Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jan 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Ethn Cult Divers Soc Work. 2020 Dec 14;32(1):23–32. doi: 10.1080/15313204.2020.1855496

Ethnic enclaves and ethnoburbs: Are there differences in associations with juvenile offense type among Asian Americans?

Christina C Tam 1
PMCID: PMC9782721  NIHMSID: NIHMS1657651  PMID: 36568529

Abstract

Little is known about the neighborhood context of offending for Asian American youth. The current study differentiates between coethnic neighborhood types and considers if residence in ethnoburbs—a more recently conceptualized coethnic neighborhood—is associated with more serious arrests (for substance, property, weapon, or violent offenses). Asian youth in ethnic enclaves had lower odds of a violence arrest relative to youth in non-coethnic neighborhoods. Youth in ethnoburbs had greater odds of a weapons arrest, but this association is attenuated after adjusting for individual-level covariates. Implications for future research include exploring mechanisms for place-based targeted intervention strategies.

Keywords: enclave effect, juvenile justice, ethnoburbs, ethnic enclaves, Asian Americans, immigrant neighborhoods

Despite overrepresentation of Southeast Asians (e.g., Cambodian, Hmong) in the United States (US) juvenile justice system (Bécares, Nazroo, & Stafford, 2009; Chong et al., 2009; Gee, 2010), little is known about the neighborhood context of offending for Asian youth. Scant research exploring juvenile offending among Asian Americans primarily focus on individual and family-level factors (DeBaryshe, Yuen, & Stern, 2001; Le & Stockdale, 2005, 2011; Spencer & Le, 2006; Wang, Kim, Anderson, Chen, & Yan, 2012), but youth also react to their neighborhood contexts in ways that include delinquent behaviors leading to arrest (Elliott, Dupéré, & Leventhal, 2015). Extant literature suggests coethnic neighborhoods, or areas with high proportions of people who share an ethnic heritage, are sources of resiliency that protect against health risks and risk behaviors (Bécares et al., 2012). However, immigrants and their children presently live in coethnic neighborhoods of varying sociodemographic composition that no longer represent the historically studied, traditional and low-income ethnic enclaves (Li, 2009) that also are protective for youth. The present study examines associations between coethnic neighborhood areas where Asian American youth reside (ethnic enclaves, ethnoburbs, or other coethnic neighborhood) and the offense types for which they were arrested.

Asians in the United States Juvenile Justice System

Although Asian Americans make up a small proportion of youth in the justice system, certain Asian ethnic subgroups remain overrepresented. Southeast Asians represent approximately 15.2% of the overall Asian population in the US (United States Census Bureau, 2010a) but they constitute the majority of Asian arrests (Krisberg, 2005). Further, youth aged 5 to 17 comprise 18.3% of the total Asian American population while the proportions for this age group also are overrepresented for Cambodian (21.5%), Hmong (30.7%), Laotian (22.6%), and Vietnamese (19.5%) subgroups (United States Census Bureau, 2010a). Accordingly, greater representation of young people within these ethnic groups warrants further research on disparate offending outcomes for Asian American youth.

Notably the scant work on delinquency patterns among Asian Americans tends to focus on individual and family-level factors. Given Southeast Asian overrepresentation in the justice system relative to other Asian ethnic identifications, much of the empirical literature centers on this group. Their family histories of refugee resettlement in the US and subsequent experiences of post-traumatic stress (Marshall, Schell, Elliott, Berthold, & Chun, 2005) may manifest as family conflict which, in turn, associate with internalizing and externalizing behaviors (Maffini & Pham, 2016; Spencer & Le, 2006). Aside from family conflict, culturally relevant family correlates that extend to inquiries with other Asian ethnic groups include parenting styles (DeBaryshe et al., 2001) and intergenerational acculturative dissonance (Wang et al., 2012), and factors at the individual level include generational status and acculturation, in which second generational status or later (Le & Stockdale, 2011) and greater levels of acculturation (Le & Stockdale, 2005) are associated with behavioral risk.

Where a young person lives influences risk outcomes (Elliott et al., 2015), but neighborhood studies of Asian American offending are limited. In the only study to date examining neighborhood correlates of juvenile offending behaviors among Southeast Asian youth, Tam and Freisthler (2015) found that factors previously hypothesized to associate with offending, immigrant concentration and disadvantage, were not correlated with risk behaviors. Therefore this exploratory study moves beyond traditional neighborhood indicators to assess whether a more nuanced, ethnic group-specific neighborhood definition is influential for behavioral risk outcomes. Furthermore, disaggregating neighborhood areas by ethnicity (Chinese, Filipino, Korean, Japanese, and Southeast Asian) could generate insight into whether certain neighborhoods may be more protective for some groups for more serious offenses than others. This study therefore explores whether residence in ethnic-group specific neighborhoods is related to offending patterns among Asian American youth.

