Search results

This data collection is part of the American Housing Metropolitan Survey (AHS-MS, or "metro") which is conducted in odd-numbered years. It cycles through a set of 21 metropolitan areas, surveying each one about once every six years. The metro survey, like the national survey, is longitudinal. This particular survey provides information on the characteristics of a Seattle metropolitan sample of housing units, including apartments, single-family homes, mobile homes, and vacant housing units in 2009. The data are presented in eight separate parts: Part 1, Home Improvement Record, Part 2, Journey to Work Record, Part 3, Mortgages Recorded, Part 4, Housing Unit Record (Main Record), Recodes (One Record per Housing Unit), and Weights, Part 5, Manager and Owner of Rental Units Record, Part 6, Person Record, Part 7, High Burden Unit Record, and Part 8, Recent Mover Groups Record.

Part 1 data include questions about upgrades and remodeling, cost of alterations and repairs, as well as the household member who performed the alteration/repair. Part 2 data include journey to work or commuting information, such as method of transportation to work, length of trip, and miles traveled to work. Additional information collected covers number of hours worked at home, number of days worked at home, average time respondent leaves for work in the morning or evening, whether respondent drives to work alone or with others, and a few other questions pertaining to self-employment and work schedule. Part 3 data include mortgage information, such as type of mortgage obtained by respondent, amount and term of mortgages, as well as years needed to pay them off. Other items asked include monthly payment amount, reason mortgage was taken out, and who provided the mortgage. Part 4 data include household-level information, including demographic information, such as age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder. The following topics are also included: data recodes, unit characteristics, and weighting information.

Part 5 data include information pertaining to owners of rental properties and whether the owner/resident manager lives on-site. Part 6 data include individual person level information, in which respondents were queried on basic demographic information (i.e. age, sex, race, marital status, income, and relationship to householder), as well as if they worked at all last week, month and year moved into residence, and their ability to perform everyday tasks and whether they have difficulty hearing, seeing, and concentrating or remembering things. Part 7 data include verification of income to cost when the ratio of income to cost is outside of certain tolerances. Respondents were asked whether they receive help or assistance with grocery bills, clothing and transportation expenses, child care payments, medical and utility bills, as well as with rent payments. Part 8 data include recent mover information, such as how many people were living in last unit before move, whether last residence was a condo or a co-op, as well as whether this residence was outside of the United States.

The objective of the Seattle Neighborhoods and Crime Survey (SNCS) was to test multilevel theories of neighborhood social organization and criminal violence. It was funded by the National Science Foundation (SES-0004324), and the National Consortium on Violence Research (SBR-9513040). Using the concept of differential neighborhood organization, the investigators posited that neighborhood crime is a function of informal social control against crime and informal organization in favor of crime. Informal neighborhood control against crime consists of neighborhood attachment, social capital, and collective efficacy. The study tested the hypothesis that individual social ties are explained by a rational choice model, which in turn produces neighborhood social capital that can be used to achieve collective goals. It also tested the hypothesis that neighborhoods rich in social capital had greater collective efficacy, which in turn, helped produce safe neighborhoods. Organization in favor of crime consists of violent codes of the street. The study tested the hypothesis that residents from disadvantaged neighborhoods tend to distrust police and other agents of conventional institutions, and consequently are more likely to participate in street culture, in which violence is a way of obtaining street credibility and status, as well as resolving disputes. The project has also examined dimensions of neighboring, and the causes and consequences of fear of crime.

The study used a telephone survey of households within all 123 census tracts in the city of Seattle, WA, conducted in 2002-2003. The sampling frame was designed by investigators at the University of Washington, with three objectives in mind: (a) to gain a random sample of households within each of 123 census tracts; (b) to obtain a disproportionate number of racial and ethnic minorities using an ethnic oversample; and (c) to obtain a replication sample of Terrance Miethe's 1990 victimization survey in 100 Seattle neighborhoods [Testing Theories of Criminality and Victimization in Seattle, 1960-1990]. Specific samples were drawn by Genesys, a sampling firm in Philadelphia, PA, using a constantly-updated compilation of white pages. Telephone interviews were conducted by the Social and Behavioral Research Institute at California State University, San Marcos, using computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) technology.

Respondents were asked about household demographics, such as race, gender, residential mobility, age distribution of the household, and income, their perceptions and assessments of their neighborhoods (including safety, disorder, and crime), neighbors, and relations with police. A variety of questions about neighboring were asked, including social capital (intergenerational closure, reciprocated exchange, and participation in neighborhood associations), attachment to their neighborhood, and collective efficacy (child-centered social control). Respondents were asked about routine activities including taking steps to protect their homes, spending time in bars and nightclubs, and leaving their home unattended. Questions about fear of crime included personal fear as well as altruistic fear for other members of the household, and questions about racial attitudes included residential preferences by race composition of the neighborhood. A victimization inventory modeled after the National Crime Victimization Survey was used for burglary, vandalism, stolen property, violence, and robbery. Demographic information includes age, race, sex, education, martial status, household income, whether respondent was a student, employment status, religious affiliation, approximate value of home, monthly rent including utilities, residence history in the last five years, whether respondent was born in the Unites States, and number of people currently living in the respondent's household.