* 45.3 .013 No 37 .70
Number of weekly calls to police by Full meals available for purchasea Yes 126 .22 -3.084** 125 .003 No 39 .00 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05, **p<.01 (2-tailed).
Table 9.12. Chi-Square tests of relationships between crime/disorder and food availability Variables n χ2 sig Food available for purchase Patrons asked to leave on typical Friday night 195 4.577* .032 Patrons physically removed on typical Friday night 195 naa * .029 Full meals available for purchase Patrons asked to leave on typical Friday night 163 4.150* .042 Physical violence occurred at bar 151 4.716* .030 NOTE: aFisher’s exact test used since one cell had an expected count of less than 5. df =1.*p<.05 (2-tailed).
In addition to differences in food service, the managers reported offering various types of activities at their establishments. Previous research suggests that competitive games (Quigley et al., 2003) and activities that increase patron proximity and interaction, like dancing (Graham et al., 2006), can increase the likelihood of violence. The data shown in Table 9.13 support the argument that competitive games increase physical violence and suggest that these games also increase the level of all three types of disorder. While bars that offer dancing do not seem to
116 produce higher levels of disorder, patrons are more likely to be asked to leave and physical violence is more likely to occur in these places (see Table 9.14).
Table 9.13. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar offers competitive games Variables n x t df sig Level of exterior disorder by Bar offers competitive gamesa Yes 83 1.51 -3.636*** 163.3 .000 No 87 .78
Level of interior disorder by Bar offers competitive gamesa Yes 92 .66 -4.563*** 162.7 .000 No 99 .24
Level of restroom disorder by Bar offers competitive gamesa Yes 89 2.27 -3.560*** 169.4 .000 No 90 1.21
Number of physical violence incidents by Bar offers competitive gamesa Yes 92 .97 -2.212* 153.5 .028 No 88 .51 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05, ***p<.001, (2-tailed).
Table 9.14. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar offers dancing Variables n x t df sig Number of customers asked to leave by Bar offers dancinga Yes 70 1.09 -2.221* 105.8 .028 No 125 .52
Number of physical violence incidents by Bar offers dancinga Yes 65 1.11 -2.378* 102 .019 No 119 .55 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
Bars that charge a cover or entrance fee usually offer some activity or entertainment
beyond traditional bar games, food, and alcohol. For example, managers of dance clubs and live
117 music venues reported almost always requiring patrons to pay a cover charge. Also, managers of bars that offer live entertainment sporadically or on particular days of the week reported charging a cover on those occasions. The data suggest that bars that charge covers also ask more people to leave, physically remove more people from the establishment, and make fewer calls to police per week (see Table 9.15). Again, these relationships are likely related to the findings of previous analyses. Bars that charge a cover are also more likely to employ doormen or bouncers to collect the entrance fee. Prior analyses revealed that more people are asked to leave or are physically removed in places with security personnel (see Table 9.6). Also, places with formally trained security staff make fewer calls for police service (see Table 9.5). Entrance fees are unlikely to cause more people to be physically removed or asked to leave. The relationships between these variables and covers are more likely caused by the presence of those who attempt to handle problems themselves, rather than calling the police.
Table 9.15. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar charges a cover Variables n x t df sig Number of customers asked to leave by Bar charges covera Yes 44 1.38 -2.399* 51.6 .020 No 151 .54
Number of customers physically removed by Bar charges covera Yes 44 .17 -2.397* 44.8 .021 No 151 .01
Number of times police called per week by Bar charges covera Yes 44 .05 2.071* 182.2 .040 No 153 .21 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
118 The final activity examined was bar-sponsored drinking games. Although many of those interviewed claimed this practice was illegal, 14 bars claimed to offer this activity to patrons.
The only crime or disorder variable this activity was related to was the number of customers asked to leave on a typical Friday night. Managers of bars that sponsor drinking games are significantly more likely to ask overly intoxicated or disruptive patrons to leave (see Table 9.16).
Table 9.16. T-test for difference in number of customers asked to leave by bar sponsored drinking games Variables n x t df sig Bar sponsors drinking games Yes 14 1.54 -2.017* 193 .045 No 181 .67 NOTE: *p<.05 (2-tailed).
119 Bar Location and Marketing Strategies Influence Crime and Disorder
Property Bar theme Bar location characteristics
Staff, Training, Activities/ Marketing Security entertainment strategies
Immediate Setting
Types of Events patrons
Managers choose where their bars will be located.61 Previous analyses found that location decisions impact marketing decisions. For example, bars located further from potential patrons rely on more advertising to promote their establishments (see Table 7.9).62 The proposed theory suggests that marketing decisions will affect the type of patron that frequents the establishment.
While a direct comparison of marketing content and patron characteristics is not possible, relationships between patron characteristics and violence and disorder will be examined. The assumption is that who bars try to attract influences the types of people who come, and this influences the number and types of negative events at bars. Bar managers can use marketing strategies to exclude or attract particular types of people. Qualitative analysis of the manager interviews supports this statement. Gay bars focus their advertisements in gay media outlets, college bars advertise in publications distributed to students, and higher-end (i.e., more
61 While these choices are made under various constraints (e.g., they must adhere to zoning and permit laws), owners generally have more than a single option when choosing the location of their business. The impact of choosing a particular neighborhood context will be examined in Chapter 10. 62 Analyses found that places classified as “neighborhood bars” did not report significantly more or less crime or disorder than non-neighborhood bars.
120 expensive) establishments advertise in local theatre playbills and in publications read by business professionals. The following analyses examine which patron characteristics are related to crime
and disorder at the bars.
Previous research has found that bars with higher concentrations of younger patrons tend
to experience more violent crime (Graham et al., 2006; Quigley et al., 2003). The data for
Cincinnati bars did not find strong support for this hypothesis. Bars that cater to those in their
20s had a higher mean of total number of physical violence incidents ( x = 1.37) than those that serve older or mixed aged crowds ( x = 0.69) but this difference was not significant (p = .251).
One bar owner said that in order to reduce the number of fights occurring in his establishment, he raised the drinking age to 25. This owner reported that significantly fewer crime-related incidents occurred at his bar after this restriction went into effect. Perhaps the weak relationship between age and violence found in this study is the result of the age categories used in the survey.
Problems may be more likely to occur when there are higher concentrations of 21 to 23 year olds, rather than 27 to 29 year olds. The 20-something age category may have been too general to capture the age effect. However, significantly higher levels of interior and restroom disorder were found in bars that cater to this younger demographic (see Table 9.17).
Table 9.17. T-tests for differences in disorder by patron age Variables n x t df sig Level of interior disorder by Most patrons in their 20s Yes 15 .93 -3.024** 190 .003 No 177 .41
Level of restroom disorder by Most patrons in their 20s Yes 14 3.07 -2.609** 179 .010 No 167 1.61 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. **p<.01 (2-tailed).
121
Patron gender and race distributions have also been linked to levels of violence in bars
(Homel et al., 1992). No significant relationship was found between the proportion of males and levels of crime or disorder at Cincinnati bars (see Table 9.18). Without actual observations of the violent incidents, we cannot know whether there were a higher proportion of males at the establishment when these events took place.63 Of the managers who could recall the gender of the people involved in the last violent incident at their establishments, 71.8 percent claimed that only males were involved, 18.8 percent reported that both males and females were involved, and
9.4 percent said that only females were involved in these incidents. While gender appears to influence who engages in violence, the evidence does not suggest that the overall distribution of gender in the establishment affects the likelihood of violence.
Table 9.18. Bivariate correlations between proportion of male patrons and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Proportion of male patrons Level of exterior disorder 169 .109 .158 Level of interior disorder 190 .092 .209 Level of restroom disorder 179 .077 .304 Number of customers asked to leave 193 .043 .552 Number of customers physically removed 193 .001 .994 Number of times police called per week 195 -.017 .814 Incidents of physical violence 181 .074 .324 Incidents of threatened violence 181 .086 .247 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value.
The effect of patron race or ethnicity was found to influence violence in a previous study
(Graham et al., 1980). Graham and colleagues found that Vancouver bars with lower proportion
of white patrons had higher levels of aggression. This also appears to be true of Cincinnati bars.
As the proportion of white patrons decrease, the number of physical violence and threatened
63 Managers were only asked to report the general gender distributions at their establishments on a typical Friday night. However, not all violent events occurred at the bars on Friday evenings.
122 violence incidents increase, and this relationship is significant (see Table 9.19). An examination
of the qualitative interview data found that many bars catering to African-Americans report
problems associated with drug dealing at their establishments. Since drug dealing is often
associated with violence, this may explain the observed race effect.
Table 9.19. Bivariate correlations between proportion of white patrons and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Proportion of white patrons Level of exterior disorder 168 -.060 .439 Level of interior disorder 188 .052 .478 Level of restroom disorder 177 .005 .950 Number of customers asked to leave 190 -.079 .227 Number of customers physically removed 190 -.073 .320 Number of times police called per week 192 -.017 .818 Incidents of physical violence 178 -.152* .042 Incidents of threatened violence 178 -.169* .024 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
One manager explained that there are two types of bar patrons: the money makers and the
bill payers. Money makers are customers that come to a particular bar only once or every once in
a while and run up a significant bar tab. The bill payers are patrons that come to the bar every
day after work and consistently spend money, although significantly less ($5-$20) than the
money makers. The bill payers are more commonly referred to as “regulars” at these
establishments. During the interviews, many of the bar managers said that their “regulars” help
them to control the behavior of others in the bars. This may explain why significantly fewer
individuals are asked to leave or are physically removed at bars with a higher proportion of
regular customers (see Table 9.20). However, incidents of threatened violence are more likely to
occur at bars with more regulars. Since the regulars in these establishments often act as place
managers, perhaps other “problem” patrons are willing to make threats of violence, but do not
follow through with their threats since they are more likely to be outnumbered by those who
123 control behavior at these places. Or, the threats come from the regulars and are designed to control outsiders, who back down when they consider the odds.
The data also show that places with higher proportions of regulars also display higher levels of exterior and interior disorder (see Table 9.20). Bars that report that 80 percent or more of their patrons are regulars generally resemble the figurative “hole in the wall” bar that caters mostly to neighborhood patrons and has been in business for many years. There is a significant and negative correlation between the proportion of regulars and the number of advertisement mediums used (r = -.359, p = .000, n = 192) and a significant and positive correlation between the proportion of regulars and the number of years in business (r = .319, p = .000, n = 196). The age of the structures coupled with little effort made (or need) to bring in new customers, may explain why these managers are less inclined to address minor signs of disorder.
Table 9.20. Bivariate correlations between proportion of “regulars” and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Proportion of “regulars” Level of exterior disorder 171 .192* .012 Level of interior disorder 191 .244*** .001 Level of restroom disorder 180 .104 .165 Number of customers asked to leave 194 -.144* .045 Number of customers physically removed 194 -.160* .026 Number of times police called per week 196 -.010 .895 Incidents of physical violence 182 -.005 .945 Incidents of threatened violence 182 .165* .026 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. *p<.05; ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
Most managers claimed that their businesses were attracting their “ideal” customers, or the customers they intended to market to. When asked to describe their ideal customer, there was great variation in the types of patrons described. Some managers were very generic in their responses. One manager claimed to want to attract the type of person who “drinks, tips well, and doesn’t cause trouble,” while another simply wanted to attract someone with “a valid credit
124 card.” Other managers were more specific. Some managers said they prefer blue-collar workers while others prefer business professionals. Some said they tried to attract an older crowd while other wanted a mixed or younger crowd. Only 11 managers (5.5 percent) said they were unhappy with the type of patron that frequented their establishments. One manager said that “broke people” were the only type of customer his business was attracting. Others complained that their patrons were too old, too young, too Latino,64 or local “dope boys” that were scaring off other customers. These managers were probably reacting to the behavior of these individuals more than the general demographics of their patrons. Not surprisingly, bars that were not attracting their ideal customers were also more likely to have higher levels of interior and exterior disorder
and threatened violence (see Table 9.21).
