This study explores the relationship between crime and neighborhood deterioration in eight neighborhoods in Chicago. The neighborhoods were selected on the basis of slowly or rapidly appreciating real estate values, stable or changing racial composition, and high or low crime rates. These data provide the results of a telephone survey administered to approximately 400 heads of households in each study neighborhood, a total of 3,310 completed interviews. The survey was designed to measure victimization experience, fear and perceptions of crime, protective measures taken, attitudes toward neighborhood quality and resources, attitudes toward the neighborhood as an investment, and density of community involvement. Each record includes appearance ratings for the block of the respondent's residence and aggregate figures on personal and property victimization for that city block. The aggregate appearance ratings were compiled from windshield surveys taken by trained personnel of the National Opinion Research Center. The criminal victimization figures came from Chicago City Police files.

This data collection was designed to evaluate the effects of disorderly neighborhood conditions on community decline and residents' reactions toward crime. Data from five previously collected datasets were aggregated and merged to produce this collection: (1) REACTIONS TO CRIME PROJECT, 1977 [CHICAGO, PHILADELPHIA, SAN FRANCISCO]: SURVEY ON FEAR OF CRIME AND CITIZEN BEHAVIOR (ICPSR 8162), (2) CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH AND LOW CRIME NEIGHBORHOODS IN ATLANTA, 1980 (ICPSR 8951), (3) CRIME FACTORS AND NEIGHBORHOOD DECLINE IN CHICAGO, 1979 (ICPSR 7952), (4) REDUCING FEAR OF CRIME PROGRAM EVALUATION SURVEYS IN NEWARK AND HOUSTON, 1983-1984 (ICPSR 8496), and (5) a survey of citizen participation in crime prevention in six Chicago neighborhoods conducted by Rosenbaum, Lewis, and Grant. Neighborhood-level data cover topics such as disorder, crime, fear, residential satisfaction, and other key factors in community decline. Variables include disorder characteristics such as loitering, drugs, vandalism, noise, and gang activity, demographic characteristics such as race, age, and unemployment rate, and neighborhood crime problems such as burglary, robbery, assault, and rape. Information is also available on crime avoidance behaviors, fear of crime on an aggregated scale, neighborhood satisfaction on an aggregated scale, and cohesion and social interaction.

This data collection contains responses to victimization surveys that were administered as part of both the planning and evaluation stages of the Hartford Project, a crime opportunity reduction program implemented in a residential neighborhood in Hartford, Connecticut, in 1976. The Hartford Project was an experiment in how to reduce residential burglary and street robbery/purse snatching and the fear of those crimes. Funded through the Hartford Institute of Criminal and Social Justice, the project began in 1973. It was based on a new "environmental" approach to crime prevention: a comprehensive and integrative view addressing not only the relationship among citizens, police, and offenders, but also the effect of the physical environment on their attitudes and behavior. The surveys were administered by the Center for Survey Research at the University of Massachusetts at Boston. The Center collected Hartford resident survey data in five different years: 1973, 1975, 1976, 1977, and 1979. The 1973 survey provided basic data for problem analysis and planning. These data were updated twice: in 1975 to gather baseline data for the time of program implementation, and in the spring of 1976 with a survey of households in one targeted neighborhood of Hartford to provide data for the time of implementation of physical changes there. Program evaluation surveys were carried out in the spring of 1977 and two years later in 1979. The procedures for each survey were essentially identical each year in order to ensure comparability across time. The one exception was the 1976 sample, which was not independent of the one taken in 1975. In each survey except 1979, respondents reported on experiences during the preceding 12-month period. In 1979 the time reference was the past two years. The survey questions were very similar from year to year, with 1973 being the most unique. All surveys focused on victimization, fear, and perceived risk of being victims of the target crimes. Other questions explored perceptions of and attitudes toward police, neighborhood problems, and neighbors. The surveys also included questions on household and respondent characteristics.

