1. U.S. Minorities and Arrest Risk: Race, Ethnic, and Regional Effects
Mike Tapia, University of Texas at San Antonio
Donald T. Hutcherson, Ohio University at Lancaster
Ana Campos-Holland, University of Iowa

2. Crime & Justice Research on Minorities
National-Level Research
Lots of Black-White comparisons
Very little On Hispanics, few national-level studies (Bellair & McNulty 2003; Kauffman 2005).
No National Level Studies on Justice outcomes for Hispanics
Federal Sentencing one possible exception
Given the size of the Latino Population…
Data Limitations

3. Data Limitations
No offense or arrest information on Hispanics in UCR/NIBRS
Only Race is collected, not ethnicity
creates a major void in the race-ethnic literature.
Studies on official rates of Latino offending done on a case-by-case basis
Data for particular cities, counties, and states where available (Bell and Lang 1985; Cicourel 1976; Dannefur and Schutt 1982; Martinez 2002; 2003; McEachern and Bauzer 1967; Nielsen et al. 2005; Terry 1967).

4. Survey Data Two types of crime estimates:
“official” (UCR and NIBRS), and “dark figure”, which includes unreported incidents.
Survey data universe is subjects in a given sampling area, both arrested and non-arrested
With regard to the “dark figure…”, the concept of “all crime” = the sample’s self reported crime.
Needed for estimating the risk of arrest

5. Hispanics and Arrest
Mexican Americans were no more likely to be arrested than whites in a medium sized Midwestern city in the 1950’s (Terry 1967)
McEachern and Bauzer (1967) and Cicourel (1976) also failed to observe a race-ethnic pattern in southern California cities.
In two New Jersey counties, Dannefur and Schutt (1982) found that Hispanic youth experienced a higher risk of arrest than White youth, but a lower risk than Black youth.
Similar pattern in Huizinga et al. (2007) for youth in Rochester.
Bell and Lang (1985) found Blacks and Mexican Americans arrested at a similar elevated rate, relative to White youth.

6. Current Study
Past arrest studies, sentencing research and correctional data suggest that being Hispanic is a significant risk factor for arrest; and
the degree of risk for this group will fall somewhere between that of White and Black subjects.
Use of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1997 (NLSY97) to examine the arrest risk associated with belonging to White, Black, and Hispanic groups, controlling for key legal and social arrest predictors.
1st study to date to estimate national-level Latino arrest risk

7. Sample & Measures
The subjects in our sample are ages in 1998, maturing to years of age by the 8th wave (year 2005).
The DV is the # of new arrests reported in each of the eight waves
Test Variables:
Dummy variables for White, Black, and Hispanic respondents, with Whites as the omitted race category in all regression analyses.
Nativity status = “1” for U.S. born and “0” for foreign born.
Dummy variables for region of the country, with the Northeastern region as the omitted category in regression.

8. Sample & Measures Demographic Controls
SES = parent-reported HH $ in each year. (Logged)
Sex = “1” for males.
Age: continuous 13 to 24.
Geographic place = “1” for urban location.
Legal Controls
Alcohol use = the # of occasions in the last 30 days in which respondents consumed 5 + drinks.
Hard Drug use = the # of times used cocaine or other hard drugs in the past year
Marijuana use and gun carrying = the # days respondents engaged in each act over the past month.
Assault, major theft, handling stolen property, & drug sales are annual frequency measures
Prior record controls for the number of arrests accumulated up to each wave in the analysis.

9. Table 1: Means Comparisons by Race (. p <. 05;. p <
Table 1: Means Comparisons by Race (*p < .05; **p < .01 compared to Whites)
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
Mean
(SD)
MALE
.52
(.50)
.50*
.51
(.49)
AGE
19.32
(2.68)
19.43**
(2.71)
19.36
(2.70)
URBAN
.58
.71**
(.45)
.78**
(.41)
U.S. BORN
.85
(.35)
.83**
(.37)
.41**
HH $ (in thousands)
$31.7
(56.4)
$18.2
(37.2)
$23.1
(42.7)
NORTHEAST
.18
(.39)
.14**
(.34)
MIDWEST
.29
.17**
.07**
(.26)
WEST
(.38)
.06**
(.23)
.45**
SOUTH
.27
(.44)
.58**
.26*
ALCOHOL
3.46
(5.70)
1.80**
(4.46)
2.62*
(5.23)
MARIJUANA
1.87
(6.15)
1.55**
(5.87)
1.36**
(5.36)
HARD DRUG
3.20
(30.4)
.90
(16.7)
2.09
(23.2)
PETTY THEFT
.09
(.43)
.08**

10. Table 1 contd. : Means Comparisons by Race (. p <. 05;. p <
Table 1 contd.: Means Comparisons by Race (*p < .05; **p < .01 compared to Whites)
WHITE
BLACK
HISPANIC
Mean
(SD)
ASSAULT
.13
(.69)
.17**
(.80)
.16**
GUN CARRYING
.09
(.71)
.12**
(.83)
(.70)
DRUG SALES
1.26
(26.3)
1.79*
(34.6)
1.46
(28.9)
MAJOR THEFT
.04
(.38)
(.39)
.05
(.33)
STOLEN PROPERTY
.043
(.40)
.037*
(.36)
(.42)
PRIOR ARRESTS
.35
(1.34)
.51**
(1.81)
.39**
(1.36)
GANG MEMBERSHIP
.01
(.08)
.02**
(.14)
ARRESTED
.049
(.21)
.062**
(.24)
ARRESTS
.08
(.96)
(.57)

11. Analytic Method Random Effects Poisson for count DV (# of arrests)
error term is uncorrelated across subjects
inferences to the population
Constant values over time: Race, Sex, Nativity
Poisson for count DV (# of arrests)
Model 1: Race-Ethnic & Region Main Effects
Model 2: Adds Nativity Status (Mediated Effect)
Model 3: Interaction: Minority x Midwest Region

12. Table 2: Multivariate Results for Arrest Risk
MODEL 1
MODEL 2
MODEL 3 b
(SE)
BLACK
.403**
(.034)
.364**
(.038)
HISPANIC
.164**
(.040)
.187**
(.042)
.163**
(.045)
MIDWEST
.018
.011
-.047
(.049)
WEST
-.199**
-.201**
-.200**
(.046)
SOUTH
-.083*
-.089*
(.021)
-.080*
U. S. BORN --
.063
.061
BLACK x MIDWEST
.160*
(.074)
HISPANIC x MIDWEST
.131
(.120)
Pseudo r-squared
.18
(*p < .05; **p < .01 )

13. t = 0.63, p< .53 t = 0.99, p< .32 t = 9.34, p< .01

14. Conclusion
Race-ethnic minority group status increases arrest risk, controlling for key demographic and legal items.
Hispanics are more likely to be arrested than Whites
Blacks are twice as likely as Hispanics to be arrested.
the Midwest is the only region that increases arrest risk, but the effect is not significant
the Hispanic × Midwest interaction is positive, but not significant.
The Black × Midwest interaction is both positive and significant.

15. Limitations Variations within the Latino ethnic group are masked.
Studies on Cubans, Mexicans, & Puerto Ricans find important differences between them on crime and justice outcomes (Martinez 2002; Morenoff 2005; Nielsen et al. 2005; Rumbaut et al. 2006).
The Survey research method does not measure complainant demands for arrest, the presence of evidence, or suspect demeanor.
More interaction testing needed on Region x Minority group
Northeastern x Hispanic
South x Black