Reference: Perkins, Douglas D., &
Brown, Barbara B. (1995). "
The
by Douglas D. Perkins & Barbara B.
Brown,
Environment & Behavior Area,
Family & Consumer Studies Dept./AEB,
(file=report1.a)
CONTENTS
Contents............................................................................................................. 2
List of
Tables....................................................................................................... 3
Executive
Summary............................................................................................. 4
Introduction/Purpose............................................................................................ 6
Results:
Neighborhood
Descriptive Assessment........................................................ 7
Correlations with City Commitment, Knowing
about
Knowledge
of Home Improvement Loans.......................................... 15
Resident
Outlooks for the Future............................................................... 16
Community
Key Informant Interviews...................................................... 20
Conclusions and
Implications............................................................................ 21
References........................................................................................................ 23
Appendices:
A. Research Design and
Methods..................................................................... 24
B. Means for Variables in Discriminant
Analysis that Differentiate Optimistic,
Neutral,
and Pessimistic
Residents............................................................... 26
C. Photodocumentation of Selected
Neighborhood Qualities........................... 27
D. Survey Protocols in English and
Spanish
E. Student Report #1: Poplar Grove: In
the Face of New Development
F. Student Report #3: The
Research Papers:
G.
Perkins, D.D., & Brown, B.B. (1995). The social ecology of urban community
development. Presented at the Biennial Conference on Community Research &
Action,
H.
Steward, D., Perkins, D.D., & Brown, B.B. (1995). Community social ties and
fear of crime. Presented at the Biennial
Conference on Community Research & Action,
I.
Perkins, D.D., Brown, B.B., &
LIST
OF TABLES
Table 1. Neighborhood
Qualities....................................................................... 8
Table 2. Home Repairs and Improvements
(Interior and Exterior)..................
9-10
Table 3. Citizen Participation in
Community Organizations............................ 12
Table 4. Attitudes toward New Development
(Negative & Positive Influences) 14
Table 5. Correlations with resident's
perceptions of the city's commitment
to the neighborhood............................................................................................ 15
Table 6. Correlations with Knowing about
the
Table 7. Correlations with Knowledge of
special home improvement loans.. 16
Table 8. Confidence in the
Neighborhood....................................................... 16
Table 9. Differences Between Pessimistic,
Neutral, & Optimistic Residents.. 17
Table 10. Multivariate Discriminant
Analysis Results..................................... 19
Table 11. Differences in Outlook by
Expected Effects of Development........ 20
Other tables appear in Appendix B and in
the student reports and research papers.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The
following report is based on the first wave of data collection in the evaluation
of the community impact of the
Face
to face and telephone interviews were conducted with 351 randomly selected
residents on 60 blocks (and a supplemental sample of 14 Spanish-speaking
residents) in the
Results:
Residents identified
a variety of neighborhood problems, including crime, vacant and poorly
maintained properties, the neighborhood's poor public image, and housing
affordability.
Despite these
problems and the diversity of the community, residents' pride and satisfaction
with their home, block and even the neighborhood were generally quite strong,
as were informal social controls and cohesion.
A high level of
interior and exterior housing repairs and improvements were reported.
The level of citizen
participation in community organizations was fair but not necessarily
representative of the entire neighborhood.
The level of
perceived city commitment to the neighborhood was low and most residents
favored increased city spending to improve existing housing, improve the Jordan
River Parkway, and to a lesser extent, to encourage new housing for sale and
for rent and improve streets, curbs and sidewalks.
Most residents were
unaware of the availability of low-interest home improvement loans and even of
the
Most residents are
skeptical about the ability of
The majority of
those surveyed thought that new housing in the neighborhood should be targetted
to families earning less than $25,000 a year.
Residents who were
more pessimistic about the future of the neighborhood were more likely to
report they had neighbors who do not keep up their property and that drug
dealing and other crimes have occurred on their block. Pessimists were a little less likely to have
informal contacts with their neighbors, about as likely to attend community
council and anti-crime meetings, and a little more likely to have contacted
city council or another government official about a neighborhood problem.
Responses from key
informant interviews with knowledgeable community leaders and nonresidents
(including a school principal and merchant) were similar to the resident
survey.
In
conclusion, this report highlights a variety of neighborhood strengths and some
critical areas of concern for residents.
These should help city officials and community leaders to better
understand conditions and attitudes in these two Westside Salt Lake City
neighborhoods as they plan future community development interventions and
assess existing ones. We recommend that
the city broaden its present neighborhood revitalization efforts in this
area. In particular, further attention
should be paid to crime, housing affordabililty, vacant and unkempt properties,
and the public image of the neighborhood to both residents and outsiders. We further recommend that the city expand its
community outreach to encourage greater awareness of, and involvement in,
neighborhood improvements, especially among lower-income and minority residents.
The
appendices to this report include an explanation of the research design and
methods employed, photodocumentation of selected neighborhood qualities, a copy
of the survey in both English and Spanish, and two interim project reports
written by students. Both student
reports include preliminary survey results based on the data collected up to
that point. The spring, 1994, report by
a class on Methods of Environmental Analysis (FCS 570) includes a special focus
on housing options. The spring, 1995, report
by a class on Community and Environmental Change (FCS 573) includes a review of
literature relevant to community development, planning, and crime
prevention. These are separate reports
from the one written by a third class and submitted in January.
