Improving Measurement of Neighborhood Social Processes:
Neighborhood Social Processes: The Neighborhood Matters Study
David Henry, Ph.D.
February 26, 2013
February 26, 2013
Acknowledgements
• Families and Communities Research Group
– Investigators:
•
•
•
•
Patrick Tolan, Ph.D. (UVA)
Patrick
Tolan Ph D (UVA)
Deborah Gorman‐Smith, Ph.D. (UC)
David Henry, Ph.D. (UIC)
Michael Schoeny, Ph.D. (UC)
Michael Schoeny, Ph.D. (UC)
– Staff
• Franklin Cosey‐Gay, MPH
• Molly Coeling, MPH
• Darryl Gras‐Partyka, MA
• Funding: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Violence Prevention, NCIPC
What is meant by neighborhood effects?
(what is the outcome of interest?)
• Much of neighborhood research is based in sociological theory regarding risk for crime occurring within neighborhood
• Little attention to how neighborhood context Littl tt ti t h ighb h d t t relates to individual risk and development
• How to measure neighborhood context?
What is a ‘neighborhood’?
• “urban village” notion
– spatially bounded, internally homogeneous, not socially proximal to or dependent on spatially adjacent places
i l t d
d t ti ll dj
t l
or…
• “egocentric local environment” notion
“
t i l
l i
t” ti
– each individual inhabits a local environment defined by the spatially and socially proximal context
• in either case, census tracts are at best a rough p y
proxy for “neighborhood”
g
Individual and Social Setting Measurement
Individual
Social Setting
• Frequency: How often does it happen? • Intensity: How strongly do you feel?
• Valence: Do you agree or disagree?
• Frequency: How consistent is feedback?
• Intensity: How much do people in the setting approve or disapprove of a behavior?
• Valence: Enforcement by approval or disapproval?
• Specificity: Wide or narrow range? What behavior is most/least approved
• Consequences for the individual?
Community and Neighborhood
• Community Structural Characteristics: characteristics that reflect the economic viability of the community (e.g., percent poverty, business investment, mobility, heterogeneity, t b i
i
t
t bilit h t g
it *crime)
• Neighborhood Social Organization: social processes or organization within the neighborhood (e.g., felt social support and cohesion among neighbors, sense of belonging, pp
g g
,
g g,
informal social control, participation in formal and voluntary organizations)
Community and Neighborhood
• neighborhoods considered smaller ighb h d id d ll geographical and social units nested within communities. iti • Community as a larger geographical unit, includes resource availability. 2
SAFE Neighborhood Social Organization vs.
Neighborhood Concentrated Disadvantage
Disadvantage,
Neigh
hborhood Soccial Organiza
ation
--1
0
1
sample size
within neighborhood
-2
fitted line
-1
0
1
2
3
Neighborhood Concentrated Disadvantage
4
5
Collective Efficacy?
• Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997
• Amalgam
A l
– Informal Social Control (5 items ‐ willingness to i t
intervene)
)
– Cohesion and Trust (5 items)
• How to inform intervention?
Specific Aims
p
• To develop and refine measures of social processes related to risk and protection of youth violence
• To validate these neighborhood measures
• To test the specific contribution of each construct as measured by the neighborhood informant sample
• To test the variation in explanatory role of each construct to risk at both adolescence and school entry
• To test the relation between community structural characteristics and neighborhood social processes
g
p
Phase 1: Neighborhood Measurement Sample
•
•
•
•
•
20 informants within each neighborhood
½ ½ young adult (18 –
g d lt (18 24 years)
24 )
½ adult (over 30 years)
½ male, ½ female
At least one year in census tract
Neighborhood Social Processes
• Social connection and support
– Extent to which neighbors help, trust, support and get along
• Informal social control
– Extent to which residents act to maintain order, safety, and care for, direct, and manage youth
f di t d g th
• Norms
– Importance of neighborhood, support for raising children, aggression, achievement
• Routine activities
– Areas where youth spend time in prosocial and antisocial activities
Phase 2: outcome sample
•
•
•
•
•
20 families in each census tract
20 f
ili i h t t
½ child between 5 and 8 years old
½ child between 14 and 17 years old
½ male and ½ female within each age group
At least one year in census tract
Process of measurement development
• Review of literature and measures used
• Item generation, including community p
partners
• Expert review
• Pilot and focus groups
• Refine and finalize measures
Tract Selection
• 865 tracts in Chicago
– Eliminate 128 tracts (14.8%) with population < 1000
– Eliminate 301 tracts (34.8%) without population > 50% African American or Latino – Exclude 41 tracts (4.7%) with > 45% of residents below E cl de 41 tracts (4 7%) ith > 45% of residents belo poverty level (no Latino tracts had poverty rate > 45%).
