The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. 

Department of Justice and prepared the following final report: 

Document Title: Situational Crime Prevention at Specific 

Locations in Community Context: Place and 

Neighborhood Effects 

Author: John E. Eck, Tamara Madensen, Troy Payne, 

Pamela Wilcox, Bonnie S. Fisher, Heidi Scherer 

Document No.: 229364 

Date Received: January 2010 

Award Number: 2005-IJ-CX-0030 

This report has not been published by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

To provide better customer service, NCJRS has made this Federallyfunded grant final report available electronically in addition to 

traditional paper copies. 

 

Opinions or points of view expressed are those 

of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect 

the official position or policies of the U.S. 

Department of Justice. 
-1- 

Situational Crime Prevention at Specific 

Locations in Community Context: Place and 

Neighborhood Effects 

John E. Eck, Tamara Madensen, Troy Payne, Pamela Wilcox, Bonnie S. 

Fisher, Heidi Scherer 

University of Cincinnati 

November, 2009 

This project was supported by Grant No. 2005-IJ-CX-0030 awarded by the National 

Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. The opinions, 

findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication/program/exhibition 

are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Justice. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-2- 

Abstract

This final report to the National Institute of Justice describes the methods, data, findings 

and implications of a study of the situational and contextual influences on violence in bars and 

apartment. The study was conducted in Cincinnati, Ohio. Interviews of managers and 

observations of sites were made for 199 bars. For apartment complexes owners were 

interviewed for 307 and observations were made at 994. Using the data from these sources, 

police records, county land parcel data, and census information, the study examined why some 

bars and apartments had more violent crime than others. For both types of places, violent crime 

is highly skewed: a few places have most of the violent incidents but most bars and most 

apartment complexes have no violence or very little violence. In both bars and apartment 

complexes, neighborhood context seems to be loosely coupled with violence. Bars were 

clustered in a few neighborhoods, but violent and non-violent bars were near each other. 

Neighborhood context influenced the relationship between situational variables and violence in 

apartment complexes, but not consistently. Place specific features are also important. In bars, 

minimum drink price and whether the bar was attracting the ideal customer were negatively 

associated with violence while security was positively associated with violence. In apartment 

complexes a host of site specific features and management practices were associated with 

violence, including location, physical characteristics, incivilities, and management practices. 

These associations sometimes depended on neighborhood disadvantage or violence. To account 

for these findings, the report describes a hypothetical general model of place management. The 

report concludes with policy and research implications. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-3- 

Table of Contents 

Abstract ....................................................................................................................................... 2

Executive Summary................................................................................................................. 9

BARS FINDINGS................................................................................................................................. 14

APARTMENT COMPLEX FINDINGS............................................................................................. 16

GENERAL FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................ 18

Place Research Implications...................................................................................................................19

Place based prevention.............................................................................................................................21

Introduction.............................................................................................................................23

Purpose, Goals And Objectives ................................................................................................... 23

Review Of Relevant Research...................................................................................................... 24

Hot Spot Places..............................................................................................................................................24

Place Management......................................................................................................................................25

Context of Places..........................................................................................................................................26

Cincinnati Apartments and Drinking Places ....................................................................................28

Displacement and Diffusion....................................................................................................................29

Cincinnati Neighborhoods............................................................................................................ 30

Bar Methodology ....................................................................................................................35

Data Sources...................................................................................................................................... 35

Secondary Data ............................................................................................................................................35

Primary Data .................................................................................................................................................36

Sampling Design............................................................................................................................... 37

Data Collection Procedures ......................................................................................................... 38

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 39

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-4- 

Violence Crime Distributions .................................................................................................................41

Neighborhood Context..............................................................................................................................45

Variation in Management Practices.....................................................................................................52

Relationship between Management Practices and Violence.....................................................58

Apartment Methodology......................................................................................................67

Data Sources...................................................................................................................................... 67

Secondary Data ............................................................................................................................................67

Primary Data .................................................................................................................................................68

Sampling Design ..........................................................................................................................................69

Response Rate ..............................................................................................................................................74

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 75

Conceptual Models......................................................................................................................................75

Apartment Manager Survey Measures...............................................................................................79

Apartment Site Observation Survey....................................................................................................83

Neighborhood‐level Data.........................................................................................................................86

The Dependent Variable...........................................................................................................................87

Research Findings:  Apartment Violence ..........................................................................................87

Analysis of Site Observation Data.........................................................................................................89

Analysis of Apartment Manager Survey Data..................................................................................97

Summary...................................................................................................................................................... 102

Violence at places:  Lessons from bars and apartments........................................ 104

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................104

General findings.............................................................................................................................104

Distribution of Violence......................................................................................................................... 104

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-5- 

Neighborhood Context........................................................................................................................... 105

Place Features............................................................................................................................................ 107

Place Dynamics ......................................................................................................................................... 108

Implications for place research................................................................................................114

Interviewing and Observing Place Managers ............................................................................... 114

Case Studies and Establishing Temporal Order .......................................................................... 115

Management Practice and Business Networks............................................................................ 116

Place based prevention.......................................................................................................................... 117

References ............................................................................................................................. 121

Appendix I: Bar Place Manager Survey........................................................................ 131

Appendix II: Bar Site Observation Survey .................................................................. 160

Appendix III: CAD Codes Included in Violent Calls for Police Service .............. 167

Appendix IV: Apartment Manager Survey.................................................................. 169

Appendix V: Apartment Site Observation Survey.................................................... 180

Appendix VI:  Changes in the Study Design...........................................................188

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-6- 

Table of Tables 

Table 1: Summary of methods and findings................................................................................. 13

Table 2: Cincinnati Neighborhoods.............................................................................................. 33

Table 3: Descriptive statistics for violent crime variables............................................................ 44

Table 4: Manager reports of time since last violent incident........................................................ 45

Table 5: Chi-square tests of bar location and violence................................................................. 50

Table 6: Chi-square tests of environmental features and violence ............................................... 51

Table 7: Purpose of establishment ................................................................................................ 54

Table 8: Marketing practices and success..................................................................................... 55

Table 9: Property characteristics................................................................................................... 56

Table 10: Staffing, training and security....................................................................................... 57

Table 11: Bar variables predictive of violence in previous research*.......................................... 59

Table 12: Chi-square tests - purpose/functions and high violence bars........................................ 61

Table 13: Bivariate logistic regression - marketing and high violence bars................................. 62

Table 14: Chi-square tests - marketing decisions and high-violence bars.................................... 62

Table 15: Bivariate logistic regression - property characteristics and high violence bars............ 63

Table 16: Bivariate logistic regression - staffing/training/security and high violence bars ......... 64

Table 17: Chi-square tests - staffing/training/security and high violence bars............................. 64

Table 18: Multivariate logistic regression - management practices and high-violence bars........ 65

Table 19: T-tests - bar location and use of security features ........................................................ 66

Table 20: Methodological Issues and Solutions ........................................................................... 70

Table 21: Neighborhood Groups .................................................................................................. 71

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-7- 

Table 22: Number of Calls for Police Service Involving Violence.............................................. 74

Table 23: Descriptive Statistics: Management Experience and Presence Cluster........................ 80

Table 24: Descriptive Statistics: Checks and Security Cluster..................................................... 81

Table 25: Descriptive Statistics: Financial/Residential Stability Cluster ..................................... 82

Table 26: Descriptive Statistics: Accessibility Cluster................................................................. 84

Table 27: Descriptive Statistics: Traffic Cluster........................................................................... 85

Table 28: Descriptive Statistics: Image Cluster............................................................................ 86

Table 29: Descriptive Statistics: Neighborhood-level Measures.................................................. 87

Table 30: Descriptive Statistics: Dependent Variable .................................................................. 87

Table 31: Level-1 and Level-2 Variance Components, Unconditional Hierarchical Logistic 

Regression Model of High Violence..................................................................................... 88

Table 32: Random-Coefficient Logistic Regression Models of High Violence: Accessibility 

Cluster................................................................................................................................... 90

Table 33: Cross-level Interactions: Accessibility Cluster............................................................. 91

Table 34: Random-Coefficient Logistic Regression Models of High Violence Complexes: Traffic 

Cluster................................................................................................................................... 92

Table 35: Cross-level Interactions: Traffic Cluster ...................................................................... 94

Table 36: Random-Coefficient Logistic Regression Models of High Violence Complexes: Image 

Cluster................................................................................................................................... 95

Table 37: Cross-level Interactions: Image Cluster........................................................................ 96

Table 38: Random-Intercept Logistic Regression Models of High Violence Complexes: Financial 

and Residential Stability Cluster........................................................................................... 98

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-8- 

Table 39: Random-Intercept Logistic Regression Models of High Violence Complexes: 

Management Experience and Presence Cluster .................................................................. 100

Table 40: Random-Intercept Logistic Regression Models of High Violence Complexes: Checks 

and Security Cluster............................................................................................................ 101

Table of Figures 

Figure 1: Distribution of violence across bars in Cincinnati ........................................................ 15

Figure 2: Cincinnati Neighborhoods............................................................................................. 32

Figure 3: Distribution of violence across Cincinnati Bars............................................................ 42

Figure 4: Distribution of physical violence incidents across Cincinnati Bars.............................. 43

Figure 5: Distribution of threatened violence incidents across Cincinnati bars ........................... 44

Figure 6: Distribution of bars across Cincinnati........................................................................... 46

Figure 7: Distribution of violence across bars in Cincinnati ........................................................ 47

Figure 8: Violent bars among nonviolent bars.............................................................................. 48

Figure 9: Nonviolent bars close to a cluster of violent bars ......................................................... 49

Figure 10: Neighborhood Groups Used for Sampling.................................................................. 72

Figure 11: Apartment Manager Survey Conceptual Model.......................................................... 78

Figure 12: Apartment Site Observation Survey Conceptual Model ............................................. 78

Figure 13: Place management..................................................................................................... 109

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-9- 

Executive Summary

Crime is concentrated at places (Eck, Clarke, and Guerette, 2007; Eck and Weisburd, 

1995; Farrell, 1995; Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger, 1989; Spelman, 1995). One of the major 

reasons for this concentration are the actions of people who own places; place managers. 

Though place management has been empirically documented (Eck, 1994; Homel and Clark, 

1994; Mazerolle, Kadleck, and Roehl, 1998), little is known about how place managers regulate 

specific environments. Even less is known about the contexts that could influence place 

management or could facilitate or constrain managers' efforts. 

This research project was designed to fill these gaps in our knowledge and help build 

more effective crime prevention practice. It examines two types of places, apartment complexes 

and drinking establishments (e.g., bars and restaurant /bars). The research had two goals: 

1. Develop information useful to police and others engaged in place-based 

situational crime prevention that can assist them in working with place managers 

to reduce violent crime. 

2. Improve the scientific understanding of how place managers influence crime at 

places, and the factors that influence place management practices. 

To accomplish these goals the following objectives will be achieved: 

1. Identify apartments and alcohol drinking establishments (includes bars and 

restaurants with alcohol service licenses) in Cincinnati that have very high 

numbers of violent incidents and very low numbers of violent incidents; 

2. Document the management practices and site characteristics of both high and low 

violent incident sites; 

3. Determine the neighborhood contexts of high and low crime establishments; 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-10- 

4. Examine how the management practices, site characteristics and neighborhood 

context influence crime and each other. 

This study took place in Cincinnati, a city of 331,285 people in 2000, located on 79.6 

square miles in southwestern Ohio. Fifty-two neighborhoods are located within the city. 

Neighborhood populations average 6,525 people and range from 395 to 31,053. These provide a 

variety of context that may influence place management and violent crime in bars and 

apartments. 

A similar, but not identical, data gathering process was used for bars and apartment 

complexes. Table 1 summarizes the data collection, analysis, and basic findings from the study. 

First, the type of place was defined in a way that allowed comparisons of very similar 

places. The definitions are listed in Table 1. 

Second, the researchers used the Hamilton County Auditor’s data on land parcels to 

identify locations that could fit these definitions and were within the city limits of Cincinnati. 

The Auditor’s records provided the address of the location, basic characteristics of the parcel, 

information on who owned the location, and a use classification. The use classification provided 

a first cut at determining which locations should be studied. 

Third, these data were then analyzed to establish a population of sites that closely fit this 

definition. Potential bars were compared to lists of bars in an annual bar guide. Where there was 

doubt, site visits or phone calls were made to establish a fit to the definition. This also allowed 

elimination of places that were formerly bars but had closed. Apartment sites were clustered and 

contiguous sites owned by the same person or company were aggregated to a “complex”. 

Because of the number of apartment complexes, verification visits were impractical. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-11- 

Consequently, closed apartment complexes or complexes that had been misclassified in the 

Auditor’s records could only be established after onsite data collection. 

Fourth, crime and call for service data from the Cincinnati Police Department were 

analyzed and crimes with the same addresses as the sites were assigned to them. This provided a 

statistical description of the frequency of violent crime across all bars and apartment complexes. 

Fifth, the spatial distributions of bars and apartment complexes were examined. Bars 

were tightly clustered in a few neighborhoods and most neighborhoods had no bars or too few to 

use formal contextual analysis. Apartment complexes were widely spread throughout the city, 

though a few very small neighborhoods had too few complexes for analysis. These small 

neighborhoods were grouped with adjacent similar neighborhoods. One very large complex, 

which constituted a neighborhood in and of itself, was dropped from the study. 

Sixth, locations were sampled for further data collection. All bars within Cincinnati that 

fit the definition were examined because it was practical to do so. A different approach was used 

for apartment complexes. To ensure that neighborhoods would have sufficient complexes for 

hierarchical modeling, we randomly sampled complexes by neighborhood. Further, if several 

complexes were controlled by the same owner, we only selected one of the owner’s complexes. 

Seventh, trained graduate students visited the sampled bars and complexes to carry out 

observations of each site’s physical characteristics. They were deployed in teams of two, with 

one student focusing on observations while the other conducted the interviews. The site teams 

were able to achieve a response rate of about 83 percent for bars. A completion rate of 69 

percent was achieved for observing apartment complexes (see Table 1). 

Eighth, attempts were made to interview a place manager. A place manager was defined 

as the owner or an employee of the owner who has control over the site. So in bars managers 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-12- 

included the owner, bartenders, wait staff and bouncers. Interviews with bar managers occurred 

at the same time as the observations. At least three attempts were made to interview a manager 

and observe the site. 

Apartment managers included owners, management company representatives, or on site 

staff. Because apartment complex managers are seldom on site, the observations were 

undertaken separately from the interviews. Several methods of gathering management data were 

used. First a mail survey was used with a follow-up mailing to improve the response rate. This 

was followed by phone calls to owners of apartments in neighborhoods with insufficient 

completed interviews. The interview response rate finally achieved was 21 percent. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-13- 

Table 1: Summary of methods and findings 

Bars Apartment Complexes 

Definition A place that meets four conditions: (1) it is 

open to the general public; (2) it serves 

hard alcohol for on-site consumption; (3) 

some proportion of patrons frequent the 

place for the primary purpose of 

consuming alcohol; and (4) there is a 

designated physical area within the place 

that serves as a drinking area. 

An apartment complex is a grouping of 

physically contiguous apartment land 

parcels owned by the same person or 

entity. An apartment land parcel is a 

residential structures with four or more 

units, as classified by the Hamilton 

County Auditor in accordance with the 

Ohio Revised Code. 

Data to locate site and 

identify owner 

Hamilton County Auditor records Hamilton County Auditor records 

Violent crime data Cincinnati Police Department records of 

calls for service and reported crimes. 

Reports of place managers interviewed. 

Cincinnati Police Department records of 

calls for service and reported crimes. 

Population 239 4,956 

Target Sample Size 239 1,451 distributed among neighborhoods 

and having no duplicate owners 

Obtained interview 

sample 

(response rate) 

199 (83.26%) 307 (21.15%) 

Obtained observation 

sample (response rate) 

199 (83.26%) 994 (95.6%) 

Contextual data U.S. Census 

Method for estimating 

context 

Examining the spatial distribution of bars 

with different levels of violence 

Hierarchical linear modeling 

Findings regarding 

neighborhood 

Bars cluster in particular neighborhoods. 

Violent and non-violent bars are found 

together in the same areas. 

Context had variable influences and 

depended on the types of situational 

variables being examined. 

Situational variables 

associated with violence 

(-) negative 

association 

(+) positive 

association 

Cost of least expensive drink (-) 

Attracting ideal customer (-) 

Security (+) 

Corner lot (+) 

Bus stops (+) 

Loitering (+) 

Delinquent rent (+) 

Section 8 (+) 

Owns other apt complexes (+) 

On-site office (+) 

Background checks (+) 

Evictions (+) 

High traffic streets (+) matters only in 

disadvantaged neighborhoods 

Minor disorder (+) less important in 

disadvantaged or violent 

neighborhoods 

Signage (+) more important in 

disadvantaged neighborhoods 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-14- 

BARS FINDINGS

As discovered in the analysis used to plan data collection, bars are highly concentrated in 

Cincinnati. Most neighborhoods have no or few bars, and a few neighborhoods have many. 

Even within neighborhoods that contained bars, the bars tend to be tightly clustered instead of 

scattered throughout the neighborhood. For these reasons the influence of neighborhood context 

on bar violence had to be inferred from spatial analysis, rather than directly estimated from the 

data. 

Figure 1 shows the spatial distribution of bars by their level of violence. The spatial 

clustering of bars is readily apparent, with the highest concentrations in the downtown and Overthe-Rhine neighborhoods at the bottom center of the map. If neighborhoods had a strong and 

overriding influence on bar violence, then we should see violent bars located in clusters separate 

from clusters of non-violent bars. There is very little of such segregation. Rather, the overall 

pattern is that the relatively few violent bars are located near and among the more numerous 

non/low-violent bars. Neighborhoods clearly influence where bars will be located, but it is 

uncertain what other influence they have. We can be reasonably confident that other factors, 

probably place-based situational factors, must play a role in violence. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-15- 

Figure 1: Distribution of violence across bars in Cincinnati 

A number of place based characteristics were examined. The details are explained in the 

full report. Here we will focus on the conclusions based on multivariate analysis. 

All three of the significant variables that consistently showed a relationship to bar 

violence were management variables. That is, these are indicators of things the manager has 

some control over. 

Cost of the least expensive drink. During the interviews, the site teams asked the 

manager the cost of the least expensive drink. The price of the least expensive drink gives an 

indication of how much someone must spend, and could influence the amount of drinking an 

individual can undertake. As the cost of the least expensive drink rises, violence declines. In 

short, more expensive bars have less violence. 

Attracting the ideal customer. The site team also asked the manager if the bar was 

attracting the type of customer that was hoped for. The interviewer left the definition of “ideal” 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-16- 

to the manager, so each manager could have a different ideal customer in mind. Bars where 

ideal customers were being attracted had less violence than bars where this was not the case. 

This suggests that, on average, managers of bars do not seek to attract violent customers. 

Instead, some bars may put up with violence as a way of getting by with less than ideal 

customers. 

Security.  A security index was constructed to measure the number of different types of 

security features used by management to prevent crime. The security index ranges from 0 to 7 

and represents a count of whether the bar has a burglary alarm, a robbery alarm, access codes, 

cash control procedures, established staff behavioral expectations, weapons for staff, or 

surveillance cameras. On average, bars in Cincinnati used three of these security measures to 

prevent crime. This index was positively associated with violence. That is, bars with higher 

security index scores had more violence than bars with low scores. There is a straightforward 

interpretation of this: Bar managers are responding to violence by increasing security (i.e., 

violence causes security). Security may keep the violence from getting worse, but it does not 

appear to make a bad bar safe. Though this makes more sense than hypothesizing that security 

causes violence, it too is a hypothesis in need of testing. 

APARTMENT COMPLEX FINDINGS

The analyses of the apartment data indicated that management decisions are important in 

understanding violence at apartment complexes. Several types of management decisions appear 

important. Table 1 summarizes the findings from multivariate analysis in which place level and 

neighborhood context variables were examined. We will highlight some of the most salient 

findings here. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-17- 

First, our analysis provided evidence that purchasing decisions of owners regarding 

physical characteristics of properties can have implications for violence. In particular, our 

findings highlight a couple of key risk factors in this regard: 

• Apartment complexes located on corner lots were more violence-prone places; 

and 

• Apartment complexes located near bus stops were more violence-prone places. 

Second, some management decisions regarding the upkeep, maintenance, and supervision 

of their properties may be key in predicting levels of violence on the properties. Our findings 

highlighted one specific finding consistent with this idea: 

• Apartment complexes with presence of loitering were more violence-prone 

places. 

Finally, management decisions regarding the financial standing of tenants to whom they 

rent appear important in understanding and preventing violence. In particular, our findings 

indicate the following: 

• The proportion of tenants delinquent on their rent is positively associated with 

apartment violence; and 

• The proportion of tenants paying with Section 8 vouchers is positively associated 

with apartment violence. 

• There is also evidence that these management decisions do not have the same 

impact across all neighborhood contexts. That is, in some cases management 

decisions in one neighborhood may produce different outcomes than the same 

decision in another neighborhood. Our contextual analysis, including exploration 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-18- 

of how complex-level effects on violence varied according to neighborhood 

context yielded the following conclusions: 

• There is evidence that apartment complexes located on high-traffic streets (as 

indicated by presence of a street light) are only at risk of violence in 

neighborhoods with the most concentrated disadvantage. 

• Incivilities were most harmful to complexes located in neighborhoods with less 

disadvantage and less overall crime. That is, incivilities at an apartment complex 

in a neighborhood with high poverty and high crime will cause less violence than 

the same incivilities at a complex in a higher income neighborhood with less 

crime. 

GENERAL FINDINGS

Four general findings from this study may have broad implication for the relationships 

among places, neighborhoods, and violence. 

1) Violence is highly concentrated in a few bars and a few apartment complexes. This is 

highly consistent with research on places. This suggests that attention should be focused on the 

relatively rare high violence places, rather than on all places (e.g., all bars or all apartments). 

2) Place violence is partially determined by neighborhood context. Context is neither the 

dominate influence nor is context irrelevant. Place violence is both the result of place 

characteristics and the neighborhood context of the place. This suggests that the effectiveness of 

place specific interventions may be different in different neighborhood contexts. 

3) Place features are associated with place violence. In particular, we found evidence 

consistent with the hypothesis that place management influences violence at both apartments and 

bars. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-19- 

4) Place management may be a dynamic process involving constant adjustments over 

time to capitalize on useful features of the context and insulate the place from negative features. 

Neighborhood influence may be most important when managers are making long term decisions, 

such as where to locate a bar or apartment complex or if they should purchase an existing 

facility. For very short term decisions involving day-to-day management places can be relatively 

insulated from neighborhood contexts. Intermediate term management decisions buffer the place 

from the context. A more detailed description of a dynamic model of place management is 

contained in the full report. 

Place Research Implications

This study provides several insights into how research into places and place management 

should be conducted. 

Interviewing and Observing Place Managers. The accessibility of place managers to 

researchers varies considerably. In this study, bar managers were very accessible but apartment 

managers were not. This resulted in very different strategies for gaining access, and ultimately 

influenced the response rates. Though this study restricted itself to interviews of management 

and observations of static physical conditions, it has implications for management observations. 

The ability to observe place management in action also varies across different types of places. A 

researcher can sit in a bar and directly observe how managers behave. Though some of their 

actions will be in private locations, much will be in the open. Even if a researcher has unfettered 

access to an apartment complex, however, they will see very little management behavior. 

Interactions with tenants can take place over the phone (or through other devices) and long 

periods will elapse without any obvious action by the owner or her designee. The broad lesson is 

that the pace of activities within places will make place management easier or harder to study. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-20- 

Places that host a limited range of activities, such as office buildings, parking garages, and 

apartment complexes are likely to have less management presence to observe, compared to 

places with more diverse and less predictable activities, such as stores, casinos, and schools. 

Case Studies and Establishing Temporal Order

The findings regarding security in apartments and bars illustrates the difficulty of 

establishing temporal order from cross-sectional studies. We hypothesize that violence increases 

security (not that security causes violence), but cannot test this without observing places over 

time. To understand the impact of place management on crime, and the influence of 

neighborhood context on place management, places should be observed over time. We would 

expect to see managers shifting management practices to achieve their objectives, address 

changes in their context, and to address unforeseen opportunities and impediments. Observing 

places over time will require observing fewer places: instead of observing many places at one 

time, researchers should consider observing few places for many time periods. 

Management Practice and Business Networks 

Understanding the influence of place management on crime may be improved by drawing 

on studies of businesses and marketing. Industry standards could serve as benchmarks for 

measuring management practices. This is a virtually untapped area that deserves greater 

attention. Business networks are also important for understanding how places are managed. 

Three types of networks appear important. First, places may be networked by virtue of sharing 

the same owner. In Cincinnati, about eight percent of the apartment building owners own about 

half of the apartment buildings. Second, places may be connected by franchises. This is more 

readily seen in the fast food, clothing, and convenience store industries than in bars and 

apartments. Third, business groups link places through their owners. So even places not part of 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-21- 

a franchise and not sharing an owner may have connections to other places that can influence 

how management is practiced. All three of these networks can operate outside of neighborhoods, 

and provide an unexamined context of place management. 

Place‐based prevention

There are seven implications for policy that stem from this study’s findings. 

1. Place-based crime policies should focus on extreme places, not average places. 

Rather than broad policies that apply to all facilities of a particular type, the governments should 

direct their anti-crime policies to the small number of high crime locations in the group. 

Separating the many normally good places from the few routinely bad places has three 

advantages. First, focused policies are more effective. Second, it is more efficient, as the same 

resources can be concentrated where they can do the most good, or fewer resources can be used 

to have the same impact. Third, it can be more politically attractive to policy makers than 

attending to all places of a particular type. 

2. Neighborhood based crime prevention efforts will need to include specific placebased strategies. Neighborhood policies without place strategies may not be able to suppress 

crime at high crime locations. 

3. Place-based prevention efforts may need to be adjusted to account for the place’s 

context. The effectiveness of preventions implemented at places may be influenced by the 

context of the place. 

4. Managers are important for controlling crime at places. Owners should be held 

accountable for persistent crime problems on their premises. This implication comes not only 

from the findings that place variables are associated with violence in bars and apartments, but 

from a large body of research and evaluations. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-22- 

5. Holding managers accountable for reducing crime may be easier if the 

neighborhood context is supportive. Though managers may buffer their places from their 

surroundings, these buffering activities come with a cost. Thus, a high crime place in a low 

crime area where local residents and other businesses are antagonistic to the place’s crime 

facilitation will be easier to improve than the same place in a high crime neighborhood where 

residents and businesses may view the place’s crime facilitation as normal. 

6. Place based efforts will be most effective when they take into account the 

economic and political context of places. This implication is an extension of the previous 

implication. It also extends the notion of context. We do not know if which context is most 

important – neighborhood, political, economic, or social – and this requires more research. 

However, we need to realize that place managers operate in multiple contexts. 

7. Regulations that specify specific situational crime prevention practices may be far 

less effective than regulations that mandate a maximum level of crime. This implications 

follows from two empirical findings from bars and apartments. First, we found few situational 

factors that were strongly negatively related to crime. Second, the positive relationship between 

security and crime suggests the security follows crime. Consequently, it makes more sense to 

give managers a crime ceiling which they can seek to achieve through what ever legal means 

they can afford and make sense in the context they are operating. In short, property owners 

should be given incentives to reduce crime, but not required to achieve specific situational 

standards. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-23- 

Introduction

Purpose, Goals And Objectives

The concentration of crime in small areas and specific places provides a host of crime 

prevention opportunities. Situational crime prevention (Clarke, 1995) at these crime hot spots has 

been successfully demonstrated (Eck, 2002). The agents principally responsible for undertaking 

such actions are the owners and employees of these hot locations. In extended Routine Activity 

Theory (Felson, 1995), these individuals are described as place managers. Though place 

management has been empirically documented (Eck, 1994; Homel and Clark, 1994; Mazerolle, 

Kadleck, and Roehl, 1998), little is known about how place managers regulate specific 

environments. Even less is known about the contexts that could influence place management or 

could facilitate or constrain managers' efforts. 

The research described here was designed to fill these gaps in our knowledge and help 

build more effective crime prevention practice. It examines two types of places, apartment 

complexes and drinking establishments (e.g., bars and restaurant /bars). The research had two 

goals: 

1) Develop information useful to police and others engaged in place-based 

situational crime prevention that can assist them in working with place 

managers to reduce violent crime. 

2) Improve the scientific understanding of how place managers influence crime at 

places, and the factors that influence place management practices. To 

accomplish these goals the following objectives will be achieved: 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-24- 

a. Identify apartments and alcohol drinking establishments (includes bars and 

restaurants with alcohol service licenses) in Cincinnati that have very 

high numbers of violent incidents and very low numbers of violent 

incidents; 

b. Document the management practices and site characteristics of both high 

and low violent incident sites; 

c. Determine the neighborhood contexts of high and low crime 

establishments; and, 

d. Examine how the management practices, site characteristics and 

neighborhood context influence crime and each other. 

Review Of Relevant Research

Hot Spot Places 

Considerable research has shown that crime is concentrated in a relatively few places 

(Eck and Weisburd, 1995; Farrell, 1995; Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger, 1989; Spelman, 1995) 

and that the application of situational crime prevention at these "hot places" is an effective 

method for reducing a variety of criminal activity and disorders (Eck, 2002; Poyner, 1993; Welsh 

and Farrington, 2002; Welsh and Farrington, 2004). In a recent paper, Eck, Clarke, and Guerette 

(2007) show that: a) when hot places are grouped by type (e.g., bars, apartments, parking lots, 

hotels, and so forth) a small percent of each type is responsible for a disproportionate amount of 

crime at each place type; b) this concentration persists with finer subdivisions of place type; c) 

and this concentration typically persists after controlling for the size of places. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-25- 

Further, police have become increasingly aware that the way owners of places manage 

their locations (through their employees) has major influences on whether their places are 

relatively crime free or whether they are crime hot spots. A recent Washington Post article 

describes efforts in Prince Georges County (MD) to address hot apartment complexes 

(Raghavan, 2005). This insight is backed by non-experimental studies (Clarke and BichlerRobertson, 1998; Eck, 1994; Green, 1995; Homel and Clark, 1994; Mazerolle, Kadleck, and 

Roehl, 1998; Weisburd, Bushway, Lum, and Yang, 2004), quasi-experiments (Felson, Berends, 

Richardson, and Veno, 1997; Homel, Hauritz, Wortley, McIlwain, and Carvolth, 1997b; 

Mazerolle, Ready, Terrill, and Waring, 2000; Putnam, Rockett, and Campbell, 1993), and 

randomized experiments (Eck and Wartell, 1998; Hope, 1994; Mazerolle, Ready, Terrill, and 

Waring, 2000; Mazerolle, Roehl, and Kadleck, 1998). Importantly, as one becomes more 

location specific, hot spots persist. The link between place management and crime prevention is 

further strengthened by the fact that virtually all place-based situational prevention efforts must 

be implemented with at least the consent of place managers, if not their active involvement. 