Also
appended are three research papers based in part on the present data. These include two brief reports, one on the
social ecology of urban community development and the other on the influence of
community social, psychological, and material ties in helping to reduce fear of
crime. The final appendix is a draft of
a research article which examines various predictors of participation in
community organizations and includes data from
A
brief summary of the results will be written after City officials have read
this report and suggest possible points of community interest to include or
highlight. The summary will then be
mailed to all survey respondents and community leaders in both Westside neighborhoods. This full report will also be made available
to anyone wanting more detailed information.
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE
The
Westside of Salt Lake City has been steadily declining for the last 30 years
and experiencing a growing negative perception of the area by the surrounding
The
West Salt Lake City Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative is designed to
counteract the forces of decline. The
The
present results are based on 351 interviews of selected residents of 60 blocks,
about half of which are close to the
The
resident perceptions and attitudes focus on housing, crime, and other
conditions (strengths as well as weaknesses) on their blocks and in their
neighborhood to better inform both government and community efforts at neighborhood
revitalization. We examine various
predictors of neighborhood decline, including both physical features, such as
vandalism and unkempt property, and social problems, such as crime, fear of
crime, and a lack of social cohesion and citizen participation. A reversal of these conditions may help to
promote revitalization. The indicators
of revitalization include objective indicators (such as home ownership,
residential stability, home improvements) and subjective indicators, such as
community psychological ties (communitarianism, sense of community, and place
attachment), pride in one's home, community satisfaction and pride, and
confidence in the future of one's block.
By understanding residents' opinions, city and community leaders may
better understand what problems to address and how to address them.
Existing Research (additional literature reviewed in
Appendix F)
There
has been an enormous infusion of public and private investment and research in
urban community development over the last 30 years. Yet Kaplan (1991) found that, compared with
successes in other countries, American neighborhood policies have enjoyed only
mixed results. He also notes that
research has not been able to determine exactly how the community social and
physical environment are related to development.
Most
previous studies of community development and revitalization have focused
exclusively on long-range outcomes, such as home ownership, reinvestment,
housing renovation and other property improvements, property values (appraised
or sales), property taxes, property sales activity, housing code violations, or
overall housing conditions (DeGiovanni, 1983).
They have tended to ignore subjective, psychological indicators of
development, that are precursors to long-range outcomes, such as sense of
community, place attachment, communitarianism (i.e., commitment to community
improvement), home or community satisfaction, and neighborhood confidence
(i.e., direction). They have also not systematically
examined community-focused social behaviors and attitudes and the overall
physical environment as predictors of development.
Community
development research also generally has ignored the individual, household, and
street block levels of analysis in favor of the neighborhood and city
levels. Nevertheless, past research has
shown that the processes of informal social control, social cohesion, and
territoriality, which are intrinsic to neighborhood revitalization, are most
important at the street block level rather than larger aggregates (Brown &
Bentley, 1993; Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman & Chavis, 1990; Taylor
& Gottfredson, 1986; Varady, 1986).
Perkins
et al. (1990) identified various block-level social and environmental
characteristics that predict citizen participation in block associations. We hypothesize that some of these same
characteristics will be related to both objective and subjective indicators of
neighborhood improvement or decline. Expected
predictors of neighborhood and home improvements within the block and household
physical environment include - not only the outward condition of the
property and open land use, including an absence of vandalism, litter, and
graffiti - but also efforts by residents to beautify and personalize their
property. Social environmental
predictors include use of outdoor space, neighboring behavior, informal social
(territorial) control, and less perceived quality-of-life problems
(e.g., poor city services, crime and gang activity), fear of crime, and street
crime victimization.
RESULTS
Neighborhood Descriptive Assessment
Demographics
Out
of 365 residents interviewed, 60% are females; 55% were married, 18.6% divorced
or separated, 9% widowed, and 14.4% never married. The ethnic breakdown of participants was
66.6% white, 26% Hispanic, and the rest (7.4%) Pacific Islander, Asian, or
other. (According to the 1990 Census--
see West Salt Lake Community Master Plan-- the proportion of Hispanic residents
in the neighborhood was 22%, but the minority population was rising.) The mean age of respondents was approximately
46 years. 21% were 65 years or older
(compared to 12% of the wider neighborhood, but that includes children under 18
who were excluded from our survey.) 74%
of the households reported an annual income of less than $30,000. The average household included 3.2 people
(2.3 children) and earned about $23,720 in annual income. (The neighborhood as a whole had 2.6
residents per household and the average family income was about $19,000 in
1989.) 71.5% are homeowners (compared to
57% throughout the neighborhood in 1990).
90% live in a single family dwelling.
6.4% live in a duplex, triplex or fourplex. Only 3.6% of the sample lives in an apartment
building. The mean length of residence
is approximately 15.5 years. By avoiding
census blocks with large apartment complexes, our sampling procedure (see
methodological appendix) targeted homeowners because they are most likely to
show the positive effects of revitalization.
Even so, aside from a slight overrepresentation of women and owners of
single-family, detached houses, both of which are common in surveys, the sample
is fairly representative of the Poplar Grove and
Neighborhood Qualities
Neighborhood
qualities include both strengths of the community and its services as well as
problem conditions. Each was rated on a
one to ten scale, where one is poor and ten is excellent (or no problem). In order of poor to excellent (or biggest to
least problem):
Table
1. Neighborhood Qualities
The mean for housing affordability
was 5.85.
The mean for graffiti on one's
own block was 5.9 (other crimes asked about under Neighborhood Safety/Fear of
Crime, below).
The mean for availability of child
care was 5.9.
The mean for housing quality in
the neighborhood was 6.0.
The mean rating for police protection
was 6.0.
The mean for stray animals was
6.1.