Table 9.21. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar attracts ideal customers Variables n x t df sig Level of exterior disorder by Bar attracts ideal customers Yes 155 1.05 2.900** 163 .004 No 10 2.30
Level of interior disorder by Bar attracts ideal customers Yes 174 .42 2.853** 183 .005 No 11 1.00
Number of threatened violence incidents by Bar attracts ideal customers Yes 166 .33 4.540*** 175 .000 No 11 1.27 NOTE: **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
64 One bar owner, who offered salsa dancing and other Hispanic themed activities, complained about the number of “Latinos” that frequented her establishment. This illustrates a common phenomenon: many bar managers do not believe that their actions influence who frequents their business or how people behave at their establishment. Managers who offer activities that are likely to attract a disorderly crowd or instigate patron misbehavior (e.g., midget mud wrestling), need to anticipate the need for additional behavioral controls in their establishments.
125 I have argued that bars attract particular types of patrons based on their marketing strategies. One of the most basic business characteristics that bar managers can manipulate to exclude particular types of people from doing business in their establishments is the cost of purchasing alcohol. Previous studies have found significant associations between cheap drinks and violence in bars (Homel et al., 1992; Quigley et al., 2003). The relationship between the cost of the cheapest alcoholic drink and violence in Cincinnati bars was not significant. Cheap drinks were only significantly correlated with the three measures of disorder (see Table 9.22).65 There are two explanations for these findings. First, bars that charge less for drinks may generate less income so they have fewer resources to address signs of disorder. Second, these bars attract the type of patron who is more likely to damage property. Obviously, both could be true. However, offering cheap drinks does not appear to significantly increase the likelihood of violence or threatened violence.
Table 9.22. Bivariate correlations between the cost of the cheapest alcoholic drink and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Cost of cheapest drink Level of exterior disorder 171 -.425*** .000 Level of interior disorder 191 -.336*** .000 Level of restroom disorder 179 -.364*** .000 Number of customers asked to leave 192 .033 .649 Number of customers physically removed 192 .139 .054 Number of times police called per week 194 -.088 .221 Incidents of physical violence 181 -.114 .127 Incidents of threatened violence 181 -.108 .147 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
The final marketing variable examined was the forms of payment accepted at the bars.
Bars that accept only cash have significantly higher levels of restroom disorder and physical
65 A second analysis comparing the cost of the most expensive drink to crime and disorder at these establishments produced identical results, except that the significant coefficients were smaller (weaker).
126 violence incidents (see Table 9.23). Bars that only accept cash are generally the “mom and pop” bars in the city. These bars tend to do less business than larger chains and may not be able to afford the service fees associated with credit card transactions. This might also explain why there are higher levels of restroom disorder at these establishments; they simply cannot afford to address these signs of disorder (although this would not explain why levels of exterior or interior
disorder are not significantly higher). The fact that these places are more likely to experience
incidents of physical violence may be related to the number of “place managers” or employees
that these establishments can afford to hire. A t-test of the difference in the mean number of
employees revealed that bars that only accept cash have significantly fewer employees ( x =
3.97) than bars that accept multiple forms of payment ( x = 23.29).66 Fewer employees mean fewer formal place managers exist to intervene and diffuse potentially violent situations and to clean the restrooms.
Table 9.23. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar accepts cash only Variables n x t df sig Level of restroom disorder by Accept cash onlya Yes 27 2.85 -2.356* 29.6 .025 No 153 1.50
Number of physical violence incidents by Accept cash onlya Yes 29 1.45 -2.460* 33.1 .019 No 153 .59 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
66 t = 7.984, df = 177.7, p = .000, equal variances not assumed.
127 Manager Networks and Experience Influence Crime and Disorder
Immediate Setting
Types of Events patrons
Management reaction
Known solutions Costs of Profit/benefits of External pressure /responses change circumstance /accountability
Networks, Existing Direct harm to Enforcement by experience resources manager outsiders
The proposed theory of place management suggests that management reaction to the immediate setting (i.e., the condition of their bars) will be influenced by what occurs in that setting as well as four other factors: (1) their networks and experience which provides them with potential solutions or responses to problems, (2) existing resources relative to the cost of the changes necessary to address identified problems, (3) harm experienced directly by the manager
which is conditioned by additional profits or benefits the manager may draw from these negative
events, and (4) enforcement by outsiders that creates pressure for the manager to do something
about their problems. Chapter 8 examined the direct relationship between these variables and
management willingness to prevent or intervene in violent incidents.67 The remainder of this chapter will examine the direct relationships between three of the four factors that influence
67 Of the three disorder variables and the two violence-related variables that represent characteristics of the immediate setting, only the number of physical violence incidents appears to encourage management reaction. Managers who have implemented interventions to prevent future crimes experienced significantly more violent incidents ( x = 0.89) than managers that have not implemented prevention measures ( x = 0.41). t = -2.562, df = 163.7, p = .011, equal variances not assumed.
128 management reaction and the crime and disorder variables: networks and experience, existing resources, and outside enforcement. This examination will allow us to determine whether these variables eventually impact the characteristics of the immediate setting (assuming management response was encouraged). The relationships between (1) management experience and crime and
(2) management networks and crime are examined first.
No significant relationship was found between the number of years the bar has operated under the same management and any of the crime or disorder variables (see Table 9.24).
However, managers with a higher percentage of employees who have worked at the bar six months or more report asking fewer people to leave and physically removing fewer people from the bar (see Table 9.25). Perhaps employees with more experience are better able to identify and pacify aggravated patrons before they engage in activities that would prompt management to ask them to leave or physically remove them (e.g., know when to “cut off” disruptive or overly intoxicated customers).68 Bars with higher retention levels also have higher levels of exterior disorder. This may be explained by the positive and significant correlation between retention and the number of years the establishment has been in business (r = .300, p = .000, n = 195). Older businesses are more likely to have deteriorating structures, and this characteristic was captured in the exterior disorder index.
68 Two additional explanations: (1) employee turnover is higher in disorderly places because of the poor working conditions, or (2) managers who tolerate disorder may be difficult to work for.
129 Table 9.24. Bivariate correlations between number of years under current ownership and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Number of years under current ownership Level of exterior disorder 168 .107 .168 Level of interior disorder 189 .080 .276 Level of restroom disorder 177 -.018 .809 Number of customers asked to leave 191 -.084 .250 Number of customers physically removed 191 -.079 .276 Number of times police called per week 193 .127 .079 Incidents of physical violence 182 -.054 .468 Incidents of threatened violence 182 .057 .449 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value.
Table 9.25. Bivariate correlations between percentage of workers employed at least 6 months and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Percentage of workers employed at least 6 months Level of exterior disorder 170 .236** .002 Level of interior disorder 190 .124 .089 Level of restroom disorder 179 .096 .202 Number of customers asked to leave 193 -.167* .020 Number of customers physically removed 193 -.192** .008 Number of times police called per week 195 -.031 .672 Incidents of physical violence 181 -.107 .153 Incidents of threatened violence 181 -.010 .896 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. *p<.05; **p<.01 (2-tailed).
No significant bivariate correlations were found between the number of bar or business
associations the managers belong to and any of the crime or disorder variables (see Table 9.26).
However, when management membership to associations is measured as a dichotomous variable,
the data suggest that those who belong to these associations are significantly more likely to run
businesses where people are asked to leave than those who do not belong to these associations
(see Table 9.27). While this cannot be examined directly, perhaps the training or information
provided by these business associations encourage managers to be aggressive in identifying
potential problems and asking patrons to leave before situations can escalate.
130
Table 9.26. Bivariate correlations between number manager associations and crime/disorder Variables n r sig Number of business associations manager belongs to Level of exterior disorder 172 .056 .467 Level of interior disorder 193 .035 .633 Level of restroom disorder 181 -.056 .453 Number of customers asked to leave 197 .124 .085 Number of customers physically removed 195 -.057 .431 Number of times police called per week 197 -.052 .465 Incidents of physical violence 184 -.015 .840 Incidents of threatened violence 184 -.005 .945 NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value.
Table 9.27. T-test for difference in number of patrons asked to leave by member of business association Variables n x t df sig Belong to bar/business associationa Yes 83 1.13 -3.205** 99.3 .002 No 98 .35 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. **p<.01 (2-tailed)
Similarly, working with other drinking establishments to attract customers appears to
increase the number of patrons asked to leave (see Table 9.28). Working with other businesses
also seems to decrease the mean number of calls placed to police per week. In addition to
learning to identify potential problems and asking unruly patrons to leave, working with other drinking establishments may help managers learn to handle situations personally; thus, making them less dependent on police assistance.
131 Table 9.28. T-tests for differences in crime/disorder by work with other drinking establishments Variables n x t df sig Number of times police called per week by Work with other drinking establishmentsa Yes 45 .04 2.115* 185.7 .036 No 151 .21
Number of patrons asked to leave by Work with other drinking establishmentsa Yes 44 1.53 -2.917** 49.9 .005 No 150 .48 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05, **p<.01 (2-tailed).
While these explanations for the above relationships seem plausible, additional analyses
reveal a competing hypothesis. Those who belong to business associations are more likely to
employ bouncers (χ2 = 4.894, df = 1, p = .028), and those who work with drinking establishments are also more likely to employ bouncers (χ2 = 10.221, df = 1, p = .001). Previous analyses found that the use of bouncers suppressed calls for service and increased the average number of people asked to leave on a typical Friday night (see Table 9.5 and Table 9.6). Perhaps manager networks, instead, encourage the use of bouncers to limit problems at their establishments. Or, managers who work with other drinking establishments are interested in attracting outside customers, rather than neighborhood clientele. This would bring with it the problems of outsiders Determining which explanation is correct is not possible without additional information concerning the content of information shared through these management networks and knowledge of which came first: the bouncers or the association memberships.
The finding that managers who work with other business associations are more likely to hire security staff helps to explain the result presented in Table 9.29. It appears that while only
36.8 percent of bars that do not work with others have experienced a violent incident in the last two years, 54 percent of those that do work with others have had at least one incident occur at
132 their establishment. Again, the use of bouncers was previously found to be positively and significantly correlated with the number of violent incidents that occur at bars (see Table 9.6).
Therefore, the finding that working with other establishments is significantly related to the likelihood of having experienced a violent incident may simply be another indication that those with existing problems are making an effort to address these issues (by working with other establishments or hiring security personnel or both).
Table 9.29. Chi-Square test of relationship between working with other drinking establishments and physical violence at bar Variables n χ2 sig Work with other drinking establishments Physical violence occurred at bar 183 5.747* .017 NOTE: df =1. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
133 Existing Resources Influence Crime and Disorder
Immediate Setting
Types of Events patrons
Management reaction
Known solutions Costs of Profit/benefits of External pressure /responses change circumstance /accountability
Networks, Existing Direct harm to Enforcement by experience resources manager outsiders
It is hypothesized that managers with greater resources (e.g., those who make more money) will be able to more effectively respond to events that occur at their establishments.
While having higher resource levels was not significantly associated with any of the crime- related variables, the data suggest that managers who claim to be making a profit have significantly lower levels of both exterior and interior disorder (see Table 9.30). While not directly related to crime, having the financial ability to reduce levels of interior disorder may indirectly affect crime at these locations since the level of interior disorder is positively and
significantly related to both physical violence and threatened violence incidents (see Table 9.2).