Today, one of the very first questions police officials ask when addressing problem locations is, 

"who owns it?" (Goldstein, 1997; Sampson, 2003) 

Place Management  

Problem ownership (Goldstein, 1997; Laycock, 2004; Sampson, 2003) is an outgrowth of 

a facet of routine activity theory known as place management (Eck and Weisburd, 1995). Place 

management refers to the regulation of conduct, organization of work, and design of space by 

owners and their employees to facilitate the operations of the place. Regulation of conduct - by 

procedures, rules, or physical design - can inhibit or facilitate crime. With regard to apartment 

complexes, for example, this includes lease provisions, other rules of conduct and enforcement, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-26- 

the use of background checks for prospective tenants, and security provisions at the complex. 

With regard to alcohol drinking establishments, for example, place management includes rules of 

conduct and enforcement, the manner in which alcohol is served, the employment of bouncers, 

how food service and entertainment are provided, and the physical layout. Some place 

management is used with the intent to prevent crime, though more often crime prevention is a 

by-product. Lack of place management contributes to crime (Eck and Weisburd, 1995; Felson, 

1995). 

Though the idea was coined a decade ago, we know little about how place management 

and neighborhood context interact in the formation of violent places, or the creation of safe 

places. So although place management has been widely applied by police, we do not know if 

there are different approaches to place management suitable to different communities. 

Additionally, we do not know how place management and neighborhood context interact to form 

crime place hot spots. 

Context of Places  

The macro-level criminological literature provides ample evidence that community 

characteristics do matter in understanding the spatial patterning of crime. Ecological studies 

suggest that both social and physical characteristics of a community affect crime events by 

altering the administration of resident-based social control. Research in the social disorganization 

tradition shows that community characteristics such as concentrated disadvantage and residential 

mobility diminish cohesiveness among neighbors thereby affecting their supervision and 

intervention behavior (Bellair, 2000; Benson, Fox, DeMaris, and Wyk, 2003; Bursik, 1988; 

Bursik and Grasmick, 1993; Morenoff, Sampson, and Raudenbush, 2001; Sampson and Groves, 

1990; Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls, 1997; Warner and Rountree, 1997; Wilcox, Rountree 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-27- 

and Warner, 1999). Other research emphasizes the role of the physical environment in informal 

social control, suggesting that facets of community space such as street layout, building design, 

lighting, physical decay, and boundary markers can affect indicators of informal area-level crime 

control including territoriality and natural surveillance (Donnelly and Kimble, 1997; Fisher and 

Nasar, 1995; Kurtz, Koons, and Taylor, 1998; Nasar and Fisher, 1993; Newman, 1973; Newman, 

1995; Newman, 1996; Taylor, 2001; Taylor, 1987; Taylor, 1988; Taylor and Brower, 1985; 

Taylor, Gottfredson, and Brower, 1981; Taylor, Gottfredson, and Brower, 1984; White, 1990; 

Wilcox, Quisenberry, Cabrera, and Jones, 2004). 

Other research emphasizes how micro-ecological and macro-ecological characteristics 

may combine or interact to produce crime opportunities at multiple levels (Benson, Fox, 

DeMaris, and Wyk, 2003; Benson, Wooldredge, Thistlethwaite, and Fox, 2004; Fisher, Sloan, 

Cullen, and Lu, 1998; Van Wyk, Benson, Fox, and Demaris, 2003; Wilcox, Land, and Hunt, 

2003; Wilcox, Quisenberry, and Jones, 2003). Most relevant to this research, multilevel research 

has underscored the potential for the criminogenic nature of places to be neighborhood-specific. 

The effects of businesses, for instance, have been shown to have differential effects on 

neighborhood crime, depending upon the level of disadvantage characterizing the broader 

community context (Wilcox, Quisenberry, Cabrera, and Jones, 2004). 

Other findings imply similar sorts of place-neighborhood interaction. For instance, 

research shows that crime-place hot spots are geographically clustered (Eck, Gersh, and Taylor, 

2000; Sherman, Gartin, and Buerger, 1989), and recent evidence suggests that the stability of 

crime hotspot places may vary by neighborhood (Weisburd, Bushway, Lum, and Yang, 2004). 

Finally, it has been proposed that place management may be influenced by neighborhood 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-28- 

economic conditions (Eck and Wartell, 1998), though there is no research testing this proposition 

or otherwise showing how neighborhood context influences place management practices. 

In sum, several recent studies suggest that place-specific factors, including place 

management, and neighborhood-level physical and social factors may work together in 

producing spatially concentrated patterns of violent events. These factors may work together in 

several different ways, including, 1) simultaneous main effects of place and neighborhood 

context (e.g., apartment lease provisions and neighborhood poverty might both contribute to 

violence in apartments), 2) indirect effects of neighborhood context through place management 

(e.g., neighborhood income might influence the types of leases landlords use, which in turn 

influences violence on their property), and 3) moderating effects of neighborhood context 

whereby community characteristics condition the effects of place management on violence (e.g., 

the same lease provisions in high and low income neighborhoods have different effects on 

apartment complex violent crime). Despite the suggestion that such effects might exist, the 

research is far from conclusive in this regard. 

Cincinnati Apartments and Drinking Places  

The research focuses on two specific place types: rental apartment complexes and alcohol 

drinking establishments. These two types of facilities were selected because: they are common; 

they can be sites of violence; there is research indicating management plays a role in the 

frequency of violence; and they provide a useful contrast between residential and recreational 

locations. With regard to private apartment complexes, most of this research has involved 

experimental interventions to test whether interventions with owners can reduce crime (Clarke 

and Bichler-Robertson, 1998; Eck and Spelman, 1987; Eck and Wartell, 1998; Green, 1995; 

Hope, 1994; Mazerolle, Kadleck, and Roehl, 1998; Mazerolle and Roehl, 1999; Mazerolle, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-29- 

Ready, Terrill, and Waring, 2000; Poyner, 1994; Poyner and Webb, 1991). The precise 

management practices that contributed to the concentration of crime in a few apartment 

complexes is not well documented, though lease provisions and willingness to evict problem 

tenants are implicated in some studies (Clarke and Bichler-Robertson, 1998; Eck, 1994; 

Sorensen, 1998). 

Bars too are closely associated with crime. Dennis Roncek's work points to the potential 

criminogenic effect bars have on the immediate surrounding area (Roncek and Bell, 1981; 

Roncek and Maier, 1991; Roncek and Pravatiner, 1989). Other studies show that the way bars 

are managed - particularly drink service policies and how bouncers and security staff are trained 

and supervised -- can have a profound influence on crime and disorder in drinking 

establishments and surrounding spaces (Felson, Berends, Richardson, and Veno, 1997; Homel 

and Clark, 1994; Homel, Hauritz, McIlwain, Wortley,and Carvolth, 1997a; Homel et al., 1997b; 

Putnam, Rockett, and Campbell, 1993). 

Drinking places and apartment complexes, consequently, are ideal for exploring the 

influences· of place management and environmental context - there is a strong theoretical and 

empirical link between crime and both place types, yet in both circumstances, as noted above, 

there is evidence that only a small proportion of each place type are associated with a large 

proportion of crime at each place type. 

Displacement and Diffusion

If crime in the worst of these locations can be lowered substantially, then overall crime 

will decline. As there are relatively few such locations, in principle prevention efforts can be 

concentrated rather than spread across many locations with little or no crime. So targeting these 

risky facilities (Eck, Clarke, and Guerette, 2007) can be both effective and efficient. The benefits 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-30- 

of this approach depend, in part, on whether crime would displace from the hot locations to 

formerly cool locations. Theory and evidence suggests that crime is unlikely to fully displace 

(Barr and Pease, 1990; Cornish and Clarke, 1986; Eck, 1993; Hesseling, 1994). Displacement 

theory suggests that because offenders are reasonably rational, the effort to learn about, move to 

and adapt to new locations will limit displacement (Barnes, 1995; Bouloukos and Farrell, 1997; 

Cornish and Clarke, 1987; Eck, 1993). 

If the proposed study finds strong place management effects and strong contextual 

effects, these will imply diffusion is more likely than displacement. However, if high crime and 

low crime places (drinking places or apartments) are indistinguishable regarding place 

management then the possibility of displacement increases. And if context has little impact as 

well, then displacement could be over a larger area than if context has a strong influence. So this 

study has implications for displacement and diffusion, even though they are not the direct 

subjects of study. 

Cincinnati Neighborhoods

With a population of 331,285 in 2000, Cincinnati is the third largest city in Ohio. 

Located on 79.6 square miles in southwestern Ohio and bordered on the south by the Ohio River, 

it is the county seat for Hamilton County. Just over half (53%) of Cincinnati’s residents are 

white, with African Americans comprising the largest minority group in the city at 42.9% of the 

population. The median family income in 1999 was $19,962. There are 48,375 single-family 

owner-occupied homes in Cincinnati with a median value of $93,000. 

Fifty-two neighborhoods are located within the city. There is a sense of neighborhood 

pride among the locals. When asked where they live, city residents naturally refer to the name of 

their neighborhood. These neighborhoods are mapped in Figure 2 below. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-31- 

Cincinnati neighborhoods vary substantially in area, population, and a number of Census 

measures, making the city suitable for investigations of neighborhood-level effects on crime and 

place management. Neighborhood population ranges from 395 to 31,053 (mean=6,524.73, 

s.d.=5,610.55). Neighborhood area ranges from 0.071 square miles to 5.724 square miles 

(mean=1.53, s.d.=1.15). The number of violent calls for police service also varies substantially 

from neighborhood to neighborhood, from 46 to 3,946 (mean=858.94, s.d.=831.46). 

Table 2 contains data from the 2000 Census aggregated to neighborhood level1

 as well as 

the number of apartment complexes that exist within each neighborhood. 

 

1

 Census aggregates (blocks, block groups, and tracts) do not correspond with Cincinnati 

neighborhood boundaries. We aggregated data from Census aggregates to Cincinnati 

neighborhoods using ArcView 9.2. Data from the smallest Census aggregate available were 

summed to create neighborhood-level Census measures. This process attributed a Census 

aggregate to a neighborhood when the centroid of the Census aggregate fell inside of the 

neighborhood. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-32- 

Figure 2: Cincinnati Neighborhoods 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-33- 

Table 2: Cincinnati Neighborhoods 

Number Neighborhood 

Area 

(sq mi) 

2000 

Population 

Number of 

Households

Violent Calls 

For Service 

Violent 

Call Rate 

Per Person 

# 

Apartment 

Complexes 

1 Avondale 1.40 10,732 4,476 2,540 0.24 225 

2 Bond Hill 2.30 10,127 4,359 1,045 0.10 187 

3 California 1.63 395 157 46 0.12 1 

4 Camp Washington 1.22 1,506 502 359 0.24 20 

5 Carthage 1.31 2,495 1,095 379 0.15 19 

6 CBD/Riverfront 1.07 3,809 1,905 1,853 0.49 20 

7 Clifton 2.12 9,118 4,800 767 0.08 211 

8 College Hill 3.69 14,950 6,664 1,204 0.08 130 

9 Columbia 

Tusculum 0.87 2,011 943 215 0.11 22 

10 Corryville 0.52 3,781 1,808 994 0.26 93 

11 Fairview 0.77 9,803 4,924 710 0.07 102 

12 East End 4.06 1,249 512 240 0.19 11 

13 East Price Hill 2.37 14,562 5,614 2,395 0.16 172 

14 East Walnut Hills 0.71 3,936 2,137 406 0.10 56 

15 East Westwood 0.76 3,766 1,683 339 0.09 42 

16 English Woods 0.14 1,286 514 254 0.20 0 

17 Evanston 1.38 11,009 3,688 1,149 0.10 97 

18 Fay Apartments 0.32 2,359 854 487 0.21 7 

19 Hartwell 1.17 5,022 2,519 466 0.09 55 

20 University Heights 0.63 5,205 1,431 - - 96 

21 Hyde Park 2.74 12,452 6,484 432 0.03 180 

22 Kennedy Heights 1.01 5,276 2,393 514 0.10 100 

23 Linwood 0.74 932 399 115 0.12 7 

24 Lower Price Hill 0.69 1,301 439 472 0.36 35 

25 Madisonville 2.39 10,774 4,660 1,190 0.11 103 

26 Millvale 0.29 2,856 1,049 437 0.15 2 

27 Mount Adams 0.53 1,631 1,071 102 0.06 34 

28 Mount Airy 3.24 9,603 3,995 1,132 0.12 110 

29 Mount Auburn 0.72 6,790 2,833 1,048 0.15 156 

30 Mount Lookout 1.55 6,362 2,958 127 0.02 89 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-34- 

Number Neighborhood 

Area 

(sq mi) 

2000 

Population 

Number of 

Households

Violent Calls 

For Service 

Violent 

Call Rate 

Per Person 

# 

Apartment 

Complexes 

31 Mount Washington 3.83 11,736 5,931 650 0.06 151 

32 North Avondale 1.33 7,990 3,537 963 0.12 161 

33 North Fairmount 0.61 7,990 3,537 224 0.03 14 

34 Northside 2.15 9,098 3,874 1,502 0.17 87 

35 Oakley 2.33 11,082 6,269 679 0.06 153 

36 Over-the-Rhine 0.50 6,553 3,124 3,946 0.60 279 

37 Paddock Hills 0.51 2,242 1,065 188 0.08 58 

38 Pendleton 0.07 1,129 487 343 0.30 43 

39 Pleasant Ridge 1.77 8,842 4,250 592 0.07 199 

40 Queensgate 1.46 714 165 311 0.44 1 

41 Riverside 2.38 2,555 998 139 0.05 20 

42 Roselawn 1.29 6,325 3,061 881 0.14 194 

43 Sayler Park 1.59 6,325 3,061 236 0.04 38 

44 Sedamsville 0.27 456 142 207 0.45 7 

45 South 

Cumminsville 0.43 1,058 374 146 0.14 1 

46 South Fairmount 1.32 4,881 1,968 1,053 0.22 75 

47 Walnut Hills 1.27 7,907 3,981 1,985 0.25 190 

48 West End 0.87 7,435 3,421 1,992 0.27 82 

49 West Price Hill 3.14 20,068 8,365 2,150 0.11 213 

50 Westwood 5.72 31,053 14,482 3,017 0.10 575 

51 Winton Hills 2.38 6,412 2,372 821 0.13 9 

52 Winton Place 1.99 2,337 939 364 0.16 12 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-35- 

Bar Methodology

Data Sources

Secondary Data

Crime. Crime data were obtained from the Cincinnati Police Department for crimes 

reported and documented between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006. A two-year 

reporting period was used since violence is a relatively rare event, and (2) patterns of violence at 

a single address are difficult to establish within shorter time periods. These data include Part I 

and Part II crimes documented at the address level. Only documented crimes were included to 

avoid problems associated with false reports and multiple reports of a single event. The problem 

of multiple calls for service for a single event is exacerbated in places where people congregate 

in large groups and many witnesses are likely to observe and respond to a single event. 

Violent incidents were divided into two major categories for analysis: (1) physical 

violence, and (2) threatened violence. The physical violence variable includes all crimes 

classified as assault, domestic violence, gross sexual imposition, improperly discharging a 

firearm, kidnapping, murder, rape, sexual battery, or sexual imposition. The threatened violence 

variable includes all crimes classified as aggravated menacing, ethnic intimidation, criminal 

endangering, inducing panic, and menacing by stalking. The threatened violence variable 

contains offenses that would produce a hostile environment where people likely anticipated 

violence, rather than incidents where physical violence actually occurred. These categorizations 

were necessary for analysis due to the small number of offenses documented within specific 

crime categories. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-36- 

To examine bivariate and multivariate relationships between place manager decisions and 

bar violence, a third variable – high violence bars – was created. This variable represents all bars 

with two or more documented incidents of violence. 

Fifteen bars are excluded from all analyses based on police crime data for two reasons. 

First, some bars shared addresses with other businesses and the data did not contain unique 

identifiers. Second, crimes that occurred at hotels may or may not have occurred at the hotel 

bars. Therefore, hotel bars are also excluded. This yielded 139 bars with no or one incident 

violence and 45 high violence bars, or 184 analyzable bars in total. 

Bar Locations. Three secondary data sources were used to identify bar locations. 

Alcohol licensing information for local businesses was obtained from the Division of Liquor 

Control, which is an office within the Ohio Department of Commerce. Two additional data 

sources were used to cross-reference the alcohol licensing information: (1) a list of bars reviewed 

by CinWeekly (a weekly tabloid that annually writes reviews of local bars), and (2) bars listed in 

local yellow pages (www.cincinnatibellyellowpages.com). 

Primary Data

Bar Manager Survey. Interviews of bar owners, managers, bartenders, and security staff 

were conducted. These interviews provide detailed information on bar characteristics and 

management activities. A copy of the place manager survey instrument is presented in Appendix 

I. The survey is divided into nine sections and contains questions related to: (1) ownership, (2) 

characteristics of the property, (3) business strategies, access control, security, and 

transportation, (4) activities and entertainment provided, (5) food and drink served, (6) number 

of employees and training, (7) number and demographics of patrons, (8) recent enforcement by 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-37- 

outside agencies, and (9) the financial status of the bar. This information was collected in both 

qualitative and quantitative format. 

Bar Site Observation Survey. Physical attributes of the bar were documented based on 

observations of the interior, exterior, and environment immediately surrounding the location. A 

copy of the site observation survey instrument is presented in Appendix II. This survey differs 

from site surveys used in previous bar research. The focus of the instrument is on physical 

attributes of the property only; it does not contain questions about patron behavior observed in 

the bar. The survey is divided into four main sections: (1) characteristics of the exterior of the bar 

and the immediate environment, (2) attributes of the building, (3) characteristics of the bar 

interior, and (4) cleanliness/disrepair of restrooms. 

Sampling Design

Every bar within Cincinnati city limits was included in the sampling frame (for a 

description of how the study was modified from the original proposed study, see Appendix VI). 

However, there are many businesses that serve alcohol but are not bars. For example, a small 

restaurant with four tables may have a license to serve alcohol to customers, but this business 

would not likely be used by patrons as a bar. For the purpose of this study, a “bar” was defined 

as a place that meets four conditions: (1) it is open to the general public, rather than restricted to 

members or rented out as a entertainment spot to private parties; (2) it serves hard alcohol for on 

site consumption; (3) some proportion of patrons frequent the place for the primary purpose of 

consuming alcohol; and (4) there is a designated physical area within the place that serves as a 

drinking area (this could be the entire place, or a portion of the place). Places without all four 

conditions were not considered bars. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-38- 

Initial identification of bars began with the alcohol licensing information. However, as 

noted previously, many places with alcohol service permits are not “bars.” For example, 

restaurants without physical “bars,” art galleries, golf courses, athletic clubs, and large concert 

venues were included in the data obtained from the Division of Liquor Control. Therefore, the 

type of permit granted, the CinWeekly magazine reviews, yellow pages, and researchers’ 

knowledge of particular places were used to sort the bars from non-bars. For the locations that 

could not be classified using these methods, phone calls or site observations of the actual 

locations were made. If any further ambiguity existed, an employee was contacted during a site 

visit and asked whether or not they considered the place to be a drinking establishment. Those 

who answered in the negative were excluded. 

Of the 1,254 places in Cincinnati with alcohol licenses, 264 were classified as a bar using 

the above definition. Bars that were not open during the year 2005 were excluded, along with 

several locations that closed down before data collection efforts began. A total of 239 bars were 

included in the final sampling frame. This was the population of Cincinnati bars as of May, 

2006. 

Data Collection Procedures

Place manager interviews and site observations were conducted between July and 

October of 2006. Letters were mailed to the bars approximately two weeks before attempts were 

made to contact the manager or owner of each establishment. The letters explained the purpose 

of the study and informed the bar owner/manager that a researcher from the University of 

Cincinnati would contact them to set up an interview appointment. Personal contacts following 

the mailing were made through telephone calls to owners or managers if they could be reached 

by phone, or were set during visits to the establishments. These visits were conducted by a twoThis document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-39- 

member “scout” team. If someone who worked at the bar was willing to complete the survey 

during the initial visit, the interview and site observations were conducted at that time. If not, an 

appointment was made for another research team to return at an agreed upon date and time. All 

sites were visited by a scout or research team at least once. 

Most interviews were conducted in-person. Only two interviews were conducted over the 

phone. Three interviews were conducted at an off-site location (e.g., at a local coffee shop). 

Research teams consisted of one male and one female graduate student. This made the site 

observations of the restroom characteristics easier and less obtrusive, although exceptions to the 

male/female pairings were made when researchers of one gender were unavailable. Unless safety 

was a concern at a particular location (e.g., one or more researchers felt uncomfortable working 

alone), one researcher conducted the interview while the other walked through the bar and 

around the exterior of the building to complete the site observation form. 

All types of place managers were interviewed, but only one person was interviewed at 

each bar. At the initial contact, we asked to speak to someone who knew about everyday 

management practices at the establishment. We were referred to, and subsequently interviewed, 

owners, managers, bartenders, and security personnel. This method was considered appropriate 

since the intention of the study was not to explore the activities of different types of place 

managers, but to understand how management practices differed across bars. A total of 199 bars 

are represented in the data. This constitutes an 83.26 percent response rate for the population.

Results

The analyses and findings presented in this section systematically explore the following 

hypotheses. 

• Violent crime is unequally distributed across bars. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-40- 

Concentrations of violent crime incidents across Cincinnati bars are examined. The 

number of all violent incidents, physical violence incidents, and threatened violence incidents are 

plotted by bar to determine whether these incidents are randomly or non-randomly distributed 

across these locations. Non-random distributions suggest that neighborhood or place-specific 

effects may be responsible for violence in Cincinnati bars. Descriptive statistics for each of the 

crime variables are examined. Additionally, manager survey data are analyzed to determine the 

extent and frequency of violent events across bar locations. 

• Violent crime is the product of neighborhood level effects. 

The influence of neighborhood context on violent crime cannot be assessed using formal 

multi-level analyses due to high levels of spatial clustering among Cincinnati bars. However, 

spatial analysis using Geographic Information Systems software provides visual depictions of the 

spatial distribution of violent and non-violent bars. It is hypothesized that if violence is the 

product of strong neighborhood effects the analysis would show distinct clustering of violent 

bars away from non-violent bars. If neighborhood effects are absent or weak the analysis would 

show a greater degree of randomness in the distribution of violent and non-violent bars. 

Statistical analyses are also conducted to determine whether bar location or other environmental 

features are significantly related to violence in these locations. 

• Management practices vary across bars. 

Unlike other types of facilities where the purpose of the location and the activities 

expected to take place in the facility are clearly defined (e.g., grocery stores, fast food 

restaurants, book stores), there is a great deal of variation in the types of services provided, as 

well as the approach to delivering those services in bars. The purpose, physical characteristics, 

and permitted activities for any particular bar are the direct consequence of decisions made by 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-41- 

those who own and manage these locations. The degree to which the bars differ among these 

dimensions, as well as variation in management approach and response to controlling violence 

through training and the implementation of security measures, is assessed through the manager 

survey data. Descriptive statistics and qualitative data reveal to what extent management 

decision-making varies across Cincinnati bars. 

• Differences in management practices are related to varying levels of violence across bars. 

Bivariate and multivariate analyses are conducted to determine whether management 

practices are related to violence in bars. These findings give rise to policy implications for 

controlling violence in these establishments. 

Violence Crime Distributions

As hypothesized, incidents of violent crime were highly concentrated among the bars. 

Figure 3 shows the distribution of violent incidents documented by police at Cincinnati bars. Of 

the 209 incidents of violence documented, almost 72 percent of these occurred at only 38 bars. 

While 96 bars had no incidents of violence documented over the two-year period, 15 bars had 

five or more incidents. These 15 bars accounted for over 44 percent of all violent incidents that 

occurred in Cincinnati bars. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-42- 

Figure 3: Distribution of violence across Cincinnati Bars 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181

Cincinnati Bars (n = 184)

Number of total violent incidents

There is an even greater concentration in the distribution of violent crime events across 

bars when the two subcategories, physical violence and threatened violence, are examined 

separately. The distribution of incidents of physical violence is presented in Figure 4. There were 

no incidents of physical violence at 114 bars (62 percent) throughout the two-year period. There 

was only one physically violent incident at 43 bars (23.4 percent), and only 27 bars (14.6 

percent) experienced two or more physically violent incidents. 

20% of the bars 

produced 71.77% of 

all violent incidents 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-43- 

Figure 4: Distribution of physical violence incidents across Cincinnati Bars 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181

Cincinnati Bars (n = 184)

Number of physical violence incidents

Only 51 drinking establishments (27.7 percent) experienced incidents where violence was 

threatened on the premises. Figure 5 shows the concentration of threatened violence incidents 

across all bars over the two-year period. 

20% of the bars 

produced 75.36% of 

all physical violence 

incidents 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-44- 

Figure 5: Distribution of threatened violence incidents across Cincinnati bars 

0

1

2

3

4

1 21 41 61 81 101 121 141 161 181

Cincinnati Bars (n = 184)

Number of threatened violence incidents

Table 3 provides descriptive statistics for the total violence, physical violence, and 

threatened violence crime variables. The statistics strengthen support for the hypothesis that 

violent crime is a relatively rare event concentrated at relatively few bars. The median number of 

crimes that occurred in the bars was zero for all violent crime categories. Over 52 percent of bars 

did not have a documented incident of violence over a two-year period. 

Table 3: Descriptive statistics for violent crime variables 

Crime variables n Min Max Mean Median 

Total violent incidents 184 0 10 1.13 0.00 

Physical violence incidents 184 0 8 0.75 0.00 

Threatened violence incidents 184 0 3 0.39 0.00 

Admittedly, not all acts of violence are documented by police. However, data obtained 

from the bar manager surveys support the finding that recurring acts of violence are concentrated 

20% of the bars produced 

80.28% of all threatened 

violence incidents 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-45- 

in relatively few bars. Only 16.1 percent (n = 32) of the places surveyed suggested that any type 

of violence occurred on a regular basis, with 24 managers reporting that fights between patrons 

had occurred on more than one occasion in the past. The survey data also suggest that when 

violence occurs, it is still a relatively rare event for most bar managers. Of the 119 managers who 

could recall the last violent incident that took place in their establishment, 23.5 percent (n = 28) 

of these incidents reportedly occurred during the month prior to the interview, 37.8 percent (n = 

45) occurred within the previous six months, 15.1 percent (n = 18) occurred within the previous 

twelve months, and 23.5 percent (n = 28) occurred more than a year before the survey. These 

findings are summarized in Table 4. 

Table 4: Manager reports of time since last violent incident 

Time lapse (n = 198) n % 

Within last month 28 14.1 

Within last six months 45 22.7 

Within last year 18 9.1 

Prior to previous year 28 14.1 

No violent incident could be recalled 79 39.9 

Neighborhood Context

The spatial clustering of Cincinnati bars prohibits formal multi-level analyses (e.g., 

hierarchal linear modeling) to determine the influence of neighborhood context on violent crime 

or management practices at these places. Only 23 of the 53 neighborhoods in Cincinnati have 

bars, and almost 34 percent of these bars are located in only three neighborhoods. There are only 

six neighborhoods that contain 10 or more bars. Figure 6 depicts the distribution of bars 

throughout Cincinnati. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-46- 

Figure 6: Distribution of bars across Cincinnati 

Despite the limitations posed by the spatial clustering of these facilities, it is still 

important to explore the potential impact of macro-level neighborhood environments on violent 

crime in bars. This relationship can be examined through simple spatial analyses and statistical 

comparisons of bars located within and outside high crime areas. 

Geographic Information Systems software (ArcGIS) was used to examine the clustering 

of violent and nonviolent bars. There were three possible outcomes of these analyses. First, the 

analyses may have revealed that nonviolent bars were concentrated in some neighborhoods and 

violent bars were concentrated in others. This would suggest a strong neighborhood effect. 

Second, the distribution may have appeared completely random. This would indicate that 

neighborhood characteristics have little to no effect and that only place management practices 

matter. Third, a loosely clustered distribution of violent bars and nonviolent bars would suggest 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-47- 

that perhaps both neighborhood characteristics and management practices matter. The analyses 

find more support for the third hypotheses, less for the second, and very little for the first. 

Figure 7 shows the distribution of violence across bars in Cincinnati. The white markers 

represent bars with no documented violence (physical or threatened), the grey markers represent 

bars with only one documented incident of violence, and the black markers represent bars with 

two or more documented incidents of violence. The random smattering of violent bars among 

nonviolent bars fails to support the hypothesis of strong neighborhood effects independent of 

management effects. 

Figure 7: Distribution of violence across bars in Cincinnati 

To better illustrate the dispersion of violent bars among nonviolent bars, larger scale 

maps of bar clusters are presented in Figure 8 and Figure 9. A cluster of six bars within a twoThis document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-48- 

block radius is depicted in Figure 8; four bars had no violence, one bar had one violent incident, 

while another bar had three incidents of violence. Figure 9 depicts one of the most dense clusters 

(n = 3) of violent bars in the city. It also shows that two other bars with no violence located 

within two blocks. The smaller ellipse in the figure highlights one nonviolent bar on the same 

blockface as a bar with eight violent incidents. Overall, the spatial analyses do not seem to 

support the notion that neighborhood characteristics are the most important predictor of violence 

in bars. 

Figure 8: Violent bars among nonviolent bars 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-49- 

Figure 9: Nonviolent bars close to a cluster of violent bars 

Previous research on violence in bars has found that bars located in downtown areas of 

major cities tend to experience more violence than bars located outside these areas (see Graham 

et al., 1980; Graham, 1985). Downtown districts often draw large numbers of diverse groups of 

people together who live elsewhere. This creates a high concentration of both targets and 

potential offenders who generally do not know each other. Thus, downtown districts typically 

function as “crime generators” and produce high crime rates. 