The mean for the condition of streets
and sidewalks was 6.3.
The mean for pollution in the
neighborhood was 6.3.
The mean for parks and playgrounds
was 6.9.
The mean for traffic problems on
one's block was 7.0.
The mean for neighbor friendliness
was 7.2.
The mean for loud neighbors on
one's block was 7.2.
The
residents are very aware that the public image of the neighborhood is poor. The mean was 1.9 on a scale of 1 to 4 (where
1=poor, 2=fair, 3=good, and 4=excellent).
36% of the respondents reported that the image was poor. 38% reported the image as fair. Only 23% reported the image as good and 3% as
excellent.
Despite
these results, 55.6% reported that the neighborhood is a good place to raise
young families. In thinking about the
direction their block is taking, the largest group believes it has not changed
over the past two years (46.5%) and will stay the same over the next two years
(42.8%). 22.1% reported that the block
had gotten worse and 27.3% that it would get worse in the future. 31.4% said the block would improve over the
next two years and 29.9% said it would continue to get better.
Condition of Housing
The following results are based on the resident survey, not the
independent observations of housing and environmental conditions. The percentage reporting vacant homes or
buildings on their block in the past 12 months was 58.1%. 63.7% said they have neighbors who don't keep
up their property. On the other hand,
80.6% have neighbors who have improved their property.
When
people were asked about the condition of their own home, 3.6% thought the
quality was poor, 27.8% thought it was acceptable, 49.9% thought the quality
was good, and 18.7% thought the quality was excellent.
87.9%
of the residents surveyed had not refinanced their homes, while 12.1%
have. 53.9% did not plan improvements
during the next year while 46.1% were planning to improve the homes they live
in. When asked, 22.3% said that a lack
of confidence in the neighborhood keeps them from upgrading.
The
kind of repairs or improvements that people did on their home during the
previous 12 months are as follows:
Table
2. Home Repairs and Improvements
Interior
improvements
60.6% of the people had interior
painting or wall papering done.
46.2% worked on the plumbing within a
home.
45.8% purchased a new appliance for the
home within the past year.
39.2% had new floors or floor coverings
installed.
35.6% improved windows and doors in the
home.
35.0% added insulation, air
conditioning, or a new heater to the home.
31.9% completed some form of interior
carpentry.
31.3% reported remodeling a room or
building an addition.
23.4% had some form of electrical
improvement completed in the home.
54.1% of the respondents said that they
had a home repair or improvement of some other form than those listed above
that totalled more than $50.00.
Exterior
improvements
47.6% had landscaped or paved an outdoor
area.
32.1% invested in roofing or gutter
repairs.
30.8% had some part of the outside of
their home painted.
24.7% had some carpentry done on the
outside of the home.
13.7% repaired or replaced brick or
concrete.
Neighborhood Safety/Fear of Crime
29.4% said they have had things stolen from their property. 24% indicated their property (home or car)
had been vandalized or had graffiti painted on it. 16.2% of the residents surveyed said they had
been burglarized this year. 7.4% had a
household member robbed, mugged, or physically attacked.
The
level of indirect victimization, or being aware of specific nearby crimes, is
much worse. 40.4% said that a home on
their block had been burglarized in the past 12 months. 24.5% reported incidents of street robbery or
assault on their block in the past 12 months.
In answer to "In the past 12 months, has your block had any house
or place you suspect drug dealing occurs?", 47% said "yes." Fully 62.7% said they have seen evidence of
gang activity on their block in the past year.
Of those who had seen such activity, almost half had witnessed it at
least 10 times.
Fear
of crime is a complex but important variable in the well-being of residents and
their whole neighborhood. Several
questions were asked to measure different aspects of residents' fear. Almost half (48.3%) of the residents reported
feeling very or somewhat unsafe when out alone at night on their block. 66.4% would feel very or somewhat unsafe if a
stranger stopped them at night in their neighborhood to ask for
directions. 53.6% are worried about
themselves or someone else in their household being the victim of a crime at
home or elsewhere in their neighborhood.
Only 12.8% were not at all worried about that. 55% avoid certain places in their neighborhood
because they felt they were dangerous.
Whether
the neighborhood is seen as getting more dangerous over time is less
clear. When asked how safe was your
block 2 years ago, on a 1-to-3 scale from safer to less safe, the mean was 1.9. When asked how safe do you think your block
will be 2 years from now, the mean was also 1.9. Thus, there is a slight tendency to view the
present as less safe than the past or future.
Community Social Fabric
Informal
social control among residents and knowing and visiting with neighbors are
important aspects of the social fabric, or cohesion, of the neighborhood, which
in turn is an important factor in community development. When asked about how much control people felt
they had over what happens on the sidewalk in front of their house, on a scale
from one to ten, one being no control, ten being total control, the mean
response was 6.1. 24.7% chose 10 which
means that a quarter of the respondents felt they had total control over the
activities on the sidewalk in front of their homes. When asked if some kids were spraying
graffiti on the block, what actions they thought their neighbors might
take, 30.6% said the neighbors would do nothing, 73.5% said they would watch
the sprayers, 84.7% said the neighbors would call the police, 33.3% said they
would talk to the vandals, and 83% said their neighbors would talk to other
neighbors about it. These results
suggest that the citizens of this neighborhood may be fairly active in responding
to community issues pertaining to crime.
