Skip to main content

Place management in neighborhood context: an analysis of crime at apartments in Cincinnati

Abstract

The present study explores the importance of apartment management decisions for crime counts at apartments, and estimates whether the associations between these management decisions and crime vary according to neighborhood context. These issues are explored through multilevel Poisson-based regression modeling of manager survey data from a Cincinnati-based sample of 238 apartments nested within 29 neighborhoods. Results indicate that place management decisions were not, on average, associated with less crime at apartments. However, numerous management variables showed significantly different associations with crime at varying levels of neighborhood disadvantage. The results reinforce the propositions of multilevel opportunity theory suggesting that place management is likely to have different effects based on the broader neighborhood context. Multi-faceted approaches to place management in disadvantaged contexts are suggested.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    The exception to this rule are apartments designated for "seniors only" living. Generally, family status is a protected class under the Federal Fair Housing Act, unless the apartment building is designated as housing for older persons. Under this provision, apartments can discriminate against tenants with children if the building is occupied solely by persons aged 62 or older, or if at least one tenant that is 55 or older is living in at least 80% of the occupied units (42 USC 3607, Fair Housing Act).

  2. 2.

    Property offenses include: Breaking and Entering, Burglary, Motor Vehicle Theft, Receiving Stolen Property, and Theft. Violent offenses include: Aggravated Assault, Simple Assault, Kidnapping, Murder, Robbery, and Shootings. Disorder offenses include: Menacing, Prostitution, Trespassing, Vandalism, and Weapons Offenses (such as carrying firearms).

  3. 3.

    In that study, 40 apartments with unique owners were randomly selected across neighborhood groups in Cincinnati to allow for multilevel analysis. Additionally, in order to adequately pick up high-crime locations, all 98 unique-owner, high-crime apartments in the city (defined as more than 9 crimes in the year preceding sampling) were also added to the sample. This process yielded a total of 1,451 apartments (see Eck et al. 2010, for more details).

  4. 4.

    Cincinnati has 52 recognized neighborhoods, but several had very few apartments. For sampling purposes, adjacent neighborhoods with small numbers of apartments were combined (see Eck et al. 2010, for more details).

  5. 5.

    In the United States, the Housing Choice Voucher program (colloquially known as Sect. 8) is a federal program that gives low income families, the elderly, and the disabled assistance in paying for safe and affordable housing in the private market. Those who qualify for housing assistance through the Sect. 8 program are responsible to find adequate housing and come to an agreement with the landlord, who will receive funds directly from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the individual family's rent. More information about the Housing Voucher Choice Program can be found at https://www.hud.gov/topics/housing_choice_voucher_program_section_8.

  6. 6.

    1000 feet is approximately double the average block length in the city (457 ft).

  7. 7.

    A spatial lag is included if theory or data analysis supports the likelihood of spatial autocorrelation regarding crime. Theoretically, there is reason to suspect contagion or diffusion processes, but we also examined whether there was statistical evidence of spatial autocorrelation in our data. In doing so, we initially tried to use “threshold distance” to create spatial lag variables, and examine the level of autocorrelation at the location level, but we reached a computational limit with GeoDA and ArcGIS software. Instead, we examined the level of spatial autocorrelation at the census block level (with each type of crime count aggregated to the census block). Global Moran’s I statistics were as follows: total crimes (0.31), property crimes (0.27), violent crimes (0.32), and disorder crimes (0.30). All indices indicate significant autocorrelation of crime counts across census blocks (p < 0.0001).

  8. 8.

    The percent of cases with imputed values is as follows: attract right renters (4%), hire managers (1%), frequency of visiting property (3%), hired security personnel (1%), hired maintenance workers (2%), financial background check (2%), criminal background check (1%), requiring a lease (< 1%), previous landlord contact (3%), number of evictions (1%), percent Sect. 8 (1%), advertised for rental (2%), and number of units (2%).

  9. 9.