Disentangling the Enclave Effect for Ethnic Minority Youth

Areas with greater concentrations of coethnics and/or immigrants typically are negatively associated with crime and delinquency (Desmond & Kubrin, 2009; MacDonald, Hipp, & Gill, 2013; Wright & Rodriguez, 2014). As immigrant groups assimilate to life in the US and establish networks outside of long-established ethnic enclaves, however, their chosen neighborhoods change over time (Alba & Nee, 2009). One new area to which immigrants relocate is the more recently conceptualized ethnoburb (Li, 2009; Wen, Lauderdale, & Kandula, 2009). Unlike ethnic enclaves in urban and low-income environments, ethnoburbs are characterized as more affluent, suburban areas. More recent and higher income immigrants also can bypass ethnic enclaves and settle into ethnoburbs as they emigrate from their countries of origin; therefore, ethnoburbs are more income-diverse compared to ethnic enclaves (Li, 2009).

With varying sociodemographic makeup in these two types of coethnic neighborhoods, the social forces that protect against delinquent behaviors in ethnic enclaves may not be present in ethnoburbs. While residence in ethnic enclaves may protect against delinquency (Zhou & Bankston, 2006), it is unclear whether living in ethnoburbs relates to youth offending patterns. Using a large administrative dataset of arrested Asian youth in a large metropolitan area, this study extends prior work by examining associations between coethnic neighborhood types (ethnic enclave, ethnoburb, or other coethnic neighborhood) and offense type.

Theoretical Foundations for Serious Juvenile Offending in Coethnic Neighborhoods

Several mechanisms may function within ethnic enclaves and ethnoburbs that relate to serious juvenile offending. Social control theory posits that delinquency is a result of unmonitored social control (Hirschi, 1986). Second, when neighborhoods are more diverse (defined by characteristics such as race/ethnicity or income), social distance suggests there is less interaction between groups and thus there is less resident cohesion ( Blau, 1977; Blau, 1987). Informal social control in ethnic enclaves protect youth from more serious offending, whereas decreased interactions through social distance is more likely to present in ethnoburbs. In ethnic enclaves, neighborhood ties and cultural values are reinforced through informal social control to inhibit risks (Vo-Jutabha, Dinh, McHale, & Valsiner, 2009; Zhou & Bankston, 2006; Zhou & Xiong, 2005): Residents may feel a sense of cohesion and thusly collectively supervise and control community dynamics (Sampson & Groves, 1989). In ethnoburbs, where there may be decreased control, social distance could explain more serious juvenile offending. Diversity and inequality (by race/ethnicity and income) limit interactions (Blau, 1977; Blau, 1987) through individuals’ perceived greater degree of space between themselves and other social groups. This results in greater interpersonal discrimination (Leigh, 2006) and, therefore, interpersonal offending.

Yet still, sociodemographic characteristics within ethnic enclaves and ethnoburbs relate to different patterns of youth offending. For instance, property crimes are more prevalent in low-income (Kawachi, Kennedy, & Wilkinson, 1999) and densely populated areas (Harries, 2006), whereas substance offenses represent opportunity risks found in higher-income neighborhoods (Snedker, Herting, & Walton, 2009). Further, offending patterns may depend on neighborhood economic resource availability and inequalities (Hipp, 2007). Income inequality is associated with violent crime such as homicide (Hipp, 2007; Morenoff, Sampson, & Raudenbush, 2001), but it is unknown how income inequality may play out among young people in ethnoburbs. It also is possible that the salient presence of one’s heritage in ethnoburbs inhibits serious offending. This is especially important for ethnic minority youth in particular when ethnic enclaves generally are protective against behavioral and health risks (Jackson, Browning, Krivo, Kwan, & Washington, 2016; Kubrin & Desmond, 2015). Therefore it is unknown if distinguishing coethnic neighborhood types, with varying levels of neighborhood socioeconomic status and population density, is important for risk and resilience.

Current Study

The current study fills a critical empirical gap by investigating factors beyond individual and family levels of functioning among Asian American populations that relate to juvenile offending patterns. Specifically, I examine associations between residence in certain coethnic neighborhood contexts and offending types among first-time arrested youth. When considering the nuanced nature of coethnic neighborhoods, it is currently unknown if ethnoburbs facilitate risk for serious offenses. I answer the following questions: What is the relationship between neighborhood type (i.e. ethnoburb, ethnic enclave, other undefined coethnic neighborhood, or non-coethnic neighborhood) and the offense for which one is arrested (i.e. violent, weapon, property, substance)? Is there a unique effect of living in a coethnic neighborhood of one’s own ethnicity (e.g., Chinese youth in a Chinese ethnoburb) on the offense at arrest?