Other
aspects of the neighborhood social fabric include having a sense of community,
knowing one's neighbors, assisting them when needed, and seeking their
assistance. 37.6% of the residents
reported having either not much or nothing in common with their neighbors,
44.2% had a little in common, and only 18.2% had a lot in common. Despite this self-acknowledged diversity,
almost 60% reported knowing at least half the residents on their block by name. Over one quarter know almost all of the
neighbors on their block. In addition,
when asked how many of the five physically closest neighbors they know by name,
39% reported knowing all of them and only 2.6% knew none. Over half (56.4%) had borrowed something
from, or loaned something to, a neighbor in the past year. Just over half (50.3%) reported visiting with
a neighbor on a weekly or daily basis.
34% never speak to their neighbors regarding neighborhood problems, but
almost half (47.9%) do so on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. 48% spend leisure time outside in the yard or
elsewhere on their block on a daily basis whereas 84% do so at least weekly.
Home, Block, and Neighborhood Pride and
Satisfaction
Over
half of the people surveyed, when asked to rate both pride and satisfaction
with their home on a scale of one to ten, gave their homes a nine or ten. The mean was 8.0 for both measures. The pride in the way one's front yard looks
was a mean of 7.7. Pride in the way the
outside of one's house looks was 7.4.
Residents were slightly more satisfied with their block as a place to
live than they were proud of it. Again
on a scale from one to ten, the mean was 7.0 for satisfaction and 6.6 for
pride. Similarly, focusing on the
neighborhood as a place to live, the mean for satisfaction was 6.9 and for
pride was 6.3. Despite the gradual
dropoff from home to neighborhood and despite all of the problems previously
identified, the residents of Poplar Grove and
Citizen Participation in Community
Organizations
Residents
were asked about attendance and work done for various kinds of local community
organizations in their neighborhood in the past two years. Such citizen participation is critical to the
success of any community development or crime prevention efforts by the city.
Table
3. Citizen Participation in Community Organizations
45.3% had attended a religious
organization meeting.
36.1% had done work for a religious
organization.
27.8% had attended a Community Council
meeting.
13.8% had done work for the Community
Council.
22.2% had attended a youth group meeting
(such as scouts or little league).
19.1% had done work for a youth group.
18.7% had attended an anti-crime, gang
or graffiti meeting.
11.8% had done work for an anti-crime,
gang or graffiti organization.
13.4% had attended another community
organization meeting.
11.1% had done work for another
organization in the neighborhood.
45.1%
of the residents thought that it was likely that one of those community
organizations could improve neighborhood conditions. 40.7% thought it possible and only 14.2%
thought it unlikely that a community organization could improve neighborhood
conditions. When asked which of these
organizations has the best chance of improving neighborhood organizations,
30.5% chose anti-crime groups, 28.9% the Community Council, 15.4% a religious
organization, 11.8% a youth group, 5.9% another neighborhood organization, and
7.5% said that none can improve conditions.
44.5%
of the respondents were aware of efforts to reduce crime, gangs, or graffiti by
a resident organization in the neighborhood.
23.3% had contacted the government or Community Council about a
neighborhood problem in the past 12 months.
When
asked how important it was for them to be involved in any efforts that
residents might make to improve their block, on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is
not important and 10 is very important, 41% responded with a 10. The mean response was 7.6.
City Spending and Commitment to the
Neighborhood
A series of questions concern city spending and how residents think
funds would best be appropriated. They
focus on five related goals, including improving existing housing, encouraging
new housing for sale or rent, improving the
Some
residents had no opinion. But of those
responding, improving existing housing had the highest priority with 76% saying
that the city should spend more money.
Improving the
When
asked "In general, how committed do you think city government is to
helping you and your neighbors?", 25% answered "not at
all." 41% answered "a
little." 29.6% said the city
government was committed a moderate amount.
Only 4.3% thought the city was committed a lot to the neighborhood.
Attitudes toward New Development
Residents
were asked, "if the city had $1.7 million to spend in your neighborhood,
whould you like the money to go to improve existing housing, make new housing
more affordable, or neither?" 47%
said "improve existing housing," 35% said "make new housing more
affordable," and 18% said "neither."
They
were also asked the annual household income level which should be targeted for
new housing. 80% said new housing should be targetted
for families earning $28,000 or less.
To
examine whether racial biases play any role in attitudes toward development,
residents were asked how comfortable they would be if people moved into their
neighborhood whose race or ethnicity was different than theirs but whose income
and education levels were the same. On a
1 to 10 scale with 1 being very uncomfortable and 10 being completely
comfortable, the mean was 8.8. This high
level of tolerance may be partly due to a "social desirability"
effect, but is nonetheless encouraging.
Only
29% of the residents were aware of any special low interest loans to finance
housing improvements in the neighborhood.
47% of the residents were aware that the city is helping a developer
build new, single-family houses along the
When
asked which of the following effects they think the new development will have
on their neighborhood:
Table
4. Attitudes toward New Development
Negative influences:
76% thought housing costs would
increase;
6% said they would decrease.
74% thought property taxes would
increase;
2% said they would decrease.
71% thought traffic would increase;
2% said it would decrease.
36% thought crime rates would increase;
13% said they would decrease.
Positive influences:
51.6% thought housing improvements would
increase;
6.5% said they would decrease.
47.5% thought environmental clean-up
efforts
would
increase;
5.6% said they would decrease.
40.5% thought the neighborhood
reputation
would
increase;
9% said it would decrease.
36% thought economic opportunities would
increase;
10% said they would decrease.
31.4% thought sense of community would
increase;
11.5% said it would decrease.
