<%BANNER%>

Urban disadvantage, social disorganization, and racial profiling

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101119_AAAACM INGEST_TIME 2010-11-19T15:54:12Z PACKAGE UFE0012660_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 18518 DFID F20101119_AABPGD ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH lane_e_Page_58.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
50ccad3efcb0b28f443ed28087710de5
SHA-1
926ae3b83072ac647c187e61ee9270b86a4995a6
1540 F20101119_AABOZF lane_e_Page_04.txt
7d813c0ab8fd5be43a6deec20d5c0193
96abc1de7e6aa2554b8f0c301088dc390ca18cbd
1870 F20101119_AABPBF lane_e_Page_59.txt
a1a9630e93ed2c2c20afa19d11c2a8d9
79cef35b0f9eae7f3517e70f421707eb0e8f7d53
1053954 F20101119_AABOUI lane_e_Page_18.tif
cb884a6a96dbf52c93efb312d5858868
d073820c0ef2feef9c7df0c7f2b98b278aa322ad
73053 F20101119_AABOPL lane_e_Page_35.jpg
7bfb9d05611d433ac9c715994fdbd94d
13b83e67f30a4b6cd855e82d4b29f5507da56305
2009 F20101119_AABPBG lane_e_Page_60.txt
efbc6d530acae1d091ce8d66aa2bb155
bb90bcaebe668afdf9b9796fa8e05d609a16b973
F20101119_AABOUJ lane_e_Page_19.tif
bc9210f4bc6ebc7a706bd46ace908f72
8552d211625a87affb463948fba9b51191816cf3
73789 F20101119_AABOPM lane_e_Page_36.jpg
b2c69e0bf15f909f0b11a591a67a2466
06dbb31900b6c8b53f8e0d6f119198ffc402605c
2896 F20101119_AABOZG lane_e_Page_05.txt
3478ef3998c915c7b4d23d60d713a8ee
9902e9e8c993d76cdce88c8c49764e9ac25e13d2
21629 F20101119_AABPGE lane_e_Page_59.QC.jpg
88995f5ffd2e6b4dab015f010c240742
f1636a9d0e224997e1f293defb83a4c44a056877
2025 F20101119_AABPBH lane_e_Page_61.txt
7d682ce7c679482fde0b31514af30644
7e521af332c1e9e9c03f95db5151820594227c45
F20101119_AABOUK lane_e_Page_20.tif
0b22f5a7fce74a7f7088cc42966b8c36
7e1067cae50fc2f56e85d8bb2e2c22268bb75ef8
21406 F20101119_AABOPN lane_e_Page_37.jpg
f20b46dc8c0fb72795b47560c0df47d6
76753fccdef38e11178454fbb756714cb205e421
1270 F20101119_AABOZH lane_e_Page_06.txt
ce0b2b42eabe5b68ac89857aa540bb27
da5c1c3f93f2b47c63fba8a5bec573510b260d12
23425 F20101119_AABPGF lane_e_Page_60.QC.jpg
c3121f5d8f2929f17e77c495dd530ec1
15187fd2e4ead6e9cd44d018a2341b628f01f466
1930 F20101119_AABPBI lane_e_Page_62.txt
f0a73899049c63883ecb87ed802bb030
9531bb0846f91f912dc4f3f7988359df4dfc858b
F20101119_AABOUL lane_e_Page_21.tif
7026a5ecbbfa11b66cbb08865666bc7d
b031ea63cab1e52b4ef2918ab9d37cc7328d2d05
725 F20101119_AABOZI lane_e_Page_07.txt
a665d0453849bb1891a7870cc5e37f31
1cb24f53a7f0e70c8aa43f2f3d07631b14f22fd1
23114 F20101119_AABPGG lane_e_Page_61.QC.jpg
8c05b2844588cb84a9f01c0412e7f532
1bf14451137168428b2a675c882842affa3d504b
2008 F20101119_AABPBJ lane_e_Page_63.txt
78496e0b3c12e6ed3c99e0588f8870c2
d918222f5d1eff2d774b76914258c8367f0d52e7
F20101119_AABOUM lane_e_Page_22.tif
ac0be45690703db1a64af0d957d9aa40
27f0a9cbd601f9d44b07afe806320f109390f7fe
58112 F20101119_AABOPO lane_e_Page_38.jpg
644398c705ef92055b464468f75f27b9
34051fe15451c0261b916a6d61cedfeda9e609ba
1723 F20101119_AABOZJ lane_e_Page_08.txt
321a3d8132fc44bc1c7cd084a6f7a00c
19edcf0dcea5a4e9db993553fd77605b15229439
22533 F20101119_AABPGH lane_e_Page_62.QC.jpg
8b3040960c2cc2ea68bfaafffe64c159
c5915f1bfbe5ae83fc93d5d0d895402beae1ade3
F20101119_AABPBK lane_e_Page_64.txt
0ffbef0dcb5569e031ace917278f2326
9a3c037bdb150120d3d39c0d0364852785f65728
F20101119_AABOUN lane_e_Page_23.tif
bda28ef2fa52b0b49463d2d62ce34700
d659d63c599147217e7488211ef56581c448bed2
69791 F20101119_AABOPP lane_e_Page_39.jpg
5ff27610d52f7e13103d8d70b0c5ef9e
95d5731a4134252f85a446c3b6c4f9afdaca788b
126 F20101119_AABOZK lane_e_Page_09.txt
8927f3bd7c982bc280ef247c3b7a5f67
c14bd21e5c4e363528ea276d269b35c0f5fadf98
6487 F20101119_AABPGI lane_e_Page_62thm.jpg
df6961a9191fa5bb797061aabd4bca22
f0ff6919e193ea0dcc8fe360350dc7078ec4e7c5
1067 F20101119_AABPBL lane_e_Page_65.txt
e144efd6c2b718727f7af7697b517f80
a6934001dd171199f619860a357ff2b47eb751c5
F20101119_AABOUO lane_e_Page_24.tif
b06de34b76b29998008b301ffb5fa629
94e3f168a143074fab8b0dc5e52f2f7dbbc9618a
73436 F20101119_AABOPQ lane_e_Page_40.jpg
1ae145b5fa433d5fb26ebc26466e2ba4
506d034cb415522b407164230737d00e8e67aa6e
1873 F20101119_AABOZL lane_e_Page_10.txt
37edfbc05d5a3e3a261e8684180821d5
4132076218c68b256f1860206cde25874f691e3e
6408 F20101119_AABPGJ lane_e_Page_63thm.jpg
780e60366c0ed70de9b220af39724ce0
5972002121930be5c2192e0251787e5b3e5c6c1c
1170 F20101119_AABPBM lane_e_Page_66.txt
039c6a48a5b206de225664dd24da5bf3
2e7b5862b645836e20f80fd3a7782249115f564d
F20101119_AABOUP lane_e_Page_25.tif
2caa407c29452493129d6dba9b83b3b5
65dea204603b1ad6fdf5aad3c4d4cfb29b8f79e9
70241 F20101119_AABOPR lane_e_Page_41.jpg
f8e527dbb238667fe1ff35123bf950e8
0ffa42acdc32918f242c5edb56a4e7f765422251
2062 F20101119_AABOZM lane_e_Page_11.txt
f04c4970abdbb84c3c71a3a4fd1b1f00
701c30c402a89a8ec3f939b66171f54776867960
23630 F20101119_AABPGK lane_e_Page_64.QC.jpg
f6065b057839eaa6073511566ec53dc4
58372c2283c03effef7e80668fc85b1059c45355
F20101119_AABOUQ lane_e_Page_27.tif
5ca4215def46c4fbd57054f1770cb2de
beada24b3a98fad6b7d84db54652af6a6aacaa1e
74713 F20101119_AABOPS lane_e_Page_42.jpg
41ea3ee4f03d0e1a592a1708b1aa953b
29b9c9f8c135d20aa42c422160dc53da62c8c68e
2018 F20101119_AABOZN lane_e_Page_12.txt
d03563d4c1195472ea094b973051160e
d515906e4ac1994738df0683853ba6e8835c6c54
1778 F20101119_AABPBN lane_e_Page_67.txt
a740d42cbe09bfd11eb071cc6b637036
27a6ae5a71a5b64afe043908a845d5969636aac6
6519 F20101119_AABPGL lane_e_Page_64thm.jpg
a80ad724b43774b8281ee09a92190e68
39bf77cf1de80d35c461c5c2bb8012e70b5ed579
F20101119_AABOUR lane_e_Page_28.tif
24081dc9eea0e83aff2402f241ef9080
4e93844fa692da459832484162f93a6633e85422
72312 F20101119_AABOPT lane_e_Page_43.jpg
edcbacbeaa0714af21056b96c8cbfc3d
0c79461c4569607027b3833d3e59a476b81ac51d
2010 F20101119_AABOZO lane_e_Page_13.txt
a5475aedce29f5dd36a48b09a38d381f
7c48b7e9f03fd4ec3a45e2bc0bbd8ae4954cea02
2141 F20101119_AABPBO lane_e_Page_68.txt
9dad6e20bf85ae77fff7cd5e3c235f18
feea35d7d5c260f5078263dc32ba2b5c0ca50062
13805 F20101119_AABPGM lane_e_Page_65.QC.jpg
603c6a65f0b235c7de4b87b63e99e8ff
7317025ec1a04a8fc6f32bca4598ef74e0ac0e61
F20101119_AABOUS lane_e_Page_29.tif
934cb9c7d0d0393301e91c2f9ddc2f7b
fe3bf811ddde34670370744f5139ee8ef97e6f34
70758 F20101119_AABOPU lane_e_Page_44.jpg
c6324075740bbe204ec8093989a0c147
44370f3aa6c6fdd05e39d981b47a42ae79a376ae
1247 F20101119_AABOZP lane_e_Page_14.txt
8f4f311edcf36173c6aeec80c82cc097
154aa9540931b8200790b50e97f6103a6afee4d1
2372 F20101119_AABPBP lane_e_Page_69.txt
781ffd56ebfabf80018778c1f4bddb7a
efa1a496c1ca23ac90fabc1663836c014179d08a
3919 F20101119_AABPGN lane_e_Page_65thm.jpg
9d28b1549f97ae4f3bd9d7bc4e3a3d1c
d79b33ed96fa83cbd6a75bececc2c841829b09a5
40100 F20101119_AABOPV lane_e_Page_45.jpg
6c8f1fda0515c7170c6544f62eaf4a9b
c2113315397ef51c975aa9950e256b827ef57f2f
1795 F20101119_AABOZQ lane_e_Page_15.txt
e1af4fb7c7b471546c2e6d8d703a5040
7b6031cb8a7437fe8a347d6208ad274015d3c386
2531 F20101119_AABPBQ lane_e_Page_70.txt
6bf36ae0df47495804750849514480e8
68ebee2722872ccc0d3769be8a3fc772bbb00eeb
12122 F20101119_AABPGO lane_e_Page_66.QC.jpg
0c4ed774b165c5c50838f94af30bd2ad
1c0578ad25b7240e6ef1e524f62f0b4ae6dc234b
F20101119_AABOUT lane_e_Page_30.tif
681e051c36b6d95936851a22e1941d48
28b5e2e41151e93f06f46e751de89ed3e041916e
48740 F20101119_AABOPW lane_e_Page_46.jpg
0c94fcd5c7cf15899b984062dac48e7d
28bfdcc33074902771f07c32c5f3e8baa68d01f4
1998 F20101119_AABOZR lane_e_Page_16.txt
2827fde2f4fcfcbf20301fb1987f252c
06992a00c23dc4b2914ef05dc71341474671ee0b
2449 F20101119_AABPBR lane_e_Page_71.txt
afad63d9fc46460256d328e287520e9d
d520084c59c898ffcc96e65bb4f86bbcd4b879aa
3621 F20101119_AABPGP lane_e_Page_66thm.jpg
990397044f5ebd3a3e8a48e2aa34cf7b
be7350c18692e9dce1fb813e4ea7fa1088e4c1b2
F20101119_AABOUU lane_e_Page_31.tif
5eb1baaa1e6334e6de81352836ca2987
b635b275f2b62dbc15481a32fddfc7aeb601aa6f
59802 F20101119_AABOPX lane_e_Page_47.jpg
68f0387084c9dbf68fdf29087c71d2cf
8aae7317846174679aa88872b3c0ebf5483e4b02
2061 F20101119_AABOZS lane_e_Page_17.txt
a65fa40300ef7e3406506490d9d39712
5fa2f3c2ede4932e42984d449aee53db8075bc02
1966 F20101119_AABPBS lane_e_Page_72.txt
b8dadd7b471c8fe7890fae0e19cd4849
5432e89415069dd9035c768f570ccaef6a976dd4
17598 F20101119_AABPGQ lane_e_Page_67.QC.jpg
4b0f01d8af8d02e27aa1bb7a89078234
e0a82b5e1a9b6e946e8af644f7d3ebe94c64de52
F20101119_AABOUV lane_e_Page_32.tif
c01f475bbf3f68c8ab097445fbbffffa
6f2e5620543fbedf2668b04cf8653e016e3f0f1b
73888 F20101119_AABOPY lane_e_Page_48.jpg
6543845ad6b71d2699bf734a2e9bf634
194256922b24b2a3a4c87dce468c056941596399
2072 F20101119_AABOZT lane_e_Page_18.txt
b1bd08cee79f18b2b22910b0e361b6d9
f836318bf41433f3558dcd2e3e277892ef750fec
577 F20101119_AABPBT lane_e_Page_73.txt
a7e5ec859ce624a9de344f5d18bac5c7
1d35dae129e7be94c2a4513304f4eae5087eda5b
4971 F20101119_AABPGR lane_e_Page_67thm.jpg
a81589a589d2a301702c34314c82bfbd
c5b2dfb0268d02e10072ab4f42702ad0e09ea95b
F20101119_AABOUW lane_e_Page_33.tif
b89125fc97299e2718458fe575e0edc7
56bcc20bfaf98b93514eec528a84dd2486cf7d13
70662 F20101119_AABOPZ lane_e_Page_49.jpg
8895f76955a8d9bef38cc577c23233ef
8f016e4f2a8d2aaf584b7749e31cbc5be349e2ba
1963 F20101119_AABOZU lane_e_Page_19.txt
878780c8aafb13b04cc86cc8474d4722
468e4ac57b8212750ff2a094b6d73fd9fa140f15
2520 F20101119_AABPBU lane_e_Page_01thm.jpg
821442fe9e64ab31087fab4db1735b39
df7fd7627af5b1b01de4c481d1af24d4b9951017
22707 F20101119_AABPGS lane_e_Page_68.QC.jpg
9ba5b271291d1f02023d30e3fe0c5992
1ace044ef75bd8d5b47a451c73afa9fa54dd5595
F20101119_AABOUX lane_e_Page_34.tif
a40c4fb988a08c5e17fff51acd3d90d1
08d14836e03cf3948bf857733021ac623adb51aa
2011 F20101119_AABOZV lane_e_Page_20.txt
6f843ede39cfd806ab1fb046aa59f8ba
78510f644d798465e07c2916c3e6da5e0b77c8e3
218274 F20101119_AABPBV lane_e.pdf
3f2e16f28dc061dede0560ffbd51fa73
a29d10182901e187fa56a4b8eb7d2916bac77a04
6160 F20101119_AABPGT lane_e_Page_68thm.jpg
f36869e22f1e8f9e2d1ffa91071b9990
c23b449ebea6ab53d704d941f6a90ac70aa66610
F20101119_AABOUY lane_e_Page_35.tif
cc27636e06dbf0c6ca56a892bc6323be
2108a117b1de8e5d6ed643e5e93b9ea4d523e701
1894 F20101119_AABOZW lane_e_Page_21.txt
26cec46c63a907a87c9295ec316735bc
17228907b40921ad2dd6d18d0e21e67e7e65738f
15669 F20101119_AABPBW lane_e_Page_14.QC.jpg
725a9fbf6ee6829b06c396aade437276
ab336ff28dc35d07fa3864064dd77d2656cb534f
110084 F20101119_AABOSA lane_e_Page_30.jp2
4b5d369d1f595922c9a96a8f90b0a9c6
5022334cc416030ebadcb18e3a461a95699a7dfb
23978 F20101119_AABPGU lane_e_Page_69.QC.jpg
93f4c181b2731bc5ce16084fdcc92a80
6d0d083a863a5e826eaa9044536af405d4af52f1
F20101119_AABOUZ lane_e_Page_36.tif
53a6bf9dee699fdf729dce45f5e29302
8f6c6a58b3ff0b44d402726c65eba1e852f4d097
F20101119_AABOZX lane_e_Page_22.txt
96e0f5665a59ed4fa0b862a8128b19fa
aa39c84fc0ec24cc202093660ff6e67e447f9b8b
19179 F20101119_AABPBX lane_e_Page_38.QC.jpg
ac1c74bd2efc33408be2f3572c67a05b
38b0ec1a3ec78e4708d583fc569d94cd35035104
111615 F20101119_AABOSB lane_e_Page_31.jp2
9a7dbf4585f97358d7735445ce309910
39d87a5d4d0fa634a521161f3488773f32cf7841
6454 F20101119_AABPGV lane_e_Page_69thm.jpg
7c4d09c8b85ae47a06cd70f35c387c92
bb375466273a25e1033f420820ff18133dcb7d50
5275 F20101119_AABPBY lane_e_Page_58thm.jpg
9f0c3a9d351fbff8ba7f9a1594dbe74c
d9b01ca73240770f59d6c6846e5e7bfa9a7be0aa
115979 F20101119_AABOSC lane_e_Page_32.jp2
09579e17b4e31ed34fafe594343b1dc5
876b4b824a69883ebd19d199b2c55072a7d2be4f
24997 F20101119_AABPGW lane_e_Page_70.QC.jpg
d6db13e78dec589b6886ef511c6847fc
6b647c7c192752cd7b753faffd475949a3840938
49859 F20101119_AABOXA lane_e_Page_19.pro
6ea9858954ef42a5a37ca78108507c2b
6aee0d7e576844f8a7d1e6f674be38ef1660788e
2021 F20101119_AABOZY lane_e_Page_24.txt
af0e78b586ed606f9a7d62347d9b24c5
0a2924120976f3fd0816803b55f456a8b4bca87b
6396 F20101119_AABPBZ lane_e_Page_53thm.jpg
390c7beebead455a9dcc258929f9ea73
6e8c9db98fcdbbc9b2070ed8423ed34841ec5899
106979 F20101119_AABOSD lane_e_Page_33.jp2
7b7bd46d275c4dc0098d0557178ec8b2
bd25ca99ace998b2d352c8a9cee28e3f5c7ad8c9
6908 F20101119_AABPGX lane_e_Page_70thm.jpg
088e2383a18bc0f7af5ba5fcd3217eb7
3450e6a4ac3bf704ea889aaa25c977bec27c6a1b
51076 F20101119_AABOXB lane_e_Page_20.pro
fc47a83de36db68fbfab703ddaec570b
8cb3213648cab020896c7d1de063a28eef9a461d
506 F20101119_AABOZZ lane_e_Page_25.txt
fbe7484286c4f97a9f6051508ba71f9c
4b8c3fc0415609bad508137893ebcda46d3291d2
107198 F20101119_AABOSE lane_e_Page_34.jp2
a7fe491aaceb35bf8028df8a3a94e261
15c47c23497ed6dcc382ad317eb26a69bbfffc75
24578 F20101119_AABPGY lane_e_Page_71.QC.jpg
19df4eb211b8d62d55ffadb8e720c7c2
7da0ff2600acf6b68a5b7cf0aa7edf3e89cf50fa
22777 F20101119_AABPEA lane_e_Page_28.QC.jpg
4c6ecebb70efbe28c0633a75a3ff9d9f
bceb5850f24a4f4b01c972265063d24d895b27be
6317 F20101119_AABONI lane_e_Page_61thm.jpg
9c6d224c8cf708148919c8ac327d0d00
65e9ed64db77fed8c28d26ccfb6dd6b0742ec2f9
47852 F20101119_AABOXC lane_e_Page_21.pro
322ae4dc9deed00858f28eb1a7472ae3
01bd7226a704c0ab73c5a8287e3fa84a62c3031f
112370 F20101119_AABOSF lane_e_Page_35.jp2
bcc1e79706c2caf4aa795428e434c798
cb38db4c2cdf15e32d77f76aabc0f52273b25877
6511 F20101119_AABPGZ lane_e_Page_71thm.jpg
429c2b10afd0e1728b263c02bf6d5e41
2ef8fa7d80801ed8b36561806350dabf25c3964a
6301 F20101119_AABPEB lane_e_Page_28thm.jpg
4bda511dbdf2b34a9b6f59e625c471a4
469482dcd8eaa7bb41c6a6bd2caf76ef62c220c8
6508 F20101119_AABONJ lane_e_Page_12thm.jpg
66c0b31024c80e8a7219127f52e30c31
09e0965597071d5f9a5cb05c51823524d71d8a2b
51521 F20101119_AABOXD lane_e_Page_22.pro
835199ea318003cf546589bc9e529691
86d6d6781172315ffef069d03188ea44942e5294
111569 F20101119_AABOSG lane_e_Page_36.jp2
53df3d92c010bf4464d493de8ace5538
fa174088df24d47562498d48c1b8964444c4cb5e
71931 F20101119_AABONK lane_e_Page_60.jpg
2c50817c08ae86ef1a4ac402c1d02c60
4c8e6b419f8568b83956544d6bb7011748bd3d4c
51395 F20101119_AABOXE lane_e_Page_23.pro
ef60fdd5f97e4dc2c88fc2e3cade6486
c1d3b3f7b2b6df48891272c25f8b8122f409e9a3
23958 F20101119_AABOSH lane_e_Page_37.jp2
1408b96cd33c62134e7139fc43e43f13
efde518c4b17c320926eee53083467d90dc974ba
24105 F20101119_AABPEC lane_e_Page_29.QC.jpg
f9b754bb5e82b85359a10ba17ec5c266
3ece0f477f049051e9a2518220d3a5cb948b158d
23694 F20101119_AABONL lane_e_Page_24.QC.jpg
f28db5627c2dd33ddbcd9ffa1aec2c0a
7cd32a4fe4fd77fcac5e0c7451c38b23566572b2
51293 F20101119_AABOXF lane_e_Page_24.pro
ac27b9d98976ca944a2ae97d4bcf9966
19ddf73794833b0325b9a28bf203d31cd571a903
87292 F20101119_AABOSI lane_e_Page_38.jp2
03391946e05e02e8a1e112dd549252ae
f349a0d0ba1ede029471cc063b387650f014cdd8
6600 F20101119_AABPED lane_e_Page_29thm.jpg
7949767e29c28d8001293f7d6737e35b
c40d3c64679d10b070955def41ce71d24f3fe409
11713 F20101119_AABOXG lane_e_Page_25.pro
01eec82995d4ea2e24e5cd5e32d846e8
6363be050a6f01e05a2324d38677ac8bd92a0eef
105215 F20101119_AABOSJ lane_e_Page_39.jp2
b2f4ced256eed4cfc54f9e7a2f6b4651
48aaf4e1f0e1abd7127be956c394a739beaf1c6e
23509 F20101119_AABPEE lane_e_Page_30.QC.jpg
3ce7f354c23704f18e1f55e7f3deffd2
ef5896844e6de49d1b106576e889fa9cd462a705
4409 F20101119_AABONM lane_e_Page_46thm.jpg
6e8ee68ba1925b222c9776a994f00645
81eb0b3046a1c81a69540e6a35d448bfb08142e0
43010 F20101119_AABOXH lane_e_Page_26.pro
ba57185756af6ce544145740cd1cf2d7
08acdf2d000c85513409ea567673d1ea135f6af3
111561 F20101119_AABOSK lane_e_Page_40.jp2
67a69a87ccc5f5fb17fc915a13196dd5
550cbac7a586bf7879d653d802a8fa981c520ade
6469 F20101119_AABPEF lane_e_Page_30thm.jpg
2b4ce8b09d1993ac9983cddffc86d0a1
187dd402ea99c1020e7988770ac4d85f57a91ba5
F20101119_AABONN lane_e_Page_70.tif
36165433616ce79a8f4ac47a16bb07ca
db3842e455c01027c0028e97e7a5c49aff98c199
50566 F20101119_AABOXI lane_e_Page_27.pro
de6c1176eaeb603f6ad8ef1922222666
b7a4efb1abd02050bac649e012c6b201cf89d284
106723 F20101119_AABOSL lane_e_Page_41.jp2
5cf8a8a6e140608daea18f768da4a5f4
43ef90b813ab8f5f64068cf8d4ae6e3369ab867b
23802 F20101119_AABPEG lane_e_Page_31.QC.jpg
43a11dec6a62d9f1bc56a530744185fd
949ff1ce485f9b2154996fcae37d965687774928
6332 F20101119_AABONO lane_e_Page_60thm.jpg
5ad0a72c3cfaf0aac1dfb8d8986c2312
df3a3a234f06bb06fccc8464d08ba1db095c524d
49190 F20101119_AABOXJ lane_e_Page_28.pro
e9dfd8c6e840c8c8280201446ff28a70
30c2d396cbe0cd9fdd833d93a7d094497e965ac6
112981 F20101119_AABOSM lane_e_Page_42.jp2
a761bd2ec5ce4d3571874781acda4918
5e28cfd0dde34ae002e98bd9caf6655319395c91
6489 F20101119_AABPEH lane_e_Page_31thm.jpg
6358d2f45ae53ba6a88664492519f4c1
5bb4b96df72bebc182d1812891aa3ba77a95831f
5976 F20101119_AABONP lane_e_Page_59thm.jpg
eb0fa381f5a156a97f56f311f27c4100
6a0fcc544ab53ada17c4803a1a541e90043bd924
50975 F20101119_AABOXK lane_e_Page_29.pro
e250d9f72634f9816789cd746dba031c
c63db61571cd41a15bd2f6fb213ed9fd9091491b
110994 F20101119_AABOSN lane_e_Page_43.jp2
af13032e685d63b03cf4d9236ebf8f94
b5caa836a60f29df3e427b03f8da4882a9e222b9
24291 F20101119_AABPEI lane_e_Page_32.QC.jpg
518fd1cd57d7a7a21bb300efb522b40f
b3cf7cc88075c1b07ba1e92af820251ee63a4b20
F20101119_AABONQ lane_e_Page_62.tif
e44309fa06757a29783e417c9ee5eba6
1e809ef8c1f2ee3621da0c77f1b1c4ea361c1b0d
49895 F20101119_AABOXL lane_e_Page_30.pro
f079208d3e462fb081d3424daf734646
0e621d81f7bddbeda710ce2b731d114674af5e03
108088 F20101119_AABOSO lane_e_Page_44.jp2
3ab06c92e387eee86bd782a816a51410
fad58600bf57beefc6fa583fdc3d7f9fb8bfa7c2
6828 F20101119_AABPEJ lane_e_Page_32thm.jpg
63169a41c9bea5f32574a2fc7436faf3
32ed13463cb28b5861ddba4f2cab6abd4d1a981a
F20101119_AABONR lane_e_Page_57.tif
f620ab59c2c35683db822d64aa9c4ef8
630d8a932726992128254788515225d5c5a7a9b1
50704 F20101119_AABOXM lane_e_Page_31.pro
0d3fa2d19e244ed685b1c34ae5651aef
093f8c088d4567f2bf83559339d18baebd9017dc
57916 F20101119_AABOSP lane_e_Page_45.jp2
9e905cb5c0d43af2cadb64b16c596b0a
a258cb44b05af1b028c8dae4c60a8e3bb4783921
23036 F20101119_AABPEK lane_e_Page_33.QC.jpg
a179ded26c53dc587ed32b9a02aac18b
d70d602e7ff688dae4196a872a5b302ab5c9df8c
6452 F20101119_AABONS lane_e_Page_49thm.jpg
2d56fc2d5679de3f930b8823576c4c5e
26eca4e80ebf0ea807c79a58b161c143222c1fe2
53431 F20101119_AABOXN lane_e_Page_32.pro
f86f62be8f1cfe2a5273b5ad8f5f6438
f4c94d0e0743ff8865deea1c356cfdb17248afd8
61181 F20101119_AABOSQ lane_e_Page_46.jp2
c31e5d2a98b323b4597c4a1d7e3a41b3
c9b2bf3635289e95902db3a94af77d44ba08a503
6293 F20101119_AABPEL lane_e_Page_33thm.jpg
37858a3976e3790796f9f451825dfc5d
5600b0fa49da80d52b06a97f63c5534fc7ba0155
23582 F20101119_AABONT lane_e_Page_63.QC.jpg
522ba0399662e1b1797af805a3f43f89
53a7836b8242bc683dbb33a3eac5e26d2792971c
48925 F20101119_AABOXO lane_e_Page_33.pro
da2a7b2b14765b247f8c1260d3be01df
680fbc08d2de0aba0cc47ed92d23df390a8c2e25
22869 F20101119_AABPEM lane_e_Page_34.QC.jpg
5812d1a361ffc84f2b0bc9470326d2de
fe449ef729f638c70d46ed4eacce0073c7a6bbdf
1528 F20101119_AABONU lane_e_Page_58.txt
77875bed3fc1589677e2bf9e11552e75
f1f10c46fb3b454c4c5ca2e8d72ead233fb065c2
49149 F20101119_AABOXP lane_e_Page_34.pro
175f55cb09951d010e626b92f2d94633
91d80e8f54c06c3ff08f8d1bec9e860b168d55e1
88936 F20101119_AABOSR lane_e_Page_47.jp2
e0839111aa24606a45b0961d03a31ebf
7422ebf4b4f8503b8764ecd7ef52722cb267c1eb
6506 F20101119_AABPEN lane_e_Page_34thm.jpg
68389f1a0298a28ec12824d143587b61
f6551bac957eca086dcdad8921b6a9f5e97e2dc6
51431 F20101119_AABOXQ lane_e_Page_35.pro
aaec3a57e2772f9c3af8933810dcb253
662dfb39ad2dd1e5cbe3b0716f99ed9c505c4295
112988 F20101119_AABOSS lane_e_Page_48.jp2
853ec0ce5c4aef86752d64af70b340b5
b5d8029455b64df7dbdebb717ea6b455285179e3
2032 F20101119_AABONV lane_e_Page_23.txt
843acdae62432f40de7069cae38bc1b5
f601b8c5478e0fdda7745957cc64a8cac04f1192
24160 F20101119_AABPEO lane_e_Page_35.QC.jpg
80fcfac499baacda5495fce4aea73dcc
a04231ca5f6f89b4bc515a4056037eac75706fb1
51412 F20101119_AABOXR lane_e_Page_36.pro
56adfab1173808bdff67cdbc66087b1e
bfc9846c763b1c010cc3d7446999dfb67ad6c31c
108848 F20101119_AABOST lane_e_Page_49.jp2
eeeb890dedbcb7c50ff45c491eb6d056
f02f69a841e2aa2dce135ccbdcdb90e8ffe79cda
52681 F20101119_AABONW lane_e_Page_54.pro
5cce6b763de566db828c1971e0abd982
ac1f8fa1451b546dd6f2d7b5c2c0f98b1cfb30dd
6496 F20101119_AABPEP lane_e_Page_35thm.jpg
09757b6980e89db12ace7f2e1b36e574
5e823791578d0c937701b2912348e52c9e00dc9a
9779 F20101119_AABOXS lane_e_Page_37.pro
d63ae859a45ff73dce3e24cd2a81adf2
30c6cc38949128c5d2a9fe446a18b9435987c863
69961 F20101119_AABOSU lane_e_Page_50.jp2
64fbb65e1ec57b359d4351555c973e88
9daafcd4877c3c93f2b5e5c2c0831b0bed9f4f1b
F20101119_AABONX lane_e_Page_14.tif
dc37ccf1dc0f5632e381831ee995c644
d9816a9d1efe450a73f52eb611b08226071835de
23585 F20101119_AABPEQ lane_e_Page_36.QC.jpg
e4c62738e47824f8bf85cf65857be3ca
53cbe63ce63e0eeced3a1f30f879831a4fdb240b
39323 F20101119_AABOXT lane_e_Page_38.pro
a4c0a0f13bc0a731f2670c19fb72cb4a
347c9bca2b8e8c98e8ecda549c134d6f477beaf0
109175 F20101119_AABOSV lane_e_Page_51.jp2
20a64476b742a9fd5a62b44fee8d3854
31dcf0209cb94bfd8350d41a541d83ec7d77a10b
F20101119_AABONY lane_e_Page_26.tif
92226608a3bd14d50f3b425b38ad8718
a5237d27553607f4f7b6dfb2e6fa2d10e63f7930
6668 F20101119_AABPER lane_e_Page_36thm.jpg
4b001b4721292313e601afb6db69d48b
09974b550ed0aae4e332942e54fc62d4b4e6b48e
48416 F20101119_AABOXU lane_e_Page_39.pro
0bf6682e440afd5dc3b34b1973a508da
a96dff8e9cec0beff5e080087eb73489129bbb72
109728 F20101119_AABOSW lane_e_Page_52.jp2
649a2d2d335531b21e1681298247086e
0c9658262f1384cba512b04ab7ddcbadd9a9732f
2000 F20101119_AABONZ lane_e_Page_31.txt
c1c2e216103d804bd5033d16a716c613
3877fa62db55d741fd8f9a42c022223de65f387f
2322 F20101119_AABPES lane_e_Page_37thm.jpg
c841d3fd08bf40f8a49415c3ad389a6f
fb321164072c0baf4023998d68c72654cca94040
51582 F20101119_AABOXV lane_e_Page_40.pro
40e5bafc01e49a9e552f2d105f620963
7c810cd2def27555e51d7a0330cfdb5eaa0619a7
108790 F20101119_AABOSX lane_e_Page_53.jp2
727bdb60db07e9997376055a80f96fb8
02b00857c2d3a0960558763a64d9e91b34bcf373
5475 F20101119_AABPET lane_e_Page_38thm.jpg
4b883e2c83d9977fcc2c80a360e508ea
f759534bafe096c1a3f59bc7a6bb9108fa52482d
53046 F20101119_AABOQA lane_e_Page_50.jpg
cf49aceae5bc6406b172a5be08b19188
09f259659c8ccf93e50152b57398121de5523ce9
113149 F20101119_AABOSY lane_e_Page_54.jp2
4445fb87583c40e9cf4d5bb7f3fed966
ea50277dcff480cc94f64696485f7e48fbee9be3
22828 F20101119_AABPEU lane_e_Page_39.QC.jpg
843867d51534e50c1f305afd0da64bb7
933f19684b960d45ee50955e4ff97281125131fb
49277 F20101119_AABOXW lane_e_Page_41.pro
00e0935f0d02ab51f98a787c60b15cdf
c8c0c5873dd355a6f68e1bdd0dfc33cc9f4e1394
70618 F20101119_AABOQB lane_e_Page_51.jpg
f518afceba1b124c41fbb4cedfc3efb3
aa44eaca427c257271bd701c0dcf9382730e193d
94862 F20101119_AABOSZ lane_e_Page_55.jp2
ebe48d5dd05c488371311d4e4b004b41
87a20e7c4f5b53cb3d971a0f4cefbf279bdb0b09
6290 F20101119_AABPEV lane_e_Page_39thm.jpg
62af99720ea6c6625b5bfe560fc19002
9d0d3e20f6a631e3369e4c289fee96a210141fa2
51765 F20101119_AABOXX lane_e_Page_42.pro
f00f0cbcc5619ebc230b6cc2e984070c
9a342d5fbc7c328f2647abd7e3712ac95b30fb70
71733 F20101119_AABOQC lane_e_Page_52.jpg
a53ed3416459a59d20a6a355f432f57d
d59780212a9b1dbf73370cca0b2673426ef3da62
24349 F20101119_AABPEW lane_e_Page_40.QC.jpg
e9d3a3a2cb55de78d940a69495221a53
431abcdd81a97caddade96e173f922f33741b3d9
51365 F20101119_AABOXY lane_e_Page_43.pro
e8eddcaeb5d09f1ef808b0bec345ea98
6f8e46075b7c57e03c30bd8f5ed9d0bc41d5d427
70777 F20101119_AABOQD lane_e_Page_53.jpg
771a8965d3d9cd52ee8eb2262af78462
b4e5e94718a2c9712405be65b801ac253ef25f9c
F20101119_AABOVA lane_e_Page_37.tif
1a950b056aa3ed958b552de28cb19337
03006b0c97f740746bea38284cad98ab559d059e
6658 F20101119_AABPEX lane_e_Page_40thm.jpg
9663c28b5efd36e2e665fca260f8d959
f0ed256e9853360a2674373d2da7ed8d33842f7a
50157 F20101119_AABOXZ lane_e_Page_44.pro
0ca7e2b12c8ecb5d2f93495909827574
039d0c41f8704f356904b90655575ebfd60c6df8
73333 F20101119_AABOQE lane_e_Page_54.jpg
6f024a43f140ef952d2e6cce53814f17
26d060616d95a212bfc3d74f12bc87c5c7bd8170
F20101119_AABOVB lane_e_Page_38.tif
381d32ea15eba9a8810d9207bd58f033
a3b60ae2378274e071879470327fa6a1e7585103
23068 F20101119_AABPEY lane_e_Page_41.QC.jpg
c1a510211742b87c2113ef3cc0945197
8891cbef3de8f895f9eff95f7a9aeea5023ca56f
66848 F20101119_AABOQF lane_e_Page_55.jpg
ec67609a84d0e1f42071c64f8e68a9a8
0fbb0c6acd0faeed4e3e56820663aa5858faabf5
F20101119_AABOVC lane_e_Page_39.tif
5c57671105ca37da40f703e986f5d234
d2c153880bfcd01e17f5cc4c9426f1bfedd5ad5d
6251 F20101119_AABPEZ lane_e_Page_41thm.jpg
716d3becd4a9fb77429e473499a3d1e3
fb740573921a1b2df8df347f3b4560f6a401e0b7
69270 F20101119_AABOQG lane_e_Page_56.jpg
2774c984132df0bb16ed8cb31c3c6190
061cb68d7ab5c6e093bd9c25ec5943206c4c3c6d
6790 F20101119_AABPCA lane_e_Page_37.QC.jpg
45cc1c91de3ef5789843d8b47bb8e3d5
bcc80e85ec2685a61a0de2e7470fb5a350fdfdd0
F20101119_AABOVD lane_e_Page_40.tif
49049044f509f933e11147168878fc58
6b25ffb00813ec09bafe69ea31ba219603ceb40d
68771 F20101119_AABOQH lane_e_Page_57.jpg
873282d996c16cdd3592dc566c55cbfd
7bcb0c4aa58387e25fb7cfbceb94c8f44964b16e
110085 F20101119_AABPCB UFE0012660_00001.xml FULL
94c7742cf3febd2b7c181b5d64aab3d0
840bdb45f3f14f904e1455bacdae05f0ff0e03aa
F20101119_AABOVE lane_e_Page_41.tif
6b1a1dd6df0ff67179f38f039128d679
391ebd6370ec96d52dd7a5c656c52829802a8f31
20282 F20101119_AABPHA lane_e_Page_72.QC.jpg
1529578092717837b9d32ac64c0ce68f
52bc8bb0973a813df58622f4190df8ea2e16d51c
56251 F20101119_AABOQI lane_e_Page_58.jpg
8c89d4580d1e2042ad9cfba77eff784d
cc78f495f28c0acd8432fb7a87be4def3255092c
7914 F20101119_AABPCC lane_e_Page_01.QC.jpg
709790e150d93f9ef11d68e7afd5c4ce
5aacc1550dff2c635b18a79a2df6952fd857f05c
F20101119_AABOVF lane_e_Page_42.tif
ee0dbfb33b782e4d39e74816f8c41799
43744d4c2a803af30f244c1933901d422ef1f5e3
5578 F20101119_AABPHB lane_e_Page_72thm.jpg
ae385a6d499b23c55d03f3ab778b23a0
45586081e0b33cb1d92cc53c25397b540744c2eb
66216 F20101119_AABOQJ lane_e_Page_59.jpg
a9d15f1e088a00db2c3c6daa8896850f
af7e424f7bc60e2389fc2624eaf0a48bb22640a1
3241 F20101119_AABPCD lane_e_Page_02.QC.jpg
a68437f2d3436f34e06e7d612091cc0e
d4ab275da4b94c886f7b2f50df4d4822208e332a
F20101119_AABOVG lane_e_Page_43.tif
0958bc71d85ce65864d23b2b0877cc64
52d10b051d38265c509dc9a68f2a94462c6108c3
8655 F20101119_AABPHC lane_e_Page_73.QC.jpg
72faef1a3973887f25aa5be582342469
85474c17bd35b49bab1d5612c9b3e493468991bf
71570 F20101119_AABOQK lane_e_Page_61.jpg
1f42b334ac3d4a473a23e40dc1175720
c31356bb9ec3eec4e2f01dc37710c816426d47eb
1353 F20101119_AABPCE lane_e_Page_02thm.jpg
c39df9b9bcd10eaf69c29afda2bf40a1
a16c27c232a638c1c57f4254e0777a0ecd7808a4
F20101119_AABOVH lane_e_Page_44.tif
82c36b0e94b95f674dde9e2c59b35e56
916292d000acedacd6eee4004dc61a4d6eda8042
2675 F20101119_AABPHD lane_e_Page_73thm.jpg
83bfbd77eb6f955580ac386fe2e552bf
bba66c75a262447235cfd0e4be6366fe11f99253
70447 F20101119_AABOQL lane_e_Page_62.jpg
b14f95a9b621f1af522ecbefe12ed8cf
dcdcafbe9c1bd9d9f629b79ae121e7f0403b36ac
3273 F20101119_AABPCF lane_e_Page_03.QC.jpg
b054979865a180e6105df99d852411d4
dc7440362de52bf124817ffcfc1adcc02e769c58
F20101119_AABOVI lane_e_Page_45.tif
370a9169d75525a58d04761d73e1ac40
935a27ad24355b6bb5374a0dc82d3b3e67f4e11d
71852 F20101119_AABOQM lane_e_Page_63.jpg
7c4909617c43c940dacf34a9bc44ec30
0fcc64c5915e58295b337376692073827ab504fa
1396 F20101119_AABPCG lane_e_Page_03thm.jpg
27b08ba8bceb7b986ddd0e378ebf1ab4
82341d910343cae6605e69843d6f08f65c5bdfe9
F20101119_AABOVJ lane_e_Page_46.tif
b1969033047a6235f1773695a91a7e1c
abb0729b7d1fcb5fc0cb496306c9233f2c3874cb
71801 F20101119_AABOQN lane_e_Page_64.jpg
0e11380302b731137eee25b2db04966d
a73ad20bf65b459d1660985249637359a4a5fc52
19011 F20101119_AABPCH lane_e_Page_04.QC.jpg
5a5eb9e4309ae13ff9ea7710ab8a5e34
5cca947371d1d8a5dd86758791b2093d590a0129
F20101119_AABOVK lane_e_Page_47.tif
7847207dc503d96e5a06fb9b6717e9ed
36df621fbf41e5c90dbf6f37568d4c06bbf459ce
41398 F20101119_AABOQO lane_e_Page_65.jpg
21fb59c9f8d351f89b988a39ce33c168
e88f88de6838ae6d2ca16e7ad087a9bce6b95a3d
5492 F20101119_AABPCI lane_e_Page_04thm.jpg
62e055fc7bc746f2e2ecb50116a05509
bf0c7e70f143c06d0ad832deed23f5fc3e3e0e6a
F20101119_AABOVL lane_e_Page_48.tif
466d6bdec69488b33b726dc6338a68ae
c64ad9412052602715876b1d4c657e5537c18e84
17389 F20101119_AABPCJ lane_e_Page_05.QC.jpg
cdbb0b1f21f03b69b41d97f689696aff
5d41824e94b86ed3aadf017e3234e7d7e65bfed2
F20101119_AABOVM lane_e_Page_49.tif
3c20a52050cced9052fcbb309e309af6
71fca502f56af6b56a63855876b65175657e2506
35724 F20101119_AABOQP lane_e_Page_66.jpg
514e9741d9997e68c3af0394deb78bed
6a099d8620a45c55207bc9ebd621046e697beec3
4767 F20101119_AABPCK lane_e_Page_05thm.jpg
862831fb9ae20c08a665e852b96d2dd5
7883b46066cb3b8035cf6fbca2a1f4edc14bdd8d
F20101119_AABOVN lane_e_Page_50.tif
896ebfe79a6fd7f2cc621587bc4b724e
4bae300fd78a2bde2d9a18e3a5429f8332186709
57646 F20101119_AABOQQ lane_e_Page_67.jpg
84f5d01a3ba79bf0cb41e43f22cc8f77
c6664983e1a6eb58d3ea5813717c4a7c0850bae6
11046 F20101119_AABPCL lane_e_Page_06.QC.jpg
3c6d5cab9c686fffc7159a3132d8a4f8
f125c117706f2a9f58b91e0606240cbdda673d82
F20101119_AABOVO lane_e_Page_51.tif
e5b7a60e89114320bd572732f4bddb3c
fb55d9bde87873a7734012bb99f80bd78ea3fcfd
3300 F20101119_AABPCM lane_e_Page_06thm.jpg
decdac58ac5c8d6cb075ca7808120295
06fe4e435bb32eb0f9628599e9101ce28c6dc381
F20101119_AABOVP lane_e_Page_52.tif
e81b1580fdd9bb23f430bfc7b1412739
c9c86176e02130fba02419f18c4dd06cf1ce5bba
74819 F20101119_AABOQR lane_e_Page_68.jpg
e2e8de3a7ae89fc309542dc199cbd31f
8fd5d9d55c8edcef051d5ec94bcc1ec95f2ec82b
7572 F20101119_AABPCN lane_e_Page_07.QC.jpg
d4ba49568e49faca82c79318a1a71d2a
7ad7ea23ad345df734f01d4e870df5216e11fcd4
F20101119_AABOVQ lane_e_Page_53.tif
8a947c99ca4185531ad2fd4885c250fc
8a74e2e684ad72ae098a50d99414495697f8b746
82336 F20101119_AABOQS lane_e_Page_69.jpg
a4e4653ee176d350a74d8bb86f82e5c2
86fd4d503a28cdb4be3fd07a03bcc175b6b6aa80
2462 F20101119_AABPCO lane_e_Page_07thm.jpg
32b1702f5efe1164b7f92a918a4a21f6
a8a4346b5ce252e6c6216f3e4eee14767d4e04a4
F20101119_AABOVR lane_e_Page_54.tif
243214fc02ceaf21b72268c963b1b844
8b0b03b5fdaa241765fd4624303b5080b7085873
81005 F20101119_AABOQT lane_e_Page_70.jpg
f08a520c2e6049421201737722075041
388c7bcd4bdb22def7ced47f65231d815527d0ba
18849 F20101119_AABPCP lane_e_Page_08.QC.jpg
42f4624503123ef116342b329f27f1dd
ea8d4a599738577cfd36567de5a77e5cac600513
F20101119_AABOVS lane_e_Page_55.tif
b31088d49d05b27dd49b9c5fb6208188
c748b84555f3c2ca3684f9d9b7e874a4759b4e48
80308 F20101119_AABOQU lane_e_Page_71.jpg
63c0571d0e75cb1f51820cbe1bbc8b11
7a5d32d38e6d355dfb291b0cd31dbd8dabfaa1b9
5133 F20101119_AABPCQ lane_e_Page_08thm.jpg
2a28841b729224c05953ae322935674c
4672d92dc333a8bcc5be4f3b2a90e69b354c922b
F20101119_AABOVT lane_e_Page_56.tif
0b13004bb180152241825dce852a73d2
