• No results found

Drinking and driving among Mexican American and non-hispanic white males in Long Beach, California

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Drinking and driving among Mexican American and non-hispanic white males in Long Beach, California"

Copied!
9
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

Drinking and driving among Mexican American and non-Hispanic

white males in Long Beach, California

Susan A. Ferguson

a,

*, Marcelline M. Burns

b

, Dary Fiorentino

b

, Allan F. Williams

a

,

Juan Garcia

b

aInsurance Institute for Highway Safety,1005North Glebe Road,Arlington,VA22201-4751,USA bSouthern California Research Institute,11914West Washington Boule6ard,Los Angeles,CA90066,USA

Received 10 August 2000; received in revised form 18 January 2001; accepted 19 January 2001

Abstract

Although drinking and driving in the United States has declined substantially during the past two decades, this trend has not been seen among Hispanic drivers. Higher rates of driving while impaired (DWI) arrests and alcohol-related crashes, particularly among Mexican Americans, also have been noted. The extent to which this reflects a lack of understanding of DWI laws rather than a disregard for them is unknown. A survey was conducted among Mexican American and non-Hispanic white male DWI arrestees in Long Beach, California, to ascertain alcohol use, attitudes toward drinking and drinking and driving, and knowledge of DWI laws. The findings were compared with those of Mexican American and non-Hispanic white males recruited from the local community. Mexican American males, both DWIs and those from the community, reported heavier drinking than non-Hispanic white males. All four groups of respondents tended to underestimate the number of drinks needed to achieve the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) threshold at or above which it is illegal to drive under California law. Estimations were around 2 – 3 drinks rather than a more realistic estimate of 4 – 5 drinks. However, Mexican American DWIs and their comparison group vastly overestimated the number of drinks to make them unsafe drivers (8 – 10 drinks). Furthermore, fewer than half were aware of the BAC threshold in California (0.08%) compared with between 60 and 78% of non-Hispanic whites. This study is limited in scope and needs to be replicated in other communities and with other racial/ethnic groups. However, the clear lack of knowledge of the DWI law in California and a lack of understanding of the relationship between number of drinks and BAC point to the need for culturally sensitive programs that are developed and implemented within the Mexican American community. © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:Drinking and driving; Blood alcohol concentration; Mexican American; Non-Hispanic white; California

1. Introduction

The number of drinking drivers on US roads fell significantly between 1986 and 1996 (Voas et al., 1998). However, there is no evidence of a decline in drinking and driving among Hispanic drivers. A recent national survey of drinking drivers found that a higher percent-age of Hispanic than non-Hispanic white or African American drivers was driving after drinking on week-end nights (Voas et al., 1998). About 15% of Hispanic drivers who submitted to roadside breath tests had

blood alcohol concentrations (BAC) of 0.05% or higher, compared with 7 and 9% among non-Hispanic white and African American drivers, respectively. The survey also indicated that the percentage of Hispanic drivers whose BACs exceeded 0.10% (the percentage at or above which it is per se illegal to drive in most states) almost doubled between 1973 and 1996, from 4.4 to 7.5%, at a time, when more of them were on the road on weekend nights. During the same period, these rates declined among non-Hispanic white and African Amer-ican drivers. A longitudinal survey of non-Hispanic whites, African Americans, and Hispanics between 1984 and 1995 indicated a decrease in heavy drinking among non-Hispanic white men but stable rates of heavy drinking among African Americans and Hispanics (Caetano and Clark, 1998a).

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-703-2471500; fax: +1-703-2471678.

E-mail address:sferguson@iihs.org(S.A. Ferguson).

