UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI
May 25
07
_____________
, 20 _____
Tamara D. Madensen
I,______________________________________________,
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
target selection
Places
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
Bar location1,4,7,9
Bar capacity4
Characteristics of patrons
Younger patrons7,8,9
Proportion of underage females4
Groups of males/groups of male
strangers3
Ethnicity of patrons1
Unkempt patrons1
Marginal patrons4
People talking to themselves1
Proportion of males in manual
working gear3
Social class of customers7
Staff variables
Low bar staff to patrons ratio4
Number of bar staff9
Presence of bouncers4,8,9
Ability of bar workers to
control/diffuse situations1
Lack of staff coordination9
Lack of monitoring9
Lack of professional boundaries by
servers/bartenders9
Lack of professional boundaries by
security staff9
High proportion of male staff1,8
Friendliness of bar staff1
Aggressive or poorly
trained/managed bar staff3
Physical environment
Noise level1,8,9
Inconvenient bar access4
Crowding4,5,6,8,9
Patrons moving about/high
turnover1,5,9
Smokiness, poor ventilation1,4,8,9
Extent premises unclean and
messy1,4,5,8,9
Low expenditure and maintenance1
Frequent occurrence of aggression
in line-ups2,9
Temperature (too warm)8
Darkness4,8
Seating style1
Inadequate seating4,5
Shabby decore1
Pleasantness1
Comfortableness3,5
Serving practices and aspects of
closing time
Serving a large amount right before
closing7,8,9
Aggression frequently occurs
outside after closing2,7
Number of people hanging around
after closing9
Lack of public transportation 4,5,7
Cheap drinks3,8
Refusal of service to intoxicated
patrons4,5
Lack of responsible beverage
service practices4,5
1
Social environment
Intoxication of patrons1,3,4,5,9
Rowdiness4,9
Roughness and bumping4
General permissiveness1,2,5,9
Swearing1,4,5
Bar staff acceptance of deviant
behavior4
Sexual activity4,5,9
Sexual contact1,5,9
Sexual competition4,5,9
Round buying4
Illegal activities8
Drugs being used or sold1
Drug dealing4
Prostitution1
Hostile atmosphere/conversation1
Environment not open to strangers1
Presence of hostile males4
Cheerfulness/friendliness of patrons5
Bored patrons3,4
Activities
Pool playing/billards1,7,8,9
Dancing1,8,9
Type of entertainment1,5
Poor quality entertainment3
Availability of meals/snacks1,3,4,5
Graham et al., (1980) and Graham (1985) – analysis of quantitative data from observation in 1978 Vancouver,
B.C., Canada
2
Graham et al. (2000) and Graham & Wells (2001) – content coding of observations in the late 1990s London,
Ontario, Canada
3
Homel, Tomsen & Thommeny (1992) and Tomsen, Homel, & Thommeny (1991) – qualitative analyses of
observations in 1989, in Sydney, NSW, Australia
4
Homel & Clarke (1994) – analyses of quantitative data from observations in the early 1990s in Sydney, Australia
5
Homel et al. (2004) – analyses of quantitative data from observation in 1994 and 1996 in three cities in
Queensland, Australia
6
Macintyre & Homel (1997) – analyses of incidents recorded by a private security company in Surfers Paradise,
Queensland
7
Marsh & Kirby (1992) – qualitative analyses based on observations in five communities in England
8
Quigley, 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 latenight 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 nonaggressive 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
Demand for
service/product
Current market
conditions
Personal interests
of possible owner
Reconsider past decisions/current strategies
Decision to
open /run a bar
Property values
Property
characteristics
Bar theme
Bar location
Location of
competition
Staff, Training,
Security
Activities/
entertainment
Marketing
strategies
Location of
customers
Immediate Setting
Types of
patrons
Events
Management
reaction
Known
solutions
Costs of
change
Profit/benefits
of circumstance
External
pressure
Networks,
experience
Existing
resources
Direct harm to
manager
Enforcement by
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
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.
21
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
/VARIABLE
Activities/entertainment
/# Activities
/Unique activities
/Competitive games
/Physical activities
/Entertainment cover
/Drinking games
Bar/customer location
/Neighborhood bar
Bar theme
/Food service
Events
/Disorder
MEASURE(S)
-
-
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)
Uncommon activities available at bard
Uncommon bar specialtyd
Pool, darts, cornhole, or bocce ball availabled
Dancing offered at bard
Bar charges coverd
Bar sponsors drinking gamesd
-
Respondent characterization of place as neighborhood bard
-
Food available for purchased
Full meals available for purchased
Free munchies providedd
-
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
were present in any of the restrooms)
Number of people asked to leave – typical Friday night
Number of people physically removed – typical Friday night
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 reports
/Police statistics
-
Manager reaction
/Prevention efforts
Manager resources
/Financial status
Marketing strategies
/Advertisements
/Effectiveness
/Practices
-
Managers or employees intervene in violent incidentsd
Manager has tried to prevent future incidentsd
-
Bar making profitd
Bar making profit or breaking evend
-
Number of different methods of advertisement reported
Bar attracts ideal customerd
Cost of cheapest drink
Cash only bard
53
Table 5.1. Description of variables (cont.)