182ede32b72fa0cd6ac6fa639722c050ab57b07f
69182 F20101119_AABOQV lane_e_Page_72.jpg
f957fdb5e8d77e1e03876470dc996797
03f6cd3cb37cd2aac00b59a9da3aee784c0cd5e2
4055 F20101119_AABPCR lane_e_Page_09.QC.jpg
ad3d56eb3962f93c28112ec4bc13b1df
17525a3c39f5c3f36c1ddd160cddf1e1d169996f
26119 F20101119_AABOQW lane_e_Page_73.jpg
20c5a556de5280459f4dc6be4fedc1fc
818bbe093c718126de7d9c184ca3804012a4d78e
1555 F20101119_AABPCS lane_e_Page_09thm.jpg
b29b7466383add6781d70a388662da7c
96daff50f9d142684030088cfce85ba56679b151
F20101119_AABOVU lane_e_Page_58.tif
53aad942cd48a73029a6fec7008b974a
61f7da952e3f5467657c14c186c7694526877bb3
27050 F20101119_AABOQX lane_e_Page_01.jp2
9814d53d2c85765e336ba4ce0f4a7ddc
a91246c1dcc171c3e145abd233c43456f9fcfc60
21218 F20101119_AABPCT lane_e_Page_10.QC.jpg
d18d8ae692061b8962a993340acfcc59
358e666123d6222543ef99eea931736a4d0b5033
F20101119_AABOVV lane_e_Page_59.tif
ea3ab68d5e1cc185609f0ee150594266
ddc11d0e2c3fcc735216827161c726a95a9bffc1
85395 F20101119_AABOOA UFE0012660_00001.mets
2c795636d92785ed1dbf18ada9ca7e41
6817443ef6bd4d603ead61eeda45e8e3b592e167
5300 F20101119_AABOQY lane_e_Page_02.jp2
f68603dd7ac7232b9cbfc6156955640c
43d4931d47d02e9f13f657e049e73feb18d7bcad
5979 F20101119_AABPCU lane_e_Page_10thm.jpg
65fac706a574b42f3aba64b17d7cef4c
960eb4d79edaf4c9a558e5236e15fe1ea89e9031
F20101119_AABOVW lane_e_Page_60.tif
898b800d61476285fc7d2014dfbab6a3
554f997d136f1919b325f416438a74f1ebb6ca6a
6482 F20101119_AABOQZ lane_e_Page_03.jp2
4475475ad807fad910dbd99486c66f0e
636f7b0e29210fa46102aca3a494ebf9a3072769
24045 F20101119_AABPCV lane_e_Page_11.QC.jpg
02a70647a08b2dff7870a4e4dcdcd8a3
cc0e761674d51567eb1e41f80ab2f78f81355a44
F20101119_AABOVX lane_e_Page_61.tif
704735e007138bf885a986f932e8bce8
0c9fbfbd240e306b30b5768851e17e93a06921d5
6463 F20101119_AABPCW lane_e_Page_11thm.jpg
baa94ac9c60f37cda92819a9e7d0594a
d81f28859e111f2e0c78215762e211ea6aed6190
105636 F20101119_AABOTA lane_e_Page_56.jp2
d1da9499462724f44160df8e82d295de
e7d2656363bd6f69dd1d39ae0fddf24ae7e0176d
F20101119_AABOVY lane_e_Page_63.tif
fda16e0593717284e8030f02b20b2131
322761c761f6fce390d5e7ba4f2eb348f0c74909
26567 F20101119_AABOOD lane_e_Page_01.jpg
93dd0cb234ec5b8145b3f0b4c6dd3ec2
e62eea48767e6701e2e148e82eceb6bcb947a434
23897 F20101119_AABPCX lane_e_Page_12.QC.jpg
8132c9e178b602e5b16f87aa2ef3aa8f
c4f27a646e66853cd1022f23bdceab0c40d0da7d
104399 F20101119_AABOTB lane_e_Page_57.jp2
c39c68c472b65617d396ce1d3f443242
ff736d0c9eb55d2dca0bdb2db3a1fb2c9a98ffd1
F20101119_AABOVZ lane_e_Page_64.tif
bbb3ef7480c43a00d2d45b36ace6d201
2e9c53dcc5c3e88a8e134a84ffeeb60279cdeaa7
10158 F20101119_AABOOE lane_e_Page_02.jpg
d2b81e1a1fba735eaccd32892b37d148
4e5ef9096c1391fa654441b3b3aff40aa2e5fa06
23593 F20101119_AABPCY lane_e_Page_13.QC.jpg
b0c9598cf5db5291472ee3331d885323
fa61f02504322e0b2b114e08fabdbd29593fd8fc
85034 F20101119_AABOTC lane_e_Page_58.jp2
dbc87fac12f3ef626af29cabe6b401c0
dee1e4622d76db949abe5db14db5f2ea9d1f84a5
10841 F20101119_AABOOF lane_e_Page_03.jpg
015d546a800148e4ecd89a64e39fc0cc
284d8147d2e204c03bbd7d0aba081140d279ea7c
6477 F20101119_AABPCZ lane_e_Page_13thm.jpg
53c0ab616d890202357ad0bc871ae631
928afb21d32b214726cbec9feb072f309b7a8e57
99544 F20101119_AABOTD lane_e_Page_59.jp2
4684186ae826bfdc133450e3bf7f351a
41710f75c54ba9d21aca0be5970d1586e3debaf2
56890 F20101119_AABOOG lane_e_Page_04.jpg
c8ec1b79b1b0b094745bca12a8a391b3
7e7b482af05f6264902254b68ff2bc5d4ebab5e2
26100 F20101119_AABOYA lane_e_Page_45.pro
3930c195b1fce5d19a207be54df541bc
5e7c5a61ccbc134d585d496983be10d15e0722de
1793 F20101119_AABPAA lane_e_Page_26.txt
51882181d86f067e007c9c6ee4de31c3
82738c4236fe2f81e837170c24e76ac1a9031c6e
110722 F20101119_AABOTE lane_e_Page_60.jp2
ed56d54865c061f025ab24894a5d891a
af976f5f4b140073cba83442e817b2a9ef52d773
65800 F20101119_AABOOH lane_e_Page_05.jpg
811c373093e858605e1f586170e6f1a7
4d5db4eeb998bd719ddaa8ca1fe7b7a09c7c5310
34714 F20101119_AABOYB lane_e_Page_46.pro
9f41c6c46bcceb470e80c724c9d2cd3a
2dcde99bf3851a2cbb8221424748ba12d1177f33
1991 F20101119_AABPAB lane_e_Page_27.txt
d865beeca667d7d5e63ab26d98cc11cc
587eb90e554ad625180af49a970c824f6f066544
23960 F20101119_AABPFA lane_e_Page_42.QC.jpg
8c2295736256f63186f7470790631341
d6dd4b78049b73a9d7e3fe2a2f1959b277015d98
109633 F20101119_AABOTF lane_e_Page_61.jp2
a208311f54588938f95cc33a9862ff00
205beedd5cee1bb593cec103eccdda81a0d4f320
39392 F20101119_AABOOI lane_e_Page_06.jpg
39d186f81167b4990080d61279c0923b
096a729dd38e0deaa6a0968e09a0cff48dd9f4ca
39531 F20101119_AABOYC lane_e_Page_47.pro
949b33f617296b3588c7ef728ae71b48
60f35a7dbde1ba6355d21c606bd7f92e6b769406
1937 F20101119_AABPAC lane_e_Page_28.txt
5b73e2b89ad2cc9529f0c6e361a4177c
ffa68e20136549a8553e5783a45ceaa8875731a4
6713 F20101119_AABPFB lane_e_Page_42thm.jpg
c0abc22d80d7305c36bc6cee7ebf1587
375f42cf80ec524b9a3a49974b9a2de86e7ad485
106115 F20101119_AABOTG lane_e_Page_62.jp2
883b0e5aa9f229a61c22edb0c18e5231
a56567402a13fc1cac8b7e42b2bd0a4f02fff4ea
25590 F20101119_AABOOJ lane_e_Page_07.jpg
d5e1059bcdd376c945cb1852e8ff3ed9
cad52a035fcc0841d2bf5e34388567eb15b3a1e9
52127 F20101119_AABOYD lane_e_Page_48.pro
98823f218152c10b4664540ef60f85c1
40fd94fd45080ec8d34afe0a746bd2799943d3c5
2029 F20101119_AABPAD lane_e_Page_29.txt
af34bcd93991977091d5a0080c4df4ac
04c926979f89b54c3bde910e7298b81395428d6c
23910 F20101119_AABPFC lane_e_Page_43.QC.jpg
e73342a16345195093a3558069b5ecb0
3c2ef14199146ec78a7e419ae26d323712574443
109381 F20101119_AABOTH lane_e_Page_63.jp2
b6eadc027cb07ee0fb6b3d619e913711
9ae9763c2359196cbd30bbe5b0d4b3156cef08b3
61025 F20101119_AABOOK lane_e_Page_08.jpg
e5a4a49333b3fdc2046f009e6040d452
a9179f0e5b698ee90e79b5a78c962b500efa696e
50414 F20101119_AABOYE lane_e_Page_49.pro
d3d9bfc03350225fdb6aa41e62ac1a99
93016462489bda9f0dff5b98c9c7711fef9009a6
1971 F20101119_AABPAE lane_e_Page_30.txt
143d2b23da6b74124191ad2f41496e59
69a87d3e8493f5f14c7daad98eae547e09cf009f
110480 F20101119_AABOTI lane_e_Page_64.jp2
f2faa2e77938a2770b7b2f985b9435fe
e85ec86ae513bc9bcc0dec827ccef9ed13738397
12035 F20101119_AABOOL lane_e_Page_09.jpg
760d046f000bacd59e4282b80a0ad2ab
018a578df9c30fb91dd9dea5e6f63a8b5a3870dc
31898 F20101119_AABOYF lane_e_Page_50.pro
b2a30e0a40ceb33b928a66bb0a626532
0836388930cdf99254bfeec5ebe2c9a5d89317bf
2090 F20101119_AABPAF lane_e_Page_32.txt
559a8aabc0cb720573853bea7c6614f5
80cb81c48b0d701decf9343ab69d7b20c4df009a
6590 F20101119_AABPFD lane_e_Page_43thm.jpg
9140ddbc47274d9e74a98e70d4f091a1
4fbd7d2ff6546d875406bc259bbe1923ffad0c9d
59230 F20101119_AABOTJ lane_e_Page_65.jp2
3c1bb7365f1992fbd6562405cc4771d1
3fa8e3a6acc5a09391f3d087e9dfbbdfbb7b10a2
65585 F20101119_AABOOM lane_e_Page_10.jpg
995d0d9a3dd6c5dab04539cafbac901b
36ca8a6705edd6b29ca836f667dcd41bb88a387c
50593 F20101119_AABOYG lane_e_Page_51.pro
461ea009922110fac26030f4110e83d1
979eaa1e8bf09695928662c6e4d38072fa4eb95e
1950 F20101119_AABPAG lane_e_Page_33.txt
fa514f11205e79b33a53f3315501abc7
bbbf97dd94ec1d38a89c7548b9ce0166c2507bc2
23111 F20101119_AABPFE lane_e_Page_44.QC.jpg
13bb0154dd25391cd70fcb0ad467d79b
bbd148349a4c85a38ddd499688dfea23f8d16ec0
43091 F20101119_AABOTK lane_e_Page_66.jp2
7fdfe521bc91b6368b5c504e23376603
51ea756bcd7198d04cedc7e40c54b30ad40b0130
51260 F20101119_AABOYH lane_e_Page_52.pro
caa411684b15df06abbf0a8f569a2fb7
af680f26a3c0cdae612fdfd23636281ca42a43f1
1949 F20101119_AABPAH lane_e_Page_34.txt
a1b6461926a437bce0fd553dc2f5fe3a
b169cb9e0d30bd74bb4d8e9e4f1f938589b8a446
6572 F20101119_AABPFF lane_e_Page_44thm.jpg
c2e6289bb7321f9bd8618a0af1f47071
cebb2a5340f406966daee2b95ac4e2dbcb5a8804
73920 F20101119_AABOTL lane_e_Page_67.jp2
303a8120c944be8929452cb328393626
fc6fe9b6de935e4ae603540e223914a2169b64db
74611 F20101119_AABOON lane_e_Page_11.jpg
82d0ab000eb0633867fd9bd07486dcf6
fa7127a233733a1cb8225f1327c733010616c546
48766 F20101119_AABOYI lane_e_Page_53.pro
c76031f31c00d70333fb0419bfcbf03a
e20bd3c901e3c1b563e799150b56eae90609ee39
2019 F20101119_AABPAI lane_e_Page_35.txt
10c9ac0c2ceae609916cc287689a1444
8f8043d03d29603785971b26fc270a4bd2f8a0cf
13186 F20101119_AABPFG lane_e_Page_45.QC.jpg
4ba2493e63f523999d54b4c5b1a758ba
62994e7d4b6c581720f06bfaf7e318e3a5641c9e
114095 F20101119_AABOTM lane_e_Page_68.jp2
79d548afd8d759375cd0022aab62514d
9b53ce7c8e51c661e73e2a753fe11fbb4a874683
73030 F20101119_AABOOO lane_e_Page_12.jpg
c8c44ffb86ead6d6b4ec2c59e6831eaf
af203642a3387d02e81f4b4c16a531c43512ae36
49826 F20101119_AABOYJ lane_e_Page_55.pro
8d965e89b84a14c488d9c20db65bf8ad
ebe065f0791af65521b031481e61f6314c860970
2030 F20101119_AABPAJ lane_e_Page_36.txt
d98006af0223ec9593285caa4c7bf731
567a51f701714dc80396f102a0835480ef33e805
3841 F20101119_AABPFH lane_e_Page_45thm.jpg
c1be5133058c2bd0a5e5d42ec7fa3837
224bc0faa6689e1c9120d022efdadd1f5ba2e70d
123330 F20101119_AABOTN lane_e_Page_69.jp2
ca211b7901944d1711cd0eed51c5d66f
801002d4249aa486222669c7cf38fb2c27b935e4
72299 F20101119_AABOOP lane_e_Page_13.jpg
79abd83503ed98f0c7e19d97acf03e2a
c7e016e67787532878b748c5283b2fa612f122d4
49531 F20101119_AABOYK lane_e_Page_56.pro
efbbdbf2993f73c7c9fbd98d14651a8c
84974d7916415b15987d1095c3e803b082989d87
435 F20101119_AABPAK lane_e_Page_37.txt
ebe7ee9a774ebfefb4fde674c91503a0
292a4bbd6abe59fd4be948f63d69747af7ecbb01
15373 F20101119_AABPFI lane_e_Page_46.QC.jpg
112f91fc31a8b5a8677ba4ae99f2a382
8d398f81e678e0b4c240f724a625400565680333
47073 F20101119_AABOOQ lane_e_Page_14.jpg
5a19a14ac600c64b37a7359a73a15c28
2128d316059d358bd6fdc9c2cb99897b120f56c7
48457 F20101119_AABOYL lane_e_Page_57.pro
563c588bdf46586bf132512e0d8a4d01
f5b2ee699798aa1c28c275cc7bc0cba614f9cec4
1673 F20101119_AABPAL lane_e_Page_38.txt
36e670e3015252126da90055d143549e
c10b465fbeeed74b89c1c78fc2880def8a57f5a8
132405 F20101119_AABOTO lane_e_Page_70.jp2
447f81ac499980f254d7e59b55e21dbf
fa1e5f1d9aac38454c325eb494a51a3f28edbac7
19408 F20101119_AABPFJ lane_e_Page_47.QC.jpg
24beade28bd51c4e23ebd34ab392d3d3
feb080a04fa70eae59b232c06f5e4bdb5f7ea1c4
63136 F20101119_AABOOR lane_e_Page_15.jpg
78304e6f599eeabe802c9d9a47dddfa9
e1bfdd32c7ab1ef48a98dc4832b5f7c6681122cf
38187 F20101119_AABOYM lane_e_Page_58.pro
08b0340e1483242d813169e9dc7173f7
96b02d9cfd9a7b0d58dcb12eba70beeb1392be15
1954 F20101119_AABPAM lane_e_Page_39.txt
36c856416f6a19a675896e125717f8cb
ea9d83a6087151e7adc067b2c4095910d0c32f78
128330 F20101119_AABOTP lane_e_Page_71.jp2
97f0aced3569a05732fe43d617ab9ff3
8fc6edd385dd49a8df5a323d31158fd64a06a658
5402 F20101119_AABPFK lane_e_Page_47thm.jpg
a6e320efeb471774312b418aa5050f84
9d2d1dcfbb5aadb4a3ef07327c30add8d2395598
70894 F20101119_AABOOS lane_e_Page_16.jpg
d475dde0549ea644b943a661c95058d7
a5722d8e58a4ea9f660ef4263ca71721b40ba9cd
45825 F20101119_AABOYN lane_e_Page_59.pro
abd9dc36a6dfe6deb327a17c51a4559d
8fb55ffafc3f00e4131a4011401e6b37735bccc2
2036 F20101119_AABPAN lane_e_Page_40.txt
683bb169710842fd6e955648c712e8b5
f9711d4ed708b627767921f3b611633e9cc92bb7
105467 F20101119_AABOTQ lane_e_Page_72.jp2
d768ad1873f0a13e74812ea30baa2f7c
6e78d531b938391a8ae0c8e6b65b78a231c5aa22
24243 F20101119_AABPFL lane_e_Page_48.QC.jpg
5b3bdec7949a33b8ea9c412c1f9772dc
d7c011f79dd9bf9dcd8d7264f7faf3e8dc2cac98
74054 F20101119_AABOOT lane_e_Page_17.jpg
4a71a24935e2f4ff3bcc9661de9d67a4
adad2479ad8c72101185a64360165c09adb0e702
51060 F20101119_AABOYO lane_e_Page_60.pro
9d12a61efb6cc214849c6afeb8452f9b
fc88fd1061f5c7ebd0e6fd87bcce0f5c6598101a
1977 F20101119_AABPAO lane_e_Page_41.txt
fdeeecbf2f6cc20a6054879ae68c13b9
4c264ee693a3c0fb689820379451c6018f9d6d96
32447 F20101119_AABOTR lane_e_Page_73.jp2
650196c6c38202a62b94db4cfb697784
c76c7319537be4832bf2a507b9ad769957d6304e
6700 F20101119_AABPFM lane_e_Page_48thm.jpg
ebd87d8b629e50ac96b6ff27f206b97b
4a118e9628746df0a92525bbdd7d1ca05d272901
73686 F20101119_AABOOU lane_e_Page_18.jpg
3255f6eda1f93ac4c5af89b4e5518386
2256cab964ac7279e0806ed543a70c8bc3c2df55
51338 F20101119_AABOYP lane_e_Page_61.pro
b8db5725ca46a8128540eede0fbe96e5
4c1c7df07aef7410b018eec170fce282f0125bc6
2034 F20101119_AABPAP lane_e_Page_42.txt
2731ff5236d63618b9f9a6e56e008ef1
65bdf702d3b3c2c2e71182f493c5e78e790a7a6a
22736 F20101119_AABPFN lane_e_Page_49.QC.jpg
807738dee1a98f6e0f69a3411662f52d
3caa1bf4e1025e2ef617dd1561291089b32dadfb
70972 F20101119_AABOOV lane_e_Page_19.jpg
ffe7356500f9a7bf3d94012fd044a3e4
8b90c927386dfef3d1da845b58e11ef57668981a
48893 F20101119_AABOYQ lane_e_Page_62.pro
a67279b6a6b22c220f9e0eb43e86eda5
9621f65856e29961f4e83d69dbd5e9f0beba9a7d
2059 F20101119_AABPAQ lane_e_Page_43.txt
964e37e7f99d9000f5d3c853058badf3
deba49bc3bdf2a7ada8e20aef471d57efc1d024d
F20101119_AABOTS lane_e_Page_01.tif
7c694b9a6a7a14b4de7e61f8b5d73de3
ce474ce4e77739e494028f89a01feb5b88dc4867
16936 F20101119_AABPFO lane_e_Page_50.QC.jpg
2adc1e7883697f325dda4dcbf75d96de
370db68fe769328461545af4f366c6240c5368bd
72321 F20101119_AABOOW lane_e_Page_20.jpg
b720086009ee7e154f83383e3deef3a4
327ac956846f7f507823c843c3ef680868f07dbc
50874 F20101119_AABOYR lane_e_Page_63.pro
cf70630a94c2db4c5477a165cb025981
f9f6f8e3df4619c531cf29be5b533dea45b5649b
F20101119_AABPAR lane_e_Page_44.txt
ea770d8458fd6ad72988e98e6cb9e6ba
21a5c735c2d3d05b851868afb62676433a5b39c9
F20101119_AABOTT lane_e_Page_02.tif
26b0d01c17c7f8b2511ec21a44bc256c
2167b51d101223824db3df3f24ed78a07e7ed708
5095 F20101119_AABPFP lane_e_Page_50thm.jpg
ba7dbe5c5225978a6034dd0a115d4479
85f616db2d175bfea52720e2c25f77bf5691443b
69154 F20101119_AABOOX lane_e_Page_21.jpg
c908404052de2ce9117855eec94bda41
f674689da6acc42c945873b4dd2bf78feca053ec
51045 F20101119_AABOYS lane_e_Page_64.pro
25b288548ecd0cab60bb67eaced5d715
87edb6242ec15b7e758e5c6510cc3d01b41af6cb
1051 F20101119_AABPAS lane_e_Page_45.txt
e1a04277c884a54b44d2f42e2b5df015
5e89a965d2f1671f0543c80d10f8916b8966af5e
F20101119_AABOTU lane_e_Page_03.tif
85a6f5ab02911c422aa16993c32e248f
9baed5f1c6cd295ba6f1d3f6f258e9c11d94edee
22970 F20101119_AABPFQ lane_e_Page_51.QC.jpg
a03033e57c96a742fc92c5ad23b996f8
48ee6c3df280e83968c947b95f11e82e0f11772e
73452 F20101119_AABOOY lane_e_Page_22.jpg
ce71b499df71d4e9fef53d826e2a12dc
6b93d8d908284053d23e7faf5036fae65901cc61
26735 F20101119_AABOYT lane_e_Page_65.pro
a97f1a84fa9dbff31712c677824f685c
c4d9bf192723ceb599e389682f676240a0ba8aa6
2585 F20101119_AABPAT lane_e_Page_46.txt
6403cd304f1a31b2090ec6a782d1a110
04a722e73e6a406453fbb4cee6f3273683229779
F20101119_AABOTV lane_e_Page_04.tif
01ea77704d71f70107a357fcdd7aaefc
6a9174b3103d62989c3c96c775d3366c5fca24a2
6415 F20101119_AABPFR lane_e_Page_51thm.jpg
241154a8212ee7a24249e6b9c1f7a11a
f0878e52b5dbdeac9901535f14a3cf621af7401f
73742 F20101119_AABOOZ lane_e_Page_23.jpg
b66b3a33496e8939603d29be81fd8360
26bda853ad5fc784e5f4ee5d289eab39812e6fd0
21268 F20101119_AABOYU lane_e_Page_66.pro
81287475299291040d3485915fca3e5a
555b7163bc9387fa21861fe9d3f0643b40feeb03
1677 F20101119_AABPAU lane_e_Page_47.txt
2eb78ea61999ae20d3f994122cb6c2f3
fcd47c2aba1d6c639c2d2c1fab0a531770af721e
25271604 F20101119_AABOTW lane_e_Page_05.tif
4058c10ba8ff7429496175c999248fd7
5b3ebc3b912908ca7f40c6c3f3449d8fa5e3566c
22836 F20101119_AABPFS lane_e_Page_52.QC.jpg
b44fdef160918115eb42be738837e13e
d2b69fa9385ef7a8d2e885bb61b91aac8d352738
35183 F20101119_AABOYV lane_e_Page_67.pro
9c4a1b822272157618e57d0f18d81f0a
75e038b72db0741b86c676b8bf27a2da8c5fbc78
2080 F20101119_AABPAV lane_e_Page_48.txt
e73173255c5bf20f0cd145d968948ac7
d1705e802da2e1411eddb6521fb3e077b0e142ec
F20101119_AABOTX lane_e_Page_06.tif
2b215274e381a71647999198888366ec
6e756939cf4da7995c3b2d4af132ac837633f034
6601 F20101119_AABPFT lane_e_Page_52thm.jpg
f383a92b358a9561259e52242dfee411
3a6236dc6b55182aa117367446162e809f5d6107
53182 F20101119_AABOYW lane_e_Page_68.pro
ac7c856d3410b42ab61f5c899311be71
b37dcec18dab095d401d30dd652785f519cf02d0
F20101119_AABPAW lane_e_Page_49.txt
6ec0daa737eeecafc5765d732b9a92c9
68b60648889cec245fd12404536f673c79e3fa08
83268 F20101119_AABORA lane_e_Page_04.jp2
aff183d954108965244c24cfb6c105ed
039afaa13bc59cfa9d1de391617d4b49511a8316
F20101119_AABOTY lane_e_Page_07.tif
e56aacced8bbe62992a7d5251e468c22
230466430b215ed794f9139dd76863a68b9d80b4
22972 F20101119_AABPFU lane_e_Page_53.QC.jpg
83865bd2ee629e04c75393c5d8910f36
bf6cb99e69d6cdbf0133f7ac94e2fd49fd190890
1535 F20101119_AABPAX lane_e_Page_50.txt
d0c9299b3894222a1b0cc8ff6974a2ad
3161a36da8a5a655461f352c74b9a81f466c0662
1051956 F20101119_AABORB lane_e_Page_05.jp2
4e973c79a467494b5565eab4d0d1911e
72fa680716f797ba200653f971ab082ec457c352
F20101119_AABOTZ lane_e_Page_08.tif
137604502304692d51e86a6f9d99d5ab
ccb55d15e05378b89f2201150541fd03c6bbb762
23966 F20101119_AABPFV lane_e_Page_54.QC.jpg
66c83e0062e6f21d710a858597853166
3ccaf15185ee733a6bd3148cd71a20b52cc5740d
58315 F20101119_AABOYX lane_e_Page_69.pro
70b84891dfc5ae720eb1d98e6d496fe5
c4003bb59ca33bd69100fd6261f34b9f16fdd4d2
F20101119_AABPAY lane_e_Page_51.txt
cc3b9880650fcf63c230e9e51389717b
c6710dead4d876ce56a28e7acf248c1aabe0b775
934661 F20101119_AABORC lane_e_Page_06.jp2
3f7edad31fc06388df53ffa87644c23a
5e67354810b7bcc41477771eb54097867eaa8293
6536 F20101119_AABPFW lane_e_Page_54thm.jpg
e184c7c19078509339cb5a4ee1d7b6ef
88849ccb5d5a1ac952b57416d41db2510744de3a
F20101119_AABOWA lane_e_Page_65.tif
2696d7ecbc8ec2a2fa460cbb5e2261c7
ec11968f47ed352260cfe7b31435b8e342cce904
62540 F20101119_AABOYY lane_e_Page_70.pro
292d80aab3cb71fd5842f3c669713930
556d1091903ca57eb03bf288415d9138df8da979
2014 F20101119_AABPAZ lane_e_Page_52.txt
2a1f0837007160a5cc7d18af61cc77a5
9cda1c7e31694bc0ae2e3b9d9adaec27039374cb
567467 F20101119_AABORD lane_e_Page_07.jp2
cf41d4f485194870e708451f82ec0f17
2c97da8e5d7d9b9cc9cd07faf51d86fef46f2189
20934 F20101119_AABPFX lane_e_Page_55.QC.jpg
36a7c9aff599bef1b1156863acb1d65c
a328e386ff184ae34a5f15d5d0ca0d1261dc8a7d
F20101119_AABOWB lane_e_Page_66.tif
fc31e4af80c577ede7eaad249a99eb1f
e5ab700c4e648ea764f44379814ad6742a864195
60395 F20101119_AABOYZ lane_e_Page_71.pro
0a541099be3267473eda58518733eebe
0f9929969765ddc9576450a1472047e914e8ab87
86151 F20101119_AABORE lane_e_Page_08.jp2
2054bac633e72447bde49a5739ed05fa
b30feb7e9084f90dd7a82054804df69b42f54b13
6045 F20101119_AABPFY lane_e_Page_55thm.jpg
6a00359571b59ba9b251f4a4fba0b3f5
41e530498045901474b396403587b8ebdca0be58
4473 F20101119_AABPDA lane_e_Page_14thm.jpg
da5610ecfd5123af3001a1dcaae4064f
0493d127e287b416478d839f48c276369cba6262
F20101119_AABOWC lane_e_Page_67.tif
de0f3697c6ad0734fa222e3fc7791b59
838ae80f06e86cd8536b0449281e611a8cbf4afc
10240 F20101119_AABORF lane_e_Page_09.jp2
db908fd5617281201ea82bac6b898789
7dcff44cf4cb3f2cc92d7213edc0278d57a064f0
22652 F20101119_AABPFZ lane_e_Page_56.QC.jpg
d9fb1e64ec49c6319b8f83d14421b9af
e9ef3befb5ab64a3eb33f4fc46881f1ce5c5db0f
F20101119_AABOWD lane_e_Page_68.tif
65c85d73139ca3c55a4a41b9b7dd0745
4099b06e0959316124fa0c4be44cc7677ad536ba
98901 F20101119_AABORG lane_e_Page_10.jp2
549008e64213bbeae49772049f5f1721
aa79227a9d29c9ac29445c226e719480436e114c
20977 F20101119_AABPDB lane_e_Page_15.QC.jpg
18d094b3059d2a1542aa335b96d50833
8672e8e1a3660f09d3772ccf4243986f40044829
F20101119_AABOWE lane_e_Page_69.tif
4d48606ecc85f70ca64ef1e8d24e7b64
7e0951dcfcb57b6e6e69a8719042ad154e3f9307
113418 F20101119_AABORH lane_e_Page_11.jp2
5e3ef313adea40ab065e2bc2e1cab2a9
f52a2d4fba251c98a4dbca2928143feb2542d731
5929 F20101119_AABPDC lane_e_Page_15thm.jpg
7ebecf7bd4c05a158451611af416a354
3c02c6c01b851b43125a8f075c58a213c286432f
F20101119_AABOWF lane_e_Page_71.tif
95a0f97ad1307f92f62c8f3a8abae16a
1eb1db0f5682ab784672a18441a65f9555883d86
111865 F20101119_AABORI lane_e_Page_12.jp2
37f2184f52309e8b8467f63bf5ede776
399ace1afbe4dcfb670d958dd0610bcdc1e38398
23226 F20101119_AABPDD lane_e_Page_16.QC.jpg
d3902c234e9f3fc28d466453f5c9cc0f
edbacfa486ad3fe85764a16a61a65aa90beb310a
F20101119_AABOWG lane_e_Page_72.tif
2347a914a3931578702d38a66922aae0
2f08385640566257b8b8de0eb1869597ab0b85c8
112075 F20101119_AABORJ lane_e_Page_13.jp2
ee94f09b8283b0a08f3a986a8e583888
89dacfde4dc5c2c152bedd35002e79968540a6e3
6467 F20101119_AABPDE lane_e_Page_16thm.jpg
e34341b61275459016bbbcb04c868030
1e98ae233635b289efafe5adff4f10d70d50803d
F20101119_AABOWH lane_e_Page_73.tif
3abee34c323ab9f264f6499dff84a634
15e50b8f2f7061d02552891a25816b68bbd889e3
69595 F20101119_AABORK lane_e_Page_14.jp2
32d2a9633ca11efa0c3ce34999aa4ffa
35f34d05ef725f8e7a48d710099eb5aef53c14d8
24179 F20101119_AABPDF lane_e_Page_17.QC.jpg
71e695ddcc62288feff67e4263b2def3
16e998f2a3884a6f451b121e9240488a389c7118
9355 F20101119_AABOWI lane_e_Page_01.pro
4fce3efdc8ad6a2415af645fed86fe82
1cd2faa543a11f040f94113ab2eb62e9da880fa6
95324 F20101119_AABORL lane_e_Page_15.jp2
e9bb98a56f1f4c9945d14477bcc81477
e4259781dfcbc02d012626c5ed32d0d6025270e6
6542 F20101119_AABPDG lane_e_Page_17thm.jpg
d3d4726f65d6ca9c397d00592ac661bb
645a36edfabaa7a277ac3cf53d9b311472355288
1093 F20101119_AABOWJ lane_e_Page_02.pro
7fc2f324549c00f6abc50c44ac04a01f
e4aaa110680eab8b40d9516a5d041e115f860005
108209 F20101119_AABORM lane_e_Page_16.jp2
279f1167892f215fa70ec85fabe5ea50
e867314a3d2ccd23f3a9553675d8f509362ecf66
24247 F20101119_AABPDH lane_e_Page_18.QC.jpg
84059bc7c2dc0639070597567de215ae
522f65eee961a67274317de974d4087875edaf88
113627 F20101119_AABORN lane_e_Page_17.jp2
12cddec857f682bb1f9dcea918cd60dd
7457f27649de48a82565c91c4568827dbe631acb
1557 F20101119_AABOWK lane_e_Page_03.pro
d0652cc93928389312cd3c4f7dbea50e
01f6bc09fa723a28d248a7ad5c290c1f14dccfd1
6719 F20101119_AABPDI lane_e_Page_18thm.jpg
40e046bc7d775d38c6d1770f6f137d72
8c51d6b7fc0391aae377fb336855253b84461207
112805 F20101119_AABORO lane_e_Page_18.jp2
01ba7256fea805acf78b0fcbdc43ed47
f812458aa687940007543a49a4d496566961db25
37722 F20101119_AABOWL lane_e_Page_04.pro
614d32c3b45760de6321886b5e20cf68
3a8693d04c741cbd29c2ca524823c3118e7b97c2
F20101119_AABPDJ lane_e_Page_19.QC.jpg
fe567b87436f5fcbdecf381efd65da24
e625547c3c420dc86d0ce07463b260429ef13457
108695 F20101119_AABORP lane_e_Page_19.jp2
2a10abcfb85501d7ecdf1a600a98225e
4e2156e9e66782083395cdc42309bf4654b9f7db
69580 F20101119_AABOWM lane_e_Page_05.pro
ec3b760108ee1a394a5e995ff91d04d3
472cc86ae0cf200445d38653cb5c0abdade7d437
6345 F20101119_AABPDK lane_e_Page_19thm.jpg
6b16262987dbf09e738db9fa3d63df03
25d9bf82186c5ab44a4daa65b5b76a56b47d1d21
31794 F20101119_AABOWN lane_e_Page_06.pro
3a917a9989bed8b58b67ba781db715bb
e2a90d3e1e157389b8e72b33054349fa76feda52
23296 F20101119_AABPDL lane_e_Page_20.QC.jpg
80ea1466562dce272e651275771fa967
00c5bbaf375e57d4b7287842f5db65c242224516
110370 F20101119_AABORQ lane_e_Page_20.jp2
14f9f9d3a70a66b3d21660cf7646fc23
abbb03b66f732353ac7cb253786a20b9465af18a
16697 F20101119_AABOWO lane_e_Page_07.pro
ee0377441c88a70ebaeac526cb0f7fbb
cb851f2af4ed638f419aa8a2826ca0016169655a
6428 F20101119_AABPDM lane_e_Page_20thm.jpg
84da6e19670e5df5969e250918810283
9e7f8130cefacb99113098e821e49dcbdd464f48
104104 F20101119_AABORR lane_e_Page_21.jp2
48adba69b55d91ad358664808bc8e448
66ef3163bb37a70276ac21f4de50620075434701
38718 F20101119_AABOWP lane_e_Page_08.pro
59192aa269d52643ba461ffdb5c211e1
39fc310236278b90a37c8b50e86118450706ab30
22552 F20101119_AABPDN lane_e_Page_21.QC.jpg
ed3c7bad1e806719a0ab901ffba2dd9b
7ead7cc2849b2821c3e19701263d420e8dc7db2c
112211 F20101119_AABORS lane_e_Page_22.jp2
0f0b601ea9090505a5ff7236c134b4c8
aa9f2d7a943c57e793ec38acbe98abfcf43b73c5
3054 F20101119_AABOWQ lane_e_Page_09.pro
e8be8b0273947d5a6aa00e441d2ea195
c490b406d535b800e70113e9fd886f04c7bb581e
6272 F20101119_AABPDO lane_e_Page_21thm.jpg
1a2f9aad41cfb775f1dbee0297cb9577
6ed709600be1dc9f6ef024cfd5ccc1602c347339
112491 F20101119_AABORT lane_e_Page_23.jp2
d844602158d6217012cf625ff262d29e
c22195a6ecfb82b6962642891abaa689967f158b
45555 F20101119_AABOWR lane_e_Page_10.pro
d50e332f9123a92efd6d30a4063188d4
472fa19fec0c1fcefdee9ea9cdcfe6202a4ff6a9
24037 F20101119_AABPDP lane_e_Page_22.QC.jpg
bf9d39926e8e1bd9636c4ae044090fff
51bcf733c5a0432f590b63486050244f1cad5859
110649 F20101119_AABORU lane_e_Page_24.jp2
46aaae185c8eb22f4667a0471ac974ef
20847ecd33687570158a36ab83b357c71f3e1e89
52556 F20101119_AABOWS lane_e_Page_11.pro
b3155e1719728df54af7e7c56306f01d
d7a9e0f05667f7a27aee5fc57695a49e8b61a82e
6500 F20101119_AABPDQ lane_e_Page_22thm.jpg
9d7934e7813c1ba00be413ace0cf4fc0
7801a3f9ae991602b905b64ea648bec290e49dc7
28430 F20101119_AABORV lane_e_Page_25.jp2
1b3bf68a064f3e33d05ac272276d3057
fda63f4562a0a4f5a4eb4639f7f59178d874fa98
51279 F20101119_AABOWT lane_e_Page_12.pro
6d0f25e81945effecbf1c2b7acaf80dc
b2752cf4912c27d8223dca19b8b820e6304c82de
24155 F20101119_AABPDR lane_e_Page_23.QC.jpg
ff4272d9af0c6f2d2327460f695b2d1c
df470d0f9430b58e68df8e6eb80e253a60a9938d
94424 F20101119_AABORW lane_e_Page_26.jp2
f2188852b36ba202ae244259e43a5ff5
9994e1653f526551d5a4184587ea8ae5e0ec3cec
50965 F20101119_AABOWU lane_e_Page_13.pro
52b16bc3ff257e0280a0b2a52255bc28
90b783a58cb1173533ba55e7c44424547b182899
6580 F20101119_AABPDS lane_e_Page_23thm.jpg
7705634e9bab59ec01afe2342c130e39
e4bf255e5f8fbac7df1f8a0ef99498751dba58e8
109095 F20101119_AABORX lane_e_Page_27.jp2
f39141aed7c4dbdc51db793d7dc86157
8aad62f2bdf1b975b760886f922dbbb8cf090d8d
6486 F20101119_AABPDT lane_e_Page_24thm.jpg
f92f9bf8166bb173d2b16f6685ae5e2c
02248458ed8261ffc3a6bd9200cdaff6752d5bf2
107140 F20101119_AABORY lane_e_Page_28.jp2
96bab60373d341d7c275e9b9ecd4bdfc
854d0e5bcbf3a5c4857ab3b3a22cc62499c9a613
31289 F20101119_AABOWV lane_e_Page_14.pro
4d6a0d85f53a0c8bfdb326bc5222f334
eb69bfeb04d13d3fa20f387157a99c6182fea19d
72617 F20101119_AABOPA lane_e_Page_24.jpg
7837d52e5d0f8ab80c0d263ccfb89fe5
1e75047497007771502528f4dfe1d2420439d270
7513 F20101119_AABPDU lane_e_Page_25.QC.jpg
2d82e5096f09edc9460553eaa12c70cf
25c1d1cb2d4e0ce1bd1f2065947a3a079e79d807
113057 F20101119_AABORZ lane_e_Page_29.jp2
518c92555c6b95b825acee240bc90ccf
1842f42807cfaf26c76170fdc2212062f4faeb9c
43764 F20101119_AABOWW lane_e_Page_15.pro
1160611231cb861dccf41025a1ca7ac7
50447c04d46aa12bb394121097113d202e7be803
22615 F20101119_AABOPB lane_e_Page_25.jpg
b0b4dffba42a3cc072db3135fdcb4c2c
ad9dac9899b912c7c883eccdbfb1605a469534c4
2402 F20101119_AABPDV lane_e_Page_25thm.jpg
539d04fe910dc0799a7f7d15f9cfea6c
5aae5c2fc01f283370eb7ed3bc37ef34eb844e19
50004 F20101119_AABOWX lane_e_Page_16.pro
7b82bb4e77cdbde955a6b4ff81312922
b385a7a9e2cb67bf45d533913cc5811b79f024d7
63875 F20101119_AABOPC lane_e_Page_26.jpg
c9528daee3b7be98f2aac03b4bec5c22
391e9116b2d745853e626420e1bb49036e9478ab
20600 F20101119_AABPDW lane_e_Page_26.QC.jpg
f6b85f20651ff0035d2157da7b91b91b
8912ebeb30944d13fb0bf92fcf1b4eb47533670a
F20101119_AABOUA lane_e_Page_09.tif
70aca47b13fffe3676e9f26ba1683adc
0314a3ac4fae30f462e8fd5c001b13aa71c0f32e
52320 F20101119_AABOWY lane_e_Page_17.pro
ba7c9f52776a1541c5028266e22d4424
0eefd2a96ee6eeecd888a7cfd07d6a2f4565c135
71792 F20101119_AABOPD lane_e_Page_27.jpg
812b4e94db419641bb69c7df138342bc
d91109a6f49d90a71d64b5a65da3a9cd8825a200
5877 F20101119_AABPDX lane_e_Page_26thm.jpg
af14941b44fa9d1f6c81924b4ab6922a
184931a151694db2a8679c8ead0693f6c81b8022
F20101119_AABOUB lane_e_Page_10.tif
0be3359a9d49f6d7ea0dc3c7ca276687
09cdfd3cbd2c29c197b1f85f4c31ec9e24940e7b
51959 F20101119_AABOWZ lane_e_Page_18.pro
d5f32abb49055383ac93c3519e8e12e9
f1f8c72895fae149ec82686ca0c0e35e42734de4
69876 F20101119_AABOPE lane_e_Page_28.jpg
9c8fb870f73c8b4bb592270a56900c4f
9571891f03ca0df91693aaed9f6079512e665b8c
F20101119_AABPDY lane_e_Page_27.QC.jpg
2d77057922b642c0e97251b4e82bd3ff
453ae7f7e533296403f0dfdc36c8d93079aa9e1f
F20101119_AABOUC lane_e_Page_11.tif
d7ae764e9fa0249b09b09cf357e71385
ff704f2104206679d0602f156d3a90d67c215b5f
73038 F20101119_AABOPF lane_e_Page_29.jpg
8a3c2583402114f418a584f5f42bf122
864e2dd7151682931d99ff03df329e3987cd0ea1
6557 F20101119_AABPDZ lane_e_Page_27thm.jpg
80c97c88c1fac4aeeda7f22a14c8a513
c1929403430eacc96f38b112723c80e6538ef592
48031 F20101119_AABOZA lane_e_Page_72.pro
faeb7ed3cde814c2a89861aa2258ee2a
f4b0d27950ab721888456b1336a9d111e72219fe
1956 F20101119_AABPBA lane_e_Page_53.txt
28b3229760fbb523bbe52f8f6ed378b5
e6ee88e862cc0d0c8a9a97cf311259718555ed66
F20101119_AABOUD lane_e_Page_12.tif
e391acb8ef516761ab2ccb634d7e48ea
a7179c0baff4347a78e29281c7d9888af3fdfa66
71521 F20101119_AABOPG lane_e_Page_30.jpg
522be85ceb75df429cab579e5cb69149
11d3d1207a65ef2b84054de54c0c24283ef776e0
13321 F20101119_AABOZB lane_e_Page_73.pro
9ab612e4cee7da87d1b9e5066275a105
0252352e0604222a27c0404ff39e6aa65ddc3bdc
2078 F20101119_AABPBB lane_e_Page_54.txt
ecf1cc65610dd314a17d6d7a8ed5234b
f86bba0c0d4fbe32cb8eb26340b4617e1a937718
F20101119_AABOUE lane_e_Page_13.tif
a13bfab9a9ca84d61db9aa81ea1436ae
2da514b6037ff952aa50bb749b403d3c43e9e91a
72362 F20101119_AABOPH lane_e_Page_31.jpg
d47a9fada762535285c84eccc00832a9
47f9c9f9c6a6f44165f980065ce101f9b423facd
6311 F20101119_AABPGA lane_e_Page_56thm.jpg
d985e8c490883215be9bc52da0af9fc2
3002fb773335d350c70bf18c615e4a0837aac2a7
518 F20101119_AABOZC lane_e_Page_01.txt
c435aaec9b830112c2e99f97fa1fad44
91a3b0500ddd2234f7af58b135a0b5604ad7af45
2494 F20101119_AABPBC lane_e_Page_55.txt
39cb9921bf00160174c65ff7c243fe83
f84cf8c67b48c86a643ef2851d7bdeeee1fbfe0e
F20101119_AABOUF lane_e_Page_15.tif
02f4d8a735267855553e553cabd29da2
58580f58b683494d5eb62f1dc7d61b2896a8f715
75111 F20101119_AABOPI lane_e_Page_32.jpg
deb208a6d412e13418661409d878575b
6cfb9e8fea15119515366fca4435d520af52d927
21878 F20101119_AABPGB lane_e_Page_57.QC.jpg
bb5ee9548af8065de8ab993038c9faaf
cc6704f211832162b3d02106bbe950f773ca46bd
110 F20101119_AABOZD lane_e_Page_02.txt
26471fd8d735110b0d4a3588e24ff52d
f8cd897cbb6cfa2314ad8633ef736156ae39018d
1959 F20101119_AABPBD lane_e_Page_56.txt
c72077c472b9a6f22dfbf54054400a9d
a9601e62672d7e67135405cbf4e1358c15f94be6
F20101119_AABOUG lane_e_Page_16.tif
49c51647a44cc1f21d675f208482eebf
684ca7e008f02410b1d730e9389f36f5e2b4d5b9
69134 F20101119_AABOPJ lane_e_Page_33.jpg
87bea81fcf57e274139d7c333663057a
c4a2e10fca62bc782904957b13c7242f0ba8d358
6404 F20101119_AABPGC lane_e_Page_57thm.jpg
fe5e2c14613259c29bad123e0500b9ec
29d945a2cb9a36dad958618e1575e9d56588b3dc
112 F20101119_AABOZE lane_e_Page_03.txt
1c27633e5c22a2e75f9263813670e06f
9744589ddb33f4ab100c54b1407ec42a90912533
1915 F20101119_AABPBE lane_e_Page_57.txt
d1fbe594c7da2958168f855873778c4c
c77afdb63898a9eb54b17edcba510676dc40e6a6
F20101119_AABOUH lane_e_Page_17.tif
6a20b94bb10e1731a7e7962fa70b0c44
992b11a7add8c6a8ec5fd3d6eca1538ed05095f3
70038 F20101119_AABOPK lane_e_Page_34.jpg
61cdb7d77559cfe8404363380c292aaa
8ea4c030aabbf878c8a9ff708a5b607e5a9449b3