Method

Study Site

The present study was conducted in Los Angeles County, California. Los Angeles is one of the most densely populated and diverse areas in the US with the biggest juvenile justice system in the nation. There were over 9.8 million residents in 2010, of whom 14.6% were between ages 10 to 19. Nearly 36% of the total Los Angeles County population was foreign-born and 13.7% were Asian (United States Census Bureau, 2010a).

Study Design and Sample

This study used a multilevel design with de-identified administrative data from the Los Angeles Probation Department. These data included all first arrests of Asian youth aged 11 to 20 from the years 2000 to 2009 and were pooled across years due to small numbers of arrests (N = 925). Due to confidentiality, the Probation Department provided only residential ZIP codes. ZIP codes were linked to the 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) (United States Census Bureau, 2011) and gazetteer files (United States Census Bureau, 2010b) collected by the US Census to create coethnic neighborhood typologies (i.e., ethnoburb, ethnic enclave, other coethnic neighborhood).

Measures

Outcome variable

Offense type

From most severe offense to least at arrest, this series of binary variables reflected charge classifications of violent (e.g., assault, robbery), weapon (e.g., possession), and substance offenses (e.g., possession, minor with alcohol) relative to property (e.g., vandalism, burglary), the reference category. Property offenses accounted for the largest proportion of the delinquency caseload among Asians (Hockenberry & Puzzanchera, 2018). Most youth incurred a property (51.7%) charge, followed by weapon (21.6%), violence (15.4%), and substance (11.4%). In cases where there were instances of multiple charges for each youth, the data were coded to reflect the most severe offense, as sentencing is typically associated with the most serious charge (Strom, Smith, Snyder, & Justice, 1998). Of the analytic sample, 31.2% had more than one charge.

Individual covariates

The average number of charges per arrested youth was 1.5 (SD = 1.0), ranging from 1 to 10 charges. Arrest age was calculated using youths’ recorded birth date and the arrest date, and the mean age was 15.7 (SD = 1.5). Ethnicity was recorded as Chinese (36.5%), Korean (10.2%), Japanese (4.5%), Filipino (37.3%), and Southeast Asian (Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, or Vietnamese, 11.5%). Finally, the majority of the sample was male gender (75.0%).

Neighborhood area variables

Coethnic neighborhood typologies

The main independent variable of interest was coethnic neighborhood type, which was derived using a classification process from previously established methodology to differentiate ethnic enclaves from ethnoburbs (Tam, 2018). Following a decision tree categorization system, each ZIP code contained an ethnic enclave, ethnoburb, other coethnic neighborhood type, or non-coethnic neighborhood for each of the five ethnic groups. The methodology for selecting variables to differentiate between ethnic enclaves and ethnoburbs was based on previous literature definitions of these neighborhoods. These included a case study of ethnoburbs in Los Angeles County (Li, 2009), pre-defined locations of historically-designated ethnic enclaves, and key informant interviews with community stakeholders. The process of arriving at the final categorizations using two data sources, the ACS and gazetteer files, is detailed elsewhere (Tam, 2018). This process was a culmination of iteratively examining various administrative data sources, including directories of businesses and non-profit organizations that serve their respective ethnic communities, to determine the characteristics and final variables that best fit the criteria and differentiated between the two coethnic neighborhood types.

The variables that ultimately differentiated ethnic enclaves from ethnoburbs were proportion ethnicity greater than one standard deviation above the county average, proportion families in poverty, and population density. Percent ethnicity designated a coethnic neighborhood area, while the cutoff for percent poverty was 20% or greater was used to differentiate ethnic enclaves from ethnoburbs. The average population density was divided into tertiles where ZIP codes in the lower two tertiles (i.e. low and medium density) differentiated ethnoburbs from enclaves. While a ZIP code may contain more than one ethnic enclave or ethnoburb for multiple ethnicities (such as Chinese and Korean ethnoburbs in one ZIP code), a ZIP code cannot contain both ethnic enclaves and ethnoburbs. Of the sample, 48.5% lived in ethnoburbs, 6.7% in ethnic enclaves, 16.4% in other coethnic neighborhood areas, and 28.3% in non-coethnic neighborhood areas (i.e. non-coethnic neighborhood areas did not meet the threshold for percent ethnicity).