CONSTRUCT
/VARIABLE
Networks, experience
/Manager experience
/Manager networks
Outside enforcement
/Regulatory visits
Patrons
/Demographics
Property Characteristics
/Bar size
/Level of activity
Staff, training, security
/Employees
/Training
/Security
MEASURE(S)
-
Number of years/months the current owner has owned the bar
Percentage of current employees working at the bar for at least six months
Owner/manager belongs to bar or business associations
Number of associations the owner manager belongs to
Work with other bars to attract customersd
-
Number of visits made by regulatory agencies in past 12 months
Number of visits made by Ohio Liquor Control Board in past 12 months
-
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
-
Square footage of bar
Maximum occupancy
Average number of patrons served – typical Friday night
Number of patrons/number of staff – typical Friday night
-
Total number of employees
Number of employees working – typical Friday night
Uniforms required
Allow employees to drinkd
Employees trained by managementd
Employees trained by outside organizationd
Security trained by managementd
Security trained by outside organizationd
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
Building
Year building constructed
Major renovations since year 2000
Square footage
Maximum occupancy
Patron to maximum occupancy ratio
Business
Years in business
Neighborhood bard
Uncommon specialtyd
Uncommon activityd
Number of activities available to patrons
Food availabled
Full meals availabled
Management
Years under current ownership
Belong to bar/business associationsd
Number of manager bar/business associations
Work with other drinking establishmentsd
Number of advertisement mediums
Employees
Percentage of employees retained over 6 months
Total number of employees
Average number of employees working Friday nights
Patron to staff ratio
Employees trained by managementd
Employees trained by outside organizationd
Employees required to wear uniformsd
Bar hires security personneld
Average number of security staff on Friday nights
Security trained by managementd
Security trained by outside organizationd
Bar hires off-duty police officersd
Additional security
Security feature index
Patrons
Percentage of male customers
Percentage of white customers
Percentage of regular customers
Average number of customers served on typical Friday night
Levels of disorder
Exterior
Interior
Restroom
NOTE: d indicates dichotomous measure
59
n
Min
Max
Mean
Median
135
195
104
192
185
1700
0
200
30
.07
2004
12
25000
1275
10.70
1915
1.65
3553
196
1.23
1910
1.00
2600
140
0.86
198
199
199
199
189
199
166
.25
0
0
0
0
0
0
145
1
1
1
9
1
1
24.83
.20
.20
.04
4.70
.85
.77
15
.00
.00
.00
5
1.00
1.00
195
185
185
198
194
.08
0
0
0
0
52
1
6
1
6
10.79
.46
.71
.23
2.07
7
.00
0
.00
2
196
197
198
191
194
194
198
196
71
69
69
199
0
1
1
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
275
39
375
1
1
1
1
18
1
1
1
77.90
20.25
6.12
50.53
.49
.10
.45
.36
2.49
.35
.10
.19
83.97
12
4
37.5
.00
.00
.00
.00
2
.00
.00
.00
162
0
8
3.5
3.5
196
193
197
191
10
0
0
15
100
100
100
2000
60.20
72.77
55.18
252.33
60
85
50.00
150
172
193
181
0
0
0
7
3
9
1.13
.45
1.72
1.00
.00
1.00
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).
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.
31
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
33
Bars with over 50 employees were almost all large chain restaurants or places that included banquet facilities.
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 foodoriented, 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
index score
index score
Exterior
Restroom
0
37.2 (74)
0
1
21.1 (42)
1
2
16.1 (32)
2
3
7.0 (14)
3
4
2.5 (5)
4
5
2.0 (0)
5
6
0.0 (4)
6
7
0.5 (1)
7
8
Interior
0
61.3 (122)
9
1
29.6 (59)
2
4.5 (9)
3
1.5 (3)
%
(n)
34.7
19.6
11.1
10.1
6.0
2.0
3.5
3.0
0.5
0.5
(69)
(39)
(22)
(20)
(12)
(4)
(7)
(6)
(1)
(1)
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
56.02% of all crimes
Number of crimes
25
20
15
10
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
Number of physical violence incidents
9
20% of the bars
produced
75.36% of all physical
violence incidents
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
21
41
61
81
101
121
Cincinnati Bars (n = 184)
68
141
161
181
Number of threatened violence incidents
Figure 6.3. Distribution of threatened violence incidents across Cincinnati bars
4
20% of the bars
produced
80.28% of all threatened
violence incidents
3
2
1
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
Number of robberies
3
<20% of the bars
produced
100% of all robberies
2
1
0
1
21
41
61
81
101
121
Cincinnati Bars (n = 184)
70
141
161
181
Figure 6.5. Distribution of property offenses across Cincinnati bars
Number of property offenses
25
20% of the bars
produced
62.22% of all property
offenses
20
15
10
5
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 8020 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.
The 80-20 rule suggests that approximately 20 percent of particular things produce approximately 80 percent of
particular outcomes (Kock, 1999).
