Better health by limiting liquor licenses?

Civil rights activists are calling for a public health approach to tackle youth gang violence, one that wraps at-risk youth in a protective blanket of social services, healthy activities, and potentially life-saving role models. But there is also a vital role that local development policy and corporate responsibility can play. Two new pieces of health research are attempting to clarify the understanding of geographic characteristics that are associated with violent behavior, the "geography of violence," if you will.

Violent injury is the second leading cause of death among US youth, and a leading cause worldwide. In a work of descriptive epidemiology from Philadelphia, researchers performed detailed interviews of youths treated in hospitals for injuries sustained in violent attacks. By capturing minute details of their activities and locations during the 24 hours leading up to the violent episode, researchers were able to paint a picture of the types of settings and situations prone to spark violence. Not surprisingly, key causal factors included alcohol, weapons, and dangerous urban environments. By mapping the locations of violence, researchers are hoping to pinpoint not only geographic locations that breed trouble, but also assess the characteristics of the environment that lead to violent incidents, being poorly lit, or near blighted vacant buildings, for example.

A separate study released this week looked at a more specific determinant of violence in the neighborhoods of Cincinnati, namely the number of convenience stores licensed to sell alcohol. Comparing crime statistics with the density of alcohol-vending establishments, the researchers found that each additional store per square mile is linked to 2.3 more simple assaults, and 0.6 more aggravated assaults per square mile. For the city as a whole, there was an average of 20 alcohol-vending stores per square mile, and the average density of assaults was 69 per square mile over the six-month study period. Naturally it's hard to tell whether alcohol tends to be sold in violent neighborhoods, or whether neighborhoods grow violent in part due to the greater availability of alcohol. But the findings of the previous study, as well as other research linking alcohol with increased risk of assaults, does indicate that limiting the availability of alcohol in urban neighborhoods should be considered as one of the protective measures taken to reduce violence.

Should a protective blanket of social services aimed at shielding youth from crime include limiting the number of alcohol-vending establishments in certain neighborhoods? If ever there was a reason to invoke socially activist policies on a local level, this might be one of them. And what about the responsibilities of the business community? In many cases, establishments selling alcohol are owned by larger chains. What social responsibility to those businesses owe to the communities they serve: Continue serving their potentially violent cocktails, or lose the revenue of their spirit sales and business to competitors in an as-yet-unproven attempt to protect community youth? Certainly it'd take more than just reducing alcohol sales to make a neighborhood safe, but might it be a worthwhile first step?