Own-group neighborhood area

A binary indicator represented an ethnic match between youth and their recorded ZIP code containing an ethnic enclave or ethnoburb, thus generating own-group neighborhood types. For example, a Chinese youth living in a Chinese ethnoburb was coded as ethnoburb = 1 and ethnic enclave = 0. Of the sample, 44.7% lived in ethnic enclaves and ethnoburbs of their own ethnicity.

Control Variables

Youth population

Categories of youth aged 10 to 14 and 15 to 19 were summed and divided by the total population for percent youth population (M = 14.2%, SD=3.0%).

Youth organization density

Organizations categorized as “Youth Development” were selected from the National Center for Charitable Statistics, a national repository of nonprofit data (National Center for Charitable Statistics, n.d.). The geocoding rate for youth organizations was 100%. Youth organization density was calculated using the total number of youth organizations by total square miles per ZIP code (M = 0.1, SD = 0.2).

Analyses

Given that the data consisted of a two-level hierarchy with individuals nested in ZIP codes, analyses used multilevel logistic regressions. Multilevel models allow estimations of the variance of some outcome at individual and community levels (Goldstein, 1995). These models also allow for unbiased estimations of cross-level effects, such as those examined between individual-level variables and community characteristics (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).

Results

Descriptive statistics for neighborhood area type and ethnicity by offense are presented in Table 1. Ethnic enclaves had the greatest proportion of property arrests (62.9%), while ethnoburbs had the greatest proportion of substance arrests (13.8%). Korean youth comprised the greatest proportion of violent (29.8%), Chinese for weapons (29.0%), Japanese for substances (26.2%), and Southeast Asian for property arrests (59.4%).

Table 1.

Neighborhood type and ethnicity by charge at first arrest for Asian youth ages 11–20, Los Angeles Probation Department 2000–2009 (N = 925)

Total Violence (%) Weapon (%) Property (%) Substance (%)
Neighborhood Type*
 Ethnoburb 449 14.0 24.3 47.9 13.8
 Ethnic Enclave 62 8.0 22.6 62.9 6.5
 Other Coethnic 152 16.5 23.0 53.3 7.2
 Non-Coethnic 262 18.7 16.0 54.6 10.7
Ethnicity***
 Chinese 338 13.0 29.0 43.8 14.2
 Korean 94 29.8 16.0 46.8 7.5
 Japanese 42 7.1 19.1 47.6 26.2
 Filipino 345 15.4 17.7 58.8 8.1
 Southeast Asian 106 13.2 17.0 59.4 10.4
Open in a new tab

Note:

***

p < .001

*

p < .05

The first question explored whether residence in an ethnic enclave, ethnoburb, or other coethnic neighborhood area is associated with offense type for arrested Asian youth. Non-coethnic neighborhoods were the reference category. Model 1 in Table 2 adjusted for neighborhood characteristics only. Compared to residence in non-coethnic neighborhoods, living in ethnoburbs was associated with greater odds of weapon arrests (OR=1.68, p <.05) relative to property arrests. Although not significant at α=.05, residence in ethnic enclaves was associated with lower odds of violence arrests (OR=0.37, p=.08). Model 2 incorporated individual characteristics, and the significant relationship between residence in ethnoburbs and weapon arrests disappeared. However, the negative association between residence in ethnic enclaves and violent arrests strengthened (OR=0.33, p <.05). Ethnic group differences emerged for weapons and substance offenses relative to property offenses: Compared to Chinese youth, Filipinos and Southeast Asians had lower odds of arrest for weapons offenses (OR=0.58, p<.05 and OR=0.49, p<.001 respectively). With respect to substance offenses, Filipino youth had lower odds of arrest compared to Chinese youth (OR=0.41, p<.01).

Table 2.

Effect parameters for determinants of arrest charge1 for Asian youth ages 11–20, Los Angeles Probation Department 2000–2009