134 Table 9.30. T-tests for differences in disorder by business making a profit Variables n x t df sig Level of exterior disorder by Business making a profita Yes 117 .86 -3.833*** 64.2 .000 No 49 1.86
Level of interior disorder by Business making a profita Yes 125 .34 -3.054** 91.7 .003 No 61 .69 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
Outside Enforcement Influences Crime and Disorder
Immediate Setting
Types of Events patrons
Management reaction
Known solutions Costs of Profit/benefits of External pressure /responses change circumstance /accountability
Networks, Existing Direct harm to Enforcement by experience resources manager outsiders
These relationships were examined in previous analyses. The relationship between outside enforcement and characteristics of the immediate settings was examined in Chapter 7
(see Table 7.10, Table 7.11 and Table 7.12). The relationship between outside enforcement and management intervention was examined in Chapter 8 (see Table 8.5 and Table 8.6). From these analyses, we learned that managers who experience more regulatory agency visits are
135 significantly more likely to attempt to prevent future crime incidents and ask significantly more patrons to leave their establishments (likely in an attempt to prevent future incidents). They are also more likely to check identification at the door. Further, Liquor Control Board visits are more likely to occur at bars where physical violence occurs. Thus, it appears that outside enforcement is instigated by the events that occur at these locations (e.g., violence) and affects how managers attempt to control behavior at their establishments (e.g., engage in prevention efforts, check patron ID at the door).
Summary of the Relationships between Bar Management, Crime, and Disorder
Table 9.31 provides a summary of the variables found to be significantly related to crime and disorder at the bars. The purpose of this chapter was to demonstrate that bar managers are not simply victims of circumstance: management decisions matter. Bar managers can, and do, influence what happens at their businesses through the decisions they make each day. At least partial support was found for every hypothesized relationship in the theory (except for the relationship between harm to managers and management action, crime and disorder – no data was available for analysis).
As the list of relationships presented in Table 9.31 demonstrates, violence at the bars was significantly related to measures of security, activities, food service, patron characteristics, management networks, and manager attempts to prevent these incidents. Variables representing these and other manager decisions were related to levels of disorder at the bars. Levels of disorder, in turn, were also related to violence. Additionally, particular management practices were found to be related to the number of people who were asked to leave and physically removed from the bars each week, and these incidents were also related to levels of violence.
136 Almost all of the place management decisions examined appear to influence crime, either directly or indirectly.
Two issues concerning the significant associations found between management practices and crime must be addressed. First, casual order can be logically deduced for some of the relationships, but not for others. For example, competitive games are associated with higher levels of violence. It makes sense to say that patron competition causes violence, but to say that violence causes games is illogical. It would be difficult to imagine a bar manager who, in an attempt to control violence in his or her establishment, would offer games that would increase the likelihood of conflict among customers. We can conclude with some confidence that we are not observing a management response to violence when we find that these activities are offered at an establishment.69 However, determining causal order is more difficult for other significant associations. Having security personnel is associated with more violence. Without observational and longitudinal data, it is impossible to determine whether managers employed the bouncers in response to violence, if the bouncers are instigating the violence, or if both are true. It is difficult to assess whether we are observing a management response to previously experienced negative events, or if this relationship represents neglect (e.g., inadequate training or oversight) on the part of place managers.
Second, even if the data could show that particular management decisions were made in response to violence at their establishments, the cross-sectional data would not allow us to
determine whether these responses are effective or ineffective. For example, the presence of
security personnel is associated with higher levels of violence; but whether more violence occurred prior to using security staff or what the current levels of violence would be without
69 Unless the managers believed that the violence was caused by boredom. However, we should expect that offering such activities to an already volatile crowd would only exacerbate the problem. Thus, we would still be observing deficient place management behaviors.
137 security personnel is unknown. Methodologies that can be used to overcome these limitations will be discussed in the concluding chapter.
In sum, the linkages between characteristics of the immediate setting and the types of management decisions and outside influences proposed by the theory are generally supported by the data, even though many of the measures available are not ideal. Violence and disorder appear to be symptomatic of unresponsive or ineffective place management at particular locations. The next chapter will address the effect of a single management decision, but one that is assumed to matter a great deal: choosing a bar location.
138 Table 9.31. Significant relationships between bar management practices and crime and disorder Higher level of exterior disorder More patrons physically removed Cheaper alcoholic drinks offered Bar employs security personnel Competitive games offered Cash only Does not attract ideal customers Cover charged Employees allowed to drink Food not available for purchase Employees not required to wear uniforms ID checked at door Food not available for purchase Lower employee retention Full meals not available for purchase Lower proportion of regular customers Higher employee retention More incidents of physical violence Higher patron to staff ratio More security features Higher proportion of regular customers Less business profit Use pour control devices
Higher level of interior disorder More patrons asked to leave Bar employs security personnel Bar employs security personnel ID checked at door Bar hires off-duty police officers Cheaper alcoholic drinks offered Belong to bar/business association Competitive games offered Cover charged Does not attract ideal customers Dancing offered Employees allowed to drink Drinking games sponsored Employees not required to wear uniforms Food not available for purchase Employees not trained by outside company Full meals not available for purchase Full meals not available for purchase ID checked at door Higher patron/maximum occupancy ratio Lower employee retention Higher proportion of regular customers Lower proportion of regular customers Less business profit More incidents of physical violence More physical violence incidents More regulatory agency visits More threatened violence incidents More security features Most patrons in their 20s Work with other drinking establishments
Higher level of restroom disorder More physical violence incidents Bar employs security personnel Bar employs security personnel Cash only Competitive games offered Cheaper alcoholic drinks offered Dancing offered Competitive games offered Full meals not available for purchase Employees not required to wear uniforms Higher levels of interior disorder Employees not trained by outside company Higher levels of restroom disorder Higher patron/maximum occupancy ratio Higher proportion of nonwhite patrons ID checked at door ID checked at door More physical violence incidents Managers try to prevent incidents Most patrons in their 20s More Liquor Control Board visits Security not trained by outside company Work with other drinking establishments
More calls to police per week More threatened violence incidents Cover charged Does not attract ideal customers Do not work with other drinking establishments Higher levels of interior disorder Employees not allowed to drink Higher proportion of nonwhite patrons Full meals available for purchase Higher proportion of regular customers Security not trained by outside company
139 CHAPTER 10 SPATIAL DYNAMICS OF BAR MANAGEMENT AND CRIME
This chapter examines the effect of location on crime at Cincinnati bars. The influence of neighborhood characteristics on violence in bars is explored using simple spatial analysis, statistical comparisons of bars located within and outside high crime areas, and evaluations of the influence of specific environmental characteristics. Before the results of these analyses are presented, this chapter begins with a brief discussion of theory and research concerning the relationship between characteristics of macro-level environments and crime.
There are two extreme hypotheses concerning the significance of bar location: (1) only bar location determines whether or not violence occurs, and (2) bar location has no impact on violence. Evidence supporting the first hypothesis would suggest that the relationships between place management practices and crime presented in the previous chapter are spurious; these associations were observed due to failure to control for contextual effects. If true, then the proposed theory of place management can be simplified: Bar location → Events. Conversely, if bar location has absolutely no effect on crime, either directly or indirectly, this decision point should be removed from the place management theory.
Current theory and research on the relationship between the environment and crime suggest that neither of these hypotheses is correct. Recent literature suggests that crime opportunities are the product of individual place characteristics; however, the effect of place characteristics on crime may be moderated or strengthened by features of aggregate- environments (e.g., the neighborhood or street block where the place is located). A recent study of burglary victimization found that target hardening measures and place management activities were more effective in neighborhoods that had higher aggregate levels of target hardening, informal social control, and defensible space features (Wilcox, Madensen, & Skubak,
140 forthcoming). If neighborhood characteristics also temper the effectiveness of bar managers’ strategies to reduce violence, bars with identical management practices may exhibit unequal levels of violence if situated in dissimilar environments.
Two theories can be used to predict the type of environment that would reduce the effectiveness of violence-reduction strategies in bars: crime pattern theory and multicontextual criminal opportunity theory. Crime pattern theory maintains that crimes occur as offenders take advantage of opportunities they discover while conducting their everyday activities; therefore, higher concentrations of crime will be found at places in areas that attract, or house, offenders
(Brantingham & Brantingham, 1991). According to crime pattern theory, bars that are located in high crime areas (i.e., where offenders congregate and take advantage of other opportunities) should have higher levels of violence than bars using the same management techniques elsewhere.
Multicontextual criminal opportunity theory also posits that criminal events will occur more often in neighborhoods where the collective convergence of offenders with unguarded targets is higher (Wilcox et al., 2003). However, this theory also suggests that crime is more likely to occur in neighborhoods with lower levels of social-control and higher levels of social disorganization. Therefore, we should find more violence in bars located in areas with these characteristics. Additionally, Wilcox et al. (2003) argue that these neighborhood characteristics will interact with these same characteristics at the individual- or place-level. For example, while bars may be able to reduce violence by employing bouncers, bars in high crime or disorganized areas may need more or better trained bouncers to achieve the same reduction in violence produced when bouncers are used in bars in low crime, organized neighborhoods. Wilcox and
141 colleagues argue that the most appropriate way to test this theory is to use hierarchical regression modeling of longitudinal data taken from large samples of individuals nested in diverse areas.
Even though formal theory testing is not the goal of the current study, multilevel testing as suggested by Wilcox et al. (2003) would not be feasible. This is because bars are concentrated in a few neighborhoods; 23 of 53 neighborhoods have bars, but 29 percent of these bars are in two neighborhoods. Further, only six neighborhoods contain 10 or more bars (see Figure 10.1).
Figure 10.1. Distribution of bars across Cincinnati
It is possible to examine the spatial distribution of bars with and without violent incidents. We can also compare the number of violent incidents that occur in bars located in high crime areas to bars located elsewhere, and examine some of the physical characteristics of the
142 surrounding neighborhood and block location of the bars typically associated with higher levels of criminal activity.
The spatial distribution of violent and nonviolent bars was examined using Geographic
Information Systems software (ArcGIS). There were three possible outcomes of this examination. First, the analyses may have revealed that nonviolent bars were concentrated in some neighborhoods and violent bars were concentrated in others. This would suggest a strong neighborhood effect. Second, the distribution may have appeared completely random. This would indicate that neighborhood characteristics have little to no effect and that only place management practices matter. Third, a loosely clustered distribution of violent bars and nonviolent bars would suggest that perhaps both neighborhood characteristics and management practices matter. The analyses find more support for the third hypotheses, less for the second, and very little for the first.
Figure 10.2 shows the distribution of violent and nonviolent bars across Cincinnati. The white dots represent no recorded physical violence incidents at the bar throughout the two-year period. The black dots indicate that at least one violent incident occurred at the location during the same time. As mentioned previously, and now confirmed visually in Figure 10.2, the bars tend to be clustered throughout the city in general. However, the close proximity of nonviolent and violent bars fails to support the first hypothesis of strong neighborhood effects.
To better illustrate the fact that both violent and nonviolent bars share the same macro- environments, Figure 10.3 layers the bars in three stages. The first map shows the distribution of bars without physical violence incidents. The second map adds bars with only one violent incident, and the third map adds bars with two or more incidents of physical violence. This figure
143 shows that many bars with violent incidents are in very close proximity to bars without violent incidents.
Figure 10.2. Distribution of cars with and without physical violence incidents
144 Figure 10.3. Layered depiction of physical violence incidents across bars
145
Figure 10.4 shows the distribution of threatened violence incidents. This distribution generally resembles the distribution of physical violence at the bars (compare Figure 10.2 to
Figure 10.4). The bars are again layered in Figure 10.5, this time by (1) no threatened violence,
(2) one incident of threatened violence, and (3) two or more incidents of threatened violence.
Once again we see a general “smattering” of bars with threatened violence among bars without these incidents. Overall, the spatial analyses do not imply that neighborhood characteristics are the most important predictor of violence in bars.