PAGE 1

URBAN DISADVANTAGE, SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION AND RACIAL PROFILING: AN ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGY AND POLICE OFFICERS RACESPECIFIC SEARCH BEHAVIORS By ERIN C. LANE A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Erin C. Lane

PAGE 3

This is dedicated to Aunt Cheryl and Grandpa Lane

PAGE 4

iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS In my studies at the University of Florida I have come in contact with a number of individuals who have made pos itive contributions to my learning and development as a graduate student. Dr. Beeghley was so influe ntial; he guided me through my senior year and directed me to the right re sources when I was trying to pu t together a senior thesis. He has had a profound impact on my life, and I am truly grateful. I thank Alex Piquero for his patience and guidance, as he was instrumental in helping me write and publish my senior thesis. Jodi Lane provided me with the tools and guidance I needed to get thi ngs done and keep it all orga nized. Matt Nobles kept me focused and somehow always knew what was goi ng on. He was always ready to help. I am forever grateful to Karen Parker, who helped me develop my research focus and guide me through my graduate career. The care and expertise she provided are invaluable. Finally, I would like to thank my family fo r their support. They never gave up and their persistence helped me get where I am today. My stepmother, Cheryl, my grandmother, Aunt Jan, Uncle Perry, Uncle Paul and had so much confidence in me. My sisters, Kristin and Michelle, kept me motiv ated by always acting so impressed when I informed them of my researc h. I thank my father for ever ything I have, his consistency, love, concern, support, determination, and his wealth of knowledge.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iv LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................vi ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE..............................................................................6 Public Perception Literature.........................................................................................7 Actual Police Behavior.................................................................................................9 Neighborhood Context and Police Behavior..............................................................13 3 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES............................................................................17 Origins of Urban Disadv antage Perspective...............................................................17 Development of Urban Di sadvantage Perspective.....................................................20 Urban Disadvantage and R acial Profiling Linkages...........................................23 Origins and New Perspectives in Social Disorganization Theory..............................24 Social Disorganization and Racial Profiling Linkages........................................26 Additional Hypotheses........................................................................................27 4 DATA AND METHODS...........................................................................................29 Unit of Analysis..........................................................................................................29 Miami Data.................................................................................................................30 Citizen Contact Data............................................................................................30 Dependent Variable.............................................................................................31 Census Data................................................................................................................32 Urban Disadvantage Indicators...........................................................................33 Social Disorganization Indicators........................................................................33 Officer Data................................................................................................................34 Crime Data..................................................................................................................35

PAGE 6

vi 5 RESULTS...................................................................................................................38 Principle Component Analysis...................................................................................38 Analytic Method.........................................................................................................39 Total Sample Analysis................................................................................................40 Analysis by Area Type...............................................................................................44 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................................50 APPENDIX A PRINCIPLE COMPONENTS ANALYSIS AFTER VARIMAX ROTATION........57 B DESCRIPTIVES: MEANS AND (STANDARD DEVIATIONS) FOR VARIABLES IN SEARCH MODELS FOR NON-DISADVANTAGED AND DISADVANTAGED..................................................................................................58 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................59 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................64

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Descriptive statistic s: Means (and standard deviat ions) for variables in racespecific search models..............................................................................................37 5-1 Seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) coefficients (and standard errors) for the total sample...................................................................................................41 5-2 Seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) coefficients (and standard errors) for non-disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas......................................................46

PAGE 8

viii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts URBAN DISADVANTAGE, SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION, AND RACIAL PROFILING: AN ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGY AND POLICE OFFICERS RACESPECIFIC SEARCH BEHAVIORS By Erin C. Lane December 2005 Chair: Karen F. Parker Major Department: Criminology, Law and Society Racial profiling by police officers has b ecome a popular subject in the field of criminology in the recent past, gaining extensive coverage in the literature. The study of racial profiling varies greatly in scope and research met hod, resulting in three primary forms in the literature, including measurement of citizen perceptions of police practices, citizen self-report data on c ontacts with police, and actua l police stop data. However, findings from research in these veins vary greatly, often failing to take into account ecological context and neglecting to incorporate theory as a fa ctor guiding research. This research seeks to compensate for these defici encies and add to the literature by enhancing our understanding of racial prof iling through theory-based res earch. Using data collected from more than 61,000 police stops in Miam i Dade County, I will examine a number of factors that may influence race-specifi c search behaviors independently for neighborhoods of high and low disadvantage in an attempt to explore and compare the

PAGE 9

ix contributions of urban economy/disadvantage and disorganization theori es to the study of racial profiling.

PAGE 10

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Minorities in general, and specifically black males, are drastically overrepresented in the criminal justice system (Walker, 2001). Scholars agree that a primary cause of this disproportionality may stem from law enfo rcement officers use of race as the key determinant for stopping, inte rrogating, searching, and/or arresting individuals of minority group status. Support for the sali ence of this phenomenon has been presented countless times through various forms of empiri cal research (Hagan and Albonetti, 1982; Harris, 1997; Lamberth, 1997; Walker et al ., 2000; Brown, 2001; Engel et al. 2002; Weitzer and Tuch, 2002; Zingr aff et al., 2002; and Lundman and Kaufman, 2003). The act of racial profiling by police officers, defined as the process by which law enforcement agents use race as the key factor in determining whether to stop, search, cite, and/or arrest minority group me mbers, has recently become a prominent focus within the field of criminology (Engel et al., 2002). We know that the practice of racial profiling exists, but why? What factor s cause police officers to use race as a primary determinant in making the decision to conduct stops and searches? Leading scholars have advanced ma ny reasons for officers more punitive behavior toward minority indi viduals. One of the more popular explanations concerns crime statistics, which show that African Americans are more likely to commit crime, particularly violent crime, than individuals of other races. However, these rates may be misleading, and should be analyzed beyond face value (Walker, 2001). For example, conviction rates of African Americans are propor tionately higher than th at of other racial

PAGE 11

2 groups. The simple fact that racial profiling elicits such public reaction forces individuals to consider alternatives to these rather basi c measures of arrest, conviction, sentencing, and incarceration. For example, African Am ericans living in high crime areas typically have more frequent contact with police due to the increased presence of police officers, and are, therefore, more likely to have their criminal activity discovered (Krivo and Peterson, 1996). Some research has indicated that African Americans and other minorities are more likely to drive vehicles with broken taillights, cracked windshields, and other equipment violations giving officers more reason to make a traffic stop, and again increasing the likelihood th at contraband or criminal ac tivity is detected (Mac Donald, 2003). Still, other schol ars cite the underlying laizze faire brand of racism that exists today in the United States as a prim ary factor causing high ra tes of racial profiling (Brown, 2001; Massey et al., 1994; Wilson et al., 2004). What seems to be less salient in this res earch is an explanation of police officers decisions to conduct race-specific searches subsequent to traffi c stops, relative to neighborhood characteristics. While a sma ll number of studies do take into account officers behavior relative to ecological c onditions, findings have been inconsistent. Therefore, it is still unclear how and to what degree contextual factors may contribute to higher rates of African American searches as compared to that of whites. Findings from this small body of literature have, however, consistently demonstrated that police officers decision-making processes are affected by neighborhood conditions, being more likely to handle suspects more punitively in neighbor hoods with high poverty and crime levels, and equate neighborhood characteristics with that population residing in these neighborhoods (Robison, 1936; Werthman and Piliavin, 1967; Bayley and Mendelsohn,

PAGE 12

3 1969; Lundman, 2004; Meehan and Ponder, 2004; and Engel and Calnon, 2004). Further, researchers have found that officers often judge seri ousness of a situation based on the neighborhood context (T errill and Reisig, 2003). Two perspectives have been consistently successful in explaining the relationship between ecology and crime urban disadvant age and social diso rganization (Bursik, 1988; Massey, 1990; Wilson, 1987; and Sampson a nd Wilson, 1995). These perspectives are highly interrelated, as urban disadvantage perspective finds its origins in the social disorganization tradition. The primary di fference is that the urban disadvantage perspective posits that racial discrimina tion in housing markets is the primary contributing factor to the con centrated disadvantage of poor African Americans, resulting in pronounced racial residentia l segregation across the Unit ed States. This type of discrimination caused a clustering of minoritie s living in extreme social isolation and poverty (Massey, 1990). Conversely, the social disorganization pers pective holds that high crime rates and other negative neighborhood conditions are the resu lt of the inability of residents to realiz e common goals and, therefore, are una ble to regulate the activity of youth or other at-risk groups with in their communities. This cau se of this social distance can be found in neighborhood instability, residential mobility and communication barriers, and the like (Sampson, 1988; and Sampson and Wilson, 1995). Neighborhoods with concentrated disadvantage have higher crime rates because the social isolation they are subjected to, in co mbination with lack of access to legitimate employment, creates a sort of sub-cultural tolerance of criminal behavior (Cullen and Agnew, 2003). In effect, this sub-cultural tolerance lead s to higher crime rates and therefore to higher levels of police presen ce, resulting in increased rates of stops,

PAGE 13

4 searches, arrests and incarcera tion in these areas. These condi tions perpetuate a cycle of crime and poverty geographically concentrat ed in urban neighborhoods (Rose and Clear, 1998). As a result of racial residential segreg ation, there exists a gr eater social distance between officers and residents of highly disa dvantaged areas. By this reasoning, due to the prejudice that is perpetuated through discrimination in housing markets, police officers will be more likely to treat African Americans more punitively. Social disorganization theory explains c oncentrated disadvantage as a result of a lack of informal social control, ste mming from high residential mobility, population heterogeneity, concentrated poverty, and fam ily dissolution (Bursik, 1988; and Sampson and Wilson, 1995). These characteristics develope d in response to si gnificant changes in the urban economy beginning in the 1970s. Af ter the relocation of many manufacturing jobs into suburban areas and overseas, inner city residents were left without access to employment. Coupled with the exodus of many workingand middle-class African Americans from inner cities, so began th e existence of the underclass (Wilson, 1987). Essentially, residents of these neighbor hoods lack communication and are unable to realize their common goals and in terests, and thus are unable to maintain informal social control over local youth a nd other residents (Sampson, 1988; Sampson and Wilson, 1995; and Cullen and Agnew, 2003). As a result of residents being incapable of communitylevel regulation, more formal so cial control is necessary to maintain social order, and therefore, more police officers are dispatched to these areas due to higher prevalence of criminal activity (Bursik, 1988). This paper uses these perspectives to gui de the research desi gn in examining the relationship between police o fficers race-specific search practices and ecological

PAGE 14

5 context, uncovering the dynamics of race, cont ext, and police behavior. Using the urban disadvantage and social disorg anization perspectives, this research seeks to extend explanations of racial profili ng at the census tract level, us ing citizen contact and officer data from more than 61,000 traffic stops in Miami-Dade County, collected by the MiamiDade Police Department during a six-month period in 2001. Further, both crime data relevant to geographic location and census tract data from the 2000 Census will be used to provide a clearer picture of the reality of racial profili ng and race-specific stops and searches by police in Miami-Dade County. In the next section, I review supporting literature on racial profiling, including research from each type of methodology. Follo wing that, I review the central tenants of urban disadvantage and social disorganiza tion perspectives, finishing with a brief discussion of revitalizations of the latter. In the next secti on, I report details on the data set used, as well as research methodology. Fi nally, I present a disc ussion the findings of the research and suggest direction for future research in the study of racial profiling.