0001-4575/02/$ - see front matter © 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 0 1 - 4 5 7 5 ( 0 1 ) 0 0 0 3 8 - 0

(2)

At least in some locations, these higher rates of drinking and driving are reflected in the driving while impaired (DWI) arrest rates (Caetano, 1984; Perrine et al., 1989; Chang et al., 1996). For example, in 1995 in California, 46% of those arrested for DWI were His-panic, about twice as high as the proportion of Hispan-ics in the population (Tashima and Helander, 1997). Using self-reported data, Caetano and Clark (1998b) also reported higher arrest rates for DWI among His-panic men than among non-HisHis-panic whites. Recent evidence also indicates that some Hispanic drivers are over-represented in alcohol-related fatal crashes (Voas et al., 1999). For example, among Mexican Americans, about 65% of all motor vehicle deaths were alcohol related, compared with 46% among non-Hispanic whites. However, among Cuban Americans and Puerto Rican Americans, rates actually were lower than among non-Hispanic whites (Voas et al., 1999). Furthermore, traffic crashes have steadily increased their ranking as a leading cause of death for Hispanic males, ranking fifth in 1992 and third in 1997 (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2000).

The US Hispanic population is growing at a much faster rate than the population as a whole (Martinez and Veloz, 1996). It has been estimated that Hispanics will constitute 11% of the population in the year 2000 and 22% by 2050 (US Census Bureau, 1993). Projec-tions for California indicate the Hispanic population will reach 13.6 million by 2030 (Irwin et al., 1991). Within this broad Hispanic category, distinct subgroups each possess their own unique identity and culture. In many instances, the studies or data sources do not allow a distinction to be made among these subgroups, but those that do indicate that when it comes to drinking and drinking and driving Mexican American males represent a more serious problem than Cuban American or Puerto Rican American males (Caetano, 1988, 1989; Nielsen, 2000). Thus, it is important to distinguish among, for example, Mexican Americans, Central Americans, and South Americans (Brindis et al., 1995).

Some investigators have suggested that differential enforcement of DWI laws may be a factor contributing to the higher DWI arrest rate for Hispanics (Lapham et al., 1998); others have suggested that Hispanic males may not recognize driving under the influence of alco-hol as deviant behavior because DWI laws are not strictly enforced in their countries of origin. Alterna-tively, Hispanic drivers may not understand the rela-tionship between alcohol use and impairment. For example, Caetano and Clark (1998b) reported that Hispanic men think they can consume seven drinks on average before their driving is impaired. It also is possible that because many Hispanics are relatively new to the United States, they may not be aware of the specific DWI laws that apply within their state of residence.

A full understanding of these issues will require a series of studies of Hispanic subgroups in different regions of the country. The present study focused on the subgroup of Mexican American males in California, where Mexican Americans and Mexican nationals make up the largest Hispanic subgroup. Latest population estimates indicate they comprise about 60% of the US Hispanic population (US Census Bureau, 1990). Al-though there is evidence that Mexican American males have higher drinking and DWI arrest rates than other racial/ethnic groups, the extent to which this reflects a lack of understanding of DWI laws rather than a disregard for such laws is not known. The study, which was conducted in Long Beach, California, examined alcohol use, attitudes, and knowledge of DWI laws among non-Hispanic white and Mexican American males who had been arrested for DWI, comparing them with non-Hispanic white and Mexican American males sampled from the local community.

2. Method 2.1. Inter6iews

A total of 300 Mexican American and Mexican national males (the Mexican American group) and 300 non-Hispanic white males were included in the study. Within each group, 150 were current DWI arrestees, and 150 were residents of the local community. Long Beach was chosen as the location of the study because southern California has a large Mexican population and because of its convenience and ready access to DWI arrestees. Women were not included because drinking and driving is much less of a problem among Mexican American women. By arrangement with the Long Beach Police Department, arrestees were re-cruited prior to their release from jail. The Mexican American and non-Hispanic white males were con-tacted in jail after they had been processed and were awaiting court appearances and/or release. Most were interviewed between 7 a.m. and 2:15 p.m., Tuesdays through Sundays, between June 1998 and April 1999. Interviews were not conducted on Mondays because of potential interference with the jail staff’s post-weekend tasks. A bilingual, bicultural Mexican American male interviewer conducted all 600 interviews, and interviews were conducted orally. He confirmed that respondents were either Mexican American or non-Hispanic white before asking them to participate in the anonymous survey. Interviews were conducted in private, and re-spondents were assured that their responses to ques-tions would be confidential and would not be shared with the police. The men in custody rarely refused to be interviewed, and each participant was paid $10.