– Exclude 52 tracts (6.0%) with > 150 Aggravated 5
(
)
5 gg
Assaults/Batteries per 10,000 residents (No Latino tracts had rates > 150).
Eligibility and Participation Rates
Phase 1
Step
%
N
%
Households Approached
1761
Ineligible1
1060
60.2%
1003
59.4%
Eligible1
701
39.8%
685
40.6%
Refusals2
95
13.6%
82
12.0%
606
86.4%
603
88.0%
Completed2
1
N
Phase 2
Percent of Households Approached
2 Percent of Eligible Households
1688
Phase I: Developing Measures of Neighborhood Social Processes
• Constructs
–
–
–
–
–
Norms
Informal Social Control
Social Connection
Change
Resources and Problems
• It
Item development and selection
d
l
t d l ti
• Sample and Assessment
• Scaling, Evaluation, and Validity
Table
T
bl 1
Neighborhood Matters Item Pools and Content Examples
Scale
Subscale
Neighborhood Norms
# items
in pool
Example of Item Content
People in this neighborhood believe that…
Child Welfare
8
“…adults
adults should know who the neighborhood
children and teenagers are.”
Child Management
12
“…adults should do something if a child is doing
something dangerous, even if it is not their child.”
Adolescent Behavior
11
Crime
7
“…it is always wrong for teenagers to get into fist
g
fights.”
“…people should do something if a neighbor’s
house is being vandalized”
Citizen Responsibility
7
“…people
people should keep their neighborhood looking
nice.”
Table 1,
1 cont’d
cont d.
Neighborhood Matters Item Pools and Content Examples
Scale
S
l
Subscale
# ititems
in pool
Informal Social Control
What would people in your neighborhood do if…
Example of Item Content
Child Welfare
8
“… a child is left at home alone during the day?”
Child Management
12
“… a child is throwing rocks at a someone’s pet?”
Adolescent Behavior
19
“… teenagers are drinking alcohol?”
Crime
10
“… dog fighting is happening in the neighborhood?”
Citizen Responsibility
5
“… someone who lives in the neighborhood rarely
or never shovels snow?”
Neighborhood
Organization
7
“… the public school closest to your home was
going to be shut down or turned over?”
Table 1, cont’d.
Neighborhood Matters Item Pools and Content Examples
Scale
S
l
Subscale
# iitems
in pool
E
Example
l off Item
I
Content
C
Social Connection
Social Cohesion
32
“People in this neighborhood watch over each
others’ property (homes) while they are away.”
Social Resources
5
Neighborhood Change
6
“Does this neighborhood have a community
policing program?”
“People in this neighborhood are more likely to try
to fix problems in the neighborhood than they were
a few years ago
ago.”
“There are places to go shopping in this
neighborhood.”
“Abandoned or boarded up
p homes are a p
problem in
this neighborhood.”
Neighborhood Resources 14
g
Problems
Neighborhood
13
Scaling: Bifactor Model
Scaling: Two‐level EFA
Assessing Reliability
•
•
Individual Level: Coefficient Alpha
Neighborhood Level: Generalizability Theory
– Variance component for neighborhood obtained from mixed model including neighborhood ethnicity/crime strata and individual gender/age strata.
– Proportion of variance shared in average neighborhood
 00
0 jk 

00

2
n
jk
Where ττ00 = variance component for neighborhood
Where
= variance component for neighborhood
σ2 = residual variance
njk = average # of respondents/neighborhood
Table
T
bl 3,
3 cont’d.
’d
Individual and Neighborhood Reliability and Validity, N=30 Neighborhoods
Scale
Subscale
Final
Number
of Items
Individual
Internal
Consistency
Shared Proportion of
Variance in an Average
Neighborhood
Estimate
p
Norms
Child Welfare
6
.78
0.08
0.1448
Child Management
10
.73
0.33
0.0005
Adolescent Behavior
4
.90
0.04
0.2565
Crime
6
.81
0.18
0.0089
Citizen Responsibility
5
.82
0.35
0.0061
Note: + p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Validity coefficients are standardized weights from regressions of police reports
of neighborhood crime on each neighborhood (sub)scale controlling for neighborhood
population and poverty level.
Table 3, cont’d.