Correlations with City Commitment,
Knowing about
Table 5. Correlations with resident's
perceptions of the city's commitment to the neighborhood
their perception of police protection
(r=.25, p<.001)
streets and sidewalks (r=.12, p<.05)
housing quality of the neighborhood
(r=.13, p<.05)
friendliness of neighbors (r=.18,
p<.005)
loud neighbors (r=-.15, p<.05)
traffic problems (r=-.17, p<.005)
graffiti problems (r=-12, p<.05)
wanting to be involved (r=.24,
p<.005)
visiting with neighbors (r=.13,
p<.05)
knowing one's neighbors (r=.12,
p<.05)
recommending families to live in
neighborhood (r=.13, p<.05)
attending a religious meeting (r=.16,
p<.005)
attending a youth group meeting (r=.20,
p<.005)
attending other neighborhood
organizations meeting (r=.18, p<.005)
knowing about special loans (r=.17,
p<.01)
painting outside of own house (r=.16,
p<.005)
carpentry on own property (r=.12,
p<.05)
masonry on one's property (r=.11,
p<.05)
Table
6. Correlations with Knowing about the
visiting with neighbors (r=.15,
p<.01)
speaking with neighbors about neighbor
problems (r=.19, p<.005)
attending community council meetings
(r=.23, p<.001)
attending religious meetings (r=.16,
p<.01)
attending anti-crime, gang or graffiti
organization (r=.20, p<.001)
attending any other neighborhood
organization (r=.20, p<.005)
contacting government or community council
about a neighborhood problem (r=.15, p<.01)
awareness of special loans to finance
house at low interest (r=.16, p<.01)
carpentry on own property (r=.16,
p<.01)
other repairs totaling $50 or more
inside house (r=.12, p<.05)
age (r=.17, p<.005)
length of residence (r=.17, p<.01)
being white (r=.13, p<.05)
home ownership (r=.12, p<.05)
Knowledge
of special low-interest home improvement loans is significantly related to
residents having made various repairs, such as windows, plumbing, floor
covering, carpentry, masonry, roofing, landscaping, painting, and other repairs
totaling $50 or more inside house.
Unfortunately we do not know how many, if any, of those residents had
obtained a government-subsidized or other home improvement loan.
Table 7.
Correlations with Knowledge of special low-interest home improvement loans
visiting with neighbors (r=.19,
p<.005)
attending a community council meeting
(r=.21, p<.005)
attending an ant-crime, graffiti, gang
meeting (r=.23, p<.001)
attending other neighborhood
organizations (r=.19, p<.005)
working on community council (r=.19,
p<.005)
working on anti-crime, graffiti, gang
(r=.27, p<.001)
work with any other neighborhood
organization (r=.14, p<.05)
perceived commitment of city government
to helping neighbors (r=.18, p<.01)
Resident Outlooks for the Future
A common indicator of neighborhood
revitalization involves residents' perceptions of whether things in the
neighborhood are getting better or worse.
We assessed two different types of confidence in the neighborhood:
Table
8. Confidence in the Neighborhood
In the past 2 years, have the general
conditions on your block:
Gotten
worse Stayed the same Gotten better
23%
(78) 46% (157) 31% (105)
In the next 2 years do you feel that
general conditions on your block will:
Get
worse Stay the same Get better
28%
(94) 43% (146) 29% (100)
[cr1]
Thus, residents who perceive that change
is likely are about equally divided in terms of whether the change will be good
or bad. Unfortunately, this represents a
bit more pessimism than is evident in people's actual experiences in the past
two years. In actual experience over the
past two years, 8% more experienced improvements than worsening in block
conditions. This suggests the future is
perceived as worse than the past.
One question for community and city leaders
is what different experiences in the neighborhood or what personal qualities of
the individual are linked to optimistic and pessimistic outlooks. In order to answer this question, a further
refinement was made of the question about neighborhood confidence for the next
two years.
Predictors of optimistic, pessimistic,
and neutral outlooks
In order to determine what types of
people and what types of perceptions are associated with optimism and
pessimism, a sophisticated statistical technique called multivariate
discriminant analysis was used. This
technique allowed us to see what combination of variables best predicted a
resident's outlook.
Resident outlooks were classified into
three groups:
Optimistic: Those expecting things to get better over the
next two years and those expecting things not to change over the next two years
who were already very satisfied with conditions on their block. These were individuals who rated their
satisfaction with their block as a place to live at 8 or above on a scale that
ranged from 1, "not at all satisfied" to 10, "completely
satisfied." Both of these groups
together added up to a total of 180 (in 348) optimistic residents.
Neutral: Those who expected things to stay the same
and whose satisfaction with the block was in the middle range (4-7 on a
10-point scale), totalling 65 residents.
Pessimistic: Those expecting things to worsen or those who
were dissatisfied with the block (1-3 on a 10-point scale) and expected things
to remain the same, totalling 103 residents.
Predictors of resident outlooks can include both
resident characteristics and their experiences with and perceptions of the
neighborhood. Preliminary analyses
showed which individual differences were statistically significant. It is notable that many qualities of
residents did not predict their outlook.
The qualities that did not predict outlook include religious
affiliation, income, marital status, household size, number of children, and
homeownership. The resident qualities
that did relate to resident outlook were combined with selected subscales that
address neighborhood and block experiences and perceptions.
