MyData:What Is MyData? | Login/Account Info | Download Saved Files | Logout
Description & Citation--Study No. 3261 | |
Bibliographic Description | |
| ICPSR Study No.: | 3261 |
|---|---|
| Title: | Neighborhood Revitalization and Disorder in Salt Lake City, Utah, 1993-2000 |
| Principal Investigator(s): | Barbara B. Brown, University of Utah |
| Douglas D. Perkins, Vanderbilt University | |
| Funding Agency: | United States Department of Justice. National Institute of Justice. |
| Grant Number: | 98-IJ-CX-0022 |
| Bibliographic Citation: | Brown, Barbara B., and Douglas D. Perkins. NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION AND DISORDER IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, 1993-2000 [Computer file]. ICPSR version. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah [producer], 2001. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2002. |
Scope of Study | |
| Summary: | This project examined physical incivilities (disorder), social strengths and vulnerabilities, and police reports in a declining first-ring suburb of Salt Lake City. Physical and social conditions were assessed on residential face blocks surrounding a new subdivision that was built as a revitalization effort. Data were collected before and after the completion of the new subdivision to assess the effects of the subdivision and of more proximal social and physical conditions on residents' blocks in order to understand important revitalization outcomes of crime, fear, and housing satisfaction and conditions. The study also highlighted place attachment of residents as a psychological strength that deserved greater attention. The research site consisted of a neighborhood located on the near west side of Salt Lake City that had been experiencing gradual decline. The neighborhood surrounded a new 84-unit single family detached housing subdivision, which was built in 1995 with money from a HUD demonstration grant. The study began in 1993 with a systematic observational assessment of crime and fear-related physical features on 59 blocks of the older neighborhood surrounding the planned housing site and 8 sampled addresses on each block, followed by interviews with surrounding block residents during 1994-1995, interviews with residents in the newly built housing in 1997, and interviews and physical condition assessments on the surrounding blocks in 1998-1999. Police crime report and city building permit data for the periods during and immediately following both waves of data collection were obtained and matched to sample addresses. Variables in Parts 1 and 2, Environmental and Survey Data for Older Subdivision, focus on distance of respondent's home to the subdivision, psychological proximity to the subdivision, if new housing was in the respondent's neighborhood, nonresidential properties on the block, physical incivilities, self-reported past victimization, fear of crime, place attachment, collective efficacy (neighboring, participation, social control, sense of community), rating of neighborhood qualities, whether block neighbors had improved property, community confidence, perceived block crime problems, observed conditions, self-reported home repairs and improvements, building permits, and home satisfaction. Demographic variables for Parts 1 and 2 include income, home ownership, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, marital status, if the resident lived in a house, household size, number of children in the household, and length of residence. Variables in Part 3, Environmental and Survey Data for Intervention Site, include neighborhood qualities and convenience, whether the respondent's children would attend a local school, and variables similar to those in Parts 1 and 2. Demographic variables in Part 3 specify the year the respondent moved in, number of children in the household, race and ethnicity, marital status, religion, sex, and income in 1996. |
| Subject Term(s): | communities, community development, crime, fear of crime, housing, housing conditions, housing programs, neighborhood change, neighborhood conditions, neighborhoods, police reports, Salt Lake City, United States, Utah |
| Time Period: | 1993 - 2000 |
| Date(s) of Collection: | 1993 - 2000 |
| Unit of Observation: | Households |
| Universe: | Households in two adjacent neighborhoods located on the near west side of Salt Lake City, Utah. |
| Data Type: | observational data, administrative records data, and survey data |
| Data Collection Notes: | The user guide, codebook, and data collection instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF) files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site. |
Methodology | |
| Purpose of the Study: | This project examined physical incivilities (disorder), social strengths and vulnerabilities, and police reports in a declining first-ring suburb of Salt Lake City. Physical and social conditions were assessed on residential face blocks surrounding a new subdivision that was built as a revitalization effort. Data were collected before and after the completion of the new subdivision to assess the effects of the subdivision and of more proximal social and physical conditions on residents' blocks in order to understand important revitalization outcomes of crime, fear, and housing satisfaction and conditions. The study also highlighted place attachment of residents as a psychological strength that deserved greater attention. The study sought to answer the following questions: (1) What did residents think of the new subdivision before it was built? (2) What kinds of people moved into the new 84-unit subdivision? (3) Are its residents likely to help larger revitalization efforts, or will they become an enclave, insulated from the surrounding neighborhood? (4) What factors predict crime reports prior to or after construction? (5) What factors predict fear after the construction of new houses? (6) What factors predict property maintenance and improvements, home satisfaction, and place attachment? (7) In what ways are residents' levels of concern over crime, views on housing revitalization, confidence in the neighborhood, place attachment, social cohesion, and collective efficacy related? |