Individual and Neighborhood Reliability and Validity, N=30 Neighborhoods
Scale
Subscale
Final
Number of
Items
Individual
Internal
Consistency
Shared Proportion of
Variance in an Average
Neighborhood
Estimate
p
0.28
0.22
0.27
0.26
0.13
0.0017
0.0087
0.0148
0.0067
0.0917
0.14
0.18
0.0456
0.0016
Informal Social Control
Child Welfare
8
.81
Child Management
11
.88
Adolescent Behavior
4
.83
Crime
6
.87
Citizen Responsibility
5
.81
Neighborhood Organization
7
.74
General Factor
47
.95
Table 3, cont’d.
Individual and Neighborhood Reliability and Validity, N=30 Neighborhoods
Scale
Final
Individual
Shared Proportion of
Number of
Subscale
Internal
Variance in an Average
Items
Consistency
Neighborhood
Estimate
p
Neighborhood Social Connection
Social Cohesion
32
Social Resources
5
.92
N/A
0.20
0.50
0.0026
0.0044
0.77
0.49
0.005
Perceived Neighborhood Change
5
Neighborhood Resources
9
N/A
0 34
0.34
0 0007
0.0007
Neighborhood Problems
7
N/A
0.59
0.0002
Note: + p < .10.
10 * p < .05.
05 ** p < .01.
01
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations, Tract and Individual Levels
Final
Number
of Items
Neighborhood Norms
1 Child Welfare
1.
6
2. Child
10
Management
3. Adolescent
5
Behavior
4. Crime
6
5. Citizen
5
Responsibility
Scale
Tract Level
Individual Level
Correlations
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
3.72
3
72 a
0 12
0.12
3 72
3.72
0 56
0.56
--
0.65
0
65**
0.43
0
43**
0.54
0
54**
0.51
0
51**
3.74 a
0.17
3.74
0.63
0.62**
--
0.54**
0.64**
0.66**
3.56 b
0.18
3.56
1.02
0.49**
0.51**
--
0.50**
0.52**
3.73 a
0.14
3.73
0.57
0.33
0.51**
0.28
--
0.64**
3.67 a
0.17
3.67
0.67
0.30
0.59**
0.36
0.82**
--
Response
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
1
Label
= Strongly disagree
= Disagree
= Neither agree nor disagree
= Agree
= Strongly agree
= I don’t know
= Refused
2
3
4
5
Individual‐level Neighborhood Norms Distributions
Tract‐Level Neighborhood Norms Distributions
Table 2, cont’d.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations, Tract and Individual Levels
Final
Number
of Items
Tract Level
Individual Level
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Correlations
1
2
3
4
5
Informal Social Control
6. General Factor
47
2.51
0.14
2.51
0.55
0.10
0.28
0.34
0.60**
0.56**
7. Child Welfare
8
2.69
0.16
2.69
0.63
0.24
0.37
0.35
0.55**
0.56**
8. Child Management
11
2.77
0.16
2.77
0.71
0.08
0.24
0.33
0.57**
0.45
9. Adolescent
Behavior
6
2.39
0.20
2.39
0.73
0.09
0.22
0.32
0.56**
0.61**
10. Crime
10
2.31
0.17
2.31
0.60
0.08
0.21
0.31
0.58**
0.56**
11. Citizen
Responsibility
5
2.18
0.15
2.18
0.73
0.15
0.44
0.34
0.33
0.35
12. Neighborhood
Organization
7
2.52
0.15
2.52
0.60
-0.18
-0.01
0.07
0.21
0.17
Responses
1
= Do nothing
2
= Complain to or discuss with other neighbors
3
= Talk to someone who can do something about it--for example--police...landlord...parent
4
= Do something directly--for example--step in and talk to person or people involved
5
= Escalate the problem
8
=I don’t know
9
=Refused
Individual‐level Informal Social Control Distributions
Tract‐level Informal Social Control Distributions
Table 2, cont’d.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations
Correlations, Tract and Individual Levels
Final
Number
of Items
Neighborhood Norms
1. Child Welfare
2. Child
Management
3. Adolescent
Behavior
4. Crime
5. Neighborhood
g
Management
Tract Level
Individual Level
Correlations
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
1
6
3.72
0.12
3.72
0.56
10
3.74
0.17
3.74
0.63
0.62**
5
3.56
0.18
3.56
1.02
0.49**
0.51**
6
3.73
0.14
3.73
0.57
0.33
0.51**
0.28
5
3 67
3.67
0 17
0.17
3 67
3.67
0 67
0.67
0 30
0.30
0.59
0
59**
0 36
0.36
--
2
3
4
5
0.65**
0.43**
0.54**
0.51**
0.54**
0.64**
0.66**
0.50**
0.52**
--
--
-0.82
0
82**
The neighborhood‐level correlations among the norms subscales are moderate and many are non‐significant. 0.64**
--
Table 2, cont’d.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations, Tract and Individual Levels
Final
Number
of Items
Informal Social Control
6 General Factor
6.