This data collection was designed to test the "incivilities thesis": that incivilities such as extant neighborhood physical conditions of disrepair or abandonment and troubling street behaviors contribute to residents' concerns for personal safety and their desire to leave their neighborhood. The collection examines between-individual versus between-neighborhood and between-city differences with respect to fear of crime and neighborhood commitment and also explores whether some perceived incivilities are more relevant to these outcomes than others. The data represent a secondary analysis of five ICPSR collections: (1) CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH AND LOW CRIME NEIGHBORHOODS IN ATLANTA, 1980 (ICPSR 7951), (2) CRIME CHANGES IN BALTIMORE, 1970-1994 (ICPSR 2352), (3) CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION, 1979: CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AREA SURVEY (ICPSR 8086), (4) CRIME, FEAR, AND CONTROL IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL CENTERS: MINNEAPOLIS AND ST. PAUL, 1970-1982 (ICPSR 8167), and (5) TESTING THEORIES OF CRIMINALITY AND VICTIMIZATION IN SEATTLE, 1960-1990 (ICPSR 9741). Part 1, Survey Data, is an individual-level file that contains measures of residents' fear of victimization, avoidance of dangerous places, self-protection, neighborhood satisfaction, perceived incivilities (presence of litter, abandoned buildings, vandalism, and teens congregating), and demographic variables such as sex, age, and education. Part 2, Neighborhood Data, contains crime data and demographic variables from Part 1 aggregated to the neighborhood level, including percentage of the neighborhood that was African-American, gender percentages, average age and educational attainment of residents, average household size and length of residence, and information on home ownership.

Two previously released data collections from ICPSR are combined in this dataset: CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH AND LOW CRIME NEIGHBORHOODS IN ATLANTA, 1980 (ICPSR 7951) and CRIME FACTORS AND NEIGHBORHOOD DECLINE IN CHICAGO, 1979 (ICPSR 7952). Information for ICPSR 7951 was obtained from 523 residents interviewed in six selected neighborhoods in Atlanta, Georgia. A research team from the Research Triangle Institute sampled and surveyed the residents. ICPSR 7952 contains 3,310 interviews of Chicago residents in eight selected neighborhoods. The combined data collection contains variables on topics such as residents' demographics and socioeconomic status, personal crime rates, property crime rates, neighborhood crime rates, and neighborhood characteristics. The documentation contains three pieces of information for each variable: variable reference numbers for both the Atlanta and Chicago datasets, the complete wording of the questions put to the respondents of each survey, and the exact wording of the coding schemes adopted by the researchers.

This study extends a prior National Institute (NIJ) funded study on mirco level places that examined the concentration of crime at places over time. The current study links longitudinal crime data to a series of other databases. The purpose of the study was to examine the possible correlates of variability in crime trends over time. The focus was on how crime distributes across very small units of geography. Specifically, this study investigated the geographic distribution of crime and the specific correlates of crime at the micro level of geography. The study reported on a large empirical study that investigated the "criminology of place." The study linked 16 years of official crime data on street segments (a street block between two intersections) in Seattle, Washington, to a series of datasets examining social and physical characteristics of micro places over time, and examined not only the geography of developmental patterns of crime at place but also the specific factors that are related to different trajectories of crime. The study used two key criminological perspectives, social disorganization theories and opportunity theories, to inform their identification of risk factors in the study and then contrast the impacts of these perspectives in the context of multivariate statistical models.

This survey was conducted as part of the Citizen Participation and Community Crime Prevention project at the Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University. The project was conducted to gain a deeper understanding of the wide range of activities in which the American public engages to be secure from crime. In particular, this survey was designed to identify the scope of anti-crime activities and investigate the processes that facilitate or inhibit the public's involvement in those activities. The geographical area for the survey was defined by the "commuting basin" of Chicago, excluding several independent cities and their suburbs (e.g., Aurora, Waukegan, and Joliet) on the northern and western fringes of that area, and excluding all areas in Indiana. Interviewing was carried out by the Survey Research Laboratory at the University of Illinois during June through August 1979. Information was gathered on people's opinions toward safety, their involvement with crime prevention activities, and the quality of life in their neighborhoods. In addition, data were assembled from Census Bureau and police reports for each community area in which respondents lived in the years immediately preceding the survey.