(3)

A matched group of comparison respondents were recruited in public places in Long Beach (supermarket and strip mall parking lots). For each DWI respondent recruited, the interviewer went to a Long Beach loca-tion where the DWI respondent’s reported income was within the given range for that area according to census tract information (Allen and Turner, 1997). A few people declined to participate, usually for lack of time, but the actual number of refusals was not tabulated. Those who consented to the interview were informed their responses would remain confidential and were paid $10.

2.2. Questionnaire

An English language questionnaire was developed and then translated into Spanish by a bilingual associ-ate. The Spanish version then was translated back into English by another bilingual associate. This procedure ensured that the English and Spanish language ques-tionnaires were comparable and conveyed the same meanings. During a pilot study, ambiguous questions were identified and modified or eliminated. Most of the questions were developed by the researchers; however, a few questions regarding alcohol use were taken from Gruenewald and Mephew (1994).

Respondents were questioned about their country of origin and, if they indicated it was other than the United States, they were asked how long they had resided in the United States. They were asked about primary and preferred language, years of schooling, employment, income, and whether they held a driver’s license. They also were asked about their alcoholic beverage of choice, frequency and locations of drink-ing, and their attitudes and practices with regard to drinking and driving. For example, they were asked how often in the past month they had driven after drinking, whether they had driven after they believed they were too drunk to drive, how many drinks it would take to be drunk (respondents were informed

what constitutes a drink; that is, one can of beer (12 oz), one mixed drink, one glass of wine), how many drinks it would take to be an unsafe driver, and whether they ever planned ahead so they could avoid drinking and driving. Additional questions explored their knowledge of the California DWI law and their understanding of the number of drinks it would take to exceed the BAC threshold at or above which it is illegal to drive under California law (referred to in the ques-tionnaire as the ‘legal limit’ for ease of understanding). (Driving with a BAC at or above this threshold is illegal per se, but it also is possible to convict motorists of DWI at lower BACs, or even without BAC test results, if there is evidence of impairment.) Comparison respondents were asked whether they had ever been arrested for DWI and what they believed to be the likelihood of arrest if they drove after drinking.

2 tests of independence were used to assess the

statistical significance of observed differences in re-sponses of Mexican American and non-Hispanic white respondents.

3. Results

3.1. Demographic characteristics

Demographic information is provided in Table 1. Survey results indicated that Mexican American spondents were younger than non-Hispanic white re-spondents (average age 32 vs. 36 years). They more often were married (49 vs. 29%) and were less well educated (schooling 9 vs. 13 years). Overall, more DWI respondents said they were employed, and the reported rate of employment was highest among Mexican Amer-ican DWIs.

Although the incomes of DWI respondents were similar to their respective comparison groups, the sam-ple of Mexican American males reported lower incomes than the sample of non-Hispanic white males. More

Table 1

Demographic profile

DWI Comparison

Mexican American Non-Hispanic white Mexican American Non-Hispanic white

32 35 33 36

Mean age (year)

47 25

Married (%) 52 32

9

13 13

9 Mean schooling (year)

63 100

English speaking (%) 71 100

Born outside United States (%) 83 3 76 0

38 1

510 years in United States (%) 25 0

10 000–12 499 15 000–17 499

Median income ($) 10 000–12 499 17 500–19 999

Employed full time (%) 73 69 63 59

71 97 99

(4)

Table 2

Reported drinking and drinking and driving behaviors (%)

Comparison DWI

Mexican Non-Hispanic white Mexican American Non-Hispanic white American

67

Prefer beer 95 90 53

88

Reported they planned ahead 85 92 91

45 59

55 65

Reported they ‘always’ planned ahead

29

Yes, if ever drive when too drunk 17 18 17

Number of days drank in past28days

1 0 0 18 27 64 39 68 51 1–6 35 43 7+ 32 21

Number of days drank6+drinks in past28days

37 0 24 31 69 54 39 58 26 1–6 9 30 5 7+ 18

Number of days dro6e after drinking in past28days

0 0 2 67 65 1–2 80 75 13 23 23 20 20 12 3+ 37

Had prior DWI arrest (%) 33 16 20

than half of the Mexican American males, compared with about one-quarter of non-Hispanic white males, earned less than $13 000 per year. At the high end of the income continuum, 20% of non-Hispanic whites but less than 2% of Mexican Americans reported annual incomes of $40 000 or more. Although 80% of Mexican American males stated they were employed (some of them part-time), it appears that many, if not most, were working for relatively low pay.