47
7. Child Welfare
8
8. Child
11
Management
9 Adolescent
9.
6
Behavior
10. Crime
10
11. Neighborhood
5
M
Management
t
12. Neighborhood
7
Organization
Tract Level
C
Correlations
Individual Level
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
1
2
3
4
5
2.51
2
51
2.69
0.14
0
14
0.16
2.51
2
51
2.69
0.55
0
55
0.63
0.10
0
10
0.24
0.28
0
28
0.37
0.34
0
34
0.35
0.60
0
60**
0.55**
0.56
0
56**
0.56**
2.77
0.16
2.77
0.71
0.08
0.24
0.33
0.57**
0.45
2.39
0.20
2.39
0.73
0.09
0.22
0.32
0.56**
0.61**
2.31
0.17
2.31
0.60
0.08
0.21
0.31
0.58**
0.56**
2.18
0.15
2.18
0.73
0.15
0.44
0.34
0.33
0.35
2.52
0.15
2.52
0.60
-0.18
-0.01
0.07
0.21
0.17
At the neighborhood level, norms and informal social control are not highly correlated. Norms for crime and neighborhood management correlate significantly with informal social control in all areas except neighborhood management and neighborhood organization.
Table 2, cont’d.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations, Tract and Individual Levels
Correlations
9
10
6
7
8
11
12
--
0.81**
0.86**
0.86**
0.89**
0.76**
0.70**
7. Child Welfare
0.84**
--
0.68**
0.64**
0.64**
0.54**
0.47**
8. Child Management
0.88**
0.71**
--
0.66**
0.66**
0.57**
0.47**
9. Adolescent Behavior
0.89**
0.73**
0.67**
--
0.81**
0.59**
0.54**
10. Crime
0.92**
0.72**
0.72**
0.86**
--
0.65**
0.58**
11. Citizen Responsibility
0.57**
0.37
0.42
0.55**
0.47**
--
0.49**
12. Neighborhood Organization
0.73**
0.45
0.58**
0.58**
0.61**
0.33
--
Informal Social Control
6. General
G
Factor
Unlike the norms scales, the informal social control subscales correlate strongly with Unlike
the norms scales the informal social control subscales correlate strongly with
each other. The only non‐significant correlations at the neighborhood level involved citizen responsibility and neighborhood organization. Table 2, cont’d.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations, Tract and Individual Levels
Correlations
9
10
6
7
8
11
12
13. Social Cohesion
0.73**
0.60**
0.62**
0.62**
0.66**
0.49**
0.63**
14. Social Resources
-0.34**
-0.28
-0.24
-0.30
-0.34
-0.34
-0.18
15. Neighborhood Change
0.24
0.18
0.16
0.16
0.29
0.08
0.28
16. Neighborhood Resources
-0.13
0.01
-0.17
-0.11
-0.10
-0.32
-0.05
17. Neighborhood Problems
-0.61**
-0.50**
-0.47**
-0.57**
-0.67**
-0.31
-0.46
18. Tract Population
-0.08
-0.05
0.07
-0.19
-0.24
0.06
0.12
19. Tract Poverty Stratum
-0.40
-0.12
-0.39
-0.43
-0.41
-0.19
-0.36
20. Violent Crime
-0.49**
-0.38
-0.34
-0.53**
-0.64**
-0.07
-0.23
21. Property Crime
-0.32
-0.34
-0.19
-0.33
-0.49**
0.10
-0.07
22. Drug Crime
-0.46
-0.22
-0.30
-0.50**
-0.59**
-0.18
-0.32
Neighborhood Social Connection
Table 2, cont’d.
