The Gains of Greater Granularity: The Presence and Persistence of Problem Properties in Urban Neighborhoods
- 538 Downloads
This study applies the growing emphasis on micro-places to the analysis of addresses, assessing the presence and persistence of “problem properties” with elevated levels of crime and disorder. It evaluates what insights this additional detail offers beyond the analysis of neighborhoods and street segments.
We used over 2,000,000 geocoded emergency and non-emergency requests received by the City of Boston’s 911 and 311 systems from 2011–2013 to calculate six indices of violent crime, physical disorder, and social disorder for all addresses (n = 123,265). We linked addresses to their street segment (n = 13,767) and census tract (n = 178), creating a three-level hierarchy that enabled a series of multilevel Poisson hierarchical models.
Less than 1% of addresses generated 25% of reports of crime and disorder. Across indices, 95–99% of variance was at the address level, though there was significant clustering at the street segment and neighborhood levels. Models with lag predictors found that levels of crime and disorder persisted across years for all outcomes at all three geographic levels, with stronger effects at higher geographic levels. Distinctively, ~15% of addresses generated crime or disorder in one year and not in the other.
The analysis suggests new opportunities for both the criminology of place and the management of public safety in considering addresses in conjunction with higher-order geographies. We explore directions for empirical work including the further experimentation with and evaluation of law enforcement policies targeting problem properties.
KeywordsLaw of concentration of crime Physical disorder Social disorder Violent crime Computational social science
The authors would like to thank our collaborative partners at the Department of Innovation and Technology and the Problem Properties Task Force at the City of Boston, as well as our colleagues Cynthia Rudin and Fulton Wang for valuable input during the conceptualization of the analysis.
This work received support from the National Science Foundation (Grant # SMA 1338446), the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (Grant # 13-105766-000), and support from the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University for the Boston Area Research Initiative.
- Ashton Julie, Brown Imogen, Senior Barbara, Pease Ken (1998) Repeat victimisation: offender accounts. Int J Risk Secur Crime Prev 3(4):269–279Google Scholar
- Booth C (1903) Life and labour of the people in London. Macmillan & co, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Budd T (1999) Burglary of domestic dwellings: findings from the British Crime Survey. Home Office Statistical Bulletin 4/99. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Bursik R, Grasmick HG (1993) Neighborhoods and crime: the dimensions of effective community control. Lexington Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- City of Boston (2011) Ordinance to eliminate public nuisance precipitated by problem properties in the city. In: Council C (ed) Ordinances, Chapter 16–55Google Scholar
- Eck John E (1994) Drug markets and drug places: a case-control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug dealing. University Microfilms International, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
- Eck JE, Weisburd D (1995a) Crime places in crime theory. In: Eck JE, Weisburd D (eds) Crime and place. Criminal Justice Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
- Eck JE, Weisburd D (eds) (1995b) Crime and place. Vol. 4, crime prevention studies. Criminal Justice Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
- Farrell G, Pease K (2001) Repeat victimization. Criminal Justice Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
- Grove LE, Farrell G, Farrington DP, Johnson SD (2012) Preventing repeat victimization: a systematic review. Swedish National Council for Crime PreventionGoogle Scholar
- Hibdon J, Telep CW, Groff ER (2016) The concentration and stability of drug activity in Seattle, Washington using police and emergency medical services data. J Quant Criminol. doi: 10.1007/s10940-016-9302-0
- Johnson SD (2008) Repeat victimisation: a tale of two theories. J Exp Criminol 23:201–219Google Scholar
- Johnson SD, Bowers KJ, Birks DJ, Pease K (2008) Predictive mapping of crime by ProMap: accuracy, units of analysis, and the environmental backcloth. In: Weisburd D, Bernasco W, Bruinsma GJN (eds) Putting crime in its place. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kleemans E (2001) Repeat burglary victimization: results of empirical research in the Netherlands. In: Farrell G, Pease K (eds) Repeat victimization. Criminal Justice Press, MonseyGoogle Scholar
- LISC (2016) Problem properties 2015 [cited 1/4/2016 2016]. http://www.lisc.org/csi/crime_&_safety_topics/problem_properties/index.php
- Minneapolis, MN (2016) Problem properties unit 2015 [cited 1/4/2016 2016]. http://www.minneapolismn.gov/ppu/
- O’Brien DT, Sampson RJ (2015) Public and private spheres of neighborhood disorder: assessing pathways to violence using large-scale digital records. J Res Crime Delinq 52:486–510Google Scholar
- Pease K (1998) Repeat victimisation: taking stock. Vol. Paper 90, Crime detection and prevention series. Home Office, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Perry WL, McInnis CCP, Smith SC, Hollywood JS (2013) Predictive policing: the role of crime forecasting in law enforcement operations. RAND, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
- Pierce GL, Spaar S, Briggs LR (1988) The character of police work: stategic and tactical implications. Center for Applied Social Research, Northeastern University, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Raudenbush SW, Bryk A (2002) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
- Raudenbush SW, Bryk A, Cheong YF, Congdon R, du Toit M (2004) HLM 6: hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling. Scientific Software International, LincolnwoodGoogle Scholar
- Reiss AJ Jr (1980) Victim proneness in repeat victimization by type of crime. In: Fienberg SE, Reiss AJ Jr (eds) Indicators of crime and criminal justice: quantitative studies. United States Department of Justice, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
- Schnell C, Braga AA, Piza EL (2016) The influence of community areas, neighborhood clusters, and street segments on the spatial variability of violent crime in Chicago. J Quant Criminol. doi: 10.1007/s10940-016-9313-x
- Shaw C, McKay H (1942/1969) Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Suttles GD (1972) The social construction of communities. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Tseloni A, Pease K (2014) Using modeling to predict and prevent victimization. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Wang T, Rudin C, Wagner D, Sevieri R (2013) Learning to detect patterns of crime. In: Eurpoean conference on machine learning and principles and practice of knowledge discovery in databases. PragueGoogle Scholar
- Way HK, Trinh S, Wyatt M (2013) Addressing problem properties: legal and policy tools for a safer Rundberg and Safer Austin. Entrepreneurship and Community Development Clinic: University of Texas Law School. Austin, TXGoogle Scholar
- Wilcox P, Land KC, Hunt SC (2003) Criminal circumstance: a dynamic multicontextual criminal opportunity theory. Walter de Gruyster, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Wilson JQ, Kelling GL (1982) The police and neighborhood safety: broken windows. Atlantic Mon 127:29–38Google Scholar