Table
9. Differences Between Pessimistic, Neutral, & Optimistic Residents
` Pessi- Opti-
mistic Neutral mistic
Individual
qualities
Age 43 44 49*
Female
% 55 43 66*
Years
of residence 15 10 16*
Hispanic
% 33 17 25*
Composite
perceptions/behaviors
Neighborhood
qualities (1-10) 5.65 5.99
6.90*
Block
problems (0 = average) .25 .04
-.14*
Neighborly
contact (0=average) -.09 -.16 .13*
Participation
(0-1)
.21 .17 .19*
*
Indicates statistically significant difference (p < .05)
Difference 1:
According to the analysis, the biggest difference is between optimists
and pessimists. The predictors that
contribute most to this difference are:
Optimists are much
more satisfied with a range of neighborhood qualities: police protection, child
care, parks and playgrounds, streets and sidewalks, housing quality, and the
friendliness of neighbors (Differences on specific items in the Discriminant Analysis
are shown in Appendix B).
Pessimists perceive
more problems on the block, especially with neighbors who do not keep up their
property, houses where suspected drug dealing occurs, neighbors whose houses
were burglarized, incidents of street robbery or assault, as well as problems
with gang activity, graffiti, loud neighbors, and stray dogs or cats.
Optimists are
somewhat more likely to have neighborly contacts and involvement with their
blocks. This is the case for neighborly
contacts such as borrowing from or loaning to neighbors, watching over
neighbors' houses, and feeling like they have control over things that happen
on the sidewalk in front of their home.
Optimistic residents
are also older than pessimistic ones.
Difference 2: The second difference is less strong,
but still statitistically significant.
The difference is that a combination of 4 predictors helps to
differentiate pessimistic from neutral residents, after taking the first
difference into account statistically.
The predictors that contribute most to this difference are:
Pessimistic residents
have lived in the neighborhood longer on average than neutral ones.
Pessimistic residents
are more likely to be Hispanic than neutral residents. This difference remained even when the
nonrandomly selected Hispanics were dropped from the data analysis.
Pessimistic residents
are more likely to be female than neutral residents.
Pessimistic residents
also score higher on an index of participation in the neighborhood, but only
one variable in that index differentiated pessimistic from neutral
residents. Pessimistic residents were
more likely than neutral residents to have called a city council person or
government official about a neighborhood problem in the past year.
How well do the variables distinguish
optimistic, pessimistic, and neutral residents?
The
Table below shows how good the variables are at predicting whether the resident
is optimistic, pessimistic, and neutral.
If the variables were not powerful predictors, residents would be
grouped by chance, so that only 11.11% would be accurately classified. Instead, 58.70% of residents are accurately
classified, over five times as good as what would happen by chance. So the variables are good discriminators of
the residents' outlooks for the future.
Table
10. Multivariate Discriminant Analysis Results
#
of Predicted Outlook:
Actual outlook Cases Pessim. Neutral Optimistic
Pessimistic 96 53 22 21
55.2% 22.9% 21.9%
Neutral
60 14 33 13
23.3% 55.0% 21.7%
Optimistic 166 28 35 103
16.9% 21.1% 62.0%
Percent of residents correctly
classified: 58.70%
Percent that would be correctly
classified by chance alone: 11.11%
The
results cannot tell us certain things.
For example, it is not clear why pessimistic residents report a higher
frequency of local crime and block problems.
Perhaps pessimistic residents live in particularly crime prone parts of
the neighborhood (
How
the
The
three groups differ in terms of their expectations for the development for five
of the nine potential consequences we asked them about. Optimists are more likely to expect that the
new development will spark environmental clean-ups, housing improvements, an
enhanced neighborhood reputation and sense of community. Optimists are less likely to believe that new
housing will bring more crime. Thus,
those interested in revitalization effects of the housing must recognize what
expectations have been created, and how varied those expectations are depending
on one's general outlook for the neighborhood.
Specific differences in outlook are detailed below:
Table 11. Differences in Outlook by
Expected Effects of Development
Pessi- Opti-
Likely effects of
Crime increase .36 .20
.14*
Traffic increase .70 .69
.68
Economic opportunity .15 .31 .32
Property tax increase .76 .67 .74
Housing improvements .37 .35 .54*
Housing cost increase .69 .73 .71
Increased sense of community .14 .07
.29*
Neighborhood reputation improved .19
.30 .42*
Environmental clean‑up .34 .31 .51*
* Indicates a variable that is
statistically significant (p < .05) in differentiating the 3 groups
of residents
Community Key Informant Interviews (by Vandna Sinha)
Interviews
consisting of open ended questions on social and economic conditions of the
neighborhood, city services, and current area development plans were conducted
with community leaders and business people to supplement the information
obtained through the environmental assessment and surveys. Two of these interviews were conducted with
the principle of one of the schools in the project area and an owner of shop
near
Both
voiced concern about the community. The
shopkeeper had two primary concerns. Her
first concern was about crime in the neighborhood. She related incidents of vandalism, theft,
and other crime that she had suffered. Her second concern was about the
physical appearance of the neighborhood.
Again, she mentioned vandalism and graffiti, she also talked about run
down buildings and property that contributed to bad appearance of the
neighborhood. Although she was pleased
with some of the services that the city offers (police protection, etc.) she
felt that the city should focus on these two issues. She saw these as the critical factors to
creating an environment in which her customers would feel safe and her business
could prosper.
The
principal was also concerned about crime in the community. Though he stressed the idea that a solution
is possible, he said, "if they [city officials] don't pay some attention
to this neighborhood in the next five years, they're going to have a bloodbath
on their hands. Three quarters of the
kids are packing weapons already."
He said he would like to see the city provide more social services and
place a real emphasis on education. He
also emphasized the idea that he has tried to turn his school into a community
resource, a place for the entire community, not just the kids. He would like to see the city make a larger
commitment to help with this goal.