PAGE 15

6 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Racial profiling is the process by which la w enforcement agents use race as the key factor in determining whether to stop, searc h, cite, and/or arrest individuals of minority status (Engel et al., 2002). The phrase driving while black was coined in the early 1990s as the US began to see a rise in public awareness of and concern about discriminatory practices by police officers (Har ris, 1997). This increase can be partially attributed to highly publicized cases of racial discrimina tion by members of our justice system, particularly the heinous beating of Rodney King and the events that took place in Los Angeles following the acquittal of the offi cers responsible for such abuses of power (Brown, 2001). However, the recent growth of this body of literature is not indicative of the true beginnings of this phenomenon; evidence of the existence of racial profiling has long been documented. Research dating back as early as 1936 cite s evidence that police used race as a key factor in their decision-making processes (Robison, 1936). Further, official data on citizen approval ratings of police practic es documented since 1967, show that the relationship between minority citizens and pol ice is at best, strained (Werthman and Piliavin, 1967; and Walker et al., 2000). R acial profiling has become one of the most common explanations for this differential trea tment of minorities by police officers, thus illustrating the importance of research in this area (Harris, 1997; Lamberth, 1997; Walker et al., 2000; Brown, 2001; Weitzer and Tu ch, 2002; Lundman and Kaufman, 2003; and Lundman, 2004).

PAGE 16

7 Three distinct forms of research on the subj ect matter have consistently appeared in the literature. Citizen public perceptions have been used to measure prevalence of racial profiling and perceptions of the overall legitimacy of police behavior (Hagan and Albonetti, 1982; Weitzer and Tuch, 2002; and Lundman and Kaufman, 2003). The second form of research focuses on actual po lice behavior by counti ng and analyzing data from actual traffic stops and searches, but findi ngs from this research have been relatively inconsistent (Lamberth, 1997; Sp itzer, 1999; and Harris, 1997). The final perspective is the most recently developed and consequently provides the smallest body of literature; it focuses on racial profiling behavior relative to neighborhood context. Specifically, this vein analyzes neighborhood char acteristics and compares th em with rates of racial profiling behavior by officers (Robison, 1936; Werthman and Piliavin, 1967; Smith, 1986; Fagan and Davies, 2000; and Terrill and Re isig, 2003). It is this last group of literature we seek to expand with this research. A brief review of each form of literature follows. Public Perception Literature Hagan and Albonetti (1982) pioneered the study of citizen perceptions of police behavior and racial profiling. In their analysis of the United States Department of Justice survey on public percep tions of police practices, they found evidence that being a member of a minority group significantly in creases the likelihood of perceptions of injustice. Of particular interest is their finding that African Americans scored an average of 13 points higher than whites on the perceptions of injustice scale. This indicates that relationships between police and minority citi zens suffer from some external aggravating factors, most likely racial profiling and differential treat ment (Hagan and Albonetti, 1982).

PAGE 17

8 In 2002, Weitzer and Tuch conducted a st udy measuring citizen perceptions of racial profiling, including citizen approval/ disapproval of police use of the practice, prevalence rates, citizen perceptions of the u tility of the practice, and personal experience with police officers among others. The rese archers used characteristics of respondents including race, gender, age, type of neighborhood (urban vs. rural), past experiences with police, and so forth, to check for patterns in citizen perceptions of police. The results indicated first that 94.3% of African Amer icans and 84.4% of whites disapproved of the use of racial profiling as a method of crime prevention by police officers. Results also showed that African American s were 3 times more likely th an whites to hold negative opinions of local law enforcement agents, a nd 4 times more likely to have negative opinions of state law enforcement. Race and personal experience with police officers had the strongest influence on attitudes toward the police, with minority members being more likely to hold negative opinions. Finally, African Americans who had some form of contact with police officers within the past 12 months from the time of the interview were significantly less likely than their white coun terparts to believe they had been treated fairly by police officers; 16.6% of the sample was eligible for this comparison. Findings revealed that 26.1% of African Americans fe lt they had been treated unfairly, compared with 7% of whites. The authors concluded th at perceptions of raci al profiling vary by race, class, and gender; the mo st significant indicators of negative perceptions were race and personal experience (Weitzer and Tuch, 2002). Lundman and Kaufman (2003), using data fr om a nationally representative survey, searched for a relationship between race and et hnicity of drivers and police decisions to conduct traffic stops. The authors used the National Crime Victimization Survey, a

PAGE 18

9 nationally representative surv ey that among other things includes information on citizen encounters with police, to pe rform their analysis. The re sults indicated that African Americans report being stopped more often than both Whites and Hispanics. The results further indicated that African Americans st opped by police were sign ificantly more likely to believe that the officers reason for the traffic stop was illegitimate or based on extralegal factors (Lundman and Kaufman, 2003). This type of research lends credence to the study of racial profiling, but publ ic perceptions are sometimes less credible than analyses of actual police behaviors. Actual Police Behavior The New Jersey Turnpike study (Lamberth, 1997) is one such study that accounts for actual police stop behavior. The research ers first determined the racial composition of the driving population on a set section of the Turnpike to es tablish a base line, and then determined the racial composition of speed ing drivers. The researchers found that although African Americans composed 13.5% of all motorists and only 15% of all speeding motorists, they accounted for 35% of persons stopped and/or searched by law enforcement officers. African Americans were 4.85 times more likely to be stopped or searched by police. Furthe r inquiry based on police reco rds indicated that African Americans composed 73.2% of all arrest s during a 3.5-year period, making them 16.5 times more likely to be arrest ed as compared to drivers of other races (Lamberth, 1998). In 1999, Spitzer, in cooperation with th e New York Attorney Generals Office (1999), released the results of a year long st udy of stop and frisk practices of New York Police Department officers. They found th at although African Americans represented only 25.6% of the population, they composed 50.6% of all persons stopped by officers. Hispanics were also over-represented compar ed to their proportion of the population;

PAGE 19

10 they composed 23.7% of the population and 33% of persons stopped. This pattern persisted even after researchers controlled for the differential rates at which minorities commit crimes. The researchers concluded that there was a clear ove r-representation of minorities being stopped by police as compar ed to their proportion of the population (Spitzer, 1999). Chambliss (1994) conducted a study in wh ich assistants observed behaviors of police officers assigned to the Rapid De ployment Unit of Washington D.C.s police department. Although this research was not or iginally intended to be used to explain racial profiling, the observations collected were disturbing enough to merit further analysis. Data on police behaviors observ ed by researchers during ride-alongs were collected and analyzed, illust rating the level of disparity in treatment of minorities by police officers. In general, police officers were found to treat Af rican Americans more harshly during traffic stops. Officers were al so quoted admitting to the use of racial profiling and reliance on pre-textual factors us ed to stop minority drivers in certain areas of Washington D.C. Although the paper is wi thout statistical anal ysis, the observations made were disconcerting and illustrate that at least in South Central Washington D.C., racial profiling was openly practiced; o fficers were relatively unconcerned with concealing their methods of policing (Chambliss, 1994). Harris (1997) conducted a study examining racial profiling activity of police officers in three of the largest metropolitan areas of Ohio based on court records. The researchers compared court record violat or rates of African American and white motorists with their respective percentages of the population to gage disproportionality of police stop practices. The results indicated th at African Americans were at least 2 times

PAGE 20

11 more likely to be stopped as compared to wh ites, a clear indication of racial profiling (Harris, 1997). With the intent of gauging the effectivene ss of a drug interdicti on initiative along a stretch of highway of Inters tate 95 in Florida, the Orla ndo Sentinel conducted a study of police stop practices (Cole, 1999) Each police car was equi pped with video camera so that researchers could collect detailed info rmation of each stop. Data from 1,100 stops were captured on video and reviewed by research ers. The videos provided clear evidence that approximately 70% of drivers stopped we re African American, while they composed less than 5% of the drivi ng population along that specific stretch of highway. The disparity in this study is signi ficant and shows officers propens ity to stop minorities more often than whites while attempting to stop drug trafficking (Cole, 1999). Some research on actual police stop behavi or has found variations in support for different types of police action. For example, Smith and Petrocelli ( 2001) analyzed data collected by the Richmond, Virginia, Police Department on traffic stops, checking for patterns of racial profiling in police traffic stop behaviors. The data consisted of both officer and citizen static characteristics and officers work histories. Using multivariate analysis, the researchers found that the proporti on of traffic stops of minority members, and particularly African Americans, was signi ficantly higher than their proportion of the population. African Americans accounted for 51% of the population of licensed drivers, but accounted for more than 64% of all police traffic stops Minorities accounted for nearly 78% of all arrests subse quent to traffic stops, and 63% of those ticketed or arrested in the sample. Interestingly, however, they found no significant disp arity between search and seizure rates and drivers race (Smith and Petrocelli, 2001).

PAGE 21

12 One problem with the measurement of actua l police stop behavior is that research studies have yielded inconsiste nt results, at times finding no evidence of racial profiling by officers. After compiling information on all police traffic stops conducted during a 4month period, researchers in cooperation w ith the Florida Highwa y Patrol (2000) found that Florida Highway Patrol o fficers were stopping minorities at a rate almost equivalent to their proportion of the population. While the largest amount of disp arity occurred with Hispanics, composing 12% of the populati on and 17.9% of all persons stopped, African American motorists were stopped at a rate almost equal to their percentage in the population. The findings of th is study, however, may be e xplained by subject reactivity, the concept that individuals change or modi fy their behavior when they have knowledge that it is being monitored. The bottom line is, though, that there is litt le evidence of racial profiling among officers employed by the Flor ida Highway Patrol (Florida Highway Patrol, 2000). Cordner et al., in collaboration with th e San Diego Police Department, conducted an examination of police practices based on pol ice-reported data on traffic stops, searches of vehicle, and vehicle search hit rates. Re sults showed that vehicles of only Hispanic drivers were more likely than vehicles of whites to be searched. Researchers found no evidence of disparity in search rates between whites and African Americans. It should be noted, however, that vehicle searches of white s were 2 times more likely to yield search hits as compared to vehicle searches of Hi spanics. While the white/African American disparity was not significant, higher search rates of Hispan ics remains an indicator of racial profiling (C ordner et al., 2000).

PAGE 22

13 Preliminary findings of a study conducted by Zingraff et al. and the North Carolina State Highway Patrol were released in 1998. To assess the prevalence of racial profiling among its officers, the North Carolina State Highway Patrol collected police-reported data on search and hit rate s of motorists on North Carolina’s highways. While the occurrence of searches by officers was rare, da ta indicated that African Americans were more likely to be searched than whites, at rates of 13 sear ches per 10,000 written warnings or tickets vs. 8 sear ches per 10,000 written warnings or tickets, respectively. Discovery of contraband occurred in 33% of searches of whites, while only 26.3% of searches of African Americans resulted in a hit. There is clear evidence of disparity; however, it may be the result of a small sample size (n=826 searches out of 906,758 written warnings or citati ons) (Zingraff et al., 2000). Neighborhood Context and Police Behavior A small body of research exists which has documented factors influencing police behavior. A consistent finding from this body of literature is that police behavior is affected by the characteristics of neighborhoods in which officers work. It is important to examine the ecological characteristics of urba n disadvantage research shows that there is extreme variation in the structural char acteristics between predominantly African American and predominantly white neighborhoods. Robison (1936) examined the relationship between delinquency and the accuracy of its measurement through official police data. Re sults suggested that th e decision to arrest youth by police officers was made after consideri ng two factors, severity of rule-breaking behavior and the juvenile’s moral characte r. The latter factor, she argued, was determined primarily by place of residence, with arrests more likely to result when a juvenile suspect claimed reside nce in a poor ar ea (Robison, 1936).

PAGE 23

14 Werthman and Piliavin (1967) conducted a study in which they observed and interviewed police officers in the San Fran cisco Police Department to analyze factors influencing police behavior. According to th e researchers, police actions are influenced by the ecological composition of their patrol area due to offi cers’ tendencies to define geographic locations as suspicious in genera l. Further, the researchers proposed and supported the assertion that neighborhood residence was a pr imary indicator in police decisions to select potential law violators (Werthman a nd Piliavin, 1967). Bayley and Mendelsohn (1969) found similar evidence in support of the ecological influence on police behavior. Specifically, they found th at there existed a gr eater social distance between the police and the poor, which often re sulted in more punitive and/or aggressive behavior toward citizens in lowe r-class areas. They further not ed that police attributed an individual’s presence in a poor or low class neighborhood to the individual’s level of threat, and therefore treated them mo re punitively (Bayley and Mendelsohn, 1969). Using data from the Police Services Surv ey, Smith (1986) examined the effects of various community characteristics on police be haviors. The neighborhood characteristics included crime rates, racial composition, povert y levels, and other soci oeconomic factors. The author found that officers were significantly more likely to use force against African Americans. That effect, however, was mediated by neighborhood context, with individuals stopped in minority neighborhoods bei ng more likely to be treated coercively. These individuals were 3 times more likely to be arrested than i ndividuals encountered outside minority neighborhoods (Smith, 1986). Fagan and Davies (2000) analyzed patterns of police “stop and frisk” practices of the New York City police department. Using measures of social disorganization (i.e.,

PAGE 24

15 broken windows, graffiti, etc.), or what the author referred to as “Broken Windows” theory, as well as structural characterist ics, including racial composition and poverty levels, Fagan attempted to find racial bias in police decisions to “stop and frisk” individuals. The author’s hypothesis, that measures of social disorganization and structural characteristics are the most significant indicators ra ce-specific “stop and frisk” practices by police, was confirmed. The resu lts indicated that African Americans and Hispanics were significantly more likely to be “stopped and frisked” by police officers. Further, the standards requi red by law to justify stopping these minority groups more often were not met or were borderline unconst itutional. “Stop and fr isk” practices were concentrated in poor neighborhoods with large minority populations. Researchers concluded that police focus on regulating th e poor in poor areas. Due to racial composition of poverty in the United States, African Americans and Hispanics are overrepresented in police “stop and frisk” practices (Fagan and Davies, 2000). Terrill and Reisig (2003) al so examined neighborhood cont ext relative to police use of force using data collected from 2 US cities. Their findings were consistent with that of other research in this vein. The authors found that officers were more likely to treat young, male, lower class suspects with more force. More significantly, findings demonstrated that police officers were signifi cantly more likely to use force when in contact with suspects in nei ghborhoods with high crime rate s and with high levels of concentrated disadvantage. The significance of this finding remained even after controlling for behavior of the su spect (Terrill and Reisig, 2003). The consistency of the findings in this form of research i ndicates that police officers may very well be influenced by cont extual factors of th e neighborhoods where

PAGE 25

16 they encounter suspects. While the cited re search tends to focus on use of force and coercion by officers, it demonstrates that officer behaviors va ry across neighborhoods, based on context, with officer s acting more punitively toward suspects in low class, high crime, minority neighborhoods. Accordingly, in the next chapter I provide a discussion of theories linking officers’ racial pr ofiling behaviors to neighborhood conditions.

PAGE 26

17 CHAPTER 3 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES Origins of Urban Disadvantage Perspective Urban disadvantage perspective finds its origins in the work of William Julius Wilson. In his book, The Truly Disadvantaged (1987) he describes how the changing structure of the urban economy of the 1970s combined subsequently with the development of a cultural value of weak labor force attachment contributed to the rise in poverty, and specifically, its concentration in inner city communities. Wilson argues that the extreme rise in the con centration of poverty was caused by three inter-related factors; (1) the changing economic stru cture from goods producing to service producing, (2) the relocation of manufacturing jobs into subur ban areas and overseas, and (3) the outmigration of workingand middle-class Afri can Americans from the inner-city to the suburbs (Wilson, 1987; and1992). During the 1970s the United States, partic ularly the Midwest and Northeast regions began experiencing drastic shifts in the lo cal manufacturing-focused economies. The advancements made in technological industries contributed to these changes, as did the motivation to secure cheaper labor. Bo th technological and service industries experienced significant growth at the same time that the industrial sector was declining. This radically decreased the number of ma nufacturing jobs av ailable to the poor, unskilled, undereducated minorit ies living in inner cities. Another contributing factor to the creation of the underc lass was the relocation of manufacturing jobs from the inner city to suburban areas and overseas. The outcome was

PAGE 27

18 a spatial mismatch between the unskilled, unde reducated industrial workers of the inner city and the physical locations of potential employment. Such great distance between place of residence and place of employment re sulted in the inability of poor inner city manufacturing workers to maintain employment in that field and significantly reduced the number of potential job opportuniti es available (Wilson, 1987; and 1992). Inner city unemployment rates soared as its residents did not have access to the education, training and skills required to gain employment in the technological industry. High unemployment rates coupled with intermittent economic recessions created a loose labor market, with too few jobs for too many people. Consequently, wages for unskilled service workers were significantly reduced, making it difficult for inner city African Americans to support a family. As Erbe (1975) explained, th e decline of proper functioning of local institutions directly affects the quality of the local education system. Loss of employment caused this decline, le aving residents of i nner city neighborhoods educationally unprepared to handle the shift; th ey simply did not have the same access to training and quality education that others outside the i nner city had. This further contributed to the already weak labor for ce attachment of African American males (Wilson, 1987; and 1992). The decentralization of the labor market clearly had the effect of decreasing opportunity for employment of African Americans residing in inner citi es in general, as measured by the ratio of available employm ent to people and the average commute time to and from places of employment. Moreover, the newly created loose labor market and the subsequent decrease in wages for what was left of available inner city jobs contributed to the ever-incr easing social isolation of the underclass and intra-class

PAGE 28

19 segregation of African Americans. This was evidenced through a comparison of lesseducated African Americans living in inner cities and less-educated African Americans living in the suburbs; less-educated African Americans living in the suburbs tend to receive higher wages as compared to those livi ng in the inner city. Inner city residents were forced to take employment for wages barely large enough to provide for families (Wilson, 1992). Finally, the social and economic cha nges brought about by the Civil Rights movement for a short time provided more acces s to housing markets outside urban areas for workingand middle-class African Amer icans. Access to housing markets outside the inner city led to the out-migration of wo rkingand middle-class African Americans, thus leaving a concentration of poor Afri can Americans socially isolated from conventional role models. Social isolation of the poorest minorities caused substandard socialization; inner city residents were no longer exposed to positive, hard-working African American role models. This hinde red their ability to see that there was opportunity beyond the inner city, that there was a possibility fo r upward mobility for those who are determined to improve their si tuation. Therefore, they adapted to what they believed was the only way of life. The effects of this concentration of poor, unskilled and undereducated African Americans resulted in the continued deteri oration of access to employment opportunities and networks, decreased the already substandard quality of education and diminished the number of marriageable partners, thus contri buting to higher levels of family dissolution, and further aggravating the weak labor attachme nts of inner city residents. These factors together work to produce what Wilson term ed the underclass, povert y-stricken groups of

PAGE 29

20 minorities living in inner cities lacking access to employment, education, social networks and conventional role models (Wilson, 1987). Development of Urban Disadvantage Perspective Massey (1990), in cooperation with Dent on and Eggers, finds support for Wilson’s theory of the inner city underclass and f actors contributing to the concentration of poverty, but argues that the primary cause of the rise in concentrated poverty among African Americans was due to high levels of racial residential segregation (Massey, Eggers and Denton, 1994). While excluding th e influence of African American outmigration due to lack of signifi cance in statistical analyses, they theorized that additional factors including the African American poverty rate, intra-racial re sidential segregation by class, and most significantly, levels of Af rican American/white re sidential segregation acted to create the underclass. The residentia l preferences of whites worked to eliminate any chance of racial integration. The goal of the researchers was to identif y potential inter-rel ationships between these factors and their influence on the nega tive social conditions representative of African American, poverty-ridde n, inner city neighborhoods as outcomes. Examples of negative social conditions include high crime rates, decreased neighborhood social networks, low social control, increased rates of out-of-wedlock births, lack of availability of marriageable partners, incr eased unemployment rates, hi gher percentages of femaleheaded households, concentrated poverty, a nd so forth (Massey, 1990; Massey & Eggers, 1990; Massey, Gross and Eggers, 1991; Massey, Eggers and Denton; 1994). The fact that the concentration of poverty increased during the 1970s has consistently been confirmed empirically. According to Massey and colleagues, the answer to explaining the c oncentration of poverty dispr oportionately experienced by

PAGE 30

21 African Americans lies in racial residentia l segregation stemming from discrimination in housing markets. The interaction between high levels of racial residential segregation and inequality in income di stribution created a concentr ation of poverty within the poorest African American neighborhoods. Mass ey claimed that Wilson’s concept of the out-migration of workingand middle-class African Americans did not explain why the concentration effects disproportionately aff ected African Americans. He posits that while more African Americans became upwa rdly mobile in the 1970s and 1980s, there was not in fact a mass exodus of these classes out of urban areas. A lthough the degree of African American intra-class segregation did increase, it was still much lower than the intra-class segregation experi enced by other comparable minor ity groups. Furthermore, results from multivariate analysis show that the tendency for African Americans of opposing classes to live in areas segregated from each other is not rela ted to the rates of African American poverty concentra tion in inner cities (Massey, 1990). In general, African Americans experience higher levels of poverty than whites, a condition that is consistent th roughout the majority of cities in the United States. When racial residential segregati on is imposed, shifts in the economy are disproportionately concentrated in poor minority neighborhoods. The absorption of the negative effects resulting from a downward economic shift by already poor minority neighborhoods acts to exacerbate the already meager fiscal si tuations of residents in small geographic locations, thus concentrating levels of pove rty and creating an ur ban underclass (Massey, 1990). To support his claims, Massey performed a series of simulated experiments to examine the effects of an imposed downward economic shift on both racially segregated

PAGE 31

22 and non-segregated hypothetical cities generally representative in racial composition and economic situation of the majority of U.S. cities. He confirmed the hypothesis that the concentration of poverty would be more equally distributed in areas with low levels of racial segregation, as compared to areas with high levels of racial segregation. Findings included the discovery that when income deprivation was app lied to racially segregated areas, some whites were actually better off economically, whereas all African Americans were worse off, regardless of class (Massey, 199 0). The results indicated that as racial residential segregation increases, the abso rption of downward economic shifts becomes more concentrated within poor minority neighborhoods. In their 1994 study of the causes of concen trated poverty in ur ban centers, Massey, Eggers and Denton found evidence that the st rongest effect on the level of African American poverty came from the earnings that African American work ers could expect to receive in manufacturing and services. Higher in come levels in these industries translate into lower levels of poverty; unf ortunately, the reciprocal was reality for the vast majority of urban residents. Further, they found th at the concentration of poor African Americans in urban areas was significantly and negativ ely impacted by any shifts in the economy. Racial residential segregati on played a compelling role in the concentration of poverty and its endogenous, interacting component s including income inequality, majority prejudice toward African Americans and racial discrimination in housing markets (Massey, Eggers and Denton, 1994). Urban disadvantage perspective has b een applied to help understand the relationships between property and drug crime, homicide, and racial profiling. One study used urban disadvantage perspective in an an alysis of property crime levels, finding that

PAGE 32

23 as levels of segregation within given areas increases, so t oo do levels of property crime (Akins, 2003). Using census data from 1990, Krivo and Peterson (1996) found that racial differences in structural di sadvantage was linked to higher rates of violent crime (Krivo and Peterson, 1996). Parker and Pruitt (2000) analyzed race-specific homicide rates relative to poverty and pove rty concentration. Their finding that these factors differentially affected rates of black and white homicide provides support for urban disadvantage perspective (Parker and Pruitt, 2000). Finally, Meehan and Ponder found that as measures of urban disadvantage d ecreased, African Americans were subject to higher rates of stops by poli ce (Meehan and Ponder, 2004). Urban Disadvantage and Racial Profiling Linkages The key component of urban disadvantage perspective is th at concentrated disadvantage was created out of racially motivated discrimination in the housing markets, due to white preferences to not live in integrated neighborhoods. African Americans are significantly more likely to live in areas of concentrated disadvantage as compared to whites; even the poorest wh ites are significantly less lik ely to live in areas of concentrated disadvantage. The absence of whites in poor, high crime areas may lead officers to equate African Americans with hi gher levels of criminal activity; the areas African Americans inhabit often have significant ly higher crime rates, so officers may be more likely to believe that they are involved in crime. Consequently, as measures of urban disadvantage increase, police officers w ill be more likely to use race as a primary discriminatory factor in their decisions to conduct searches. Research has shown that increases in the levels of urban disadvanta ge increase levels of political dislocation, which can have the effect of creating strain ed relationships between African Americans and police officers. High rates of unemploy ment may increase the likelihood of contact

PAGE 33

24 with police; this may have the effect of increasing levels of racial profiling. It then follows that areas with higher levels of di sadvantage will experience higher search rates of African Americans as compared to that of whites in the same areas. Based on these assumptions, we derive the following hypot heses on the relationship between urban disadvantage and racial profiling: Hypothesis One : As indicators of concentrated di sadvantage increase, search rates of African Americans will also increase. Hypothesis Two : As indicators of concentrated disadvantage increase, white search rates will not increase. Should evidence be found in support of thes e hypotheses, the evidence will also lend support to the urban disadvant age perspective in explaini ng higher rates of African American searches by police officers in neighborhoods of high disadvantage in comparison to that of low disadvantage neighborhoods. Origins and New Perspectives in Social Disorganization Theory Social disorganization theory finds its origins in the work of Shaw and McKay, pioneers of the study of social processes th rough observation. The central tenets were extracted from Burgess’s concept of the divisi on of cities. Essentially, a central city can be dissected into 5 distinct zones– Zone 1 is the business or industrial zone, Zone 2 is the transition zone inhabited by poor immigrants ready to leave th e area at the first opportunity. Zone 3 is composed of wo rking class domiciles, while Zone 4 is characterized by middle class neighborhoods and Zone 5 inhabited by commuters (Cullen and Agnew, 2003). The researchers believed that if this dissection of a central city was in fact indicative of the maturation process of a real urban center, then rates of delinquency would be highest in zone 2, the zone in transition (Shaw and McKay, 1942).

PAGE 34

25 To provide evidence for their theory, Shaw and McKay mapped the location of every juvenile delinquent in Chicago’s urban ce nter, according to poli ce records, and then computed delinquency rates over time. The hypothesis that delinquency rates would be highest in zone 2 was confirmed. The aut hors concluded that de linquency rates were generally stable over time, regardless of race or ethnicity of the dominant population in a given time period. This evidence supported the assertion that it is not characteristics of the individuals inhabiting the area, but char acteristics of the area itself that increased delinquency rates. According to Shaw and Mc Kay, social disorganiz ation refers to the breakdown of social instituti ons within a community. Factors contributing to this breakdown included high rates of family disrupt ion, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential instability (Cullen and Agnew, 2003). It was not until the mid-1980s that social disorganization theory began to regain popularity, taking the focus off of micro-level th eories of crime prevalent after the 1970s. Robert J. Sampson was one of the pioneers of the new social disorgan ization perspective. Drawing on the work of Shaw and McKay, Sampson proposed that the cause of high crime rates in areas of concentrated disa dvantage was due to the neighborhood’s lack of ability to exercise informal social control, e.g., dispersing a group of loitering teenagers. While Sampson agreed that the breakdown of community controls was rooted in structural conditions, he furthe r argued that instead of a na tural process of large urban city maturation, variation in levels of di sorganization are clos ely linked to racial inequality. This revised form of social diso rganization has b een used throughout criminological literature. Sp ecifically, Sampson et al., ( 2001) found that concentrated

PAGE 35

26 disadvantage in combination with low levels of informal social control and kinship networks increased ra tes of homicide. Snell (2001) found that poor urban neighborhoods suffered from higher crime rate s, as explained by higher le vels of disorder and lower levels of friendship and kinship networks (Snell, 2001). Lowenkamp et al., (2003) replicated a prior experiment by Sampson a nd Groves, analyzing cr ime rates in the UK; their results provided further s upport for the validity of this perspective (Lowenkamp et al., 2003). Gibson, Zhao, and Lovrich found that as pe rceptions of high levels of collective efficacy increased, fear of crime and victim ization were significantly decreased (Gibson et al., 2002). Lane and Meeker (2003) used the perspective to investigate fear of crime levels in urban neighborhoods (Lane and M eeeker, 2003). Another study conducted by Browning (2002) extended the pe rspective to intimate part ner violence, showing that higher levels of collective efficacy and informal social control resulted in lower levels of violence among partners, and further increase d the likelihood that female victims would report violence to police (Browning, 2002). Fi nally, Sun et al., ( 2004) applied social disorganization to their anal ysis of perceptions of poli ce and local government, finding that as concentrated disadvantage increase d, perceptions of police became more became more negative (Sun et al., 2004). Social Disorganization and Racial Profiling Linkages According to social disorganization perspe ctive, residents of highly disorganized areas lack the ability to unite and realize common goals and initiatives; lack of these social networks leads to a breakdown of info rmal social control, and thus higher crime rates. As a result, neighborhood residents must rely on formal social control, specifically, police officers. Higher rates of police pres ence increase the likelihood of traffic stops,

PAGE 36

27 and consequently, the rates of searches Officers’ perceptions of neighborhood characteristics may also influence behavior i ndependent of crime rates. For example, a concentration of poverty as manifested by vacant housing units, and unsupervised youth “hanging out” on streets are each indicators of social disorg anization that may cause an officer to become suspicious of local reside nts. The presence of these indicators may lead officers to believe reside nts, regardless of race, are more likely to be involved in crime, and therefore are less likely to practice racial profiling. Therefore, we theorize that as measures of social disorganization increa se rates of both African American and white searches will increase. There should be no racial disparity in search rates in highly disadvantaged neighborhoods. Hypothesis Three : As indicators of social disorganization increase, we expect to find an increase in search rates regardless of race. Hypothesis Four : The impact of social disorganization indicators on search rates will not differ by racial group. The validation of these hypotheses would point to the efficiency of social disorganization perspective in explaining hi gher rates of searches in hi ghly disorganized neighborhoods for both white and African American residents. Additional Hypotheses Research on police behavior has shown th at officers have a tendency to act more punitively toward minority group members, particularly African Americans. To be sure, police during the 1960s and 1970s shot and ki lled 7 African American suspects for every 1 fatal shooting of a white suspect (Alper t and MacDonald, 2001). Research findings vary, but have shown that officers are more likely to use force or brutality on suspects being arrested or showing disrespect (Terri ll and Reisig, 2003). Further research notes that African Americans are more likely to have a disrespectful demeanor while in contact

PAGE 37

28 with police (Terrill and Mastrofski, 2002, and Mastrofski, Reisig, and McCluskey, 2002). Therefore, it follows that officers may exhibit higher levels of use of force with African Americans as compared to whites. Hypothesis Five : As police use of force reports increase, so too will African American search rates, but will have no impact of white searches.

PAGE 38

29 CHAPTER 4 DATA AND METHODS It is the goal of this research to determine whether there is a clear link between characteristics of a geographic location and offi cers’ race-specific search behaviors. In an attempt to compare the contributions of both urban disadvantage and social disorganization perspectives to an explanation of racial profil ing in context, this research will use indicators of urban disadvantage and so cial disorganization to test whether they independently explain higher rates of either ra ce-specific or class-specific searches based on characteristics of the census tracts. To allow for an appropriate analysis of these factors, data include actual pol ice-citizen contact data, censu s data including measures of various census tract character istics, and crime data speci fic to the census tracts under study in Miami-Dade County. Unit of Analysis Given this paper’s focus on urban disadvant age, social disorganization and macrolevel characteristics influencing race-specific s earch behaviors of police officers, all data included are aggregated to the census tract le vel. This allows for a clearer picture of neighborhood characteristics. Miami-Dade County is composed of 348 census tracts. While the census tract is not explicitly considered a neighborh ood, census tracts have been used in extant research as the unit of analysis because they are more likely to correspond to actual community boundaries (K rivo and Peterson, 1996, and Land et al., 1990).

PAGE 39

30 Miami Data Miami-Dade County offers a particularly ideal domain in which to study racial profiling because of the area’s divergent racial and ethnic make-up. The Miami-Dade population is composed of approximately 68% white residents and 22% African American residents; further, approximately 54% of all residents are of Hispanic origin. The ethnic diversity of the area under study has also increased by 8.3% from 1990 to 2000 and continues to grow (Parker et al., 2004). Table one lists desc riptive statistics of the Miami-Dade area as well as that of a ll variables used in this analysis. This data set was compiled by the MiamiDade Police Department in cooperation with academic researchers in an effort to detect and identify patterns of racial profiling in police behaviors. The data were collec ted from April 1, 2001 to October 31, 2001. Composed of 66,109 traffic stops, the data set includes geo-coding of stop locations, citizen characteristics, reason for stop, and the events that transpired after the initial stop, aggregated to the census tract. However, due to the inability to geo-code some incidents, the original sample is reduced by 7.3%, n = 61,255. Citizen Contact Data It was necessary to collect information on all stops that occurred in Miami census tracts during the data collection period. The Miami-Dade Police Department does not require information to be collected on each stop. Instead, they requi re police officers to call in a specific code to di spatch when making a traffic stop. Unfortunately, this does not allow for the collection of information as detailed as is necessary to study racial profiling. To get a clear picture of the events that occurred before during and after the police stop, it would be necessary for officers to record detailed information on each stop made.

PAGE 40

31 To alleviate this issue, th e local City Commission appoint ed an Advisory Board to help determine proper information to be used for inclusion on the Citizen Contact Forms, forms that each officer would be required to complete after making a traffic stop. With suggestions from the academic research group, the Advisory Board determined the information to be included on the Citizen Contact Forms based on the two primary forms of data considered necessary; the research group needed to know who was being stopped and the outcomes of those stops. Examples of information collected on Citizen Contact Forms included reason for making the stop, driver race, driver age, driver residence, and numerous other details pertinent to th e detection of racial profiling. The officers of Miami-Dade County colle cted a total of 86,232 Citizen Contact Forms. Due to consistency and training issu es, the forms collected during February and March were not analyzed. The forms analyzed were those collected between April 1, 2001 and October 31, 2001. They were sent to Miami-Dade Police Department Headquarters where county employees entere d the data by hand. Forms that contained incorrect or missing data were returned to the officers as needed and re-collected. A series of recoding and recurrent validity test ing ensures the quality and consistency of the cards with actual police records. As a result, officials could not include only 118 forms. This analysis includes data from 66,109 Citi zen Contact Forms, and is reduced to 61,255 traffic stops after accounting for missing data. Dependent Variable The dependent variable is limited to the na tural logs of two ra cially disaggregated counts of search rates per 10,000 – log of bl ack searches per 10,000 and log of white searches per 10,000. The former is computed as the log of the total number of black searches divided by the black population per 10,000. The latter is computed as the log of

PAGE 41

32 the total number of white searches divide d by the white populati on per 10,000. To get a clear indication of search behaviors, all form s of searches were included in the analysis; each search-related variable is coded as 1 = Yes and 2 = No. The survey included a number of search-related vari ables, including search of person, search by consent, inventory search, search of ve hicle, search of driver, and search of passenger. It was necessary to use the log of th ese rates because of the high variation about the means of each indicator. In using the log of the sear ch rates, the distributions become more normal, and thus more appropriate for linear re gression analysis. Further, the use of the natural log reduces heteroscedasticity among variables (Land et al, 1990, and Oussey, 1999). To avoid zero counts as being counted as missing data, one unit was added to each incident with a zero count, and then tr ansformed to the natural log, again equaling zero. To calculate race-specific indicators, vari ables selected for analysis include the following: race, coded as 1 = American Indian or Alaska Native, 2 = Oriental/Asian, 3 = Black, 4 = Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 5 = White. The data were arranged to select out only searches with a code of 3 for black searches, and 5 for white searches. Appendix A defines the operational properties of each variable used in the analysis. Census Data The measures included in this data se t were retrieved from the 2000 Census, downloaded from the Census Bureau webpage (www.factfinder.census.gov), and MiamiDade County and modified to accommodate this research. The data are used to estimate social, economic, and demographic measures at the census tract level, which have been used as indicators in the measurement of th e urban disadvantage perspective and social disorganization theory.