Descriptive Statistics and Correlations, Tract and Individual Levels
Correlations
13
Neighborhood Social Connection
13. Social Cohesion
-14. Social Resources
-0.03
15. Neighborhood Change
0.39
16. Neighborhood Resources
-0.08
17. Neighborhood Problems
-0.59
0.59**
18. Tract Population
-0.01
19. Tract Poverty Stratum
-0.25
20. Violent Crime
-0.34
21. Property Crime
-0.23
0.23
22. Drug Crime
-0.35
14
15
0.27**
-0.31
0.34
0.13
0.31
-0.21
0.42
0.33
0.33
0.37**
0.10
-0.00
-0.20
0.20
0.08
-0.27
-0.04
-0.10
0.10
-0.03
16
17
0.15** -0.22
0.22**
0.26** 0.03
0.25** -0.22**
-0.03
0.21
-0.13
0.12
0.28
0.21
-0.07 0.31
-0.10
0.10 0.20
0.03
0.27
18
19
20
21
--0.09
0.61**
0.65**
0.48
-0.08
-0.04
0.04
0.16
-0.89**
0.87**
-0.66**
Although social cohesion and social resources are correlated positively at the individual Although
social cohesion and social resources are correlated positively at the individual
level, they are not correlated at the neighborhood level.
Assessing Validity
• Regression models of neighborhood violent, property, and drug crime on Neighborhood Matters scales, controlling for poverty rate and 2010 population.
• Standardized regression weight reported as the validity coefficient
Table
T
bl 3
Validity of Neighborhood Scales, N=30 Neighborhoods
Scale
Subscale
Final
N b
Number
of Items
Association with Police Crime Reports,
controlling
t lli ffor P
Population
l ti and
dN
Neighborhood
i hb h d
Poverty
Violent Crime Property Crime Drug Crime
Norms
Child Welfare
6
-.01
-.12
-.06
Child Management
10
.21
.16
.18
Adolescent Behavior
4
-.27+
-.29*
-.26
Crime
6
.03
.09
-.04
Citizen Responsibility
5
.01
.10
-.05
Note: + p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Validity coefficients are standardized weights from regressions of police reports of
neighborhood crime on each neighborhood (sub)scale controlling for neighborhood
population and poverty level.
Table 3
Validity of Neighborhood Scales, N=30 Neighborhoods
Scale
Final
Association with Police Crime Reports,
Number controlling for Population and Neighborhood
Subscale
of Items
Poverty
Violent Crime Property Crime Drug Crime
Informal Social Control
Child Welfare
Child Management
Adolescent Behavior
Crime
Citizen Responsibility
Neighborhood Organization
General Factor
8
11
4
6
5
7
47
-.34*
-.39**
-.47**
-.58**
-.09
-.31+
31+
-.47**
-.31*
-.26+
-.26
-.43**
.06
-.17
17
-.31*
-.18
-.30+
-.41*
-.52**
-.18
-.36*
36*
-.41*
Note: + p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Validity coefficients are standardized weights from regressions of police reports
of neighborhood crime on each neighborhood (sub)scale controlling for neighborhood
population and poverty level.
Table 3
Individual and Neighborhood Reliability and Validity, N=30 Neighborhoods
Association with Police Crime Reports,
p
,
Scale
Final
Number controlling for Population and Neighborhood
Subscale
of Items
Poverty
Violent Crime Property
p y Crime
Neighborhood Social Connection
Social Cohesion
Social Resources
32
5
Perceived Neighborhood Change
5
Neighborhood Resources
9
Drug
g Crime
-.32*
.29+
-.23
.15
-.32*
.25
-.54**
-.43**
-.39**
.22
22
.13
13
.18
18
Neighborhood Problems
7
.22
.13
.19
Note: + p < .10. * p < .05. ** p < .01.
Validity coefficients are standardized weights from regressions of police reports of
neighborhood crime on each neighborhood (sub)scale controlling for neighborhood
population and poverty level.
Effects of Neighborhood‐level Social g
Processes on Individual Antisocial Behavior
Ph
Phase II Sample Demographics
S
l D
hi




51.6% Female
52.4% reported race as “Black or African‐American”
19.6% reported race as “White”
9
p
35.1% reported Mexican, Mexican‐American, Chicano ethnicity
Analyses: Generalized Linear Mixed Models




Fit using SAS PROC GLIMMIX and lme4 in R
Mixed effects logistic regression with random intercepts f
for neighborhoods predicted by neighborhood‐level i hb h d
di t d b
i hb h d l l
social process measures.
Response variable: (Individual level) commission of any
Response variable: (Individual level) commission of any violent, property, or alcohol/drug‐related crime.
Covariates:  Individual gender and ethnicity
 Neighborhood Population
g
p
 Neighborhood Crime
Effects of Neighborhood-level Social Processes on Individual Behavior
Violent Crime
Neighborhood Norms
1 Child Welfare
1.