43
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
produced
100% of all calls to
police per week
Calls to police per week
7
6
5
4
3
2
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
Number of patrons asked to leave
12
20% of the bars
produced
85.21% of all customers
asked to leave
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
21
41
61
81
101
121
141
161
181
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
Total Part I and Part II crimes
Physical violence incidents
Threatened violence incidents
Robberies
Property offenses
Calls to police per week
Customers asked to leave on a typical Friday night
Customers physically removed on a typical Friday night
75
n
184
184
184
184
184
197
195
195
Min
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Max
28
8
3
2
20
7
10
2
Mean
3.11
0.75
0.39
0.14
1.47
0.17
0.73
0.05
Median
2.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
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
45.04% of all
regulatory visits
Regulatory Agency Visits
30
25
20
15
10
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
Liquor Control Board Visits
6
20% of the bars
produced
62.24% of all liquor
board visits
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
21
41
61
81
101
121
141
Cincinnati Bars (n = 178)
Table 6.5. Descriptive statistics for regulatory agency visits
Type of visit
n
Min Max
All regulatory agency visits
163
0
33
Liquor Control Board visits
178
0
5
78
x
5.62
0.55
Median
5.00
0.00
161
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
characteristics
Bar theme
Bar location
Staff, Training,
Security
Activities/
entertainment
Marketing
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
characteristics
Bar theme
Bar location
Staff, Training,
Security
Activities/
entertainment
Marketing
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
footage
occupancy
Square footage
1.00
Maximum occupancy
Friday night customers
.595***
(.000)
.333***
(.001)
Friday night
customers
1.00
.431***
(.000)
1.00
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
# employees working – typical Friday night
190
191
.519***
.614***
.000
.000
Average # customers served – typical Friday night
Total # of employees
191 .656***
# employees working – typical Friday night
190 .650***
NOTE: r indicates Spearman’s rho value. ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
.000
.000
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
Employees trained by management
Square footage
102
Maximum occupancy
187
Average # customers served – typical Friday night
187
B
s.e.
sig
.000
.000
.002**
.000
.001
.001
.824
.836
.007
Employees trained by outside organization
Square footage
Maximum occupancy
Average # customers served – typical Friday night
102
187
187
.000
.002
-.001
.000
.001
.001
.227
.099
.595
Security staff trained by management
Square footage
Maximum occupancy
Average # customers served – typical Friday night
37
68
65
.000
-.001
.001
.000
.001
.001
.730
.237
.309
Security staff trained by outside organization
Square footage
37
.000
.000
Maximum occupancy
68
.001
.011
Average # customers served – typical Friday night
65
.001
.001
NOTE: B indicates binary logistic regression coefficient value. **p<.01.
.125
.506
.374
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
characteristics
Bar theme
Bar location
Staff, Training,
Security
Activities/
entertainment
Marketing
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
Total number of available activities
Employees trained by management
187 -.123*
Employees trained by outside organization
187 -.047
Security staff trained by management
65
.099
Security staff trained by outside organization
65
-.288*
NOTE: B indicates binary logistic regression coefficient value. *p<.05.
s.e.
sig
.063
.102
.124
.140
.050
.647
.423
.039
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
characteristics
Bar theme
Bar location
Staff, Training,
Security
Activities/
entertainment
Marketing
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
x
Variables
n
t
df
sig
a
Uncommon bar activities
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
a
NOTE: equal 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
characteristics
Bar theme
Bar location
Staff, Training,
Security
Activities/
entertainment
Marketing
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 nonneighborhood 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
x
t
df
sig
Variables
n
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
patrons
Events
Management
reaction
Known solutions
/responses
Costs of
change
Profit/benefits of
circumstance
External
pressure
Networks,
experience
Existing
resources
Direct harm to
manager
Enforcement
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
x
Variables
n
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 employees on payroll
More employees working on a typical Friday night
More security features
More activities provided to patrons
Fewer employees on payroll
Fewer employees working on a typical Friday night
Managers less likely to train employees
Security less likely to be trained by outside organization
More security features
Busier bars
More employees on payroll
More employees working on a typical Friday night
Formal training of employees by management
More security features
Neighborhood bar – close proximity to customers
Fewer advertisement mediums
Number of regulatory visits
More customers asked to leave
More Liquor Control Board inspections
More customers asked to leave
More incidents of physical violence
93
CHAPTER 8
UNDER PRESSURE: PROMPTING MANAGEMENT ACTION
Management
reaction
Known solutions
/responses
Costs of
change
Profit/benefits of
circumstance
External pressure
/accountability
Networks,
experience
Existing
resources
Direct harm to
manager
Enforcement by
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
solutions
Costs of
change
Profit/benefits of
circumstance
External
pressure
Networks,
experience
Existing
resources
Direct harm to
manager
Enforcement by
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
% employees working 6 months or more
187 -.001
NOTE: B indicates binary logistic regression coefficient value.