When
asked about the River Park Housing project, the reactions were split. Both knew about the project. The shopkeeper worried that the development
might lead to resentment and tension in the community. She felt that the income difference between
current residents and those who would move into the new units might further
divide what she characterized as a "troubled" community. Though she hoped that the development might
bring in some new customers, she did not seem optimistic that it could help to
create the safe environment that she viewed as necessary for an increase in business. She did not feel that the new development
would exert any significant positive influence on the character and upkeep of
the surrounding neighborhoods.
The
principal was more optimistic. His
primary concern was that the new units would bring more students to his school
which is already operating over capacity.
He said that
CONCLUSIONS
AND IMPLICATIONS
Although
none of the neighborhood problems in Table 1 were (on average) seen as severe,
the greatest concern was housing affordability, followed by graffiti, child
care, housing quality, police protection, stray animals, the condition of
streets and sidewalks, and pollution in the neighborhood. Separate questions were asked about the
public image of the neighborhood, vacant and poorly maintained properties, and
specific crime problems, such as burglary, robbery, assault, drug dealing,
vandalism, gang activity, and fear of crime.
These appear to be even greater problem areas than any of those listed
in Table 1.
Despite
these problems, residents report a high degree of home, block, and even
neighborhood pride and satisfaction. The
community social fabric was strong, with high expectations for informal social
control and a great deal of social cohesion (e.g., knowing and helping one's
neighbors) in spite of the acknowledged diversity of residents in the
neighborhood.
There
is a moderate amount of citizen participation in community organizations,
mostly through local religious organizations and, to a lesser extent, the
Community Councils, youth organizations, and crime prevention activities (Table
3). Broad-based resident involvement is
critical to the success of all neighborhood revitalization efforts and should
be encouraged through greater grassroots outreach, recruitment, education, and
publicity, especially among underrepresented groups such as renters and ethnic
minorities.
Revitalization
efforts need to reinforce the high level of upgrading efforts that already take
place (see Table 2) while simultaneously providing strong code enforcement for
neighbors who file complaints. Most
residents (80.6%) say their neighbors have improved their housing but most
(63.7%) also have neighbors who do not keep up their property. Over 1 in 5 say their lack of confidence in
the neighborhood keeps them from investing in upgrades.
Most
of the residents were unaware of the availability of any special low interest
home improvement loans. We understand
that information about existing sources of housing improvement assistance is
being disseminated to those residents who are active in the Community Council
and other neighborhood organizations (Table 7).
We recommend that further dissemination efforts be aimed at more
isolated residents.
A
little over half of the residents were also unaware of the new housing
development that was planned and then under construction during the
survey. Those who had attended a
Community Council or other neighborhood meeting were more likely to know about the
development and younger, shorter-term, and minority residents and renters were
somewhat less likely to know about it (Table 6).
Most
residents are skeptical about the ability of River Park to alter neighborhood
sense of community, economic opportunities, or reputation but do anticipate
higher property taxes, traffic, and housing costs (Table 4). As the development takes shape, it will be
important to revisit residents and city data to see whether hopes and fears
associated with the new development have materialized and whether attitudes
change.
Citizens
may not yet understand the current realities of affordable housing, perhaps
because many are long term residents who recall when housing was more
affordable. Programs designated
affordable would, by 1994 standards, target those making up to about $27,200
(80% of median income of about $34,000).
However, when asked about desired income levels for families moving into
their neighborhood, residents wanted a family of 4 to make about $23,900. In fact, two thirds of residents believed the
new families should make $24,000 or below.
Some residents may prefer that all new housing in the neighborhood be
single family detached. But it is very
difficult to build that style of housing for those income levels. The relatively low desired income level for new
families suggests that the community would welcome new, more affordable
housing, especially if they were educated as to current housing costs and
various affordable housing style options.
Residents
generally favored increased city spending in all areas of neighborhood
revitalization, especially to improve existing housing, improve the Jordan
River Parkway, and to a lesser extent, to encourage new housing for sale and
for rent and improve roads, curbs and sidewalks.
A
majority of the residents felt that the city is either "not at all"
or only "a little" committed to the neighborhood. Perceived city commitment was (modestly)
related to a variety of personal characteristics, including their perception of
police protection and wanting to be involved in efforts to improve their block
(Table 5).
Much
analysis focused on trying to better understand what makes some residents
pessimistic and some optimistic about the future of the neighborhood. Pessimistic residents are especially likely
to report that crimes have occurred on their blocks. Successful revitalization efforts must
address crimes such as burglary, graffiti, and crime-related gang activity.
Particularly
disturbing is the fact that a majority (65%) of pessimistic residents believe
that a house on their block has housed drug dealers. Programs that allow residents to confirm or
disconfirm their suspicions about drug houses may be needed. When drug houses are found,
It
is notable that pessimistic residents are just as likely as others to attend
Community Council and anti-crime meetings as optimists. Pessimists also complain about neighborhood
problems to officials. This is actually
a sign of health in the neighborhood. In
neighborhoods with extremely bad social and physical deterioration, residents
do not bother to complain or participate because they feel things are
hopeless. The Poplar Grove area can
capitalize on the willingness of all residents, even pessimistic residents, to
work on behalf of the neighborhood.
In
conclusion, although the Poplar Grove and
REFERENCES (see also Bibliography in Appendix F)
Brown, B.B. & Bentley, D.L.
(1993). Residential burglars judge risk:
The role of territoriality. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13,
51-61.