2. Child Management
3. Adolescent Behavior
4. Crime
5 Neighborhood Management
5.
Property Crime
Drug Crime
3.51
3
51 *
0.37
0.22
-0.72
0.35
0
35
-1.04
-1.37
-0.92
2.81
2
81
0.11
0.47
0.11
-1.02
-1.25
-1.20
-2.60 *
-0.19
-1.86 +
-2.25 *
-3.13 *
-1.29
-1.34
-0.91
-1.10
-0.92
-0.15
0.17
-0.43
0.02
1.40
11. Neighborhood Management
1.60
-1.60
-1.36
1.36
-0.29
0.29
12. Neighborhood Organization
-2.01 +
-0.24
-1.85
-1.25
0.96
0.41
1.51
0.91
1.56
Neighborhood Resources
2.69
0.96
0.41
Neighborhood Problems
0.90 +
0.91
1.56
Informal Social Control
6. General Factor
7. Child Welfare
8 C
8.
Child Management
9. Adolescent Behavior
10. Crime
Neighborhood Social Connection
Neighborhood Social Cohesion
Neighborhood Social Resources
Effects of Neighborhood-level Social Processes on Individual Behavior
Violent Crime
Neighborhood Norms
1. Child Welfare
2. Child Management
3. Adolescent Behavior
4. Crime
5. Neighborhood Management
Property Crime
Drug Crime
3.51 *
0.37
0.22
-0.72
0.35
-1.04
-1.37
-0.92
2.81
0.11
0.47
0.11
-1.02
-1.25
-1.20
-2.60 *
-0.19
-1.86 +
-2.25 *
-3.13 *
-1.29
-1.34
-0.91
-1.10
-0.92
-0.15
0.17
-0.43
0.02
1.40
11 Neighborhood Management
11.
-1.60
1 60
-1.36
1 36
-0.29
0 29
12. Neighborhood Organization
-2.01 +
-0.24
-1.85
-1.25
0.96
0.41
1.51
0.91
1.56
Neighborhood Resources
2.69
0.96
0.41
Neighborhood Problems
0.90 +
0.91
1.56
Informal Social Control
6. General Factor
7. Child Welfare
8. Child Management
9. Adolescent Behavior
10. Crime
Neighborhood Social Connection
Neighborhood Social Cohesion
Neighborhood Social Resources
Routine Activities Measurement
1. Which areas or places on the map do you feel are safe
safe? 2. Which areas or places on the map do you feel are unsafe
unsafe? 3. Are there areas you do not know do not know well enough to answer whether you feel they are safe or unsafe? 4. Where on the map do teenagers
teenagers participate in organized,
organized,
constructive, or productive activities, such as after‐school constructive, or productive activities
programs, classes, sports, or adult‐supervised activities? 5. Where on the map do teenagers
p teenagers
g spend time doing p
g
delinquent, threatening, dangerous, or illegal activities? delinquent, threatening, dangerous, or illegal activities
6. Where on the map do parents take their children
parents take their children for entertainment or recreation? Map of Tracts
The Gap
Base Map
Scanned and Imported to ArcGIS
Polygons Drawn
Aggregating Responses
• Average percentage of tract indicated for each map
– Easy to calculate
– Gives a good overall sense of perceptions
Gives a good overall sense of perceptions
• Consensus – percentage of tract indicated by # or more respondents
more respondents
– More difficult to process
– Identifies perceived “Hot/Cold Spots”
p
/
p
Merged Polygons
Adjusted Coloring
Smoothed Coloring – “Feel Safe”
“Feel Unsafe”
“Don’t know”
“Positive Activities – Teens”
“Negative Activities – Teens”
“
“Parents and Children”
d h ld ”
Correlation with Tract‐level Crime Rates
Homicide
Aggravated Battery
Robbery
‐.27
27
‐.09
09
‐.28
28
2. Feel Unsafe
.11
.27
.28
3. Don’t Know
.08
‐.10
.13
‐.24
.00
‐.09
.20
.44*
.34
Average Area Marked
1 Feel Safe
1. Feel Safe
4. Teens Positive
5. Teens Delinquent
6. Parents and Children
‐.22
‐.25
‐.39*
Next Steps for Routine Activities
• Link to crime incident data – do perceived hot spots match incident hot spots?
do perceived hot spots match incident hot spots?
• Individual‐level data – how do perceptions in map data relate to traditional measures of neighborhood perceptions?
– do perceptions vary by individual characteristics?
d
i
b i di id l h
i i ?
• Link to adolescent survey in Phase II
Questions?