More than three-quarters of Mexican Americans said they were born in Mexico (83% DWI, 76% comparison group), and many were fairly recent immigrants. More than one-third of the Mexican American DWIs and one-quarter of the comparison group said they had lived in the United States for 10 years or less. Given their residential history and country of birth, it is clear that many of them were educated in Mexico. About one-third said they read and wrote English, and about two-thirds said they spoke English. However, as noted by the interviewer, their speech frequently revealed limited English fluency.

Very few non-Hispanic whites said they did not have a driver’s license, but 17% of Mexican Americans in the comparison group and 29% of Mexican American DWIs reported they did not have one. Half of the unlicensed drivers said they had never made an effort to obtain a license.

3.2. Alcohol use, and drinking and dri6ing beha6ior Table 2 reports participants’ responses regarding their drinking and their drinking and driving attitudes

and behavior. The majority of all respondents said they preferred to drink beer, which overwhelmingly was the alcohol beverage of choice among Mexican American males (2=38.7, PB0.0001 for the comparison

be-tween Mexican American and non-Hispanic white DWIs; 2=51.1, PB0.0001 for the comparison

be-tween comparison respondents). Although DWI offend-ers reported heavier and more frequent drinking than non-Hispanic whites in the comparison group, Mexican American males recruited from the community reported drinking more and more often than the other groups (Fig. 1). Mexican American DWIs reported drinking six or more drinks more often during the month than non-Hispanic white DWIs (2=8.3, P=0.02). This

difference was even more pronounced among the com-parison respondents (2=53.0,PB0.0001).

DWI respondents differed in terms of the locations where they were drinking before their arrest. More than half of the Mexican American males had been drinking in a private location, such as their own home or the home of a friend or relative, and only about one-quar-ter had been drinking in a public bar or tavern. In contrast, about 40% of non-Hispanic whites said they had been drinking in a bar or tavern.

Table 2 also summarizes responses concerning drink-ing and drivdrink-ing attitudes and behavior. Almost all DWI respondents, compared with about one-third of the comparison groups, admitted to driving after drinking in the past month. About 20% of DWI respondents and Mexican Americans in the comparison group said they had driven after drinking 3 days or more out of the past 28 days, compared with 12% of non-Hispanic

(5)

whites in the comparison group. (Mexican American comparison respondents were significantly more likely than non-Hispanic white comparison respondents to report more days driving after drinking (2=7.8, P=

0.02). Significantly more (29%) of non-Hispanic white DWIs admitted to driving when they thought they were too drunk, compared with about 17% among the other three groups (2=6.04, P=0.01 for comparison

be-tween Mexican American and non-Hispanic white DWIs; 2=0.02, P=0.88 for comparison between

comparison respondents). About one-third of DWIs, both Mexican American and non-Hispanic white (2=

0.53, P=0.47), but 16% of Mexican Americans and 20% of non-Hispanic whites from the comparison groups (2=0.81,P=0.37) reported a prior arrest for

DWI.

3.3. Attitudes and beliefs about drinking and drinking and dri6ing

The majority of respondents, with the exception of non-Hispanic whites from the comparison group (46%), said they think they can drive safely after drinking (Table 3). Notably, 69% of Mexican American DWIs responded in this way (2=6.8, P=0.009), compared

with non-Hispanic white DWIs. When asked how many drinks it would take to make them an unsafe driver, Mexican American DWIs responded on average that it would take ten drinks, and the comparison group of Mexican Americans said it would take eight drinks. Non-Hispanic white respondents on average thought it

would take 4-5 drinks (DWIs: 2=102.0, PB0.0001;

comparison: 2=72.5, PB0.0001). Among Mexican

American respondents, about 65% of DWIs and about 40% of the comparison group thought it would take more than eight drinks to be unsafe, compared with 11 and 5% of non-Hispanic white DWIs and their com-parison group, respectively. Respondents also were asked how many drinks in a 3-4 hour period it would take to make them drunk. Again, the estimate by Mexican American males, an average of 12 drinks, was higher than that of non-Hispanic white males, who estimated 6-7 drinks (DWIs: 2=118.3, PB0.0001;

comparison: 2=152.3, PB0.0001). In all groups,

re-spondents said it would be very dangerous to drive when drunk.