To further test the effect of neighborhood characteristics on violence in bars, Chi-square 

analyses were conducted to determine whether bars located in Downtown Cincinnati were more 

likely to experience physical and threatened violence than bars located elsewhere in the city. The 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-50- 

tests revealed no significant effect of Downtown location on the likelihood of experiencing any 

violence, physical or threatened violence, or two or more violent incidents (see Table 5).2

 

The neighborhood with the highest crime rate in Cincinnati is not Downtown, but the 

Over the Rhine neighborhood. Over the Rhine is located just north of the Downtown district and 

has consistently produced the highest neighborhood crime rates in Cincinnati for over a century. 

Therefore, additional analyses were conducted to compare the likelihood of violence occurring at 

bars in this neighborhood compared to all others. Again, no significant differences were found. 

For the final set of analyses, the Downtown and Over the Rhine bars were grouped together and 

compared to all other bars. There was no significant difference in the likelihood of violence for 

bars in these locations when compared to bars in other parts of the city (see Table 5 for the 

results of these additional analyses).3 

Table 5: Chi-square tests of bar location and violence 

Variables n χ2 sig Phi (Φ) Φ 95% CI 

Bar located downtown 

Bar experienced any violence 184 .063 .803 .018 -.126 to .162 

Bar experienced physical violence 184 .325 .569 .042 -.103 to .185 

Bar experienced threatened violence 184 .079 .779 -.021 -.165 to .124 

High violence bar (2 or more incidents) 184 .164 .686 -.030 -.173 to .115 

Bar located in Over the Rhine 

Bar experienced any violence 184 1.512 .219 .091 -.054 to .232 

Bar experienced physical violence 184 .242 .623 .036 -.109 to .179 

Bar experienced threatened violence 184 naa .143 .115 -.030 to .255 

High violence bar (2 or more incidents) 184 naa

 .227 .094 -.051 to .235 

Bar located in Over the Rhine or downtown 

Bar experienced any violence 184 1.046 .306 .075 -.070 to .217 

Bar experienced physical violence 184 .648 .412 .059 -.086 to .201 

Bar experienced threatened violence 184 .630 .427 .059 -.086 to .201 

High violence bar (2 or more incidents) 184 .248 .618 .037 -.108 to .180 

NOTE: aFisher’s exact test used since one cell had an expected count of less than 5. 

df =1. sig 2-tailed. 

 

2

 T-tests were also conducted to determine whether the mean number of violent incidents 

was significantly different for bars located downtown. No significant differences were found. 

3

 A difference in means comparison also found no significant effect for the Over the 

Rhine or the Downtown and Over the Rhine location categories. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-51- 

Other environmental features previously found to be related to crime at places were not 

significantly related to violence at bars in Cincinnati. Table 6 summarizes violent crime analyses 

based on (1) whether or not the bar was located on a corner lot, and (2) whether or not the bar 

was located next to another bar. Groff (1996) found that homes on corner lots experienced more 

crime incidents; however, no relationship was found between block placement and violent crime 

at bars. Roncek and colleagues (e.g., Roncek & Bell, 1981; Roncek & Maier, 1991) repeatedly 

reported significant correlations between the presence of bars and more incidents of crime. The 

presence of an adjacent bar did not appear to influence whether or not a bar experienced violence 

in a two-year period. 

Table 6: Chi-square tests of environmental features and violence 

Variables n χ2 sig Phi (Φ) Φ 95% CI 

Bar located on corner lot 

Bar experienced any violence 181 .695 .404 -.062 -.205 to .084 

Bar experienced physical violence 181 .277 .599 -.039 -.183 to .107 

Bar experienced threatened violence 181 .302 .583 -.041 -.185 to .105 

High violence bar (2 or more incidents) 181 .872 .350 -.069 -.212 to .077 

Bar located adjacent to another bar 

Bar experienced any violence 184 .044 .834 -.015 -.159 to .129 

Bar experienced physical violence 184 .260 .610 -.038 -.181 to .107 

Bar experienced threatened violence 184 .529 .467 .054 -.091 to .197 

High violence bar (2 or more incidents) 184 1.177 .278 .080 -.065 to .222 

Three general conclusions can be drawn from these spatial and statistical analyses. First, 

neighborhood characteristics may influence violent crime at bars, but they are not the only or 

major predictor of violent events. Violent bars are no more clustered in violent neighborhoods 

than are low violence bars. Rather, it appears that all bars tend to form clusters with violent bars 

mixed in with lesser violent. This finding is consistent with recent literature that suggests that 

crime opportunities are the product of individual place characteristics; however these micro-level 

effects may be moderated or strengthened by the characteristics of surrounding environments 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-52- 

(e.g., the neighborhood or street block where the facility is located). For example, place 

management activities and target hardening measures tend to be more effective in preventing 

burglaries in neighborhoods with higher levels of target hardening, informal social control, and 

defense space features (Wilcox, Madensen & Skubak, 2007). The current analyses found bars 

with varying levels of violence clustered closely together. This strongly suggests that variations 

in micro-level, place characteristics controlled by place managers is key to understanding why 

violent crime does or does not occur at these locations. 

Second, violence is not inevitable at bars located in high-crime or high traffic areas. Bars 

located in the downtown district or Over the Rhine were not more likely to experience violence 

than bars located elsewhere in the city. While previous research on bar violence has found a 

direct correlation between bar location and crime (e.g., Graham et al., 2006), this relationship 

may be an artifact of variations in the spatial clustering of bars across cities. 

Third, environmental characteristics previously found to be associated with more crime 

(i.e., corner lot location and close proximity to other drinking establishments) were not 

significantly associated with more violence across Cincinnati bars. These three general 

conclusions suggest that micro-environments created by bar managers are at least partially 

insulated from outside criminogenic influences. Place specific bar characteristics, created and 

sustained by management, act to suppress or permit violence within these locations. The next 

section explores the degree to which these characteristics and management practices vary across 

Cincinnati bars. 

Variation in Management Practices

This analysis proceeds with the understanding that the characteristic of the place at the 

time of observation represent the cumulative effects of previous management experiences and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-53- 

decisions. All bar functions and characteristics can be attributed to place-manager decisionmaking – from the interior and exterior décor, to the types of employees hired and method of 

training, to the building location selected for the establishment. To assess the variation in place 

manager decision-making, the following analysis will examine differences among (1) the 

purpose and function of the establishments – beyond the consumption of alcohol, (2) marketing 

strategies, (3) property characteristics, and (4) management decisions concerning staff, training, 

and security. 

Purpose of the Establishment

Managers reported various “themes” for their bars. Some claimed to be simple 

neighborhood bars aimed at attracting local clientele, while others offered unique activities or 

drink specialties to attract customers. For example, some bars offered live entertainment catering 

to particular musical styles (e.g., punk, jazz, techno, country). Others offered special activities or 

performances to attract a specific clientele. For example, a cabaret show was offered in one 

location to attract gay and lesbian customers, while another bar offered big screen televisions and 

competitive sports-themed games to attract sports fans from nearby stadiums. Still, others 

attracted alcohol “connoisseurs” by offering specialty drinks such as locally brewed or specialty 

beers, or extensive wine or martini lists. 

Bar managers also attempted to attract customers by offering specific types of food or 

other “common” bar activities. Over half of the bars offered full meals to patrons. Some offered 

a specific ethnic cuisine (e.g., Mediterranean, Mexican) and featured customary alcoholic drinks 

(e.g., ouzo, margaritas). Almost half of the bars offered common competitive games to patrons 

(i.e., pool, darts, cornhole – a Cincinnati beanbag toss game, or bocce ball) and more than a third 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-54- 

had a specific area within the establishment dedicated as a dance floor. Table 7 summarizes these 

differences among Cincinnati bars. 

Table 7: Purpose of establishment 

Variables n % 

Neighborhood bar 40 20.1 

Uncommon bar specialty 39 19.6 

Full meals available for purchase 127 63.8 

Competitive games 96 48.2 

Dancing 72 36.3 

Live entertainment 87 43.7 

Marketing Strategies

Most bar managers reported wanting to attract an “ideal” patron to their establishment. 

Many attempted to accomplish this through their bar theme or activities provided. However, 

almost 76 percent of bars regularly advertised their establishment in at least one type of medium 

(e.g., television, radio, magazines) with the average bar advertising in at least two mediums on a 

consistent basis. Other bar managers attempted to attract a particular type of clientele through 

drink pricing. While the average cost of the least expensive drink in Cincinnati bars was 

approximately $2.50, one bar offered alcoholic drinks for $0.25, while two bars charged $6.50 

for their least expensive alcoholic drink. Approximately 23 percent of the establishments also 

charged a cover to help regulate access to their establishments at particular times. Only 38.7 

percent of bars required that patrons be 21 years of age to enter at all times. 

While only about 32 percent of the bar managers reported that their businesses were 

making a profit, most stated that their advertising methods were working to attract their targeted 

demographic. Overall, most bar managers (94 percent) reported that they currently attract their 

ideal customer. Still there was a significant degree of variation in the reported patron 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-55- 

demographics across bars with regard to sex, race, and the proportion of repeat customers (see 

Table 8). 

Table 8: Marketing practices and success 

Variables n Min Max Mean Median 

Number of different advertisement mediums 194 0 6 2.07 2.00 

Cost of least expensive drink 196 .25 6.50 2.59 2.50 

Charges cover d 199 0 1 0.23 0.00 

Attracts ideal customer d 191 0 1 0.94 1.00 

Percentage of male customers 196 10 100 60.20 60.00 

Percentage white customers 193 0 100 72.77 85.00 

Percentage of customers considered regulars 197 0 100 55.18 50.00 

Business making a profit d 191 0 1 0.32 0.00 

d

 = Dichotomous measure (yes = 1) 

Property Characteristics

Variation was also noted in both the general size of the establishments and the overall 

maintenance of the properties. The smallest bar had a maximum occupancy limit of 30 patrons, 

while the largest bar had a maximum occupancy limit of 1,275 patrons (this bar occupied several 

floors of a large building). 

In order to assess the general condition of each bar, indexes were created to measure 

disorder found on the exterior, within the interior, and specifically in the restrooms. The exterior 

disorder index ranges from zero to nine and represents a count of whether broken lights, 

structural problems, litter, large pieces of junk, overflowing trashcans, graffiti, chipping paint, 

boarded windows, or broken exterior fixtures/decorations were visible on or around the exterior 

of the building. The interior disorder index ranges from zero to three and represents a count of 

whether broken seats/tables, graffiti, or broken lights are visible inside the building. The 

restroom disorder index ranges from zero to thirteen and represents a count of whether graffiti, 

dirty floors, leaking pipes, holes in the stall walls, broken doors, no toilet paper, no hand soap, no 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-56- 

paper towels, inoperable toilets, broken mirrors, broken lights, litter, or damaged walls were 

present in any of the restrooms. Some bars had no signs of disorder in these various locations 

while others scored relatively high on these indexes (see Table 9). 

Table 9: Property characteristics 

Variables n Min Max Mean Median 

Square footage 104 200 25000 3553 2600 

Maximum occupancy 192 30 1275 196 140 

Exterior disorder index 172 0 7 1.13 1.00 

Interior disorder index 193 0 3 0.45 0.00 

Restroom disorder index 181 0 9 1.72 1.00 

Staff, Training and Security

Variation in place manager decision-making across the bars was also evident in staffing, 

training, and security-related decisions. Direct manager involvement in daily operations varied. 

While most bars had an owner or manager present on high volume nights (i.e., Friday nights), 16 

percent did not. The number of staff employed varied greatly, and this variation was directly 

related to the property size and the volume of business conducted within the establishment. 

Many managers took an informal approach to conducting business, with less than half requiring 

their employees to wear a uniform or badge and 19 percent allowing employees to consume 

alcohol while working. About half of the managers provided “in-house” training for employees, 

while 10 percent had an outside agency offer training - often the State’s Division of Liquor 

Control. To help regulate the amount of alcohol dispensed by employees, about 60 percent of 

bars used pour control devices on at least some of their alcohol bottles. 

Some bars hired off-duty police officers (19 percent) or security staff (36 percent) to 

control patron behavior at their establishments. Most managers said that they only hired security 

staff trained elsewhere or with previous experience. Still, some received training from 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-57- 

management (35 percent) or were required or offered training from an outside organization 

(22%). In addition to regulating behavior, security staff was often also responsible for enforcing 

age requirements at the door. 

A security index was constructed to measure the number of different types of security 

features used by management to prevent crime. The security index ranges from 0 to 7 and 

represents a count of whether the bar has a burglary alarm, a robbery alarm, access codes, cash 

control procedures, established staff behavioral expectations, weapons for staff, or surveillance 

cameras. On average, bars in Cincinnati used three of these security measures to prevent crime. 

Table 10 presents a summary of the variation in staffing, training, and security-related 

management decisions. 

Table 10: Staffing, training and security 

Variables n Min Max Mean Median 

Owner/manager present Friday nights d 198 0 1 0.84 1.00 

Number of employees 197 1 275 20.25 12.00 

Employees wear uniforms or badges d 198 0 1 0.45 0.00 

Employees can drink while working d 197 0 1 0.19 0.00 

Employees trained by management d 194 0 1 0.49 0.00 

Employees trained by outside organization d 194 0 1 0.10 0.00 

Pour control devices used d 197 0 1 0.59 1.00 

Bar employs off-duty police officers d 196 0 1 0.19 0.00 

Bar employs security staff d 196 0 1 0.36 0.00 

Security staff trained by management d 69* 0 1 0.35 0.00 

Security staff trained by outside organization

d

69* 0 1 0.22 0.00 

Identification checked at door d 197 0 1 0.38 0.00 

Security feature index 156 0 5 2.70 3.00 

d

 = Dichotomous measure (yes = 1) 

* = of those that hire security staff 

The review of differences in management practices across Cincinnati bars suggests that 

this is a grouping of heterogeneous facilities. The characteristics of these facilities represent the 

culmination of variation in place management decisions. The next section attempts to determine 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-58- 

whether this variation is responsible for the non-random distribution of violent crimes across 

these locations. 

Relationship between Management Practices and Violence

Previous research suggests a direct relationship between place management practices and 

crime. While most research on the relationship between bar management practices and violent 

crime has been conducted outside of the U.S., this growing body of literature continues to build 

support for the place management-crime link and influences problem-solving strategies around 

the world (see Table 11 for a list of variables previously found to be related to violence in bars). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-59- 

Table 11: Bar variables predictive of violence in previous research* 

Bar location and capacity 

Bar location1,4,7,9

Bar capacity4

Characteristics of patrons 

Younger patrons7,8,9

Proportion of underage females4

Groups of males/groups of male 

strangers3

Ethnicity of patrons1

Unkempt patrons1

Marginal patrons4

People talking to themselves1

Proportion of males in manual 

working gear3

Social class of customers7

Staff variables 

Low bar staff to patrons ratio4 

Number of bar staff9

Presence of bouncers4,8,9

Ability of bar workers to 

control/diffuse situations1

Lack of staff coordination9

Lack of monitoring9

Lack of professional boundaries 

by servers/bartenders9

Lack of professional boundaries 

by security staff9

High proportion of male staff1,8 

Friendliness of bar staff1

Aggressive or poorly 

trained/managed bar staff3 

Physical environment 

Noise level1,8,9

Inconvenient bar access4

Crowding4,5,6,8,9

Patrons moving about/high 

turnover1,5,9

Smokiness, poor ventilation1,4,8,9

Extent premises unclean and 

messy1,4,5,8,9

Low expenditure and 

maintenance1

Frequent occurrence of 

aggression in line-ups2,9

Temperature (too warm)8

Darkness4,8

Seating style1

Inadequate seating4,5

Shabby decore1

Pleasantness1

Comfortableness3,5

Serving practices and aspects 

of closing time 

Serving a large amount right 

before closing7,8,9

Aggression frequently occurs 

outside after closing2,7

Number of people hanging 

around after closing9

Lack of public transportation 4,5,7

Cheap drinks3,8

Refusal of service to intoxicated 

patrons4,5

Lack of responsible beverage 

service practices4,5

Social environment

Intoxication of patrons1,3,4,5,9 

Rowdiness4,9

Roughness and bumping4

General permissiveness1,2,5,9

Swearing1,4,5

Bar staff acceptance of deviant 

behavior4

Sexual activity4,5,9

Sexual contact1,5,9

Sexual competition4,5,9

Round buying4

Illegal activities8

Drugs being used or sold1

Drug dealing4

Prostitution1

Hostile atmosphere/conversation1

Environment not open to strangers1

Presence of hostile males4

Cheerfulness/friendliness of 

patrons5

Bored patrons3,4 

Activities 

Pool playing/billards1,7,8,9

Dancing1,8,9

Type of entertainment1,5

Poor quality entertainment3

Availability of meals/snacks1,3,4,5

1

Graham et al., (1980) and Graham (1985) – analysis of quantitative data from observation in 1978 Vancouver, 

B.C., Canada 

2

Graham et al. (2000) and Graham & Wells (2001) – content coding of observations in the late 1990s London, 

Ontario, Canada 

3

Homel, Tomsen & Thommeny (1992) and Tomsen, Homel, & Thommeny (1991) – qualitative analyses of 

observations in 1989, in Sydney, NSW, Australia 

4

Homel & Clarke (1994) – analyses of quantitative data from observations in the early 1990s in Sydney, Australia 5

Homel et al. (2004) – analyses of quantitative data from observation in 1994 and 1996 in three cities in 

Queensland, Australia 

6

Macintyre & Homel (1997) – analyses of incidents recorded by a private security company in Surfers Paradise, 

Queensland 

7

Marsh & Kirby (1992) – qualitative analyses based on observations in five communities in England 8

Quigley, Leonard, & Collins (2003) – comparisons of violent and non-violent bars identified by survey 

respondents in Buffalo, New York, 1998-2000 

9

 Graham et al. (2006) – quantitative analyses of data from observations in Toronto, Canada 

*Table adapted from an earlier version of the following publication: Graham, K., Bernards, S., Osgood, D. W., & 

Wells, S. (2006). Bad nights or bad bars? Multi-level analysis of environmental predictors of aggression in latenight large-capacity bars and clubs. Addiction, 101(11), 1569-1580.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-60- 

Several case studies found that changes in place management at bars can produce 

substantial reductions in crime. Operation NETFORCES (Nightclub Education & Enforcement 

Task Force on Ordinances, Regulations, Codes, and Environmental Safety) implemented in 

Raleigh, N.C. pressured bar owners and managers to improve safety at their establishments and 

decreased calls for service by more than 40 percent in places where managers were cooperative 

(Herman Goldstein Award Submission, 2004). In Geelong, Australia, police worked with bar 

managers to implement a 12-point policy, called “The Accord,” which was aimed at reducing 

over-intoxication and “pub-hopping.” While other Australian cities experienced increases in 

serious assaults, serious assaults in Geelong significantly declined (Felson et al., 1997). In 

Toronto, Canada, the Safer Bars program helped bar managers to target weak management 

practices and ultimately reduced incidents of severe and moderate aggression in their 

establishments (Graham et al., 2005; Graham et al., 2004). 

Previous analyses in this study suggest that neighborhood context alone cannot explain 

the distribution of violent crimes across Cincinnati bars. We have also learned that there is a 

great deal of variation in the methods used to manage Cincinnati bars. Therefore, our final set of 

analyses attempts to assess the relationship between place specific management practices and 

violent crime at Cincinnati bars. The analyses are structured to determine whether management 

decisions regarding (1) the purpose and function of the establishments, (2) marketing strategies, 

(3) property characteristics, or (4) staff, training, and security are significantly related to violence 

in these establishments. A dichotomous dependent variable is used to determine if particular 

management decisions are significantly associated with “high violence” bars. A high violence 

bar is defined as a bar that experienced two or more documented incidents of violence. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-61- 

Purpose of Establishment and Violent Crime

Previous research has found that competitive games (e.g., Quigley et al., 2003) and 

activities that increase patron proximity and interaction, like dancing (e.g., Graham et al., 2006), 

increase the likelihood of violence. Bivariate analyses in the present study support these earlier 

findings. Violence is significantly more likely to occur in bars offering competitive games or 

dancing (see Table 12). Bars that offered competitive games experienced an average of 1.41 

violent crimes while those who did not offer such activities experienced an average of 0.84 

violent crimes. Similarly, bars that offered dancing experienced an average of 1.57 violent 

crimes while bars without a dance floor experienced an average of 0.90 violent crimes. 

Table 12: Chi-square tests - purpose/functions and high violence bars 

Marketing Strategies and Violent Crime

One marketing approach variable, one demographic variable, and whether the bar attracts 

management’s concept of the ideal customer are significantly related to levels of violent crime. 

The analyses suggest that bars offering less expensive drinks have higher levels of violence. 

More violence also occurs at bars with a higher percentage of non-white customers (see Table 

13). 

Bar purpose variables n χ2 sig Phi (Φ) Φ 95% CI 

Neighborhood bar 184 .106 .745 -.024 -.168 to .121 

Uncommon bar specialty 184 .007 .933 .006 -.138 to .150 

Full meals available for purchase 151 1.181 .277 -.088 -.244 to .072 

Competitive games 180 6.791 .009 .194 .050 to .330 

Dancing 184 6.497 .011 .188 .045 to .323 

Live entertainment 184 1.030 .310 .075 -.070 to .217 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-62- 

Table 13: Bivariate logistic regression - marketing and high violence bars 

Bar purpose variables n B s.e. sig Exp(B) 

Number of different advertisement mediums 180 .115 .104 .271 1.121 

Cost of least expensive drink 181 -.520 .207 .012 .595 

Percentage of male customers 181 .011 .011 .303 1.011 

Percentage white customers 178 -.013 .005 .021 .987 

Percentage of customers considered regulars 182 .005 .007 .424 1.005 

Not surprisingly, higher levels of violence were recorded in bars where unwanted 

customers were attracted. Bar managers reporting that the ideal customer was not being attracted 

to their bars had a mean number of 3.18 violent incidents while those who were attracting their 

ideal patrons had a mean number of 0.96 violent incidents documented at their establishment 

(see Table 14. The data also suggest that the types of patrons who frequent a bar are not solely 

determined by the bar’s location. There is no significant relationship between whether or not the 

bar was described by the manager as a neighborhood bar and whether or not the bar was 

attracting the ideal customer (p = 1.000). This suggests that marketing strategies may play a 

significant role in determining the types of patrons who frequent the establishment. 

Table 14: Chi-square tests - marketing decisions and high-violence bars 

Bar purpose variables n χ2 sig Phi (Φ) Φ 95% CI 

Charges cover 184 1.013 .314 .074 -.071 to .216 

Attracts ideal customer 177 naa .001 -.291 -.420 to -.150 

Business making a profit 176 .112 .738 .025 -.172 to .123 

NOTE: aFisher’s exact test used since one cell had an expected count of less than 5. 

df =1. sig 2-tailed. 

Property Characteristics and Violent Crime

Bars with higher maximum occupancy limits experienced more violent crime. The more 

people permitted within an establishment, the more interaction occurs. This bivariate analysis 

suggests that increased interaction translates into higher levels of violent crime (see Table 15). 

The relationship between the disorder index variables and violent crime are particularly 

interesting. Levels of disorder can be used as a proxy measure for levels of place management. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-63- 

We would expect that lower levels of disorder would be related to more active and responsive 

place management activities. We can also assume that place managers have greater control over 

the interior conditions of their establishment than the exterior based on the fact that managers 

can better control access to the interior portions of their facilities. While the exterior disorder 

index does not reach significance, both the interior and restroom disorder indexes are positively 

and significantly related to violent crime in these establishments. Bars with higher levels of 

disorder observed in publically accessible areas within the bar or restrooms also had higher 

levels of violent crime (see Table 15). A significant correlation exists between the interior and 

restroom disorder indexes (r = .302; p = .000). 

Table 15: Bivariate logistic regression - property characteristics and high violence bars 

Property characteristics variables n B s.e. sig Exp(B) 

Square footage 98 .000 .000 .984 1.000 

Maximum occupancy 177 .002 .001 .048 1.002 

Exterior disorder index 161 .172 .132 .194 1.188 

Interior disorder index 178 .761 .252 .003 2.141 

Restroom disorder index 168 .212 .084 .012 1.236 

Staffing, Training, Security, and Violent Crime

Bivariate regression analysis suggests that bars with more security features have higher 

levels of violent crime (see Table 16). The staff, training, or security-related variables 

significantly related to violent crime in Cincinnati bars include whether or not bars employ 

security staff (but not off-duty police officers) and whether or not identification is checked at the 

door. Both of these variables are highly and significantly correlated (r = .708; p = .000). Also, 

bars that allow employees to drink while working are significantly more likely to be high 

violence bars. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-64- 

Table 16: Bivariate logistic regression - staffing/training/security and high violence bars 

Staffing/training/security variables n B s.e. sig 

Number of employees 182 -.007 .008 .379 

Security feature index 156 .271 .137 .048 

 

Table 17: Chi-square tests - staffing/training/security and high violence bars 

Staffing/training/security variables n χ2 sig Phi (Φ) Φ 95% CI 

Owner/manager present Friday nights 183 .167 .683 -.030 -.174 to .115 

Employees wear uniforms or badges 183 .168 .682 -.030 -.174 to .115 

Employees can drink while working 182 6.241 .012 .185 .041 to .321 

Employees trained by management 179 .017 .897 .101 -.046 to .244 

Employees trained by outside organization 179 .951 .330 -.073 -.217 to .074 

Pour control devices used 182 .025 .874 -.012 -.157 to .133 

Bar employs off-duty police officers 184 .173 .678 .031 -.114 to .174 

Bar employs security staff 181 6.346 .012 .187 .043 to .324 

Security staff trained by management 66 .150 .699 -.048 -.286 to .196 

Security staff trained by outside organization 66 .003 .955 -.007 -.248 to .235 

Identification checked at door 183 13.088 .000 .267 .127 to .396 

Obviously, these findings beg the question posed by the problem of determining temporal 

order. Do bars hire security staff in an effort to control violence? Or does security staff 

encourage violent behavior in bars? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in-between. 

Unfortunately, only longitudinal, ethnographic studies could answer this question. Still, the 

finding that bars with security staff suffer from higher levels of violence suggests that security 

staff training may be a critical component of any violence reduction strategy in bars. 

Multivariate Analysis of Management Practices and Violent Crime

Multivariate logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine which management 

practices contribute most to the level of violence in bars. Once cases with missing data were 

removed from the sample, 139 cases were available for analysis. The small sample required the 

use of a paired-down logistic regression model. Only significant variables identified in the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-65- 

bivariate analysis4

 were included in the multivariate logistic regression analysis.5 The results of 

this analysis are presented in Table 18. 

Table 18: Multivariate logistic regression - management practices and high-violence bars 

B s.e. sig Exp(B) 

Bar purpose variables 

Competitive games -.134 .558 .811 .875 

Dancing .231 .561 .680 1.260 

Marketing variables 

Cost of least expensive drink -.723 .318 .023 .486 

Percentage white customers -.011 .009 .238 .989 

Attracts ideal customer -3.634 1.282 .005 .026 

Property characteristic variables 

Maximum occupancy .003 .002 .062 1.003 

Interior disorder index .498 .423 .239 1.646 

Staffing/training/security variables 

Security feature index .490 .196 .012 1.633 

Employees can drink while working .941 .580 .105 2.562 

Bar employs security staff .458 .566 .418 1.581 

Once all of the significant variables were added to the model, only the cost of the least 

expensive drink, whether or not the bar attracts its ideal customers,6

 and the number of security 

 

4

 Ideally, only theoretically important variables are used in multivariate analysis. 

However, this study investigated aspects of place management that were beyond extant theory, 

so it was unclear which variables should be included. Further, the number of bars available for 

study prevented using all management variables in the analysis. So we used significant bivariate 

results as a guide to which variables to examine at in the multivariate analysis. 

5

 The interior disorder index had fewer cases with missing data than the restroom disorder 

index. Since the interior and restroom disorder indexes are highly and significantly correlated 

and both represent levels of disorder within the establishment, only the interior disorder index 

was used in the multivariate analysis. Whether or not identification was checked at the door was 

also excluded due to the theoretical and significant correlation found between this variable and 

the use of security staff. 

6

 The bars not attracting their ideal customers are not identical to the most violent bars. 

Of the 13 bars that experienced 4 or more violent incidents, only 3 claimed that they were not 

attracting their ideal customers. The bars that failed to attract their ideal customers (n = 11) 

accounted for 19.7% of all violent incidents (with 10 of these bars accounting for 14.1%). Failure 

to attract the ideal customer is not the only variable that matters. Although failure to attract the 

ideal customer can be seen as an outcome of previous manager decisions (e.g., selection of bar 

location, marketing strategies); other management practices appear to matter as well. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-66- 

features used by the bar remains significant. The analysis suggest that bars that charge less for 

alcohol, do not attract their preferred customers, and those that use more security features are 

more likely to experience violence.7

 

We must again consider the problem of establishing temporal order, particularly 

concerning the use of security measures. For example, bars managers may have installed more 

security features after having experienced violent incidents. It is unlikely, if all other influencing 

factors are equal, that more secure bars would experience more incidents of violence. While 

bivariate analyses do not suggest that bars in high crime areas use more security features (see 

Table 19), managers may use these interventions after their marketing strategies fail to attract 

their ideal (non-violent) patrons. 

Table 19: T-tests - bar location and use of security features 

Bar location n t df sig Eta2 

Bar located downtowne 156 -1.227 34 .228 .007 

Bar located in Over The Rhine 156 .382 154 .703 .001 

Bar located in Over the Rhine or downtowne 156 -.754 62 .454 .003 

NOTE: eEqual variances could not be assumed based on significant value for Levene’s test for equality of 

variances 

These analyses suggest that marketing strategies (e.g., cost of alcohol) and the success of 

marketing strategies (e.g., whether the bar attracts their targeted demographic) are the most 

significant predictors of violence. 

 

7

 No significant correlation exists between the cost of the cheapest drink at the bar and 

whether or not the bar attracts management’s idea of the ideal customer (r = .090; p = .239). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-67- 

Apartment Methodology

Data Sources

Secondary Data

Land parcels. Data regarding land use were obtained from the Hamilton County 

Auditor’s Office to identify land parcels as “apartments." The Auditor is required to classify 

each land parcel according to its current principal use (ORC 5713.041). The Ohio 

Administrative Code classifies apartment buildings with more than four units as “commercial 

land” because the principal use for these properties is revenue generation for the owner. The 

Auditor’s data also included the mailing address for the owner of each land parcel. 