Model 1
 Model 2
Violence Weapon Substance Violence Weapon Substance
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Neighborhood Type2
 Ethnoburb 0.82 (0.48, 1.39) 1.68 (1.02, 2.78)* 1.42 (0.85, 2.37) 0.29 (0.47, 1.32) 1.38 (0.84, 2.25) 1.06 (0.62, 1.83)
 Ethnic Enclave 0.37 (0.12, 1.13)† 1.21 (0.48, 3.05) 0.52 (0.16, 1.67) 0.33 (0.11, 0.98)* 0.93 (0.38, 2.29) 0.38 (0.11, 1.27)
 Other Coethnic 1.10 (0.55, 2.21) 1.14 (0.55, 2.36) 0.64 (0.29, 1.42) 1.07 (0.55, 2.06) 1.06 (0.54, 2.10) 0.51 (0.22, 1.16)
Neighborhood Characteristics
 Youth Population (ages 10–19) 1.08 (1.00, 1.17)† 1.00 (0.93, 1.08) 0.98 (0.90, 1.07) 1.08 (1.00, 1.16)† 1.02 (0.94, 1.10) 0.99 (0.91, 1.09)
 Youth Organization Density 1.78 (0.75, 4.26) 0.55 (0.20, 1.52) 0.57 (0.19, 1.71) 1.84 (0.81, 4.17) 0.65 (0.25, 1.68) 0.55 (0.18, 1.68)
Ethnicity3
 Korean 1.83 (0.97, 3.46)† 0.59 (0.29, 1.21) 0.48 (0.20, 1.17)
 Japanese 0.46 (0.13, 1.69) 0.67 (0.27, 1.67) 1.58 (0.68, 3.68)
 Filipino 0.79 (0.47, 1.32) 0.58 (0.36, 0.93)* 0.41 (0.24, 0.71)**
 Southeast Asian 0.77 (0.37, 1.57) 0.49 (0.26, 0.93)*** 0.71 (0.34, 1.56)
Arrest Age 0.96 (0.84, 1.10) 0.88 (0.78, 0.99)* 1.40 (1.17, 1.68)***
Male 1.15 (0.74, 1.80) 2.30 (1.44, 3.66)*** 1.23 (0.73, 2.07)
Charge Number 1.04 (0.87, 1.24) 0.99 (0.83, 1.18) 1.12 (0.92, 1.37)
Constant 0.10** 0.29† 0.28 0.17 1.51 0.00***
Open in a new tab

Note:

1

Reference=Property

2

Reference=Non-enclave

3

Reference=Chinese

**

p < .01

*

p < .05

†

p< .10

The second question explored effects of living in one’s own-group coethnic neighborhoods (see Table 3). In the fully adjusted model, and relative to property arrests, youth who lived in their own-group ethnic enclaves had lower odds of violent arrests compared to youth in all other neighborhood areas (OR=0.32, p <.05). With respect to ethnicity, and relative to Chinese youth, Filipinos (OR=0.58, p <.05) and Southeast Asians (OR=0.49, p <.05) had lower odds of weapon arrests relative to property. Filipino youth also had lower odds of substance arrests compared to Chinese and relative to property (OR=0.42, p <.01). Finally, young men had greater risk for a weapons arrest relative to property across all estimations compared to the referent group, young women.

Table 3.

Effect parameters of own-group neighborhoods to determine arrest charge1 for Asian youth ages 11–20, Los Angeles Probation Department 2000–2009

Violence Weapon Substance
OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI)
Own-Group Ethnoburb 0.74 (0.46, 1.17) 1.33 (0.88, 2.03) 1.07 (0.66, 1.73)
Own-Group Ethnic Enclave 0.32 (0.11, 0.94)* 0.89 (0.37, 2.10) 0.39 (0.11, 1.32)
Ethnicity2
 Korean 1.77 (0.94, 3.35) 0.61 (0.29, 1.25) 0.46 (0.18, 1.15)†
 Japanese 0.43 (0.12, 1.58) 0.70 (0.28, 1.75) 1.60 (0.68, 3.74)
 Filipino 0.76 (0.46, 1.28) 0.58 (0.36, 0.92)* 0.42 (0.24, 0.73)**
 Southeast Asian 0.76 (0.37, 1.55) 0.49 (0.26, 0.94)* 0.68 (0.31, 1.47)
Arrest Age 0.96 (0.84, 1.10) 0.88 (0.78, 0.99)* 1.41 (1.17, 1.68)***
Male 1.17 (0.75, 1.82) 2.28 (1.43, 3.64)** 1.23 (0.73, 2.08)
Number Charges 1.04 (0.87, 1.25) 0.99 (0.83, 1.18) 1.11 (0.91, 1.36)
Neighborhood Characteristics
 Youth Population (ages 10–19) 1.07 (1.00, 1.16)† 1.02 (0.95, 1.09) 1.02 (0.94, 1.11)
 Youth Organization Density 1.83 (0.81, 4.11) 0.64, 0.25, 1.65) 0.63 (0.20, 1.91)
Constant 0.18 (0.02, 2.05) 1.62 (0.17, 14.98) 0.00 (0.00, 0.02)***
Open in a new tab

Note:

