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*** |
Note:
Reference=Property
Reference=Non-enclave
Reference=Chinese
p < .01
p < .05
p< .10