Geography and Census. Geographic data were obtained from the Cincinnati Area 

Geographic Information System (CAGIS). Street networks obtained from CAGIS were used to 

geocode land parcel data from the Auditor’s Office. Cincinnati neighborhood boundaries were 

also obtained from CAGIS. Data from the 2000 Census were obtained from ESRI’s online 

repository of Census data. 

Crime. Crime data were obtained from the Cincinnati Police Department. Calls for 

service data from 2006 were used to create the dummy indicator of high violence used to stratify 

our sample. Calls for service tend to be a more inclusive measure than Unified Crime Report 

data, and our definition of a “violent call for service” was purposefully inclusive as well (see 

Appendix III for a list of codes defined as violent). An inclusive measure of violence was used 

because the project’s focus is on management and management problems. A call to the police 

can be conceptualized as a failure of other less formal methods of conflict resolution. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-68- 

Primary Data

Apartment Manager Survey. The Apartment Manager Survey gathered information 

about both the buildings (e.g., year built, number of units) and management practices at the 

apartment (e.g., how often the owner visits the property, behavioral restrictions in the lease). 

The Apartment Manager Survey is included as Appendix IV. 

Unlike bar owners, apartment owners are often not available at their properties. A visual 

inspection of apartments in Cincinnati revealed that many apartment buildings did not have onsite offices where a face-to-face contact could easily be made. Examination of the Auditor’s data 

also showed that many apartments are owned by limited liability corporations and other 

corporate entities instead of by individuals, making it difficult to identify a point of contact. We 

chose to survey apartment owners via postal mail instead of face-to-face despite the problems 

inherent with mail surveys. We followed Dillman’s (2000) method for conducting apartment 

owner surveys. Specifically, owners were mailed a survey on May 9, 2007, along with a cover 

letter describing the survey and a postage-paid return envelope. Three weeks later, a reminder 

postcard was mailed. Four weeks after that, a second survey and cover letter were mailed. 

Finally, we attempted to increase our response rate via telephone. The lack of an available 

sampling frame with telephone numbers frustrated this attempt. 

Apartment Site Observation Survey. The Apartment Site Observation Survey gathered 

information about the visible features of the apartment complex (e.g., lighting, physical condition 

of buildings, security features) and the surrounding area (e.g., litter surrounding the complex, 

nature of surrounding land parcels). The Apartment Site Observation Survey is attached as 

Appendix V. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-69- 

Apartment site observations were completed between April 1, 2007 and June 15, 2008. 

Graduate students were trained how to complete the survey instrument and project goals. These 

students completed the apartment site observation survey instruments during daylight hours 

between 6:50 A.M. and 5:50 P.M. under supervision of the Project Director and Principal 

Investigator. Students were instructed to only go to parts of the property that were open to the 

public. Where locked gates or doors barred access, observations were made from outside these 

barriers. 

The initial goal was to obtain a site observation for each apartment complex in our 

sample. We revised this after receiving our mail survey responses. Our goal then changed to 

obtaining a site observation for each mail survey received, plus gathering enough site 

observations per neighborhood to be able to estimate multi-level models using the site 

observation data. 

Sampling Design

The goals of this project were threefold: 1) describe management practices at apartments; 

2) determine how these practices influence crime at apartments; and 3) determine how apartment 

management practices interact with neighborhood context. Our sampling procedure of 

apartments therefore had to consider several methodological issues. These issues are 

summarized in Table 20 and discussed in the following paragraphs. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-70- 

Table 20: Methodological Issues and Solutions 

Methodological Issue Solution 

Determine neighborhood context Cluster apartments within neighborhoods to ensure 

enough cases per aggregate 

Ensure respondents complete survey and give 

information regarding the correct property 

Include each owner only once in the sample. 

Determine management practices of apartments Combine nearby land parcels owned by a single 

entity into an “apartment complex” 

Determine how management practices influence 

crime 

Include apartment complexes with unusually high 

violent crimes (9 or more in 2006) 

Neighborhood Groups. We began with a database of land parcels classified as apartments 

from the Hamilton County Auditor. Land parcels were geocoded using street network and 

neighborhood boundary data provided by CAGIS. We then determined the number of 

apartment complexes in each neighborhood (see Table 2 above.) Several neighborhoods 

provided too few cases for multilevel modeling. Several of these neighborhoods were 

combined into neighborhood groups to facilitate sampling and analysis. 

Figure 10 below shows the neighborhoods as grouped for sampling and analysis. 

Neighborhoods were combined only when they were adjacent and similar in demographics (e.g., 

percent of population under poverty line, percent of population nonwhite). 

Table 21 below shows which neighborhoods were grouped together. Three 

neighborhoods were excluded from analysis due to too few apartment complexes: English 

Woods (n=0) and Queensgate (n=1). Fay Apartments was excluded because the entire 

neighborhood is one large apartment complex. Fay Apartments is very different from any other 

apartment complex in Cincinnati and may be better suited to a small N case study. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-71- 

Table 21: Neighborhood Groups 

Group Number Neighborhood Group Name Neighborhoods Combined to Form Group 

101 East River 

California 

Columbia/Tusculum 

East End 

Linwood 

103 West River 

Riverside 

Sayler Park 

Sedamsville 

104 Mill Camp 

Camp Washington 

Millvale 

South Cumminsville 

105 North Mill Creek Carthage 

Hartwell 

107 Greater Hyde Park Hyde Park 

O’Bryonville 

108 Greater Fairmount North Fairmount 

South Fairmount 

109 Lower East Price Hill Lower Price Hill 

East Price Hill 

110 Central Mill / Northside 

Winton Hills 

Winton Place 

Northside 

111 Pleasant Ridge & Kennedy Heights Pleasant Ridge 

Kennedy Heights 

112 Roselawn & Bond Hill Roselawn 

Bond Hill 

113 Clifton & University Heights & 

Fairview 

Clifton 

University Heights 

Fairview 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-72- 

Figure 10: Neighborhood Groups Used for Sampling. 

Cincinnati Neighborhood Groups Used For Sampling 

• 

... ' • • . 

-- -

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-73- 

Sampling Procedure. Land parcels were first aggregated by owner within each 

neighborhood. Forty owners were then selected from each neighborhood. Fifty-two owners 

appeared in our sample twice (because they own apartments in multiple neighborhoods). These 

non-unique owners were randomly selected and replaced where possible. This resulted in 1,411 

unique owners across 38 neighborhoods groups. 

The next step was to disaggregate the land parcels. Our interest was in the management 

of “apartment complexes,” which we defined as a grouping of physically contiguous apartment 

land parcels owned by the same person or entity. Specifically, apartment land parcels were 

combined into an “apartment complex” when they were: 1) owned by the same owner; and 2) 

located on the same side of the street within the same 100 block of a street; or 3) obviously part 

of a larger complex when mapped. 8 One hundred fifty-five owners held multiple complexes 

within a single neighborhood. One complex was selected at random from each of these owners. 

All other owners held a single complex. 

High violence apartment complexes were then added. An apartment complex was 

defined as “high violence” when nine or more calls for service involving violence occurred in 

2006. Nine or more was chosen as a cut point based on the frequency of calls for police service 

involving violence to apartment complexes in 2006. As Table 22 shows, the majority of 

apartment complexes (63.0%) had no such calls in 2006. The next most frequent category is just 

one call (14.9%). The overwhelming majority of apartment complexes had either no calls for 

 

8

 Despite the potential for error, this definition of “apartment complex” is simple, easily 

described, and easily reproducible. The risk of error was deemed acceptable for the sampling 

stage of the project. Our data collection involved sending graduate students to each site, which 

corrected errors in the definition of “apartment complex” in the data used for analysis. Of the 

994 apartment complexes visited, fewer than 40 (4%) required correction based on observation. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-74- 

police services involving violence or had a small number of calls. The nine or more category 

therefore represents the extreme end of the distribution. 

Table 22: Number of Calls for Police Service Involving Violence 

Number 

of calls Frequency Percent 

Cumulative 

Percent 

0 3,122 63.0 63.0 

1 736 14.9 77.8 

2 354 7.1 85.0 

3 208 4.2 89.2 

4 104 2.1 91.3 

5 79 1.6 92.9 

6 53 1.1 93.9 

7 40 0.8 94.8 

8 36 0.7 95.5 

9 or more 224 4.5 100.0 

N 4,956 100.0 

After adding all high-violence apartment complexes to the sample, we once again 

examined our sample for non-unique owners. High-violence complexes were favored in this 

process. Where an owner held both high-violence and non-high-violence complexes, the highviolence complex was retained. In such cases, the non-high violence complex was replaced 

where possible. 

This sampling procedure yielded a final result of 1,451 apartment complexes in 38 

neighborhood groups, each owned by a different person or corporate entity. Of these, 98 (6.8%) 

had nine or more calls for police service involving violence in 2006. 

Response Rate

Apartment Manager Survey. The first wave of Apartment Manager Surveys was 

mailed May 9, 2007. This survey wave yielded 200 valid responses. An additional 98 valid 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-75- 

responses were received after wave two was mailed on June 28, 2007. Nine more surveys were 

conducted via telephone in early 2008. The total response rate was 21.15% (n=307).9

Apartment Site Observation Survey. Apartment Site Observation Surveys were 

conducted between March 2007 and June 2008. A total of 1,040 site observations were 

attempted. Forty-six of these were unsuccessful, yielding 994 usable site observations surveys 

for a completion rate of 95.6%.10 

Results

Conceptual Models

As previously discussed, evidence suggests that a lack of place management can lead to 

crime (Eck and Weisburd, 1995; Felson, 1995). However, little is known specifically about how 

placement management affects crime at apartment complexes or if place management 

 

9

 While admittedly low, our response rate of 21.15% is not unusual for businesses. 

Dillman (2000) reports a study of 183 business surveys, for which the average response rate was 

21%. Such low response rates from businesses occur particularly when the only contact possible 

is via mail – a point made by our comparatively large response rate for bars (83%), for which inperson contacts were possible. Our sampling frame for apartments, however, did not include 

telephone numbers, and in many cases only a name and mailing address was provided. This, 

combined with the low incidence of rental offices (15%), limited the methods available to 

contact apartment owners. As is common with mail surveys, most apartment manager surveys 

(59.6%, n=865) were not returned. Another 30.94% (n=449) were returned to sender for various 

reasons, mostly unknown addressees. New address information was obtained from the Hamilton 

County Auditor for 179 of these and replacement surveys were sent. A small percentage of 

respondents refused to participate (1.6%, n=23). Seven respondents (0.48%) indicated that the 

property was no longer an apartment (building had been razed or converted to single family 

dwelling). Ten respondents (0.69%) indicated that they had sold the property but attempts to 

include the new owner were not successful. 

10 Twenty-seven of the unsuccessful site observations were due to observers being unable 

to find the apartment complex. One complex was clearly abandoned and unsafe. Eight 

complexes were inaccessible due to fences or gates. Seven complexes were clearly not 

apartments (the buildings had been razed or converted to single-family dwellings. Only two sites 

asked observers to leave the property. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-76- 

approaches need to differ across neighborhoods. Our research aimed to address these issues by 

examining how managerial practices and apartment characteristics influence violent crime at 

apartment complexes. Additionally, we examine the physical and social characteristics across 34 

Cincinnati neighborhoods to see how community context influences the place management of 

apartments. 

Separate analyses were completed on the Apartment Manager Survey and Apartment Site 

Observation data because these respective instruments measured different aspects of 

management (see methods section above). Our conceptual models for these separate analyses 

from the two data sources are illustrated inFigure 11 and Figure 12. Figure 11 shows the model 

for variables in the manager survey. We hypothesize that the accessibility, traffic, and image of 

an apartment complex will have direct effects on high violence and criminal opportunity. Figure 

12 shows the model for variables in the site observation survey. We hypothesize that manager 

presence and experience, checks and security measures utilized by managers, and the financial 

and residential stability of the manager and his/her tenants will directly affect high violence. 

In addition to direct effects between managerial practices and high violence, we also 

examine if community contextual factors have both direct effect on violence and moderating 

effects on the relationships between managerial practices and decision and violence. As 

illustrated by solid arrow 2 in both Figure 11 and Figure 12, we posit that neighborhood 

disadvantage, neighborhood instability and neighborhood level crime may directly affect 

violence at apartments, net of complex-level management decisions and practices. Moreover, as 

suggested by dashed arrow 3 in both Figure 11 and Figure 12, we hypothesize that concentrated 

disadvantage, instability, and violent crime will condition the effects of the apartment and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-77- 

management characteristics on high violence. We posit that the effect of managerial practices 

and decisions on violence might vary according to neighborhood conditions. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-78- 

Figure 11: Apartment Manager Survey Conceptual Model 

Figure 12: Apartment Site Observation Survey Conceptual Model 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-79- 

Apartment Manager Survey Measures

The measures from the Apartment Manager Survey were divided into three clusters of 

variables; the management experience and presence cluster, the checks and security cluster, and 

the financial and residential stability cluster. The management experience and presence cluster 

includes the frequency of visits, own other apartments in Cincinnati, and rental office measures. 

Table 23 provides a summary of these measures. The frequency of visits measure reflects how 

often the owners of the property visited the apartments. Values for this variable include daily, 

weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly, and less than once a year visitations. The own other 

apartments in Cincinnati measure reflects the number of additional apartment complexes that the 

managers owned within the city. Values for this variable include no other apartments, one 

apartment, two to three apartments, and four or more apartments. The rental office measure 

indicates if there is a rental or management office located on the premise of the apartment 

complex. This measure was dichotomous and was coded as either yes or no. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-80- 

Table 23: Descriptive Statistics: Management Experience and Presence Cluster 

Variable Name Frequency* Percent 

Frequency of Visits 

1 = Daily 67 23.3 

2 = Weekly 154 53.5 

3 = Monthly 44 15.3 

4 = Quarterly 17 5.9 

5 = Yearly 4 1.4 

6 = Less than once a year 2 0.7 

Total 288 100 

Own Other Apt. in Cincinnati 

0 = None 98 33.7 

1 = 1 56 19.2 

2 = 2-3 59 20.3 

3 = 4 or more 78 26.8 

Total 291 100 

Rental Office 

0 = No 250 84.2 

1 = Yes 47 15.8 

Total 297 100 

* The total number of responses varies by item due to missing data. 

The checks and security cluster includes the financial background, criminal background, 

previous landlord contacted, and number of evictions served measures. Table 24 provides a 

summary of these measures. The financial background measure indicates whether prospective 

tenants were required to undergo financial background checks prior to renting a unit. The 

criminal background measure indicates whether criminal background checks were conducted on 

potential tenants prior to moving into the complex. The previous landlord contacted measure 

reflects whether potential tenant’s previous landlords were contacted during the application 

process. The financial background, criminal background, and previous landlord contacted 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-81- 

measures were each dichotomous and coded as either yes or no. The number of evictions served

measure reflects a raw count of evictions served for each apartment complex. 

Table 24: Descriptive Statistics: Checks and Security Cluster 

Variable Name Mean SD Minimum Maximum N 

Financial Background 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

0.656 0.476 0 1 291 

Criminal Background 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

0.639 0.481 0 1 294 

Previous Landlord Contacted 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

0.772 0.420 0 1 290 

Number of Evictions Served 1.832 4.804 0 49 292 

The financial and residential stability cluster includes the financial status, tenure, 

delinquent rent, section 8, and vacant measures. Table 25 provides a summary of these 

measures. The financial status measure reflects the current financial status that respondents 

thought best described the apartment complex. Values for this variable include making a profit, 

breaking even, and losing money. The tenure measure reflects the percentage of tenants that 

have lived at the apartment for two or more years. The percentages for this measure were broken 

down into categories of fewer than 10%, 10 to 25%, 26 to 50%, 51 to 75%, 76 to 90%, and 91 to 

100%. The delinquent rent measure reflects the percentage of tenants that are currently 

delinquent in their rent payments. The section 8 measure reflects the percentage of the 

apartments that are rented by Section 8 voucher holders. The vacant measure indicates the 

percentage of units that were vacant each month. The percentages for the delinquent rent, 

section 8, and vacant measures were broken down into categories of fewer than 10%, 11 to 25%, 

26 to 50%, and 51% and above. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-82- 

Table 25: Descriptive Statistics: Financial/Residential Stability Cluster 

Variable Name Frequency Percent 

Financial Status 

1 = Making profit 105 42.5 

2 = Breaking even 82 33.2 

3 = Losing money 60 24.3 

Total 247 100 

Delinquent Rent 

0=0% 140 47.1 

1= 1-10% 83 27.9 

2 = 11-25% 52 17.5 

3 = 26-50% 14 4.7 

4 = 51% or more 8 2.7 

Total 297 100 

Vacant 

0 = 0% 65 22.3 

1= 1-10% 120 41.2 

2 = 11-25% 53 28.3 

3 = 26-50% 39 13.4 

4 = 51% or more 14 4.8 

Total 291 100 

Section 8 

0 = 0% 208 70.7 

1= 1-10% 39 13.3 

2 = 11-25% 23 7.8 

3 = 26-50% 11 3.7 

4 = 51% or more 13 4.4 

Total 294 100 

Tenure 

1 = Under 10% 32 10.8 

2 = 10-25% 40 13.6 

3 = 26-50% 86 29.3 

4 = 51-75% 71 24.1 

5 = 76-90% 39 13.3 

6 = 91-100% 26 8.8 

Total 294 100 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-83- 

Apartment Site Observation Survey

The measures from the site observation survey were divided into three clusters of 

variables: the accessibility cluster, the traffic cluster, and the image cluster. The accessibility 

cluster includes the corner lot, unit access, alley, complex access, secure complex, and number of 

entrances measures. Table 26 provides a summary of these measures. The corner lot measure 

reflects whether the apartment complex was located on a corner lot with two conjoining 

boundaries coded as streets. This measure and was coded as either yes or no. The unit access

measure reflects whether the units in the building are accessed by tenants through the interior or 

exterior of the building. The alley measure reflects whether any of the boundaries of the 

complex were coded as an alley. This measure was coded as either yes or no. The complex 

access measure is an index of the mean for the four boundaries of the apartment complex. 

Higher values of this measure reflect more accessible complexes. The boundary values included 

inaccessible, resident only, partially enclosed, and completely accessible. The secure complex

measure indicates whether the apartment complex was secured by a swipe card, key, call box, 

attendant station, or other security measure. This measure was coded as either yes or no; a yes 

was given for any complex that was secured by one or more of these security measures. The 

number of entrances measure reflects a count of clearly demarcated entryways into the apartment 

complex. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-84- 

Table 26: Descriptive Statistics: Accessibility Cluster 

Variable Name Mean SD Minimum Maximum N 

Corner Lot 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

0.221 0.417 0 2 988 

Unit Access 

0 = Interior 

1 = Exterior 

0.279 0.449 0 1 981 

Complex Access Index 

1 = Inaccessible 

2 = Resident only 

3 = Partially enclosed 

4 = Completely accessible 

3.317 0.750 1 4 985 

Secure Complex 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

0.095 0.294 0 1 977 

Alley 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

0.035 0.184 0 1 965 

Number of Entrances 0.941 0.631 0 8 982 

The traffic cluster includes the bus, traffic light, and street direction measures. Table 27 

provides a summary of these measures. The bus measure reflects a count of the bus stops that 

were located within one block of the apartment complex. The traffic light measure indicates 

whether there were traffic lights on any of the four boundaries of the apartment complex that 

were coded as streets. This measure was coded as either yes or no. The street direction measure 

reflects the mean of street directions for boundaries of the apartment complex that were coded as 

streets. Boundaries coded as streets were given values of either one-way or two-way. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-85- 

Table 27: Descriptive Statistics: Traffic Cluster 

Variable Name Mean SD Minimum Maximum N 

Bus 0.457 0.830 0 6 988 

Street Direction Index 

1 = One-way 

2 = Two-way 

1.903 0.292 1 2 954 

Traffic Light 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

0.191 0.393 0 1 994 

The image cluster includes the incivilities, severe incivilities, loiter, signage, and street 

light measures. Table 28 provides a summary of these measures. The two incivilities measures 

were created using a Principal Components Analysis with varimax rotation; the factor scores 

were saved and used for subsequent analyses.11 The incivilities factor is an index that includes a 

count of exterior litter, exterior junk, interior litter, interior junk, alcoholic drink containers, and 

whether the communal trash areas were overflowing. The severe incivilities factor is also an 

index that includes whether there was broken car glass in the parking area, the proportion of 

broken lights, the proportion of buildings with graffiti, the proportion of the buildings with 

chipping paint, the proportion of the buildings with structural problems, and the proportion of 

broken windows. The loiter measure indicates whether there were people loitering outside of the 

apartment complex. This measure was dichotomous and was coded as either yes or no12. The 

 

11 These two factors together explained 43.635% of the variance and had a KMO value of 

0.724. 

12 We could only measure whether loiterers were present at the time of the site 

observation (i.e., one point in time). Data collection generally lasted less than 30 minutes per 

site. For safety reasons, the majority (55.7%) of our site observations occurred before noon, with 

all observations occurring between 6:50am and 5:50pm. Surprisingly, loitering was not 

significantly correlated with the time of the observation (Pearson’s r=-0.58, p=0.072). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-86- 

signage measure is the number of signs13 posted by the complex management in and around the 

property. The street light measure reflects a count of overhead street lights on blocks 

represented by boundaries that have been coded as streets. 

Table 28: Descriptive Statistics: Image Cluster 

Variable Name Mean SD Minimum Maximum N 

Incivilities Factor 0.000 1.000 -0.693 8.658 994 

Severe Incivilities Factor 0.000 1.000 -0.621 5.569 994 

Loiter 

0 = No 

1 = Yes 

0.065 0.247 0 1 982 

Signage 1.044 1.345 0 9 992 

Street Light 3.717 3.009 0 30 990 

Neighborhood‐level Data

The neighborhood-level measures that were examined include concentrated 

disadvantage, instability, and violent crime rate. Table 29 provides a summary of these 

measures. An exploratory Principal Component Analysis with varimax rotation showed that our 

Census measures tapped two separate concepts: 1) Concentrated disadvantage, and 2) 

Instability.14 The concentrated disadvantage factor includes the proportion of population below 

poverty line, proportion of population that is nonwhite, proportion of population that is aged 5 to 

21, and the proportion of households that are female headed with children. The instability factor 

includes the proportion of residents aged 5 or more living in a different house in 1995 and 2000, 

 

13 Any sign posted by the apartment complex management was counted. Examples 

include various welcome messages, vacancy notices, and behavioral rules such as parking 

regulations, no trespassing, no soliciting, and no loitering. 

14 These two factors together explained 73.22% of the variance and had a KMO value of 

0.606. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-87- 

proportion of vacant housing units, proportion of renter-occupied housing units, and proportion 

of the population that is Hispanic. The violent crime rate measure is the number of calls for 

service regarding violent incidents in 2006 divided by the neighborhood group total population 

for that neighborhood as of the 2000 Census. 

Table 29: Descriptive Statistics: Neighborhood-level Measures 

Variable Name Mean SD Minimum Maximum N 

Concentrated Disadvantage 0.000 1.000 -1.577 2.780 36 

Instability 0.000 1.000 -1.614 2.296 36 

Violent Crime Rate 0.158 0.129 0.020 0.602 36 

 

The Dependent Variable

The high violence complex measure reflects apartment complexes that experienced nine 

or more calls for service to the police involving violent crimes. Table 30 provides a summary of 

this measure. The high violence complex measure was dichotomous and was coded as yes if the 

complex had nine or more calls for service or no if the complex had eight or less violent calls for 

service. 

Table 30: Descriptive Statistics: Dependent Variable 

Variable Name Mean SD Minimum Maximum N 

High Violence Complex 

0 = 8 or less calls for service 

1 = 9 or more calls for service 

0.059 0.236 0 1 994 

Research Findings:  Apartment Violence   

Recall that our study objectives included an examination of how violence varied across 

apartment complexes, and also how apartment-related violence was non-randomly distributed 

across neighborhoods. In addition to examining these multilevel sources of variation in violence, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-88- 

we were also interested in exploring the extent to which management-level correlates of 

apartment violence might vary across neighborhoods. To address these objectives, we estimated 

a series of hierarchical logistic regression models of “high violence” across apartment complexes 

nested within Cincinnati neighborhood groups.15 

The first step in our multilevel analysis of “high violence” was a simple intercept-only 

(unconditional) model in which variation in violence at both the apartment complex and 

neighborhood levels was observed. The results are shown in Table 31. The statistically 

significant level-2 variance component suggests that “high violence” does indeed vary 

significantly across our level-2 units of analysis (neighborhoods), thus justifying further 

examination of apartment complex violence in contextual models. 

Table 31: Level-1 and Level-2 Variance Components, Unconditional Hierarchical Logistic 

Regression Model of High Violence 

Variance SD χ2

Level-2 (τ) 1.454 1.206 166.38* 

Level-1r (σ

2

) 0.682 0.826 

* p < .05 

With significant cross-neighborhood variation in apartment violence established, we thus 

proceeded to build upon this unconditional model by adding, first, theoretically-linked clusters of 

complex-level variables, followed by inclusion of key community-level characteristics. 

However, estimating cross-neighborhood variation in mean violence and the predictors thereof 

with data from a relatively small number of neighborhood contexts can cause convergence 

 

15 Grouping of neighborhoods is discussed above (see Sampling Design, page 69 above). 

For this analysis, it was necessary to combine create three new neighborhood groups in order to 

have enough cases per aggregate. Pleasant Ridge and Kennedy Heights were combined into a 

single neighborhood group. Roselawn and Bond Hill were combined as well. Finally, Clifton, 

University Heights, and Fairview were combined to form one neighborhood group for the 

purposes of the multi-level analysis. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-89- 

problems. Hence, we conducted our multilevel analysis in distinct stages, focusing on 

theoretically-linked clusters of complex-level variables at each unique stage. We proceeded with 

this analysis, first, using clusters of variables from our site observations of apartment complexes. 

We then conducted similar analyses on clusters of variables from our survey of apartment 

owners. As such, no single analysis presented below presents effects net of all possible controls. 

Nonetheless, we see this analysis as an important first-step in understanding whether and how 

“high violence” varies not only across complexes but also across the community contexts in 

which those complexes are situated. 

Analysis of Site Observation Data   

The first cluster of complex-level variables examined were those related to the 

accessibility of the complex, as determined by our site observations. More specifically, we 

estimated a random-coefficients regression model including variables tapping whether the 

complex was located on a corner lot, the level of unit accessibility, the level of complex 

accessibility, the security of the complex, whether their was an alley bordering the complex, and 

the number of entranceways into the complex of the complex. In estimating the effects of these 

individual-level, access-related variables, we specified the intercept (mean high violence) as 

random across neighborhoods. We also checked each individual-level slope for crossneighborhood variation. Any slopes showing significant level-2 variance were specified as 

random in a final individual-level model, with all others specified as fixed. The results from this 

estimation procedure is depicted in Model 1 in Table 32. Next, in order to examine individuallevel effects net of neighborhood-level contextual variables, key community characteristics were 

added to the model. In particular, we focused on neighborhood-level concentrated disadvantage, 

neighborhood-level residential instability, and neighborhood rate of violent crime. The results 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-90- 

from this final model, including access-related complex-level variables in addition to 

neighborhood-level variables, are provided in Model 2 of Table 32. 

Table 32: Random-Coefficient Logistic Regression Models of High Violence: Accessibility 

Cluster 

Model 1 Model 2 

Fixed Effect Coefficient SE OR Coefficient SE OR 

Intercept (mean high violence) -2.504* 0.124 0.082 -2.597* 0.112 0.075 

Corner Lot 0.568* 0.156 1.764 0.581* 0.170 1.788 

Unit Access -0.190 0.216 0.827 -0.214 0.233 0.808 

Complex Access -0.262* 0.106 0.769 -0.213 0.136 0.808 

Secure Complex -0.342 0.302 0.710 -0.416 0.280 0.659 

Alley -0.150 0.340 0.861 -0.200 0.292 0.818 

Number of Entrances 0.067 0.117 1.070 0.076 0.124 1.079 

Concentrated Disadvantage - - - 0.337* 0.154 1.401 

Instability - - - 0.196 0.133 1.217 

Violent Crime Rate - - - 1.798 0.945 6.040 

Random Effect Variance SD χ2 Variance SD χ2

Intercept, level-2 1.985 1.409 182.63* 1.639 1.280 117.57*

Number of entrances, level-2 1.220 1.104 49.65* 1.250 1.118 47.72* 

Level-1 Error 0.569 0.754 0.585 0.765 

* p < .05 

Results from this final specification indicate that just one complex-level access variable 

was significantly related to high violence, net of neighborhood contextual characteristics. In 

particular, being located on a corner lot was positively related to odds of high violence at the 

complex, controlling for neighborhood factors. The odds ratio associated with the coefficient for 

“corner lot” suggests that the odds of high violence were 1.79 times greater for complexes with a 

corner location. This finding is consistent with expectations that corner properties are more 

accessible and will, therefore, produce more opportunity for violence. In terms of neighborhoodlevel effects, findings from Table 32 show that concentrated disadvantage is, as expected, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-91- 

significantly, positively related to odds of high violence. More specifically, odds of high 

violence increase by approximately 40 percent per each increment increase in concentrated 

disadvantage. Another telling indication of the importance of neighborhood context in 

understanding apartment complex violence is the noted (nearly 20 percent) decline in level-2 

variation in violence upon including neighborhood predictors. 

Results from Table 32 also indicate that while the number of entrances to the complex is 

unrelated to high violence on average, this effect is significantly variable across communities (as 

suggested by the significant variance component in the random-effect portion of the table). In 

order to determine whether any of this cross-neighborhood variation in the effect of number of 

entrances on high violence could be explained by community characteristics, we examined 

supplemental hierarchical logistic regression models nearly identical to Model 2 in Table 32, but 

with cross-level interactions between “number of entrances” and each of the three neighborhoodlevel variables also included. The interaction effects emerging from these supplemental analyses 

are presented in Table 33 below. These results indicate that none of the interaction terms 

examined were significant. Therefore, we can say that the effect of number of entrance on 

violence is variable across Cincinnati neighborhoods, but none of the contextual characteristics 

of neighborhoods we examined are able to adequately explain this variability. 