1

Reference=Property

2

Reference=Chinese

***

p < .001

**

p < .01

*

p < .05

†

p< .10

Discussion

The current study explored whether coethnic neighborhood type is associated with offense patterns among a sample of first-time arrested Asian American youth. Further, these analyses investigated whether residence in own-group ethnic enclaves or ethnoburbs was associated with offense type. The hypothesis on the protective enclave effect was supported: Youth in ethnic enclaves incurred lower odds of violent arrests relative to those in non-coethnic neighborhood areas. Results provided partial support for the hypothesis that living in ethnoburbs is risky for weapons offenses, which are more serious relative to substance and property. When adjusting for individual characteristics, however, ethnoburb effects were no longer significant. The finding on the enclave effect remained consistent for youth in their own-group ethnic enclaves, but not for those in ethnoburbs, compared to other neighborhood area types.

There were offense variations by coethnic neighborhood type. Residence in ethnic enclaves was associated with lower odds of violence arrests. This is consistent with studies suggesting enclaves are protective to some extent (Bécares et al., 2012; Desmond & Kubrin, 2009), although certain characteristics in enclaves, such as low area income and high population density, are associated with more property arrests (Harries, 2006; Kawachi et al., 1999). With respect to youth in ethnoburbs having greater odds of weapons arrests, it could be possible they are involved in gang activity. Gang membership among Chinese youth from suburban families in the San Gabriel Valley, Los Angeles (a well-known cluster of ethnoburbs) had been increasing (Pih & Mao, 2005), and research also suggests a positive relationship between gang membership and weapon ownership (Bjerregaard & Lizotte, 1995). Due to a limitation related to incomplete arrest records, the analyses did not differentiate between weapons offense categories. Overall, these findings lend support to continuing this line of work using proportion coethnic density rather than a panethnic or proportion immigrant designation to capture variance among coethnic neighborhood areas (Tam, 2018).

By illustrating that not all coethnic neighborhoods are necessarily protective against risk behaviors, these analyses fill a critical literature gap on the nuanced nature of the enclave effect for Asian youth offending. In line with the theorized mechanism of social distance, or that racial/ethnic and socioeconomic diversity is associated with fewer interactions between neighbors (Blau, 1977; Blau, 1987), youth may have been arrested for weapons possibly because they were protecting themselves. Though not as serious as violence, a weapons offense may be indicative of feeling unsafe and thus engender a need for self-defense (Brennan & Moore, 2009). Inequality is positively related to crime and violence (Hipp, 2007), and ethnoburban residents may view their neighbors as “outsiders” based on categorizations of race/ethnicity and/or socioeconomic status. Another finding of note is that the greatest proportion of substance arrests were present in ethnoburbs, which is consistent with literature on the positive association between higher-income areas and substance use (Hanson & Chen, 2007). While ethnoburbs are still considered coethnic neighborhoods, the salient presence of culture and ethnicity may not be a protective mechanism (via social control).

Although not part of the original inquiry, it is important to go beyond the focus on Southeast Asian youth in studies of juvenile delinquency among Asians. In the fully adjusted models, ethnicity explained the association between context and arrest: Filipino and Southeast Asian youth had lower odds of weapons arrests relative to Chinese. These findings continue to highlight the diversity within Asian American groups who are oftentimes viewed as a monolith. Relative to other studies finding Chinese youth reporting fewer instances of delinquency compared to other ethnic groups (Choi, 2008; Le & Wallen, 2006), these results presented the contrary. Chinese youth had greater odds of weapons arrests relative to a less severe one such as property. These findings shed light on the possibility that youth at “less risk” still have propensity for arrest for specific offenses. Within the Asian population, there had yet to be analyses examining multi-group comparisons across a range of offenses.

Implications

There are several implications to note for practice and further study in this area. Implications for practice include targeted interventions with identified Asian ethnic groups in their respective neighborhood contexts to mitigate risks for engaging in certain behaviors that lead to arrest. Concurrent with existing research that young men have greater risk for offending, these analyses suggest practitioners may also work with Asian young men specifically with regard to risky behaviors that may lead to a weapons arrest. Next steps for research include qualitative inquiry to delve into the lived experiences of different Asian ethnic groups that may reveal mechanisms (such as interpersonal discrimination or psychological distress) for testing in quantitative modeling and therefore inform place-based targeted interventions to prevent arrest.