PAGE 42

33 Urban Disadvantage Indicators Variables commonly used to reflect urba n disadvantage are employed in this research and include race-specific measur es of percent persons living below poverty level, defined as percentage of white/black persons living below the poverty level in the total population, and race-specific measures of percent not employed, age 16 and over, defined as percent white/black not employe d age 16 and over in the total population. Each of these measures have been included in analysis of urban di sadvantage in extant research (Land et al., 1990; Ousey, 1999; Park er and McCall, 1999; a nd Stretsky et al., 2004). Percent of black and white female-head ed households with children under the age of 18 is defined as the number of racially disaggregated households that are femaleheaded with children under the age of 18. This final measure was included as a disadvantage indicator because it is a condition that is nearly unique to African American families; African Americans are more than tw ice as likely to experi ence the condition of female headship, as compared to whites. It is appropriate to include female-headed households with children under 18 in this inde x, as opposed to its inclusion as a measure of social disorganization (La nd et al., 1990; and Ousey, 1999). Social Disorganization Indicators Indicators of social disorganization in clude percent of Spanish-speaking population speaking English not well or not at all, percent Hispan ics in the total population, residential mobility, percent of vacant housi ng units, and percent persons who journey to work 25 minutes or more, and are defined below. Percent Spanish-speaking population speaking English not well or not at all, age 5 and above is de fined as the percentage of Spanish-speaking persons speaking English not at all or not well in the total population, ages 5 and above. Percent Hispanics in the total population is define d as the percentage

PAGE 43

34 of individuals of Hispanic descent in the total population. These measures are included to provide a better understanding of potential communication issues among residents and therefore, a lack of potentia l for collective efficacy and informal social control. Residential mobility is defined as having a different residence within the past 5 years. This variable is used as an in dicator of neighborhood re sidential stability. According to Sampson, neighborhood instabil ity weakens the ability and desire of residents to understand their collective goa ls (Sampson, 1987). As residential mobility increases, it becomes more likely that th e neighborhood experiences higher levels of disadvantage. Percent of vacant housing units is defined as the percentage of vacant housing units as compared to the total number of housing units. Percent persons who journey to work 25 mi nutes or more is defined as percent persons of a given census tract who travel to work 25 minutes or more. This measure was included to account for local social disorgan ization through a lack of available local employment. According to Wilson, the relocat ion of manufacturing jobs to the suburbs caused unemployment rates to increase substantially, due to inner city workers’ geographic proximity to available employme nt (Wilson, 1987). Therefore, this measure is computed as an indicator of social disorganization. Officer Data The Miami data set also includes info rmation on officers employed by the MiamiDade Police Department during the time of the study. Information on each of the 1,659 officers in the citizen contact database was included; examples consist of race, age, rank, sex, and the like. Data are also provided by Professional Compliance Bureau, which includes information on disciplinary actions, co mplaints and use of force reports, limited to the previous 5 years (1997-2000), and aggregat ed to the census trac t. All identifiers

PAGE 44

35 were removed from the data set to ensure anonymity. We include use of force reports, defined as the rate of use of force reports an officer has received with in the past 5 years. As was the case with the dependent variable, it was necessary to use the natural log of the rates of use of force reports due to significant variation about the mean. Crime Data Crime data was provided by the Miami-Dade Police Department, spanning 5 years from 1997 to 2001. This data set includes both Part I and II crime arrests for the time span. The file contains data on 121,763 cas es, and includes the following information: incident date, Uniform Crime Report coding, UCR descriptions details of the incident, incident location, police district and grid information, and cen sus tract identifiers. Using the crime data, I calculated the total and r ace-specific rates per 10,000 for each type of crime based on the arrest records spanning that time period, all of which are aggregated to the census tract level; the types of crimes include homicide, violent, property, and drug crimes, as well as a total crime rate. Homicide rate per 10,000 is a racially disa ggregated measure of violent crime, and is defined as the black/white homicide rate per 10,000. Research has consistently shown a link between racial composition of a given neighborhood and violent crime rates (Robison, 1936; Werthman and Piliavin, 1967; Smith, 1986; and Parker and McCall, 1999). If an officer knows that he or sh e is making a stop in an area with higher homicide rates, the officer may be more li kely to act in a more punitive fashion, as manifested by a search. Racially disaggregated rates of arrest were also included as controls, and are defined as rates at which an arrest was ma de of a black or white per 10,000 stops. The arrest rates were calculated from the variable Arrest Made, and coded as 1 = Yes, and

PAGE 45

36 2 = No. All types of police arrests are incl uded, with the exception of custody arrest, in which an individual is not truly ar rested, but taken into police custody. Percent of males in the tota l population is used as a c ontrol measure due to their increased likelihood of participation in crim inal activity and an increased likelihood of arrest by police officers as compared to females. It is defined as the percentage of males in the total population. Finally, we control for the rate investiga tive stops, defined as stop resulting from officer suspicions, to detect tendencies for police to be more suspicious in certain contexts as compared to others. We create d a variable to compute the percentage of investigative stops; all investigative stops we re computed from the variable Reason for stop, coded as 1 = investigative, 2 = traffic violation, 3 = equipment violation, 4 = BOLO (be on look-out), 5 = other, 6 = hazardous moving violation, and 7 = non-hazardous moving violation.

PAGE 46

37 Table 4-1 Descriptive statistic s: Means (and standard deviat ions) for variables in racespecific search models Total Sample N = 265 Black White Dependent Variable Log Search Rates per 10,000 1.57 (1.82) 1.46 (1.52) Contextual Variables Urban Disadvantage Indicators Urban Disadvantage Index 48.89 (30.63) 28.19 (19.77) Social Disorganization Indicators Hispanic Immigration Index 70.79 (41.57) 71.23 (41.75) Residential Mobility 49.06 (12.57) % Vacant Housing Units 7.63 (8.04) % Who Travel to Work > 25 Minutes or More 51.46 (10.66) Officer Conduct Variables Log Officer Use of Force Report Rates 4.27 (1.87) Control Variables Homicide Rate Per 10,000 0.71 (3.65) 0.49 (3.88) Arrest Rate 19.11 (50.57) 19.75 (117.11) % Males in Total Population 48.09 (4.85) Investigative Stop Rate 40.39 (73.44) Population Composition of MiamiDade County % White Population 67.527 (30.121) % African American Population 22.338 (29.871) % Hispanic Population 54.364 (29.112)

PAGE 47

38 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS Principle Component Analysis Structural indicators tend to be highly correlated. Th erefore, to avoid problems with multicollinearity, we performed a princi ple components analysis on indicators of urban disadvantage and social disorganiza tion (Land, et al, 1990, Parker and McCall, 1999, and Stretsky, Schuck and Hogan, 2004). Th e factor loadings produced separate, theoretically distinct i ndices of each perspective. Furthe r, the factor loadings were the same for both white and black models. The principle components analysis matrix after varimax rotation is provided in Appendix B. The urban disadvantage index includes th ree measures of disadvantage that are consistent with extant literature as indi cators of urban disadvantage, disaggregated by race (Krivo and Peterson, 1996; Wilson, 1987; Massey and Eggers, 1990; Massey, 1990; and Ousey, 1999). The race-specific measures of percent living below poverty level, percent not employed, age 16 and over, and pe rcent of female-headed households with children under 18. All were highly correlated and thus loaded together, creating the black and white disadvantage indices. The Hispanic immigration index was create d from the loadings of the following measures related to the Hispanic populat ion: percent Spanish-speaking population speaking English not well or no t at all, age 5 and above, a nd percent Hispanics in the total population. Therefore, two conceptually distinct indices emerged from the analysis

PAGE 48

39 and are treated as independent variable s in the multivariate models: The Urban Disadvantage Index, disaggregated by r ace, and Hispanic Immigration Index. Analytic Method This analysis contains two separate models estimated theoretically in white and black indicators on race-specific search ra tes in the total sample. As was stated previously, it was necessary to perform log transformations for some variables so that their distributions were more normal, and to reduce heteroscedasticity among independent variables, thus making the da ta more appropriate for linear regression analysis. Each of the model regression equations is estimated from the same unit, which may result in cross-equation error correlations. Theref ore, seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) was chosen as the most appr opriate test for the analysis. This method uses generalized least squares to estimate each individual model regression equation. It is designed to account for correlations in error terms across equations so that comparisons between models can be made without encount ering issues with collinearity while using measures taken from the same sampling unit (Greene, 1996, Land et al., and Ousey, 1999). Finally, I employed a Breusch-Pagan test of independence to ensure that heteroscedasticity among variab les would not be significant enough to affect analysis. The test revealed no evidence of hete roscedasticity (chi2 = 1.619, p > 0.05). Because the theoretical arguments and hypot heses propose differences across racial groups, it is necessary to conduct a test for race-specific diffe rences in the magnitude of the effects of each indicator on black and wh ite models. Essentially, we needed to conduct a test measuring the variance of the effects of indicators across the models. To obtain this information we computed the F statistic through the SUR analysis, which measures the significance of the differences of coefficients across models. It is necessary

PAGE 49

40 to employ such a test because other options of statistical analysis tend to be negatively biased; this effect appears because certai n types of analysis commonly used simply compare regression coefficients (Paternoste r, et al., 1998). The results from the seemingly unrelated regression analysis and F test are reported below in Table 2. A brief explanation of findings follows. Total Sample Analysis Turning first to indicators related to urban disadvantage, we see that the disadvantage index in the black model was f ound to have a negative but non-st atistical effect on the rate of black searches. This finding is contrary to the predictions of Hypothesis 1 that higher scores on the index would result in higher rate s of searches of African Americans. Hypothesis 2, that incr eased levels of urban disadvantage would have no effect on rates of white searches, was also not supported by the results of the analysis. Again, we find that the reciproc al of Hypothesis 2 was the outcome. The results show a positive and significant relati onship between the rates of white searches by police and the white disadvantage index. That is, as levels of white urban disadvantage increase, the rate of police searches of white drivers also increases. Further, the F statistic reveals that the difference in these coefficients across models is statistically significant. We now consider the hypotheses related to the social disorganization perspective. While we offer multiple measures of social di sorganization, no measur es reach statistical significance in the black models. Only one measure was found to have a significant impact on rates of white searches – percent vacant housing units. In disorganized areas, whites are not likely to be searched by police, meaning that as the percentage of vacant housing units increase, the rate of white search es by police actually decrease. Hypothesis

PAGE 50

41 Table-5-1 Seemingly unrelated regression (S UR) coefficients (and standard errors) for the total sample Black White Coeff. Comparison F (and P) Values Contextual Variables Urban Disadvantage Indicators Urban Disadvantage Index -0.001 (0.002) 0.008** (0.003) 4.90* (0.027) Social Disorganization Indicators Hispanic Immigration Index -0.004 (0.002) -0.003 (0.002) 0.37 (0.541) Residential Mobility 0.013 (0.008) 0.000 (0.057) 1.95 (0.162) % Vacant Housing Units -0.008 (0.013) -0.019* (0.009) 0.59 (0.443) % Who Journey to Work 25 Min. + 0.005 (0.009) -0.008 (0.006) 1.67 (0.196) Officer Conduct Variables Log of Officer Use of Force Report Rate 0.177* (0.072) 0.402** (0.052) 6.94** (0.008) Control Variables Homicide Rate Per 10,000 0.039 (0.025) 0.019 (0.016) 0.45 (0.501) Arrest Rate 0.021** (0.002) 0.002** (0.001) 82.38** (0.000) % Males in Total Population 0.012 (0.025) -0.013 (0.019) 0.69 (0.405) Investigative Stop Rate 0.006** (0.002) 0.007** (0.001) 0.26 (0.612) -1.003 0.505 Constant 1.326 0.996 Model Chi Square 219.930 396.280 RMSE 1.283 0.957 R Square 0.452 0.598 P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01

PAGE 51

42 3, that these factors will increase both black and white search rates, is therefore not supported by the analysis. However, we do find some evidence supporting Hypothesis 4 that these factors will impact the black and white models sim ilarly. The F statistics show that social disorganization indicators do not differentially affect the white and black models. That is, measures of disorganizati on have a similar effect on rates of black and white searches. The log of officer use of force reports has a significant and positive effect on rates of both black and white searches Its effect on white search rates is stronger than its effect on black search rates, however, gi ving us 99% confidence and 95% confidence respectively that as reports of use of force increase, so t oo do rates of white and black searches by police. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 is partially supported; while officer use of force reports do have a positive and significant effect on the black search rate, it also was found to increase white search rates. However, there is clear eviden ce of racial variance in the impact of these coefficients concer ning the relationship between force and racespecific search rates. The F statistic shows that the impact of police use of force rates differs significantly by race. Concerning the controls, we find that th e homicide rate per 10,000 does not impact rates of race-specific searches, and there is no evidence of racial variance in the way homicide rates affect each model. The arre st rate was highly signi ficant in both models, giving 99% confidence that as a rrest rates increase, so too will rates of race-specific searches. However, this effect may have an indirect relationship the impact of inventory searches, a procedure always completed upon al l arrests. That is, when an officer conducts a search during a tra ffic stop, the decision to search was based on the officer’s

PAGE 52

43 discretion. An inventory search is part of police arrest prot ocol, which is not considered a search that can be motivated by racial bias, and thus may inflate th e actual rates of racespecific searches by officers. Interestingly, th e arrest rate different ially affects rates of race-specific searches, a finding that should be investigated in future research. We find that the percentage of males in the total population had no ef fect on race-specific searches by police, and this measures was without ev idence of racial vari ance. Finally, the investigative stop rate had a pos itive and significant effect on searches by police in both models. That is, when an officer makes a stop for investigative pur poses, it increases the likelihood of a search for whites and blacks alik e. However, the impact of this control does not differ by race. In summary, the findings from the prelim inary analysis provide modest support for both urban disadvantage and social disorgan ization hypotheses. The urban disadvantage index was found to have a statistically signi ficant, positive effect on white searches by police, while having a negative a nd non-significant effect on bl ack searches. None of the social disorganization measures used in th e current analysis resulted in statistical significance in the black model. A single measure of social disorganization, percent vacant housing units, was found to have a negati ve impact on rates of white searches. However, consistent with the social diso rganization hypotheses, we found evidence of racial invariance. That is, social disorgan ization measures affect both black and white search rates similarly. Finally, turning to police use of force repor ts, we found that the hypothesis was partially confirmed. This finding suggests that increases in use of force reports have a positive and significant impact on not only rates of black searches, but also rates of white searches by police.

PAGE 53

44 Analysis by Area Type To check for differences across t ypes of areas, disadvantaged and nondisadvantaged, a supplemental analysis was conducted, using the same set of hypotheses from the primary analysis. The disadvantaged model selected out census tracts having at least 30% of African Americ an residents living below th e poverty level. The nondisadvantaged areas were composed of t hose tracts with less than 30% of African Americans living below the poverty level. Poverty level cut-off points vary in the literature, but researchers have typically used a percentage between 20% defined as low, and 40%, defined as extreme. Therefore, a high African American poverty level of 30% was used as the cut-of point to distinguis h disadvantaged areas from non-disadvantaged areas (Wilson, 1987, Massey, 1990, Massey and E ggers, 1990, Krivo and Peterson, 1996, and Stretesky, Schuck, and Hogan, 2004). Disagg regating the data by area type resulted in n = 95 disadvantaged census tracts, a nd n = 170 non-disadvantaged census tracts. Descriptive statistics for the supplemental analysis are listed in Appendix C. The results from the SUR analysis and F tests are given in Table Three. The focus on African American poverty is consistent with urban disadvantage and social disorganization perspect ives in that structural fact ors causing concentrated poverty are said to disproportionately affect this mi nority group as compared to structural effects on whites. Therefore, we fi nd it appropriate to disaggregat e census tracts based on the proportion of African American residents li ving in poverty in a given census tract for both the black and white models. It allows for the isolation of these areas in which African Americans are affect ed disproportionately by fact ors that create conditions conducive to high poverty concentrations.

PAGE 54

45 Concerning the urban disadvantage indicator s in the non-disadvantaged model, we find that neither is significantly affected by the urban disadvantage index. Again, we see that these findings do not support Hypothesis 1, that urban disadvantage indicators will have a significant, positive impact on search rates of African Americans. However, results do lend some support to Hypothesis 2, that white searches will not be affected by increases in urban disadvantage. The F stat istic further reveals no evidence of racial variance. That is, differences between coeffici ents illustrate that the impact of the urban disadvantage index does not differ by racial group. For measures of social disorganization, we find that the impact of these indicators on race-specific searches is not statistically significant, with th e exception of percent vacant housing units. The coefficients are iden tical for percent of vacant housing units in the white model, while no other significant relationships were identified. The black model again, shows no significant relationshi ps among social disorg anization indicators and rates of black searches. These findings ar e contrary to the pred ictions of Hypothesis 3, which states that as social disorganization indicators increase, so too will rates of racespecific searches by police. However, the F statistic reveals that no indicators differentially affect the white and black m odels, which lends some support to Hypothesis 4 that the impact of social disorganiza tion indicators will not differ by racial group. The log of officer use of force reports has a different relationship to rates of black and white searches by police in non-disadvantag ed areas. The black model indicates no significant relationship between police use of force and rates of black searches. However, the white search rate is signifi cantly affected by the indicator, giving 99% confidence that as police use of force reports increase, so too do rates of white searches

PAGE 55

46 Table-5-2 Seemingly unrelated regression (S UR) coefficients (and standard errors) for non-disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas Non-Disadvantaged Areas N = 170 Disadvantaged Areas N = 95 Black White Coeff. Comparison F (and P) Values Black White Coeff. Comparison F (and P) Values Contextual Variables Urban Disadvantage Indicators Urban Disadvantage Index 0.003 (0.006) -0.002 (0.006) 0.09 (0.765) 0.008 (0.006) 0.009* (0.005) 0.00 (0.968) Social Disorganization Indicators Hispanic Immigration Index -0.006 (0.004) -0.003 (0.002) 0.72 (0.395) -0.002 (0.003) 0.000 (0.003) 0.36 (0.549) Residential Mobility 0.013 (0.009) -0.001 (0.006) 2.36 (0.125) -0.002 (0.013) 0.019 (0.012) 1.54 (0.214) % Vacant Housing Units -0.001 (0.017) -0.019* (0.010) 0.98 (0.322) -0.017 (0.019) -0.015 (0.019) 0.01 (0.932) % Who Journey to Work 25 Min. + 0.013 (0.011) -0.011 (0.007) 3.34 (0.067) -0.011 (0.013) 0.003 (0.013) 0.60 (0.438) Officer Conduct Log of Officer of Use of Force Report Rates 0.160 (0.106) 0.447** (0.065) 5.77* (0.016) 0.175* (0.091) 0.293** (0.089) 0.93 (0.334) Controls Homicide Rate Per 10,000 0.059 (0.063) -0.061 (0.102) 1.01 (0.314) 0.029 (0.025) 0.027 (0.018) 0.01 (0.934) Arrest Rate 0.022** (0.003) 0.011** (0.002) 9.83** (0.001) 0.020** (0.003) 0.002** (0.001) 30.34** (0.000) % Males in Total Population 0.005 (0.051) 0.026 (0.031) 0.14 (0.705) 0.034 (0.028) -0.047 (0.027) 4.59* (0.032) Investigative Stop Rate 0.005* (0.003) 0.005** (0.002) 0.00 (0.974) 0.007** (0.002) 0.009** (0.002) 0.38 (0.538) -1.011 -1.119 -1.449 0.777 Constant 2.533 1.569 1.704 1.506 Model Chi Square 122.570 239.080 126.640 199.510 RMSE 1.362 0.839 1.063 1.038 R Square 0.416 0.585 0.569 0.677 P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01

PAGE 56

47 by police. Finally, we see that the F coefficien t is significant; officer use of force reports do, in fact, differentially affect the black and white models. Again, we do find partial support for Hypothesis 5 in the di fferential effects of this in dicator on rates of black and white searches. The homicide rate per 10,000 was found to ha ve no effect on rates of race-specific searches. The arrest rate was found to have a highly significant effect on both rates of race-specific searches, while the F statistic reve als significant differenc es in the impact of arrest rates by racial group. Percentage of males in the total p opulation had no effect on race-specific searches, and no racial differen ces in its influence were identified. The investigative stop rate was found to positivel y influence the rates of black and white searches. The investigative stop rate has a slightly st ronger, but statistically nonsignificant, positive impact on rates of white searches by police, as compared to its influence on the black search rate. Howe ver, the F statistic reveals no evidence of variation by race. Similar to findings from the primary analys is, we find that the urban disadvantage index has a positive and significant relationship to rates of white searches; however, we do see a slight reduction in signi ficance from the primary model to the current model. No significant relationship between the disadvantage index and ra tes of black searches was identified. Further, based on the statistic from the F test, we see no evidence that the disadvantage index differentia lly affects the black and wh ite models. Again, these findings lend no support to H ypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2. Indicators of social disorganization have no significant effect on either race-specific search rates. These result s are in opposition to Hypothesi s 3 that both black and white

PAGE 57

48 search rates will increase. However, we ag ain find support for Hypothesis 4, as there is no evidence of a differential effect of the indicators on either model. Finally, we find significant the influence of the log of officer use of force report rates for each model. The relationship betw een the indicator and black searches is positive and significant, with 95% confidence. As in previous models, we see that the influence of officer use of force reports is st ronger for white search rates, in this case yielding 99% confidence that as use of force report rates increase, white searches by police will also increase. However, we do not see a difference in the way this indicator affects each model. The F statis tic reveals that the impact of officer use of force reports similarly affects both black and white search rates, a finding we do not see in the nondisadvantaged model. The impact of two controls in the disadvant aged areas is slightly different from the non-disadvantaged areas. Consistent with fi ndings from the non-disadvantaged areas, we see that homicide rate per 10,000 has no signifi cant influence on race-specific searches, without evidence of racial varian ce. The arrest rate is con tinuous across models as well, having a highly significant impact on rates of black and white s earches, while showing considerable evidence of racial variance. Ho wever, the percentage of males in the total population, while having no impact on searches was found to have a different influence on each model. An additional difference was found in the impact of the investigative stop rate on black searches by pol ice, as the coefficient incr eased in significance for the black model, while the impact on white searches was the same as in the nondisadvantaged model. Racial varian ce, however, was again not identified.

PAGE 58

49 Results from the supplemental analysis were similar to findings from the preliminary analysis. The urban disadvantage index had a significant and positive effect on rates of white searches, but not black sear ches, in the disadvantaged model only, while the index had no statistically significant im pact in the non-disadva ntaged model. We again see no significant impact of social diso rganization indicators on black search rates in both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged areas or on the white search rates in disadvantaged areas. However, we see posi tive statistical significan ce in the impact of percent vacant housing units on rates of white searches by police in the nondisadvantaged models. Finally, we see a decrease in the impact of officer use of force reports for black search rates in the non-disadva ntaged model. We also find statistical significance in the magnitude of the F statistic, meaning that the impact of use of force reports is different based on racial group. The disadvantaged model also yields results si milar to those from the preliminary analysis; use of force provide s a 95% confidence interval for its impact on black search rates, and a 99% confidence interval for its impact on the white searches, as well as a change in the F st atistic indicating no evidence of racial variance. That is, the impact of use of force reports on black a nd white search rates by police becomes more similar in the disadvantaged model.

PAGE 59

50 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS The goal of this research was to determ ine the effects of urban disadvantage and social disorganization on racial profiling as manifest ed through a police search subsequent to a traffic stop. For the anal ysis, we compared indicators of social disorganization and an urban disadvantage index to police rates of black and white searches. Overall, the results indicate th at these perspectives do not significantly contribute to our knowledge of the causes of racial profiling. The urban disadvantage index significantly influenced white search rates in the total sample, while it had no impact on search rates of African Americans. This is the case across each black model; the findings held when relationships were estimated by non-disadvantaged and disadvant aged area types, thus exhi biting the robustness of the findings from the analysis. The F statistic ge nerated shows that the impact of the urban disadvantage index differs by race This is also consistent with findings from previous studies, which included similar measures. Krivo and Peterson (2000) found in their analysis of black and white st ructural conditions a nd homicide rates, that concentrated disadvantage was 1 of only 2 variables that had significant racial differences. Perhaps this is a result of a signif icantly lower likelihood for white s to live in concentrated disadvantage (Krivo and Peterson, 2000). It th en follows that when whites do live in areas of concentrated disadvantage, their ec onomic and social situ ations are at their worst. Therefore, a possible explanation of this finding may be that white searches by police increase with increases in concen trated disadvantage because when whites

PAGE 60

51 experience conditions such as these, the imp act of disadvantage is exacerbated, resulting in whites living in the poorest and most dangerous communities. The measures of social disorganization showed no statistically significant impact on the black model, while percent vacant housing units had a ne gative and significant impact on rates of white searches by police. Krivo and Peterson (1996) found that higher vacancy rates as well as higher rates of rent al occupancy have positive effects on rates of property crime. Moreover, this effect was found to have a more significant impact on white neighborhoods than in predominantly black neighborhoods with extremely low numbers of professional resident s. This finding again point s to the extremely different structural living conditions of poor whites and poor blacks. As I explained above, the likelihood of poor whites to live in the poorest areas is so lo w that when this condition does occur, whites are living in the worst of areas. It may be more common to find a higher number of professionals, who tend to be more stable in their living situations, residing in more populated, poor white nei ghborhoods because of a higher likelihood of better education, and thus, better jobs. Ho wever, in the worst conditions, whites are residing in areas composed of residents of the lowest socioeconomic status, therefore, having a lower likelihood of professional resi dents, and thus higher levels of vacancy (Krivo and Peterson, 1996). Looking at the descriptive statistics from the supplementary analysis (see Appendix C), we see that African Americans are more likely to be searched by officers in nondisadvantaged areas, while whites are more likel y to be searched in disadvantaged areas. These statistics are in oppos ition to the assumptions of th e hypotheses, that indicators consistent with each neighborhood type would have a strong influence on black searches,

PAGE 61

52 but not white searches in the case of urban disadvantage, or that they would have a similar effect on both black and white search ra tes in the case of social disorganization. Police officers have a great deal of discre tion in the field; the decisions they make concerning law enforcement are shaped by, amo ng other things, past experiences. Police officers are trained to look for things that are out of the ordinary (Smith, Makarios, and Alpert, Forthcoming). African Americans are more likely to resi de in areas having characteristics that typify urban disadvantage, while only 2% of th e poorest whites live in neighborhoods with an extreme concentr ation of poverty (Wilson, 1987, and 1992). It then follows that a white person in a pa rticularly poor or predominantly African American neighborhood may prompt an offi cer to suspect criminal activity, and subsequently stop and search th at individual because they do n’t fit (Smith, Makarios, and Alpert, forthcoming). Therefore, we may e xpect an increase in white searches as we move into more disadvantaged areas, as is illustrated in the supplementary models. As I stated before, it is no t likely that whites live in areas of concentrated poverty and high crime. When whites do reside in thes e areas, it is possible that they are put in a different social class, separa te from poor whites living in more affluent neighborhoods. Perhaps the social distance between these two groups created by the difference in neighborhood residence is enough to influence po lice suspicions and thus, increase white search rates. The racial threat hypothesis offers another potential explanation for the results. It claims that the percentage of minorities in a given area is positively related to the level of formal social control. If segregation is imposed and minority groups are concentrated in certain areas, they become less of a threat, resulting in less police activity (Liska and

PAGE 62

53 Chamlin, 1984, and Terrill and Mastrofski, 2002). Perhaps police focus more on whites in these areas because they come to expect certain types of suspicious or criminal behaviors from blacks in disadvantaged ar eas. Black crime becomes commonplace, making officers less sensitive to African Americ an presence, and thus more attentive to suspicious behaviors of whites. The benign-neglect hypothesi s argues that larger Af rican American populations have a higher likelihood of intr a-racial crimes, which are less likely to be handled via legal response. This is because intra-racial crimes do not pose a threat to the majority (Liska and Chamlin, 1984, and Smith and Holm es, 2003). Again we see potential for more focus on white crime in areas of high disa dvantage. According to Black’s theory of law, whites are higher in status than Af rican Americans because they compose the majority. We may therefore see higher levels of legal response to suspicious behaviors of whites because higher status elicits mo re law (Doyle and Luckenbill, 1991). The officer use of force report rate was f ound to be significant in both the white and black models. However, we see that it has a st ronger impact on white search rates, and as demonstrated by the F statistic generated, ther e is significant varia tion in the way this variable affects whites and African Americans. The racial difference in the impact of this variable is contradictory to existing literatu re on the determinants of use of force and neighborhood context. Consistent with exta nt literature, we hypothesized that higher rates of officer use of force reports would increase the likelihood of African American search rates, but not white s earch rates. Numerous studies show that officers are more likely to use force against minority susp ects than whites (Smith, 1986, Smith, 1987, Liska

PAGE 63

54 and Chamlin, 1984, Doyle and Luckenbill, 199 1, Terrill and Mastrofski, 2002, Terrill and Reisig, 2003, and Smith and Holmes, 2003). Turning to the supplementary analysis we see that in the non-disadvantaged models, use of force rates s how no impact on African American searches, while it has a significant impact on white searches. The disa dvantaged models show that both search rates are influenced by use of force rates, bu t there is a stronger impact in the white model. Perhaps these findings reflect leve ls of aggression in police officers. As previously stated, officers look for things that are out of the ordinar y. It may make sense that a majority of officers are searchi ng African Americans in more affluent neighborhoods because they are less likely to ta ke residence there. However, it appears that for a white to be searched in an affluent area, it takes a particularly aggressive officer to make that decision – one that has a hi gher occurrence of use of force reports. The findings of the non-disadvantaged models may be imparted to the total sample models and the disadvantaged models. Esse ntially, all officers are doing their jobs by stopping and searching African Am ericans, but only some offi cers are searching whites. This may be evidence of racial profiling because it assumes African Americans are committing crimes, as evidenced by higher rates of use of force when initiating the search of a white suspect, while it is less likely for the search of an Afri can American to be conducted by officers who have high rates of use of force. The potential contributions of this resear ch are many. This is one of only a small number of studies on racial profiling conducted using such a large data set, containing such detailed information on police officers, ci tizens, and stop information. Further, the data were gathered using a combination of s ources outside of the in dividual level data,

PAGE 64

55 including the 2000 census, and the Uniform Crime Report, allowing for a more thorough investigation of the problem (Lundman, 2004). This research is theory-based, which is unique to this field. Extant research has gene rally neglected to incor porate theory prior to statistical analysis (Engel, Ca lnon and Bernard, 2002). As a th eory-based research paper, the units of analysis were ultimately determ ined by tenets of soci al disorganization and urban disadvantage in an attempt to explain the differential behaviors of police relative to neighborhood context. This research also pr ovides a comparison between the effects of each context-related perspective, and ma y help to support one over the other in explaining racial differences in search rates. In designing this analysis, it was often difficult to discern which indicators were more consistent with each perspective. Pe rhaps future research should consider using measures of social disorgan ization that are more dis tinct from those of urban disadvantage. Community characteristics such as collective efficacy may be one avenue that can provide a clearer dichotomy between the two perspectives. Further, taking into account characteristics of community-level institutions may provide an improved conceptualization of a co mmunity’s organization. This study used racially-disaggregated m easures of search rates by police as an indicator of racial profiling. Due to the actual number of searches conducted during the period of data collection, the counts for searches were low. Indeed, the counts were so low and varied so significantly across census trac ts that the natural log had to be used to make the data appropriate for the regression analysis. The act of conducting a search is highly discretionary for police officers becau se it is the officer alone who takes into account various circumstances, cond itions or cues that may wa rrant a search. Therefore,

PAGE 65

56 looking at arrest rates as indicators of racial profiling as well as stop rates could provide a clearer picture of racial profiling by police officers. Perhaps racial profiling is a phenomenon that needs to be studied through more micro-level theories. Future research should attempt to include more data on the static characteristics of officers, and that of citi zens stopped. The inclus ion of an interview component may help to inform the perspectives officers and citizens. Further, the data were taken from a single geographical area, Miami-Dade County. Not only is this area unique because of its ethnic make-up, but it is also a southern city, which may present quite different characteristics and conditions from those in other regions of the US. Further, research should focus on the compar ison of a number of cities from different regions to prevent regional bias. Future re search should also seek to include in its analysis a Hispanic component, especially when studying an area so ethnically diverse.

