Table 2.

Simple (bivariate) logistic regression results for the association between alcohol outlet cluster membership and census block group characteristics (n = 537) in Baltimore City 2016

	General clusters			On-premise cluster			LBD-7 cluster			Off-premise cluster
	OR	Q-valuea	95% CI	OR	Q-value	95% CI	OR	Q-value	95% CI	OR	Q-value	95% CI
Racial/ethnic composition
Percent white	1.02	< 0.001	1.01, 1.03	1.04	< 0.001	1.03, 1.05	1.02	< 0.001	1.02, 1.03	0.98	< 0.001	0.97, 0.99
Percent Black	0.98	< 0.001	0.98, 0.99	0.96	< 0.001	0.95, 0.97	0.98	< 0.001	0.98, 0.99	1.02	< 0.001	1.01, 1.03
Percent Hispanic	1.05	< 0.001	1.03, 1.07	1.04	< 0.001	1.01, 1.06	1.07	< 0.001	1.05, 1.10	0.91	< 0.01	0.85, 0.97
Index of concentration for raceb	2.47	< 0.001	1.89, 3.22	7.97	< 0.001	4.87, 13.05	2.50	< 0.01	1.93, 3.25	0.45	< 0.001	0.29, 0.68
Advantage
Concentrated disadvantage indexc
Quartile 1—Most advantaged	(ref)			(ref)						(ref)
Quartile 2—Slightly advantaged	0.29	< 0.001	0.16, 0.52	0.14	< 0.001	0.06, 0.31	0.29	< 0.001	0.16, 0.50	0.91	0.85	0.36, 2.31
Quartile 3—Slightly disadvantaged	0.14	< 0.001	0.07, 0.28	0.03	< 0.001	0.01, 0.14	0.12	< 0.001	0.06, 0.25	1.00	0.99	0.40, 2.49
Quartile 4—Most disadvantaged	0.22	< 0.001	0.12, 0.42	–e			0.24	< 0.001	0.13, 0.43	4.25	< 0.001	2.00, 9.02
Discriminatory policies
HOLC grade
None	(ref)				(ref)		(ref)			(ref)
B	—e				—e		—e			0.68	0.55	0.21, 2.20
C—decline	1.74	0.08	0.96, 3.15	0.51	0.18	0.20, 1.31	1.87	0.03	1.06, 3.30	5.54	< 0.001	2.37, 12.93
D—full decline	9.37	< 0.001	5.25, 16.72	5.08	< 0.001	2.57, 10.03	9.62	< 0.001	5.45, 16.97	10.18	< 0.001	4.37, 23.70
Social control/disinvestment
Drug arrest density	1.08	< 0.001	1.06, 1.11	0.97	0.24	0.93, 1.02	1.08	< 0.001	1.06, 1.11	1.05	< 0.001	1.02, 1.08
Vacant housing density	1.01	0.02	1.00, 1.02	0.96	0.01	0.93, 0.99	1.01	0.04	1.00, 1.02	1.04	< 0.001	1.02, 1.05
Population density	1.06	< 0.001	1.04, 1.09	1.03	< 0.01	1.01, 1.05	1.06	< 0.001	1.04, 1.09	1.02	0.14	0.99, 1.04
Residential stability
Percent single households	1.01	0.11	0.99, 1.02	1.02	< 0.001	1.01, 1.04	1.01	0.05f	1.00, 1.02	1.02	< 0.01	1.01, 1.03
Percent residential mobility	1.06	< 0.001	1.04, 1.08	1.05	< 0.001	1.02, 1.07	1.05	< 0.001	1.04, 1.07	1.02	0.07	0.99, 1.04
Percent renter-occupied housing	1.02	< 0.001	1.01, 1.03	1.01	0.10	0.99, 1.02	1.02	< 0.001	1.01, 1.03	1.03	< 0.001	1.02, 1.04
Built environment
Retail land used	1.03	< 0.001	1.02, 1.04	1.03	< 0.001	1.03, 1.05	1.03	< 0.001	1.02, 1.04	1.02	< 0.001	1.01, 1.03
Convenience stores	1.27	< 0.001	1.16, 1.40	1.22	< 0.001	1.10, 1.36	1.32	< 0.001	1.20, 1.45	1.23	< 0.001	1.11, 1.35
Schools	0.89	0.53	0.64, 1.23	0.90	0.68	0.57, 1.42	0.96	0.82	0.71, 1.30	1.59	< 0.01	1.17, 2.08

Italics indicate that q < 0.05

OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval, HOLC Home Owner’s Loan Corporation, ref reference group

^aAdjusted probability score using a Benjamini-Hochberg-Simes false discovery rate correction

^bCalculated as ICE_i = (W_i − B_i)/T_i where W_i = number of white residents in CBG, B_i = number of Black residents in CBG, and T_i = total number of residents in CBG. Thus, CBGs with 100% white residents would have an ICE of 1.0, CBGs with 100% Black residents would have an ICE of − 1.0, and CBGs with 50% white and 50% Black residents would have an ICE of 0.0

^cCalculated as 0.75*B_i − 0.80*(I_i/250000) − 0.93*C_i − 0.87*(H_i/910700) where B_i = percent of CBG_i that is Black, I_i = median annual household income for CBG_i, C_i = percent of CBG_i aged 25 years or older with a college degree, and H_i = median home value for CBG_i

^dCalculated as R_i/T_i, where R_i = the proportion of the CBG that is zoned for retail land use and T_i is the proportion of Baltimore City that is zoned for retail land use

^eNo observations in this cell

^fQ-value = 0.048