Table 33: Cross-level Interactions: Accessibility Cluster 

 Apartment Level 

Number of Entrances 

Neighborhood Level Coefficient SE OR

Concentrated Disadvantage 0.061 0.141 1.063 

Instability -0.032 0.065 0.968 

Violent Crime Rate -0.170 0.528 0.844 

* p < .05 

 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-92- 

In the next stage of analysis, we estimated comparable models to those presented above 

for a second cluster of apartment complex-level variables. The second cluster of variables was 

focused on traffic density in and around the complex. In particular, drawing upon data from our 

site observations, we estimated the effects of whether there was a bus stop near the complex 

(within one block), a measure of traffic as indicated by the mean street direction across all 

boundary streets (with two-way presumed to create more traffic than one-way), and whether 

there was a traffic light on a perimeter street (in plain sight from grounds of complex). We 

estimated these effects first without (Model 1, Table 34) and then with (Model 2, Table 34) key 

neighborhood-level characteristics controlled. In addition, mean high violence was specified as 

random at level 2, as were any significantly variable slope coefficients. 

Table 34: Random-Coefficient Logistic Regression Models of High Violence Complexes: 

Traffic Cluster 

Model 1 Model 2 

Fixed Effect Coefficient SE OR Coefficient SE OR 

Intercept (mean high violence) -2.553* 0.105 0.078 -2.605* 0.91 0.074 

Bus Stop 0.322* 0.089 1.380 0.334* 0.092 1.396 

Street Direction -0.462 0.259 0.630 -0.364 0.205 0.695 

Traffic Light -0.030 0.236 0.970 -0.006 0.251 0.994 

Concentrated Disadvantage - - - 0.428* 0.122 1.534 

Instability - - - 0.212* 0.096 1.236 

Violent Crime Rate - - - 1.151 0.788 3.161 

Random Effect Variance SD χ2 Variance SD χ2

Intercept, level-2 1.671 1.293 95.16* 1.438 1.199 58.31* 

Traffic Light, level-2 4.855 2.203 41.83* 5.954 2.440 39.36* 

Level-1 Error 0.519 0.720 0.525 0.724 

* p < .05 

Only one of the three traffic-related variables was significantly related to odds of high 

violence net of community-level controls. More specifically, having a bus stop near the complex 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-93- 

increased odd of high violence nearly 40 percent. This finding is consistent with expectations, as 

bus stops were presumed to generate traffic, thus exposing nearby places to potential offenders. 

Similar to the models presented earlier, concentrated disadvantage exhibited a strong contextual 

effect on odds of high violence. Neighborhood-level residential instability was also significantly 

and positively related to odds of high-violence in Model 2 of Table 34. Controlling for 

neighborhood-level disadvantage, instability, and violent crime reduced the cross-neighborhood 

variation in high violence at apartments by nearly 15 percent. 

Analysis of the traffic cluster of variables also indicated that the effect of having a traffic 

light near the complex on odds of high violence at the complex was significantly different across 

neighborhoods (see random-effects portion of Table 34). Therefore, we examined the extent to 

which “traffic light” interacted with neighborhood-level variables in estimating the likelihood of 

apartment-related high violence. These interaction effects are depicted in Table 35. As can be 

seen, there was a significant interaction between “traffic light” and concentrated disadvantage. 

This interaction effect suggests that the negative (main) effect of having a traffic light depicted in 

Table 35 is weakened as concentrated disadvantage increases. In fact, in the most disadvantaged 

communities, the effect of having a traffic light nearby is positive. Such findings suggest that 

some indicators of traffic density -- presumed to increase opportunity for violence -- may be 

innocuous for most apartment complexes, yet these same indicators may have particularly 

harmful crime-related consequences when in disadvantaged neighborhoods. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-94- 

Table 35: Cross-level Interactions: Traffic Cluster 

 Apartment Level 

Traffic Light 

Neighborhood Level Coefficient SE OR

Concentrated Disadvantage .671* .201 1.955 

Instability -.113 .157 .893 

Violent Crime Rate -1.287 2.885 .276 

* p < .05 

The next stage of the analysis of high violence at Cincinnati apartment complexes 

involved examination of variables obtained from our site observations that were related to the 

exterior image and upkeep of the complex. For this stage of the analysis, we included five 

complex level variables: a minor incivilities index, a severe incivilities index, presence of 

loitering, a “signage” index, and the number of overhead street lights on the complex’s boundary 

streets. As with previous analyses, effects of these complex-level variables were estimated, first, 

without neighborhood-level control variables (Model 1, Table 36). In a final model (Model 2, 

Table 36), these effects are net of neighborhood-level characteristics. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-95- 

Table 36: Random-Coefficient Logistic Regression Models of High Violence Complexes: 

Image Cluster 

Model 1 Model 2 

Fixed Effect Coefficient SE OR Coefficient SE OR 

Intercept (mean high violence) -1.737* 0.079 0.176 -1.738* 0.065 0.176 

Incivilities 0.073 0.076 1.075 0.073 0.073 1.076 

Severe Incivilities -0.038 0.059 0.963 -0.028 0.057 0.973 

Loiter 0.755* 0.275 2.128 0.671* 0.259 1.957 

Signage 0.176* 0.41 1.192 0.186* 0.41 1.204 

Street Light 0.013 0.035 1.013 0.009 0.030 1.009 

Concentrated Disadvantage - - - 0.035 0.133 1.036 

Instability - - - 0.175 0.172 1.191 

Violent Crime Rate - - - 0.643 0.941 1.902 

Random Effect Variance SD χ2 Variance SD χ2

Intercept, level-2 3.253 1.804 194.07* 2.379 1.542 161.50* 

Incivilities, level-2 2.772 1.665 100.25* 4.166 2.041 100.52* 

Severe Incivilities, level-2 2.081 1.443 72.25* 2.336 1.528 73.48* 

Loiter, level-2 16.031 4.004 83.11* 15.767 3.971 85.83* 

Signage, level-2 0.362 0.602 59.13* 0.409 0.639 69.26 

Street Light, level-2 0.270 0.520 51.72* 0.187 0.433 50.34 

Level-1 Error 0.281 0.530 0.282 0.531 

* p < .05 

Results displayed in Table 36 show that two image-related, complex-level variables 

displayed significant effects in estimating high violence. As expected, presence of loitering 

increased the odds of high violence. Contrary to expectations, however, signage also was 

positively related to the odds of high violence. Another interesting finding to emerge from the 

analyses of image-related variables is the non-significance of all neighborhood-level variables. 

Concentrated disadvantage had shown relatively strong effects on odds of high violence in the 

two previous stages of our analysis of site observation data. However, findings from Table 36 

indicate that, net of complex-level image, neighborhood-level concentrated disadvantage does 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-96- 

not have a significant effect. Finally, our analyses in Table 36 show that all five complex-level 

image variables had significantly-variable slope coefficients. In other words, our models 

indicate that the effects of minor incivilities, severe incivilities, loitering, signage and street 

lighting are variable across neighborhood settings. In order to try to account for these variable 

effects, cross-level interactions were estimated, allowing us to explore how the effects of each of 

the image variables on violence might be conditioned by neighborhood levels of disadvantage, 

instability or violent crime. These interactions are displayed in Table 37. 

Table 37: Cross-level Interactions: Image Cluster 

Apartment Level

Incivilities Severe Incivilities

Neighborhood Level Coefficient SE OR Coefficient SE OR

Concentrated Disadvantage -0.162* 0.055 0.850 -0.071 0.054 0.932 

Instability -0.010 0.046 0.990 -0.015 0.068 0.985 

Violent Crime Rate -0.825* 0.287 0.438 -0.290 0.636 0.749 

Signage Street Light

Coefficient SE OR Coefficient SE OR

Concentrated Disadvantage 0.098* 0.040 1.103 -0.053 0.037 0.949 

Instability 0.045 0.032 1.046 0.023 0.051 1.023 

Violent Crime Rate 0.244 0.238 1.276 0.424 0.418 1.527 

Loiter 

Coefficient SE OR 

Concentrated Disadvantage 0.131 0.265 1.140 

Instability -0.850 2.541 0.428 

Violent Crime Rate 0.055 0.327 1.057 

* p < .05 

Of the fifteen interaction effects depicted in Table 37, only three are statistically 

significant. Our indicator of minor incivilities interacts (negatively) with both neighborhoodlevel concentrated disadvantage and neighborhood-level violent crime. These interactions 

indicate that overall positive (main) effect of minor incivilities on apartment violence is 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-97- 

tempered as concentrated disadvantage and area violent crime increase. Complex-level disorder 

may simply matter less in terms of providing opportunity for crime in neighborhoods where the 

broader conditions suggest plentiful opportunity. In contrast, a significant interaction between 

signage and concentrated disadvantage indicates that signage is more positively related to 

apartment violence as neighborhood-level concentrated disadvantage increases. 

Analysis of Apartment Manager Survey Data

All of the analyses of apartment-related violence presented up to this point have utilized 

complex-level measures that come from our site observations of 994 Cincinnati apartment 

complexes. The survey of the owners of those complexes yielded many fewer cases (N=307). 

Rather than combine the two sources of data and lose many valuable cases for which we had site 

observation data but no survey data, we elected to conduct analyses separately on measures from 

the management survey of owners. Thus, the final three stages of our examination of complex 

and neighborhood sources of variation in apartment violence are based upon complex-level 

measures derived from the management survey only. Also, due to the small number of 

completed surveys per neighborhood, we necessarily simplified our estimation of multilevel 

models of “high violence” by estimating models in which only the intercept (mean neighborhood 

high violence) was allowed to vary across neighborhoods. All slope coefficients were “fixed,” as 

cross-neighborhood slope variance could not be reliably estimated. 

Just as in the case of analyses based on data from site observations, theoretically-linked 

clusters of variables are examined in separate stages. The first set of factors we examined from 

the management survey related to the financial and residential stability of the complex. 

Specifically, we utilized an owner-reported measure of the financial status of the complex, an 

owner-reported measure of the level of delinquent rent payment at the complex, an ownerThis document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-98- 

reported level of apartment vacancy within the complex, an owner-reported ordinal measure of 

the percentage of tenants who utilized “Section 8” housing vouchers, and an owner-reported 

assessment of the percentage of tenants living in the complex for two or more years. The results 

of the analyses of this cluster of variables in presented in Table 38. 

Table 38: Random-Intercept Logistic Regression Models of High Violence Complexes: 

Financial and Residential Stability Cluster 

Model 1 Model 2 

Fixed Effect Coefficient SE OR Coefficient SE OR 

 

Intercept (mean high violence) -3.101* 0.233 0.045 -3.235* 0.242 0.039 

Financial Status -0.037 0.267 0.964 -0.021 0.287 0.979 

Delinquent Rent 0.821* 0.187 2.274 0.876* 0.190 2.401 

Vacant -0.109 0.135 0.897 -0.146 0.152 0.864 

Section 8 0.532* 0.192 1.702 0.553* 0.180 1.738 

Tenure 0.090 0.118 1.095 0.109 0.114 1.115 

Concentrated Disadvantage - - - -0.093 0.340 0.911 

Instability - - - 0.527 0.277 1.694 

Violent Crime Rate - - - 0.715 1.935 2.045 

 

Random Effect Variance SD χ2 Variance SD χ2

 

Intercept, level-2 3.629 1.905 146.57* 3.819 1.954 122.72* 

 

Level-1 Error 0.431 0.656 0.460 0.678 

 

* p < .05 

Results in Table 38 show that two of the financial/residential stability measures were 

significant in predicting high violence. As rate of delinquent rents and level of section 8 tenants 

increased, so did odds of violent crime at the complex. Controlling for complex-level financial 

and residential status yielded non-significant effects for all neighborhood-level variables. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-99- 

We next examined a cluster of variables from our survey of owners that measure 

owner/management experience and presence (at the complex). Three variables comprise this 

cluster: a measure of the frequency with which the owner visits the complex, an ordinal-scale 

measure of the number of other rental properties owned by the respondent, and a dichotomous 

measure indicating presence of a rental/management office on the complex grounds. Results are 

reported in Table 39. Higher levels of violence tended to occur at places where the owner 

reported higher levels of rental property ownership. As such, owner “experience” did not seem 

to benefit the complex. Instead, we speculate that several issues may lie behind the positive

relationship between rates of ownership and high violence. First, high-volume owners might be 

spread too thin, thus neglecting some of their properties, resulting in crime-prone places. In 

addition, the types of apartments that are owned in high numbers by single owners are probably 

some of the most affordable properties, with crime-prone conditions often accompanying the 

attractive price tags. Having a rental office on the complex was also associated with higher 

violence. While we had originally conceived of this measure as an indicator of management 

presence on the complex, hindsight suggests to us that it may be tapping a particular type of 

apartment complex. In general, management offices tended to be on-site in the larger, high-rise 

apartment buildings – buildings that we would expect to be prone to higher violence. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-100- 

Table 39: Random-Intercept Logistic Regression Models of High Violence Complexes: 

Management Experience and Presence Cluster 

Model 1 Model 2 

Fixed Effect Coefficient SE OR Coefficient SE OR 

 

Intercept (mean high violence) -3.131* 0.344 0.044 -3.297* 0.218 0.037 

Frequency of Visits 0.258 0.269 1.294 0.268 0.286 1.308 

Own Other Apts. in Cincinnati 0.438* 0.106 1.550 0.430* 0.112 1.538 

Rental Office 1.640* 0.532 5.155 1.675* 0.570 5.338 

Concentrated Disadvantage - - - 0.074 0.308 1.077 

Instability - - - 0.054 0.323 1.056 

Violent Crime Rate - - - 4.100 2.579 60.342 

 

Random Effect Variance SD χ2 Variance SD χ2

 

Intercept, level-2 3.622 1.903 235.05* 3.733 1.932 179.10* 

 

Level-1 Error 0.291 0.540 0.296 0.544 

* p < .05 

 

The final stage of our multilevel, multivariate analysis of violence in apartments 

consisted of examining variables that measured security-related decisions/practices of apartment 

managers. We included, more specifically, dichotomous measures indicating 1) whether owners 

conducted financial background checks on applicants, 2) whether they conducted criminal 

background checks on applicants, 3) whether they contacted previous landlords of applicants, 

and 4) whether they served any evictions. Findings focusing on these complex-level variables, 

in combination with neighborhood contextual variables, are provided in Table 40. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-101- 

Table 40: Random-Intercept Logistic Regression Models of High Violence Complexes: 

Checks and Security Cluster 

Model 1 Model 2 

Fixed Effect Coefficient SE OR Coefficient SE OR 

 

Intercept (mean high violence) -3.197* 0.346 0.041 -3.278* 0.233 0.038 

Financial Background -0.295 0.457 0.745 -0.308 0.437 0.735 

Criminal Background 1.861* 0.595 6.428 1.849* 0.642 6.356 

Previous Landlord Contacted 0.058 0.493 1.060 -0.006 0.481 0.994 

Number of Evictions Served 0.090* 0.037 1.094 0.088* 0.039 1.092 

Concentrated Disadvantage - - - 0.047 0.265 1.048 

Instability - - - 0.095 0.316 1.100 

Violent Crime Rate - - - 2.933 2.592 18.775 

 

Random Effect Variance SD χ2 Variance SD χ2

 

Intercept, level-2 2.434 1.560 154.80* 2.655 1.629 125.49* 

Level-1 Error 0.342 0.585 0.342 0.585 

 

* p < .05 

The significant effects emerging from the analysis presented in Table 40 are generally 

contrary to expectations. Two of the security-related variables were significantly positively 

related to high violence at apartments – namely, criminal background checks and serving 

evictions. While we assumed these management practices would result in lower violence, we 

suspect that the positive effects shown here might be the result of security practices emerging 

from high violence (rather than temporally preceding high violence). 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-102- 

Summary

The preceding analyses indicate that management decisions can be important in 

understanding violence at apartment complexes. Several types of management decisions appear 

important. First, our analysis provided evidence that decisions in terms of the physical 

characteristics of the properties owners choose to buy can have implications for violence. In 

particular, our findings highlight a couple of key risk factors in this regard: 

 apartment complexes located on corner lots were more violence-prone places; and 

 apartment complexes located near bus stops were more violence-prone places. 

In addition, some management decisions regarding the upkeep, maintenance, and 

supervision of their properties may be key in predicting levels of violence on the properties. Our 

findings highlighted one specific finding consistent with this idea: 

 apartment complexes with presence of loitering were more violence-prone places. 

Finally, management decisions regarding the financial standing of tenants to whom they 

rent appear important in understanding and preventing violence. In particular, our findings 

indicate the following: 

 the rate of tenants delinquent on rent is positively associated with apartment violence; 

and 

 the rate of tenants paying with Section 8 vouchers is positively associated with 

apartment violence. 

Thus, there is evidence that management decisions in a variety of domains can affect 

violence at apartments. That being said, there is also evidence that these individual decisions 

don’t have the same implications across all neighborhood contexts. Our contextual analysis, 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-103- 

including exploration of how complex-level effects on violence varied according to 

neighborhood context yielded the following generalizations: 

 Management decisions regarding the location of their apartments in terms of traffic 

do not necessarily yield the same costs/benefits across neighborhood contexts. We 

found evidence that apartment complexes located on high-traffic streets (as indicated 

by presence of a street light) are only at risk in neighborhoods with the most 

concentrated disadvantage. 

 Management decisions regarding the maintenance of physical incivilities do not 

necessarily yield the same costs/benefits across neighborhood contexts. We found 

evidence that incivilities were most harmful to complexes located in neighborhoods 

with less disadvantage and less overall crime. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-104- 

Violence at places:  Lessons from bars and apartments

Introduction

In previous chapters we have described our findings from the analysis of data on violence 

in bars and apartments. In this chapter we will look at more general implications. As such, this 

chapter is far more speculative and at times goes beyond the data. The first section describes 

general lessons we can draw from the specific bar and apartment findings. The second section 

describes implications for conducting research on places and place management. The 

concluding section offers general policy implications from the research, in the context of place 

research already in the literature. 

General findings

When we step back from the specifics of which variable is associated with other variables 

for bars and apartments, we can see a broader set of findings. Four general findings from this 

study may have broad implication for the relationships among places, neighborhoods, and 

violence. We offer these conjectures as fodder for future studies. 

Distribution of Violence

Violence is highly concentrated in a few bars and a few apartment complexes. This is 

consistent with the risky facility hypothesis of Eck, Clarke, and Guerette (2007). This finding is 

not surprising given the ubiquity of the concentration of crime across a host of dimensions. In 

fact, it would be surprising to find little or no concentration. Nevertheless, it is important 

because of the common misconception that some types of facilities, such as bars, are inherently 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-105- 

violence prone. This is clearly not the case. And it calls into question earlier research that 

suggests that bars have a common influence on their immediate surroundings (Roncek, 1981; 

Roncek and Bell, 1981; Roncek and Pravatiner, 1989; Roncek and Maier, 1991). Roncek’s 

thesis has been widely cited, but it needs to be reinvestigated in light of the highly skewed 

distribution of crime at bars. It is plausible that the association Roncek and colleagues found 

between bars and crime on city blocks is due to a) a few outlier high crime bars; or b) 

uncontrolled confounders. Our analysis focused on violence at the place, rather than violence 

immediately surrounding the place, so this may account for the differences between our study 

and Roncek’s various finding. Nevertheless, crime is highly skewed in so many domains, it 

would be surprising not to find the same skewed distributions surrounding places that we find 

within them. 

Neighborhood Context

In this study we examined three alternative hypotheses describing the relationship 

between places and their neighborhood context: 1) Neighborhood characteristics determine 

violence at places; 2) Place violence is unaffected by neighborhood context; and, 3) Place 

violence is partially determined by neighborhood context. Despite the differences in place type, 

data collection methods, survey response rates, and statistical methods used our results were 

reasonably consistent. The third hypothesis appears to be a better explanation than either of the 

other two hypotheses. 

The evidence is inconsistent with the first hypothesis for both bars and apartment. If this 

hypothesis were true, then violent bars should cluster together in the same neighborhoods and 

bars with little or no violence should cluster together in other neighborhoods. We did not see 

this. In fact, violent bars were collocated near other bars and in the same neighborhoods. If this 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-106- 

hypothesis is true for apartments, then we should have found that neighborhood variation should 

exclusively drive violence in apartments. In fact, what we found was that neighborhood 

characteristics were inconsistently associated with violence, and place characteristics were often 

associated with violence. 

The evidence is inconsistent or inconclusive regarding the second hypothesis. The spatial 

distribution and number of bars in Cincinnati did not allow us to eliminate the hypothesis that 

neighborhoods have some influence on bar violence. In fact, bars cluster together. This suggests 

that neighborhoods at least influence bar location. So we are suspicious of the “place only” 

perspective of the second hypothesis concerning bars. If neighborhoods have no influence on 

apartment violence, we would find that only place characteristics would be statistically 

associated with apartment complex violence. While place does matter, our results suggest that 

neighborhoods may have some influence on apartment violence. 

This leaves us with the third hypothesis: place violence is both the result of place 

characteristics and the neighborhood context of the place. This result may be due to a number 

of possibilities: places may influence context at one level, and context influence places at 

another level, for example, or it may be that context influences the strength of place effects. 

Unfortunately, we cannot apportion this influence between place and context. We can eliminate 

the extremes (only place or only context) but we cannot definitively conclude that place is more 

important or less important than context. And we should be careful to avoid interpreting this 

uncertainty as implying that the places and context are equally important. Further, we should not 

leap to the conclusion that the relative importance of place and context is stable across types of 

places (e.g., bars, apartments, or other types of facilities), or across cities (e.g., Cincinnati, 

Boston, Austin, or other), or over time. Local economic conditions, state and local laws and 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-107- 

regulations, land use policies, and a host of other factors are likely to influence the relative 

importance of place and context. 

Our best estimate is that places and their contexts are loosely coupled. The looseness or 

tightness of this coupling will probably vary by area (city, county, and metropolitan area), over 

time, facility type, and crime type. This provides a wealth of research opportunities here, but it 

also leaves policy makers and practitioners with some uncertainty. 

Place Features

Place features are associated with place violence. In particular, we found evidence 

consistent with the hypothesis place management influences violence at both apartments and 

bars. Unfortunately, we were unable to disentangle the influence of the large number of possible 

place management characteristics. And though a few place variables stand out as being 

significantly associated with violence, we cannot pin down the temporal order of the association. 

Do these variables cause violence or reduce violence, or does violence cause an increase in these 

variables? Cross-sectional studies such as this are notoriously poor at establishing temporal 

order, so this limitation is not surprising. 

We should comment on a seeming contradiction between our findings and findings from 

studies of convenience stores. Convenience stores have been the subject of considerable 

research. There are relatively consistent findings that place specific features influence robbery 

and other crime risks (Bellamy, 1996; Faukner, Landsittel, and Hendricks, 2001; Hunter and 

Jeffrey, 1991; LaVigne, 1994), though Calder and Bauer (1992) present evidence that 

environmental factors may be more critical than place factors. Why might there be reasonably 

strong relationships between place characteristics and crime in convenience stores, but weaker 

evidence for apartments and bars? One obvious reason may be differences in methods. Another 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-108- 

may be that the convenience store research over estimates place effects, as Calder and Bauer 

(1992) suggest. But there are other possibilities that need to be stated. 

First, convenience stores are far more homogeneous than either bars or apartment 

complexes. They vary less in terms of location (convenience stores are almost always on major 

streets, and often on corners, where bars and apartment are in a greater variety of contexts). 

Convenience stores are also more homogeneous in terms of their interior layout, size, and along 

other dimensions than either bars or apartments. Second, the range of behaviors permissible in 

bars and apartments is greater than in convenience stores. Third, convenience stores are highly 

likely to be part of a national chain that standardizes employee behavior, physical characteristics, 

and other factors. This is much less likely for apartments or bars. Finally, as a result of the 

above, convenience stores may be far more decoupled from their context than either bars or 

apartment buildings. All of these differences make convenience stores far simpler than bars or 

apartments, and could explain why place feature associations with crime are more obvious in 

convenience stores. In short, the simpler the place and the more decoupled from its environment, 

the easier it will be to associate place characteristics with crime. 

These sorts of variations among place types (i.e., facilities), the skewed distribution of 

violence, the loose coupling of neighborhood context, and the difficulty at disentangling place 

effects on crime, suggests we need to look at place management differently. 

Place Dynamics

In her dissertation, Tamara Madensen (2007) proposed a dynamic framework for 

understanding place management. She based the model on qualitative interviews of bar 

managers during data collection for this study, and then generalized concepts regarding bars to 

all places. Figure 13 graphically depicts Madensen’s model. Crime production is the result of a 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-109- 

larger process wherein managers make decisions in different time frames. Further, crime 

production is only one of many things produced. Figure 13 has five groups of factors (marked A 

through E). 

A. Background. The dashed boxes along top and right side describe background factors 

for place management. Many of these can be influenced by neighborhood context. We include 

the interests of the possible owner, because these come prior to subsequent decisions. In the long 

run these interests will be influenced by the performance of the place, but for simplicity we 

ignore this form of feedback. 

Figure 13: Place management 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-110- 

B. Strategic Decisions. The boxes in this shaded region describe early, strategic, 

management decisions. These decisions, once taken, cannot be rapidly or easily undone. 

Strategic decisions are influenced by the outside factors described in A. 

C. Intermediate Actions. These boxes describe intermediate term management actions. 

Unlike those in B, these can be changed relatively quickly, though not instantly and not without 

costs. The most important outside influence is the location of customers, and this influence 

marketing. Other outside factors are indirect. 

D. Short Term Actions. The interactions of patrons and their environment create events 

and the patrons respond to these events. Most events are good or benign (e.g., bar patrons start 

dancing and ordering more drinks; apartment dwellers get a good nights sleep). Other events 

will be annoying (e.g., apartment residents are awoken early by drunks coming home from the 

bar). A few events will be crimes (e.g., two patrons get into a fight and the bar tender throws 

them out). Management reactions are also quick. Management reaction is not only influenced 

by the patrons and events, but a host of other factors (shown in E). Over time management may 

reconsider decisions made in B and C. 

E. Operational Factors. The factors in dashed boxes along the bottom describe 

intermediate background influence on management decisions. The events influence recourses, 

draw (or fail to) the attention of regulators, enhance the manager’s relationships with other 

managers, and so forth. They create a rough cost-benefit context for management reactions in D. 

When the place is operated to earn the owner a profit, profits may have a very large influence on 

management reaction. In other types of places, other influences may dominate. 

This model helps explain our basic findings. First, highly skewed distributions such as 

we found with regard to violence at places are often the result of processes with feedback 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-111- 

mechanisms (Eck, Clarke, and Guerette, 2007). We would expect place managers to make 

decisions on the fly to reduce crime, but some managers will be more effective than others. This 

creates a sorting process. Those managers that can consistently respond appropriately keep their 

place in the large group of low crime locations. Managers that fail to respond appropriately 

(taking advantage of positive events and not making changes following negative events) shift 

their location toward the small group of high crime locations. This can reduce their resources 

and their ability to reverse their direction. If managers consistently fail to respond appropriately, 

then the location ends up in the tail of the distribution with the highest crime places. In feedback 

systems, small differences can accumulate causing two entities that start with similar attributes to 

have very different trajectories (Miller and Page, 2007; Schroeder, 1991). In this case, two 

apartment complexes near each other and catering to the same clientele could over time evolve to 

the point where one has little crime and the other has much. 

Second, Madensen’s framework explains the loose coupling between context and crime 

at places. Managers seek to insulate their places from contextual factors that get in the way of 

place operations and take advantage of contextual factors that enhance their place. Managers 

differentially apply advertising, for example. Bar owners making a good profit from local 

clientele who do not create trouble may choose not to spend money on advertising. Here the 

local context helps the bar owner. An owner of a bar in a neighborhood with few customers, or 

customers who the management believes are troublesome, may advertise for non-local 

customers. This is likely to be accompanied by enticements for outsiders to come to the bar. If 

successful, these actions may insulate the bar from the neighborhood’s influence. Not all such 

efforts will be successful. Thus, in a population of bars, some will be more subject to contextual 

influences than others. This framework can be applied to all places. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-112- 

Links between places and neighborhood may also be a matter of the time frame under 

consideration. Using Madensen’s model we anticipate that management decisions regarding 

when and where to locate the place are influenced by neighborhood context, with the causal 

direction flowing from the context to the place. This decision is difficult to undo. Once 

established, managers are likely to insulate the location from negative influences, as described 

above. However, in short time-periods (the central part of the model) the place is generating 

events which may influence the context. The causal direction switches. Thus, given a placecontext relationship works in both causal directions, depending on where the place is located in 

its historical evolution, in cross-sectional studies such as ours, the average causal effects over all 

places may cancel each other out. 

Third, the framework shows why cross sectional studies are unlikely to reveal a few 

consistently powerful place effects in a population or sample of facilities. That is because 

managers, having different objectives and working in different contexts, will apply different 

approaches to regulate conduct make the place successful. We might call this the “skinned cat” 

hypothesis: there are many ways to run a successful place. The place management features 

useful in one location may conflict with the goals of the manager in another, so the owners use a 

different approach. Additionally, the management decisions are not implemented individually, 

but are part of a set of practices. Consequently, no single physical or social attribute of a place 

will consistently be associated with crime. With the right other set of factors, a place condition 

might not create crime opportunities. But without them, or with other factors, the same condition 

might facilitate crime. 

Cross-sectional studies will have difficulty testing this model because it does not specify 

the temporal order: disorder causes management decisions which in turn influence disorder. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-113- 

Positive feedback loops will result in largely crime free places, or in places that are either go out 

of business or have a great deal of crime. Crime results in management response that drives 

crime down and increases profits that allow more effective management, even less crime, and 

even higher profits. Or crime drives out customers, reducing management capability to regulate 

crime, resulting in fewer customers and more crime. Negative feedback would result in crime 

oscillations: crime provokes management response, which drives crime down; with low crime 

management goes back to less expensive practices, which allows crime to return; this repeats. 

Another reason cross-sectional studies, such as this, will have difficulty parsing specific 

place and neighborhood influences on crime is that cross-sectional studies assume that the 

processes that create the values of the variables being studied are stable; have reached an 

equilibrium. However, this assumption is probably not valid. In our study we found that some 

bars and apartment complexes that were registered as operating in data bases were found to be 

closed when we visited them. In fact, many of the bars in the Over-the-Rhine neighborhood that 

we studied, are now closed. Further, new businesses opened after we began our study and 

change of ownership is common. The feedback processes internal to the place, described in the 

model, does not predict that managers will settle on a stable practices. Bar managers, in 

particular, changed their practices often, though this may be highly variable. So while we cannot 

rule out stability for any specific place, in a population of similar places – facilities – we cannot 

assume that an equilibrium has developed. And when the processes are not in equilibrium one 

cannot discern from cross-sectional correlations which factors are influencing which other 

factors. 