The survey was designed to explore the thesis that effective prevention and control of crime requires a community-wide effort that involves law enforcement agencies, other elements of government, and the citizens in a coordinated attack on problems of crime. The data include information on program start-up, implementation, and the community itself, as well as information on the specific activities undertaken by the programs.

This study was designed to collect comprehensive data on the types of "crime prevention through environmental design" (CPTED) methods used by cities of 30,000 population and larger, the extent to which these methods were used, and their perceived effectiveness. A related goal was to discern trends, variations, and expansion of CPTED principles traditionally employed in crime prevention and deterrence. "Security by design" stems from the theory that proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the incidence and fear of crime and an improvement in quality of life. Examples are improving street lighting in high-crime locations, traffic re-routing and control to hamper drug trafficking and other crimes, inclusion of security provisions in city building codes, and comprehensive review of planned development to ensure careful consideration of security. To gather these data, the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), which had previously studied a variety of issues including the fear of crime, mailed a survey to the mayors of 1,060 cities in 1994. Follow-up surveys were sent in 1995 and 1996. The surveys gathered information about the role of CPTED in a variety of local government policies and procedures, local ordinances, and regulations relating to building, local development, and zoning. Information was also collected on processes that offered opportunities for integrating CPTED principles into local development or redevelopment and the incorporation of CPTED into decisions about the location, design, and management of public facilities. Questions focused on whether the city used CPTED principles, which CPTED techniques were used (architectural features, landscaping and landscape materials, land-use planning, physical security devices, traffic circulation systems, or other), the city department with primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with CPTED zoning ordinances/building codes and other departments that actively participated in that enforcement (mayor's office, fire department, public works department, planning department, city manager, economic development office, police department, building department, parks and recreation, zoning department, city attorney, community development office, or other), the review process for proposed development, security measures for public facilities, traffic diversion and control, and urban beautification programs. Respondents were also asked about other security-by-design features being used, including whether they were mandatory or optional, if optional, how they were instituted (legislation, regulation, state building code, or other), and if applicable, how they were legislated (city ordinance, city resolution, or state law). Information was also collected on the perceived effectiveness of each technique, if local development regulations existed regarding convenience stores, if joint code enforcement was in place, if banks, neighborhood groups, private security agencies, or other groups were involved in the traffic diversion and control program, and the responding city's population, per capita income, and form of government.

This study was a process evaluation of the Comprehensive Communities Program (CCP) intended to develop insights into how community approaches to crime and drug abuse prevention and control evolved, to track how each site implemented its comprehensive strategy, to determine the influence of preexisting ecological, social, economic, and political factors on implementation, and to monitor the evolution of strategies and projects over time. Intensive evaluations were done at six CCP sites: Baltimore, Maryland; Boston, Massachusetts; Columbia, South Carolina; Fort Worth, Texas; Salt Lake City, Utah; and Seattle, Washington. Less intensive evaluations were done at six other CCP sites: Gary, Indiana; Hartford, Connecticut; Wichita, Kansas; the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area; the Atlanta, Georgia, metropolitan area; and the East Bay area of northern California. At all 12 sites, 2 waves of a Coalition Survey (Parts 1 and 2) were sent to everyone who participated in CCP. Likewise, 2 waves of the Community Policing Survey (Parts 3 and 4) were sent to the police chiefs of all 12 sites. Finally, all 12 sites were visited by researchers at least once (Parts 5 to 13). Variables found in this data collection include problems facing the communities, the implementation of CCP programs, the use of community policing, and the effectiveness of the CCP programs and community policing efforts.