    During this procedure, missing values of a continuous variable with a restricted range are filled in using a predictive mean matching imputation method. Briefly, we illustrate the sequential imputation technique (using chained equations and predictive mean matching) with 3 variables: v1 (binary), v2 (limited metric), and v3 (limited metric). In this scenario, we impute missing values for v1 using a logistic regression (v1 regressed on v2 and v3), impute missing values for v2 using predictive mean matching of v2 on v1 and v3, and impute missing values for v3 using a predictive mean matching of v3 on v1 and v2. Such a chain of equations are created for all variables with missing values.

  10. 10.

    In a multiple imputation procedure using 10 imputed datasets, the HLM program produces 11 total outputs—one for each of the 10 datasets and one that represents the averages of the values from the analyses of the 10 imputed datasets (with adjusted standard errors). While we present the average-values models herein, estimates from each of the imputed datasets are available from the authors upon request.

  11. 11.

    It should be noted that we examined the possibility of multicollinearity among level-1 variables using VIF (variance inflation factor) values. The diagnostic analyses revealed that multicollinearity was not a problem (maximum VIF is less than 2).

  12. 12.

    Since our models are Possion-based, regression coefficients should be read as one-unit increase/decrease in the independent variable corresponds with increase/decrease in the logs of expected crime counts. Also, in models not shown, we found that an initially-significant effect of disadvantage was accounted for by level-1 variables (i.e., compositional effects).

References

  1. Braga, A.A., D.M. Hureau, and A.V. Papachristos. 2011. The relevance of micro places to citywide robbery trends: A longitudinal analysis of robbery incidents at street corners and block faces in Boston. Journal of Research on Crime and Delinquency 48: 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham. 1993. Nodes, paths and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology 13: 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brantingham, P.L., and P.J. Brantingham. 1999. A theoretical model of crime hot spot generation. Studies in Crime and Crime Prevention 8: 7–26.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cohen, L.E., and M. Felson. 1979. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review 44: 588–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Corcoran, J., R. Zahnow, R. Wickes, and J. Hipp. 2018. Neighbourhood land use features, collective efficacy and local civic actions. Urban Studies 55 (11): 2372–2390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Dillman, D.A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Deryol, R., P. Wilcox, M. Logan, and J. Wooldredge. 2016. Crime places in context: An illustration of the multilevel nature of hot spot development. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 32: 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Eck, J. E. 1994. Drug markets and drug places: A case-control study of the spatial structure of illicit drug dealing. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Maryland, Baltimore.

  9. Eck, J.E., and R.T. Guerette. 2012. Place-based crime prevention: Theory, evidence, and policy. In The Oxford handbook of crime prevention, ed. D.P. Farrington and B.C. Walsh. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Eck, J. E., and T. D. Herold. 2019. Place management, guardianship, and the establishment of order. In Deterrence, choice, and crime: Contemporary perspectives—Advances in criminological theory, ed. Nagin, Daniel S., Francis T. Cullen, and Cheryl Lero Jonson, vol. 23. New York: Routledge.

  11. Eck, J.E., T.D. Madensen, T.C. Payne, P. Wilcox, B.S. Fisher, and H. Scherer. 2010. Situational crime prevention at specific locations in community context: Place and neighborhood effects (NIJ 229364). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Felson, M. 1986. Linking criminal choices, routine activities, informal control, and criminal outcomes. In The reasoned criminal, ed. D. Cornish and R.V. Clarke, 119–128. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Felson, M. 1987. Routine activities and crime prevention in the developing metropolis. Criminology 25: 911–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Felson, M. 1994. Crime and everyday life: Insight and implications for society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Felson, M. 1995. Those who discourage crime. In Crime and place, crime prevention studies, vol. 4, ed. J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd, 33–66. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Felson, M., and L.E. Cohen. 1981. Modeling crime rate trends—A criminal opportunity perspective. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 18: 138–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Groff, E.R., D. Weisburd, and S. Yang. 2010. Is it important to examine crime trends at a local “micro” level?: A longitudinal analysis of street to street variability in crime trajectories. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 26: 7–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Howell, D.C. 2007. The treatment of missing data. In Handbook of social science methodology, ed. W. Outwaite and S. Turner, 208–224. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kennedy, L.W., and D.R. Forde. 1990. Routine activities and crime: An analysis of victimization in Canada. Criminology 28: 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Jones, R. W., and W. A. Pridemore. 2018. Toward an integrated multilevel theory of crime at place: Routine activities, social disorganization, and the law of crime concentration. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 1–30.

