The Violence Prevention Potential of Reducing Alcohol Outlet Access in Baltimore, Maryland

Abstract

There are few cost-effectiveness analyses that model alcohol outlet zoning policies. This study determines the potential decreases in homicides, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), and victim and criminal justice costs associated with four policy options that would reduce the alcohol outlet access in Baltimore. Method: This costeffectiveness analysis used associations between on-premise (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.41), off-premise (IRR = 1.76), and combined on-and off-premise outlet density (IRR = 1.07) and homicide in Baltimore. We determined the potential change in the level of homicide that could occur with changes in the density of alcohol outlets, assuming that 50% of the association was causal. Results: Reducing alcohol outlet density in Baltimore City by one quintile was associated with decreases of 51 homicides per year, $63.7 million, and 764 DALY s. Removing liquor stores in residential zones was associated with 22 fewer homicides, which would cost $27.5 million and lead to 391 DALY s. Removing bars/ taverns operating as liquor stores was associated with a decrease of one homicide, $1.2 million, and 17 DALY s. Removing both the liquor stores in residential zones and the bars/taverns operating as liquor stores was associated with 23 fewer homicides, which translated to $28.7 million and 409 DALY s. Conclusions: For preventing homicides, the strategy of removing liquor stores in residential zones was preferred because it was associated with substantial reductions in homicides without closing unacceptably high numbers of outlets. It is possible that policies that close the bars/taverns operating as liquor stores would be associated with decreases in other types of violent crime. (J. Stud. Alcohol Drugs,

Assessing the impacts of alcohol outlets on crime as a natural experiment: agglomeration, churning and spatial effects

“…The magnitudes of outlet effects observed here are smaller and, we would argue, reasonably so. For example, Trangenstein and colleagues observed a larger incident rate ratio of 1.41 relating on‐premises outlet densities to homicides in Baltimore, MD [34]. Although not directly comparable to impacts of openings/closings on assaults, it is notable that all homicides were included in the current assault measure and the incidence rate ratio was much smaller, 1.035.…”

Gun Homicide Research: What We Know and Where We Need to Go

“…Reducing alcohol and drug consumption may therefore be viable gun homicide interventions. Indeed, policies that reduce neighborhood- or county-level alcohol outlet density and off-premise consumption alcohol outlets, or increase state-level beer excise tax rates, have been associated with decreased gun-related deaths (Branas et al, 2016; Tessler et al, 2019; Trangenstein et al, 2020). Studies evaluating interventions that target gun violence associated with illicit drug trade, however, have been shown to be most effective at reducing gun homicides when narrowly focused on violent actors rather than the illicit drug market more broadly (Braga et al, 2018).…”

Using the Pan American Health Organization Digital Conversational Agent to Educate the Public on Alcohol Use and Health: Preliminary Analysis

“…This includes noncommunicable and infectious diseases, injuries, and secondary harms to others rather than the drinkers themselves. Broadly, alcohol consumption contributes to wider societal harms connected to crimes, road injuries, the loss of productivity, and alcohol-related violence [ 2 , 3 ]. Although these harms are widespread, socioeconomically disadvantaged populations are especially impacted [ 4 , 5 ], making alcohol a central driver of inequalities.…”