Metadata record for Anticipating and Combating Community Decay and Crime in Washington, DC, and Cleveland, Ohio, 1980-1990 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research ICPSR metadata records are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License . 2013-05-21 Anticipating and Combating Community Decay and Crime in Washington, DC, and Cleveland, Ohio, 1980-1990 6486 10.3886/ICPSR06486.v1 Harrell, Adele Gouvis, Caterina United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice 91-IJ-CX-K016 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research 1995-08-16 2006-01-12 2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 3 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads. 2005-11-04 2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. Harrell, Adele, and Caterina Gouvis. ANTICIPATING AND COMBATING COMMUNITY DECAY AND CRIME IN WASHINGTON, DC, AND CLEVELAND, OHIO, 1980-1990. ICPSR06486-v1. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute [producer], 1994. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1995. doi:10.3886/ICPSR06486.v1 communities crime prediction crime prevention crime rates intervention strategies neighborhood conditions urban decline NACJD.XIV ICPSR.XVII.E NACJD.VII The Urban Institute undertook a comprehensive assessment of communities approaching decay to provide public officials with strategies for identifying communities in the early stages of decay and intervening effectively to prevent continued deterioration and crime. Although community decline is a dynamic spiral downward in which the physical condition of the neighborhood, adherence to laws and conventional behavioral norms, and economic resources worsen, the question of whether decay fosters or signals increasing risk of crime, or crime fosters decay (as investors and residents flee as reactions to crime), or both, is not easily answered. Using specific indicators to identify future trends, predictor models for Washington, DC, and Cleveland were prepared, based on data available for each city. The models were designed to predict whether a census tract should be identified as at risk for very high crime and were tested using logistic regression. The classification of a tract as a "very high crime" tract was based on its crime rate compared to crime rates for other tracts in the same city. To control for differences in population and to facilitate cross-tract comparisons, counts of crime incidents and other events were converted to rates per 1,000 residents. Tracts with less than 100 residents were considered nonresidential or institutional and were deleted from the analysis. Washington, DC, variables include rates for arson and drug sales or possession, percentage of lots zoned for commercial use, percentage of housing occupied by owners, scale of family poverty, presence of public housing units for 1980, 1983, and 1988, and rates for aggravated assaults, auto thefts, burglaries, homicides, rapes, and robberies for 1980, 1983, 1988, and 1990. Cleveland variables include rates for auto thefts, burglaries, homicides, rapes, robberies, drug sales or possession, and delinquency filings in juvenile court, and scale of family poverty for 1980 through 1989. Rates for aggravated assaults are provided for 1986 through 1989 and rates for arson are provided for 1983 through 1988. The Urban Institute undertook a comprehensive assessment of communities approaching decay to provide public officials with strategies for identifying communities in the early stages of decay and intervening effectively to prevent continued deterioration and crime. The assessment consisted of three parts: (1) a survey of innovative local programs designed to combat neighborhood decay and crime conducted with the Police Executive Research Forum, (2) a review of the literature to identify research findings on preventing decay and crime and promising areas of future research, and (3) the analysis of the predictive validity of alternative indicators of community decay. Out of the third segment came the data prepared for this data collection. Existing theories reflect considerable disagreement over the temporal sequence between decay and crime. Although community decline is a dynamic spiral downward in which the physical condition of the neighborhood, adherence to laws and conventional behavioral norms, and economic resources worsen, the question of whether decay fosters or signals increasing risk of crime, or crime fosters decay (as investors and residents flee as reactions to crime), or both, is not easily answered. Using specific indicators to identify future trends, predictor models for Washington, DC, and Cleveland were prepared, based on data available for each city. The models were designed to predict whether a census tract should be identified as at risk for very high crime and were tested using logistic regression. The classification of a tract as a "very high crime" tract was based on its crime rate compared to crime rates in other tracts in the same city. The models use crime as the dependent variable, i.e., the outcome of social and economic distress at prior time-points and breakdowns in public order and violations that undermine the physical maintenance and quality of life in the neighborhood, controlling for earlier crime rates. The eight predictors of high crime risk used in this study comprise four general groups. The first group is the prior crime rate for the offense. The second group includes indicators of breakdown in public order and the presence of illegal activity harmful to neighborhood environment, including the drug arrest rate, the delinquency rate, and the rate of confirmed or suspected arson incidents. The third group reflects factors related to the maintenance of social control by a stable population with sufficient resources and a common interest in protecting the area. This includes an index of family poverty, the presence of public housing, and home ownership. The fourth group is comprised of the percentage of lots zoned for commercial use, representing access to situations that increase opportunities for certain crimes. Dichotomous variables were created to compare the highest-rate tracts to all others and used as dependent variables in the prediction equations. Because the accuracy of prediction would vary depending on the number of tracts in the "very high crime" group, alternative definitions grouped the worst 10 to 30 tracts in multiple tests of each model. To control for differences in population and to facilitate cross-tract comparisons, counts of crime incidents and other events were converted to rates per 1,000 residents. In Washington, DC, tract population for interim years was estimated by using the change in city population from 1980 to 1990 to revise the 1980 tract population (average per year proportion change in population times the number of years since 1980). Also, the Washington, DC, data were aggregated by 1970 tract boundaries because some agencies did not shift their geographic coding to 1980 Census tract boundaries for several years and so did not reflect instances where a single tract was divided into two tracts as the population expanded. Tracts with less than 100 residents were considered nonresidential or institutional and were deleted from the analysis. In Washington, DC, 12 tracts were deleted and in Cleveland, 10 tracts were deleted. Washington, DC, variables include rates for arson and drug sales or possession, percentage of lots zoned for commercial use, percentage of housing occupied by owners, scale of family poverty, presence of public housing units for 1980, 1983, and 1988, and rates for aggravated assaults, auto thefts, burglaries, homicides, rapes, and robberies for 1980, 1983, 1988, and 1990. Cleveland variables include rates for auto thefts, burglaries, homicides, rapes, robberies, drug sales or possession, and delinquency filings in juvenile court, and scale of family poverty for 1980 through 1989. Rates for aggravated assaults are provided for 1986 through 1989 and rates for arson are provided for 1983 through 1988. 1980 1990 1992 Cleveland District of Columbia Ohio United States census tract aggregate data, and census/enumeration data Washington, DC, and Cleveland, Ohio, were selected because data could be provided on multiple indicators for multiple years between 1980 and 1990. District of Columbia Office of Planning, Police Department, Office of Criminal Justice Plans and Analysis, and Division of Research and Statistics of the Commission of Public Health, and the Center for Urban Poverty and Social Change, Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University

ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:

Standardized missing values.Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes. Not applicable. None Ann Arbor, Mi.: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research Additional special permissions, where applicable, are described in the restrictions field.

Please read the terms of use below. If you agree to them, click on the "I Agree" button to proceed. If you do not agree, you can click on the "I Do Not Agree" button to return to the home page.

ICPSR adheres to the principles of the Data Seal of Approval , which, in part, require the data consumer to comply with access regulations imposed both by law and by the data repository, and to conform to codes of conduct that are generally accepted in higher education and scientific research for the exchange of knowledge and information.

These data are distributed under the following terms of use, which are governed by ICPSR. By continuing past this point to the data retrieval process, you signify your agreement to comply with the requirements stated below:

Privacy of RESEARCH SUBJECTS

Any intentional identification of a RESEARCH SUBJECT (whether an individual or an organization) or unauthorized disclosure of his or her confidential information violates the PROMISE OF CONFIDENTIALITY given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data agree:

To use these datasets solely for research or statistical purposes and not for investigation of specific RESEARCH SUBJECTS, except when identification is authorized in writing by ICPSR (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

To make no use of the identity of any RESEARCH SUBJECT discovered inadvertently, and to advise ICPSR of any such discovery (netmail@icpsr.umich.edu )

 Redistribution of Data

You agree not to redistribute data or other materials without the written agreement of ICPSR, unless:

You serve as the OFFICIAL or DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE at an ICPSR MEMBER INSTITUTION and are assisting AUTHORIZED USERS with obtaining data, or

You are collaborating with other AUTHORIZED USERS to analyze the data for research or instructional purposes.

When sharing data or other materials in these approved ways, you must include all accompanying files with the data, including terms of use. More information on permission to redistribute data can be found on the ICPSR Web site.

Citing Data

You agree to reference the recommended bibliographic citation in any publication that employs resources provided by ICPSR. Authors of publications based on ICPSR data are required to send citations of their published works to ICPSR for inclusion in a database of related publications (bibliography@icpsr.umich.edu ) .

Disclaimer

You acknowledge that the original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses.

Violations

If ICPSR determines that the terms of this agreement have been violated, ICPSR will act according to our policy on terms of use violations . Sanctions can include:

ICPSR may revoke the existing agreement, demand the return of the data in question, and deny all future access to ICPSR data.

The violation may be reported to the Research Integrity Officer, Institutional Review Board, or Human Subjects Review Committee of the user's institution. A range of sanctions are available to institutions including revocation of tenure and termination.

If the confidentiality of human subjects has been violated, the case may be reported to the Federal Office for Human Research Protections. This may result in an investigation of the user's institution, which can result in institution-wide sanctions including the suspension of all research grants.

A court may award the payment of damages to any individual(s)/organization(s) harmed by the breach of the agreement.

 Definitions authorized user - A faculty member, staff member, or student at a member institutionICPSR - Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Researchmember institution - An institutional member of ICPSROfficial/Designated Representative - An individual appointed to represent a university's interests in ICPSR. This individual is also charged with providing user support to campus users. promise of confidentiality - A promise to a respondent or research participant that the information the respondent provides will not be disseminated without the permission of the respondent; that the fact that the respondent participated in the study will not be disclosed; and that disseminated information will include no linkages to the identity of the respondent. Such a promise encompasses traditional notions of both confidentiality and anonymity. Names and other identifying information regarding respondents, proxies, or other persons on whom the respondent or proxy provides information, are presumed to be confidential.research subject - A person or organization observed for purposes of research. Also called a respondent. A respondent is generally a survey respondent or informant, experimental or observational subject, focus group participant, or any other person providing information to a study or on whose behalf a proxy provides information.

In addition, the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data stipulates the following conditions:

Federal law and regulations require that research data collected by the U.S. Department of Justice or by its grantees and contractors may only be used for research or statistical purposes. The applicable laws and regulations may be found in the United States Code, 42 USC Section 3789g(a), the Code of Federal Regulations, 28 CFR 22, and 62 F.R. 35044 (June 27, 1997) (The Federal Confidentiality Order). Accordingly, any intentional identification or disclosure of a person or establishment may violate federal law as well as the assurances of confidentiality given to the providers of the information. Therefore, users of data collected by or with the support from the U.S. Department of Justice and distributed by NACJD or other ICPSR archives must agree to abide by these regulations and understand that ICPSR may report any potential violation to the U.S. Department of Justice.

AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public.

 The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for use of the data or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. Washington, DC, Data Cleveland Data SAS Data Definition Statements for Washington, DC, Data SAS Data Definition Statements for Cleveland Data