DeGiovanni, F.F. (1983). Patterns of
change in housing market activity in revitalizing neighborhoods. Journal of
the American Planning Association, 49, 22-39.
Kaplan, M. (1991). American neighborhood
policies: Mixed results and uneven evaluations. In R. Alterman & G. Cars
(Eds.), Neighbourhood regeneration: An international evaluation (pp.
28-42).
Perkins, D.P.,
Varady, D. (1986). Neighborhood upgrading: a realistic
assessment.
APPENDIX
A: RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS
This
report focuses on the perceptions and attitudes of existing residents of the
Poplar Grove and
Sample
selection. Within the study area, a
multi-stage, cluster sampling procedure was developed to select 480 properties
to assess and residents to interview on 60 street blocks (both sides of
a street between intersections). Street
blocks are more "ecologically valid" units than (square) census
blocks because they are more meaningful to residents and are more likely to be
the basis for neighbor-to-neighbor interaction, information, and assistance. 48 of the blocks were selected at random
(with probability proportionate to size, based on the number of households
listed in the Coles "criss-cross" (address) directory) and 12 more
were (oversample) selected in close proximity to the new subdivision. Starting with the lowest address on each
block, every third property was selected up to a total of eight per block. Replacement households were only allowed for
vacant properties. Within each
household, the resident over 18 years old who had the most recent birthday (an
essentially random procedure) was selected to be interviewed. Within household replacements were not
allowed.
Neighborhood
Survey. The 30-minute survey was
conducted by 85 graduate and undergraduate university students, including six
fluent in Spanish who used a Spanish translation of the survey. Surveys were administered by telephone if a
phone number was available, in-person if not.
The survey measures include perceived social and physical environmental
conditions on the block and in the neighborhood, and subjective and objective
indicators of development. From the
original sample frame of 480 addresses, 351 residents have completed the survey
for a response rate of 73%. A
supplemental snowball sample of 14 Spanish interviews were conducted in the
study area in an effort to increase the Hispanic portion of the sample and make
it more representative of the true ethnic profile of the neighborhood.
Photographic
Documentation of Properties. Two
slide photographs were taken of each house involved in the study, except for
those where campers or other obstructions prevented a clear view. One was a close-up of the house from one side
to the other of the front facade. The
other was a more distant view from one side boundary line to the other to
document the house and front yard. These
slides can be useful as documentation of house upgrading efforts over the
years. They provide a more permanent and
reusable record than the Block Environmental Inventory, described below. In addition, several photographs of
representative neighborhood strong and weak points were taken to illustrate
this report.
Block
Environmental Inventory (not part of assessment contract, but will be
provided at a later date). The purpose
of this instrument is to objectively measure the physical environment of urban
residential blocks. The procedure
involves in‑person observation by trained raters of four types of
residential and nonresidential physical cues associated with crime, fear, and
indicators of neighborhood vitality or decline (Perkins et al., 1990): 1. Incivilities
are symbolic signs of social disorder (housing deterioration, litter,
vandalism). 2. Territorial markers
(outdoor decorations, gardening, "traces" of people present). These cues signal pride, concern, and a sense
of ownership by residents and are related to greater social cohesion as well as
to lesser crime and fear. 3. Defensible
space includes characteristics of the built environment (e.g., lighting,
barriers) that directly inhibit a criminal's ability to strike and may also
reflect and encourage community territoriality and cohesion. 4. Nonresidential land use shares
aspects of each type of cue, but is not used in the present analyses.
APPENDIX
B
Means
for Variables in Discriminant Analysis that
Differentiate
Optimistic, Neutral, and Pessimistic Residents
Neighborhood qualities Pessimistic Neutral Optimistic
Police
protection (10 = excellent) 5.14 5.58 6.51*
Availability
of childcare 5.58 5.14 6.48*
Parks
& playgrounds 5.99 6.52 7.46*
Street/sidewalk
condition 5.53 5.91 6.87*
Housing
quality 5.32 5.45 6.55*
Housing
affordability 5.35 6.08 6.10
Neighbor
friendliness 6.44 6.62 7.77*
Block problems Pessimistic Neutral Optimistic
Vacant
homes (0 = no; 1 = yes) .58 .64 .57
Unkempt
neighbor property
.77 .64 .58*
Suspected
drug house .65 .45 .41*
Neighbor
home burgled .60 .43 .30*
Street
robbery/assault
.40 .29 .14*
Evidence
of gang activity
.81 .66 .52*
Graffiti
(0-10, 10 = big problem) 6.57 4.97 4.36*
Loud
neighbors 4.60 4.56 3.26*
Traffic
problems 4.56 3.84 3.80
Stray
dogs/cats 5.67 4.83 4.55*
Neighborly contact Pessimistic Neutral Optimistic
Borrow/loan
w. nbors 1.87 1.76 2.20*
Visit
w. nbors 3.02 3.08 3.37
Discuss
neighborhood problems 2.55 2.22 2.57
Watch
over neighbors' homes 2.83 2.31 3.14*
Can
control sidewalk (1-10) 5.52 5.72 6.56*
Spend
time outside (1-4) 2.90 3.02 3.10
Citizen Participation Pessimistic Neutral Optimistic
Attend
community council
.30 .27 .28
Attend
anti-crime, gang mtg.
.22 .17 .18
Work
for comm. council .13 .16 .14
Work
for anti-crime, gang
.12 .08 .14
Contacted
officials about problems .34 .22 .19*
* Indicates a variable that significantly
(p<.05) differentiates the 3 groups of residents.