Figure 10.4. Distribution of bars with and without threatened violence incidents
146 Figure 10.5. Layered depiction of threatened violence incidents across bars
147
Previous research on violence in bars has found that bars located in downtown areas of major cities tend to experience more violence than bars located outside these areas (see Graham et al., 1980; Graham, 1985). Downtown districts often draw large numbers of diverse groups of people together who live elsewhere. This creates a high concentration of both targets and
potential offenders who generally do not know each other. Thus, downtown districts typically
function as “crime generators” and produce high crime rates.
To further test the effect of neighborhood characteristics on violence in bars, Chi-square
analyses were conducted to determine whether bars located in Downtown Cincinnati were more
likely to experience physical and threatened violence than bars located elsewhere in the city. The
tests revealed no significant effect of Downtown location on the likelihood of experiencing either
physical or threatened incidents of violence (see Table 10.1).70
The neighborhood with the highest crime rate in Cincinnati is not Downtown, but the
Over the Rhine neighborhood. Over the Rhine is located just north of the Downtown district and has consistently produced the highest neighborhood crime rates in Cincinnati for over a century.
Therefore, additional analyses were conducted to compare the likelihood of physical and threatened violence occurring at bars in this neighborhood compared to all others. Again, no significant difference for either crime category was found. For the final set of analyses, the
Downtown and Over the Rhine bars were grouped together and compared to all other bars. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of physical or threatened violence for bars in these
70 T-tests were also conducted to determine whether the mean number of physical or threatened violence incidents was significantly different for bars located downtown. No significant differences were found.
148 locations when compared to bars in other parts of the city (see Table 10.1 for the results of these additional analyses).71
Table 10.1. Chi-Square tests of relationship between bar location and violence Variables n χ2 sig Bar located downtown Bar experienced physical violence 184 .325 .569 Bar experienced threatened violence 184 .079 .779 Bar located in Over the Rhine Bar experienced physical violence 184 .242 .623 Bar experienced threatened violence 184 naa .143 Bar located in Over the Rhine or downtown Bar experienced physical violence 184 .648 .412 Bar experienced threatened violence 184 .630 .427 NOTE: aFisher’s exact test used since one cell had an expected count of less than 5. df =1.sig 2- tailed.
Interestingly, while bar location in Over the Rhine or Downtown was not significantly related to the violence variables, bars in these neighborhoods had significantly more property crimes documented by police than bars elsewhere (see Table 10.2).72 There may be other factors not controlled for in this bivariate analysis that could explain this significant relationship.
However, this finding suggests that perhaps neighborhood characteristics have a greater effect on property offenses than violent offenses. This hypothesis makes sense since some of the crimes included in the property crime category tend to occur outside rather than inside these establishments (e.g., vehicle theft, license plate theft, vandalism). 73
71 A difference in means comparison also found no significant effect for the Over the Rhine or the Downtown and Over the Rhine location categories. 72 The relationship between bar location and property crime was only significant when Downtown and Over the Rhine bars were grouped together. 73 The central principles of social disorganization theories and other neighborhood-based theories place emphasis on the characteristics of residential populations (e.g., residential mobility, resident heterogeneity) and are macro-level explanations of crime rates. The outcomes predicted by these theories may be less applicable to events that happen within commercial settings where greater control can be achieved by place managers through physical space organization, access control, and regulation of conduct.
149 Table 10.2. T-test for difference in number of property crimes by bar location Variables n x t df sig Number of property crimes by Bar located in Over the Rhine or downtown a Yes 44 2.27 -2.007 49.4 .050 No 140 1.21 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. sig 2-tailed.
The effect of bar location (Downtown only, Over the Rhine only, and Downtown and
Over the Rhine grouped together) on levels of disorder, number of people asked to leave, number
of people physically removed, and number of calls to police per week was also examined. The
significant bivarate relationships between these variables are presented in Table 10.3. Bars
located in Downtown Cincinnati have significantly lower levels of exterior and interior disorder.
This may be the result of many company-owned establishments in this area74 or revitalization efforts undertaken in the Downtown neighborhood over the past decade.
Surprisingly, fewer calls to police per week come from bars located in Over the Rhine or bars located in Over the Rhine and Downtown when compared to calls from other bars (see
Table 10.3). This difference is not due to bar use of security; bars in these areas are not significantly more likely to use bouncers or other security personnel than bars located elsewhere.
These bars are not significantly more likely to hire off-duty police either. However, due to the crime rate, there are generally more police patrols in this area than any other part of the city, and these patrols take many forms (e.g., bicycle, horseback, foot). Perhaps it is easier for bars to flag down an officer when assistance is needed.
74 There are many “chain” restaurants or franchises with bars in them Downtown. In fact, the establishments located Downtown are significantly more likely to serve full meals than establishments located in other parts of the city (χ2 = 3.922, df = 1, p = .048).
150 Table 10.3. T-tests for differences in level of disorder and calls to police by bar location and building characteristics Variables n x t df sig Level of interior disorder by Bar located downtown a Yes 27 .26 2.280 43.8 .026 No 151 .52
Level of exterior disorder by Bar located downtown a Yes 23 .57 3.255 39.5 .002 No 138 1.31
Number of times police called per week by Bar located in Over the Rhine a Yes 16 .00 3.193 165 .002 No 166 .19 Bar located in Over the Rhine or downtown a Yes 44 .05 2.190 174.6 .030 No 138 .22 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. sig 2-tailed.
Additional analyses revealed that violence in bars was not significantly related to other
environmental features previously linked to higher crime rates. 75 In total, there were 77 bars located on corner lots and 25 bars located adjacent to at least one other drinking establishment.
Significant associations were not found between the crime and disorder variables and the presence of these two environmental features.76
There are three major conclusions that can be drawn from the above analyses. First,
neighborhood characteristics may matter, but they are not the only or major predictor of violent
events. Bars with varying levels of violence were clustered together and thus shared the same
environments. This supports the assumption that identifying variations in micro-level or place
specific characteristics of the bars is key to understanding why crime does or does not occur at
75 Groff (1996) found that homes on corner lots had more crime events. Previous research found a significant correlation between the presence of bars and the number of crimes that occur close by (Roncek & Bell, 1981; Roncek & Maier, 1991). 76 Nor were these variables associated with the total number of property crimes.
151 these locations. Second, violence is not inevitable at bars located in high-crime areas.
Establishments located Downtown or in Over the Rhine did not have levels of violence that differed significantly from the levels of violence experienced by bars located elsewhere in the city. Third, environmental features previously found to be associated with higher crime levels
(i.e., corner lot location and close proximity to other drinking establishments) were not significantly associated with more violence across Cincinnati bars. Taken together, these findings suggest that bar managers create micro-environments that are at least partially insulated
from potentially criminogenic outside influences, and the characteristics of these settings either
suppress or permit violence within them.
152 CHAPTER 11 CONCLUSIONS
This paper concludes with a four-part discussion. This discussion aims to answer the following questions:
• What do the results suggest about the proposed theory of place management?
• To what other types of facilities does this framework apply?
• How can this theory be tested and used to build place-specific theories?
• What are the implications of the theory for future research and policy?
Place Management in Bars
Fourteen hypotheses drawn directly from the proposed theory of place management were explored using data drawn from interviews and observations conducted at Cincinnati bars.
Despite the limitations of the data, at least one examined relationship was significant in the analyses conducted for 12 of the hypotheses (see Table 11.1). No significant associations were found for two of the hypothesized relationships: (1) activities/entertainment influence marketing strategies and (2) existing resources influence manager reaction. These null findings are likely due to the single and poorly constructed measures of the marketing and financial variables. Only the number of advertisement mediums could be counted, not the number of advertisements purchased or the amount of money spent annually on advertisements. If activities and entertainment decisions influence marketing activities, the available measure did not capture this effect.
153 Table 11.1. Support for hypotheses Hypotheses Support Abbreviated findings77 H1: Property characteristics influence Yes Larger bars (size and number of patrons served) influence manager decisions concerning staffing, training, and security staffing, training, and security. H2: The number of activities offered at Yes More activities related to less employees, less training, but the bars influence manager staffing, more security features training, and security decisions. H3: The type of activities offered at the No Uncommon activities or specialties were not related to bars influence manager marketing advertising in more mediums strategies. H4: Bar location, relative to the location Yes Neighborhood bars advertise in fewer mediums of desired customers, influences manager marketing strategies. H5: Crime or high levels of disorder Yes More violence and asking more customers to leave influences outside enforcement. associated with more Liquor Control Board visits H6: Manager networks and experience Yes No experience effect; Networks increase manager response influence management reaction. H7: Manager resources influence No Financial status of bar (making a profit) not related to management reaction. management reaction H8: Outside enforcement influences Yes Regulatory visits associated with prevention efforts and management reaction. checking ID at the door H9: Property characteristics and staff, Yes Property characteristics and training related to disorder – training, and security levels disorder related to violent crime; Security related to influence crime and disorder. disorder and crime H10: Bar theme and activities/ Yes Food service related to less disorder and violence; entertainment influence crime and Competitive games/dancing related to more disorder and disorder. violence; Drinking games results in more asked to leave H11: Bar location and marketing Yes Younger patrons related to more disorder; No gender strategies that attract particular types effect; More white patrons related to less violence; More of patrons influence crime and regulars related to more disorder and threatened violence disorder. but fewer asked to leave or physically removed; Cheaper drinks related to higher levels of disorder; Cash-only bars related to more disorder and violence H12: Manager networks and experience Yes More experience related to fewer people physically influence crime and disorder. removed or asked to leave; Networks associated with asking more people to leave and more violence H13: Manager resources influence crime Yes Less manager resources related to more disorder and disorder. H14: Outside enforcement influences Yes Liquor Control Board visits more likely at bars with crime and disorder. violence and bars that ask more people to leave H15: Neighborhood location causes crime ?? Spatial analysis failed to show clustering of high violence and disorder. bars, disorder and police calls related to location
77 This is not a comprehensive list of findings, but only an overview of the major lessons learned from each set of analyses.
154 The existing resource measure was also problematic. Even if a manager indicated that his or her bar was making a profit, the data do not allow us to determine how large this profit margin was. Perhaps only managers who make significant profits are more likely to address negative characteristics or events that occur at their bars. Those few managers who claimed that their businesses were losing money had higher levels of disorder. Nevertheless, the analyses did not find that those who said they were making money were more likely to address problems at their establishments.
Another element of the theory that was not fully supported by the data was the relationship between manager experience and crime and disorder. Manager networks were significantly associated with several of the other elements in the framework: manager efforts to intervene or prevent future incidents, asking more patrons to leave, making fewer calls for police service, and more physical violence incidents. However, manager experience was not significantly associated with the manager reaction variables. Again, this may be the result of the measures used to assess experience: the percentage of employees working at the bar for six months or longer and the number of years the bar has operated under the same management. Six months may not be enough time to learn how to prevent violent situations. Future research should examine the construct “experience” carefully. Employees working at the establishment for less than six months may have gained previous experience elsewhere. The total number of years that managers run an establishment does not represent experience they may have gained prior to owning their own bar. Nor does the length of time owned necessarily translate into
“experience” that is regularly used; there are absentee owners that have owned the same bar for
20 years or longer. An experienced owner can hire inexperienced staff, or experienced staff can work for an inexperienced owner.
155 The fifteenth and final hypothesis dealt with potential neighborhood effects on crime and disorder at the bars. The spatial analyses did not find an intense clustering of violent bars that would suggest strong neighborhood effects. Statistical analyses found that bars located
Downtown had higher levels of disorder, and bars located in high crime neighborhoods made fewer calls to the police. However, no direct, significant relationship was found between incidents of violence or threatened violence and bar location. This does not mean that neighborhood effects do not matter. This finding does suggest that any existing neighborhood effects are unlikely to overwhelm the effects of place management. Neighborhood characteristics may encourage criminal activity in these areas, but some place managers have found ways to effectively counter this influence.
There are at least four possible relationships that may exist between neighborhood context, place management, and crime (see Figure 11.1). First, neighborhood context could cause differences in place management practices and crime, but management practices have no effect on crime. The analyses suggest that this model is not correct. Second, neighborhood context and place management directly influence crime, but neighborhood context does not affect place management. Third, neighborhood context influences crime, but this influence is conditioned by place management (which is also influenced by outside factors). Fourth, neighborhood context influences crime and is conditioned by place management; however, neighborhood context is also influenced by the cumulative effect of place management practices. Specific theories built from the framework should explain which of these models (two through four) is correct.78
78 Due to the small number and general clustering of any particular type of facility in any given location, formal multilevel modeling techniques may be inappropriate for testing these relationships. Other methods of analysis with greater utility for small n populations must be identified. Wilcox et al. (2003) suggest that ethnographic methods may be used to learn about the physical character of neighborhoods and how routine activities in these areas influence crime at specific places.
156 Figure 11.1. The relationship between neighborhood context, place management, and crime
Model 1: Neighborhood Effects Model 2: Additive Effects
Crime Neighborhood Context Neighborhood
Context Crime
Place Place Management Management
Model 3: Intervening Effects
Neighborhood Place Crime Context Management
Other Outside Influences
Model 4: Cumulative Effects
Neighborhood Place Crime Context Management
Other Outside Influences
In assessing the level of support for the theory we find that almost all of the proposed relationships were confirmed by the data. As predicted, particular types of management decisions
are related to other types of management decisions, outside influences impact management
reactions and decisions, and all decisions appear to be related to observed characteristics of the
immediate setting. Many of the variables that were not significantly associated with violence
were significantly associated with levels of disorder at the bars (e.g., higher patron to staff ratios,
employees allowed to drink). And, levels of disorder were significantly associated with more
157 incidents of physical and threatened violence. Overall, there was a great deal of support for the theory even though the data were not collected specifically to explore the hypothesized associations. The results confirm the plausibility of the theory and suggest that this is a viable framework that is worthy of future testing, can guide future research, and can assist further theory construction. The next section examines the applicability of this place management theory to other types of facilities.
A General Theory of Place Management
The theory of place management presented in this paper was created to explain the dynamics of manager decision-making in bars. Its development came as a result of informal discussions and formal interviews with managers of these facilities. Four things became clear from these conversations. First, there are six major types of decisions that managers make after they decide they want to run or own a bar. Some of these decisions have long-term impacts and usually are not modified to any great degree for extended periods of time (i.e., bar theme, property characteristics, and bar location). Other decisions are reevaluated and modified more often depending on how closely the actual outcomes of these decisions mirror those that were anticipated (i.e., staff, training, and security-related decisions, activities and entertainment offered, and marketing strategies). Second, these decisions are related to each other. Later decisions were made under or within constraints that were created by previous decisions. One pool hall manager opened her business near a neighborhood with many biker gang members
(knowing that bikers liked to play pool). Most of her security efforts were aimed at keeping firearms out of her establishment and barring customers who attempted to wear “motorcycle colors” indicating gang affiliation. Third, managers were differentially influenced by outside
158 factors depending on the types of events that occurred in their establishments. For example, most managers that experienced many violent incidents and had high levels of disorder were critical of the police and regulatory agencies (“I was ‘set up’ and falsely accused of selling alcohol to a minor.”). On the other hand, managers of low crime and disorder bars welcomed police presence and generally supported regulatory visits. One manager said that the agents helped him to run a more efficient business (“I can’t see everything. It’s like having an extra set of eyes.”). Fourth, all of these elements seemed to affect the characteristics of the bar settings (i.e., the overall condition of the establishment, the type of patrons attracted to the establishment, and the type of events that occurred at the location). The relationships outlined in the current framework stem from these observations, previous research findings, and other theories of place manager activities (specifically the work of Eck, Clarke, and Guerette, 2007).
Can the framework just applied to bars be applied to any type of facility?79 Can we modify it to develop a general theory of place management? In fact, only two minor modifications need to be made in order for the framework to apply to all facilities: the word
“bar” needs to be removed from the theoretical framework and replaced with the word “facility,” and the decision category “activities/entertainment” needs to be relabeled as “services offered.”80
This general theory of place management is depicted in Figure 11.2.
79 For the purpose of the model, a facility refers to any place, public or private, that has a designated purpose (or multiple purposes) and offers some service to individuals besides those who own the property or are intimately associated with the owner. Thus, places such as homes or empty lots would not be considered facilities and the model provides weaker explanations for crimes that typically occur in these locations (e.g., domestic violence). 80 “Services offered” can represent activities and entertainment, but also services that are not strictly for pleasure (e.g., grocery shopping or parking services).
159 Figure 11.2. A general theory of place management
Current market Demand for Personal interests conditions service/product of possible owner
Decision to open Property values /run a facility
Property Facility Facility Location of ies characteristics theme location competition trateg s
Staff, Training, Services Marketing Location of Security offered strategies customers s/current n
decisio Immediate Setting
past Types of Events patrons Reconsider
Management reaction
Known Costs of Profit/benefits External solutions change of circumstance pressure
Networks, Existing Direct harm to Enforcement by experience resources manager outsiders
160
As an exercise in thought, let us briefly consider how this framework would apply to three very different types of places: a bank, a park, and a web-based business. Someone who wants to open a bank has to determine what type of bank or he wants to manage: a traditional bank, a credit union, or a trust company. He has to determine where the bank will be located in relation to potential competitors and customers while considering property values or leasing costs. The bank could be located in a standalone structure or housed within another facility (e.g., grocery store). The characteristics of the potential properties must be carefully considered; banks need secure facilities. Those with cash assets on hand will need a property structure that can accommodate a vault. The services offered will likely depend on the type of bank opened but they will likely need to create accounts, accept deposits, wire money to other institutions, provide loans to qualified customers, and so forth. All of these decisions will affect decisions concerning staff, training, and security and marketing strategies. Depending on the amount of cash on hand and the level of risk not offset by the structure of the bank, managers may install cameras or bandit barriers,81 hire security guards, implement formal cash custody procedures, and require passwords to access systems with confidential information. When hiring employees, the manager may require background checks, fingerprinting, and drug testing to reduce the risk of internal theft. Training staff to follow proper procedures helps to reduce mistakes made during transactions to limit losses due to employee error and pass audit inspections. The cumulative effect of all of the above decisions will determine the characteristics of the immediate environment. Negative events may occur in these environments (e.g., robberies, failure to follow government regulations, customer or employee fraud) and how managers will react to these incidents will depend on the four factors identified in the theory. Threats from officers of the
81 Bullet resistant glass that separates customers from employees.
161 U.S. Department of the Treasury to close the bank due to failure to follow established banking procedures may prompt managers to provide more training and more closely monitor employee activities. Managers are more likely to rethink their initial decisions if they experience harm
(money lost due to fraud or robberies or employees hurt or killed during robberies). Also, managers with more resources or networks and experience will also be more likely to modify environments that permit or fail to prevent negative events.
The framework applies equally well to public places, including parks. The “managers” of these locations are usually representatives of local or state governments. These individuals make the decisions outlined in the theoretical framework that eventually determine how these places will be used. The theme of the park (e.g., national forest, playground, recreational) will influence property characteristics and the park location. Parks intended for families will have picnic areas, parks for children will have playgrounds, parks for teenagers will have basketball courts, and parks for the elderly will have sitting areas and shuffleboard.82 Obviously, larger state parks will use marketing strategies to attract people from various parts of the state or nation while local neighborhood parks will need to rely on less advertising to attract the intended patrons. While
“staff” is not always a constant in these places,83 security features may include see-through fencing, locking public restrooms at night, road barricades, lighting, posted rules, and implementing curfews. If crime or disorder occurs in these locations, managers who have more experience or work with others who have successfully addressed these problems and managers who have access to greater resources (e.g., community or state funds) will have the ability to change these environments more quickly. Managers that are not negatively impacted (e.g., live elsewhere) and cannot be held accountable for the condition of the parks (e.g., appointed rather
82 And, potentially, a pigeon problem. 83 Exceptions include maintenance crews, lifeguards at swimming pools, and rangers who patrol and collect park entrance fees.
162 than elected public officials), will be less likely to aggressively respond to problems in these locations.
All of the examples discussed in this paper relate to physical environments, meaning that
these facilities have a physical location (e.g., 123 Main Street). Just as Eck and Clarke (2003)
have extended routine activities theory to explain crimes where the offender and target are not
proximate, so too can this theory of place management be extended. Although the offenders and
targets in web-based crimes do not share the same physical environment, the offenders gain
access to the targets through a network (e.g., the Internet). The immediate setting depicted in the
framework can also represent a network environment. To illustrate this point, I will briefly
examine crimes that have occurred on a popular web-based exchange site: eBay.
One of the most popular frauds committed on eBay is the “sell what you don’t own”
scam. In 2002, a man claiming to sell computers “sold” such items to 140 eBay shoppers before
officials were notified that none of the items had reached the paying customers (Wingfield,
2002). The owners and managers of the eBay auction site created the “setting” that allowed the
perpetrator to defraud individuals looking to buy computers on-line. These managers had created
a “place” where private parties can connect and buy and sell items over the Internet. While the
operators of the site immediate close or suspend the accounts of those who are suspected of
engaging in fraud, security relied on customer complaints to detect fraudulent activity in the
above case. Customers had lost at least $250,000 before the seller’s account was blocked
(Wingfield, 2002). EBay has its own Fraud Investigation Team (FIT) that works with law
enforcement to press criminal charges against those who commit fraud using their system.
However, other than a $200 buyer protection policy offered by Paypal,84 customers who buy
84 PayPal is an account-based system that allows anyone with an email address to send and receive online payments using their credit card or bank account.
163 from fraudulent sellers generally lose any money exchanged in the transaction.85 While eBay managers can continue to improve their security features as they learn of new security options, direct harm to the web-based company is unlikely based on their current policies (unless so many buyers are defrauded that people stop using the site) and they are unlikely to change their general strategy since regulatory agencies are not currently demanding that they do more to protect their patrons.
The above examples illustrate the utility of the place management theory for different types of facilities. The theory explains how manager decisions influence crime at almost every type of place imaginable. Therefore, the possibilities for further research and theory building within this framework are generally unlimited. Earlier in the paper I argued that the data available were not sufficient to allow a formal test of the theory. The next section explains how this theory can be tested and how, using this framework, more specific theories can be constructed.
Testing and Building Theories of Place Management
There are several reasons to believe that this theory is plausible. The relationships make sense. The theory helps to place previous research findings in a larger framework. The interviews from which the theory was built and the resulting data suggest the relationships exist.
Furthermore, the theory is applicable to almost every type of place that may become a crime
“hotspot.” However, it does need to be rigorously tested. Multivariate analysis of cross-sectional data is not an appropriate technique for assessing the validity of this theory, as noted earlier. The theory suggests that place management is a dynamic process of decision-making and that these
85 However, for those that make a claim against a seller on the eBay website, the buyer receives this notice: "If this claim is decided in your favor, you will be eligible to receive whatever funds we can recover from the seller minus a $25.00 USD processing cost."
164 decisions produce a cycle of continuous feedback that may prompt reevaluations and modifications of earlier decisions. Thus, the observable characteristics of the immediate setting at any point in time do not explain why initial decisions were made, whether problems resulted from these early decisions, how managers reacted to problems, what factors prompted the manager to react in a particular way, or whether place characteristics resulting from initial decisions were later modified in response to particular problems. In other words, multivariate analysis of cross-sectional data will not allow us to determine how a place arrived at its current state.