Table 4 summarizes responses that reflect knowledge and beliefs about the DWI law and enforcement. All groups demonstrated a lack of accurate information about the California per se BAC threshold and the relationships among number of drinks, BAC, and im-pairment. Responses of Mexican Americans, however, indicated they were particularly ill informed on these topics. Fewer than half of them knew that the BAC threshold in California was 0.08%, compared with 78% of non-Hispanic white DWIs and 60% of comparison non-Hispanic whites (DWIs: 2=30.1, PB0.0001;

comparison: 2=5.9, P=0.02). When respondents

were asked how many drinks it would take to reach a BAC at which it is per se illegal to drive, the estimates were low, especially those of Mexican American males.

(6)

Table 3

Attitudes and beliefs about drinking and drinking and driving (%)

Comparison DWI

Mexican Non-Hispanic Mexican American Non-Hispanic white white

American

54

Think they can drive safely when drinking 69 53 46

87

Think it very dangerous to drive when drunka 79 91 89

Number of drinks it takes to make you unsafe dri6er

5 8 11 4 Mean 55 29 54 13 71 34 28 21 24 4.5–8 8 35 8.5–12 45 4 3 8 20 1 12.5+

Number of beers needed in3–4h to get you drunk

7 12 12 6 Mean 13 3 54 3 27 69 20 17 65 4.5–8 51 8.5–12 15 47 7 29 12.5+ 3 30 0

aIncludes ‘very dangerous’ and ‘so dangerous I wouldn’t do it’.

Sixty-nine percent of Mexican American DWIs and 75% of Mexican Americans in the comparison group estimated it would take two drinks or fewer to reach the per se BAC threshold, compared with 43 and 62% of non-Hispanic white DWIs and their comparison group, respectively (a more realistic estimate for the average male would be about 4 – 5 drinks). Most nota-ble is the complete lack of agreement between the estimated number of drinks to reach the BAC threshold in California compared with the estimated number of drinks to become an unsafe driver. This disparity was most pronounced among Mexican American respon-dents, who on average thought it would take 8 – 10 drinks to make them unsafe drivers compared with only two drinks to reach the per se BAC threshold.

DWI respondents were asked about their perception prior to their arrest of the likelihood they would be stopped by a police officer when driving after drinking; comparison respondents were asked about their percep-tion in general. Very few DWI arrestees but many more respondents in the comparison groups thought it likely that the police would stop them if they drove after drinking. However, compared with non-Hispanic white respondents, more Mexican Americans, both DWI and those in the comparison groups, thought it likely they would be stopped (DWIs: 2=5.9, P=0.02;

compari-sons: 2=8.4, P=0.004). Regardless of whether they

had been arrested for DWI, only about one-quarter of respondents thought they would have their driver’s license suspended if convicted of DWI. In California, first offenders convicted of DWI are subject to a 6-month license suspension; second offenders are subject to a 2-year license suspension (Cal. [Veh.] Code Sec-tions 13352(a)(1) and 13352(a)(3) (West 2000)).

4. Discussion

Hispanics are one of the fastest growing demographic groups in the United States. They present special chal-lenges in terms of understanding their highway safety problems and developing appropriate countermeasures. Along with language and cultural differences, many of them are recent immigrants of low socioeconomic status. Because these factors affect how they prioritize issues concerning their well-being and their access to safety equipment and information, both the develop-ment and impledevelop-mentation of successful countermea-sures will require a sensitivity to language, culture, and socioeconomic status.

Among Hispanics, Mexican Americans comprise the largest group. The goal of the present study was to identify factors that may begin to explain the higher rates of DWI arrest and drinking and driving among Mexican American males and identify ways to address this issue within the community. The study found clear differences among Mexican American and non-His-panic white males in drinking practices, as well as differences in beliefs and knowledge about the effect of alcohol on impairment and how that relates to drinking and driving laws. The study findings also identify possi-ble avenues for intervention and education.

