DOI: 10.3886/icpsr03261
title: Neighborhood Revitalization and Disorder in Salt Lake City, Utah, 1993-2000
title: Archival Version

description: This project examined physical incivilities (disorder),
social strengths and vulnerabilities, and police reports in a
declining first-ring suburb of Salt Lake City. Physical and social
conditions were assessed on residential face blocks surrounding a new
subdivision that was built as a revitalization effort. Data were
collected before and after the completion of the new subdivision to
assess the effects of the subdivision and of more proximal social and
physical conditions on residents' blocks in order to understand
important revitalization outcomes of crime, fear, and housing
satisfaction and conditions. The study also highlighted place
attachment of residents as a psychological strength that deserved
greater attention. The research site consisted of a neighborhood
located on the near west side of Salt Lake City that had been
experiencing gradual decline. The neighborhood surrounded a new
84-unit single family detached housing subdivision, which was built in
1995 with money from a HUD demonstration grant. The study began in
1993 with a systematic observational assessment of crime and
fear-related physical features on 59 blocks of the older neighborhood
surrounding the planned housing site and 8 sampled addresses on each
block, followed by interviews with surrounding block residents during
1994-1995, interviews with residents in the newly built housing in
1997, and interviews and physical condition assessments on the
surrounding blocks in 1998-1999. Police crime report and city
building permit data for the periods during and immediately following
both waves of data collection were obtained and matched to sample
addresses. Variables in Parts 1 and 2, Environmental and Survey Data
for Older Subdivision, focus on distance of respondent's home to the
subdivision, psychological proximity to the subdivision, if new
housing was in the respondent's neighborhood, nonresidential
properties on the block, physical incivilities, self-reported past
victimization, fear of crime, place attachment, collective efficacy
(neighboring, participation, social control, sense of community),
rating of neighborhood qualities, whether block neighbors had improved
property, community confidence, perceived block crime problems,
observed conditions, self-reported home repairs and improvements,
building permits, and home satisfaction. Demographic variables for
Parts 1 and 2 include income, home ownership, ethnicity, religion,
gender, age, marital status, if the resident lived in a house,
household size, number of children in the household, and length of
residence. Variables in Part 3, Environmental and Survey Data for
Intervention Site, include neighborhood qualities and convenience,
whether the respondent's children would attend a local school, and
variables similar to those in Parts 1 and 2. Demographic variables in
Part 3 specify the year the respondent moved in, number of children in
the household, race and ethnicity, marital status, religion, sex, and
income in 1996.
description: This project examined physical incivilities
 (disorder), social strengths and vulnerabilities, and police reports in
 a declining first-ring suburb of Salt Lake City. Physical and social
 conditions were assessed on residential face blocks surrounding a new
 subdivision that was built as a revitalization effort. Data were
 collected before and after the completion of the new subdivision to
 assess the effects of the subdivision and of more proximal social and
 physical conditions on residents' blocks in order to understand
 important revitalization outcomes of crime, fear, and housing
 satisfaction and conditions. The study also highlighted place attachment
 of residents as a psychological strength that deserved greater
 attention. The study sought to answer the following questions: (1) What
 did residents think of the new subdivision before it was built? (2) What
 kinds of people moved into the new 84-unit subdivision? (3) Are its
 residents likely to help larger revitalization efforts, or will they
 become an enclave, insulated from the surrounding neighborhood? (4) What
 factors predict crime reports prior to or after construction? (5) What
 factors predict fear after the construction of new houses? (6) What
 factors predict property maintenance and improvements, home
 satisfaction, and place attachment? (7) In what ways are residents'
 levels of concern over crime, views on housing revitalization,
 confidence in the neighborhood, place attachment, social cohesion, and
collective efficacy related?