PAGE 66

57 APPENDIX A PRINCIPLE COMPONENTS ANALYSIS AFTER VARIMAX ROTATION Black Model White Model Variables Component Component 1 2 1 2 % Spanish-speaking population who speak English not well or not at all, age 5 and above 0.97 0.96 % Hispanics in Total Population0.96 0.97 % White non-Hispanics living below poverty level 0.9 % White non-Hispanic not employed, age 16 and over 0.79 % White female-headed household with children < 18 0.53 % Black persons living below poverty level 0.91 % Blacks not employed, age 16 and over 0.90 % Black female-headed household with children < 18 0.61 Eigen Values 2.15 1.79 1.9 1.73 % Variance Explained 43.01 35.69 38.09 34.49

PAGE 67

58 APPENDIX B DESCRIPTIVES: MEANS AND (STANDAR D DEVIATIONS) FOR VARIABLES IN SEARCH MODELS FOR NON-DIS ADVANTAGED AND DISADVANTAGED Non-Disadvantaged N = 170 Disadvantaged N = 95 Black White Black White Dependent Variable Log of Search Rates per 10,000 1.71 (1.90) 1.50 (1.34) 1.39 (1.64) 1.42 (1.77) Contextual Variables Urban Disadvantage Indicators Urban Disadvantage Index 31.33 (19.35) 23.85 (12.23) 80.67 (19.72) 37.07 (27.28) Social Disorganization Indicators Hispanic Immigration Index 71.29 (38.97) 71.78 (39.15) 69.57 (46.13) 69.96 (46.32) Residential Mobility 47.57 (12.56) 51.79 (11.95) % Vacant Housing Units 6.65 (7.99) 9.57 (7.68) % Who Travel to Work > 25 Minutes + 52.05 (10.67) 51.14 (9.86) Officer Conduct Variables Log of Officer Use of Force Report Rates 4.45 (1.76) 3.93 (1.95) Control Variables Homicide Rate Per 10,000 0.44 (1.54) 0.26 (1.61) 1.25 (5.83) 0.96 (6.21) Arrest Rate 21.61 (57.52) 9.21 (33.78) 14.67 (35.14) 38.77 (192.66) % Males in Total Population 47.96 (2.26) 49.14 (4.38) Investigative Stop Rates 39.43 (71.66) 44.10 (77.44) % White Population 72.56 (27.47) 57.95 (32.09) % African American Population18.30 (27.40) 31.45 (33.08) % Hispanic Population 56.16 (27.42) 51.49 (31.45)

PAGE 68

59 LIST OF REFERENCES Akins, S. 2003. Racial segregation and property crime: Examining the mediating effect of police strength. Justice quarterly, 20 675-695. Alpert, G., and Dunham, R. 1988. Policing multi-ethnic neighborhoods: The Miami study and findings for law enforcement in the United States New York: Greenwood Press. Alpert, G. P., and MacDonald, J. M. 2001. Police use of force: An analysis of organizational characteristics Justice quarterly, 18 393-409. Bayley, D.H., and Mendelsohn, H. 1969. Minorities and the police: Confrontation in America. New York: Free Press. Borg, M. J., and Parker, K. F. 2001. Mobilizi ng law in urban areas: The social structure of homicide clearance rates. Law & society review 35, 435-466. Browning, C. R. 2002. The span of collective efficacy: Extending social disorganization theory to partner violence. Journal of marriage & family, 64 833-850. Bursik, R. J. 1988. Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519-551. Chambliss, W. 1994. Policing the ghetto underclass: The politics of law and law enforcement. Social problems 41, 177-194. Cole, D. 1999. Is public concern about feral police using racial pr ofiling justified? Insight on the news 15, 24-27. Cordner, G., Williams, B., and Zuniga, M. 2000. Vehicle stop study: Mid-year report. San Diego, CA: San Diego Police Department. Cullen, F. T., and Agnew, R. 2003. Criminological theory: Past to present 2nd ed. Los Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company. Doyle, D. P. and Luckenbill, D. F. 1991. Mobilizing law in response to collective problems: A test of Black’s theory of law. Law & society review, 25 103-116. Engel, R.S., Calnon, J.M., and Bernard, T. 2002. Theory and racial profiling: Shortcomings and future directions in research. Justice quarterly, 19, 249-274. Fagan, J., and Davies, G. 2000. Street st ops and broken windows: Terry, race, and disorder in New York City. Fordham urban law journal, 28 457-504.

PAGE 69

60 Florida Highway Patrol. 2000. Race study of the Florida highway patrol [Online]. Available: www.fhp.state.fl.us. Gibson, C. L., Zhao, J., and Lovrich, N. P. 2002. Social inte gration, individual perceptions of collective efficacy, a nd fear of crime in three cities. Justice quarterly, 19, 537-564. Greene, W. H. 1996. Economic analysis Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Guerra, S. 1992. Domestic drug interd iction operations: Finding the balance. Journal of criminal law & criminology, 82 1109-1992. Hagan, J., and Albonetti, C. 1982. Race, class, a nd the perception of criminal injustice in America. American journal of sociology, 88 329-355. Harris, D. A. 1997. "Driving while black" and all other traffic offenses: The Supreme Court and pretextual traffic stops Journal of criminal law & criminology, 87 544582. Jacobs, D., and Kleban, R. 2003. Political in stitutions, minorities, and punishment: A pooled cross-national analysis of imprisonment rates. Social forces, 82 725–755. Kane, R. J. 2002. The social ecology of police misconduct. Criminology, 40 867-897. Krivo, L. J. and Peterson, R. D. 1996. Extr emely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban crime. Social forces, 75, 619-650. Krivo, L. J. and Peterson, R. D. 2000. The st ructural context of homicide: Accounting for racial differences in process. American sociological review, 65 547-559. Lamberth, J. (1998). Driving while black: A sta tistician proves that prejudice still rules the road. Hartford. [Online] Available: www.hartfordhwp.com/a rchives/45a/192.html. Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., and Cohen, L. E. 1990. Structural covariates of homicide rates: Are there any invariance s across time and social space? American journal of sociology 95, 922-963. Lane, J., and Meeker, J. W. 2003. Fear of gang crime: A look at three theoretical models. Law & society review, 37 425-456. Liska, A. E., and Chamlin, M. B. 1984. So cial structure and crime control among macrosocial units. American journal of sociology, 90 383-395. Lowenkamp, C. T., Cullen, F. T., and Pratt, T. C. 2003. Replicating Sampson and Groves's test of social disorganization theory. Journal of research in crime & delinquency, 40 351-373.

PAGE 70

61 Lundman, R. 2004. Driver race, ethnicity, a nd gender and citizen reports of vehicle searches by police and vehicle search hits: Toward a triangulated scholarly understanding. Journal of criminal law & criminology, 94 309-349. Lundmand, R., and Kaufman, R. 2003. Driving while black: Effects of race, ethnicity, and gender on citizen self-reports pf traffic stops and police actions. Criminology, 41, 195-221. MacDonald, H. 2003. Are cops racist? Chicago: Ivan R. Dee. Massey, D. S. 1990. American apartheid: Segr egation and the maki ng of the underclass. American journal of sociology, 96 329-357. Massey, D. S., and Denton, N. A. 1988. S uburbanization and segregation in US metropolitan areas. American journal of sociology, 94 592-626. Massey, D. S., and Denton, N. A. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Massey, D. S. and Eggers, M. L. 1990. The ecology of inequality: Minorities and the concentration of poverty, 1970-1980. American journal of sociology, 96, 11531188. Massey, D.S., Eggers, M. L. and Denton, N. A. 1994. Disentangling the causes of concentrated urban poverty. International journal of group tensions, 24 267-316. Mastrofski, S. D., Reisig, M. D., and McClus key, J. D. 2002. Police disrespect toward the public: An encounter-based analysis. Criminology, 40, 519-552. Meehan, A. J. and Ponder, M. C. 2002. Race and place: The ecology of racial profiling African American motorists. Justice quarterly, 19 399-430. Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., and Raudenbush, S. W., 2001. Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatia l dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39 517-558. Ousey, G. 1999. Homicide, structural factors, and the racial i nvariance assumption. Criminology, 37 405-426. Parker, K. F., and McCall, P. L. 1999. Struct ural conditions and racial homicide patterns: A look at the multiple disadvantages in urban areas. Criminology, 37 447-477. Parker, K. F., Stults, B., and Rice, S. K. 2005. Racial threat, con centrated disadvantage and social control: Considering the macrolevel sources of variation in arrests. Manuscript in preparation. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P ., and Piquero, A. R. 1998. Using the correct statistical test for the equali ty of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866.

PAGE 71

62 Robison, Sophia M. 1936. Can delinquency be measured? New York, Pub. for the Welfare Council of New York City by Columbia University Press. Rose, D. R. and Clear, T. R. 1998. Incarcerati on, social capital, and crime: Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36, 441-479. Russell, K. 2001. Racial profiling: A status repor t of the legal, legislative, and empirical literature. Rutgers race & the law review, 61, 1-16. Sampson, R. J. 1987. Urban black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family disruption. American journal of sociology, 93, 348-382. Sampson, R. J., and Raudenbush, S. W. 1999. Sy stematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American journal of sociology, 105 603-651. Sampson, R. J. and Wilson, W. J. 1995. Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban inequality. In J. Hagan and R.D. Peterson (Eds), Crime and inequality Stanford: Stanford University Press. Smith, B. W., and Holmes, M. D. 2003. Comm unity accountability, minority threat, and police brutality: An examination of civil rights criminal complaints. C riminology 41, 1035-1063. Smith, D. A. 1986. The neighborhood context of police behavior. In A.J. Reiss and M. Tonry (Eds), Communities and crime Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, D. A. 1987. Police response to interperso nal violence: Defining the parameters of legal control. Social forces, 65 767-782. Smith, M., and Petrocelli, M. 2001. Racial prof iling?: A multivariate analysis of police traffic stop data. Police quarterly, 4 4-27. Smith, M. R., Makarios, M., and Alpert, G. P. 2005. Differential suspicion: Theory and gender effects in the traffic stop c ontext. Manuscript in preparation. Snell, C. 2001. Neighborhood structure, crime, and fe ar of crime: Testing Bursik and Grasmick's neighborhood control theory. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC. Spitzer, E. 1999. The New York City Police Department 's "stop and frisk" practices: A Report to the people of the state of Ne w York from the Office of the Attorney General. Albany: New York Attorney General's Office. Stretesky, P. B., Schuck, A. M., and Hogan, M. J. 2004. Space matters: An analysis of poverty, poverty clustering, and violent crime Justice quarterly, 21 817-841.

PAGE 72

63 Sun, I. Y., Triplett, R. A., and Gainey, R. R. 2004. Social disorganization, legitimacy of local institutions, and neighborhood crime: An exploratory study of perceptions of the police and local government. Journal of crime & justice, 2 33-60. Terrill, W., and Mastrofski, S. D. 2002. Situat ional and officer-based determinants of police coercion. Justice quarterly, 19, 215-248. Terrill, W., and Reisig, M. D. 2003. Neighbor hood context and polic e use of force. Journal of research in crime & delinquency, 40 291-321. Walker, S. 2001. Searching for the denominato r: Problems with polic e traffic stop data and early warning system solution. Justice research & policy, 3 63-95. Walker, S., Spohn, C., and DeLone, M. 2001. The color of justice: Race, ethnicity, and crime in America 2nd ed. United States: Wadsworth. Ward, J. 2002. Race, ethnicity, and law enforcement profiling: Implications for public policy. Public administration review, 62, 726-735. Weitzer, R., and Tuch, S. 2002. Perceptions of racial profiling: race, class, and personal experience. Criminology, 40 435-457. Werthman, C. and Piliavin, I. 1967. Gang memb ers and the police. In D. Brodura (Ed) The police: Six sociological essays. New York: John Wiley. Wilson, G., Alpert, G., and Dunham, R. 2004. Prejudice in Police Profiling American behavioral scientist, 47 896-909. Wilson, W. J. 1987. The truly disadvantaged: The inne r city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wilson, W.J. 1992. Another look at the truly disadvantaged. Political science quarterly 106, 639-658. Zingraff, M., Mason, H. M., Smith, W., To maskovic-Devey, D., Warren, P., McMurray, H., and Fenlon, C. R. 2000. Evaluating North Carolina st ate highway patrol data: Citations, warnings, and searches in 1998. North Carolina State University.

PAGE 73

64 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH In May of 2003, I received my Bachelor of Ar ts in sociology from the University of Florida. My senior thesis, Correlates of female juvenile delinquency, was published in December of 2003 in The International Jour nal of Sociology and Social Policy. The completion of my senior thesis allowed me to graduate with highest honors. I plan to pursue my PhD in criminology at UF, contin uing my research on r acial discrimination, social structure and crime, and race and poverty issues.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0012660/00001

Material Information

Title: Urban disadvantage, social disorganization, and racial profiling : an analysis of ecology and police officers' race-specific search behaviors
Physical Description: 73 p.
Language: English
Creator: Lane, Erin C. ( Dissertant )
Parker, Karen F. ( Thesis advisor )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Criminology, Law and Society thesis, M.A   ( local )
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Criminology, Law and Society   ( local )

Notes

Abstract: Racial profiling by police officers has become a popular subject in the field of criminology in the recent past, gaining extensive coverage in the literature. The study of racial profiling varies greatly in scope and research method, resulting in three primary forms in the literature, including measurement of citizen perceptions of police practices, citizen self-report data on contacts with police, and actual police stop data. However, findings from research in these veins vary greatly, often failing to take into account ecological context and neglecting to incorporate theory as a factor guiding research. This research seeks to compensate for these deficiencies and add to the literature by enhancing our understanding of racial profiling through theory-based research. Using data collected from more than 61,000 police stops in Miami Dade County, I will examine a number of factors that may influence race-specific search behaviors independently for neighborhoods of high and low disadvantage in an attempt to explore and compare the contributions of urban economy/disadvantage and disorganization theories to the study of racial profiling
Subject: crime, disadvantage, discrimination, disorganization, ecology, police, profiling, race, searches, structure
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 73 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0012660:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0012660/00001

Material Information

Title: Urban disadvantage, social disorganization, and racial profiling : an analysis of ecology and police officers' race-specific search behaviors
Physical Description: 73 p.
Language: English
Creator: Lane, Erin C. ( Dissertant )
Parker, Karen F. ( Thesis advisor )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Criminology, Law and Society thesis, M.A   ( local )
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Criminology, Law and Society   ( local )

Notes

Abstract: Racial profiling by police officers has become a popular subject in the field of criminology in the recent past, gaining extensive coverage in the literature. The study of racial profiling varies greatly in scope and research method, resulting in three primary forms in the literature, including measurement of citizen perceptions of police practices, citizen self-report data on contacts with police, and actual police stop data. However, findings from research in these veins vary greatly, often failing to take into account ecological context and neglecting to incorporate theory as a factor guiding research. This research seeks to compensate for these deficiencies and add to the literature by enhancing our understanding of racial profiling through theory-based research. Using data collected from more than 61,000 police stops in Miami Dade County, I will examine a number of factors that may influence race-specific search behaviors independently for neighborhoods of high and low disadvantage in an attempt to explore and compare the contributions of urban economy/disadvantage and disorganization theories to the study of racial profiling
Subject: crime, disadvantage, discrimination, disorganization, ecology, police, profiling, race, searches, structure
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 73 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0012660:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












URBAN DISADVANTAGE, SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION AND RACIAL
PROFILING: AN ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGY AND POLICE OFFICERS' RACE-
SPECIFIC SEARCH BEHAVIORS















By

ERIN C. LANE


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005


































Copyright 2005

by

Erin C. Lane
































This is dedicated to Aunt Cheryl and Grandpa Lane















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In my studies at the University of Florida I have come in contact with a number of

individuals who have made positive contributions to my learning and development as a

graduate student. Dr. Beeghley was so influential; he guided me through my senior year

and directed me to the right resources when I was trying to put together a senior thesis.

He has had a profound impact on my life, and I am truly grateful.

I thank Alex Piquero for his patience and guidance, as he was instrumental in

helping me write and publish my senior thesis. Jodi Lane provided me with the tools and

guidance I needed to get things done and keep it all organized. Matt Nobles kept me

focused and somehow always knew what was going on. He was always ready to help. I

am forever grateful to Karen Parker, who helped me develop my research focus and

guide me through my graduate career. The care and expertise she provided are

invaluable.

Finally, I would like to thank my family for their support. They never gave up and

their persistence helped me get where I am today. My stepmother, Cheryl, my

grandmother, Aunt Jan, Uncle Perry, Uncle Paul, and had so much confidence in me. My

sisters, Kristin and Michelle, kept me motivated by always acting so impressed when I

informed them of my research. I thank my father for everything I have, his consistency,

love, concern, support, determination, and his wealth of knowledge.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iv

LIST OF TA BLE S .............................. ....... ...... .. .............. .. vii

A B S T R A C T .......................................... .................................................. v iii

CHAPTER

1 IN TRODU CTION ................................................. ...... .................

2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................ ......................... 6

Public Perception L literature ............................................................................. 7
A actual Police Behavior ............................... ... ............ ....... ............. 9
Neighborhood Context and Police Behavior............................................................13

3 THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES....................................... ......................... 17

Origins of Urban Disadvantage Perspective............................................................17
Development of Urban Disadvantage Perspective ...................................................20
Urban Disadvantage and Racial Profiling Linkages .......................................23
Origins and New Perspectives in Social Disorganization Theory.............................24
Social Disorganization and Racial Profiling Linkages............................26
A additional H ypotheses ............................................................. .....................27

4 D A T A A N D M E TH O D S ........................................ ............................................29

Unit of Analysis ............................. .............................. ........ 29
M ia m i D ata ................................. ......................................................................... 3 0
Citizen Contact Data.......................... .....................30
Dependent Variable................... ................ .... ....................... ........ 31
C en su s D ata .............. ...... .. ...................................... ............... .... .3 2
U rban D disadvantage Indicators ........................................ ....................... 33
Social D isorganization Indicators.................................... ........................ 33
O officer D ata ............................................................................ 34
C rim e D ata ............... ................................... ......... ............... 35









5 R E S U L T S ............................................................................................................. 3 8

Principle Com ponent Analysis ............................................................................38
A nalytic M ethod ....................................................... ..... .............. 39
T otal Sam ple A analysis .. .. .... .......................................................... .. .... .. .... .. 40
A analysis by A rea Type ..................... .. ...... ................... ...... .. ............... 44

6 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................... 50

APPENDIX

A PRINCIPLE COMPONENTS ANALYSIS AFTER VARIMAX ROTATION ........57

B DESCRIPTIVES: MEANS AND (STANDARD DEVIATIONS) FOR
VARIABLES IN SEARCH MODELS FOR NON-DISADVANTAGED AND
D ISA D V A N T A G E D ....................................................................... .....................58

LIST OF REFEREN CES ............................................................ ................... 59

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E TCH ..................................................................... ..................64















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

4-1 Descriptive statistics: Means (and standard deviations) for variables in race-
specific search m odels............ .................................................... .. .... ........ 37

5-1 Seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) coefficients (and standard errors)
for the total sam ple ......... .. .................................... .... .... .... ........ ........ .... 41

5-2 Seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) coefficients (and standard errors)
for non-disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas ............................................. 46















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

URBAN DISADVANTAGE, SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION, AND RACIAL
PROFILING: AN ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGY AND POLICE OFFICERS' RACE-
SPECIFIC SEARCH BEHAVIORS

By

Erin C. Lane

December 2005

Chair: Karen F. Parker
Major Department: Criminology, Law and Society

Racial profiling by police officers has become a popular subject in the field of

criminology in the recent past, gaining extensive coverage in the literature. The study of

racial profiling varies greatly in scope and research method, resulting in three primary

forms in the literature, including measurement of citizen perceptions of police practices,

citizen self-report data on contacts with police, and actual police stop data. However,

findings from research in these veins vary greatly, often failing to take into account

ecological context and neglecting to incorporate theory as a factor guiding research. This

research seeks to compensate for these deficiencies and add to the literature by enhancing

our understanding of racial profiling through theory-based research. Using data collected

from more than 61,000 police stops in Miami Dade County, I will examine a number of

factors that may influence race-specific search behaviors independently for

neighborhoods of high and low disadvantage in an attempt to explore and compare the









contributions of urban economy/disadvantage and disorganization theories to the study of

racial profiling.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Minorities in general, and specifically black males, are drastically overrepresented

in the criminal justice system (Walker, 2001). Scholars agree that a primary cause of this

disproportionality may stem from law enforcement officers' use of race as the key

determinant for stopping, interrogating, searching, and/or arresting individuals of

minority group status. Support for the salience of this phenomenon has been presented

countless times through various forms of empirical research (Hagan and Albonetti, 1982;

Harris, 1997; Lamberth, 1997; Walker et al., 2000; Brown, 2001; Engel et al.' 2002;

Weitzer and Tuch, 2002; Zingraff et al., 2002; and Lundman and Kaufman, 2003).

The act of racial profiling by police officers, defined as the process by which law

enforcement agents use race as the key factor in determining whether to stop, search, cite,

and/or arrest minority group members, has recently become a prominent focus within the

field of criminology (Engel et al., 2002). We know that the practice of racial profiling

exists, but why? What factors cause police officers to use race as a primary determinant

in making the decision to conduct stops and searches?

Leading scholars have advanced many reasons for officers' more punitive

behavior toward minority individuals. One of the more popular explanations concerns

crime statistics, which show that African Americans are more likely to commit crime,

particularly violent crime, than individuals of other races. However, these rates may be

misleading, and should be analyzed beyond face value (Walker, 2001). For example,

conviction rates of African Americans are proportionately higher than that of other racial









groups. The simple fact that racial profiling elicits such public reaction forces individuals

to consider alternatives to these rather basic measures of arrest, conviction, sentencing,

and incarceration. For example, African Americans living in high crime areas typically

have more frequent contact with police due to the increased presence of police officers,

and are, therefore, more likely to have their criminal activity discovered (Krivo and

Peterson, 1996). Some research has indicated that African Americans and other

minorities are more likely to drive vehicles with broken taillights, cracked windshields,

and other equipment violations, giving officers more reason to make a traffic stop, and

again increasing the likelihood that contraband or criminal activity is detected (Mac

Donald, 2003). Still, other scholars cite the underlying laizze faire brand of racism that

exists today in the United States as a primary factor causing high rates of racial profiling

(Brown, 2001; Massey et al., 1994; Wilson et al., 2004).

What seems to be less salient in this research is an explanation of police officers'

decisions to conduct race-specific searches subsequent to traffic stops, relative to

neighborhood characteristics. While a small number of studies do take into account

officers' behavior relative to ecological conditions, findings have been inconsistent.

Therefore, it is still unclear how and to what degree contextual factors may contribute to

higher rates of African American searches as compared to that of whites. Findings from

this small body of literature have, however, consistently demonstrated that police officers

decision-making processes are affected by neighborhood conditions, being more likely to

handle suspects more punitively in neighborhoods with high poverty and crime levels,

and equate neighborhood characteristics with that population residing in these

neighborhoods (Robison, 1936; Werthman and Piliavin, 1967; Bayley and Mendelsohn,









1969; Lundman, 2004; Meehan and Ponder, 2004; and Engel and Calnon, 2004).

Further, researchers have found that officers often judge seriousness of a situation based

on the neighborhood context (Terrill and Reisig, 2003).

Two perspectives have been consistently successful in explaining the relationship

between ecology and crime urban disadvantage and social disorganization (Bursik,

1988; Massey, 1990; Wilson, 1987; and Sampson and Wilson, 1995). These perspectives

are highly interrelated, as urban disadvantage perspective finds its origins in the social

disorganization tradition. The primary difference is that the urban disadvantage

perspective posits that racial discrimination in housing markets is the primary

contributing factor to the concentrated disadvantage of poor African Americans, resulting

in pronounced racial residential segregation across the United States. This type of

discrimination caused a clustering of minorities living in extreme social isolation and

poverty (Massey, 1990). Conversely, the social disorganization perspective holds that

high crime rates and other negative neighborhood conditions are the result of the inability

of residents to realize common goals and, therefore, are unable to regulate the activity of

youth or other at-risk groups within their communities. This cause of this social distance

can be found in neighborhood instability, residential mobility and communication

barriers, and the like (Sampson, 1988; and Sampson and Wilson, 1995).

Neighborhoods with concentrated disadvantage have higher crime rates because the

social isolation they are subjected to, in combination with lack of access to legitimate

employment, creates a sort of sub-cultural tolerance of criminal behavior (Cullen and

Agnew, 2003). In effect, this sub-cultural tolerance leads to higher crime rates and

therefore to higher levels of police presence, resulting in increased rates of stops,









searches, arrests and incarceration in these areas. These conditions perpetuate a cycle of

crime and poverty geographically concentrated in urban neighborhoods (Rose and Clear,

1998). As a result of racial residential segregation, there exists a greater social distance

between officers and residents of highly disadvantaged areas. By this reasoning, due to

the prejudice that is perpetuated through discrimination in housing markets, police

officers will be more likely to treat African Americans more punitively.

Social disorganization theory explains concentrated disadvantage as a result of a

lack of informal social control, stemming from high residential mobility, population

heterogeneity, concentrated poverty, and family dissolution (Bursik, 1988; and Sampson

and Wilson, 1995). These characteristics developed in response to significant changes in

the urban economy beginning in the 1970s. After the relocation of many manufacturing

jobs into suburban areas and overseas, inner city residents were left without access to

employment. Coupled with the exodus of many working- and middle-class African

Americans from inner cities, so began the existence of the underclass (Wilson, 1987).

Essentially, residents of these neighborhoods lack communication and are unable to

realize their common goals and interests, and thus are unable to maintain informal social

control over local youth and other residents (Sampson, 1988; Sampson and Wilson, 1995;

and Cullen and Agnew, 2003). As a result of residents being incapable of community-

level regulation, more formal social control is necessary to maintain social order, and

therefore, more police officers are dispatched to these areas due to higher prevalence of

criminal activity (Bursik, 1988).

This paper uses these perspectives to guide the research design in examining the

relationship between police officers' race-specific search practices and ecological









context, uncovering the dynamics of race, context, and police behavior. Using the urban

disadvantage and social disorganization perspectives, this research seeks to extend

explanations of racial profiling at the census tract level, using citizen contact and officer

data from more than 61,000 traffic stops in Miami-Dade County, collected by the Miami-

Dade Police Department during a six-month period in 2001. Further, both crime data

relevant to geographic location and census tract data from the 2000 Census will be used

to provide a clearer picture of the reality of racial profiling and race-specific stops and

searches by police in Miami-Dade County.

In the next section, I review supporting literature on racial profiling, including

research from each type of methodology. Following that, I review the central tenants of

urban disadvantage and social disorganization perspectives, finishing with a brief

discussion of revitalizations of the latter. In the next section, I report details on the data

set used, as well as research methodology. Finally, I present a discussion the findings of

the research and suggest direction for future research in the study of racial profiling.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Racial profiling is the process by which law enforcement agents use race as the key

factor in determining whether to stop, search, cite, and/or arrest individuals of minority

status (Engel et al., 2002). The phrase 'driving while black' was coined in the early

1990s as the US began to see a rise in public awareness of and concern about

discriminatory practices by police officers (Harris, 1997). This increase can be partially

attributed to highly publicized cases of racial discrimination by members of our justice

system, particularly the heinous beating of Rodney King and the events that took place in

Los Angeles following the acquittal of the officers responsible for such abuses of power

(Brown, 2001). However, the recent growth of this body of literature is not indicative of

the true beginnings of this phenomenon; evidence of the existence of racial profiling has

long been documented.

Research dating back as early as 1936 cites evidence that police used race as a key

factor in their decision-making processes (Robison, 1936). Further, official data on

citizen approval ratings of police practices documented since 1967, show that the

relationship between minority citizens and police is at best, strained (Werthman and

Piliavin, 1967; and Walker et al., 2000). Racial profiling has become one of the most

common explanations for this differential treatment of minorities by police officers, thus

illustrating the importance of research in this area (Harris, 1997; Lamberth, 1997; Walker

et al., 2000; Brown, 2001; Weitzer and Tuch, 2002; Lundman and Kaufman, 2003; and

Lundman, 2004).









Three distinct forms of research on the subject matter have consistently appeared in

the literature. Citizen public perceptions have been used to measure prevalence of racial

profiling and perceptions of the overall legitimacy of police behavior (Hagan and

Albonetti, 1982; Weitzer and Tuch, 2002; and Lundman and Kaufman, 2003). The

second form of research focuses on actual police behavior by counting and analyzing data

from actual traffic stops and searches, but findings from this research have been relatively

inconsistent (Lamberth, 1997; Spitzer, 1999; and Harris, 1997). The final perspective is

the most recently developed and consequently provides the smallest body of literature; it

focuses on racial profiling behavior relative to neighborhood context. Specifically, this

vein analyzes neighborhood characteristics and compares them with rates of racial

profiling behavior by officers (Robison, 1936; Werthman and Piliavin, 1967; Smith,

1986; Fagan and Davies, 2000; and Terrill and Reisig, 2003). It is this last group of

literature we seek to expand with this research. A brief review of each form of literature

follows.

Public Perception Literature

Hagan and Albonetti (1982) pioneered the study of citizen perceptions of police

behavior and racial profiling. In their analysis of the United States' Department of

Justice survey on public perceptions of police practices, they found evidence that being a

member of a minority group significantly increases the likelihood of perceptions of

injustice. Of particular interest is their finding that African Americans scored an average

of 13 points higher than whites on the "perceptions of injustice" scale. This indicates that

relationships between police and minority citizens suffer from some external aggravating

factors, most likely racial profiling and differential treatment (Hagan and Albonetti,

1982).









In 2002, Weitzer and Tuch conducted a study measuring citizen perceptions of

racial profiling, including citizen approval/disapproval of police use of the practice,

prevalence rates, citizen perceptions of the utility of the practice, and personal experience

with police officers among others. The researchers used characteristics of respondents

including race, gender, age, type of neighborhood (urban vs. rural), past experiences with

police, and so forth, to check for patterns in citizen perceptions of police. The results

indicated first that 94.3% of African Americans and 84.4% of whites disapproved of the

use of racial profiling as a method of crime prevention by police officers. Results also

showed that African Americans were 3 times more likely than whites to hold negative

opinions of local law enforcement agents, and 4 times more likely to have negative

opinions of state law enforcement. Race and personal experience with police officers had

the strongest influence on attitudes toward the police, with minority members being more

likely to hold negative opinions. Finally, African Americans who had some form of

contact with police officers within the past 12 months from the time of the interview were

significantly less likely than their white counterparts to believe they had been treated

fairly by police officers; 16.6% of the sample was eligible for this comparison. Findings

revealed that 26.1% of African Americans felt they had been treated unfairly, compared

with 7% of whites. The authors concluded that perceptions of racial profiling vary by

race, class, and gender; the most significant indicators of negative perceptions were race

and personal experience (Weitzer and Tuch, 2002).

Lundman and Kaufman (2003), using data from a nationally representative survey,

searched for a relationship between race and ethnicity of drivers and police decisions to

conduct traffic stops. The authors used the National Crime Victimization Survey, a









nationally representative survey that among other things includes information on citizen

encounters with police, to perform their analysis. The results indicated that African

Americans report being stopped more often than both Whites and Hispanics. The results

further indicated that African Americans stopped by police were significantly more likely

to believe that the officer's reason for the traffic stop was illegitimate or based on extra-

legal factors (Lundman and Kaufman, 2003). This type of research lends credence to the

study of racial profiling, but public perceptions are sometimes less credible than analyses

of actual police behaviors.

Actual Police Behavior

The New Jersey Turnpike study (Lamberth, 1997) is one such study that accounts

for actual police stop behavior. The researchers first determined the racial composition

of the driving population on a set section of the Turnpike to establish a base line, and then

determined the racial composition of speeding drivers. The researchers found that

although African Americans composed 13.5% of all motorists and only 15% of all

speeding motorists, they accounted for 35% of persons stopped and/or searched by law

enforcement officers. African Americans were 4.85 times more likely to be stopped or

searched by police. Further inquiry based on police records indicated that African

Americans composed 73.2% of all arrests during a 3.5-year period, making them 16.5

times more likely to be arrested as compared to drivers of other races (Lamberth, 1998).

In 1999, Spitzer, in cooperation with the New York Attorney General's Office

(1999), released the results of a year long study of stop and frisk practices of New York

Police Department officers. They found that although African Americans represented

only 25.6% of the population, they composed 50.6% of all persons stopped by officers.

Hispanics were also over-represented compared to their proportion of the population;









they composed 23.7% of the population and 33% of persons stopped. This pattern

persisted even after researchers controlled for the differential rates at which minorities

commit crimes. The researchers concluded that there was a clear over-representation of

minorities being stopped by police as compared to their proportion of the population

(Spitzer, 1999).

Chambliss (1994) conducted a study in which assistants observed behaviors of

police officers assigned to the Rapid Deployment Unit of Washington D.C.'s police

department. Although this research was not originally intended to be used to explain

racial profiling, the observations collected were disturbing enough to merit further

analysis. Data on police behaviors observed by researchers during ride-alongs were

collected and analyzed, illustrating the level of disparity in treatment of minorities by

police officers. In general, police officers were found to treat African Americans more

harshly during traffic stops. Officers were also quoted admitting to the use of racial

profiling and reliance on pre-textual factors used to stop minority drivers in certain areas

of Washington D.C. Although the paper is without statistical analysis, the observations

made were disconcerting and illustrate that, at least in South Central Washington D.C.,

racial profiling was openly practiced; officers were relatively unconcerned with

concealing their methods of policing (Chambliss, 1994).

Harris (1997) conducted a study examining racial profiling activity of police

officers in three of the largest metropolitan areas of Ohio based on court records. The

researchers compared court record violator rates of African American and white

motorists with their respective percentages of the population to gage disproportionality of

police stop practices. The results indicated that African Americans were at least 2 times









more likely to be stopped as compared to whites, a clear indication of racial profiling

(Harris, 1997).

With the intent of gauging the effectiveness of a drug interdiction initiative along a

stretch of highway of Interstate 95 in Florida, the Orlando Sentinel conducted a study of

police stop practices (Cole, 1999). Each police car was equipped with video camera so

that researchers could collect detailed information of each stop. Data from 1,100 stops

were captured on video and reviewed by researchers. The videos provided clear evidence

that approximately 70% of drivers stopped were African American, while they composed

less than 5% of the driving population along that specific stretch of highway. The

disparity in this study is significant and shows officers propensity to stop minorities more

often than whites while attempting to stop drug trafficking (Cole, 1999).

Some research on actual police stop behavior has found variations in support for

different types of police action. For example, Smith and Petrocelli (2001) analyzed data

collected by the Richmond, Virginia, Police Department on traffic stops, checking for

patterns of racial profiling in police traffic stop behaviors. The data consisted of both

officer and citizen static characteristics and officers' work histories. Using multivariate

analysis, the researchers found that the proportion of traffic stops of minority members,

and particularly African Americans, was significantly higher than their proportion of the

population. African Americans accounted for 51% of the population of licensed drivers,

but accounted for more than 64% of all police traffic stops. Minorities accounted for

nearly 78% of all arrests subsequent to traffic stops, and 63% of those ticketed or arrested

in the sample. Interestingly, however, they found no significant disparity between search

and seizure rates and driver's race (Smith and Petrocelli, 2001).









One problem with the measurement of actual police stop behavior is that research

studies have yielded inconsistent results, at times finding no evidence of racial profiling

by officers. After compiling information on all police traffic stops conducted during a 4-

month period, researchers in cooperation with the Florida Highway Patrol (2000) found

that Florida Highway Patrol officers were stopping minorities at a rate almost equivalent

to their proportion of the population. While the largest amount of disparity occurred with

Hispanics, composing 12% of the population and 17.9% of all persons stopped, African

American motorists were stopped at a rate almost equal to their percentage in the

population. The findings of this study, however, may be explained by subject reactivity,

the concept that individuals change or modify their behavior when they have knowledge

that it is being monitored. The bottom line is, though, that there is little evidence of racial

profiling among officers employed by the Florida Highway Patrol (Florida Highway

Patrol, 2000).

Cordner et al., in collaboration with the San Diego Police Department, conducted

an examination of police practices based on police-reported data on traffic stops, searches

of vehicle, and vehicle search hit rates. Results showed that vehicles of only Hispanic

drivers were more likely than vehicles of whites to be searched. Researchers found no

evidence of disparity in search rates between whites and African Americans. It should be

noted, however, that vehicle searches of whites were 2 times more likely to yield search

hits as compared to vehicle searches of Hispanics. While the white/African American

disparity was not significant, higher search rates of Hispanics remains an indicator of

racial profiling (Cordner et al., 2000).