In line with other research findings (Caetano, 1991; Caetano and Kaskutas, 1995; Caetano and Clark, 1998a), Mexican American males, both DWIs and their comparison group, reported heavier drinking than non-Hispanic white males in this study. Furthermore, the Mexican American respondents recruited from the community actually reported heavier drinking than those arrested for DWI. The majority of all Mexican

(7)

American respondents, along with non-Hispanic white DWIs, thought they could drive safely after drinking. Respondents in all four groups tended to substantially underestimate the number of drinks it would take to exceed the BAC threshold at or above which it is illegal to drive under California law; 2 – 3 rather than a more realistic estimate of 4 – 5 for the average male. However, both Mexican American DWIs and their comparison group vastly overestimated the number of drinks re-quired to make them unsafe drivers, about 8 – 10 drinks compared with a more conservative estimate of 4 – 5 drinks among non-Hispanic whites. Such a large dis-crepancy in perception between the number of drinks needed to reach the per se BAC threshold versus be-coming an unsafe driver can only work to undermine the effectiveness of the DWI law. If drivers neither believe the per se BAC threshold represents impairment nor believe they are likely to be arrested for DWI, there is no incentive to abide by it.

Although Mexican American males in the compari-son group reported the heaviest and most frequent drinking, they reported less driving after drinking and fewer DWI arrests than any other group. They were much more likely than Mexican American DWIs to think they would be stopped by the police, when they have been drinking and much less likely to say they recently have driven after drinking. This very large discrepancy between the Mexican American DWIs and the comparison group in their perception of the likeli-hood of being stopped may be the result of post hoc rationalization on the part of the DWI respondents. Very few people may be willing to admit after an arrest that they thought it was likely to happen. However,

research does suggest that if people believe they are likely to be stopped by the police after drinking, they will be deterred from doing it. Thus, an increased perception of the risk of arrest likely would deter drinking and driving in the Mexican American commu-nity as it has in other communities (Ross, 1992). This is not to suggest that enforcement efforts should focus more on one community than another, but rather to encourage police to publicize regular DWI enforcement targeted to all racial/ethnic communities for the pur-pose of increasing awareness. This kind of effort will be facilitated by the close cooperation of police officers and community leaders.

Mexican American residents of California, many of whom have lived in the United States for relatively short periods, were largely unaware of the BAC threshold at or above which it is illegal to drive in California. About one-quarter of Mexican American respondents in the study area were unlicensed drivers, and about half of those had never attempted to get a license. Although respondents were not asked directly about their residency status, it is known that young men frequently cross the border illegally and that many young adult Mexican men in California are not legal residents (McDonnell, 1999). The fact that they have not applied for licenses indicates they may not meet the state’s residency requirements for licensing. This means a large group of residents have no contact with the California licensing agency and limited knowledge of the state’s driving laws, including DWI laws, at least partially as a result of that exclusion. This represents a lost opportunity for intervention.

Table 4

Attitudes and beliefs about legal issues (%)

DWI Comparison Non-Hispanic Mexican Non-Hispanic Mexican American white American white 46 78 47

Know per se BAC threshold of 0.08% 60

90

80 27 43

Think it unlikely they will be stopped by police if drinkinga

25

16 22 28

Think license suspension is a likely penalty for DWI

81 77

88 79

Think jail is a likely penalty for DWI

Number of drinks required to reach per se BAC threshold

3 2 2 Mean 2 15 48 27 51 37 35 27 28 2 32 3 15 34 12 23 15 17 13 4+ 23

Prior arrest for DWI

64 67

0 84 80

23

1 28 16b 20b

2+ 9 10

aIncludes ‘very unlikely’ and ‘somewhat unlikely’.