While this framework explains the main results of this study, the study is not strong 

evidence in support of the framework. First, the framework was built in the course of the study 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-114- 

so in some respects it might be “fit” to the data. Second, the study design is cross-sectional and 

the framework is best tested with a longitudinal study. Consequently, Madensen’s model is best 

viewed as a useful framework that needs testing. 

Implications for place research

This study provides several lessons for research on places. 

Interviewing and Observing Place Managers

The response rates for interviews of managers varied considerably between bars and 

apartments. We were able to interview managers at over 80 of the bars in Cincinnati, but less 

than 25 percent of the apartment managers. The reason is simple. Bars are open to the public 

and a manager is always present when the place is open for business. Apartments are private 

residences and apartment complex properties are often restricted to residents. More importantly, 

few apartment complexes have managers located on site. Contacting off-site managers was 

difficult, and necessity of mail surveys and phones made it easier for respondents to refuse 

interviews. The broader lesson is that facility types will vary in difficulty of contacting 

managers. Facilities where the manager is often present and interacts with the public will be the 

easiest places to study. When managers do not interact with the public, and particularly when 

they are located off-site, then researchers will have much greater difficulty in getting interviews. 

The ability to observe place management in action also varies across different types of 

places. A researcher (or anyone else) can sit in a bar and directly observe how managers behave. 

Though some of their actions will be in private locations, much will be in the open. Even if a 

researcher has unfettered access to an apartment complex, however, they will see very little 

management behavior. Interactions with tenants can take place over the phone (or through other 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-115- 

devices) and long periods will elapse without any obvious action by the owner or her designee. 

The broad lesson is that the pace of activities within places will make place management easier 

or harder to study. Places that host a limited range of activities, such as office buildings, parking 

garages, and apartment complexes are likely to have less management presence to observe, 

compared to places with more diverse and less predictable activities, such as stores, casinos, and 

schools. 

Case Studies and Establishing Temporal Order

To understand the impact of place management on crime, and the influence of 

neighborhood context on place management, we will need to observe places over time. We 

would expect to see managers shifting management practices to achieve their objectives, address 

changes in their context, and to address unforeseen opportunities and impediments. An 

apartment complex manager may alter the physical appearance and management practices to 

attract higher rent paying clients when the neighborhood becomes more upscale. Sales of a bar 

to a new owner may result in a new theme designed to attract different customers. Place 

managers may band together to improve the functioning of their facilities, and this could result in 

a change in the neighborhood context. None of these examples can be observed through cross 

sectional studies, but all of these examples were described to members of the research team. 

Observing places over time will require observing fewer places: instead of observing 

many places at one time, researchers should consider observing few places for many time 

periods. This will reduce the generalizability (external validity) of place studies, but it will 

improve researchers’ abilities to draw stronger causal inferences (internal validity) due to the 

establishment of temporal order (Shadish, Cook, and Campbell, 2002). In the long-run, we may 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-116- 

learn more from many separately conducted longitudinally organized case studies, than from a 

few large scale cross sectional studies of places. 

Management Practice and Business Networks

Understanding the influence of place management on crime may be improved by drawing 

on studies of businesses and marketing. Industry standards could serve as benchmarks for 

measuring management practices. This is a virtually untapped area that deserves greater 

attention. 

Places are not independent. Places are networked together in a number of ways, and 

these are likely to influence management practices that in turn influence crime. Further, these 

networks may help explain the loose coupling with neighborhood context. That is, it could be 

that the social context of many places draws more from the social network of the managers than 

the spatial context of the physical and social surroundings. Here are three common network 

structures that maybe important. 

1) Ownership. In our study we sampled apartments so that we had few complexes 

owned by the same owner. But in fact, apartment building ownership is highly concentrated. 

We estimated that about 8 percent of the apartment building owners own just over half the 

apartment buildings in Cincinnati (Payne and Eck, 2007). Though we do not have data for bars, 

we do know that there is some concentration of bar ownership as well. If one were studying 

retail stores, then national chains would have to be taken into account. Concentrated ownership 

helps standardize business practice. It also may allow owners of many properties to ignore crime 

in some of their locations as long as most of their properties are functioning well. 

2) Franchises. Even if ownership were not concentrated, some corporations franchise 

places, thus creating a network of places. This too standardizes practices, insulates the place 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-117- 

from its surroundings, and may influence crime if standardize practices routinely provide crime 

opportunities or routinely block them. 

3) Business Groups. A common practice among bars located in close proximity is to 

sponsor special events, such as pub crawls. This is just one of many forms of business groups 

that network facilities and places that belong to different facility types. Business improvement 

districts (BIDs), for example, network places in central business districts to improve commerce 

by increasing safety. BIDs typically are funded by special taxes on businesses in the BID area. 

Such networks make it possible for places to influence their context. 

Place based prevention

There are seven implications for policy that stem from this study’s findings. 

1. Place‐based crime policies should focus on extreme places, not average

places. This implication comes from the skewed distribution of violence at places – found here 

and in every other study of places. The average amount of violence in population of facilities, 

such as bars, will over estimate the typical amount of violence. Rather than broad policies that 

apply to all facilities of a particular type, the governments should direct their anti-crime policies 

to the small number of high crime locations at the group. 

Separating the many normally good places from the few routinely bad places has three 

obvious advantages. First, focused policies are more effective. The many places with little or no 

crime cannot reduce crime very much, so putting pressure on managers of these locations will 

have very little return. The few managers of properties with high crime have a very high 

potential for reducing crime. So this is where the crime prevention emphasis should be placed. 

Second, it is more efficient, as the same resources can be concentrated where they can do the 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-118- 

most good, or fewer resources can be used to have the same impact. Third, it is politically more 

attractive. Place managers are often networked, and policies that are perceived to be costly to 

members of the network are likely to create political pressure to blunt the policies. Isolating the 

few bad places allows greater cooperation with the many place managers who are doing a good 

job and reduces the chances of oppositional political actions. In summary, focusing on the worst 

places is more effective, more efficient, and more equitable than focusing on all places of a 

particular type. 

2. Neighborhood based crime prevention efforts will need to include specific

place based strategies. Neighborhood policies without place strategies may not be able to 

suppress crime at high crime locations. This policy implication comes from the finding that 

place violence is only loosely coupled with neighborhood context. This policy recommendation 

is implied also from the idea that place managers will try to buffer the functioning of the place 

from the surroundings of the place. 

3. Place based prevention efforts may need to be adjusted to account for the

place’s context. The effectiveness of preventions implemented at places may be influenced by 

the context of the place. Consider security around apartment buildings. Fences and locked gates 

may help keep strangers out of the building in some neighborhoods, but in other neighborhoods 

these simple prevention measures seem to foster drug dealing (Eck, 1995). 

4. Managers are important for controlling crime at places. Owners should be held 

accountable for persistent crime problems on their premises. And efforts to hold managers 

accountable do work. This implication comes not only from the findings that place variables are 

associated with violence in bars and apartments, but from a large body of research and 

evaluations. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-119- 

5. Holding managers accountable for reducing crime may be easier if the

neighborhood context is supportive. Though managers may buffer their places from their 

surroundings, these buffering activities come with a cost. If these costs can be offset by revenue, 

the buffering will be successful. Thus, a high crime place in a low crime area where local 

residents and other businesses are antagonistic to the place’s crime facilitation will be easier to 

improve than the same place in a high crime neighborhood where residents and businesses may 

view the place’s crime facilitation as normal. The direct evidence for this implication is weak, 

but the implication follows logically from the idea of loose coupling. 

6. Dynamic model suggests place based efforts will be most effective when they

take into account the economic and political context of places. This implication is an 

extension of the previous implication. It also extends the notion of context. We do not know if 

which context is most important – neighborhood, political, economic, or social – and this 

requires more research. However, we need to realize that place managers operate in multiple 

contexts. 

7. Regulations that specify specific situational crime prevention practices may

be far less effective than regulations that mandate a maximum level of crime. This 

implications follows from two empirical findings from bars and apartments. First, we found few 

situational factors that were strongly negatively related to crime. Second, the positive 

relationship between security and crime (suggesting security follows crime). Additionally, the 

place management model we have described suggests managers operate in a dynamic 

environment. Consequently, it makes more sense to give managers a crime ceiling which they 

can seek to achieve through what ever legal means they can afford and make sense in the context 

they are operating. This is consistent with the experimental evidence that found that giving 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-120- 

landlords incentives to reduce drug dealing were successful (Eck and Wartell, 1998, Mazerolle, 

Roehl, and Kadleck, 1998), even though specific situational measures were not prescribed. In 

short, property owners should be given incentives to reduce crime, but not required to achieve 

specific situational standards. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-121- 

References

Barnes, Geoffrey C. 1995. "Defining and Optimizing Displacement." Pp. 95-114 in 

Crime and Place, vol. volume 4, Crime Prevention Studies, edited by J. E. Eck and D. Weisburd. 

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 

Barr, R. and Ken Pease. 1990. "Crime Placement, Displacement and Deflection." Pp.277-

318 in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 12, Crime and Justice: A Review of 

Research, edited by M. Tonry and N. Morris. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Bellair, Paul E. 2000. "Informal Surveillance and Street Crime: A Complex 

Relationship." Criminology 38:137- 170. 

Bellamy, Lisa C. 1996. “Situational Crime Prevention and Convenience Store 

Robbery.” Security Journal. 7(1): 41-52. 

Benson, Michael L., Greer Litton Fox, Alfred A. DeMaris, and Judy Van Wyk. 2003. 

"Neighborhood Disadvantage, Individual Economic Distress and Violence Against Women in 

Intimate Relationships." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 19:207-235. 

Benson, Michael, L., John Wooldredge, Thistlethwaite, and Greer Litton Fox. 2004. "The 

Correlation between Race and Domestic Violence is Confounded with Community Context." 

Social Problems 51 :326-342. 

Bouloukos, Adam C. and Graham Farrell. 1997. "On Displacement and Repeat 

Victimization." Pp. 219-232 in Rational Choice and Situational Crime Prevention, edited by G. 

Newman, R. V. Clarke, and S. G. Shohan. Aldershot:Ashgate. 

Bryk, Anthony S. and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 1992. Hierarchical Linear Models: 

Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 

Bursik, Robert J. 1988. "Social Disorganization and Theories of Crime: Problems and 

Prospects." Criminology 26:519-521. 

Bursik, Robert J. Jr. and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The 

Dimensions of Effective Community Control. New York: Lexington Books. 

Calder, J. D. and J. R. Bauer. 1992. “Convenience Store Robberies: Security Measures 

and Store Robbery Incidents.” Journal of Criminal Justice. 20 (6): 553-566. 

Clarke, Ronald V. 1995. "Situational Crime Prevention." in Building a Safer Society: 

Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, vol. 19, Crime and Justice, edited by M. Tonry and 

D. Farrington. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Clarke, Ronald V. and Gisela Bichler-Robertson. 1998. "Place Managers, Slumlords and 

Crime in Low Rent Apartment Buildings." Security Journal 11: 11-19. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-122- 

Cornish, Derek B. and Ronald V. Clarke. 1987. "Understanding Crime Displacement: An 

Application of Rational Choice Theory." Criminology 25:933-947. 

Cornish, Derek and Ronald V. Clarke. 1986. "Situational Prevention, Displacement of 

Crime and Rational Choice Theory." Pp. 1-16 in Situational Crime Prevention: From Theory 

into Practice, edited by K. Heal and G. Laycock. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 

Donnelly, Patrick G. and Charles E. Kimble. 1997. "Community Organizing, 

Environmental Change, and Neighborhood Crime." Crime and Delinquency 43 :493-511. 

Eck, John E. 1993. "The Threat of Crime Displacement." Criminal Justice Abstracts 

25:527-546. 

Eck, John E. 1994. "Drug Markets and Drug Places: A Case-Control Study of the Spatial 

Structure of Illicit Drug Dealing." Doctoral dissertation Thesis, Department of Criminology and 

Criminal Justice, University of Maryland, College Park, MD. 

Eck, John E. 1995. “A General Model of the Geography of Illicit Retail Market Places.” 

In John E. Eck and David Weisburd, eds. Crime and Place. Crime Prevention Studies, Volume 

4. pp. 67-94. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 

Eck, John E. 2002. "Preventing Crime at Places." Pp. 241-294 in Evidence-Based Crime 

Prevention, edited by L. W. Sherman, D. Farrington, B. Welsh, and D. L.MacKenzie. New York: 

Routledge. 

Eck, John E., Ronald V. Clarke, and Rob T. Guerette. 2007. “Risky Facilities: Crime 

Concentration in Homogeneous Sets of Establishments and Facilities.” In Graham Farrell, Kate 

J. Bowers, Shane D. Johnson, and Michael Townsley, eds. Imagination for Crime Prevention. 

Crime Prevention Studies, Volume 19. pp. 225-264. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 

Eck, John E., Jeffery. Gersh, and Charlene Taylor. 2000. "Finding Hotspots Through 

Repeat Address Mapping." Pp. 49-64 in Analyzing Crime Patterns: Frontiers of Practice, edited 

by V. Goldsmith, P. G. McGuire, J. Mollenkopf, and T. Ross. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage 

Publications. 

Eck, John E. and William Spelman. 1987. Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing 

In Newport News. Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum. 

Eck, John E. and Julie Wartell. 1998. “Improving the Management of Rental Properties 

With Drug Problems: A Randomized Experiment.” In Lorraine Mazerolle and Jan Roehl, eds. 

Civil Remedies and Crime Prevention. Crime Prevention Studies, Volume 9. Monsey, NY: 

Criminal Justice Press. 

Eck, John E. and David Weisburd. 1995. "Crime Places in Crime Theory." Pp. 1-33 in 

Crime and Place, vol. volume 4, Crime Prevention Studies, edited by J. E. Eck and D. Weisburd. 

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-123- 

Farrell, Graham. 1995. "Preventing Repeat Victimization." Pp. 469-534 in Building a 

Safer Society: Strategic Approaches to Crime Prevention, vol. 19, Crime and Justice Annual, 

edited by M. Tonry and D. P. Farrington. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 

Faukner , Kimberly A., Douglas P. Landsittel, and Scott A.Hendricks. 2001. “Robbery 

Characteristics and Employee Injuries in Convenience Stores.” American Journal of Industrial 

Medicine. 40(6): 703-709. 

Felson, Marcus. 1995. "Those Who Discourage Crime." Pp. 53-66 in Crime and Place, 

vol. volume 4, Crime Prevention Studies, edited by J. E. Eck and D. Weisburd. Monsey, NY: 

Criminal Justice Press. 

Felson, Marcus, Robyn Berends, Barry Richardson, and Arthur Veno. 1997. "Reducing 

Pub Hopping and Related Crime." Pp. 115-132 in Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, 

Public Intoxication and Injury, vol. 7, Crime Prevention Studies, edited by R. Homel. Monsey, 

NY: Criminal Justice Press. 

Fisher, Bonnie and Jack L. Nasar. 1995. "Fear Spots in Relation to Microlevel Physical 

Cues: Exploring the Overlooked." Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 32:214-239. 

Fisher, Bonnie S., John Sloan, Francis T. Cullen, and Chunmeng Lu. 1998. "Crime in the 

Ivory Tower: The Level and Sources of Student Victimization." Criminology 36:671-710. 

Goldstein, Herman. 1997. "The Pattern of Emerging Tactics for Shifting the Ownership 

of Prevention Strategies in the Current Wave of Change in Policing: Their Implications for both 

Environmental Criminology and the Police." in 6th International Seminar on Environmental 

Criminology and Crime Analysis. Oslo, Norway. 

Graham, K. (1985). Determinants of heavy drinking and drinking problems: The 

contribution of the bar environment. In: E. Single, & T. Storm (Eds), Public Drinking and Public 

Policy (pp. 71–84). Toronto: Addiction Research Foundation. 

Graham, K., Bernards, S., Osgood, D. W., Homel, R., & Purcell, J. (2005). Guardians and 

handlers: The role of bar staff in preventing and managing aggression. Addiction, 100(6), 755-

766. 

Graham, K., Bernards, S., Osgood, D. W., & Wells, S. (2006). Bad nights or bad bars? 

Multi-level analysis of environmental predictors of aggression in late-night large-capacity bars 

and clubs. Addiction, 101(11), 1569-1580. 

Graham, K., Jelley, J., & Purcell, J. (2005). Training bar staff in preventing and 

managing aggression in licensed premises. Journal of Substance Use, 10(1), 48-61. 

Graham, K., La Rocque, L., Yetman, R., Ross, T. J., & Guistra, E. (1980). Aggression 

and barroom environments. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 41(3), 277-292. 

Graham, K., Osgood, D. W., Wells, S., & Stockwell, T. (2006). To what extent is 

intoxication associated with aggression in bars? A multilevel analysis. Journal of Studies on 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-124- 

Alcohol, 67(3), 382-390. 

Graham, K., Osgood, D. W., Zibrowski, E., Purcell, J., Gliksman, L., Leonard, K., et al. 

(2004). The effect of the safer bars programme on physical aggression in bars: Results of a 

randomized controlled trial. Drug and Alcohol Review, 23(1), 31-41. 

Graham K, Wells S. 2001. Aggression among young adults in the social context of the 

bar. Addiction Research and Theory, 9(3):193–219. 

Graham, K., West, P., & Wells, S. (2000). Evaluating theories of alcohol-related 

aggression using observations of young adults in bars. Addiction, 95(6), 847-863. 

Groff, E. (1996). Information systems for community policing: A micro-analysis of crime.

Paper presented at the Proceedings of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 

Park Ridge, IL. 

Green, Lorraine. 1995. "Policing Places with Drug Problems: The Multi-Agency 

Response Team Approach." Pp. 199-216 in Crime and Place, vol. volume 4, Crime Prevention 

Studies, edited by J. E. Eck and D. Weisburd. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 

Hendricks, Scott A., Douglas P. Landsittel, Harlan E. Amandus, Jay Malcan, and Jennifer 

Bell. 1999. "A Matched Case-Control Study of Convenience Store Robbery Risk Factors." 

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 41:995-1104. 

Herman Goldstein Award Submission. (2004). Operation netforces: Raleigh Police 

Department. 

Hesseling, Rene B. P. 1994. "Displacement: A Review ofthe Empirical Literature." 

Pp.197-230 in Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 3, Crime Prevention Studies, edited by R. V. 

Clarke. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 

Homel, Ross and Jeff Clark. 1994. "The Prediction and Prevention of Violence in Pubs 

and Clubs." Pp. 1-46 in Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 3, Crime Prevention Studies, edited by R. 

V. Clarke. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press. 

Homel, Ross, Marg Hauritz, Gillian McIlwain, Richard Wortley, and Russell Carvolth. 

1997a. "Preventing Drunkenness and Violence Around Nightclubs in a Tourist Resort." Pp. 263-

282 in Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, edited by R. V. Clarke. Harrow 

and Heston: Albany, NY. 

Homel, Ross, Marg Hauritz, Richard Wortley, Gillian McIlwain, and Russell Carvolth. 

1997b. "Preventing Alcohol-Related Crime Through Community Action: The Surfers Paradise 

Safety Action Project." Pp. 35-90 in Policing for Prevention: Reducing Crime, Public 

Intoxication and Injury, vol. 7, Crime Prevention Studies, edited by R. Homel. Monsey, NY: 

Criminal Justice Press. 

Homel, R., Tomsen, S., & Thommeny, J. (1992). Public drinking and violence: Not just 

an alcohol problem. Journal of Drug Issues, 22(3), 679-697. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-125- 

Homel, R., Carvolth, R., Hauritz, M., McIlwain, G., & Teague, R. (2004). Making 

licensed venues safer for patrons: What environmental factors should be the focus of 

interventions? Drug and Alcohol Review, 23(1), 19-29. 

Hope, Tim. 1994. "Problem-Oriented Policing and Drug Market Locations: Three Case 

Studies." Pp. 5-31 in Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 2, Crime Prevention Studies, edited by R. V. 

Clarke. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 

Hox, Joop and Ita G. Kreft. 1994. "Multilevel Analysis Methods." Sociological Methods 

and Research:283-299. 

Hunter, Ronald and C. Ray Jeffery. 1991. “Environmental Crime Prevention: An 

Analysis of Convenience Store Robberies.” Security Journal. 2(2): 78-83. 

Kurtz, Ellen M., Barbara A. Koons, and Ralph B. Taylor. 1998. "Land Use, Physical 

Deterioration, Resident-Based Control, and Calls for Service on Urban Streetblocks." Justice 

Quarterly 15:121-149. 

LaVigne, Nancy G. 1994. “Gasoline Drive-Offs: Designing a Less Convenient 

Environment.” In Ronald V. Clarke, ed. Crime Prevention Studies. Volume 2. Pp. 91-114. 

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 

Laycock, Gloria. 2004. "Clarifying Responsibility for Crime and Safety Problems: Who 

is Responsible for What?" in 15th Annual Problem-Oriented Policing Conference. Charlotte, 

NC: Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. 

Lee, Min Sik and Jeffery T. Ulmer. 2000. "Fear of Crime Among Korean Americans in 

Chicago Communities." Criminology 38:1173-1206. 

Loftin, Colin and David McDowall. 1988. "The Analysis of Case-Control Studies in 

Criminology." Journal of Quantitative Criminology 4:85-98. 

Macintyre, S. & Homel, R. (1997). Danger on the dance floor: A study of interior design, 

crowding and aggression in nightclubs. In R. Homel (Ed.), Policing for prevention: Reducing 

crime, public intoxication and injury (pp. 91-113), Crime Prevention Studies (Vol. 7). Criminal 

Justice Press, Monsey, New York. 

Madensen, Tamara. 2007. Bar Management and Crime: Toward a Dynamic Theory of 

Place Management and Crime Hotspots. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Cincinnati, OH: 

Division of Criminal Justice, University of Cincinnati. 

Marsh, P. & Kibby, K. F. (1992). Drinking and public disorder, The Portman Group, 

London. 

Mazerolle, Loraine Green, Colleen Kadleck, and Jan Roehl. 1998. "Controlling Drug and 

Disorder Problems: The Role of Place Managers." Criminology 36:371-403. 

Mazerolle, Loraine Green and Jan Roehl. 1999. "Controlling Drug and Disorder 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-126- 

Problems: Oakland's Beat Health Program." National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC. 

Mazerolle, Lorraine G., Justin Ready, William Terrill, and Elin Waring. 2000. "Problem 

Oriented Policing in Public Housing: The Jersey City Evaluation." Justice Quarterly 17:129-158. 

Mazerolle, Lorraine Green, Jan Roehl, and Colleen Kadleck. 1998. "Controlling Social 

Disorder Using Civil Remedies: Results from a- Randomized Field Experiment in Oakland, 

California." Pp. 141-160 in Civil Remedies and Crime Prevention, vol. 9, Crime Prevention 

Studies, edited by L. Mazerolle and J. Roehl. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press. 

Miller, John H. and Scott E. Page. 2007. Complex Adaptive Systems: An Introduction to 

Computational Models of Social Life. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 

Morenoff, Jeffrey D., Robert J. Sampson, and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 2001. 

"Neighborhood Inequality, Collective Efficacy, and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence." 

Criminology 30:517-560. 

Nasar, Jack L. and Bonnie Fisher. 1993. "'Hot Spots' of Fear and Crime: A MultiMethod 

Investigation." Journal of Environmental Psychology 13:187-206. 

Newman, Oscar. 1973. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design. 

New York: Collier Books. 

Newman, Oscar. 1995. "Defensible Space: A New Physical Planning Tool for Urban 

Revitalization." Journal of the American Planning Association 61:149-155. 

Newman, Oscar.1996. Creating Defensible Space. Washington, DC: US Department of 

Housing and Urban Development. 

Payne, Troy and John E. Eck. 2007. “Who Owns Crime?” Paper presented at the 

meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Atlanta: GA. November 14-17. 

Perkins, Douglas D. and Ralph B. Taylor. 1996. "Ecological Assessments of Community 

Disorder: Their Relationship to Fear of Crime and Theoretical Implications." American Journal 

of Community Psychology 24:63-107. 

Poyner, Barry. 1993. "What Works in Crime Prevention: An Overview of Evaluations. " 

Pp. 7-34 in Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 1, Crime Prevention Studies, edited by R. V. Clarke. 

Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press. 

Poyner, Barry. 1994. "Lessons from Lisson Green: An Evaluation of Walkway 

Demolition on a British Housing Estate." Pp. 127-150 in Crime Prevention Studies, vol. 3, Crime 

Prevention Studies, edited by R. V. Clarke. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press. 

Poyner, Barry and Barry Webb. 1991. Crime Free Housing. Oxford: Butterworth 

Architecture. 

Putnam, Sandra L., Ian R.H. Rockett, and Miriam K. Campbell. 1993. "Methodological 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-127- 

Issues in Community-Based Alcohol-Related Injury Prevention Projects: Attribution of Program 

Effects." Pp. 31-39 in Experiences with Community Action Projects: New Research in the 

Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, CSAP Prevention Monograph-14, edited by T. 

K. Greenfield and R. Zimmerman. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. 

Quigley, B. M., Leonard, K. E., & Collins, R. L. (2003). Characteristics of violent bars 

and bar patrons. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 64(6), 765-772. 

Raghavan, Sudarsan. 2005. "Johnson Targets Crime Hot Spots: 22 Complexes Generated 

5% Of Police Calls." Pp. Bl in Washington Post. Washington Post. 

Roncek, Dennis W. 1981. “Dangerous Places: Crime and Residential Environment.” 

Social Forces. 60(1): 74-96. 

Roncek, Dennis W. and Ralph Bell. 1981. “Bars, Blocks, and Crimes.” Journal of 

Environmental Systems. 11(1): 35-47. 

Roncek, Dennis W. and Pamela A. Maier. 1991. “Bars, Blocks and Crimes Revisited: 

Linking the Theory of Routine Activities to the Empiricism of 'Hot Spots'.” Criminology. 9(4): 

725-753. 

Roncek, Dennis W. and Mitchell A. Pravatiner. 1989. “Additional Evidence that Taverns 

Enhance Nearby Crime.” Sociology and Social Research. 73(4): 185-188. 

Sampson, Rana. 2001. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes, vol. 4, 

Edited by M. S. Scott. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Sampson, Rana. 2003. "Advancing Problem-oriented Policing: Lessons from Dealing 

with Drug Markets." Pp. 239-256 in Problem-Oriented Policing: From Innovation to 

Mainstream, vol. 15, Crime Prevention Studies, edited by J. Knutsson. Monsey, NY: Criminal 

Justice Press. 

Sampson, Robert and W. Byron Groves. 1990. "Community Structure and Crime: Testing 

Social Disorganization Theory." American Journal of Sociology 94:774-802. 

Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. 1997. "Neighborhoods 

and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy." Science 277:918-924. 

Schlesselman, James J. 1982. Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis. New 

York: Oxford University Press. 

Schroeder, Manfred. 1991. Fractals, Chaos, Power Laws: Minutes from an Infinite 

Universe. New York: W. H. Freeman 

Schlesselman, James J. 1982. Case-Control Studies: Design, Conduct, Analysis. New 

York: Oxford University Press. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-128- 

Shadish, William R., Thomas D. Cook, and Donald T. Campbell. 2002. 

Experimentation and Quasi-Experimental Designs for General Causal Inference. New York: 

Houghton Mifflin. 

Scott, Michael S. 2001. Assaults in and Around Bars, vol. 1, Edited by M. S. Scott. 

Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Sherman, Lawrence S., Patrick R. Gartin, and Michael E. Buerger. 1989. "Hot Spots of 

Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place. " Criminology 27:27-55. 

Sorensen, Severin L. 1998. "Empowering Capable Guardians in High Crime and Low 

Crime Settings." Security Journal 11:29-35. 

Spelman, William. 1995. "Criminal Careers of Public Places." Pp. 115-144 in Crime and 

Place, vol. 4, Crime Prevention Studies, edited by J. E. Eck and D. Weisburd. Monsey, NY: 

Criminal Justice Press. 

Taylor, Ralph. 2001. Breaking Away from Broken Windows: Baltimore Neighborhoods 

and the Nationwide Fight Against Crime, Grime, Fear, and Decline. Boulder, CO: Westview 

Press. 

Taylor, Ralph B. 1987. "Toward and Environmental Psychology of Disorder: 

Delinquency, Crime, and Fear of Crime." Pp. 951-986 in Handbook of Environmental 

Psychology, edited by D. Stokols and 1. Altman. New York: Wiley. 

Taylor, Ralph B. 1988. Human Territorial Functioning. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Taylor, Ralph B. and Sidney Brower. 1985. "Home and Near-Home Territories." Pp. 183-

213 in Human Behavior and Environment--Volume 8: Home Environments, edited by 1. Altman 

and C. M. Werner. New York: Plenum. 

Taylor, Ralph B., Stephen D. Gottfredson, and Sidney Brower. 1981. "Territorial 

Cognitions and Social Climate in Urban Neighborhoods." Basic and Applied Social Psychology 

2:289-303. 

Taylor, Ralph B, Stephen D. Gottfredson, and Sidney Brower. 1984. "Block Crime and 

Fear: Defensible Space, Local Ties, and Territorial Functioning." Journal of Research in Crime 

and Delinquency 21:303-331. 

Tomsen, S., Homel, R., & Thommeny, J. (1991). The causes of public violence: 

Situational "versus" other factors in drinking related assaults. In D. Chappell, P. Grabosky & H. 

Strang (Eds.), Australian violence, contemporary perspectives. Canberra: Australian Institute of 

Criminology. 

Van Wyk, Judy, Michael L. Benson, Greer Litton Fox, and Alfred A. Demaris. 2003. 

"Detangling Individual, Partner, and Community Level Correlates of Partner Violence." Crime 

and Delinquency 49:412-438. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-129- 

Warner, Barbara D. and Pamela Wilcox Rountree. 1997. "Local Social Ties in a 

Community and Crime Model: Questioning the Systemic Nature of Informal Control" Social 

Problems 44:423-439. 

Weisburd, David, Shawn Bushway, Cynthia Lum, and Sue-Ming Yang. 2004. 

"Trajectories of Crime at Places: A Longitudinal Study of Street Segments in the City of 

Seattle." Criminology 42:283-322.

Welsh, Brandon C. and David P. Farrington. 2002. Crime Prevention Effects o/Closed 

Circuit Television: A Systematic Review, vol. Paper 252, Edited by C. F. Willis. London: Home 

Office, Research Development and Statistics Directorate. 

Welsh, Brandon and David P. Farrington. 2004. "Surveillance for Crime Prevention 

inPublic Space: Results and Policy Choices in Britain and America." Criminology and Public 

Policy 3:497-526. 