Process tracing is a useful alternative to multivariate analysis. According to George and
Bennett (2005), the process tracing method is the most appropriate research technique for exploring causal processes and analyzing complex decision-making. In process tracing, researchers examine narrative accounts, archival documents, and interview transcripts to determine whether a causal process predicted by a theory is evidenced in these sources. In doing so, researchers are better able to identify the specific causal mechanisms that explain significant correlations found (or not found) in quantitative research. To study place management in bars using process tracing, researchers may want to:
1. collect all available documentation related to the business (e.g., crime statistics, liquor,
health, and fire code violations, permit requests for major renovations)
2. interview owners and managers using the proposed theory as a guide to develop
questions about the history and outcomes of their decision-making processes – and how
these outcomes were perceived and acted upon by the managers86
3. make observations of the establishment at varying days and times
86 This should include questions concerning the impact of neighborhood characteristics on manager decision- making.
165 4. investigate the associations and networks the managers belong to
5. obtain financial records or measures of profits/losses for the establishment over time
6. interview regulatory agents or other enforcement authorities (e.g., local police) to assess
their perceptions of the business and responsiveness of the owners and managers
Retrospective process tracing would allow researchers to piece together the history of the establishment to explain the relationship between past practices and current conditions.87
Prospective process tracing of recently opened facilities would allow observations of places over time. Failure to find the connections predicted by place management theory would tend to falsify the theory. Repeated failures of many predicted connections would suggest that the theory requires modification or abandonment. Process tracing observations can be used to determine the types of variables that matter most within each decision category and the functional forms and interactions between the identified relationships. It should be noted that this method of analysis requires a detailed understanding of the type of place being examined and the outside organizations and agencies associated with such facilities. Comparing process tracing case studies would tell us if similar types of facilities show similar results (i.e., the same types of management practices are used and produce similar outcomes) and whether different types of facilities display variation (i.e., different place management practices are used and produce different results across facilities). We would expect places to cluster by similarity: places with similar functions are likely to be managed similarly and those with very different functions will have very different management processes. They might cluster along the environment dimension of the Eck-Clarke typology of problems (see Eck & Clarke, 2003).
87 Optimally, particular locations would be examined over extended periods of time. This type of analysis may prove difficult in very old establishments since interviews are not likely to capture enough of the history of manager decision-making or relevant statistics may no longer exist to completely understand how the establishment has arrived at its current state.
166 It is true that rigorous process tracing is a time-consuming technique that may produce results that are not highly generalizable. Nevertheless, further theoretical advancements are
unlikely unless researchers can peer into the “black box” that reveals why significant correlations
exist and how these relationships were formed in the first place. Once the causal mechanisms are
uncovered, this information can be used to (1) construct large-scale data collection instruments
that are more likely to capture actual place management dynamics, (2) develop hypotheses that
may be tested quantitatively, (3) select the most appropriate statistical analysis techniques based
on the form of these relationships, and (4) group hypotheses into coherent narratives of the
relationship between place management and crime and thus create facility- or place-specific
management theories.
The theory proposed in this dissertation is a general theory of place management; meaning, the framework is meant to explain how place management affects crime in all types of facilities. This theory can be used to guide research and the development of place-specific theories of place management.88 As mentioned previously, the proposed theory of place management identifies relationships between different decision types and specifies the general
order in which the decisions are made, but it does not specify which decisions will lead to
particular outcomes in the immediate setting. Specific management decisions or constellations of
decisions that produce particular outcomes are likely to vary across types of facilities (e.g.,
managers who are robbed in banks may install bandit barriers, but this would not be practical
reaction to robberies in bars). Process tracing in particular settings would inform the
88 These theories would be similar to the “middle range” theories proposed by Robert K. Merton (1949). These theories would not attempt to explain the influence of all place managers, but only the observable influence of managers in particular settings.
167 development of such theories. Place-specific theories represent the next step in theory building and understanding how managers influence crime at places.89
Future Research and Policy
The general theory of place management, process tracing, and the theoretical advancements that may come from tests of the general theory have several implications for both research and policy. First, the theory can assist in the interpretation of previous research findings concerning crime at particular facilities. Placing significant correlations within the framework offered by the general theory of place management will help to organize existing knowledge and identify potentially important place management decisions that have been neglected in previous research.
Second, the framework provides guidance for researchers who wish engage in process tracing activities. The typology of decisions and outside factors hypothesized to influence management practices demands that each of these categories be explored. The causal sequence outlined by the theory suggests the general order in which these decisions are made and which decisions are dependent on or interact with others. This will help structure place manager interviews.
Third, investigations of place management at particular facilities will help to identify the most effective methods of crime prevention. Place-specific theories of place management will suggest which interventions work best under particular conditions. These assumptions can be tested quantitatively in large-scale research projects. The goal should be to identify management practices that are both cost-effective and produce significant reductions in crime. From these findings, best industry practices can be established. For the responsible place manager, this will
89 Further theoretical advancements may include place-specific place management theories by crime type. Different manager decisions or practices may influence the risk of specific crime types differentially.
168 translate into reduced costs associated with bypassing ineffective interventions and fewer crimes committed in their establishments while they search for the most appropriate solution.
Finally, knowing which management practices produce higher levels of crime and disorder will help regulatory agencies identify, prosecute, and sanction ineffective place managers who refuse to adopt industry standards. As noted by Chamard (2006), “…convincing businesses that they have a social responsibility to reduce opportunities for crime can be problematic, especially if the crime does not affect them directly” (pg. 9). For managers who need to be convinced of their social responsibilities, nuisance abatement cases have proven to be an effective method of persuasion (Eck, 2002). Sound place management theory supported by research will help prosecutors make stronger cases against those who refuse to act as responsible place managers.
In conclusion, the general theory of place management represents a promising avenue for place-based research. The data used in this study support the plausibility of the framework and suggest that further tests of the theory, using process tracing or other qualitative methods that can capture complex decision-making dynamics, are warranted. research methods and theory development proposed in this chapter will likely generate findings that will help us better understand how place managers influence crime and help interested managers become more effective at preventing crime at their facilities.
169 REFERENCES
Barker, R. (1968). Ecological psychology. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Block, R. L., & Block, C. R. (1995). Space, place, and crime: Hot spot areas and hot places of
liquor-related crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place (Vol. 4, pp.
145-183). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1975). The predisposition toward alcohol-related interpersonal aggression in
men. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 36, 1196-1207.
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1991). Environmental criminology. Prospect Heights,
IL: Waveland Press.
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1993). Environment, routine, and situation: Toward a
pattern theory of crime. In R. V. Clarke & M. Felson (Eds.), Routine activity and rational
choice (Vol. 15). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publications.
Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1995). Criminality of place: Crime generators and
crime attractors. European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research, 3(3), 1-26.
Buerger, M. E. (1998). The politics of third party policing. In L. G. Mazerolle & J. Roehl (Eds.),
Civil remedies and crime prevention (Vol. 9, pp. 89-116). Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal
Justice Press.
Burns, L., Flaherty, B., Ireland, S., & Frances, M. (1995). Policing pubs: What happens to
crime? Drug and Alcohol Review, 14, 369-375.
Cavan, S. (1966). Liquor license: An ethnography of bar behavior. Chicago: Aldine.
Chamard, S. (2006). Partnering with businesses to address public safety problems (No. 5).
Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of
Justice.
170 Clarke, R. V. (1983). Situational crime prevention: Its theoretical basis and practical scope. In M.
Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 4, pp.
225-256). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Clarke, R. V. (1997). Introduction. In R. V. Clarke (Ed.), Situational crime prevention:
Successful case studies (pp. 3-36). Guilderland, NY: Harrow and Heston.
Clarke, R. V. (Ed.). (1992). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies. New York:
Harrow and Heston.
Clarke, R. V. (Ed.). (1997). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (Vol. 2).
Guilderland, NY: Harrow and Heston.
Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Cohen, J., Gorr, W., & Singh, P. (2003). Estimating intervention effects in varying risk settings:
Do police raids reduce illegal drug dealing at nuisance bars? Criminology, 41(2), 257-
292.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608.
Cohen, L. E., Felson, M., & Land, K. C. (1980). Property crime rates in the United States: A
macrodynamic analysis, 1947-1977; with ex ante forecasts for the mid-1980s. American
Journal of Sociology, 86(1), 90-118.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on
offending. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Opportunities, precipitators and criminal decisions: A
reply to Wortley's critique of situational crime prevention. In M. J. Smith & D. B.
171 Cornish (Eds.), Theory for practice in situational crime prevention (Vol. 16, pp. 41-96).
Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Danner, T. A. (2003). Violent times: A case study of the Ybor city historic district. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 14(1), 3-29.
Devery, C. (1992). Mapping crime in local government areas: Assault and break and enter in
Waverly. Sydney: New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.
Eck, J. E. (1994). Drug markets and drug places: A case-control study of the spatial structure of
illicit drug dealing. University of Maryland, Baltimore.
Eck, J. E. (2002). Preventing crime at places. In L. W. Sherman, D. P. Farrington, B. Welsh & D.
L. MacKenzie (Eds.), Evidence-based crime prevention (pp. 241-294). New York:
Routledge.
Eck, J. E. (2003). Police problems: The complexity of problem theory, research, and evaluation.
In J. Knutsson (Ed.), Problem-oriented policing from innovation to mainstream (Vol. 15,
pp. 79-113). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Eck, J. E., & Clarke, R. V. (2003). Classifying common police problems: A routine activity
approach. In M. J. Smith & D. B. Cornish (Eds.), Theory for practice in situational crime
prevention (Vol. 16, pp. 7-39). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Eck, J. E., Clarke, R. V., & Guerette, R. T. (2007). Risky facilities: Crime concentration in
homogeneous sets of establishments and facilities. In G. Farrell, K. Bowers, K. D.
Johnson & M. Townsley (Eds.), Imagination for crime prevention (Vol. 21, pp. 255-264).
Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Eck, J. E., & Wartell, J. (1998). Improving the management of rental properties with drug
problems: A randomized experiment. In L. G. Mazerolle & J. Roehl (Eds.), Civil
172 remedies and crime prevention (Vol. 9, pp. 161-185). Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice
Press.
Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime places in crime theory. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd
(Eds.), Crime and place (Vol. 4, pp. 1-34). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Felson, M. (1986). Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal
outcomes. In D. Cornish & R. V. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice
perspectives on offending. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
Felson, M. (1987). Routine activities and crime prevention in the developing metropolis.
Criminology, 25(4), 911-931.
Felson, M. (1995). Those who discourage crime. In J. E. Eck & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and
place (Vol. 4, pp. 53-66). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Felson, M., Berends, R., Richardson, B., & Veno, A. (1997). Reducing pub hopping and related
crime. In R. Homel (Ed.), Policing or prevention: Reducing crime, public intoxication
and injury (Vol. 7, pp. 115-132). Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.
Fishbine, G. M., & Joelson, M. R. (1978). Crime impact statements: A strategy suggested from
the study of crime around bars. Minneapolis: Minnesota Crime Prevention Center.
Fox, J. G., & Sobol, J. J. (2000). Drinking patterns, social interaction, and barroom behavior: A
routine activities approach. Deviant Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 429-450.
George, A. L., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
173 Graham, K., Bernards, S., Osgood, D. W., Homel, R., & Purcell, J. (2005). Guardians and
handlers: The role of bar staff in preventing and managing aggression. Addiction, 100(6),
755-766.
Graham, K., Bernards, S., Osgood, D. W., & Wells, S. (2006). Bad nights or bad bars? Multi-
level analysis of environmental predictors of aggression in late-night large-capacity bars
and clubs. Addiction, 101(11), 1569-1580.