| Study Design: | The research site consisted of a neighborhood located on the near west side of Salt Lake City that had been experiencing gradual decline. The neighborhood surrounded a new 84-unit single family detached housing subdivision, which was built in 1995 with money from a HUD demonstration grant. The study began in 1993 with a systematic observational assessment of crime and fear-related physical features on 59 blocks of the older neighborhood surrounding the planned housing site and 8 sampled addresses on each block, followed by interviews with surrounding block residents during 1994-1995, interviews with residents in the newly built housing in 1997, and interviews and physical condition assessments on the same surrounding blocks in 1998-1999. Police crime report and city building permit data were collected and matched to sample addresses. This study used the Revised Block Environmental Inventory (RBEI) to objectively measure the physical environment of the residential blocks. The procedure involved in-person observations by trained raters of a variety of residential and nonresidential physical cues associated with crime, fear, and indicators of residential vitality or decline. Most Time 1 environmental observations were made in April and May of 1993. For Time 2, environmental observations were made from August to September, 1998, after the new subdivision had been built. A 30-minute survey was conducted at both Time 1 (1994-1995) and Time 2 (1998-1999) using Spanish or English versions, depending upon respondent preference. Surveys were administered by telephone if a phone number was available, in-person if not. At both Time 1 and Time 2, approximately half of the interviews were administered by telephone and half in-person. Respondents were not compensated at Time 1, but were given $25 for participating at Time 2. In addition, 16 interviews were completed by mail with added incentive ($50.00) for the return of completed questionnaires. The observational data were combined with the data from both survey waves into one data file. The data file for Part 1 is organized so that the Time 1 and Time 2 survey variables are on the same row for each respondent, while the data file for Part 2 is structured so that the data for Time 1 and Time 2 are in the same column. For Part 3, interviews were conducted with the residents in the intervention site, the new neighborhood, in 1997. Police report data were collected from the time of the interview to 9 months after the Time 1 interviews were completed, and 12 months after Time 2 interviews were completed. A database on citywide building permits issued from January 1993 through September 2000 was supplied by the city. After excluding permits outside the defined study area, each permit was coded based on street address as on, near (within two blocks), or far from (beyond two blocks) the closest sampled block number. |
| Sample: | For Parts 1 and 2, the 60 sampled blocks were restricted to predominantly residential homeowner blocks in the declining, working-class section. One block consisted of three rental apartment complexes at Time 1, but two were renovated and converted to condominiums before Time 2. All nonresidential and at least eight residential properties on each sampled block were environmentally assessed. Within sampled households, the adult resident with the most recent birthday was selected. The sampling strategy was devised to select blocks dominated by homeowners. Census data for 1990 provided demographic profiles of the area surrounding the future housing intervention. Block groups surrounding the intervention were chosen to represent similar demographic groups. Then, census blocks and street blocks were randomly chosen with probability proportionate to size in the following multistage, clustered sampling procedure: (1) In order to decrease the influence of blocks that might provide too few interviewees or be too dominated by multi-family housing, census blocks were chosen if they showed between 10 and 100 household addresses. (2) Within eligible census blocks, households were cumulated for total number of households across the neighborhood, and then random number charts were used to select an address. This address would indicate which census block (a four-sided block) to choose. This step was repeated 60 times for 60 blocks. (The number of interviews on one block was low and thus it was combined with another block, which was the next segment of that street, resulting in 59 blocks at Time 1. At Time 2, a new 60th block was selected.) (3) Census blocks were not considered as ecologically valid or as meaningful to residents as street blocks (both sides of a single street). Thus, once a census block was chosen, a second random number was used against an enumeration of households on the four sides to choose the street block (one side of the census block as well as the addresses across the street) to be sampled. (4) Within selected street blocks, in order to ensure samples spread throughout each block, trained environmental inventory raters systematically selected households for the sample in person by starting with the lowest number address of a private home, then walking down one side of the street at a time, evaluating every third house or apartment building (skipping two each time). For example, they might choose addresses #600, #606, #612, etc. Initially, raters stopped at eight properties per block. At Time 2, those same eight plus additional addresses per block were selected, resulting in a combined Time 1-Time 2 sample of 926 different addresses on which data were compiled, ranging from 9 to 19 properties per block. For Part 3, 82 households in the