Welsh, Wayne N., Jack R. Greene, and Patricia H. Jenkins. 1999. "School Disorder: The 

Influence of Individual, Institutional and Community Factors." Criminology 37:73-115. 

White, Garland F. 1990. "Neighborhood Permeability and Burglary Rates." Justice 

Quarterly 7:57-67. 

Wilcox, Pamela and Richard R. Clayton. 2001. "A Multi-Level Analysis of Weapon 

Possession at School." Justice Quarterly 18:501-533. 

Wilcox, Pamela, Kenneth Land, and Scott A. Hunt. 2003. Criminal Circumstance: A 

Dynamic, Multicontextual Criminal Opportunity Theory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. 

Wilcox, P., Madensen, T. D., & Skubak, M. K. (2007). Guardianship in context: 

Implications for burglary victimization risk and prevention. Criminology, 45(4): 771-803. 

Wilcox, Pamela, Neil Quisenberry, Debra T. Cabrera, and Shayne Jones. 2004. "Busy 

Places And Broken Windows? Towards Defining the Role of Physical Structure and Process in 

Community Crime Models." The Sociological Quarterly 45: 185-207. 

Wilcox, Pamela, Neil Quisenberry, and Shayne Jones. 2003. "The Built Environment and 

Crime Risk Interpretation." Journal 0/ Research in Crime and Delinquency 40: 1-23. 

Wilcox Rountree, Pamela and Kenneth C. Land. 1996a. "Burglary Victimization, 

Perceptions of Crime Risk, and Routine Activities: A Multilevel Analysis Across Seattle 

Neighborhoods and Census Tracts." Journal o/Research in Crime and Delinquency 37:147-180. 

Wilcox Rountree, Pamela and Kenneth C. Land. 1996b. "Perceived Risk Versus Fear of 

Crime: Empirical Evidence of Conceptually Distinct Reactions in Survey Data." Social Forces 

74:1353-1376. 

Wilcox Rountree, Pamela, Kenneth C. Land, and Terance D. Miethe. 1994. "MacroMicro 

Integration in the Study Of Victimization: A Hierarchical Logistic Model Analysis Across 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-130- 

Seattle Neighborhoods." Criminology 32:387-414. 

Wilcox Rountree, Pamela and Barbara D. Warner. 1999. "Social Ties and Crime: Is the 

Relationship Gendered?" Criminology 37:401-425. 

Wong, George Y. and William W. Mason. 1985. "The Hierarchical Logistic Regression 

Model for Multilevel Analysis." Journal 0/ the American Statistical Association 80:513-524. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-131- 

Appendix I: Bar Place Manager Survey

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
BAR PLACE MANAGEMENT SURVEY

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

DO NOT CIRCULATE

BAR NAME: _______________________________________________________________

BAR ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________________

INTERVIEWER NAME: _____________________________________________________

INTERVIEW DATE: ____________________________TIME: ______________________

INTERVIEW LOCATION:

 PHONE 

 ON-SITE

 OFF-SITE _______________________________________________________________

ANY PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS OF THE RESPONDENTS,

INCLUDING NAMES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS, 

 SHOULD ONLY BE WRITTEN ON THE LAST PAGE OF THIS SURVEY 

PERSONAL INFORMATION MUST BE REMOVED AND SHREDDED

ONCE SURVEY IS COMPLETE

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT - BARS

Hi, my name is [interviewer name]. I’m a researcher from the University of Cincinnati. We’re 

interviewing Cincinnati bar owners, managers, and staff about their experience with managing a 

business that serves alcohol. This survey is funded by the National Institute of Justice. A letter 

describing the details and purpose of this study was mailed to you or your business a few weeks ago. 

Did you receive this letter?  YES  NO

Our records indicate that you own or manage [bar or restaurant’s name (or if name of the business is 

unknown) a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol at address]. Is this correct? 

 YES, CONTINUE  NO: Could you please refer me to the current owner or manager? 

[WRITE NAME & NUMBER ON LAST PAGE] Thank you for your time.

Can you answer questions about the day-to-day operations of the business, or is there someone else we 

can contact?

 REFUSED PARTICIPATION: Thank you for your time.  CAN ANSWER, CONTINUE 

 SOMEONE ELSE: [WRITE NAME & NUMBER ON LAST PAGE] Thank you for your time.

The survey should only take about 20 minutes to complete. Would you be willing to participate in our 

study now or can we schedule an interview during a more convenient time?

 REFUSED PARTICIPATION: Thank you for your time.  NOW, CONTINUE 

 ANOTHER TIME: [WRITE NAME/DATE/TIME & NUMBER ON LAST PAGE - CONFIRM 

DATE & TIME] - Thank you for your time.

The purpose of this study is to understand how owners and managers of rental housing and businesses 

that serve alcohol address crime and disorder problems. You will be one of approximately 900 

participants taking part in this study. You will be asked a series of questions related to your business. 

You will receive no direct benefit from your participation in this study, but your participation may help 

other business owners improve safety at their properties and assist government agencies to formulate 

reasonable and effective policies.

There are no foreseeable risks associated with this survey. However, you have the right to refuse to 

answer any question or to stop the interview at any time without penalty. Your participation is voluntary

and any answers you give will be kept strictly confidential and used only for research purposes. We will 

remove your name and any other personal identifying information from your answers and shred this 

information after you have completed the survey. All completed surveys will be stored in a locked filing 

cabinet and shredded three years after the end of this study. The data from the study may be published; 

however, neither you nor your business will be identified by name. To help protect the privacy of others, 

we ask that you do not use the names of other employees or patrons when answering questions. By 

answering the following survey questions, you are giving your consent to participate in this study. May 

we continue?

RESPONDENT CONSENT:  YES, CONTINUE  NO: Thank you for your time.

If you have any other questions about this study or would like a copy of the study’s findings, you may 

call Dr. Pamela Wilcox at the University of Cincinnati. You can also contact the Chair of the 

Institutional Review Board. Would you like either of their contact numbers now? 

IF YES: Dr. Wilcox - (513) 556-2957; Chair of IRB - (513) 558-5784

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
SECTION 1: I’d like to begin by asking you a series of general questions about the 

ownership and location of the bar.

1. How long has [bar name] been in business?

 NUMBER OF YEARS/MONTHS........................|____|____|____|YRS |____|____|MON

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

2. How long has the bar been at this location?

 NUMBER OF YEARS/MONTHS........................|____|____|____|YRS |____|____|MON

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

3. [Do you / Does the current owner] own or lease this property?

 OWN.........................................................................................................1

 LEASE.......................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

4. How long [have you / has the current owner] owned [bar name]? 

 

NUMBER OF YEARS/MONTHS...............................|____|____|YRS |____|____|MON

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

5. How many other bars [do you / does the current owner] own... 

In Cincinnati?.....................................................................................................|____|____|____|

In other cities in Hamilton County?...................................................................|____|____|____|

Elsewhere?..........................................................................................................|____|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
6. [Do you / Does the owner] belong to any bar- or business-owner associations? 

YES..............................................................................................................1

NO............................................(GO TO SECTION 2)......................................0 

DON’T KNOW.............................(GO TO SECTION 2)......................................-9 

 REFUSED...................................(GO TO SECTION 2).......................................-8 

7. What are the names of these associations?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION 2: Next, I’d like to ask you a few questions about the bar’s property. 

8. In what year was the bar’s building built?

 YEAR..............................................................................|____|____|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

9. What is the square footage of the bar? 

 SQUARE FOOTAGE......................................................|____|____|____|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

10. What is the maximum occupancy of the bar?

 MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY.........................................|____|____|____|____| PERSONS

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

11. Is there generally enough parking for patrons within a block of the bar?

 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
12. Since the year 2000, about how many major renovations of the interior or exterior of the bar have taken place? 

 NUMBER OF RENOVATIONS.......................................................................|____|____|____|

 NO RENOVATIONS...........................(GO TO Q16)..........................................0 

DON’T KNOW...................................(GO TO Q16).........................................-9 

 REFUSED.........................................(GO TO Q16)..........................................-8 

13. In what month and year did the last renovation take place?

 DATE.....................................................................|____|____|MO|____|____|YR

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

14. Was this an interior or exterior renovation?

INTERIOR...................................................................................................0

EXTERIOR..................................................................................................1

BOTH........................................................................................................2

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

15. What renovations were made?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

16. Does the bar or building have a burglar alarm system? 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
17. Does the bar or building have an alarm that can be activated in the event of a robbery? 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

SECTION 3: The next set of questions is about the business itself. 

18. Does [bar name] have a specific theme or specialty? For example, it is a neighborhood bar or Irish pub?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

19. Is the bar advertised...

YES NO DON’T 

KNOW

REFUSED

A. In City Beat? 1 0 -9 -8

B. In the Cincinnati Enquirer or Post? 1 0 -9 -8

C. On television? What station?_____________ 1 0 -9 -8

D. On the radio? What station?_____________ 1 0 -9 -8

E. On the internet? 1 0 -9 -8

F. Someplace else?

____________________________________________

1 0 -9 -8

20. Does the bar work with other drinking establishments to attract customers? 

 YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
21. On what days of the week is the bar open and what are the business hours on those days? 

 MON __________ TUES __________ WED __________ THURS __________

 

 FRI __________ SAT __________ SUN __________

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

22. How old do you have to be to enter [bar name]?

 21 YRS.........................................(GO TO Q24).............................................0

 18 YRS.......................................................................................................1

VARIES BY TIME_______________________________________________________........2 

NO AGE LIMIT............................................................................................3

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

23. Are wristbands or stamps used to identify underage customers?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

24. On a typical Friday night, is ID usually checked at the door, when ordering drinks, or both? 

 AT DOOR...................................................................................................0

 WHEN ORDERING.......................................................................................1

 BOTH........................................................................................................2

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

25. About how long before closing is the last call for drinks issued? 

TIME BEFORE CLOSING...........................................................|____|____| MINS

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
26. Do customers generally have to pay when they order or can they start a tab?

 PAY WITH ORDER ONLY..............................................................................0

 TABS ALLOWED.........................................................................................1

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

27. Which of the following forms of payment are accepted... 

YES NO DON’T 

KNOW

REFUSED

A. Cash? 1 0 -9 -8

B. Credit card? 1 0 -9 -8

C. Travelers check? 1 0 -9 -8

D. Personal check? 1 0 -9 -8

E. Drink coupons? 1 0 -9 -8

F. Any others?

____________________________________________

1 0 -9 -8

28. When multiple bartenders are on duty, are they assigned separate cash registers or use individual access codes or 

cards?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

ONLY ONE ON DUTY AT A TIME...................................................................2

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

29. Does the bar use time-delayed safes?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
30. Are multiple bank deposits made on high volume days?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

31. Is there an official or formally stated limit on the amount of money that employees can keep in a single register at 

once?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

32. What other types of cash control devices or procedures does the bar use, if any, that would limit the amount of 

money lost in the event of a robbery?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

33. On a typical Friday night at 10pm, is the lighting inside the bar...

Bright,........................................................................................................0

Dim, or.......................................................................................................1 

Dark?............................................................................................................................................2

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

34. On a typical Friday night, about how many times are the restrooms cleaned between opening and closing?

 NUMBER OF TIMES RESTROOMS CLEANED.......................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
35. On a typical Friday night after 10:00pm, are taxis readily available outside the bar or do you have to call?

AVAILABLE.................................(GO TO SECTION 4)....................................0 

CALL.........................................................................................................1

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

36. About how long does it take for a taxi to show up?

TIME TO SHOW.................................................|____|____| HRS |____|____| MINS

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

SECTION 4: Let me ask you a few questions about the types of activities and entertainment 

the bar provides.

37. Does the bar provide a place for dancing?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

38. Does the bar provide live entertainment on a regular basis, meaning at least once a week?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

39. Does the bar charge a cover to get in the door at any time or on any day?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
40. Which of the following types of music is most popular or most played at [bar name]... INTERVIEWER: IF THE 

RESPONDENT INSISTS THAT THERE IS A MIX OF MUSIC, PLEASE CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY.

 Top 40 or Pop,..............................................................................................0

Rock,.........................................................................................................1

 Rap/Hip-Hop................................................................................................2 

 Country western.............................................................................................3

 Jazz,..........................................................................................................4

 Blues,.........................................................................................................5 

 Classical, or.................................................................................................6

 Something else? _________________________________.......................................................7

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

41. Does [bar name] have weekly events, like ladies night or karaoke night? 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO Q43)........................................0 

DON’T KNOW................ ....................(GO TO Q43).......................................-9 

 REFUSED.............. .............................(GO TO Q43).......................................-8 

42. What are these weekly events and on what nights do they occur?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

43. Does [bar name] have yearly or monthly events, such as New Years or St. Patrick’s Day celebrations? 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO Q45)........................................0 

DON’T KNOW................ ....................(GO TO Q54).......................................-9 

 REFUSED.............. .............................(GO TO Q45).......................................-8 

44. What are these yearly or monthly events? 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
45. Does the bar ever sponsor, or do alcohol distributors come to the bar to sponsor, drinking games like “beer pong” 

or “quarters”?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

SECTION 5: The following questions are about the type of food and drink served at the bar.

46. Is food available for purchase? 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO Q49)........................................0 

DON’T KNOW................ ....................(GO TO Q49).......................................-9 

 REFUSED.............. .............................(GO TO Q49).......................................-8 

47. Are appetizers, full meals or both available for purchase? 

APPETIZERS...............................................................................................0

FULL MEALS..............................................................................................1

BOTH........................................................................................................2

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

48. About how long before closing does the kitchen generally close or is food no longer served?

TIME BEFORE CLOSING......................................|____|____|HRS |____|____| MINS

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

49. Are free munchies, such as pretzels or popcorn, offered to customers?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
50. Are “Happy Hour” food or drink specials offered? 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO Q52)........................................0 

DON’T KNOW................ ....................(GO TO Q52).......................................-9 

 REFUSED.............. .............................(GO TO Q52).......................................-8 

51. What are these specials and when are they offered? 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

52. Not counting discounted times like “Happy Hour,” how much is the cheapest alcoholic drink on the menu? 

 COST...........................................................................$|____|____| . |____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

53. How much is the most expensive alcoholic drink? 

 COST...........................................................................$|____|____| . |____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

54. What would you say are the three most popular drinks at this bar and how much do they cost? 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

55. Does the bar feature, advertise, or promote certain types of drinks without necessarily offering a discount?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO Q57)........................................0 

DON’T KNOW................ ....................(GO TO Q57).......................................-9 

 REFUSED.............. .............................(GO TO Q57).......................................-8 

56. What types of drinks are these?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
57. Can customers order drinks from tables, from the bar, or both? 

 ONLY FROM TABLES...................................................................................0

 ONLY FROM BAR........................................................................................1

 BOTH........................................................................................................2

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

58. Are pour control devices used on alcohol bottles or are servings based on the bartenders’ discretion?

 POUR DEVICES...........................................................................................0

 BARTENDER DISCRETION............................................................................1

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

59. Are drinks served in glass containers, like bottles or cocktail and wine glasses? 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

60. What type of drink policies does the bar have? For example, does the bar have a per patron drink limit or formal 

policies regarding when to stop serving overly-intoxicated individuals?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

61. Can patrons buy cigarettes at the bar?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO SECTION 6)..............................0 

DON’T KNOW................ ....................(GO TO SECTION 6).............................-9 

 REFUSED.............. .............................(GO TO SECTION 6)..............................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
62. Are the cigarettes sold...

 From behind the bar,.......................................................................................0

 From a cigarette machine with dispensing controlled by staff, or....................................1

 From a cigarette machine with automatic dispensing?................................................................2

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

SECTION 6: The next questions are about the people who work at the bar.

63. How many people are employed here?

 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES................................................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

64. How many of the bar’s current employees worked here six months ago?

 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES................................................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

65. About how many bartenders work on a typical Friday night?

 NUMBER OF BARTENDERS...............................................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

66. About how many wait staff other than bartenders work on a typical Friday night? 

 NUMBER OF WAIT STAFF.................................................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

67. About how many female bartenders and wait staff work on Friday nights? 

 NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES................................................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
68. Are bartenders or wait staff allowed to drink alcohol while working?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO Q70)........................................0 

DON’T KNOW................ ....................(GO TO Q70).......................................-9 

 REFUSED.............. .............................(GO TO Q70).......................................-8 

69. Are bartenders or wait staff allowed to accept alcoholic drinks purchased for them by customers?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

70. Are bartenders or wait staff required to wear a specific uniform or badge that would identify them as employees of 

the bar?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

71. Is the bar owner or main manager usually at the bar on a typical Friday night?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

72. Has the bar ever hired off-duty police officers to work as security?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO Q74)........................................0 

DON’T KNOW................ ....................(GO TO Q74).......................................-9 

 REFUSED.............. .............................(GO TO Q74).......................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
73. Does the bar currently hire police officers? 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

74. Does the bar employ bouncers or security personnel other than police officers? 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO Q81)........................................0 

DON’T KNOW................ ....................(GO TO Q81).......................................-9 

 REFUSED.............. .............................(GO TO Q81).......................................-8 

75. About how many bouncers or security personnel work on a typical Friday night?

 NUMBER OF BOUNCERS/SECURITY...................................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

76. Are security employees required to wear a specific uniform or badge that would identify them as security?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

77. Are security employees allowed to drink alcohol while working?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
78. Where do security employees receive most of their training to handle problem patrons? Are they... 

 Not required to have training,......................................................................................................0

 Not hired unless they have received prior training elsewhere,.......................................1

 Trained by the owner or other management staff,......................................................2

 Trained by other employees,..............................................................................3

 Trained by an outside organization that the bar paid for, or..........................................4

 Trained in some other way?_________________________________________________.......5

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

79. Do security personnel carry any of the following to protect themselves while working...

YES NO DON’T 

KNOW

REFUSED

A. Billy club, night stick, or some other type of baton? 1 0 -9 -8

B. Mace or pepper spray? 1 0 -9 -8

C. Tazers? 1 0 -9 -8

D. Any other type of weapon or protective gear?

____________________________________________

1 0 -9 -8

80. Is there anything that bouncers are not allowed to do to control problem patrons?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
81. Where do employees, other than security personnel, receive most of their training to deal with disruptive or overlyintoxicated customers? Are they...

 Not required to have training,......................................................................................................0

 Not hired unless they have received prior training elsewhere,.......................................1

 Trained by the owner or other management staff,......................................................2

 Trained by other employees,..............................................................................3

 Trained by an outside organization that the bar paid for, or..........................................4

 Trained in some other way?_________________________________________________.......5

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

82. In general, how do employees handle disruptive or overly-intoxicated customers?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

83. In general, what do employees do when two or more customers begin fighting verbally or physically?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

84. Do employees other than security personnel carry any of the following to protect themselves while working...

YES NO DON’T 

KNOW

REFUSED

A. Billy club, night stick, or some other type of baton? 1 0 -9 -8

B. Mace or pepper spray? 1 0 -9 -8

C. Tazers? 1 0 -9 -8

D. Any other type of weapon or protective gear?

____________________________________________

1 0 -9 -8

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
SECTION 7: Next, I’d like to ask you about the bar’s patrons and problems that many bar 

owners and employees frequently face. 

85. About how many customers do you serve on a typical Friday night?

 NUMBER OF PATRONS.......................................................|____|____|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

86. On a typical Friday night, what percentage of the bar’s customers would you consider regulars?

 PERCENTAGE OF REGULARS...................................................|____|____|____|%

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

87. On a typical Friday night, about what percentage of the bar’s customers is male? 

 PERCENTAGE OF MALES.........................................................|____|____|____|%

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

88. On a typical Friday night, about what percentage of the bar’s customers is white or Caucasian? 

 PERCENTAGE OF CAUCASIAN.................................................|____|____|____|%

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

89. Would you say that most customers are in their...

 20s,............................................................................................................0

 30s,............................................................................................................1

 40 or older, or...............................................................................................2

 a mixed-age crowd?.....................................................................................................................3 

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
90. Briefly describe the type of customer the bar tries, or would like, to attract. For example, would the bar’s ideal 

patron be college students, young professionals, working class, singles, married couples, or fit some other type of 

demographic?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

91. Does the bar generally succeed in attracting these types of individuals?

YES..............................................(GO TO Q93)............................................1 

NO............................................................................................................0

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

92. Briefly describe the type of customers that frequent [bar name].

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

93. On a typical Friday night, how many people do you stop serving alcohol to due to disruptive behavior or overintoxication?

 NUMBER REFUSED SERVICE............................................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

94. On a typical Friday night, about how many people are asked to leave the bar?

 NUMBER ASKED TO LEAVE.............................................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

95. On a typical Friday night, about how many people must be physically removed from the bar? 

 NUMBER EJECTED..........................................................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

96. What are the three most common reasons people are removed or asked to leave the bar?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
97. In the past year, about how many times per week have the police been called to the bar? 

 NUMBER OF CALLS.........................................................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

98. What are the three most common reasons the police are called?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

99. In the past year, about how many times per month have paramedics been called to the bar?

 NUMBER OF CALLS.........................................................................|____|____|

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

100. What are the three most common reasons the paramedics are called?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

101. With regard to crime, is the neighborhood surrounding the bar generally...

 Very safe,....................................................................................................0

 Somewhat safe,.............................................................................................1

 Somewhat unsafe, or.......................................................................................2

 Very unsafe?................................................................................................................................3

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
102. Within the last six months, has the bar experienced problems with people engaging in any of the following 

behaviors in or directly outside the bar...

YES NO DON’T 

KNOW

REFUSED

A. Loitering? 1 0 -9 -8

B. Selling sex for drugs or money? 1 0 -9 -8

C. Gambling? 1 0 -9 -8

D. Dealing drugs? 1 0 -9 -8

E. Using drugs? 1 0 -9 -8

F. Vandalism? 1 0 -9 -8

G. Theft of valuables from patrons without force used? 1 0 -9 -8

H. Theft or break-ins of patrons’ cars? 1 0 -9 -8

I. Fights between strangers? 1 0 -9 -8

J. Domestic violence, or fights between couples or 

family members?

1 0 -9 -8

K. Shootings? 1 0 -9 -8

L. Robberies of the bar by force or threat of force? 1 0 -9 -8

M. Robberies of patrons by force or threat of force? 1 0 -9 -8

103. Has the bar done anything in particular to prevent any of these incidents from occurring in the future? 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO Q105).......................................0 

DON’T KNOW................ ....................(GO TO Q105).....................................-9 

 REFUSED.............. .............................(GO TO Q105)......................................-8 

104. What has the bar done and did these things seem to work?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
105. Is there a particular type of violent incident that occurs most often at [bar name]? 

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO Q107).......................................0 

DON’T KNOW....................................(GO TO Q107).....................................-9 

 REFUSED..........................................(GO TO Q107)......................................-8 

106. Please think generally about these types of incidents while answering the following questions. 

QUESTION RESPONSE

A. What kind of incident is it? For example, is it an 

assault or a robbery?

B. When do these incidents generally happen? For 

example, do they tend to happen after a certain time 

or when the bar is more or less crowded?

C. Do these incidents generally occur inside or directly 

outside the bar or in the parking lot?

D. Who is usually involved? For example, is it between 

patrons or between a patron and an employee?

E. What is usually the gender of the people involved?

F. Is there usually something in particular that

instigates the event?

G. Do employees not involved in the incident usually 

try to intervene; and if so, what do they do?

H. Do patrons not involved in the incident usually try to 

intervene; and if so, what do they do?

I. Does someone usually call the police; and if so, who?

J. When the police are called, do they usually arrive in 

time to help handle the incident; and what do they 

do when they get there?

107. Can you think of the last violent incident that occurred at the bar?

YES...........................................................................................................1

NO...................................................(GO TO SECTION 8)..............................0 

DON’T KNOW................ ....................(GO TO SECTION 8).............................-9 

 REFUSED.............. .............................(GO TO SECTION 8)..............................-8 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
108. About how long ago did the incident take place...

Within the last month,......................................................................................0

Within the last 6 months,...................................................................................1

Within the last 12 months, or..............................................................................2

More than a year ago?........................................................................................3

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

109. I am going to ask you a short series of questions about this particular incident. 

QUESTION RESPONSE

A. What kind of incident was it? For example, was it an 

assault or a robbery?

B. When did this incident happen? For example, what 

time did it occur? Was the bar more or less 

crowded than usually?

C. Did the incident occur inside the bar, outside the bar, 

or in a parking lot?

D. Who was involved? For example, was it between 

patrons or between a patron and an employee?

E. What was the gender of the people involved?

F. Was there something in particular that instigated the 

event?

G. Did employees not involved in the incident try to 

intervene; and if so, what did they do?

H. Did patrons not involved in the incident try to 

intervene; and if so, what did they do?

I. Did someone call the police; and if so, who?

J. IF THE POLICE WERE CALLED: Did they arrive 

in time to help handle the incident; and what did 

they do when they got there?

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
SECTION 8: We are also interested in the actions of various regulatory agencies.

110. Please tell me about how many times in the past 12 months the following types of officials have visited the bar... 

# VISITS DON’T 

KNOW

REFUSED

A. Cincinnati fire department? ______ -9 -8

B. Cincinnati health inspectors? ______ -9 -8

C. Ohio liquor control board? ______ -9 -8

D. Building code inspectors? ______ -9 -8

E. Any other inspectors?

____________________________________________

______ -9 -8

111. What types of recommendations or requirements, if any, did the officials make after visiting the property?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

SECTION 9: Finally, I would like to ask you a general financial question about the bar.

112. Which of the following best describes the current financial status of the bar?

 Making profit...............................................................................................................................0

 Breaking even,..............................................................................................1

 

Losing money, or...........................................................................................2

Default-bankruptcy?.......................................................................................3

DON’T KNOW.............................................................................................-9 

 REFUSED....................................................................................................-8 

END OF SURVEY: That concludes our survey. Thank you for your participation.

INTERVIEWER: IF THERE WERE SEVERAL QUESTIONS THAT THE 

RESPONDENT COULD NOT ANSWER, PLEASE ASK FOR A CONTACT NAME 

AND NUMBER OF SOMEONE WHO COULD ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.

WRITE CONTACT INFORMATION ON LAST PAGE OF SURVEY ONLY.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
ADDITIONAL CONTACTS

DATE REFERRED: __________________ NAME: __________________ NUMBER: __________________

DATE REFERRED: __________________ NAME: __________________ NUMBER: __________________

DATE REFERRED: __________________ NAME: __________________ NUMBER: __________________

DATE REFERRED: __________________ NAME: __________________ NUMBER: __________________

DATE REFERRED: __________________ NAME: __________________ NUMBER: __________________

INTERVIEWER: 

REMOVE AND SHRED THIS SHEET ONCE SURVEY IS COMPLETE.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-160- 

Appendix II: Bar Site Observation Survey

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
1 

BAR SITE OBSERVATION SURVEY

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

DO NOT CIRCULATE

SURVEYOR(S) NAME(S): ___________________________________________ 

SURVEY DATE: ____________________________ TIME: ________________

BAR NAME: _______________________________________________________

BAR ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________

WEATHER: 

 SUNNY/CLEAR 

 RAINING 

 OVERCAST/CLOUDY

 OTHER ________________________________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
= 

Diagram 2

1 2 3 4 5 6

dead

end

cul-desacL-type T-type H-type through

street

other

(please sketch)

*Bar can fall anywhere within the shaded location

Diagram 1

Boundary c

Parcel

F

Parcel

G

Parcel

H

BAR

Parcel

D

Parcel

E

Parcel

A

Parcel

B

Parcel

C

Boundary a

Boundary dBoundary b

 Main Entrance

Exterior C

Exterior A

Exterior 

B

Exterior D

Boundary Attributes

1 Property boundary only

2 Street

3 Alley

4 Other (describe)

Boundary Accessibility

1 Inaccessible 

2 Secure (no patron access)

3 Patrons only

4 Completely accessible

Visibility (1)

Percent of glass currently unobstructed on the exterior wall (3’ 

from floor to ceiling of ground floor)

Visibility (2)

Percent of glass on the exterior wall, minus permanent 

obstructions only (e.g., excluding temporary fliers)

0 No glass 

1 1-10% 4 51-75%

2 11-25% 5 76-90%

3 26-50% 6 91-100%

Parcel Attributes

1 Apartment

2 Single family

3 Duplex (two family)

4 Retail

5 Convenience store

6 Bar

7 Restaurant with alcohol

8 Restaurant w/o alcohol 

9 Church

10 Hospital

11 Grade school

12 High school

13 Gas station

14 Warehouse/Industrial 

15 Park/green space

16 Parking lot

17 Empty lot

18 Vacant structure - secure

19 Vacant structure - unsecure

20 Other (describe)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
EXTERIOR

Describe the structures surrounding the bar using diagram 1 and the corresponding list of 

attributes. 

Signage posted by bar on and around property (check all that apply)

 Bar name  Surveillance warning

 No trespassing  Parking rules

 Behavioral restrictions (no soliciting, loitering)  Discounts or drink specials

 Other ___________________________________________________________________________

 #

______ Pay phones directly outside bar property

______ ATMs directly outside bar property

______ Pieces of litter larger than 2” by 2” directly around bar property

______ Pieces of large junk (e.g., old tires, appliances) directly around bar property

______ Overhead street lights on blocks represented by boundaries coded as streets

______ Abandoned (nondrivable) automobiles on blocks represented by boundaries coded as streets

______ Bus stops within one block of the bar

Parcel Number of

Attributes stories

Parcel A ______ ______

Parcel B ______ ______

Parcel C ______ ______

Parcel D ______ ______

Parcel E ______ ______

Parcel F ______ ______

Parcel G ______ ______

Parcel H ______ ______

Boundary Boundary

Attributes Accessibility

Boundary a ______ ______

Boundary b ______ ______

Boundary c ______ ______

Boundary d ______ ______

Complete the following only for each boundary 

coded as a street.