Preliminary findings of a study conducted by Zingraff et al. and the North Carolina

State Highway Patrol were released in 1998. To assess the prevalence of racial profiling

among its officers, the North Carolina State Highway Patrol collected police-reported

data on search and hit rates of motorists on North Carolina's highways. While the

occurrence of searches by officers was rare, data indicated that African Americans were

more likely to be searched than whites, at rates of 13 searches per 10,000 written

warnings or tickets vs. 8 searches per 10,000 written warnings or tickets, respectively.

Discovery of contraband occurred in 33% of searches of whites, while only 26.3% of

searches of African Americans resulted in a hit. There is clear evidence of disparity;

however, it may be the result of a small sample size (n=826 searches out of 906,758

written warnings or citations) (Zingraff et al., 2000).

Neighborhood Context and Police Behavior

A small body of research exists which has documented factors influencing police

behavior. A consistent finding from this body of literature is that police behavior is

affected by the characteristics of neighborhoods in which officers work. It is important to

examine the ecological characteristics of urban disadvantage research shows that there is

extreme variation in the structural characteristics between predominantly African

American and predominantly white neighborhoods.

Robison (1936) examined the relationship between delinquency and the accuracy of

its measurement through official police data. Results suggested that the decision to arrest

youth by police officers was made after considering two factors, severity of rule-breaking

behavior and the juvenile's moral character. The latter factor, she argued, was

determined primarily by place of residence, with arrests more likely to result when a

juvenile suspect claimed residence in a poor area (Robison, 1936).









Werthman and Piliavin (1967) conducted a study in which they observed and

interviewed police officers in the San Francisco Police Department to analyze factors

influencing police behavior. According to the researchers, police actions are influenced

by the ecological composition of their patrol area due to officers' tendencies to define

geographic locations as suspicious in general. Further, the researchers proposed and

supported the assertion that neighborhood residence was a primary indicator in police

decisions to select potential law violators (Werthman and Piliavin, 1967). Bayley and

Mendelsohn (1969) found similar evidence in support of the ecological influence on

police behavior. Specifically, they found that there existed a greater social distance

between the police and the poor, which often resulted in more punitive and/or aggressive

behavior toward citizens in lower-class areas. They further noted that police attributed an

individual's presence in a poor or low class neighborhood to the individual's level of

threat, and therefore treated them more punitively (Bayley and Mendelsohn, 1969).

Using data from the Police Services Survey, Smith (1986) examined the effects of

various community characteristics on police behaviors. The neighborhood characteristics

included crime rates, racial composition, poverty levels, and other socioeconomic factors.

The author found that officers were significantly more likely to use force against African

Americans. That effect, however, was mediated by neighborhood context, with

individuals stopped in minority neighborhoods being more likely to be treated coercively.

These individuals were 3 times more likely to be arrested than individuals encountered

outside minority neighborhoods (Smith, 1986).

Fagan and Davies (2000) analyzed patterns of police "stop and frisk" practices of

the New York City police department. Using measures of social disorganization (i.e.,









broken windows, graffiti, etc.), or what the author referred to as "Broken Windows"

theory, as well as structural characteristics, including racial composition and poverty

levels, Fagan attempted to find racial bias in police decisions to "stop and frisk"

individuals. The author's hypothesis, that measures of social disorganization and

structural characteristics are the most significant indicators race-specific "stop and frisk"

practices by police, was confirmed. The results indicated that African Americans and

Hispanics were significantly more likely to be "stopped and frisked" by police officers.

Further, the standards required by law to justify stopping these minority groups more

often were not met or were borderline unconstitutional. "Stop and frisk" practices were

concentrated in poor neighborhoods with large minority populations. Researchers

concluded that police focus on regulating the poor in poor areas. Due to racial

composition of poverty in the United States, African Americans and Hispanics are

overrepresented in police "stop and frisk" practices (Fagan and Davies, 2000).

Terrill and Reisig (2003) also examined neighborhood context relative to police use

of force using data collected from 2 US cities. Their findings were consistent with that of

other research in this vein. The authors found that officers were more likely to treat

young, male, lower class suspects with more force. More significantly, findings

demonstrated that police officers were significantly more likely to use force when in

contact with suspects in neighborhoods with high crime rates and with high levels of

concentrated disadvantage. The significance of this finding remained even after

controlling for behavior of the suspect (Terrill and Reisig, 2003).

The consistency of the findings in this form of research indicates that police

officers may very well be influenced by contextual factors of the neighborhoods where






16


they encounter suspects. While the cited research tends to focus on use of force and

coercion by officers, it demonstrates that officer behaviors vary across neighborhoods,

based on context, with officers acting more punitively toward suspects in low class, high

crime, minority neighborhoods. Accordingly, in the next chapter I provide a discussion

of theories linking officers' racial profiling behaviors to neighborhood conditions.














CHAPTER 3
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

Origins of Urban Disadvantage Perspective

Urban disadvantage perspective finds its origins in the work of William Julius

Wilson. In his book, The Truly Disadvantaged (1987) he describes how the changing

structure of the urban economy of the 1970s combined subsequently with the

development of a cultural value of weak labor force attachment contributed to the rise in

poverty, and specifically, its concentration in inner city communities. Wilson argues that

the extreme rise in the concentration of poverty was caused by three inter-related factors;

(1) the changing economic structure from goods producing to service producing, (2) the

relocation of manufacturing jobs into suburban areas and overseas, and (3) the out-

migration of working- and middle-class African Americans from the inner-city to the

suburbs (Wilson, 1987; and1992).

During the 1970s the United States, particularly the Midwest and Northeast regions

began experiencing drastic shifts in the local manufacturing-focused economies. The

advancements made in technological industries contributed to these changes, as did the

motivation to secure cheaper labor. Both technological and service industries

experienced significant growth at the same time that the industrial sector was declining.

This radically decreased the number of manufacturing jobs available to the poor,

unskilled, undereducated minorities living in inner cities.

Another contributing factor to the creation of the underclass was the relocation of

manufacturing jobs from the inner city to suburban areas and overseas. The outcome was









a spatial mismatch between the unskilled, undereducated industrial workers of the inner

city and the physical locations of potential employment. Such great distance between

place of residence and place of employment resulted in the inability of poor inner city

manufacturing workers to maintain employment in that field and significantly reduced

the number of potential job opportunities available (Wilson, 1987; and 1992).

Inner city unemployment rates soared as its residents did not have access to the

education, training and skills required to gain employment in the technological industry.

High unemployment rates coupled with intermittent economic recessions created a loose

labor market, with too few jobs for too many people. Consequently, wages for unskilled

service workers were significantly reduced, making it difficult for inner city African

Americans to support a family. As Erbe (1975) explained, the decline of proper

functioning of local institutions directly affects the quality of the local education system.

Loss of employment caused this decline, leaving residents of inner city neighborhoods

educationally unprepared to handle the shift; they simply did not have the same access to

training and quality education that others outside the inner city had. This further

contributed to the already weak labor force attachment of African American males

(Wilson, 1987; and 1992).

The decentralization of the labor market clearly had the effect of decreasing

opportunity for employment of African Americans residing in inner cities in general, as

measured by the ratio of available employment to people and the average commute time

to and from places of employment. Moreover, the newly created loose labor market and

the subsequent decrease in wages for what was left of available inner city jobs

contributed to the ever-increasing social isolation of the underclass and intra-class









segregation of African Americans. This was evidenced through a comparison of less-

educated African Americans living in inner cities and less-educated African Americans

living in the suburbs; less-educated African Americans living in the suburbs tend to

receive higher wages as compared to those living in the inner city. Inner city residents

were forced to take employment for wages barely large enough to provide for families

(Wilson, 1992).

Finally, the social and economic changes brought about by the Civil Rights

movement for a short time provided more access to housing markets outside urban areas

for working- and middle-class African Americans. Access to housing markets outside

the inner city led to the out-migration of working- and middle-class African Americans,

thus leaving a concentration of poor African Americans socially isolated from

conventional role models. Social isolation of the poorest minorities caused substandard

socialization; inner city residents were no longer exposed to positive, hard-working

African American role models. This hindered their ability to see that there was

opportunity beyond the inner city, that there was a possibility for upward mobility for

those who are determined to improve their situation. Therefore, they adapted to what

they believed was the only way of life.

The effects of this concentration of poor, unskilled and undereducated African

Americans resulted in the continued deterioration of access to employment opportunities

and networks, decreased the already substandard quality of education and diminished the

number of marriageable partners, thus contributing to higher levels of family dissolution,

and further aggravating the weak labor attachments of inner city residents. These factors

together work to produce what Wilson termed the underclass, poverty-stricken groups of









minorities living in inner cities lacking access to employment, education, social networks

and conventional role models (Wilson, 1987).

Development of Urban Disadvantage Perspective

Massey (1990), in cooperation with Denton and Eggers, finds support for Wilson's

theory of the inner city underclass and factors contributing to the concentration of

poverty, but argues that the primary cause of the rise in concentrated poverty among

African Americans was due to high levels of racial residential segregation (Massey,

Eggers and Denton, 1994). While excluding the influence of African American out-

migration due to lack of significance in statistical analyses, they theorized that additional

factors including the African American poverty rate, intra-racial residential segregation

by class, and most significantly, levels of African American/white residential segregation

acted to create the underclass. The residential preferences of whites worked to eliminate

any chance of racial integration.

The goal of the researchers was to identify potential inter-relationships between

these factors and their influence on the negative social conditions representative of

African American, poverty-ridden, inner city neighborhoods as outcomes. Examples of

negative social conditions include high crime rates, decreased neighborhood social

networks, low social control, increased rates of out-of-wedlock births, lack of availability

of marriageable partners, increased unemployment rates, higher percentages of female-

headed households, concentrated poverty, and so forth (Massey, 1990; Massey & Eggers,

1990; Massey, Gross and Eggers, 1991; Massey, Eggers and Denton; 1994).

The fact that the concentration of poverty increased during the 1970s has

consistently been confirmed empirically. According to Massey and colleagues, the

answer to explaining the concentration of poverty disproportionately experienced by









African Americans lies in racial residential segregation stemming from discrimination in

housing markets. The interaction between high levels of racial residential segregation

and inequality in income distribution created a concentration of poverty within the

poorest African American neighborhoods. Massey claimed that Wilson's concept of the

out-migration of working- and middle-class African Americans did not explain why the

concentration effects disproportionately affected African Americans. He posits that

while more African Americans became upwardly mobile in the 1970s and 1980s, there

was not in fact a mass exodus of these classes out of urban areas. Although the degree of

African American intra-class segregation did increase, it was still much lower than the

intra-class segregation experienced by other comparable minority groups. Furthermore,

results from multivariate analysis show that the tendency for African Americans of

opposing classes to live in areas segregated from each other is not related to the rates of

African American poverty concentration in inner cities (Massey, 1990).

In general, African Americans experience higher levels of poverty than whites, a

condition that is consistent throughout the majority of cities in the United States. When

racial residential segregation is imposed, shifts in the economy are disproportionately

concentrated in poor minority neighborhoods. The absorption of the negative effects

resulting from a downward economic shift by already poor minority neighborhoods acts

to exacerbate the already meager fiscal situations of residents in small geographic

locations, thus concentrating levels of poverty and creating an urban underclass (Massey,

1990).

To support his claims, Massey performed a series of simulated experiments to

examine the effects of an imposed downward economic shift on both racially segregated









and non-segregated hypothetical cities generally representative in racial composition and

economic situation of the majority of U.S. cities. He confirmed the hypothesis that the

concentration of poverty would be more equally distributed in areas with low levels of

racial segregation, as compared to areas with high levels of racial segregation. Findings

included the discovery that when income deprivation was applied to racially segregated

areas, some whites were actually better off economically, whereas all African Americans

were worse off, regardless of class (Massey, 1990). The results indicated that as racial

residential segregation increases, the absorption of downward economic shifts becomes

more concentrated within poor minority neighborhoods.

In their 1994 study of the causes of concentrated poverty in urban centers, Massey,

Eggers and Denton found evidence that the strongest effect on the level of African

American poverty came from the earnings that African American workers could expect to

receive in manufacturing and services. Higher income levels in these industries translate

into lower levels of poverty; unfortunately, the reciprocal was reality for the vast majority

of urban residents. Further, they found that the concentration of poor African Americans

in urban areas was significantly and negatively impacted by any shifts in the economy.

Racial residential segregation played a compelling role in the concentration of poverty

and its endogenous, interacting components including income inequality, majority

prejudice toward African Americans and racial discrimination in housing markets

(Massey, Eggers and Denton, 1994).

Urban disadvantage perspective has been applied to help understand the

relationships between property and drug crime, homicide, and racial profiling. One study

used urban disadvantage perspective in an analysis of property crime levels, finding that









as levels of segregation within given areas increases, so too do levels of property crime

(Akins, 2003). Using census data from 1990, Krivo and Peterson (1996) found that racial

differences in structural disadvantage was linked to higher rates of violent crime (Krivo

and Peterson, 1996). Parker and Pruitt (2000) analyzed race-specific homicide rates

relative to poverty and poverty concentration. Their finding that these factors

differentially affected rates of black and white homicide provides support for urban

disadvantage perspective (Parker and Pruitt, 2000). Finally, Meehan and Ponder found

that as measures of urban disadvantage decreased, African Americans were subject to

higher rates of stops by police (Meehan and Ponder, 2004).

Urban Disadvantage and Racial Profiling Linkages

The key component of urban disadvantage perspective is that concentrated

disadvantage was created out of racially motivated discrimination in the housing markets,

due to white preferences to not live in integrated neighborhoods. African Americans are

significantly more likely to live in areas of concentrated disadvantage as compared to

whites; even the poorest whites are significantly less likely to live in areas of

concentrated disadvantage. The absence of whites in poor, high crime areas may lead

officers to equate African Americans with higher levels of criminal activity; the areas

African Americans inhabit often have significantly higher crime rates, so officers may be

more likely to believe that they are involved in crime. Consequently, as measures of

urban disadvantage increase, police officers will be more likely to use race as a primary

discriminatory factor in their decisions to conduct searches. Research has shown that

increases in the levels of urban disadvantage increase levels of political dislocation,

which can have the effect of creating strained relationships between African Americans

and police officers. High rates of unemployment may increase the likelihood of contact









with police; this may have the effect of increasing levels of racial profiling. It then

follows that areas with higher levels of disadvantage will experience higher search rates

of African Americans as compared to that of whites in the same areas. Based on these

assumptions, we derive the following hypotheses on the relationship between urban

disadvantage and racial profiling:

* Hypothesis One: As indicators of concentrated disadvantage increase, search rates
of African Americans will also increase.

* Hypothesis Two: As indicators of concentrated disadvantage increase, white search
rates will not increase.

Should evidence be found in support of these hypotheses, the evidence will also lend

support to the urban disadvantage perspective in explaining higher rates of African

American searches by police officers in neighborhoods of high disadvantage in

comparison to that of low disadvantage neighborhoods.

Origins and New Perspectives in Social Disorganization Theory

Social disorganization theory finds its origins in the work of Shaw and McKay,

pioneers of the study of social processes through observation. The central tenets were

extracted from Burgess's concept of the division of cities. Essentially, a central city can

be dissected into 5 distinct zones- Zone 1 is the business or industrial zone, Zone 2 is the

transition zone inhabited by poor immigrants, ready to leave the area at the first

opportunity. Zone 3 is composed of working class domiciles, while Zone 4 is

characterized by middle class neighborhoods and Zone 5 inhabited by commuters (Cullen

and Agnew, 2003). The researchers believed that if this dissection of a central city was in

fact indicative of the maturation process of a real urban center, then rates of delinquency

would be highest in zone 2, the zone in transition (Shaw and McKay, 1942).









To provide evidence for their theory, Shaw and McKay mapped the location of

every juvenile delinquent in Chicago's urban center, according to police records, and then

computed delinquency rates over time. The hypothesis that delinquency rates would be

highest in zone 2 was confirmed. The authors concluded that delinquency rates were

generally stable over time, regardless of race or ethnicity of the dominant population in a

given time period. This evidence supported the assertion that it is not characteristics of

the individuals inhabiting the area, but characteristics of the area itself that increased

delinquency rates. According to Shaw and McKay, social disorganization refers to the

breakdown of social institutions within a community. Factors contributing to this

breakdown included high rates of family disruption, ethnic heterogeneity, and residential

instability (Cullen and Agnew, 2003).

It was not until the mid-1980s that social disorganization theory began to regain

popularity, taking the focus off of micro-level theories of crime prevalent after the 1970s.

Robert J. Sampson was one of the pioneers of the new social disorganization perspective.

Drawing on the work of Shaw and McKay, Sampson proposed that the cause of high

crime rates in areas of concentrated disadvantage was due to the neighborhood's lack of

ability to exercise informal social control, e.g., dispersing a group of loitering teenagers.

While Sampson agreed that the breakdown of community controls was rooted in

structural conditions, he further argued that instead of a natural process of large urban

city maturation, variation in levels of disorganization are closely linked to racial

inequality.

This revised form of social disorganization has been used throughout

criminological literature. Specifically, Sampson et al., (2001) found that concentrated









disadvantage in combination with low levels of informal social control and kinship

networks increased rates of homicide. Snell (2001) found that poor urban neighborhoods

suffered from higher crime rates, as explained by higher levels of disorder and lower

levels of friendship and kinship networks (Snell, 2001). Lowenkamp et al., (2003)

replicated a prior experiment by Sampson and Groves, analyzing crime rates in the UK;

their results provided further support for the validity of this perspective (Lowenkamp et

al., 2003).

Gibson, Zhao, and Lovrich found that as perceptions of high levels of collective

efficacy increased, fear of crime and victimization were significantly decreased (Gibson

et al., 2002). Lane and Meeker (2003) used the perspective to investigate fear of crime

levels in urban neighborhoods (Lane and Meeeker, 2003). Another study conducted by

Browning (2002) extended the perspective to intimate partner violence, showing that

higher levels of collective efficacy and informal social control resulted in lower levels of

violence among partners, and further increased the likelihood that female victims would

report violence to police (Browning, 2002). Finally, Sun et al., (2004) applied social

disorganization to their analysis of perceptions of police and local government, finding

that as concentrated disadvantage increased, perceptions of police became more became

more negative (Sun et al., 2004).

Social Disorganization and Racial Profiling Linkages

According to social disorganization perspective, residents of highly disorganized

areas lack the ability to unite and realize common goals and initiatives; lack of these

social networks leads to a breakdown of informal social control, and thus higher crime

rates. As a result, neighborhood residents must rely on formal social control, specifically,

police officers. Higher rates of police presence increase the likelihood of traffic stops,









and consequently, the rates of searches. Officers' perceptions of neighborhood

characteristics may also influence behavior independent of crime rates. For example, a

concentration of poverty as manifested by vacant housing units, and unsupervised youth

"hanging out" on streets are each indicators of social disorganization that may cause an

officer to become suspicious of local residents. The presence of these indicators may

lead officers to believe residents, regardless of race, are more likely to be involved in

crime, and therefore are less likely to practice racial profiling. Therefore, we theorize that

as measures of social disorganization increase rates of both African American and white

searches will increase. There should be no racial disparity in search rates in highly

disadvantaged neighborhoods.

* Hypothesis Three: As indicators of social disorganization increase, we expect to
find an increase in search rates regardless of race.

* Hypothesis Four: The impact of social disorganization indicators on search rates
will not differ by racial group.

The validation of these hypotheses would point to the efficiency of social disorganization

perspective in explaining higher rates of searches in highly disorganized neighborhoods

for both white and African American residents.

Additional Hypotheses

Research on police behavior has shown that officers have a tendency to act more

punitively toward minority group members, particularly African Americans. To be sure,

police during the 1960s and 1970s shot and killed 7 African American suspects for every

1 fatal shooting of a white suspect (Alpert and MacDonald, 2001). Research findings

vary, but have shown that officers are more likely to use force or brutality on suspects

being arrested or showing disrespect (Terrill and Reisig, 2003). Further research notes

that African Americans are more likely to have a disrespectful demeanor while in contact






28


with police (Terrill and Mastrofski, 2002, and Mastrofski, Reisig, and McCluskey, 2002).

Therefore, it follows that officers may exhibit higher levels of use of force with African

Americans as compared to whites.

* Hypothesis Five: As police use of force reports increase, so too will African
American search rates, but will have no impact of white searches.














CHAPTER 4
DATA AND METHODS

It is the goal of this research to determine whether there is a clear link between

characteristics of a geographic location and officers' race-specific search behaviors. In

an attempt to compare the contributions of both urban disadvantage and social

disorganization perspectives to an explanation of racial profiling in context, this research

will use indicators of urban disadvantage and social disorganization to test whether they

independently explain higher rates of either race-specific or class-specific searches based

on characteristics of the census tracts. To allow for an appropriate analysis of these

factors, data include actual police-citizen contact data, census data including measures of

various census tract characteristics, and crime data specific to the census tracts under

study in Miami-Dade County.

Unit of Analysis

Given this paper's focus on urban disadvantage, social disorganization and macro-

level characteristics influencing race-specific search behaviors of police officers, all data

included are aggregated to the census tract level. This allows for a clearer picture of

neighborhood characteristics. Miami-Dade County is composed of 348 census tracts.

While the census tract is not explicitly considered a neighborhood, census tracts have

been used in extant research as the unit of analysis because they are more likely to

correspond to actual community boundaries (Krivo and Peterson, 1996, and Land et al.,

1990).









Miami Data

Miami-Dade County offers a particularly ideal domain in which to study racial

profiling because of the area's divergent racial and ethnic make-up. The Miami-Dade

population is composed of approximately 68% white residents and 22% African

American residents; further, approximately 54% of all residents are of Hispanic origin.

The ethnic diversity of the area under study has also increased by 8.3% from 1990 to

2000 and continues to grow (Parker et al., 2004). Table one lists descriptive statistics of

the Miami-Dade area as well as that of all variables used in this analysis.

This data set was compiled by the Miami-Dade Police Department in cooperation

with academic researchers in an effort to detect and identify patterns of racial profiling in

police behaviors. The data were collected from April 1, 2001 to October 31, 2001.

Composed of 66,109 traffic stops, the data set includes geo-coding of stop locations,

citizen characteristics, reason for stop, and the events that transpired after the initial stop,

aggregated to the census tract. However, due to the inability to geo-code some incidents,

the original sample is reduced by 7.3%, n = 61,255.

Citizen Contact Data

It was necessary to collect information on all stops that occurred in Miami census

tracts during the data collection period. The Miami-Dade Police Department does not

require information to be collected on each stop. Instead, they require police officers to

call in a specific code to dispatch when making a traffic stop. Unfortunately, this does

not allow for the collection of information as detailed as is necessary to study racial

profiling. To get a clear picture of the events that occurred before, during and after the

police stop, it would be necessary for officers to record detailed information on each stop

made.









To alleviate this issue, the local City Commission appointed an Advisory Board to

help determine proper information to be used for inclusion on the Citizen Contact Forms,

forms that each officer would be required to complete after making a traffic stop. With

suggestions from the academic research group, the Advisory Board determined the

information to be included on the Citizen Contact Forms based on the two primary forms

of data considered necessary; the research group needed to know who was being stopped

and the outcomes of those stops. Examples of information collected on Citizen Contact

Forms included reason for making the stop, driver race, driver age, driver residence, and

numerous other details pertinent to the detection of racial profiling.

The officers of Miami-Dade County collected a total of 86,232 Citizen Contact

Forms. Due to consistency and training issues, the forms collected during February and

March were not analyzed. The forms analyzed were those collected between April 1,

2001 and October 31, 2001. They were sent to Miami-Dade Police Department

Headquarters where county employees entered the data by hand. Forms that contained

incorrect or missing data were returned to the officers as needed and re-collected. A

series of recoding and recurrent validity testing ensures the quality and consistency of the

cards with actual police records. As a result, officials could not include only 118 forms.

This analysis includes data from 66,109 Citizen Contact Forms, and is reduced to 61,255

traffic stops after accounting for missing data.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is limited to the natural logs of two racially disaggregated

counts of search rates per 10,000 log of black searches per 10,000 and log of white

searches per 10,000. The former is computed as the log of the total number of black

searches divided by the black population per 10,000. The latter is computed as the log of









the total number of white searches divided by the white population per 10,000. To get a

clear indication of search behaviors, all forms of searches were included in the analysis;

each search-related variable is coded as 1 = Yes and 2 = No. The survey included a

number of search-related variables, including search of person, search by consent,

inventory search, search of vehicle, search of driver, and search of passenger. It was

necessary to use the log of these rates because of the high variation about the means of

each indicator. In using the log of the search rates, the distributions become more

normal, and thus more appropriate for linear regression analysis. Further, the use of the

natural log reduces heteroscedasticity among variables (Land et al, 1990, and Oussey,

1999). To avoid zero counts as being counted as missing data, one unit was added to

each incident with a zero count, and then transformed to the natural log, again equaling

zero.

To calculate race-specific indicators, variables selected for analysis include the

following: race, coded as 1 = American Indian or Alaska Native, 2 = Oriental/Asian, 3 =

Black, 4 = Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 5 = White. The data were arranged

to select out only searches with a code of 3 for black searches, and 5 for white searches.

Appendix A defines the operational properties of each variable used in the analysis.

Census Data

The measures included in this data set were retrieved from the 2000 Census,

downloaded from the Census Bureau webpage (www.factfinder.census.gov), and Miami-

Dade County and modified to accommodate this research. The data are used to estimate

social, economic, and demographic measures at the census tract level, which have been

used as indicators in the measurement of the urban disadvantage perspective and social

disorganization theory.









Urban Disadvantage Indicators

Variables commonly used to reflect urban disadvantage are employed in this

research and include race-specific measures of percent persons living below poverty

level, defined as percentage of white/black persons living below the poverty level in the

total population, and race-specific measures of percent not employed, age 16 and over,

defined as percent white/black not employed age 16 and over in the total population.

Each of these measures have been included in analysis of urban disadvantage in extant

research (Land et al., 1990; Ousey, 1999; Parker and McCall, 1999; and Stretsky et al.,

2004). Percent of black and white female-headed households with children under the age

of 18 is defined as the number of racially disaggregated households that are female-

headed with children under the age of 18. This final measure was included as a

disadvantage indicator because it is a condition that is nearly unique to African American

families; African Americans are more than twice as likely to experience the condition of

female headship, as compared to whites. It is appropriate to include female-headed

households with children under 18 in this index, as opposed to its inclusion as a measure

of social disorganization (Land et al., 1990; and Ousey, 1999).

Social Disorganization Indicators

Indicators of social disorganization include percent of Spanish-speaking population

speaking English not well or not at all, percent Hispanics in the total population,

residential mobility, percent of vacant housing units, and percent persons who journey to

work 25 minutes or more, and are defined below. Percent Spanish-speaking population

speaking English not well or not at all, age 5 and above is defined as the percentage of

Spanish-speaking persons speaking English not at all or not well in the total population,

ages 5 and above. Percent Hispanics in the total population is defined as the percentage









of individuals of Hispanic descent in the total population. These measures are included

to provide a better understanding of potential communication issues among residents and

therefore, a lack of potential for collective efficacy and informal social control.

Residential mobility is defined as having a different residence within the past 5

years. This variable is used as an indicator of neighborhood residential stability.

According to Sampson, neighborhood instability weakens the ability and desire of

residents to understand their collective goals (Sampson, 1987). As residential mobility

increases, it becomes more likely that the neighborhood experiences higher levels of

disadvantage. Percent of vacant housing units is defined as the percentage of vacant

housing units as compared to the total number of housing units.

Percent persons who journey to work 25 minutes or more is defined as percent

persons of a given census tract who travel to work 25 minutes or more. This measure was

included to account for local social disorganization through a lack of available local

employment. According to Wilson, the relocation of manufacturing jobs to the suburbs

caused unemployment rates to increase substantially, due to inner city workers'

geographic proximity to available employment (Wilson, 1987). Therefore, this measure

is computed as an indicator of social disorganization.

Officer Data

The Miami data set also includes information on officers employed by the Miami-

Dade Police Department during the time of the study. Information on each of the 1,659

officers in the citizen contact database was included; examples consist of race, age, rank,

sex, and the like. Data are also provided by Professional Compliance Bureau, which

includes information on disciplinary actions, complaints and use of force reports, limited

to the previous 5 years (1997-2000), and aggregated to the census tract. All identifiers









were removed from the data set to ensure anonymity. We include use of force reports,

defined as the rate of use of force reports an officer has received within the past 5 years.

As was the case with the dependent variable, it was necessary to use the natural log of the

rates of use of force reports due to significant variation about the mean.

Crime Data

Crime data was provided by the Miami-Dade Police Department, spanning 5 years

from 1997 to 2001. This data set includes both Part I and II crime arrests for the time

span. The file contains data on 121,763 cases, and includes the following information:

incident date, Uniform Crime Report coding, UCR descriptions, details of the incident,

incident location, police district and grid information, and census tract identifiers. Using

the crime data, I calculated the total and race-specific rates per 10,000 for each type of

crime based on the arrest records spanning that time period, all of which are aggregated

to the census tract level; the types of crimes include homicide, violent, property, and drug

crimes, as well as a total crime rate.

Homicide rate per 10,000 is a racially disaggregated measure of violent crime, and

is defined as the black/white homicide rate per 10,000. Research has consistently shown

a link between racial composition of a given neighborhood and violent crime rates

(Robison, 1936; Werthman and Piliavin, 1967; Smith, 1986; and Parker and McCall,

1999). If an officer knows that he or she is making a stop in an area with higher

homicide rates, the officer may be more likely to act in a more punitive fashion, as

manifested by a search.

Racially disaggregated rates of arrest were also included as controls, and are

defined as rates at which an arrest was made of a black or white per 10,000 stops. The

arrest rates were calculated from the variable, Arrest Made, and coded as 1 = Yes, and









2 = No. All types of police arrests are included, with the exception of custody arrest, in

which an individual is not truly arrested, but taken into police custody.

Percent of males in the total population is used as a control measure due to their

increased likelihood of participation in criminal activity and an increased likelihood of

arrest by police officers as compared to females. It is defined as the percentage of males

in the total population.

Finally, we control for the rate investigative stops, defined as stop resulting from

officer suspicions, to detect tendencies for police to be more suspicious in certain

contexts as compared to others. We created a variable to compute the percentage of

investigative stops; all investigative stops were computed from the variable Reason for

stop, coded as 1 = investigative, 2 = traffic violation, 3 = equipment violation, 4 = BOLO

(be on look-out), 5 = other, 6 = hazardous moving violation, and 7 = non-hazardous

moving violation.











Table 4-1 Descriptive statistics: Means (and standard deviations) for variables in race-
specific search models
Total Sample
N 265
Black White
Dependent Variable
1.57 1.46
Log Search Rates per 10,000 (1.82) (1.52)

Contextual Variables
Urban Disadvantage Indicators
48.89 28.19
Urban Disadvantage Index (30.63) (19.7
(30.63) (19.77)
Social Di i :,'l:, t. J Indicators
S T70.79 71.23
Hispanic Immigration Index 7.7 .
(41.57) (41.75)
49.06
Residential Mobility (2.57
(12.57)
7.63
% Vacant Housing Units (8.04)

% Who Travel to Work > 25 Minutes 51.46
or More (10.66)
Officer Conduct Variables
Log Officer Use of Force Report 4.27
Rates (1.87)
Control Variables
0.71 0.49
Homicide Rate Per 10,000 (3.6) (3.
(3.65) (3.88)
19.11 19.75
Arrest Rate
(50.57) (117.11)
48.09
% Males in Total Population (4.85)
40.39
Investigative Stop Rate (73.44)

Population Composition ofMiami-
Dade County
67.527
% White Population (30.121)
22.338
% African American Population (29.871)

S n 54.364
% Hispanic Population (29.112)
(29.112)














CHAPTER 5
RESULTS

Principle Component Analysis

Structural indicators tend to be highly correlated. Therefore, to avoid problems

with multicollinearity, we performed a principle components analysis on indicators of

urban disadvantage and social disorganization (Land, et al, 1990, Parker and McCall,

1999, and Stretsky, Schuck and Hogan, 2004). The factor loadings produced separate,

theoretically distinct indices of each perspective. Further, the factor loadings were the

same for both white and black models. The principle components analysis matrix after

varimax rotation is provided in Appendix B.

The urban disadvantage index includes three measures of disadvantage that are

consistent with extant literature as indicators of urban disadvantage, disaggregated by

race (Krivo and Peterson, 1996; Wilson, 1987; Massey and Eggers, 1990; Massey, 1990;

and Ousey, 1999). The race-specific measures of percent living below poverty level,

percent not employed, age 16 and over, and percent of female-headed households with

children under 18. All were highly correlated and thus loaded together, creating the black

and white disadvantage indices.

The Hispanic immigration index was created from the loadings of the following

measures related to the Hispanic population: percent Spanish-speaking population

speaking English not well or not at all, age 5 and above, and percent Hispanics in the

total population. Therefore, two conceptually distinct indices emerged from the analysis









and are treated as independent variables in the multivariate models: The Urban

Disadvantage Index, disaggregated by race, and Hispanic Immigration Index.

Analytic Method

This analysis contains two separate models estimated theoretically in white and

black indicators on race-specific search rates in the total sample. As was stated

previously, it was necessary to perform log transformations for some variables so that

their distributions were more normal, and to reduce heteroscedasticity among

independent variables, thus making the data more appropriate for linear regression

analysis. Each of the model regression equations is estimated from the same unit, which

may result in cross-equation error correlations. Therefore, seemingly unrelated

regression (SUR) was chosen as the most appropriate test for the analysis. This method

uses generalized least squares to estimate each individual model regression equation. It is

designed to account for correlations in error terms across equations so that comparisons

between models can be made without encountering issues with collinearity while using

measures taken from the same sampling unit (Greene, 1996, Land et al., and Ousey,

1999). Finally, I employed a Breusch-Pagan test of independence to ensure that

heteroscedasticity among variables would not be significant enough to affect analysis.

The test revealed no evidence of heteroscedasticity (chi2 = 1.619, p > 0.05).

Because the theoretical arguments and hypotheses propose differences across racial

groups, it is necessary to conduct a test for race-specific differences in the magnitude of

the effects of each indicator on black and white models. Essentially, we needed to

conduct a test measuring the variance of the effects of indicators across the models. To

obtain this information we computed the F statistic through the SUR analysis, which

measures the significance of the differences of coefficients across models. It is necessary









to employ such a test because other options of statistical analysis tend to be negatively

biased; this effect appears because certain types of analysis commonly used simply

compare regression coefficients (Paternoster, et al., 1998). The results from the

seemingly unrelated regression analysis and F test are reported below in Table 2. A brief

explanation of findings follows.

Total Sample Analysis

Turning first to indicators related to urban disadvantage, we see that the

disadvantage index in the black model was found to have a negative but non-statistical

effect on the rate of black searches. This finding is contrary to the predictions of

Hypothesis 1 that higher scores on the index would result in higher rates of searches of

African Americans. Hypothesis 2, that increased levels of urban disadvantage would

have no effect on rates of white searches, was also not supported by the results of the

analysis. Again, we find that the reciprocal of Hypothesis 2 was the outcome. The

results show a positive and significant relationship between the rates of white searches by

police and the white disadvantage index. That is, as levels of white urban disadvantage

increase, the rate of police searches of white drivers also increases. Further, the F

statistic reveals that the difference in these coefficients across models is statistically

significant.

