DOI: 10.3886/icpsr26981
title: Situational Crime Prevention at Specific Locations in Community Context: Place and Neighborhood Effects in Cincinnati, Ohio, 2005-2008
title: Archival Version

description: The study examined the situational and contextual influences on violence in bars and apartment complexes in Cincinnati, Ohio. Interviews of managers and observations of sites were made for 199 bars (Part 1). Data were collected on 1,451 apartment complexes (Part 2). For apartment complexes owners were interviewed for 307 and observations were made at 994. Crime data were obtained from the Cincinnati Police Department records of calls for service and reported crimes.
description: The study examined two types of places, drinking establishments (Part 1) and apartment complexes (Part 2). 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, and (2) improve the scientific understanding of how place managers influence crime at places, and the factors that influence place management practices. Study objectives were to (1) Identify apartments and alcohol drinking establishments (including 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, and (4) examine how the management practices, site characteristics, and neighborhood context influence crime and each other.
description: The Bar Data (Part 1) are comprised of data on 199 bars resulting from the Bar Manager Survey, the Bar Site Observation Survey, and crime data from the Cincinnati Police Department. Before the bar surveys were administered, 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). The Part 1 crime data were obtained from the Cincinnati Police Department for crimes reported and documented between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2006. Site observations and interviews of bar owners, managers, bartenders, and security staff were conducted between July and October in 2006. The Bar Manager Survey interviews provided detailed information on bar characteristics and management activities. For the Bar Site Observation Survey, physical attributes of the bar were documented based on observations of the interior, exterior, and environment immediately surrounding the location. The Apartment Data (Part 2) are comprised of data on 1,451 apartment complexes derived from the Apartment Manager Survey, the Apartment Site Observation Survey, and crime data from the Cincinnati Police Department. Before the apartment surveys were administered, data regarding land use were obtained from the Hamilton County Auditor's Office to identify land parcels as "apartments". Geographic data were obtained from the Cincinnati Area Geographic Information System (CAGIS) and data from the 2000 Census were obtained from ESRI's online repository of Census data. Part 2 crime data were obtained from the Cincinnati Police Department in 2006. Calls for service data from 2006 were used to create the dummy indicator of high violence used to stratify the sample. 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). 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 phone interviews were conducted in an attempt to increase response rate. 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). Apartment Site Observation Surveys were conducted between March 2007 and June 2008.
description: The Bar Data (Part 1) contain 475 variables including bar manager survey variables, bar site observation variables, and crime variables including physical violence variables and threatened violence variables. The Bar Manager Survey includes variables 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 outside agencies, and (9) the financial status of the bar. The Bar Site Observation Data includes variables related to (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. Crime variables in the Bar Data include measures of aggravated burglary, aggravated menacing, aggravated robbery, arson, assault, breaking and entering, burglary, criminal damaging/endangering, criminal mischief, criminal trespass, domestic violence, domestic violence misdemeanor, endangering children-cause physical harm, ethnic intimidation, felonious assault, grand theft, gross sexual imposition, improperly discharging firearm at/into habitation/school, inducing panic, kidnapping, menacing by stalking, misuse of credit card, murder, petit theft, rape, robbery, safe-cracking, sexual battery, sexual imposition, taking the identity of another, tampering with coin machines, telephone harassment, theft-license plates, theft, unauthorized use of motor vehicle, vandalism, and vehicle theft. The Apartment Data (Part 2) contain 296 variables including apartment manager survey variables, apartment site observation variables, and two crime variables. The Apartment Manager Survey gathered information about apartment ownership and property characteristics, management policies, demographics of residents, unit characteristics, and crime legislation data. The Apartment Site Observation Survey gathered information about the apartments (including layout of complex, buildings, and units), characteristics of the exterior, and the parking situation. Crime variables in the Apartment Data include the number of violent calls for service at complex and a high violence apartment complex measure.
description: none
description: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
description: Presence of Common Scales: none
description: Response Rates: Part 1: Of the 239 bars included in the final sampling frame, interviews of managers and observations of sites were made for 199 bars yielding a response rate of 83.26 percent. Part 2: Of the 1,451 apartment complexes included in the final sampling frame, site observations were made at 994 (out of 1,040 attempted) and 307 mail in surveys were returned, yielding response rates of 95.58 percent and 21.16 percent respectively.
description: Datasets: 
 
 DS0: Study-Level Files 
 DS1: Bar Data 
 DS2: Apartment Data
description: record abstracts, coded on-site observation, face-to-face interview, mail questionnaire, telephone interview 
The Apartment Data (Part 2) is comprised of 1,451 records. The project's report (Eck, et al., 2010; NCJ 229364) indicates that "for apartment complexes owners were interviewed for 307 and observations were made at 994". Users should be aware that some variables that correspond to the Apartment Management Survey contain more than 307 valid responses. The data contain a DONE "DONE DUMMY" variable that can be used to select the 994 usable site observations survey records. The DONE variable also identifies apartment site observation survey records that were "Not Done" or "Aborted".
description: All bars (Part 1) and apartments (Part 2) within Cincinnati, Ohio between 2005 and 2008. Smallest Geographic Unit: none (Part 1); neighborhood (Part 2)
description: 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. 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 (Part 1), from which data were collected on 199 bars. For the purpose of the study, an "apartment complex" was 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. 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. A probability sample of the 4,956 apartment complexes within the Cincinnati city limits was taken. 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 (Part 2).