Boundary a

Number of lanes ______

Street type (refer to diagram 2) ______

Direction  One-way  Two-way

 Median  Traffic light  Stop sign 

Boundary b

Number of lanes ______

Street type (refer to diagram 2) ______

Direction  One-way  Two-way

 Median  Traffic light  Stop sign 

Boundary c

Number of lanes ______

Street type (refer to diagram 2) ______

Direction  One-way  Two-way

 Median  Traffic light  Stop sign 

Boundary d

Number of lanes ______

Street type (refer to diagram 2) ______

Direction  One-way  Two-way

 Median  Traffic light  Stop sign

Visibility (1) Visibility (2)

Exterior A ______ ______

Exterior B ______ ______

Exterior C ______ ______

Exterior D ______ ______

People loitering outside the property

 Yes  No

 Describe________________________

Bar’s trash receptacles overflowing

 Yes  No  Cans not visible 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
PARKING

Bar provides parking for patrons  Yes  No 

 Location of lot  Adjacent to bar  Non-adjacent/same side of street 

  Across street  Other_______________________________ 

Number of spaces ______ 

 Number of entrances/exits to lot ______ 

 Number of light fixtures in lot ______ # broken ______ 

 Broken car window glass in lot  Yes  No 

 Valet service  Yes  No 

Lot shared with other businesses  Yes  No 

Parking lot attendant/station  Yes  No 

Security cameras in lot  Yes  No 

Lot is visible from (check all that apply) 

 Inside the bar  Street  Adjacent buildings  Not visible 

Type of on-street parking available within one block of the bar (check all that apply) 

 No parking zones  Loading/unloading only  Metered  Time restricted 

 Unrestricted  Other_______________________________ 

BUILDING

Bar located on a corner lot  Yes  No 

Structure part of a larger retail building (i.e., store front)  Yes  No 

Residential units below or above the bar  No  Above  Below 

Building has structural problems such as missing brick, stone, stucco, siding, etc. (missing 

material must be greater than 1x1 foot)  Yes  No 

______ Number of floors the bar occupies 

Visible on the exterior of the bar (check all that apply) 

 Graffiti  Chipping paint  Security bars on windows/doors  Boarded windows 

 Surveillance cameras 

______ Number of exterior planters, awnings, railings, gates, signs or other structural 

decorations broken or in need of repair 

______ Number of lighting fixtures at main entrance ______ Number broken 

______ Number of lighting fixtures around exterior of building ______ Number broken 

Types of advertisements on exterior of building (check all that apply) 

 Domestic beer  Specialty beer  Hard alcohol  Food  Specials 

 Other________________________________________________________________ 

Patio seating (check all that apply) 

 None  Front  Back  Side  Balcony 

Patio seating can be seen from (check all that apply) 

 Inside the bar  Street  Adjacent buildings  Not visible 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
INTERIOR

______ Number of patron entrances/exits (not emergency) 

______ Number of emergency exits 

______ Number of separate rooms 

______ Posted minimum age requirement 

______ Posted maximum occupancy 

______ Number of separate bars 

Number of seats 

 ______ at the bar 

 ______ on the floor 

 ______ # broken or torn 

______ Number of tables ______ # broken 

Percentage of main serving bar visible from the front door 

 Not visible  1-10%  11-25%  26-50%  51-75%  76-90%  91-100% 

Draw the location of the main or front serving bar in the square 

Check all that is visible in the bar 

 Graffiti on tables  Graffiti on walls  Broken light fixtures  Pay phone 

 Designated non-smoking section(s)  Drink special advertisements  ATM 

 Surveillance camera(s)  Broken lights  Cigarette machines  Vending machines 

Available activities (check all that apply) 

 Pool  Darts  Dancing  Video games/poker  Jukebox  TV monitors 

 Corn hole/bocce ball  Other________________________________________ 

Bar theme or specialty (check all that apply) 

 Biker bar  Dancing club  Gay/Lesbian  Irish pub  Sports 

 Western  Other__________________________________________________ 

Which best describes overall business 

 Drinking establishment  Drinking and some food  Roughly even mix 

 Mainly restaurant with supplemental bar  Other_________________________ 

Describe any warnings or instructions posted within the bar: 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________________ 

Entrance

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
RESTROOMS

Men’s Women’s

Total number of restrooms ______ ______

Number of toilets/urinals ______ ______

Patron graffiti  

Bad odor  

Dirty floors/toilets or sinks  

Leaking pipes  

Holes in stall walls  

Broken/missing stall doors  

Toilet paper in each stall  

Inoperable toilets  

Broken mirrors  

Broken lights  

Litter/paper on floor  

Significant damage to walls  

Hand soap available  

Air-dryer/paper towels available  

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-167- 

Appendix III: CAD Codes Included in Violent Calls for Police

Service

ID SIGNAL CODE CAD DESCRIPTION 

1 43 CHILD ABDUCT ABDUCTION 

8 78 RPT/VIOL ASSLT ASSAULT JUST OCCURRED 

9 78 RPT/VIOL ASSLTP ASSAULT PERSON INJURED 

10 78 RPT/VIOL ASSLTR ASSAULT REPORT 

16 49 RPT/VIOL BARRIC BARRICADED PERSON 

28 9 RPT/VIOL CUTP PERSON CUT 

29 50 RPT/VIOL DEVICE BOMB THREAT, EXPLOSIVE DEVICE 

34 96 NT/FT/DV DOMVIO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN PROGRESS 

35 96 NT/FT/DV DOMVIR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REPORT 

43 16 RPT/VIOL GUN PERSON W/GUN 

45 6 ALARM HOLDUP HOLDUP ALARM (ALL EXCEPT SIG66) 

46 48 RPT/VIOL HOSTAG HOSTAGE SITUATION 

56 78 RPT/VIOL MENACE MENACING JUST OCCURRED 

57 78 RPT/VIOL MENACR MENACING REPORT 

60 32 MENTAL CODE9V MENTAL VIOLENT 

71 99 RPT/VIOL POHELP POLICE OFFICER NEEDS ASSISTANCE 

76 56 SEX/OFF RAPE RAPE JUST OCCURRED 

77 56 SEX/OFF RAPEP RAPE PERSON INJURED 

78 56 SEX/OFF RAPER RAPE REPORT 

80 86 REPORTS ROBB ROBBERY JUST OCCURRED 

81 86 REPORTS ROBBIP ROBBERY PERSON INJURED 

82 86 REPORTS ROBBR ROBBERY REPORT 

85 70 SEX/OFF SEX SEX OFFENSE JUST OCCURRED (NOT RAPE) 

86 70 SEX/OFF SEXR SEX OFFENSE REPORT (NOT RAPE) 

87 9 RPT/VIOL SHOOTP PERSON SHOT 

88 10 RPT/VIOL SHOTS POSSIBLE SHOTS FIRED 

92 66 ALARM SIG66 AUTOMATED HOLDUP ALARM 

93 54 ADMIN SPURS SUSPECT PURSUIT 

94 57 ADMIN SS SUSPECT STOP 

96 77 RPT/VIOL STALK STALKING IN PROGRESS 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-168- 

ID SIGNAL CODE CAD DESCRIPTION 

97 77 RPT/VIOL STALKR STALKING REPORT 

100 14 SUSP/AUTO SUSP SUSPICIOUS PERSON OR AUTO 

113 16 RPT/VIOL WEAPON PERSON W/WEAPON (INCLUDES KNIFE) 

126 78 ASSLTI ASSAULT WITH INJURIES 

134 78 ASSLTI ASSAULT WITH INJURIES 

140 56 RAPEI RAPE WITH INJURIES 

150 9 CUT CUTTING HAS OCCURRED 

155 86 ROBBI ROBBERY WITH INJURIES 

156 9 SHOOT SHOOTING HAS OCCURRED 

162 32 MHRTV MENTALLH IMPAIRED - VIOLENT 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-169- 

Appendix IV: Apartment Manager Survey

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
APARTMENT PLACE MANAGEMENT SURVEY

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

DO NOT CIRCULATE

APARTMENT NAME: _______________________________________________________

APARTMENT ADDRESS: ____________________________________________________

INTERVIEWER NAME: _____________________________________________________

INTERVIEW DATE: ____________________________TIME: ______________________

ANY PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS OF THE RESPONDENTS,

INCLUDING NAMES AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS, 

 SHOULD ONLY BE WRITTEN ON THE LAST PAGE OF THIS SURVEY 

PERSONAL INFORMATION MUST BE REMOVED AND SHREDDED

ONCE SURVEY IS COMPLETE

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
INTRODUCTION AND INFORMED CONSENT - APARTMENTS

Hi, my name is [interviewer name]. I’m a researcher from the University of Cincinnati. We’re 

interviewing Cincinnati apartment owners, managers, and staff about their experience with managing 

rental housing. This survey is funded by the National Institute of Justice. 

Our records indicate that you own or manage [apartment name (or if name of the business is 

unknown) apartments at address]. Is this correct? 

 YES, CONTINUE  NO: Could you please refer me to the current owner or manager? 

[WRITE NAME & NUMBER ON LAST PAGE] Thank you for your time.

Can you answer questions about the day-to-day operations of the apartments, or is there someone else 

we can contact?

 REFUSED PARTICIPATION: Thank you for your time.  CAN ANSWER, CONTINUE 

 SOMEONE ELSE: [WRITE NAME & NUMBER ON LAST PAGE] Thank you for your time.

The survey should only take about 20 minutes to complete. Would you be willing to participate in our 

study now or can we schedule an interview during a more convenient time?

 REFUSED PARTICIPATION: Thank you for your time.  NOW, CONTINUE 

 ANOTHER TIME: [WRITE NAME/DATE/TIME & NUMBER ON LAST PAGE - CONFIRM 

DATE & TIME] - Thank you for your time.

The purpose of this study is to understand how owners and managers of rental housing and businesses 

that serve alcohol address crime and disorder problems. You will be one of approximately 1500

participants taking part in this study. You will be asked a series of questions related to your business. 

You will receive no direct benefit from your participation in this study, but your participation may help 

other business owners improve safety at their properties and assist government agencies to formulate 

reasonable and effective policies.

There are no foreseeable risks associated with this survey. However, you have the right to refuse to 

answer any question or to stop the interview at any time without penalty. Your participation is voluntary 

and any answers you give will be kept strictly confidential and used only for research purposes. We will 

remove your name and any other personal identifying information from your answers and shred this 

information after you have completed the survey. All completed surveys will be stored in a locked filing 

cabinet and shredded three years after the end of this study. The data from the study may be published; 

however, neither you nor your business will be identified by name. To help protect the privacy of others, 

we ask that you do not use the names of other employees or patrons when answering questions. By 

answering the following survey questions, you are giving your consent to participate in this study. May 

we continue?

RESPONDENT CONSENT:  YES, CONTINUE  NO: Thank you for your time.

If you have any other questions about this study or would like a copy of the study’s findings, you may 

call Dr. Pamela Wilcox at the University of Cincinnati. You can also contact the Chair of the 

Institutional Review Board. Would you like either of their contact numbers now? 

IF YES: Dr. Wilcox - (513) 556-2957; Chair of IRB - (513) 558-5784

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
OWNERSHIP AND APARTMENT PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS 

1. In what year was the apartment complex built?

______________ Year

2. Which of the following best describes the ownership of these apartments? 

 Sole ownership

 Partnership

 Corporation

 Some other business agreement (please describe) ___________________________

3. How long have you owned these apartments?

______________ Time apartments owned

4. Do you or any other owners of these apartments belong to any apartment- or business-owner associations?

 No  SKIP to question 6

 Yes 

5. Which associations do you or the other owners belong to?

____________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________

_ __________________________________________________________

6. About how often do you or any other owners visit these apartments? 

 Daily

 Weekly

 Monthly

 Quarterly

 Yearly

 Less than once a year

7. Are these apartments advertised?

 No  SKIP to question 10

 Yes 

8. Where are they advertised? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 In apartment or housing guides

 In City Beat or CinWeekly

 In the Cincinnati Enquirer or Post

 On the internet

 Someplace else (please describe) __________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
9. Which of the following best describes the current financial status of these apartments? 

 Making profit 

 Breaking even

 Losing money

10. How many other apartment complexes do you own...

In Cincinnati? Outside of Cincinnati?

 0  0

 1  1

 2-3  2-3

 4 or more  4 or more

PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

11. Is there a rental or management office currently at the apartment complex? 

 Yes

 No

12. Are people hired to help manage these apartments? 

 No  SKIP to question 17

 Yes 

13. Is a management company or independent individuals hired to manage the apartments?

 Management company 

 Hire individuals 

14. Are any of the managers compensated with rent?

 No

 Yes

15. Do any of the managers live in the apartments?

 No

 Yes

16. Where do managers receive most of their training? Are they...

 Not required to have training

 Not hired unless they have received prior training elsewhere

 Trained by the owner or other management staff

 Trained by an outside organization paid for by the owner

 Trained in some other way? (please describe) 

_________________________________________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
17. Who conducts most of the maintenance and repairs on these apartments? 

 Employees hired specifically to handle maintenance issues

 Owner, manager, or other staff

 Tenants

 Outside contractors

 Someone else (please describe) ______________________________________________

18. Are security personnel, other than management or maintenance staff, hired to patrol these apartments? 

 No  SKIP to question 21

 Yes 

19. Who provides security services? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Security company 

 Individuals hired as security officers

 Off-duty police officers

 Someone else (please describe) _____________________________________

20. Where do the security personnel receive most of their training? Are they...

 Not required to have training

 Not hired unless they have received prior training elsewhere

 Trained by the owner or other management staff

 Trained by an outside organization paid for by the owner

 Trained in some other way? (please describe) 

_________________________________________________________________

RESIDENTS

21. Does the apartment complex generally succeed in attracting the type of residents the owner(s) would like to 

rent to?

 No

 Yes

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
22. Are these senior-only apartments?

 Yes  SKIP to question 24

 No 

23. About what percentage of households have children living in them?

 Under 10% 

 10% - 25%

 26% - 50%

 51% - 75% 

 76% - 90%

 91% - 100%

24. About what percentage of tenants have lived at these apartments for two or more years?

 Under 10% 

 10% - 25%

 26% - 50%

 51% - 75% 

 76% - 90%

 91% - 100%

25. Are prospective tenants required to undergo financial background checks?

 No 

 Yes 

26. Are criminal background checks conducted before potential tenants are allowed to move in?

 No  SKIP to question 28

 Yes 

27. For which of the following types of offenses would an applicant be rejected?

 Sex offense

 Drug offense

 Violent offense - for example, robbery or domestic violence

 Non-violent offense - for example, vandalism

 Other offense (please describe) _____________________________________

28. Are the tenants’ previous landlords contacted during the application process?

 No

 Yes

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Are tenants required to sign a lease?

 No  SKIP to question 31

 Yes 

29. Which of the following behavioral restrictions are explicitly included in the 

lease? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Limitation on number of occupants

 Limitation on guest length of stay

 Prohibit disruptive behavior (e.g., loud stereos)

 Prohibit criminal activity

 Prohibit large parties

 Require cleanliness

 Other restrictions (please describe)

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

30. Are tenants allowed to have dogs?

 No

 Yes

31. What percentage of tenants is currently delinquent in rent payments?

 0%

 1 - 10% 

 11% - 25%

 26% - 50%

 51% or more 

32. For which of the following would a tenant be evicted from these apartments? (CHECK ALL THAT 

APPLY)

 Non-payment of rent

 Drug arrest or conviction

 Violent crime arrest or conviction

 Property crime arrest or conviction

 Repeatedly causing a disturbance on the property

 Having guests who cause damage or other problems

 Any other reasons (please describe)

________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
33. Were any eviction notices served at this property in the last year?

 No  SKIP to question 36

 Yes 

34. How many eviction notices were served?

______________ Number served

35. What percentage of these apartments is rented by Section 8 voucher holders?

 0%

 1 - 10% 

 11% - 25%

 26% - 50%

 51% or more 

RESIDENTIAL UNITS

36. How many individual apartment units are there in the apartment complex? 

______________ Number of units

37. During the past year, what percentage of these apartments was vacant each month?

 0%

 1 - 10% 

 11% - 25%

 26% - 50%

 51% or more 

38. What is the average monthly rent for the most expensive unit?

$______________ Cost of most expensive unit

39. What is the average monthly rent for the least expensive unit?

$______________ Cost of least expensive unit

40. How many bedrooms are in the largest unit?

______________ Number of bedrooms in largest unit

41. How many bedrooms are in the smallest unit?

______________ Number of bedrooms in smallest unit

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
42. Which of the following security features come standard with the units? (CHECK ALL THAT 

APPLY)

 Standard door key locks

 Door deadbolts

 Door chains

 Intruder alarms

 Door peepholes

 Other security features (please describe)

________________________________________________________________________

43. Are the locks changed or rekeyed before new tenants move in?

 No

 Yes

44. Are residents provided assigned parking spaces?

 No  SKIP to question 47

 Yes 

45. How is the assigned parking regulated? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Specific spaces assigned

 Require parking decals/stickers or permits

 Restricted access to parking lot

 Other forms of parking regulations (please describe)

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

46. Which of the following best describes the laundry facilities in these apartments? (CHECK ALL THAT 

APPLY)

 Washer/dryer provided in each apartment

 Washer/dryer hook-ups available in each apartment 

 Communal laundry rooms

 Other (please describe) _____________________________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
47. Which of the following are offered to residents? (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)

 Monthly or weekly resident newsletter

 Group games, barbeques, or other tenant activities

 Door attendant(s)

 Mail services, such as signing for packages

 Dry cleaning service

 Parking attendant or guard at stationed at entrance

 Gym or workout center

 Access to clubhouse for private parties

 Closed circuit TV visual of entrances

 Free internet service

 Any other services (please describe)

 ________________________________________________________________________

CRIME AND CURRENT LEGISLATION

48. Is crime at the apartment complex a serious concern for the owner(s) or tenants?

 No

 Yes

49. When crime does occur, who is usually responsible? 

 Residents

 Guests of residents

 Outsiders

 Others (please describe) ____________________________________________________

50. Are you familiar with the ordinance proposed by City Council this year that would make landlords 

financially responsible for repeat police calls for service to their property?

 No  SKIP to END OF SURVEY

 Yes 

51. Do you or other people involved in managing these apartments think that this legislation will 

help make rental properties safer?

 No

 Yes

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
52. How would this ordinance affect the way these apartments are managed? 

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

This concludes our survey. Thank you for participating in the Apartment Management Survey. We appreciate 

you taking time to complete our survey.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
ADDITIONAL CONTACTS

DATE REFERRED: __________________ NAME: __________________ NUMBER: __________________

DATE REFERRED: __________________ NAME: __________________ NUMBER: __________________

DATE REFERRED: __________________ NAME: __________________ NUMBER: __________________

DATE REFERRED: __________________ NAME: __________________ NUMBER: __________________

DATE REFERRED: __________________ NAME: __________________ NUMBER: __________________

INTERVIEWER: 

REMOVE AND SHRED THIS SHEET ONCE SURVEY IS COMPLETE.

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-180- 

Appendix V: Apartment Site Observation Survey

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
APARTMENT SITE OBSERVATION SURVEY

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

DO NOT CIRCULATE

SURVEYORS(S) NAME(S): __________________________________________ 

SURVEY DATE: ____________________________ TIME: ________________

APARTMENT NAME: _______________________________________________

APARTMENT ADDRESS: ___________________________________________

WEATHER: 

 SUNNY/CLEAR 

 RAINING 

 OVERCAST/CLOUDY

 OTHER ________________________________________________________

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Diagram 2

1 2 3 4 5 6

dead

end

cul-de-sac

sac

L-type T-type H-type through

street

other

(please sketch) *Complex can fall anywhere within the shaded location

Diagram 1

Boundary c

Parcel

F

Parcel

G

Parcel

H

Parcel w/

COMPLEX

Parcel

D

Parcel

E

Parcel

A

Parcel

B

Parcel

C

Boundary a

Boundary dBoundary b

 Main Entrance

Parcel Attributes

1 Apartment

2 Single family

3 Duplex (two family)

4 Retail

5 Convenience store

6 Bar

7 Restaurant with alcohol

8 Restaurant w/o alcohol 

9 Church

10 Hospital

11 Grade school

12 High school

13 Gas station

14 Warehouse/Industrial 

15 Park/green space

16 Parking lot

17 Empty lot

18 Vacant structure - secure

19 Vacant structure - unsecure

20 Other (describe)

Boundary Attributes

1 Property boundary only

2 Street

3 Alley

4 Other (describe)

Complex Accessibility

1 Inaccessible (no openings)

2 Resident only

3 Partially enclosed

4 Completely accessible

Complex Enclosures

Only for those with accessibility 

coded as 1 through 3 

1 Wall

2 Shrubbery

3 Fence

4 Gate

5 Other (describe)

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
EXTERIOR

Describe the structures surrounding the complex using diagram 1 and the corresponding list of 

attributes. 

______ Pay phones directly surrounding complex

______ Pieces of litter larger than 2” by 2” directly around complex

______ Pieces of large junk (e.g., old tires, appliances) directly around complex

______ Overhead street lights on blocks represented by boundaries coded as streets

______ Abandoned (nondrivable) automobiles on blocks represented by boundaries coded as streets 

______ Bus stops within one block of the complex

Signage posted by complex in and around property (check all that apply)

 Apartment name  No trespassing 

 Welcome  Behavioral restrictions (no soliciting, loitering)

 Vacancy  Surveillance warning 

 Enticements (services/amenities)  Parking rules

 Discounts  Way finding (directions to office, laundry)

 Other ___________________________________________________________________________

#

Complex on corner lot

 Yes  No

# of entrances into complex ______

Attendant or attendant station at entrance

 Yes  No

Entrances to complex secured using (check 

all that apply)

 Not secured  Swipe card  Key 

 Call box  Attendant/attendant station

Other_______________________________

People loitering outside the property

 Yes  No

 Describe __________________________

Parcel Number of

Attributes stories

Parcel A ______ ______

Parcel B ______ ______

Parcel C ______ ______

Parcel D ______ ______

Parcel E ______ ______

Parcel F ______ ______

Parcel G ______ ______

Parcel H ______ ______

Boundary Complex Complex

Attributes Accessibility Enclosures

Boundary a ______ ______ ______

Boundary b ______ ______ ______

Boundary c ______ ______ ______

Boundary d ______ ______ ______

Complete the following only for each boundary 

coded as a street.

Boundary a

Number of lanes ______

Street type (refer to diagram 2) ______

Direction  One-way  Two-way

 Median  Traffic light  Stop sign 

Boundary b

Number of lanes ______

Street type (refer to diagram 2) ______

Direction  One-way  Two-way

 Median  Traffic light  Stop sign 

Boundary c

Number of lanes ______

Street type (refer to diagram 2) ______

Direction  One-way  Two-way

 Median  Traffic light  Stop sign 

Boundary d

Number of lanes ______

Street type (refer to diagram 2) ______

Direction  One-way  Two-way

 Median  Traffic light  Stop sign

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Complex located on a corner lot  Yes  No 

Retail building below or above the complex  No  Below  Above 

Overgrown grass or weeds around or in complex  Yes  No  No green space 

Landscaping, including flowerbeds/neat hedges  Yes  No 

Personal belongings (e.g., bikes, grills) left outside  Yes  No # _______ 

Indicate how many of each of the following are in the complex: 

______ Lighting fixtures around complex perimeter

______ # broken

______ Lighting fixtures at complex entrances

______ # broken

______ Pay phones within complex

______ Pieces of litter larger than 2” by 2” within complex

______ Pieces of large junk (e.g., old tires, appliances) within complex

______ Alcoholic drink containers

______ Streets/paved roads in complex

______ Potholes larger than 6” by 6” on complex streets

______ Clubhouse

______ Rental/management offices

______ Swimming pools

Swimming areas have secured entrances  Yes  No

______ Playgrounds

Equipment in need of repair  None  Minor  Major

______ Picnic areas (including picnic tables and grills)

Equipment in need of repair  None  Minor  Major

______ Benches/sitting areas, excluding picnic areas

______ # seats broken

______ Communal trash areas

 Neat  Overflowing 

______ Exterior laundry rooms

Laundry rooms have secured entrances  Yes  No 

Percentage of the laundry rooms visible from outside

0% 1-10% 11-25% 26-50% 51-75% 76-90% 91-100%

COMPLEX

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
Square

1

Rectangle

2

Right-angle

3

U-shape

4

O-shape

5

Diagram 1

Other (Include sketch)

6

PARKING

Type of off-street parking provided (check all that apply) 

 None  Open spaces  Assigned spaces  Carport  Individual garages 

  Communal garage/structure  Other________________________________________ 

 Parking areas secure  Yes  No 

Security cameras in parking areas  Yes  No 

Total number of parking spaces ______ 

Number of lighting fixtures in parking areas ______ # broken ______ 

Number of abandoned (nondrivable) automobiles in complex ______ 

Broken car window glass in parking areas  Yes  No 

Type of on-street parking available directly surrounding the complex (check all that apply) 

 No parking zones  Loading/unloading only  Metered  Time restricted 

 Unrestricted  Resident only  Other_____________________________ 

BUILDINGS

Circle the figure in diagram 1 that most closely resembles the shape of the apartment buildings 

For interior apartments, doors to the buildings secured using (check all that apply) 

 Not secured  Swipe card  Key  Call box  Attendant  Other____________ 

Indicate how many of the following are present: 

______ Apartment buildings in complex

______ Floors in each apartment building (if multiple building types, report highest number of floors)

______ Outer doors to each apartment building (if multiple building types, report those with most outer doors)

______ Exterior fire escapes

______ Light fixtures on building exterior

______ # broken

______ Lighting fixtures at building entrances

______ # broken

______ Buildings with graffiti

______ Buildings with chipping paint

______

Buildings with structural problems such as missing brick, stone, stucco, siding, etc. 

(missing material must be greater than 1x1 foot)

______ Exterior planters, awnings, railings, gates, signs or other structural decorations broken or in 

need of repair

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
UNITS

Access units in buildings from  Interior of building(s)  Exterior of building(s)  Both 

Indicate how many of the following are present: 

______ Total number of units in complex

______ Outer doors to each unit (doors that can be accessed from outside/outdoors)

Type of doors (check all that apply)

 Sliding/glass  Wood  Metal  Screen  Other_______________

______ Front door locks on each unit

Type of locks on front doors (check all that apply)

 Knob/key  Deadbolt  Padlock  Other_______________________

______ Windows on each unit

______ Broken windows

______ Torn window screens

______ Boarded windows

______ Units with security bars, lattice, or other 

devices on windows

______ Unsecured stairwells leading to units (not open or uncovered stairs)

Units have (check all that apply) 

 Peepholes  Window screens  Enclosed yards  Individual patios/balconies 

Type of air-conditioners visible (check all that apply) 

 None  Window units  Wall mounted  Central air  Other______________ 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-188- 

Appendix VI: Changes in the Study Design

Many proposed studies require modification from the proposal to the implementation. 

This study was not an exception. Typically, few readers are interested in such changes, as the 

implemented study and its findings are of the greatest interest. Nevertheless, there are some 

lessons that can be drawn from documenting the internal history of research. So rather than 

complicate the report’s narrative with an extended discussion of changes, we have elected to 

discuss them in an appendix. 

 The original proposal called for the use of a case-control design (see Schlesselman, 1982 

and Loftin and McDowall, 1988). Such designs are useful when a particular value on the 

independent variable is rare. In such circumstances, some economies in data collection can be 

realized by selecting cases on the values of the dependent variable (in standard research designs 

we stratify on one or more independent variables). As can be seen from the distribution of 

violence across bars (see Figure 2, for example) and apartments (Table 22) shown in this report, 

this is the case in Cincinnati. 

 When we closely examined the number of bars in Cincinnati, we found that the there 

were far fewer of these facilities than we had anticipated based on examining the official data. 

Consequently, we determined that it would far better to collect data on all bars rather than a 

sample. Because the level of violence was not critical to the selection of cases, this also reduced 

the need to check on the stability of violence. As noted in the main body of this report, we relied 

on a two year window of events reported to police. So we are reasonably confident that bars that 

have zero reports of violence over two years are very low violence places, and those that have 

three or more violence events in a two year period are predictably problematic. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-189- 

We altered the apartment complex data collection process for the following reasons: 1) 

Apartment owners seldom live on their property, and many live out of the city (in contrast there 

was always a place manager at a bar when it was open for business), and 2) County Auditor data 

has the address of the apartment land parcels, but not phone numbers where owners can be 

reached. We determined that a mail survey would be the only feasible alternative available. 

Mail surveys are relatively inexpensive to administer, though they typically have low response 

rates. Complicating the matter, we needed a minimum of 10 complete responses from managers 

from a neighborhood to use multi-level modeling and we needed to assure that our responses 

were from as many neighborhoods as possible. Further, since apartment owners sometimes own 

several complexes, we needed to make sure the respondents were providing answers about a 

single specific apartment complex rather than their portfolio of properties. These considerations 

made a case-control design impractical. In the end, we choose an approach that took into 

account the emerging facts about apartment complexes in Cincinnati, and allowed us to use 

multi-level modeling to tease out the place and neighborhood influences on violence. As was the 

case with bars, the necessity to identify stable high and low violence apartment complexes prior 

to sampling was no longer necessary. The two year window for collecting data on violence 

allows us to be reasonably confident that the differences among complexes with regards to 

violence are meaningful. 

 For both apartment complexes and bars we had hoped to collect violence data 

prospectively, following survey data collection. This would have assured that the management 

practices we were documenting were in place prior to the crimes. However, because of delays in 

collecting survey data and observing sites, prospective data collection proved to be infeasible. 

Consequently, many of our results suffer from the normal ambiguous temporal order problem as 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. 
-190- 

all cross-sectional research. Nevertheless, the use of two years of violence data suggests that the 

levels of violence, at least at either extreme, are stable. 

 In conclusion, while the original proposal called for the same methods for data collection 

and analysis to be used for both bars and apartments, the distribution of these very different 

facilities across Cincinnati neighborhoods, the differences in numbers of these sites, and the 

ability to access place managers required us to take different strategies. Bars are concentrated in 

a few neighborhoods so most neighborhoods had very few or no bars, while a few neighborhoods 

had many bars (often in very close proximity within that neighborhood). This precluded the use 

of multi-level modeling and forced us to rely on maps and standard statistical analysis. 

Apartment complexes were scattered throughout the city, in sufficient numbers in most 

neighborhoods that multilevel modeling was feasible. We could attempt to collect data from all 

bars, given their numbers, but this was not feasible with apartment complexes. Bars are open to 

the adult public and have a manager on site (typically the bar tender who often had time to talk), 

and they had phone numbers listed. This made interviews with managers much easier to arrange. 

Apartment owners were seldom at their properties and most did not employ resident managers. 

Finding phone numbers for owners proved to be difficult. These factors made on site data 

collection difficult. A major lesson we drew from this experience is that there is no single best 

strategy for examining how the management of places influences crime. Rather different types 

of facilities will require very different data collection and analysis methods. 

This document is a research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Justice. This report has not 

been published by the Department. Opinions or points of view expressed are those of the author(s) 

and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.