We now consider the hypotheses related to the social disorganization perspective.

While we offer multiple measures of social disorganization, no measures reach statistical

significance in the black models. Only one measure was found to have a significant

impact on rates of white searches percent vacant housing units. In disorganized areas,

whites are not likely to be searched by police, meaning that as the percentage of vacant

housing units increase, the rate of white searches by police actually decrease. Hypothesis










Table-5-1 Seemingly unrelated regression
the total sample


(SUR) coefficients (and standard errors) for


Black White Coeff. Comparison F
(and P) Values

Contextual Variables


Urban Disadvantage Indicators


Urban Disadvantage Index


Social Disorganization
Indicators


Hispanic Immigration Index


Residential Mobility


% Vacant Housing Units

% Who Journey to Work 25
Min. +

Officer Conduct Variables

Log of Officer Use of Force
Report Rate
Control Variables

Homicide Rate Per 10,000


Arrest Rate


% Males in Total Population


Investigative Stop Rate


Constant


Model Chi Square
RMSE
R Square
*P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01


-0.001
(0.002)



-0.004
(0.002)
0.013
(0.008)
-0.008
(0.013)
0.005
(0.009)



0.177*
(0.072)


0.039
(0.025)
0.021**
(0.002)

0.012
(0.025)
0.006**
(0.002)
-1.003
1.326
219.930
1.283
0.452


0.008**
(0.003)



-0.003
(0.002)
0.000
(0.057)
-0.019*
(0.009)
-0.008
(0.006)



0.402**
(0.052)


0.019
(0.016)
0.002**
(0.001)

-0.013
(0.019)
0.007**
(0.001)
0.505
0.996
396.280
0.957
0.598


4.90*
(0.027)



0.37
(0.541)
1.95
(0.162)
0.59
(0.443)
1.67
(0.196)



6.94**
(0.008)


0.45
(0.501)
82.38**
(0.000)

0.69
(0.405)
0.26
(0.612)









3, that these factors will increase both black and white search rates, is therefore not

supported by the analysis. However, we do find some evidence supporting Hypothesis 4

that these factors will impact the black and white models similarly. The F statistics show

that social disorganization indicators do not differentially affect the white and black

models. That is, measures of disorganization have a similar effect on rates of black and

white searches.

The log of officer use of force reports has a significant and positive effect on rates

of both black and white searches. Its effect on white search rates is stronger than its

effect on black search rates, however, giving us 99% confidence and 95% confidence

respectively that as reports of use of force increase, so too do rates of white and black

searches by police. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 is partially supported; while officer use of

force reports do have a positive and significant effect on the black search rate, it also was

found to increase white search rates. However, there is clear evidence of racial variance

in the impact of these coefficients concerning the relationship between force and race-

specific search rates. The F statistic shows that the impact of police use of force rates

differs significantly by race.

Concerning the controls, we find that the homicide rate per 10,000 does not impact

rates of race-specific searches, and there is no evidence of racial variance in the way

homicide rates affect each model. The arrest rate was highly significant in both models,

giving 99% confidence that as arrest rates increase, so too will rates of race-specific

searches. However, this effect may have an indirect relationship the impact of inventory

searches, a procedure always completed upon all arrests. That is, when an officer

conducts a search during a traffic stop, the decision to search was based on the officer's









discretion. An inventory search is part of police arrest protocol, which is not considered

a search that can be motivated by racial bias, and thus may inflate the actual rates of race-

specific searches by officers. Interestingly, the arrest rate differentially affects rates of

race-specific searches, a finding that should be investigated in future research. We find

that the percentage of males in the total population had no effect on race-specific searches

by police, and this measures was without evidence of racial variance. Finally, the

investigative stop rate had a positive and significant effect on searches by police in both

models. That is, when an officer makes a stop for investigative purposes, it increases the

likelihood of a search for whites and blacks alike. However, the impact of this control

does not differ by race.

In summary, the findings from the preliminary analysis provide modest support for

both urban disadvantage and social disorganization hypotheses. The urban disadvantage

index was found to have a statistically significant, positive effect on white searches by

police, while having a negative and non-significant effect on black searches. None of the

social disorganization measures used in the current analysis resulted in statistical

significance in the black model. A single measure of social disorganization, percent

vacant housing units, was found to have a negative impact on rates of white searches.

However, consistent with the social disorganization hypotheses, we found evidence of

racial invariance. That is, social disorganization measures affect both black and white

search rates similarly. Finally, turning to police use of force reports, we found that the

hypothesis was partially confirmed. This finding suggests that increases in use of force

reports have a positive and significant impact on not only rates of black searches, but also

rates of white searches by police.









Analysis by Area Type

To check for differences across types of areas, disadvantaged and non-

disadvantaged, a supplemental analysis was conducted, using the same set of hypotheses

from the primary analysis. The disadvantaged model selected out census tracts having at

least 30% of African American residents living below the poverty level. The non-

disadvantaged areas were composed of those tracts with less than 30% of African

Americans living below the poverty level. Poverty level cut-off points vary in the

literature, but researchers have typically used a percentage between 20% defined as low,

and 40%, defined as extreme. Therefore, a high African American poverty level of 30%

was used as the cut-of point to distinguish disadvantaged areas from non-disadvantaged

areas (Wilson, 1987, Massey, 1990, Massey and Eggers, 1990, Krivo and Peterson, 1996,

and Stretesky, Schuck, and Hogan, 2004). Disaggregating the data by area type resulted

in n = 95 disadvantaged census tracts, and n = 170 non-disadvantaged census tracts.

Descriptive statistics for the supplemental analysis are listed in Appendix C. The results

from the SUR analysis and F tests are given in Table Three.

The focus on African American poverty is consistent with urban disadvantage and

social disorganization perspectives in that structural factors causing concentrated poverty

are said to disproportionately affect this minority group as compared to structural effects

on whites. Therefore, we find it appropriate to disaggregate census tracts based on the

proportion of African American residents living in poverty in a given census tract for

both the black and white models. It allows for the isolation of these areas in which

African Americans are affected disproportionately by factors that create conditions

conducive to high poverty concentrations.









Concerning the urban disadvantage indicators in the non-disadvantaged model, we

find that neither is significantly affected by the urban disadvantage index. Again, we see

that these findings do not support Hypothesis 1, that urban disadvantage indicators will

have a significant, positive impact on search rates of African Americans. However,

results do lend some support to Hypothesis 2, that white searches will not be affected by

increases in urban disadvantage. The F statistic further reveals no evidence of racial

variance. That is, differences between coefficients illustrate that the impact of the urban

disadvantage index does not differ by racial group.

For measures of social disorganization, we find that the impact of these indicators

on race-specific searches is not statistically significant, with the exception of percent

vacant housing units. The coefficients are identical for percent of vacant housing units in

the white model, while no other significant relationships were identified. The black

model again, shows no significant relationships among social disorganization indicators

and rates of black searches. These findings are contrary to the predictions of Hypothesis

3, which states that as social disorganization indicators increase, so too will rates of race-

specific searches by police. However, the F statistic reveals that no indicators

differentially affect the white and black models, which lends some support to Hypothesis

4 that the impact of social disorganization indicators will not differ by racial group.

The log of officer use of force reports has a different relationship to rates of black

and white searches by police in non-disadvantaged areas. The black model indicates no

significant relationship between police use of force and rates of black searches.

However, the white search rate is significantly affected by the indicator, giving 99%

confidence that as police use of force reports increase, so too do rates of white searches











Table-5-2 Seemingly unrelated regression (SUR) coefficients (and standard errors) for
non-disadvantaged and disadvantaged areas
Non-Disadvantaged Areas Disadvantaged Areas
N = 170 N = 95

Coeff. Coeff.
Black White Comparison F Black White Comparison F
(and P) Values (and P) Values

Contextual Variables

Urban Disadvantage Indicators


Urban Disadvantage Index

Social L', i,:,,, ,o ,i.
Indicators

Hispanic Immigration Index

Residential Mobility

% Vacant Housing Units

% Who Journey to Work 25
Min. +


Officer Conduct


Log of Officer of Use of Force
Report Rates


Controls


Homicide Rate Per 10,000


Arrest Rate


% Males in Total Population

Investigative Stop Rate


Constant


0.003 -0.002
(0.006) (0.006)


-0.006
(0.004)
0.013
(0.009)
-0.001
(0.017)
0.013
(0.011)


-0.003
(0.002)
-0.001
(0.006)
-0.019*
(0.010)
-0.011
(0.007)


0.160 0.447**
(0.106) (0.065)


0.059
(0.063)
0.022**
(0.003)

0.005
(0.051)
0.005*
(0.003)
-1.011
2.533
122.570
1.362
0.416


-0.061
(0.102)
0.011**
(0.002)

0.026
(0.031)
0.005**
(0.002)
-1.119
1.569
239.080
0.839
0.585


0.09
(0.765)




0.72
(0.395)
2.36
(0.125)
0.98
(0.322)
3.34
(0.067)




5.77*
(0.016)



1.01
(0.314)
9.83**
(0.001)

0.14
(0.705)
0.00
(0.974)


0.008 0.009*
(0.006) (0.005)


-0.002
(0.003)
-0.002
(0.013)
-0.017
(0.019)
-0.011
(0.013)


0.000
(0.003)
0.019
(0.012)
-0.015
(0.019)
0.003
(0.013)


0.175* 0.293**
(0.091) (0.089)


0.029
(0.025)
0.020**
(0.003)

0.034
(0.028)
0.007**
(0.002)
-1.449
1.704
126.640
1.063
0.569


0.027
(0.018)
0.002**
(0.001)

-0.047
(0.027)
0.009**
(0.002)
0.777
1.506
199.510
1.038
0.677


0.00
(0.968)




0.36
(0.549)
1.54
(0.214)
0.01
(0.932)
0.60
(0.438)




0.93
(0.334)



0.01
(0.934)
30.34**
(0.000)

4.59*
(0.032)
0.38
(0.538)


Model Chi Square
RMSE
R Square
*P < 0.05 ** P < 0.01









by police. Finally, we see that the F coefficient is significant; officer use of force reports

do, in fact, differentially affect the black and white models. Again, we do find partial

support for Hypothesis 5 in the differential effects of this indicator on rates of black and

white searches.

The homicide rate per 10,000 was found to have no effect on rates of race-specific

searches. The arrest rate was found to have a highly significant effect on both rates of

race-specific searches, while the F statistic reveals significant differences in the impact of

arrest rates by racial group. Percentage of males in the total population had no effect on

race-specific searches, and no racial differences in its influence were identified. The

investigative stop rate was found to positively influence the rates of black and white

searches. The investigative stop rate has a slightly stronger, but statistically non-

significant, positive impact on rates of white searches by police, as compared to its

influence on the black search rate. However, the F statistic reveals no evidence of

variation by race.

Similar to findings from the primary analysis, we find that the urban disadvantage

index has a positive and significant relationship to rates of white searches; however, we

do see a slight reduction in significance from the primary model to the current model. No

significant relationship between the disadvantage index and rates of black searches was

identified. Further, based on the statistic from the F test, we see no evidence that the

disadvantage index differentially affects the black and white models. Again, these

findings lend no support to Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2.

Indicators of social disorganization have no significant effect on either race-specific

search rates. These results are in opposition to Hypothesis 3 that both black and white









search rates will increase. However, we again find support for Hypothesis 4, as there is

no evidence of a differential effect of the indicators on either model.

Finally, we find significant the influence of the log of officer use of force report

rates for each model. The relationship between the indicator and black searches is

positive and significant, with 95% confidence. As in previous models, we see that the

influence of officer use of force reports is stronger for white search rates, in this case

yielding 99% confidence that as use of force report rates increase, white searches by

police will also increase. However, we do not see a difference in the way this indicator

affects each model. The F statistic reveals that the impact of officer use of force reports

similarly affects both black and white search rates, a finding we do not see in the non-

disadvantaged model.

The impact of two controls in the disadvantaged areas is slightly different from the

non-disadvantaged areas. Consistent with findings from the non-disadvantaged areas, we

see that homicide rate per 10,000 has no significant influence on race-specific searches,

without evidence of racial variance. The arrest rate is continuous across models as well,

having a highly significant impact on rates of black and white searches, while showing

considerable evidence of racial variance. However, the percentage of males in the total

population, while having no impact on searches, was found to have a different influence

on each model. An additional difference was found in the impact of the investigative

stop rate on black searches by police, as the coefficient increased in significance for the

black model, while the impact on white searches was the same as in the non-

disadvantaged model. Racial variance, however, was again not identified.









Results from the supplemental analysis were similar to findings from the

preliminary analysis. The urban disadvantage index had a significant and positive effect

on rates of white searches, but not black searches, in the disadvantaged model only, while

the index had no statistically significant impact in the non-disadvantaged model. We

again see no significant impact of social disorganization indicators on black search rates

in both disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged areas or on the white search rates in

disadvantaged areas. However, we see positive statistical significance in the impact of

percent vacant housing units on rates of white searches by police in the non-

disadvantaged models.

Finally, we see a decrease in the impact of officer use of force reports for black

search rates in the non-disadvantaged model. We also find statistical significance in the

magnitude of the F statistic, meaning that the impact of use of force reports is different

based on racial group. The disadvantaged model also yields results similar to those from

the preliminary analysis; use of force provides a 95% confidence interval for its impact

on black search rates, and a 99% confidence interval for its impact on the white searches,

as well as a change in the F statistic indicating no evidence of racial variance. That is, the

impact of use of force reports on black and white search rates by police becomes more

similar in the disadvantaged model.














CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The goal of this research was to determine the effects of urban disadvantage and

social disorganization on racial profiling as manifested through a police search

subsequent to a traffic stop. For the analysis, we compared indicators of social

disorganization and an urban disadvantage index to police rates of black and white

searches. Overall, the results indicate that these perspectives do not significantly

contribute to our knowledge of the causes of racial profiling.

The urban disadvantage index significantly influenced white search rates in the

total sample, while it had no impact on search rates of African Americans. This is the

case across each black model; the findings held when relationships were estimated by

non-disadvantaged and disadvantaged area types, thus exhibiting the robustness of the

findings from the analysis. The F statistic generated shows that the impact of the urban

disadvantage index differs by race. This is also consistent with findings from previous

studies, which included similar measures. Krivo and Peterson (2000) found in their

analysis of black and white structural conditions and homicide rates, that concentrated

disadvantage was 1 of only 2 variables that had significant racial differences. Perhaps

this is a result of a significantly lower likelihood for whites to live in concentrated

disadvantage (Krivo and Peterson, 2000). It then follows that when whites do live in

areas of concentrated disadvantage, their economic and social situations are at their

worst. Therefore, a possible explanation of this finding may be that white searches by

police increase with increases in concentrated disadvantage because when whites









experience conditions such as these, the impact of disadvantage is exacerbated, resulting

in whites living in the poorest and most dangerous communities.

The measures of social disorganization showed no statistically significant impact

on the black model, while percent vacant housing units had a negative and significant

impact on rates of white searches by police. Krivo and Peterson (1996) found that higher

vacancy rates as well as higher rates of rental occupancy have positive effects on rates of

property crime. Moreover, this effect was found to have a more significant impact on

white neighborhoods than in predominantly black neighborhoods with extremely low

numbers of professional residents. This finding again points to the extremely different

structural living conditions of poor whites and poor blacks. As I explained above, the

likelihood of poor whites to live in the poorest areas is so low that when this condition

does occur, whites are living in the worst of areas. It may be more common to find a

higher number of professionals, who tend to be more stable in their living situations,

residing in more populated, poor white neighborhoods because of a higher likelihood of

better education, and thus, betterjobs. However, in the worst conditions, whites are

residing in areas composed of residents of the lowest socioeconomic status, therefore,

having a lower likelihood of professional residents, and thus higher levels of vacancy

(Krivo and Peterson, 1996).

Looking at the descriptive statistics from the supplementary analysis (see Appendix

C), we see that African Americans are more likely to be searched by officers in non-

disadvantaged areas, while whites are more likely to be searched in disadvantaged areas.

These statistics are in opposition to the assumptions of the hypotheses, that indicators

consistent with each neighborhood type would have a strong influence on black searches,









but not white searches in the case of urban disadvantage, or that they would have a

similar effect on both black and white search rates in the case of social disorganization.

Police officers have a great deal of discretion in the field; the decisions they make

concerning law enforcement are shaped by, among other things, past experiences. Police

officers are trained to look for things that are out of the ordinary (Smith, Makarios, and

Alpert, Forthcoming). African Americans are more likely to reside in areas having

characteristics that typify urban disadvantage, while only 2% of the poorest whites live in

neighborhoods with an extreme concentration of poverty (Wilson, 1987, and 1992). It

then follows that a white person in a particularly poor or predominantly African

American neighborhood may prompt an officer to suspect criminal activity, and

subsequently stop and search that individual because they don't fit (Smith, Makarios, and

Alpert, forthcoming). Therefore, we may expect an increase in white searches as we

move into more disadvantaged areas, as is illustrated in the supplementary models.

As I stated before, it is not likely that whites live in areas of concentrated poverty

and high crime. When whites do reside in these areas, it is possible that they are put in a

different social class, separate from poor whites living in more affluent neighborhoods.

Perhaps the social distance between these two groups created by the difference in

neighborhood residence is enough to influence police suspicions and thus, increase white

search rates.

The racial threat hypothesis offers another potential explanation for the results. It

claims that the percentage of minorities in a given area is positively related to the level of

formal social control. If segregation is imposed and minority groups are concentrated in

certain areas, they become less of a threat, resulting in less police activity (Liska and









Chamlin, 1984, and Terrill and Mastrofski, 2002). Perhaps police focus more on whites

in these areas because they come to expect certain types of suspicious or criminal

behaviors from blacks in disadvantaged areas. Black crime becomes commonplace,

making officers less sensitive to African American presence, and thus more attentive to

suspicious behaviors of whites.

The benign-neglect hypothesis argues that larger African American populations

have a higher likelihood of intra-racial crimes, which are less likely to be handled via

legal response. This is because intra-racial crimes do not pose a threat to the majority

(Liska and Chamlin, 1984, and Smith and Holmes, 2003). Again we see potential for

more focus on white crime in areas of high disadvantage. According to Black's theory of

law, whites are higher in status than African Americans because they compose the

majority. We may therefore see higher levels of legal response to suspicious behaviors of

whites because higher status elicits more law (Doyle and Luckenbill, 1991).

The officer use of force report rate was found to be significant in both the white and

black models. However, we see that it has a stronger impact on white search rates, and as

demonstrated by the F statistic generated, there is significant variation in the way this

variable affects whites and African Americans. The racial difference in the impact of this

variable is contradictory to existing literature on the determinants of use of force and

neighborhood context. Consistent with extant literature, we hypothesized that higher

rates of officer use of force reports would increase the likelihood of African American

search rates, but not white search rates. Numerous studies show that officers are more

likely to use force against minority suspects than whites (Smith, 1986, Smith, 1987, Liska









and Chamlin, 1984, Doyle and Luckenbill, 1991, Terrill and Mastrofski, 2002, Terrill and

Reisig, 2003, and Smith and Holmes, 2003).

Turning to the supplementary analysis we see that in the non-disadvantaged

models, use of force rates show no impact on African American searches, while it has a

significant impact on white searches. The disadvantaged models show that both search

rates are influenced by use of force rates, but there is a stronger impact in the white

model. Perhaps these findings reflect levels of aggression in police officers. As

previously stated, officers look for things that are out of the ordinary. It may make sense

that a majority of officers are searching African Americans in more affluent

neighborhoods because they are less likely to take residence there. However, it appears

that for a white to be searched in an affluent area, it takes a particularly aggressive officer

to make that decision one that has a higher occurrence of use of force reports.

The findings of the non-disadvantaged models may be imparted to the total sample

models and the disadvantaged models. Essentially, all officers are doing theirjobs by

stopping and searching African Americans, but only some officers are searching whites.

This may be evidence of racial profiling because it assumes African Americans are

committing crimes, as evidenced by higher rates of use of force when initiating the search

of a white suspect, while it is less likely for the search of an African American to be

conducted by officers who have high rates of use of force.

The potential contributions of this research are many. This is one of only a small

number of studies on racial profiling conducted using such a large data set, containing

such detailed information on police officers, citizens, and stop information. Further, the

data were gathered using a combination of sources outside of the individual level data,









including the 2000 census, and the Uniform Crime Report, allowing for a more thorough

investigation of the problem (Lundman, 2004). This research is theory-based, which is

unique to this field. Extant research has generally neglected to incorporate theory prior to

statistical analysis (Engel, Calnon and Bernard, 2002). As a theory-based research paper,

the units of analysis were ultimately determined by tenets of social disorganization and

urban disadvantage in an attempt to explain the differential behaviors of police relative to

neighborhood context. This research also provides a comparison between the effects of

each context-related perspective, and may help to support one over the other in

explaining racial differences in search rates.

In designing this analysis, it was often difficult to discern which indicators were

more consistent with each perspective. Perhaps future research should consider using

measures of social disorganization that are more distinct from those of urban

disadvantage. Community characteristics such as collective efficacy may be one avenue

that can provide a clearer dichotomy between the two perspectives. Further, taking into

account characteristics of community-level institutions may provide an improved

conceptualization of a community's organization.

This study used racially-disaggregated measures of search rates by police as an

indicator of racial profiling. Due to the actual number of searches conducted during the

period of data collection, the counts for searches were low. Indeed, the counts were so

low and varied so significantly across census tracts that the natural log had to be used to

make the data appropriate for the regression analysis. The act of conducting a search is

highly discretionary for police officers because it is the officer alone who takes into

account various circumstances, conditions or cues that may warrant a search. Therefore,









looking at arrest rates as indicators of racial profiling as well as stop rates could provide a

clearer picture of racial profiling by police officers.

Perhaps racial profiling is a phenomenon that needs to be studied through more

micro-level theories. Future research should attempt to include more data on the static

characteristics of officers, and that of citizens stopped. The inclusion of an interview

component may help to inform the perspectives officers and citizens. Further, the data

were taken from a single geographical area, Miami-Dade County. Not only is this area

unique because of its ethnic make-up, but it is also a southern city, which may present

quite different characteristics and conditions from those in other regions of the US.

Further, research should focus on the comparison of a number of cities from different

regions to prevent regional bias. Future research should also seek to include in its

analysis a Hispanic component, especially when studying an area so ethnically diverse.
















APPENDIX A
PRINCIPLE COMPONENTS ANALYSIS AFTER VARIMAX ROTATION


Black Model White Model

Variables Component Component
1 2 1 2

% Spanish-speaking population
who speak English not well or 0.97 0.96
not at all, age 5 and above

% Hispanics in Total Population 0.96 0.97


% White non-Hispanics living 0.9
below poverty level

% White non-Hispanic not
employed, age 16 and over

% White female-headed 0.53
household with children < 18
% Black persons living below
poverty level
% Blacks not employed, age 16 0.90
and over
% Black female-headed 0
household with children < 18


Eigen Values 2.15 1.79 1.9 1.73

% Variance Explained 43.01 35.69 38.09 34.49

















APPENDIX B
DESCRIPTIVES: MEANS AND (STANDARD DEVIATIONS) FOR VARIABLES IN
SEARCH MODELS FOR NON-DISADVANTAGED AND DISADVANTAGED

Non-Disadvantaged Disadvantaged
N = 170 N = 95
Black White Black White
Dependent Variable


Log of Search Rates per 10,000

Contextual Variables
Urban Disadvantage Indicators

Urban Disadvantage Index

Social De i, :i.,t, ,, Indicators

Hispanic Immigration Index


Residential Mobility


% Vacant Housing Units

% Who Travel to Work > 25
Minutes +
Officer Conduct Variables
Log of Officer Use of Force
Report Rates
Control Variables

Homicide Rate Per 10,000


Arrest Rate


% Males in Total Population

Investigative Stop Rates

% White Population

% African American Population


1.71
(1.90)



31.33
(19.35)


71.29
(38.97)














0.44
(1.54)
21.61
(57.52)


1.50
(1.34)



23.85
(12.23)


71.78
(39.15)


47.57
(12.56)
6.65
(7.99)
52.05
(10.67)


4.45
(1.76)


0.26
(1.61)
9.21
(33.78)


47.96
(2.26)
39.43
(71.66)
72.56
(27.47)
18.30
(27.40)
56.16
(27.42)


1.39
(1.64)



80.67
(19.72)


69.57
(46.13)














1.25
(5.83)
14.67
(35.14)


1.42
(1.77)



37.07
(27.28)


69.96
(46.32)


51.79
(11.95)
9.57
(7.68)
51.14
(9.86)


3.93
(1.95)


0.96
(6.21)
38.77
(192.66)


49.14
(4.38)
44.10
(77.44)
57.95
(32.09)
31.45
(33.08)
51.49
(31.45)


% Hispanic Population
















LIST OF REFERENCES


Akins, S. 2003. Racial segregation and property crime: Examining the mediating effect of
police strength. Justice quarterly, 20, 675-695.

Alpert, G., and Dunham, R. 1988. Policing multi-ethnic neighborhoods: The Miami study
and findings for law enforcement in the United States. New York: Greenwood Press.

Alpert, G. P., and MacDonald, J. M. 2001. Police use of force: An analysis of
organizational characteristics. Justice quarterly, 18, 393-409.

Bayley, D.H., and Mendelsohn, H. 1969. Minorities and the police: Confrontation in
America. New York: Free Press.

Borg, M. J., and Parker, K. F. 2001. Mobilizing law in urban areas: The social structure
of homicide clearance rates. Law & society review 35, 435-466.

Browning, C. R. 2002. The span of collective efficacy: Extending social disorganization
theory to partner violence. Journal of marriage &family, 64, 833-850.

Bursik, R. J. 1988. Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency:
Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519-551.

Chambliss, W. 1994. Policing the ghetto underclass: The politics of law and law
enforcement. Social problems 41, 177-194.

Cole, D. 1999. Is public concern about feral police using racial profiling justified? Insight
on the news 15, 24-27.

Cordner, G., Williams, B., and Zuniga, M. 2000. Vehicle stop study: Mid-year report.
San Diego, CA: San Diego Police Department.

Cullen, F. T., and Agnew, R. 2003. Criminological theory: Past topresent. 2nd ed. Los
Angeles: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Doyle, D. P. and Luckenbill, D. F. 1991. Mobilizing law in response to collective
problems: A test of Black's theory of law. Law & society review, 25, 103-116.

Engel, R.S., Calnon, J.M., and Bernard, T. 2002. Theory and racial profiling:
Shortcomings and future directions in research. Justice quarterly, 19, 249-274.

Fagan, J., and Davies, G. 2000. Street stops and broken windows: Terry, race, and
disorder in New York City. Fordham urban law journal, 28, 457-504.









Florida Highway Patrol. 2000. Race study of the Florida highway patrol [Online].
Available: www.fhp.state.fl.us.

Gibson, C. L., Zhao, J., and Lovrich, N. P. 2002. Social integration, individual
perceptions of collective efficacy, and fear of crime in three cities. Justice
quarterly, 19, 537-564.

Greene, W. H. 1996. Economic analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Guerra, S. 1992. Domestic drug interdiction operations: Finding the balance. Journal of
criminal law & criminology, 82, 1109-1992.

Hagan, J., and Albonetti, C. 1982. Race, class, and the perception of criminal injustice in
America. American journal of sociology, 88, 329-355.

Harris, D. A. 1997. "Driving while black" and all other traffic offenses: The Supreme
Court and pretextual traffic stops. Journal of criminal law & criminology, 87, 544-
582.

Jacobs, D., and Kleban, R. 2003. Political institutions, minorities, and punishment: A
pooled cross-national analysis of imprisonment rates. Social forces, 82, 725-755.

Kane, R. J. 2002. The social ecology of police misconduct. Criminology, 40, 867-897.

Krivo, L. J. and Peterson, R. D. 1996. Extremely disadvantaged neighborhoods and urban
crime. Social forces, 75, 619-650.

Krivo, L. J. and Peterson, R. D. 2000. The structural context of homicide: Accounting for
racial differences in process. American sociological review, 65, 547-559.

Lamberth, J. (1998). Driving while black: A statistician proves that prejudice still rules
the road. Hartford. [Online] Available:
www.hartfordhwp.com/archives/45a/192.html.

Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., and Cohen, L. E. 1990. Structural covariates of homicide
rates: Are there any invariances across time and social space? American journal of
sociology 95, 922-963.

Lane, J., and Meeker, J. W. 2003. Fear of gang crime: A look at three theoretical models.
Law & society review, 37, 425-456.

Liska, A. E., and Chamlin, M. B. 1984. Social structure and crime control among
macrosocial units. American journal of sociology, 90, 383-395.

Lowenkamp, C. T., Cullen, F. T., and Pratt, T. C. 2003. Replicating Sampson and
Groves's test of social disorganization theory. Journal of research in crime &
delinquency, 40, 351-373.









Lundman, R. 2004. Driver race, ethnicity, and gender and citizen reports of vehicle
searches by police and vehicle search hits: Toward a triangulated scholarly
understanding. Journal of criminal law & criminology, 94, 309-349.

Lundmand, R., and Kaufman, R. 2003. Driving while black: Effects of race, ethnicity,
and gender on citizen self-reports pf traffic stops and police actions. Criminology,
41, 195-221.

MacDonald, H. 2003. Are cops racist? Chicago: Ivan R. Dee.

Massey, D. S. 1990. American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass.
American journal of sociology, 96, 329-357.

Massey, D. S., and Denton, N. A. 1988. Suburbanization and segregation in US
metropolitan areas. American journal of sociology, 94, 592-626.

Massey, D. S., and Denton, N. A. 1993. American Apartheid: Segregation and the
making of the underclass. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Massey, D. S. and Eggers, M. L. 1990. The ecology of inequality: Minorities and the
concentration of poverty, 1970-1980. American journal of sociology, 96, 1153-
1188.

Massey, D.S., Eggers, M. L. and Denton, N. A. 1994. Disentangling the causes of
concentrated urban poverty. International journal of group tensions, 24, 267-316.

Mastrofski, S. D., Reisig, M. D., and McCluskey, J. D. 2002. Police disrespect toward the
public: An encounter-based analysis. Criminology, 40, 519-552.

Meehan, A. J. and Ponder, M. C. 2002. Race and place: The ecology of racial profiling
African American motorists. Justice quarterly, 19, 399-430.

Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R. J., and Raudenbush, S. W., 2001. Neighborhood inequality,
collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39,
517-558.

Ousey, G. 1999. Homicide, structural factors, and the racial invariance assumption.
Criminology, 37, 405-426.

Parker, K. F., and McCall, P. L. 1999. Structural conditions and racial homicide patterns:
A look at the multiple disadvantages in urban areas. Criminology, 37, 447-477.

Parker, K. F., Stults, B., and Rice, S. K. 2005. Racial threat, concentrated disadvantage
and social control: Considering the macro-level sources of variation in arrests.
Manuscript in preparation.

Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., and Piquero, A. R. 1998. Using the correct
statistical test for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36, 859-866.









Robison, Sophia M. 1936. Can delinquency be measured? New York, Pub. for the
Welfare Council of New York City by Columbia University Press.

Rose, D. R. and Clear, T. R. 1998. Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications
for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36, 441-479.

Russell, K. 2001. Racial profiling: A status report of the legal, legislative, and empirical
literature. Rutgers race & the law review, 61, 1-16.

Sampson, R. J. 1987. Urban black violence: The effect of male joblessness and family
disruption. American journal of sociology, 93, 348-382.

Sampson, R. J., and Raudenbush, S. W. 1999. Systematic social observation of public
spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American journal of
sociology, 105, 603-651.

Sampson, R. J. and Wilson, W. J. 1995. Toward a theory of race, crime, and urban
inequality. In J. Hagan and R.D. Peterson (Eds), Crime and inequality. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.

Smith, B. W., and Holmes, M. D. 2003. Community accountability, minority threat, and
police brutality: An examination of civil rights criminal complaints. Criminology
41, 1035-1063.

Smith, D. A. 1986. The neighborhood context of police behavior. In A.J. Reiss and M.
Tonry (Eds), Communities and crime. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Smith, D. A. 1987. Police response to interpersonal violence: Defining the parameters of
legal control. Social forces, 65, 767-782.

Smith, M., and Petrocelli, M. 2001. Racial profiling?: A multivariate analysis of police
traffic stop data. Police quarterly, 4, 4-27.

Smith, M. R., Makarios, M., and Alpert, G. P. 2005. Differential suspicion: Theory and
gender effects in the traffic stop context. Manuscript in preparation.

Snell, C. 2001. Neighborhood structure, crime, and fear of crime: Testing Bursik and
Grasmick's neighborhood control theory. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing
LLC.

Spitzer, E. 1999. The New York City Police Department's "stop and frisk" practices: A
Report to the people of the state of New York from the Office of the Attorney
General. Albany: New York Attorney General's Office.

Stretesky, P. B., Schuck, A. M., and Hogan, M. J. 2004. Space matters: An analysis of
poverty, poverty clustering, and violent crime. Justice quarterly, 21, 817-841.









Sun, I. Y., Triplett, R. A., and Gainey, R. R. 2004. Social disorganization, legitimacy of
local institutions, and neighborhood crime: An exploratory study of perceptions of
the police and local government. Journal of crime &justice, 2, 33-60.

Terrill, W., and Mastrofski, S. D. 2002. Situational and officer-based determinants of
police coercion. Justice quarterly, 19, 215-248.

Terrill, W., and Reisig, M. D. 2003. Neighborhood context and police use of force.
Journal of research in crime & delinquency, 40, 291-321.

Walker, S. 2001. Searching for the denominator: Problems with police traffic stop data
and early warning system solution. Justice research & policy, 3, 63-95.

Walker, S., Spohn, C., and DeLone, M. 2001. The color ofjustice: Race, ethnicity, and
crime in America. 2nd ed. United States: Wadsworth.

Ward, J. 2002. Race, ethnicity, and law enforcement profiling: Implications for public
policy. Public administration review, 62, 726-735.

Weitzer, R., and Tuch, S. 2002. Perceptions of racial profiling: race, class, and personal
experience. Criminology, 40, 435-457.

Werthman, C. and Piliavin, I. 1967. Gang members and the police. In D. Brodura (Ed)
The police: Six sociological essays. New York: John Wiley.

Wilson, G., Alpert, G., and Dunham, R. 2004. Prejudice in Police Profiling. American
behavioral scientist, 47, 896-909.

Wilson, W. J. 1987. The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public
policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Wilson, W.J. 1992. Another look at the truly disadvantaged. Political science quarterly
106, 639-658.

Zingraff, M., Mason, H. M., Smith, W., Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Warren, P., McMurray,
H., and Fenlon, C. R. 2000. Evaluating North Carolina state highway patrol data:
Citations, warnings, and searches in 1998. North Carolina State University.















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

In May of 2003, I received my Bachelor of Arts in sociology from the University of

Florida. My senior thesis, Correlates of female juvenile delinquency, was published in

December of 2003 in The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. The

completion of my senior thesis allowed me to graduate with highest honors. I plan to

pursue my PhD in criminology at UF, continuing my research on racial discrimination,

social structure and crime, and race and poverty issues.