Graham, K., Jelley, J., & Purcell, J. (2005). Training bar staff in preventing and managing
aggression in licensed premises. Journal of Substance Use, 10(1), 48-61.
Graham, K., La Rocque, L., Yetman, R., Ross, T. J., & Guistra, E. (1980). Aggression and
barroom environments. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 41(3), 277-292.
Graham, K., Osgood, D. W., Wells, S., & Stockwell, T. (2006). To what extent is intoxication
associated with aggression in bars? A multilevel analysis. Journal of Studies on Alcohol,
67(3), 382-390.
Graham, K., Osgood, D. W., Zibrowski, E., Purcell, J., Gliksman, L., Leonard, K., et al. (2004).
The effect of the safer bars programme on physical aggression in bars: Results of a
randomized controlled trial. Drug and Alcohol Review, 23(1), 31-41.
Graham, K., & Wells, S. (2003). 'Somebody's gonna get their head kicked in tonight!' aggression
among young males in bars: A question of values? The British Journal of Criminology,
43(3), 546-566.
Graham, K., Wells, S., & Jelley, J. (2002). The social context of physical aggression among
adults. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17(1), 64-83.
Graham, K., West, P., & Wells, S. (2000). Evaluating theories of alcohol-related aggression
using observations of young adults in bars. Addiction, 95(6), 847-863.
174 Greenberg, S., Rohe, W., & Williams, J. (1982). Safety in urban neighborhoods: A comparison
of physical characteristics and informal territorial control in high and low crime
neighborhoods. Population and Environment, 5, 141-165.
Groff, E. (1996). Information systems for community policing: A micro-analysis of crime. Paper
presented at the Proceedings of the Urban and Regional Information Systems
Association, Park Ridge, IL.
Guerry, A. (1833). Essai sur la statistique morale de la france.Paris, FR: Crochard.
Herman Goldstein Award Submission. (2004). Operation netforces: Raleigh Police Department.
Hobbs, D., Hadfield, P., Lister, S., & Winlow, S. (2003). Bouncers: Violence and governance in
the night-time economy. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Homel, R., Carvolth, R., Hauritz, M., McIlwain, G., & Teague, R. (2004). Making licensed
venues safer for patrons: What environmental factors should be the focus of
interventions? Drug and Alcohol Review, 23(1), 19-29.
Homel, R., & Clark, J. (1994). The prediction and prevention of violence in pubs and clubs. In R.
V. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies (Vol. 3, pp. 1-46). Monsey, NY: Criminal
Justice Press.
Homel, R., Tomsen, S., & Thommeny, J. (1992). Public drinking and violence: Not just an
alcohol problem. Journal of Drug Issues, 22(3), 679-697.
Jacbos, J. (1961). The death and life of the american city. New York: Vintage.
Kalin, R. (1972). Social drinking in different settings. In D. C. McClelland, W. N. Davis, R.
Kalin & E. Wanner (Eds.), The drinking man (pp. 21-44). New York: Free Press.
175 Kumar, N., & Waylor, C. R. M. (2002). Proximity to alcohol-serving establishments and crime
probabilities in Savannah Georgia: A statistical and GIS analysis. Southeastern
Geographer, 42(2), 125-142.
Leonard, K. E., Collins, R. L., & Quigley, B. M. (2003). Alcohol consumption and the
occurrence and severity of aggression: An event-based analysis of male to male barroom
violence. Aggressive Behavior, 29(4), 346-365.
Lipton, R., & Gruenewald, P. (2002). The spatial dynamics of violence and alcohol outlets.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 63, 187-195.
Marsh, P. (1980). Violence at the pub. New Society, 52, 210-212.
Mazerolle, L. G., Kadleck, C., & Roehl, J. (1998). Controlling drug and disorder problems: The
role of place managers. Criminology, 36(2), 371-404.
Mazerolle, L. G., & Ransley, J. (2006). The case for third-party policing. In D. Weisburd & A.
A. Braga (Eds.), Police intervention: Contrasting perspectives (pp. 191-206). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Mazerolle, L. G., & Roehl, J. (1998). Civil remedies and crime prevention: An introduction. In
L. G. Mazerolle & J. Roehl (Eds.), Civil remedies and crime prevention (Vol. 9, pp. 1-
18). Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press.
McKinght, A. J. (1988). Development and field test of a responsible alcohol service program.
Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
McKinght, A. J., & Sttreff, F. M. (1994). The effect of enforcement upon service of alcohol to
intoxicated patrons of bars and restaurants. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 26(1), 79-
88.
Merton, R. K. (1949). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
176 Messner, S. F., & Blau, J. R. (1987). Routine leisure activities and rates of crime: A macro-level
analysis. Social Forces, 65(4), 1035-1052.
Miethe, T. D., & McDowall, D. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization.
Social Forces, 71, 741-759.
Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. F. (1994). Crime and its social context: Toward an integrated theory
of offenders, victims, and situations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space. New York: Macmillan.
Parks, K. A. (2000). An event-based analysis of aggression women experience in bars.
Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 14(2), 102-110.
Pernanen, K. (1991). Alcohol in human violence. New York: Guilford.
Pierce, G. L., Spaar, S., & Briggs, L., R. (1988). The character of police work: Strategic and
tactical implications: Center for Applied Social Research, Northeastern University.
Quetelet, A. J. (1842). A treatise on man. Gainesville, FL: Scholar's Facsimiles and Reprints.
Quigley, B. M., Leonard, K. E., & Collins, R. L. (2003). Characteristics of violent bars and bar
patrons. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(6), 765-772.
Roncek, D. W., & Bell, R. (1981). Bars, blocks, and crimes. Journal of Environmental Systems,
11(1), 35-47.
Roncek, D. W., & Maier, P. A. (1991). Bars, blocks, and crimes revisited: Linking the theory of
routine activities to the empiricism of 'hot spots'. Criminology, 29(4), 725-753.
Sacco, V. F., & Kennedy, L. W. (1998). The criminal event. Toronto, ON: International
Thomson Publishing.
177 Sampson, R. J., & Wooldredge, J. D. (1987). Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of
lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 3, 371-393.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1972). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Revised edition.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sherman, L. W. (1995). Hot spots of crime and criminal careers of places. In J. E. Eck & D.
Weisburd (Eds.), Crime and place (Vol. 4, pp. 35-52). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice
Press.
Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine
activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1), 27-55.
Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., & Velke, R. J. (1992). High crime taverns: A recap project in
problem-oriented policing (No. 89-IJ-CX-0058): National Institute of Justice.
Skogan, W. (1986). Fear of crime and neighborhood change. In A. J. Reiss & M. Tonry (Eds.),
Communities and crime (Vol. 8). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, D. A., & Jarhoura, G. R. (1989). Household characteristics, neighborhood composition,
and victimization risk. Social Forces, 68(2), 621-640.
Snodgrass, J. (1976). Clifford R. Shaw and Henry D. Mckay: Chicago criminologists. The
British Journal of Criminology, 16(1), 1-19.
Tatlow, J. R., Clapp, J. D., & Hohman, M. M. (2000). The relationship between the geographic
density of alcohol outlets and alcohol-related hospital admissions in San Diego county.
Journal of Community Health, 25(1), 79-88.
178 Taylor, R. B., & Gottfredson, S. D. (1987). Environmental design, crime, and prevention: An
examination of community dynamics. In A. J. Reiss & M. Tonry (Eds.), Communities
and crime (pp. 387-416). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Taylor, S. P., & Gammon, C. B. (1976). Aggressive behavior of intoxicated subjects: The effect
of third-party intervention. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 37, 917-930.
Tomsen, S., Homel, R., & Thommeny, J. (1991). The causes of public violence: Situational
"versus" other factors in drinking related assaults. In D. Chappell, P. Grabosky & H.
Strang (Eds.), Australian violence, contemporary perspectives. Canberra: Australian
Institute of Criminology.
Wells, S., Graham, K., & West, P. (1998). 'The good, the bad, and the ugly': Responses by
security staff to aggressive incidents in public drinking establishments. Journal of Drug
Issues, 28(4), 817-836.
White, G. F. (1990). Neighborhood permeability and burglary rates. Justice Quarterly, 7(1), 57-
67.
Wicker, A. W. (1979). An introduction to ecological psychology. Belmont, CA: Brooks-Cole.
Wilcox, P., Land, K. C., & Hunt, S. A. (2003). Criminal circumstance: A dynamic,
multicontextual criminal opportunity theory. New York: Aldine deGruyter.
Wilcox, P., Madensen, T. D., & Skubak, M. K. (forthcoming). Guardianship in context:
Implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology.
Wilcox Rountree, P., Land, K. C., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). Macro-micro integration in the study
of victimization: A hierarchical logistic model analysis across Seattle neighborhoods.
Criminology, 32(3), 387-414.
179 Wingfield, N. (2002, August 1). Ebay is struck by alleged fraud at auction site. Wall Street
Journal, p. D.2.
Wright, R. T., & Decker, S. H. (1994). Burglars on the job: Street life and residential break-
ins.Boston: Northeastern University Press.
