Table 2.

Effect of law enforcement compliance checks on purchase attempt outcome (among all establishments and stratified by number of neighboring establishments)

	Odds of sale to pseudo-underage buyer
		No. of neighboring establishments
Fixed effects	All establishments (n = 798) OR [95% CI]	1–3 (n = 375) OR [95% CI]	≥4 (n = 423) OR [95% CI]
Predictors
Law enforcement check at targeted establishment
1–30 days prior	0.39 [0.24, 0.64]	0.40 [0.20, 0.77]	0.34 [0.17, 0.69]
31–90 days prior	0.82 [0.60, 1.11]	0.58 [0.37, 0.90]	0.97 [0.65, 1.46]
Law enforcement check at neighboring establishment (1–90 days prior)
1–125 m	0.69 [0.52, 0.91]	0.93 [0.60, 1.44]	0.61 [0.43, 0.85]
126–250 m	0.94 [0.71, 1.24]	0.86 [0.50, 1.47]	1.13 [0.82, 1.55]
251–375 m	1.00 [0.75, 1.31]	1.33 [0.76,2.35]	0.98 [0.71, 1.36]
376–500 m	0.93 [0.70, 1.25]	0.96 [0.52, 1.77]	1.05 [0.75, 1.47]
Covariates
Full liquor license vs. other	0.30 [0.24, 0.38]	0.40 [0.30, 0.53]	0.37 [0.28, 0.50]
Off premise vs. on premise	2.06 [1.62, 2.62]	1.36 [1.04, 1.78]	1.80 [1.30, 2.49]
Urban vs. suburban	0.70 [0.55, 0.89]	0.98 [0.73, 1.30]	0.92 [0.67, 1.28]
Intervention vs. comparison	1.35 [1.06,1.71]	0.97 [0.74, 1.28]	1.24 [0.91, 1.69]
Buyer gender: Male	1.03 [0.91, 1.16]	1.01 [0.88, 1.17]	1.11 [0.95, 1.30]
Buyer age	1.42 [1.00, 2.00]	1.24 [0.86, 1.77]	1.78 [1.18, 2.68]
Time since study initiation, years	0.76 [0.69, 0.84]	0.82 [0.73, 0.92]	0.69 [0.61, 0.79]
Random intercepts	s2 [95% CI]	s2 [95% CI]	s2 [95% CI]
Establishment	1.36 [1.11, 1.67]	0.65 [0.44, 0.97]	0.96 [0.69, 1.34]
Buyer	0.27 [0.15, 0.49]	0.18 [0.08, 0.43]	0.30 [0.15, 0.60]
Variable	AIC	AIC	AIC
Model fit	5,898.80	2,870.27	2,893.22

Notes: Bold = statistically significant (p < .05). AIC = Akaike Information Criterion.