Showing 1 – 3 of 3 results.
Curated
Residential Neighborhood Crime Control Project: Hartford, Connecticut, 1973, 1975-1977, 1979 (ICPSR 7682)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Connecticut, Hartford
This data collection contains responses to victimization
surveys that were administered as part of both the planning and
evaluation stages of the Hartford Project, a crime opportunity
reduction program implemented in a residential neighborhood in
Hartford, Connecticut, in 1976. The Hartford Project was an experiment
in how to reduce residential burglary and street robbery/purse snatching
and the fear of those crimes. Funded through the Hartford Institute of
Criminal and Social Justice, the project began in 1973. It was based
on a new "environmental" approach to crime prevention: a comprehensive
and integrative view addressing not only the relationship among
citizens, police, and offenders, but also the effect of the physical
environment on their attitudes and behavior. The surveys were
administered by the Center for Survey Research at the University of
Massachusetts at Boston. The Center collected Hartford resident survey
data in five different years: 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, and 1979. The
1973 survey provided basic data for problem analysis and
planning. These data were updated twice: in 1975 to gather baseline
data for the time of program implementation, and in the spring of 1976
with a survey of households in one targeted neighborhood of Hartford
to provide data for the time of implementation of physical changes
there. Program evaluation surveys were carried out in the spring of
1977 and two years later in 1979. The procedures for each survey were
essentially identical each year in order to ensure comparability
across time. The one exception was the 1976 sample, which was not
independent of the one taken in 1975. In each survey except 1979,
respondents reported on experiences during the preceding 12-month
period. In 1979 the time reference was the past two years. The survey
questions were very similar from year to year, with 1973 being the most
unique. All surveys focused on victimization, fear, and perceived risk
of being victims of the target crimes. Other questions explored
perceptions of and attitudes toward police, neighborhood problems, and
neighbors. The surveys also included questions on household and
respondent characteristics.
Curated
San Francisco Bay Region Local Politics, 1966-1967 (ICPSR 7328)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: San Francisco, California
Time period: 1966-01-01--1967-01-01
This study suveyed city council members from 82 cities in the San Francisco Bay area and collected census, budget, and aggregate election data from the council members' cities. The study explored the council members' opinions on matters that concerned Bay Area cities and communities such as traffic and highways, recreation, job and housing discrimination, and social and governmental problems. Predictions of future problems as well as remedies for present ones were elicited. Also investigated were respondents' opinions of the job of council member and details of the history of each council member's political activity and career in public life. Questions were asked about specific campaigns and election outcomes. A number of variables deal with groups and organizations in the area and the characteristics of the council members' cities.
Curated
Security by Design: Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods in the United States, 1994-1996 (ICPSR 2777)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1996-01-01
This study was designed to collect comprehensive data on the types of "crime prevention through environmental design" (CPTED) methods used by cities of 30,000 population and larger, the extent to which these methods were used, and their perceived effectiveness. A related goal was to discern trends, variations, and expansion of CPTED principles traditionally employed in crime prevention and deterrence. "Security by design" stems from the theory that proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the incidence and fear of crime and an improvement in quality of life. Examples are improving street lighting in high-crime locations, traffic re-routing and control to hamper drug trafficking and other crimes, inclusion of security provisions in city building codes, and comprehensive review of planned development to ensure careful consideration of security. To gather these data, the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), which had previously studied a variety of issues including the fear of crime, mailed a survey to the mayors of 1,060 cities in 1994. Follow-up surveys were sent in 1995 and 1996. The surveys gathered information about the role of CPTED in a variety of local government policies and procedures, local ordinances, and regulations relating to building, local development, and zoning. Information was also collected on processes that offered opportunities for integrating CPTED principles into local development or redevelopment and the incorporation of CPTED into decisions about the location, design, and management of public facilities. Questions focused on whether the city used CPTED principles, which CPTED techniques were used (architectural features, landscaping and landscape materials, land-use planning, physical security devices, traffic circulation systems, or other), the city department with primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with CPTED zoning ordinances/building codes and other departments that actively participated in that enforcement (mayor's office, fire department, public works department, planning department, city manager, economic development office, police department, building department, parks and recreation, zoning department, city attorney, community development office, or other), the review process for proposed development, security measures for public facilities, traffic diversion and control, and urban beautification programs. Respondents were also asked about other security-by-design features being used, including whether they were mandatory or optional, if optional, how they were instituted (legislation, regulation, state building code, or other), and if applicable, how they were legislated (city ordinance, city resolution, or state law). Information was also collected on the perceived effectiveness of each technique, if local development regulations existed regarding convenience stores, if joint code enforcement was in place, if banks, neighborhood groups, private security agencies, or other groups were involved in the traffic diversion and control program, and the responding city's population, per capita income, and form of government.