180
APPENDIX A
BAR PLACE MANAGEMENT SURVEY
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
APPENDIX B
BAR SITE OBSERVATION SURVEY
195
196
197
198
APPENDIX C
ADDITIONAL HYPOTHESIS TESTS
199 Table C.1. T-tests: Security trained by outside company Variables n x t df sig Number of customers asked to leave by Security trained by outside company Yes 14 .71 .946 66 .348 No 54 1.24
Number of customers physically removed by Security trained by outside company Yes 14 .14 .605 66 .548 No 54 .07
Level of exterior disorder by Security trained by outside company Yes 14 1.02 .604 59 .484 No 47 .79
Level of interior disorder by Security trained by outside company Yes 14 .46 1.674 64 .099 No 52 .69
Incidents of physical violence by Security trained by outside company Yes 14 1.43 -.308 64 .759 No 52 1.25
Incidents of threatened violence by Security trained by outside company Yes 14 .50 -.254 64 .800 No 52 .44
200 Table C.2. T-tests: Security trained by management Variables n x t df sig Number of customers asked to leave by Security trained by management Yes 24 1.40 -.864 66 .391 No 44 .99
Number of customers physically removed by Security trained by management Yes 24 .15 -.304 66 .735 No 44 .11
Number of calls to police by Security trained by management Yes 24 .13 -.904 66 .926 No 44 .11
Level of exterior disorder by Security trained by management Yes 19 1.00 .345 59 .731 No 42 .89
Level of interior disorder by Security trained by management Yes 24 .63 -.034 64 .973 No 42 .62
Level of restroom disorder by Security trained by management Yes 23 2.78 -1.1274 62 .264 No 41 2.15
Incidents of physical violence by Security trained by management Yes 24 1.23 .520 64 .605 No 42 1.38
Incidents of threatened violence by Security trained by managementa Yes 24 .63 -1.304 37.9 .200 No 42 .36 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
201 Table C.3. T-tests: Employees trained by outside company Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Employees trained by outside company Yes 18 .06 .736 191 .462 No 175 .19
Number of customers asked to leave by Employees trained by outside company Yes 19 .53 .524 189 .601 No 172 .72
Number of customers physically removed by Employees trained by outside company Yes 19 .00 .896 189 .371 No 172 .05
Level of exterior disorder by Employees trained by outside company Yes 18 .61 1.810 166 .072 No 150 1.21
Incidents of physical violence by Employees trained by outside company Yes 14 .29 1.324 177 .187 No 165 .81
Incidents of threatened violence by Employees trained by outside company Yes 14 .21 .965 177 .336 No 165 .41
202 Table C.4. T-tests: Employees trained by management Variables n x t df sig Number of customers asked to leave by Employees trained by management Yes 94 .77 -.618 189 .537 No 97 .63
Number of calls to police by Employees trained by management Yes 96 .23 -1.005 191 .316 No 97 .12
Level of exterior disorder by Employees trained by managementa Yes 82 1.01 1.299 155.8 .196 No 86 1.28
Level of interior disorder by Employees trained by management Yes 95 .46 -1.69 187 .866 No 94 .45
Level of restroom disorder by Employees trained by management Yes 86 1.87 -.750 176 .454 No 92 1.64
Incidents of physical violence by Employees trained by management Yes 90 .83 -.645 177 .519 No 89 .70
Incidents of threatened violence by Employees trained by management Yes 90 .40 -.168 177 .867 No 89 .38 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
203 Table C.5. T-tests: Bar employs security staff Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Bar employs security staff Yes 70 .11 .865 193 .388 No 125 .21
Level of exterior disorder by Bar employs security staff Yes 62 .97 1.21 167 .225 No 107 1.22
Incidents of threatened violence by Employees trained by management Yes 68 .46 -.933 179 .352 No 113 .35
204 Table C.6. T-tests: Bar employs off-duty police Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Bar employs off-duty police Yes 38 .24 -.610 195 .543 No 159 .16
Number of customers physically removed by Bar employs off-duty policea Yes 38 .13 -1.505 39.8 .140 No 157 .03
Level of exterior disorder by Bar employs off-duty police Yes 35 1.17 -.187 170 .852 No 137 1.12
Level of interior disorder by Bar employs off-duty police Yes 35 .37 .734 191 .464 No 158 .46
Level of restroom disorder by Bar employs off-duty police Yes 34 1.71 .056 179 .955 No 147 1.73
Incidents of physical violence by Bar employs off-duty policea Yes 33 1.15 -1.266 36.2 .214 No 151 .66
Incidents of threatened violence by Bar employs off-duty police Yes 33 .40 .742 182 .459 No 151 .30 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
205 Table C.7. T-tests: ID checked at door Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by ID checked at door Yes 72 .14 .521 193 .603 No 123 .20
Level of exterior disorder by ID checked at door Yes 62 1.29 -1.060 168 .291 No 108 1.07
Incidents of threatened violence by ID checked at door Yes 72 .44 -.867 181 .387 No 111 .35
206 Table C.8. T-tests: Use pour control devices Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Use pour control devicesa Yes 80 .08 -1.785 175.3 .076 No 116 .24
Number of customers asked to leave by Use pour control devices Yes 81 .75 .158 192 .875 No 113 .72
Number of customers physically removed by Use pour control devices Yes 81 .05 .021 192 .984 No 113 .05
Level of interior disorder by Use pour control devices Yes 78 .50 .862 189 .390 No 113 .42
Level of restroom disorder by Use pour control devicesa Yes 75 2.07 1.818 136 .071 No 105 1.49
Incidents of physical violence by Use pour control devices Yes 75 .87 .871 180 .385 No 107 .68
Incidents of threatened violence by Use pour control devices Yes 75 .33 -.944 178.3 .346 No 107 .43 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
207 Table C.9. T-tests: Employees wear uniforms Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Employees wear uniforms Yes 90 .17 .105 195 .916 No 107 .18
Number of customers asked to leave by Employees wear uniforms Yes 89 .70 .257 193 .797 No 106 .76
Number of customers physically removed by Employees wear uniforms Yes 89 .03 .814 193 .417 No 106 .61
Incidents of physical violence by Employees wear uniforms Yes 78 .64 .940 181 .349 No 105 .84
Incidents of threatened violence by Employees wear uniforms Yes 79 .39 .055 181 .956 No 105 .39
208 Table C.10. T-tests: Employees allowed to drink Variables n x t df sig Number of customers asked to leave by Employees allowed to drinka Yes 37 1.16 -1.389 42.5 .172 No 157 .63
Number of customers physically removed by Employees allowed to drink Yes 37 .08 -.918 192 .360 No 157 .04
Level of restroom disorder by Employees allowed to drink Yes 34 2.24 -1.648 178 .101 No 146 1.60
Incidents of physical violence by Employees allowed to drink Yes 37 .84 -.385 180 .701 No 145 .74
Incidents of threatened violence by Employees allowed to drink Yes 37 .46 -.664 180 .507 No 145 .37 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
209 Table C.11. T-tests: Food available for purchase Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Food available for purchase Yes 168 .17 .276 195 .782 No 29 .21
Number of customers asked to leave by Food available for purchase Yes 166 .67 1.206 193 .229 No 29 1.05
Number of customers physically removed by Food available for purchasea Yes 166 .04 1.378 32.7 .178 No 29 .121
Level of interior disorder by Food available for purchase Yes 165 .41 1.719 191 .087 No 28 .64
Level of restroom disorder by Food available for purchase Yes 154 1.60 1.898 179 .059 No 27 2.41
Incidents of physical violence by Food available for purchase Yes 154 .75 .071 182 .943 No 30 .77
Incidents of threatened violence by Food available for purchasea Yes 154 .36 1.060 36.2 .296 No 30 .53 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
210 Table C.12. T-tests: Full meals available for purchase Variables n x t df sig Number of customers asked to leave by Full meals available Yes 124 .63 .610 161 .542 No 39 .81
Number of customers physically removed by Full meals available Yes 124 .04 -.364 161 .716 No 39 .03
Level of restroom disorder by Full meals available Yes 115 1.55 .813 149 .418 No 36 1.86
Incidents of physical violence by Full meals available Yes 114 .63 1.735 149 .085 No 37 1.11
Incidents of threatened violence by Full meals available Yes 114 .38 -.623 149 .534 No 37 .30
211 Table C.13. T-tests: Bar offers competitive games Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Bar offers competitive games Yes 94 .14 .702 191 .074 No 99 .21
Number of customers asked to leave by Bar offers competitive games Yes 94 .77 -.571 189 .569 No 97 .64
Number of customers physically removed by Bar offers competitive gamesa Yes 94 .06 -1.527 189 .124 No 97 .02
Incidents of threatened violence by Bar offers competitive games Yes 92 .45 -1.094 178 .275 No 88 .33 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
212 Table C.14. T-tests: Bar offers dancing Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Bar offers dancinga Yes 71 .08 1.513 194.2 .132 No 126 .22
Number of customers physically removed by Bar offers dancinga Yes 70 .09 -1.636 85.8 .106 No 125 .02
Level of exterior disorder by Bar offers dancinga Yes 65 1.32 -1.392 116.5 .167 No 107 1.02
Level of interior disorder by Bar offers dancing Yes 69 .49 -.739 191 .461 No 124 .42
Level of restroom disorder by Bar offers dancing Yes 65 1.78 -.299 179 .765 No 116 1.69
Incidents of threatened violence by Bar offers competitive games Yes 65 .46 -1.073 182 .285 No 119 .34 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
213 Table C.15. T-tests: Bar sponsors drinking games Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Bar sponsors drinking games Yes 14 .07 .543 195 .588 No 183 .18
Number of customers physically removed by Bar sponsors drinking gamesa Yes 14 .32 -1.803 13.1 .094 No 181 .03
Level of exterior disorder by Bar sponsors drinking games Yes 13 1.00 .394 169 .694 No 158 1.15
Level of interior disorder by Bar sponsors drinking games Yes 14 .43 .113 190 .910 No 178 .45
Level of restroom disorder by Bar sponsors drinking games Yes 14 1.86 -.254 179 .800 No 167 1.72
Incidents of physical violence by Bar sponsors drinking games Yes 14 .93 -.483 181 .629 No 169 .74
Incidents of threatened violence by Bar sponsors drinking games Yes 14 .50 -.614 181 .540 No 169 .78 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
214 Table C.16. T-tests: Bar charges cover Variables n x t df sig Level of exterior disorder by Bar charges cover Yes 40 1.20 -.358 170 .721 No 132 1.11
Level of interior disorder by Bar charges cover Yes 43 .51 -.743 191 .458 No 150 .43
Level of restroom disorder by Bar charges cover Yes 41 2.20 -1.687 179 .093 No 140 1.59
Incidents of physical violence by Bar charges covera Yes 43 1.07 -1.417 54.7 .162 No 141 .65
Incidents of threatened violence by Bar charges cover Yes 43 .33 .637 182 .525 No 141 .40 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
215 Table C.17. T-tests: Most patrons in their 20s Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Most patrons in their 20s Yes 16 .13 .274 195 .784 No 181 .18
Number of customers asked to leave by Most patrons in their 20sa Yes 16 1.67 -1.490 15.7 .156 No 179 .64
Number of customers physically removed by Most patrons in their 20s Yes 16 .00 .862 193 .390 No 179 .05
Level of exterior disorder by Most patrons in their 20s Yes 15 1.60 -1.401 169 .163 No 156 1.10
Incidents of physical violence by Most patrons in their 20sa Yes 16 1.38 -1.192 16.0 .251 No 167 .69
Incidents of threatened violence by Most patrons in their 20s Yes 16 .38 .076 181 .939 No 167 .39 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
216 Table C.18. T-tests: Bar attracts ideal customers Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Bar attracts ideal customers Yes 179 .18 .013 188 .989 No 11 .18
Number of customers asked to leave by Bar attracts ideal customers Yes 177 .76 -.428 186 .669 No 11 .55
Number of customers physically removed by Bar attracts ideal customers Yes 177 .05 -.719 186 .473 No 11 .00
Level of restroom disorder by Bar attracts ideal customers Yes 163 1.69 .768 172 .443 No 11 2.18
Incidents of physical violence by Bar attracts ideal customersa Yes 166 .64 1.816 10.3 .098 No 11 1.91 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
217 Table C.19. T-tests: Bar accepts cash only Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Bar accepts cash only Yes 30 .20 -.210 193 .834 No 165 .17
Number of customers asked to leave by Bar accepts cash only Yes 29 .72 -.015 191 .988 No 164 .72
Number of customers physically removed by Bar accepts cash only Yes 29 .07 -.641 191 .522 No 164 .04
Level of exterior disorder by Bar accepts cash only Yes 27 1.37 -1.005 170 .317 No 145 1.09
Level of interior disorder by Bar accepts cash only Yes 29 .62 -1.533 190 .127 No 163 .42
Incidents of physical violence by Bar accepts cash only Yes 29 .48 -.765 180 .445 No 153 .37
218 Table C.20. T-tests: Work with other drinking establishments Variables n x t df sig Number of customers physically removed by Work with other drinking establishmentsa Yes 44 .10 -1.204 49.2 .234 No 150 .03
Level of exterior disorder by Work with other drinking establishments Yes 42 1.33 -1.110 169 .268 No 129 1.07
Level of interior disorder by Work with other drinking establishments Yes 44 .57 1.378 190 .170 No 148 .41
Level of restroom disorder by Work with other drinking establishments Yes 39 2.26 -1.816 178 .071 No 141 1.59
Incidents of physical violence by Work with other drinking establishments Yes 45 .87 -.619 181 .537 No 138 .72
Incidents of threatened violence by Work with other drinking establishmentsa Yes 45 .56 -1.660 64.3 .102 No 138 .33 NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
219 Table C.21. T-tests: Business making a profit Variables n x t df sig Number of calls to police by Business making a profit Yes 61 .20 -.229 188 .819 No 129 .17
Number of customers asked to leave by Business making a profit Yes 61 .71 .039 187 .969 No 128 .72
Number of customers physically removed by Business making a profit Yes 61 .03 .844 187 .400 No 128 .06
Level of restroom disorder by a Business making a profitP P Yes 56 2.04 -1.310 87.3 .194 No 120 1.57
Incidents of physical violence by Business making a profit Yes 59 .76 .066 174 .947 No 117 .78
Incidents of threatened violence by Business making a profit Yes 59 .46 -.710 174 .479 No 117 .38 a NOTE: P equalP variances not assumed.
220