  21. Little, R.J.A. 1998. A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. The Journal of the American Statistical Association 83: 1198–1202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Madensen, T. D. 2007. Bar management and crime: Toward a dynamic theory of place management and crime hotspots. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.

  23. Madensen, T.D., and J.E. Eck. 2013. Crime places and place management. In The Oxford handbook of criminological theory, ed. F.T. Cullen and P. Wilcox, 554–578. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Miethe, T.D., and D. McDowall. 1993. Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Social Forces 71: 741–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Miethe, T.D., and R.F. Meier. 1994. Crime and its social context: Toward an integrated theory of offenders, victims, and situations. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Payne, T. C. 2010. Does changing ownership change crime? An analysis of apartment ownership and crime in Cincinnati. Unpublished Dissertation. University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati.

  27. Sampson, R.J., and J.D. Wooldredge. 1987. Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 3: 371–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Schnell, C., A.A. Braga, and E.L. Piza. 2017. The influence of community areas, neighborhood clusters, and street segments on the spatial variability of violence crime in Chicago. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 33: 469–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Shaw, C.R., and H.D. McKay. 1942. Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sherman, L.W., P.R. Gartin, and M.E. Buerger. 1989. Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology 27: 27–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Taylor, R.B. 1998. Crime and small-scale place: What we know, what we can prevent, and what else we need to know. Crime and place: Plenary papers of the 1997 conference on criminal justice research and evaluation, 1–22. Washington DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Taylor, R.B. 2015. Community criminology: Fundamentals of spatial and temporal scaling, ecological indicators, and selectivity bias. New York: New York University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  33. Telep, C.W., and D. Weisburd. 2012. What is known about the effectiveness of police practices in reducing crime and disorder? Police Quarterly 15: 331–357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Tillyer, M.S. 2015. General multilevel opportunity and crime events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 31: 107–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Townsley, M., S. Reid, D. Reynald, J. Rynne, and B. Hutchins. 2014. Risky facilities: Analysis of crime concentration in high-rise buildings. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 476: 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Weisburd, D. 2015. The law of crime concentration and the criminology of place. Criminology 53: 133–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Weisburd, D., S. Bushway, C. Lum, and S. Yang. 2004. Trajectories of crime at places: A longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology 42: 283–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Weisburd, D., E.R. Groff, and S. Yang. 2012. The criminology of place: Street segments and our understanding of the crime problem. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Wilcox, P., B.M. Gialopsos, and K.C. Land. 2013. Multilevel criminal opportunity. In Handbook of criminological theory, ed. F.T. Cullen and P. Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wilcox, P., K.C. Land, and S.A. Hunt. 2003. Criminal circumstances: A dynamic multicontextual criminal opportunity theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wilcox, P., T.D. Madensen, and M.S. Tillyer. 2007. Guardianship in context: Implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology 45: 771–803.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Wilcox, P., and M.S. Tillyer. 2018. Place and neighborhood contexts. In Connecting crime to place: New directions in theory and policy, ed. J.E. Eck and D. Weisburd. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was funded, in part, by the National Institute of Justice (2005-IJ-CX-0030, John E. Eck, PI). The authors would like to thank John Eck, Bonnie S. Fisher, Tamara D. Herold, and Heidi Scherer for their efforts in the design and execution of the collection of data analyzed herein and for shaping our views on place management. We would also like to thank Daniel Reinhard for his comments on an early draft of this paper. This paper would not have been possible without their efforts. However, we accept full responsibility for any errors contained herein.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew M. Gilchrist.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 4.

Table 4 Neighborhood-level descriptive statistics

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gilchrist, A.M., Deryol, R., Payne, T.C. et al. Place management in neighborhood context: an analysis of crime at apartments in Cincinnati. Secur J 32, 501–522 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-019-00177-7

Download citation

Keywords

  • Place management
  • Crime prevention
  • Multilevel opportunity theory
  • Neighborhood disadvantage
  • Apartment complexes