It would be important to examine these neighborhood-level factors with other contextual variables. Another limitation pertaining to these being administrative data, which only capture demographic and arrest information, precludes investigation of family influences and other culturally-relevant individual-level factors that may interact with the youths’ neighborhood environment and influence their offense patterns. Next, because this study was exploratory in nature, these analyses may be replicated using datasets with smaller geographic units and extend beyond Los Angeles for greater generalizability. Finally, future work should expand this investigation beyond Asian Americans to include Latinx and Black populations in studies of racial/ethnic disparities in health and social problems.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to thank Bridget Freisthler, Laura Abrams, Todd Franke, Andrew Fuligni, and other colleagues from the University of California, Los Angeles and Katherine Karriker-Jaffe from the Alcohol Research Group for their insightful contributions. This project was supported by The Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr., Social Justice Award from the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs, the UCLA Graduate Research Mentorship Fellowship, and Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (T32AA007240) from the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, as well as NIAAA Award P50AA005595. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Declaration of interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Alba R, & Nee V. (2009). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration: Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bécares L, Nazroo J, & Stafford M. (2009). The buffering effects of ethnic density on experienced racism and health. Health & place, 15(3), 700–708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bécares L, Shaw R, Nazroo J, Stafford M, Albor C, Atkin K, . . . Pickett K. (2012). Ethnic density effects on physical morbidity, mortality, and health behaviors: a systematic review of the literature. American journal of public health, 102(12), e33–e66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bjerregaard B, & Lizotte AJ (1995). Gun ownership and gang membership. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (1973-), 86(1), 37–58. [Google Scholar]
  5. Blau PM (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure (Vol. 7): Free Press; New York. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blau PM (1987). Contrasting theoretical perspectives. The micro-macro link, 71–85. [Google Scholar]
  7. Brennan IR, & Moore SC (2009). Weapons and violence: A review of theory and research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(3), 215–225. [Google Scholar]
  8. Choi Y. (2008). Diversity within: Subgroup differences of youth problem behaviors among Asian Pacific Islander American adolescents. Journal of Community Psychology, 36(3), 352–370. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Chong V, Um K, Hahn M, Pheng D, Yee C, & Auerswald C. (2009). Toward an intersectional understanding of violence and resilience: An exploratory study of young Southeast Asian men in Alameda and Contra Costa County, California. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14(6), 461–469. [Google Scholar]
  10. DeBaryshe BD, Yuen S, & Stern IR (2001). Psychosocial adjustment in Asian American/Pacific Islander youth: The role of coping strategies, parenting practices, and community social support. Adolescent & Family Health. [Google Scholar]
  11. Desmond SA, & Kubrin CE (2009). The power of place: Immigrant communities and adolescent violence. The sociological quarterly, 50(4), 581–607. [Google Scholar]
  12. Elliott MC, Dupéré V, & Leventhal T. (2015). 16 Neighborhood Context and the Development of Criminal and Antisocial Behavior. In The development of criminal and antisocial behavior (pp. 253–265): Springer. [Google Scholar]
  13. Gee H. (2010). Asian Americans and Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure: A Missing Chapter form the Face Jurisprudence Anthology. Geo. JL & Mod. Critical Race Persp, 2, 185. [Google Scholar]
  14. Goldstein H. (1995). Hierarchical data modeling in the social sciences. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 20(2), 201–204. [Google Scholar]
  15. Hanson MD, & Chen E. (2007). Socioeconomic status and substance use behaviors in adolescents: the role of family resources versus family social status. Journal of health Psychology, 12(1), 32–35. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Harries K. (2006). Property Crimes and Violence in United States: An Analysis of the influence of Population density. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 1(2). [Google Scholar]
  17. Hipp JR (2007). Income inequality, race, and place: Does the distribution of race and class within neighborhoods affect crime rates? Criminology, 45(3), 665–697. [Google Scholar]
  18. Hirschi T. (1986). On the compatibility of rational choice and social control theories of crime. The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending, 105–118. [Google Scholar]
  19. Hockenberry S, & Puzzanchera C. (2018). Juvenile Court Statistics 2016. Retrieved from Pittsburgh, PA: https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/njcda/pdf/jcs2016.pdf.