(8)

Drinking and driving is a major concern within the Hispanic community, ranking at the top of their list of highway safety concerns in a recent study (Martinez and Veloz, 1996). Census data reveal that Hispanic households are likely to represent the classic nuclear family (Hayes-Bautista et al., 1994), and family is a powerful symbol (Caetano et al., 1998). The men were more likely to be employed and married, and they reported that much of their drinking takes place among friends and family. Community-based programs, there-fore, should be developed to educate Mexican Ameri-can women, as well as the men, about crash risks and the other adverse consequences of drinking. Johnson and Delgado (1989) reported that Hispanics seem will-ing to intervene and spread prevention messages to family members, especially if there is a substance abuse problem. If the women in the Mexican American com-munity become fully aware of the crash risks associated with alcohol-impaired driving, the economic conse-quences of DWI, and the potential for negative impact on the family, they may be able to exert a positive influence on the drinking and the drinking and driving behaviors of the men. One caveat, the respondents were not asked whether they were currently living with their families or whether their families were still in Mexico. Further study is needed to determine typical living conditions.

A key to establishing effective educational interven-tions will be involving the community to ensure that informational materials are culturally appropriate and acceptable. It should be borne in mind that Hispanics have the lowest education levels of any other demo-graphic group in the United States (Hayes-Bautista et al., 1994). Many speak Spanish only, relatively few speak English fluently, and many neither read nor write either language (Martinez and Veloz, 1996). All of these factors have implications for intervention.

Traditionally, very few alcohol prevention programs have focused on Hispanics, and those that do tend to focus on adolescents, not older adults (Caetano et al., 1998). These efforts need to be broadened to include those who currently are at risk. Finally, researchers have underlined the importance of developing commu-nity-wide, multipronged prevention campaigns (Holder and Treno, 1997; Holder, 1998). Such efforts would include school-based and law enforcement programs. The church, which is an important component of the community, also should be considered in any interven-tion effort. The effort should focus on limiting the extent of alcohol advertising targeted at the Hispanic community and on implementing alcohol control mea-sures such as outlet density, hours of outlet operation, and pricing (Caetano et al., 1998).

This study has a number of limitations. First, it provides a very limited evaluation of attitudes and knowledge regarding drinking and drinking and driving

among Mexican American males. Further study is needed to confirm these findings with Mexican Ameri-cans in other communities. It also is not clear the extent to which drinking behavior may be related to living conditions. Although many of the Mexican American respondents reported they were married, the study did not determine how many were currently living with their families or whether their families remained in Mexico. Men who live apart from their families may be more likely to drink. This could have important impli-cations for intervention. Furthermore, the results do not control for education or on the basis of immigrant status. It is possible that the differences seen among Mexican American and non-Hispanic white males may be due in part to differences in education and/or cultur-alization. Studies have shown that there are marked differences among different groups of Hispanics – Mexican Americans, Cuban Americans, and Puerto Rican Americans, for example – in their drinking pat-terns, particularly among males (Caetano, 1988, 1989; Nielsen, 2000). Further study is needed to examine the extent to which similar misconceptions are prevalent among other Hispanic groups. Moreover, because these groups differ in socioeconomic standing, the role of socioeconomic status in knowledge and practice also should be examined.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Long Beach Police Department, whose cooperation made this study possible. This work was supported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

References

Allen, J.P., Turner, E., 1997. The ethnic quilt: population diversity in Southern California. The Center for Geographical Studies, Northridge, CA.

Brindis, C., Wolfe, A.L., McCarter, V., Ball, S., Starbuck-Morales, S., 1995. The associations between immigrant status and risk-be-havior patterns in Latino adolescents. Journal of Adolescent Health 17, 99 – 105.

Caetano, R., 1984. A note on arrest statistics for alcohol-related offenses. Drinking and Drug Practices Surveyor 19, 12 – 17. Caetano, R., 1988. Alcohol use among Hispanics groups in the

United States. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 14, 293 – 308.

Caetano, R., 1989. Drinking patterns and alcohol problems in a national sample of U.S. Hispanics. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, Alcohol Use among U.S. Ethnic Minori-ties, 147-62. Research monograph no. 18, DHHS publication no. (ADM) 89-1435. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Caetano, R., 1991. Findings from the 1984 National Survey of Alcohol Use among U.S. Hispanics. In: Clark, W.B., Hilton, M.E. (Eds.), Alcohol in America: Drinking Practices and

(9)

Prob-lems. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, pp. 293 – 307.