.015
.006
.176
.932
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
sig
χ2
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
/responses
Costs of
change
Profit/benefits of
circumstance
External
pressure
Networks,
experience
Existing
resources
Direct harm to
manager
Enforcement by
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
sig
Variables
n
χ2
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
/responses
Costs of
change
Profit/benefits of
circumstance
External
pressure
Networks,
experience
Existing
resources
Direct harm to
manager
Enforcement
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
sig
χ2
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
More likely to try to prevent future incidents
Manager works with other drinking establishments
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
patrons
Events
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
characteristics
Bar theme
Bar location
Staff, Training,
Security
Activities/
entertainment
Marketing
strategies
Immediate Setting
Types of
patrons
Events
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
x
t
df
sig
Variables
n
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
No
170
.48
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
55
2.485*
29.9
.019
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 crimerelated 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
x
Variables
n
t
df
sig
a
Security trained by outside company
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 offduty 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
x
Variables
n
t
df
Number of physical violence incidents by
Bar employs security personnela
Yes
68
1.26 -3.331*** 85.4
No
113
.45
sig
.001
Number of customers asked to leave by
Bar hires off-duty police officersa
Yes
No
Bar employs security personnela
Yes
No
38
157
1.51
.54
-2.753**
44.7
.009
70
123
1.19
.48
-2.748**
104.1
.007
Number of customers physically removed by
Bar employs security personnela
Yes
No
70
123
.14
.00
-2.989**
69
.004
Level of interior disorder by
Bar employs security personnela
Yes
No
67
123
.61
.36
-2.528*
130.3
.013
Level of restroom disorder by
Bar employs security personnel
Yes
65
2.34 -3.127**
177
No
114
1.37
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
.002
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
x
Variables
n
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
No
72
121
1.24
.43
-3.205**
107
.002
Number of customers physically removed by
ID checked at doora
Yes
No
72
121
.12
.01
-2.534*
76.4
.013
Level of interior disorder by
ID checked at door
Yes
No
70
121
.64
.34
-3.128**
189
.002
Level of restroom disorder by
ID checked at door
Yes
66
2.24 -2.580*
178
No
114
1.44
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
.011
112
Table 9.9. T-tests for differences in disorder levels by whether employees are required to wear
uniforms
x
Variables
n
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
No
87
105
.26
.60
Level of restroom disorder by
Employee uniforms requireda
Yes
82
1.21
No
99
2.15
a
NOTE: equal variances not assumed. ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
3.725*** 185.7
.000
3.248***
.001
178
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
x
Variables
n
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
No
35
156
.69
.39
-2.411*
189
.017
Number of times police called per week by
Employees allowed to drinka
Yes
36
.00
3.376*** 159
No
160
.21
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
.001
Activities and Entertainment Influence Crime and Disorder
Property
characteristics
Bar theme
Bar location
Staff, Training,
Security
Activities/
entertainment
Marketing
strategies
Immediate Setting
Types of
patrons
Events
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
x
Variables
n
t
df
Level of exterior disorder by
Food available for purchase
Yes
147
1.05
2.074*
170
No
25
1.64
Full meals available for purchasea
Yes
110
.89
2.359*
45.3
No
34
1.56
.040
Level of interior disorder by
Full meals available for purchasea
Yes
No
45.3
.013
125
.003
125
37
.32
.70
2.597*
Number of weekly calls to police by
Full meals available for purchasea
Yes
126
.22 -3.084**
No
39
.00
a
NOTE: equal variances not assumed. *p<.05, **p<.01 (2-tailed).
sig
.023
Table 9.12. Chi-Square tests of relationships between crime/disorder and food availability
Variables
n
sig
χ2
Food available for purchase
Patrons asked to leave on typical Friday night
195 4.577*
.032
a
Patrons physically removed on typical Friday night
195 na *
.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
a
NOTE: Fisher’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
x
Variables
n
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
No
92
99
.66
.24
-4.563*** 162.7
.000
Level of restroom disorder by
Bar offers competitive gamesa
Yes
No
89
90
2.27
1.21
-3.560*** 169.4
.000
Number of physical violence incidents by
Bar offers competitive gamesa
Yes
92
.97 -2.212*
No
88
.51
a
NOTE: equal variances not assumed. *p<.05, ***p<.001, (2-tailed).
153.5
.028
Table 9.14. T-tests for differences in crime and disorder by whether bar offers dancing
x
Variables
n
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
No
119
.55
a
NOTE: equal variances not assumed. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
-2.378*
102
.019
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
x
t
df
sig
Variables
n
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
No
44
151
Number of times police called per week by
Bar charges covera
Yes
44
No
153
a
NOTE: equal variances not assumed. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
118
.17
.01
-2.397*
44.8
.021
.05
.21
2.071*
182.2
.040
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
x
Variables
n
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
characteristics
Bar theme
Bar location
Staff, Training,
Security
Activities/
entertainment
Marketing
strategies
Immediate Setting
Types of
patrons
Events
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
x
Variables
n
Level of interior disorder by
Most patrons in their 20s
Yes
15
.93
No
177
.41
Level of restroom disorder by
Most patrons in their 20s
Yes
14
3.07
No
167
1.61
a
NOTE: equal variances not assumed. **p<.01 (2-tailed).
121
t
df
sig
-3.024**
190
.003
-2.609**
179
.010
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
x
t
df
sig
Variables
n
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
No
Number of threatened violence incidents by
Bar attracts ideal customers
Yes
No
NOTE: **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
174
11
.42
1.00
2.853**
183
.005
166
11
.33
1.27
4.540***
175
.000
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
x
Variables
n
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
No
153
.59
a
NOTE: equal variances not assumed. *p<.05 (2-tailed).
66
t = 7.984, df = 177.7, p = .000, equal variances not assumed.
127
-2.460*
33.1
.019
Manager Networks and Experience Influence Crime and Disorder
Immediate Setting
Types of
patrons
Events
Management
reaction
Known solutions
/responses
Costs of
change
Profit/benefits of
circumstance
External pressure
/accountability
Networks,
experience
Existing
resources
Direct harm to
manager
Enforcement by
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
x
Variables
n
t
df
sig
a
Belong to bar/business association
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
x
Variables
n
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**
No
150
.48
a
NOTE: equal variances not assumed. *p<.05, **p<.01 (2-tailed).
49.9
.005
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
sig
χ2
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
patrons
Events
Management
reaction
Known solutions
/responses
Costs of
change
Profit/benefits of
circumstance
External pressure
/accountability
Networks,
experience
Existing
resources
Direct harm to
manager
Enforcement by
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 crimerelated 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
x
Variables
n
t
Level of exterior disorder by
Business making a profita
Yes
117
.86 -3.833***
No
49
1.86
Level of interior disorder by
Business making a profita
Yes
125
.34 -3.054**
No
61
.69
a
NOTE: equal variances not assumed. **p<.01, ***p<.001 (2-tailed).
df
sig
64.2
.000
91.7
.003
Outside Enforcement Influences Crime and Disorder
Immediate Setting
Types of
patrons
Events
Management
reaction
Known solutions
/responses
Costs of
change
Profit/benefits of
circumstance
External pressure
/accountability
Networks,
experience
Existing
resources
Direct harm to
manager
Enforcement by
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
Cheaper alcoholic drinks offered
Competitive games offered
Does not attract ideal customers
Employees allowed to drink
Employees not required to wear uniforms
Food not available for purchase
Full meals not available for purchase
Higher employee retention
Higher patron to staff ratio
Higher proportion of regular customers
Less business profit
Use pour control devices
More patrons physically removed
Bar employs security personnel
Cash only
Cover charged
Food not available for purchase
ID checked at door
Lower employee retention
Lower proportion of regular customers
More incidents of physical violence
More security features
Higher level of interior disorder
Bar employs security personnel
ID checked at door
Cheaper alcoholic drinks offered
Competitive games offered
Does not attract ideal customers
Employees allowed to drink
Employees not required to wear uniforms
Employees not trained by outside company
Full meals not available for purchase
Higher patron/maximum occupancy ratio
Higher proportion of regular customers
Less business profit
More physical violence incidents
More threatened violence incidents
Most patrons in their 20s
More patrons asked to leave
Bar employs security personnel
Bar hires off-duty police officers
Belong to bar/business association
Cover charged
Dancing offered
Drinking games sponsored
Food not available for purchase
Full meals not available for purchase
ID checked at door
Lower employee retention
Lower proportion of regular customers
More incidents of physical violence
More regulatory agency visits
More security features
Work with other drinking establishments
Higher level of restroom disorder
Bar employs security personnel
Cash only
Cheaper alcoholic drinks offered
Competitive games offered
Employees not required to wear uniforms
Employees not trained by outside company
Higher patron/maximum occupancy ratio
ID checked at door
More physical violence incidents
Most patrons in their 20s
Security not trained by outside company
More physical violence incidents
Bar employs security personnel
Competitive games offered
Dancing offered
Full meals not available for purchase
Higher levels of interior disorder
Higher levels of restroom disorder
Higher proportion of nonwhite patrons
ID checked at door
Managers try to prevent incidents
More Liquor Control Board visits
Work with other drinking establishments
More calls to police per week
Cover charged
Do not work with other drinking establishments
Employees not allowed to drink
Full meals available for purchase
Security not trained by outside company
More threatened violence incidents
Does not attract ideal customers
Higher levels of interior disorder
Higher proportion of nonwhite patrons
Higher proportion of regular customers
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 aggregateenvironments (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 macroenvironments, 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
sig
χ2
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
a
NOTE: Fisher’s exact test used since one cell had an expected count of less than 5. df =1.sig 2tailed.
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
x
Variables
n
t
df
Number of property crimes by
Bar located in Over the Rhine or downtown a
Yes
44
2.27 -2.007 49.4
No
140
1.21
a
NOTE: equal variances not assumed. sig 2-tailed.
sig
.050
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
x
Variables
n
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
No
Number of times police called per week by
Bar located in Over the Rhine a
Yes
No
Bar located in Over the Rhine or downtown a
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed. sig 2-tailed.
23
138
.57
1.31
16
166
.00
.19
44
138
.05
.22
3.255
3.193
2.190
39.5
.002
165
.002
174.6
.030
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
H1: Property characteristics influence
manager decisions concerning
staffing, training, and security.
H2: The number of activities offered at
the bars influence manager staffing,
training, and security decisions.
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.
H5: Crime or high levels of disorder
influences outside enforcement.
H6: Manager networks and experience
influence management reaction.
H7: Manager resources influence
management reaction.
H8: Outside enforcement influences
management reaction.
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.
Support
Yes
Abbreviated findings77
Larger bars (size and number of patrons served) influence
staffing, training, and security
Yes
More activities related to less employees, less training, but
more security features
No
Uncommon activities or specialties were not related to
advertising in more mediums
Yes
Neighborhood bars advertise in fewer mediums
Yes
More violence and asking more customers to leave
associated with more Liquor Control Board visits
No experience effect; Networks increase manager response
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
H12: Manager networks and experience
influence crime and disorder.
Yes
H13: Manager resources influence crime
and disorder.
H14: Outside enforcement influences
crime and disorder.
H15: Neighborhood location causes crime
and disorder.
Yes
Yes
??
Financial status of bar (making a profit) not related to
management reaction
Regulatory visits associated with prevention efforts and
checking ID at the door
Property characteristics and training related to disorder –
disorder related to violent crime; Security related to
disorder and crime
Food service related to less disorder and violence;
Competitive games/dancing related to more disorder and
violence; Drinking games results in more asked to leave
Younger patrons related to more disorder; No gender
effect; More white patrons related to less violence; More
regulars related to more disorder and threatened violence
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
More experience related to fewer people physically
removed or asked to leave; Networks associated with
asking more people to leave and more violence
Less manager resources related to more disorder
Liquor Control Board visits more likely at bars with
violence and bars that ask more people to leave
Spatial analysis failed to show clustering of high violence
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
Management
Place
Management
Model 3: Intervening Effects
Neighborhood
Context
Place
Management
Crime
Other Outside
Influences
Model 4: Cumulative Effects
Neighborhood
Context
Place
Management
Crime
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
Demand for
service/product
Current market
conditions
Personal interests
of possible owner
Reconsider past decisions/current strategies
Decision to open
/run a facility
Property values
Property
characteristics
Facility
theme
Facility
location
Location of
competition
Staff, Training,
Security
Services
offered
Marketing
strategies
Location of
customers
Immediate Setting
Types of
patrons
Events
Management
reaction
Known
solutions
Costs of
change
Profit/benefits
of circumstance
External
pressure
Networks,
experience
Existing
resources
Direct harm to
manager
Enforcement by
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.
Exceptions include maintenance crews, lifeguards at swimming pools, and rangers who patrol and collect park
entrance fees.
83
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 decisionmaking.
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), 257292.
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? Multilevel 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. 118). 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), 7988.
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), 5767.
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 breakins.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
x
Variables
n
Number of customers asked to leave by
Security trained by outside company
Yes
14
.71
No
54
1.24
t
df
sig
.946
66
.348
Number of customers physically removed by
Security trained by outside company
Yes
No
14
54
.14
.07
.605
66
.548
Level of exterior disorder by
Security trained by outside company
Yes
No
14
47
1.02
.79
.604
59
.484
Level of interior disorder by
Security trained by outside company
Yes
No
14
52
.46
.69
1.674
64
.099
Incidents of physical violence by
Security trained by outside company
Yes
No
14
52
1.43
1.25
-.308
64
.759
Incidents of threatened violence by
Security trained by outside company
Yes
No
14
52
.50
.44
-.254
64
.800
200
Table C.2. T-tests: Security trained by management
Variables
n
Number of customers asked to leave by
Security trained by management
Yes
24
No
44
t
df
sig
1.40
.99
-.864
66
.391
x
Number of customers physically removed by
Security trained by management
Yes
No
24
44
.15
.11
-.304
66
.735
Number of calls to police by
Security trained by management
Yes
No
24
44
.13
.11
-.904
66
.926
Level of exterior disorder by
Security trained by management
Yes
No
19
42
1.00
.89
.345
59
.731
Level of interior disorder by
Security trained by management
Yes
No
24
42
.63
.62
-.034
64
.973
Level of restroom disorder by
Security trained by management
Yes
No
23
41
2.78
2.15
-1.1274
62
.264
Incidents of physical violence by
Security trained by management
Yes
No
24
42
1.23
1.38
.520
64
.605
24
42
.63
.36
-1.304
37.9
.200
Incidents of threatened violence by
Security trained by managementa
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
201
Table C.3. T-tests: Employees trained by outside company
x
Variables
n
Number of calls to police by
Employees trained by outside company
Yes
18
.06
No
175
.19
t
df
sig
.736
191
.462
Number of customers asked to leave by
Employees trained by outside company
Yes
No
19
172
.53
.72
.524
189
.601
Number of customers physically removed by
Employees trained by outside company
Yes
No
19
172
.00
.05
.896
189
.371
Level of exterior disorder by
Employees trained by outside company
Yes
No
18
150
.61
1.21
1.810
166
.072
Incidents of physical violence by
Employees trained by outside company
Yes
No
14
165
.29
.81
1.324
177
.187
Incidents of threatened violence by
Employees trained by outside company
Yes
No
14
165
.21
.41
.965
177
.336
202
Table C.4. T-tests: Employees trained by management
Variables
n
Number of customers asked to leave by
Employees trained by management
Yes
94
No
97
t
df
sig
.77
.63
-.618
189
.537
x
Number of calls to police by
Employees trained by management
Yes
No
96
97
.23
.12
-1.005
191
.316
Level of exterior disorder by
Employees trained by managementa
Yes
No
82
86
1.01
1.28
1.299
155.8
.196
Level of interior disorder by
Employees trained by management
Yes
No
95
94
.46
.45
-1.69
187
.866
Level of restroom disorder by
Employees trained by management
Yes
No
86
92
1.87
1.64
-.750
176
.454
Incidents of physical violence by
Employees trained by management
Yes
No
90
89
.83
.70
-.645
177
.519
90
89
.40
.38
-.168
177
.867
Incidents of threatened violence by
Employees trained by management
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
203
Table C.5. T-tests: Bar employs security staff
Variables
Number of calls to police by
Bar employs security staff
Yes
No
n
x
70
125
Level of exterior disorder by
Bar employs security staff
Yes
No
Incidents of threatened violence by
Employees trained by management
Yes
No
t
df
sig
.11
.21
.865
193
.388
62
107
.97
1.22
1.21
167
.225
68
113
.46
.35
-.933
179
.352
204
Table C.6. T-tests: Bar employs off-duty police
Variables
n
Number of calls to police by
Bar employs off-duty police
Yes
38
No
159
t
df
sig
.24
.16
-.610
195
.543
x
Number of customers physically removed by
Bar employs off-duty policea
Yes
No
38
157
.13
.03
-1.505
39.8
.140
Level of exterior disorder by
Bar employs off-duty police
Yes
No
35
137
1.17
1.12
-.187
170
.852
Level of interior disorder by
Bar employs off-duty police
Yes
No
35
158
.37
.46
.734
191
.464
Level of restroom disorder by
Bar employs off-duty police
Yes
No
34
147
1.71
1.73
.056
179
.955
Incidents of physical violence by
Bar employs off-duty policea
Yes
No
33
151
1.15
.66
-1.266
36.2
.214
33
151
.40
.30
.742
182
.459
Incidents of threatened violence by
Bar employs off-duty police
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
205
Table C.7. T-tests: ID checked at door
Variables
Number of calls to police by
ID checked at door
Yes
No
n
x
72
123
Level of exterior disorder by
ID checked at door
Yes
No
Incidents of threatened violence by
ID checked at door
Yes
No
t
df
sig
.14
.20
.521
193
.603
62
108
1.29
1.07
-1.060
168
.291
72
111
.44
.35
-.867
181
.387
206
Table C.8. T-tests: Use pour control devices
Variables
Number of calls to police by
Use pour control devicesa
Yes
No
n
x
80
116
Number of customers asked to leave by
Use pour control devices
Yes
No
t
df
sig
.08
.24
-1.785
175.3
.076
81
113
.75
.72
.158
192
.875
Number of customers physically removed by
Use pour control devices
Yes
No
81
113
.05
.05
.021
192
.984
Level of interior disorder by
Use pour control devices
Yes
No
78
113
.50
.42
.862
189
.390
Level of restroom disorder by
Use pour control devicesa
Yes
No
75
105
2.07
1.49
1.818
136
.071
Incidents of physical violence by
Use pour control devices
Yes
No
75
107
.87
.68
.871
180
.385
75
107
.33
.43
-.944
178.3
.346
Incidents of threatened violence by
Use pour control devices
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
207
Table C.9. T-tests: Employees wear uniforms
Variables
Number of calls to police by
Employees wear uniforms
Yes
No
n
x
90
107
.17
.18
.105
Number of customers asked to leave by
Employees wear uniforms
Yes
No
89
106
.70
.76
.257
193
.797
Number of customers physically removed by
Employees wear uniforms
Yes
No
89
106
.03
.61
.814
193
.417
Incidents of physical violence by
Employees wear uniforms
Yes
No
78
105
.64
.84
.940
181
.349
Incidents of threatened violence by
Employees wear uniforms
Yes
No
79
105
.39
.39
.055
181
.956
208
t
df
sig
195
.916
Table C.10. T-tests: Employees allowed to drink
Variables
n
Number of customers asked to leave by
Employees allowed to drinka
Yes
37
No
157
t
df
sig
1.16
.63
-1.389
42.5
.172
x
Number of customers physically removed by
Employees allowed to drink
Yes
No
37
157
.08
.04
-.918
192
.360
Level of restroom disorder by
Employees allowed to drink
Yes
No
34
146
2.24
1.60
-1.648
178
.101
Incidents of physical violence by
Employees allowed to drink
Yes
No
37
145
.84
.74
-.385
180
.701
37
145
.46
.37
-.664
180
.507
Incidents of threatened violence by
Employees allowed to drink
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
209
Table C.11. T-tests: Food available for purchase
Variables
n
Number of calls to police by
Food available for purchase
Yes
168
No
29
t
df
sig
.17
.21
.276
195
.782
x
Number of customers asked to leave by
Food available for purchase
Yes
No
166
29
.67
1.05
1.206
193
.229
Number of customers physically removed by
Food available for purchasea
Yes
No
166
29
.04
.121
1.378
32.7
.178
Level of interior disorder by
Food available for purchase
Yes
No
165
28
.41
.64
1.719
191
.087
Level of restroom disorder by
Food available for purchase
Yes
No
154
27
1.60
2.41
1.898
179
.059
Incidents of physical violence by
Food available for purchase
Yes
No
154
30
.75
.77
.071
182
.943
154
30
.36
.53
1.060
36.2
.296
Incidents of threatened violence by
Food available for purchasea
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
210
Table C.12. T-tests: Full meals available for purchase
Variables
n
Number of customers asked to leave by
Full meals available
Yes
124
No
39
t
df
sig
.63
.81
.610
161
.542
x
Number of customers physically removed by
Full meals available
Yes
No
124
39
.04
.03
-.364
161
.716
Level of restroom disorder by
Full meals available
Yes
No
115
36
1.55
1.86
.813
149
.418
Incidents of physical violence by
Full meals available
Yes
No
114
37
.63
1.11
1.735
149
.085
Incidents of threatened violence by
Full meals available
Yes
No
114
37
.38
.30
-.623
149
.534
211
Table C.13. T-tests: Bar offers competitive games
Variables
n
Number of calls to police by
Bar offers competitive games
Yes
94
No
99
t
df
sig
.14
.21
.702
191
.074
x
Number of customers asked to leave by
Bar offers competitive games
Yes
No
94
97
.77
.64
-.571
189
.569
Number of customers physically removed by
Bar offers competitive gamesa
Yes
No
94
97
.06
.02
-1.527
189
.124
92
88
.45
.33
-1.094
178
.275
Incidents of threatened violence by
Bar offers competitive games
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
212
Table C.14. T-tests: Bar offers dancing
Variables
Number of calls to police by
Bar offers dancinga
Yes
No
n
x
71
126
Number of customers physically removed by
Bar offers dancinga
Yes
No
t
df
sig
.08
.22
1.513
194.2
.132
70
125
.09
.02
-1.636
85.8
.106
Level of exterior disorder by
Bar offers dancinga
Yes
No
65
107
1.32
1.02
-1.392
116.5
.167
Level of interior disorder by
Bar offers dancing
Yes
No
69
124
.49
.42
-.739
191
.461
Level of restroom disorder by
Bar offers dancing
Yes
No
65
116
1.78
1.69
-.299
179
.765
65
119
.46
.34
-1.073
182
.285
Incidents of threatened violence by
Bar offers competitive games
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
213
Table C.15. T-tests: Bar sponsors drinking games
Variables
n
Number of calls to police by
Bar sponsors drinking games
Yes
14
No
183
t
df
sig
.07
.18
.543
195
.588
x
Number of customers physically removed by
Bar sponsors drinking gamesa
Yes
No
14
181
.32
.03
-1.803
13.1
.094
Level of exterior disorder by
Bar sponsors drinking games
Yes
No
13
158
1.00
1.15
.394
169
.694
Level of interior disorder by
Bar sponsors drinking games
Yes
No
14
178
.43
.45
.113
190
.910
Level of restroom disorder by
Bar sponsors drinking games
Yes
No
14
167
1.86
1.72
-.254
179
.800
Incidents of physical violence by
Bar sponsors drinking games
Yes
No
14
169
.93
.74
-.483
181
.629
14
169
.50
.78
-.614
181
.540
Incidents of threatened violence by
Bar sponsors drinking games
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
214
Table C.16. T-tests: Bar charges cover
Variables
Level of exterior disorder by
Bar charges cover
Yes
No
40
132
Level of interior disorder by
Bar charges cover
Yes
No
n
t
df
sig
1.20
1.11
-.358
170
.721
43
150
.51
.43
-.743
191
.458
Level of restroom disorder by
Bar charges cover
Yes
No
41
140
2.20
1.59
-1.687
179
.093
Incidents of physical violence by
Bar charges covera
Yes
No
43
141
1.07
.65
-1.417
54.7
.162
43
141
.33
.40
.637
182
.525
Incidents of threatened violence by
Bar charges cover
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
215
x
Table C.17. T-tests: Most patrons in their 20s
Variables
Number of calls to police by
Most patrons in their 20s
Yes
No
n
x
16
181
Number of customers asked to leave by
Most patrons in their 20sa
Yes
No
t
df
sig
.13
.18
.274
195
.784
16
179
1.67
.64
-1.490
15.7
.156
Number of customers physically removed by
Most patrons in their 20s
Yes
No
16
179
.00
.05
.862
193
.390
Level of exterior disorder by
Most patrons in their 20s
Yes
No
15
156
1.60
1.10
-1.401
169
.163
Incidents of physical violence by
Most patrons in their 20sa
Yes
No
16
167
1.38
.69
-1.192
16.0
.251
16
167
.38
.39
.076
181
.939
Incidents of threatened violence by
Most patrons in their 20s
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
216
Table C.18. T-tests: Bar attracts ideal customers
Variables
n
Number of calls to police by
Bar attracts ideal customers
Yes
179
No
11
t
df
sig
.18
.18
.013
188
.989
x
Number of customers asked to leave by
Bar attracts ideal customers
Yes
No
177
11
.76
.55
-.428
186
.669
Number of customers physically removed by
Bar attracts ideal customers
Yes
No
177
11
.05
.00
-.719
186
.473
Level of restroom disorder by
Bar attracts ideal customers
Yes
No
163
11
1.69
2.18
.768
172
.443
166
11
.64
1.91
1.816
10.3
.098
Incidents of physical violence by
Bar attracts ideal customersa
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
217
Table C.19. T-tests: Bar accepts cash only
Variables
Number of calls to police by
Bar accepts cash only
Yes
No
n
x
30
165
Number of customers asked to leave by
Bar accepts cash only
Yes
No
t
df
sig
.20
.17
-.210
193
.834
29
164
.72
.72
-.015
191
.988
Number of customers physically removed by
Bar accepts cash only
Yes
No
29
164
.07
.04
-.641
191
.522
Level of exterior disorder by
Bar accepts cash only
Yes
No
27
145
1.37
1.09
-1.005
170
.317
Level of interior disorder by
Bar accepts cash only
Yes
No
29
163
.62
.42
-1.533
190
.127
Incidents of physical violence by
Bar accepts cash only
Yes
No
29
153
.48
.37
-.765
180
.445
218
Table C.20. T-tests: Work with other drinking establishments
x
Variables
n
Number of customers physically removed by
Work with other drinking establishmentsa
Yes
44
.10
No
150
.03
t
df
sig
-1.204
49.2
.234
Level of exterior disorder by
Work with other drinking establishments
Yes
No
42
129
1.33
1.07
-1.110
169
.268
Level of interior disorder by
Work with other drinking establishments
Yes
No
44
148
.57
.41
1.378
190
.170
Level of restroom disorder by
Work with other drinking establishments
Yes
No
39
141
2.26
1.59
-1.816
178
.071
Incidents of physical violence by
Work with other drinking establishments
Yes
No
45
138
.87
.72
-.619
181
.537
45
138
.56
.33
-1.660
64.3
.102
Incidents of threatened violence by
Work with other drinking establishmentsa
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
219
Table C.21. T-tests: Business making a profit
Variables
Number of calls to police by
Business making a profit
Yes
No
n
x
61
129
Number of customers asked to leave by
Business making a profit
Yes
No
t
df
sig
.20
.17
-.229
188
.819
61
128
.71
.72
.039
187
.969
Number of customers physically removed by
Business making a profit
Yes
No
61
128
.03
.06
.844
187
.400
Level of restroom disorder by
Business making a profita
Yes
No
56
120
2.04
1.57
-1.310
87.3
.194
Incidents of physical violence by
Business making a profit
Yes
No
59
117
.76
.78
.066
174
.947
59
117
.46
.38
-.710
174
.479
P
P
Incidents of threatened violence by
Business making a profit
Yes
No
NOTE: aequal variances not assumed.
P
P
220