  20. Jackson AL, Browning CR, Krivo LJ, Kwan M-P, & Washington HM (2016). The role of immigrant concentration within and beyond residential neighborhoods in adolescent alcohol use. Journal of youth and adolescence, 45(1), 17–34. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Kawachi I, Kennedy BP, & Wilkinson RG (1999). Crime: social disorganization and relative deprivation. Social science & medicine, 48(6), 719–731. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Krisberg B. (2005). Juvenile justice: Redeeming our children: Sage. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kubrin CE, & Desmond SA (2015). The power of place revisited: Why immigrant communities have lower levels of adolescent violence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 13(4), 345–366. [Google Scholar]
  24. Le T, & Wallen J. (2006). Youth delinquency: Self-reported rates and risk factors of Cambodian, Chinese, Lao/Mien, and Vietnamese youth. AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community, 4(2), 15–44. [Google Scholar]
  25. Le TN, & Stockdale GD (2005). Individualism, collectivism, and delinquency in Asian American adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 34(4), 681–691. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Le TN, & Stockdale GD (2011). Influence of generational status on developmental trajectories of delinquency for Asian, African American, Hispanic, and White youth. Asian American journal of psychology, 2(4), 306. [Google Scholar]
  27. Leigh A. (2006). Trust, inequality and ethnic heterogeneity. Economic Record, 82(258), 268–280. [Google Scholar]
  28. Li W. (2009). Ethnoburb: The new ethnic community in urban America: University of Hawaii press. [Google Scholar]
  29. MacDonald JM, Hipp JR, & Gill C. (2013). The effects of immigrant concentration on changes in neighborhood crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29(2), 191–215. [Google Scholar]
  30. Maffini CS, & Pham AN (2016). Overcoming a legacy of conflict: The repercussive effects of stress and intergenerational transmission of trauma among Vietnamese Americans. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 25(6), 580–597. [Google Scholar]
  31. Marshall GN, Schell TL, Elliott MN, Berthold SM, & Chun C-A (2005). Mental health of Cambodian refugees 2 decades after resettlement in the United States. Jama, 294(5), 571–579. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Morenoff JD, Sampson RJ, & Raudenbush SW (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39(3), 517–558. [Google Scholar]
  33. National Center for Charitable Statistics. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nccs-data.urban.org/index.php.
  34. Pih K. K. h., & Mao K. (2005). “ Golden Parachutes” and Gangbanging: Taiwanese Gangs in Suburban Southern California. Journal of gang research. [Google Scholar]
  35. Raudenbush SW, & Bryk AS (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sampson RJ, & Groves WB (1989). Community structure and crime: testing social disorganization theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802. [Google Scholar]
  37. Snedker KA, Herting JR, & Walton E. (2009). Contextual effects and adolescent substance use: Exploring the role of neighborhoods. Social Science Quarterly, 90(5), 1272–1297. [Google Scholar]
  38. Spencer JH, & Le TN (2006). Parent refugee status, immigration stressors, and Southeast Asian youth violence. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 8(4), 359–368. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Strom KJ, Smith SK, Snyder HN, & Justice J. (1998). Juvenile felony defendants in criminal courts: US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tam C, & Freisthler B. (2015). An exploratory analysis of linguistic acculturation, neighborhood, and risk behaviors among children of Southeast Asian immigrants. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 32(4), 383–393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Tam CC (2018). Beyond the immigrant enclave: differentiating between coethnic neighborhoods for the study of health and social problems. GeoJournal, 84(4), 983–999. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. United States Census Bureau. (2010a). 2010 Census Data. http://www.census.gov/2010census/about/interactive-form.php
  43. United States Census Bureau. (2010b). Gazetteer files. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/gazetteer.html.
  44. United States Census Bureau. (2011). Selected housing characteristics, 2007–2011 American Community Survey 5-Year estimates. http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_11_5YR_DP04.
  45. Vo-Jutabha ED, Dinh KT, McHale JP, & Valsiner J. (2009). A qualitative analysis of Vietnamese adolescent identity exploration within and outside an ethnic enclave. Journal of youth and adolescence, 38(5), 672–690. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wang Y, Kim SY, Anderson ER, Chen AC-C, & Yan N. (2012). Parent–child acculturation discrepancy, perceived parental knowledge, peer deviance, and adolescent delinquency in Chinese immigrant families. Journal of youth and adolescence, 41(7), 907–919. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wen M, Lauderdale DS, & Kandula NR (2009). Ethnic neighborhoods in multi-ethnic America, 1990–2000: resurgent ethnicity in the ethnoburbs? Social Forces, 425–460. [Google Scholar]
  48. Wright KA, & Rodriguez N. (2014). A closer look at the paradox: Examining immigration and youth reoffending in Arizona. Justice Quarterly, 31(5), 882–904. [Google Scholar]
  49. Zhou M, & Bankston CL (2006). Delinquency and Acculturation in the Twenty-first Century. Immigration and crime: Ethnicity, race, and violence, 117. [Google Scholar]
  50. Zhou M, & Xiong YS (2005). The multifaceted American experiences of the children of Asian immigrants: Lessons for segmented assimilation. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 28(6), 1119–1152. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES