Advertisement

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

  • Andrew M. GilchristEmail author
  • Rustu Deryol
  • Troy C. Payne
  • Pamela Wilcox
Original Article

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.

Keywords

Place management Crime prevention Multilevel opportunity theory Neighborhood disadvantage Apartment complexes 

Notes

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.

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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felson, M. 1987. Routine activities and crime prevention in the developing metropolis. Criminology 25: 911–931.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tillyer, M.S. 2015. General multilevel opportunity and crime events. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 31: 107–121.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Limited 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrew M. Gilchrist
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rustu Deryol
    • 2
  • Troy C. Payne
    • 3
  • Pamela Wilcox
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA
  2. 2.Department of CriminologyUniversity of South Florida-Sarasota-ManateeSarasotaUSA
  3. 3.Justice CenterUniversity of Alaska AnchorageAnchorageUSA

Personalised recommendations