new subdivision were selected. In order to maximize the chance of finding effects proximal to the housing intervention site, four blocks were selected at random among the non-chosen blocks within two blocks of the new subdivision. The four over-sampled blocks were tested against the surrounding randomly sampled blocks to see if any important differences were introduced. The only significant difference was that the 42 residents from the four over-sampled blocks favored fewer public investments in roads (1.98 vs. 4.69 on a 10-point scale where 10 involved the most new money invested in roads, t(312) = 4.39, p < .001). The four blocks included some fairly busy streets, and the residents may have had construction equipment using the roads to prepare the new housing site. Consequently, these residents may have been reluctant to endorse more road work. Given that this variable was not included in any of the composite variables central to the present set of studies, over-sampled blocks are grouped with others. |
| Data Source: | Observed assessments of physical conditions, surveys of residents, police reports, and housing building permits |
| Mode of Data Collection: | Data were collected from the Revised Block Environmental Inventory (RBEI), police reports, and housing building permits. In addition, survey data were collected through personal interviews, telephone interviews, and mailback questionnaires. |
| Description of Variables: | Variables in Parts 1 and 2, Environmental and Survey Data for Older Subdivision, focus on distance of respondent's home to the subdivision, psychological proximity to the subdivision, if new housing was in the respondent's neighborhood, nonresidential properties on the block, physical incivilities, self-reported past victimization, fear of crime, place attachment, collective efficacy (neighboring, participation, social control, sense of community), rating of neighborhood qualities, whether block neighbors had improved property, community confidence, perceived block crime problems, observed conditions, self-reported home repairs and improvements, building permits, and home satisfaction. Demographic variables for Parts 1 and 2 include income, home ownership, ethnicity, religion, gender, age, marital status, if the resident lived in a house, household size, number of children in the household, and length of residence. Variables in Part 3, Environmental and Survey Data for Intervention Site, include neighborhood qualities and convenience, whether the respondent's children would attend a local school, and variables similar to those in Parts 1 and 2. Demographic variables in Part 3 specify the year the respondent moved in, number of children in the household, race and ethnicity, marital status, religion, sex, and income in 1996. |
| Response Rates: | At Time 1 (1994-1995), at least five residents were interviewed on most blocks (one block had three interviews and three had four interviews), for a total of 357 interviews, representing a 72.71 percent response rate. At Time 2 (1998-1999), at least 7 interviews were completed per block, yielding 617 interviews. For the entire Time-2 study, of 930 initial contacts for interviews, 13.65 percent refused and 16.76 percent were unresolved (no one at home after eight or more contact attempts, or no English or Spanish spoken, or unintentional repeats at the same address). Thus, 84.2 percent of English or Spanish speakers contacted provided interviews, whereas 66.49 percent of all addresses contacted yielded interviews. |
| Presence of Common Scales: | Several Likert-type scales were used. The neighboring scale (NBOR1-4) was based on Brown and Werner (1985) and Perkins et al. (1990), which were expansions of Ahlbrandt and Dunningham's (1984) scale. The perceived incivilities and crime problems scale was based partly on Perkins, Meeks and Taylor (1993), but with items from other neighborhood problems scales added. The community confidence scale was based on Varady (1986). The fear of crime and block safety scales, and worry and avoidance items were taken from Perkins and Taylor (1996). Place attachment items were from Brown and Werner (1985) and Ahlbrandt and Cunningham (1984). The victimization scale is a very brief version adapted from the National Crime Survey. The repairs and upgrading scale was taken from Ginsberg (1982). |
| Extent of Processing: | Missing data codes were standardized by the principal investigator and ICPSR. ICPSR produced a codebook, generated SAS and SPSS data definition statements, and reformatted the data and documentation. |
Access and Availability | |
| Note: | A list of the data formats available for this study can be found in the summary of holdings. Detailed file-level information (such as record length, case count, and variable count) is listed in the file manifest. |
| Restrictions: | The data are restricted from general dissemination. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a Data Transfer Agreement Form and specify the reasons why they need the data. A copy of the Data Transfer Agreement Form can be requested by calling 800-999-0960 or 734-647-5000. The Data Transfer Agreement Form is also available as a Portable Document Format (PDF) file from the NACJD Web site at http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/NACJD/Private/private.pdf (link). Completed forms should be returned to: Director, National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Institute for Social Research, P.O. Box 1248, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1248, or by fax: 734-647-8200. |
| Original ICPSR Release: | 2002-03-01 |
| Version History: | The last update of this study occurred on 2002-03-01. |
| 2006-03-30 - File UG3261.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. | |
| 2006-03-30 - File CQ3261.ALL.PDF was removed from any previous datasets and flagged as a study-level file, so that it will accompany all downloads. | |
| Dataset(s): |
|