description: The research site consisted of a neighborhood
 located on the near west side of Salt Lake City that had been
 experiencing gradual decline. The neighborhood surrounded a new
 84-unit single family detached housing subdivision, which was built in
 1995 with money from a HUD demonstration grant. The study began in
 1993 with a systematic observational assessment of crime and
 fear-related physical features on 59 blocks of the older neighborhood
 surrounding the planned housing site and 8 sampled addresses on each
 block, followed by interviews with surrounding block residents during
 1994-1995, interviews with residents in the newly built housing in
 1997, and interviews and physical condition assessments on the same
 surrounding blocks in 1998-1999. Police crime report and city building
 permit data were collected and matched to sample addresses. This study
 used the Revised Block Environmental Inventory (RBEI) to objectively
 measure the physical environment of the residential blocks. The
 procedure involved in-person observations by trained raters of a
 variety of residential and nonresidential physical cues associated
 with crime, fear, and indicators of residential vitality or
 decline. Most Time 1 environmental observations were made in April and
 May of 1993. For Time 2, environmental observations were made from
 August to September, 1998, after the new subdivision had been built. A
 30-minute survey was conducted at both Time 1 (1994-1995) and Time 2
 (1998-1999) using Spanish or English versions, depending upon
 respondent preference. Surveys were administered by telephone if a
 phone number was available, in-person if not. At both Time 1 and Time
 2, approximately half of the interviews were administered by telephone
 and half in-person. Respondents were not compensated at Time 1, but
 were given $25 for participating at Time 2. In addition, 16 interviews
 were completed by mail with added incentive ($50.00) for the return of
 completed questionnaires. The observational data were combined with
 the data from both survey waves into one data file. The data file for
 Part 1 is organized so that the Time 1 and Time 2 survey variables are
 on the same row for each respondent, while the data file for Part 2 is
 structured so that the data for Time 1 and Time 2 are in the same
 column. For Part 3, interviews were conducted with the residents in
 the intervention site, the new neighborhood, in 1997. Police report
 data were collected from the time of the interview to 9 months after
 the Time 1 interviews were completed, and 12 months after Time 2
 interviews were completed. A database on citywide building permits
 issued from January 1993 through September 2000 was supplied by the
 city. After excluding permits outside the defined study area, each
 permit was coded based on street address as on, near (within two
 blocks), or far from (beyond two blocks) the closest sampled block
number.
description: Variables in Parts 1 and 2, Environmental and
 Survey Data for Older Subdivision, focus on distance of respondent's
 home to the subdivision, psychological proximity to the subdivision,
 if new housing was in the respondent's neighborhood, nonresidential
 properties on the block, physical incivilities, self-reported past
 victimization, fear of crime, place attachment, collective efficacy
 (neighboring, participation, social control, sense of community),
 rating of neighborhood qualities, whether block neighbors had improved
 property, community confidence, perceived block crime problems,
 observed conditions, self-reported home repairs and improvements,
 building permits, and home satisfaction. Demographic variables for
 Parts 1 and 2 include income, home ownership, ethnicity, religion,
 gender, age, marital status, if the resident lived in a house,
 household size, number of children in the household, and length of
 residence. Variables in Part 3, Environmental and Survey Data for
 Intervention Site, include neighborhood qualities and convenience,
 whether the respondent's children would attend a local school, and
 variables similar to those in Parts 1 and 2. Demographic variables in
 Part 3 specify the year the respondent moved in, number of children in
 the household, race and ethnicity, marital status, religion, sex, and
income in 1996.
description: Response Rates: At Time 1 (1994-1995), at least five residents
 were interviewed on most blocks (one block had three interviews and
 three had four interviews), for a total of 357 interviews, representing
 a 72.71 percent response rate. At Time 2 (1998-1999), at least 7
 interviews were completed per block, yielding 617 interviews. For the
 entire Time-2 study, of 930 initial contacts for interviews, 13.65
 percent refused and 16.76 percent were unresolved (no one at home after
 eight or more contact attempts, or no English or Spanish spoken, or
 unintentional repeats at the same address). Thus, 84.2 percent of
 English or Spanish speakers contacted provided interviews, whereas 66.49
percent of all addresses contacted yielded interviews.
description: Presence of Common Scales: Several Likert-type scales were used. The neighboring
 scale (NBOR1-4) was based on Brown and Werner (1985) and Perkins et al.
 (1990), which were expansions of Ahlbrandt and Dunningham's (1984)
 scale. The perceived incivilities and crime problems scale was based
 partly on Perkins, Meeks and Taylor (1993), but with items from other
 neighborhood problems scales added. The community confidence scale was
 based on Varady (1986). The fear of crime and block safety scales, and
 worry and avoidance items were taken from Perkins and Taylor
 (1996). Place attachment items were from Brown and Werner (1985) and
 Ahlbrandt and Cunningham (1984). The victimization scale is a very brief
 version adapted from the National Crime Survey. The repairs and
upgrading scale was taken from Ginsberg (1982).
description: Parts 1 and 2: Random sampling. Part 3: Not applicable.
description: Datasets: 
DS0: Study-Level Files
DS1: Environmental and Survey Data for Older Subdivision
DS2: Environmental and Survey Data for Older Subdivision, Stacked File
DS3: Environmental and Survey Data for Intervention Site
description: Households in two adjacent neighborhoods located on the
near west side of Salt Lake City, Utah.
description: The user guide, codebook, and data collection
instruments are provided by ICPSR as Portable Document Format (PDF)
files. The PDF file format was developed by Adobe Systems Incorporated
and can be accessed using PDF reader software, such as the Adobe
Acrobat Reader. Information on how to obtain a copy of the Acrobat
Reader is provided on the ICPSR Web site.