Caetano, R., Clark, C.L., 1998a. Trends in alcohol consumption patterns among whites, blacks, and Hispanics: 1984 and 1995. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 59, 659 – 668.

Caetano, R., Clark, C.L., 1998b. Whites, blacks, and Hispanics driving under the influence of alcohol: results from the 1995 National Alcohol Survey. University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX, unpublished data.

Caetano, R., Clark, C.L., Raspberry, K., 1998. Preventing alcohol-re-lated problems among U.S. Hispanics and blacks: an update. Presented at the Alcohol Abuse Prevention Research Meetings, Washington, DC. University of Texas, Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX.

Caetano, R., Kaskutas, L.A., 1995. Changes in drinking problems among whites, blacks, and Hispanics, 1984-1992. Journal of Stud-ies on Alcohol 56, 558 – 565.

Chang, I., Lapham, S.C., Barton, K.J., 1996. Drinking environment and sociodemographic factors among DWI offenders. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 57, 659 – 669.

Gruenewald, P.J., Mephew, T., 1994. Drinking in California: theoret-ical and empirtheoret-ical analyses of alcohol consumption patterns. Addiction 89, 707 – 723.

Hayes-Bautista, D.E., Baezconde-Garbanati, L., Schink, W.O., Hayes-Bautista, M., 1994. Latino health in California, 1985 – 1990: implications for family practice. Family Medicine 26, 556 – 562.

Holder, H.D., 1998. Alcohol and the Community: A Systems Ap-proach to Prevention. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Holder, H.D., Treno, A.J., 1997. Media advocacy in community prevention: news as a means to advance policy change. Addiction 92 (Suppl. 2), S189 – S200.

Irwin, C., Brindis, C., Brodt, S., et al., 1991. Health of America’s youth: current trends in health status and utilization of health services. US Department of Health and Human Services, Wash-ington, DC.

Johnson, E.M., Delgado, J.L., 1989. Reaching Hispanics with mes-sages to prevent alcohol and other drug abuse. Public Health Reports 104, 588 – 594.

Lapham, S.C., Skipper, B.J., Chang, I., 1998. Factors related to miles driven between drinking and arrest locations among convicted drunk drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention 30, 201 – 206. Martinez, R., Veloz, R.A., 1996. A challenge in injury prevention –

the Hispanic population. Academic Emergency Medicine 3, 194 – 197.

McDonnell, P.J., 1999. Bill would open driving to illegal immigrants. Los Angeles Times (July 5).

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2000. Motor vehicle traffic crashes as a leading cause of death in the US (research note). US Department of Transportation, Washington, DC. Nielsen, A.L., 2000. Examining drinking patterns and problems

among Hispanic groups: results from a national survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol 61, 301 – 310.

Perrine, M.W., Peck, R.C., Fell, J.C., 1989. Epidemiologic perspec-tives on drunk driving. Surgeon General’s Workshop on Drunk Driving: Background Papers, 35 – 76. US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC.

Ross, H.L., 1992. Confronting Drunk Driving: Social Policy for Saving Lives. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT.

Tashima, H.N., Helander, C.J., 1997. 1997 annual report of the California DUI management information system (CAL-DMV-RSS-97-165). California Department of Motor Vehicles, Sacra-mento, CA.

US Census Bureau, 1990. 1990 census lookup, census 1990 summary tape file 1.4a (C90STF3C1). US Department of Commerce, Wash-ington, DC. Available: http://www.census.gov/cdrom/lookup. Last modified: 24 Feb. 1998. Last accessed 2 Mar. 2000. US Census Bureau, 1993. Population projections of the United

States, by age, sex, race, and Hispanic origin: 1993 – 2050. Current Population Reports P25-1104. US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Voas, R.B., Tippetts, A.S., Fell, J.C., Fisher, D.A., 1999. Ethnicity and alcohol-related fatalities: 1990 to 1994. Presented at the Diverse Populations Research Meeting, Washington, DC. Na-tional Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, DC. Voas, R.B., Wells, J.K., Lestina, D.C., Williams, A.F., Greene, M.A.,

1998. Drinking and driving in the United States: the 1996 national roadside survey. Accident Analysis and Prevention 30, 267 – 275.

References

Related documents