Criminal Victimization and Perceptions of Community Safety in 12 Cities, 1998 NCJ 173940 May 1999 U.S. Department of Justice Washington, D.C. by Steven K. Smith Greg W. Steadman Todd D. Minton Bureau of Justice Statistics Med Townsend formerly of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services A joint project by the BJS and the Office of COPS Cover map: Residents in 12 cities, by degree of satisfaction with local police, 1998 Chicago, IL Kansas City, MO Knoxville, TN Los Angeles, CA Madison, WI New York, NY San Diego, CA Savannah, GA Spokane, WA Springfield, MA Tucson, AZ Washington, DC ---------------- Acknowledgments ---------------- This report was prepared by Steven K. Smith, Greg W. Steadman, and Todd D. Minton of the Bureau of Justice Statistics and Meg Townsend, formerly of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Tom Hester and Tina Dorsey edited and produced the report. Marilyn Marbrook supervised release, publication, and dissemination, assisted by Yvonne Boston. Marika Litras, Ph.D., conducted the statistical review. Also at BJS, Deputy Director Lawrence A. Greenfeld, Charles R. Kindermann, and Marshall M. DeBerry helped direct the overall project design and development of telephone data collection methodology. The authors acknowledge the numerous people who made the development and administration of the 12-city survey possible. At the U.S. Bureau of the Census, Kathleen Creighton, Marilyn Monahan, Tracy Mattingly, Denise Lewis, Elaine Hock, Stephen Phillips, David Watt, and David Hubble facilitated the development of the questionnaire, sample design, and data collection components of the study. At the COPS Office, Deborah Cohen, Ph.D. and Pam Cammarata provided assistance in the questionnaire and report production. Veh Bezdikian of the COPS Office also contributed to the text of the report and assisted with data analysis. Data presented in this report can be obtained from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data at the University of Michigan, 1-800-999-0960. An electronic version of this report and other reports are available from the BJS Internet page: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/ ---------- Foreword ---------- This publication is a report on criminal victimization and citizen perceptions in 12 cities across the United States. The findings reported are the result of a joint effort between the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to supplement the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) with questions related to community policing. This project was designed to assess the use of Random Digit Dialing (RDD) Telephone Methodology at the local level using the NCVS and community attitude questions. The results presented here are intended to serve as a basis for new studies and improved methodologies. The NCVS has been providing national statistics on criminal victimization for more than 20 years and continues to be the primary source for data on the characteristics of criminal victimizations that have occurred across the Nation. The NCVS collects information on both victimizations reported to the police and those that were not reported. In response to informational demands from the law enforcement community, BJS and the COPS Office initiated the groundbreaking effort to collect city-level information on criminal victimizations, perceptions, and satisfaction with local police. Questions on these topics were added to the NCVS and piloted in 12 cities. As the community policing philosophy continues to be adopted by law enforcement agencies across the country, agencies have become more interested in using surveys as a tool to solicit feedback and community participation, both of which are critical to community policing efforts. Surveys may be used to foster a relationship between the community and law enforcement. They can also be used to evaluate the impact of activities and programs on community perceptions and satisfaction levels, enhance service delivery by evaluating satisfaction levels, or facilitate better information exchange on community concerns. The goal of this project is to develop a survey instrument and methodology that may be used by law enforcement agencies to collect information on criminal victimizations, citizen attitudes toward the police, their willingness to report crimes to the police, and the impact of different community policing strategies and tactics on crime and neighborhood conditions. One of the most significant results of this project is the demonstration of the benefits of collecting this type of information at the local level. To assist local agencies to administer community surveys, BJS and the COPS Office have developed a desktop survey software package. The software is available to local law enforcement agencies seeking to collect victimization and community information from citizens in their jurisdictions. This Windows-based software can be ordered by contacting the BJS Clearinghouse at 1-800-732-3277 or by e-mail ASKBJS@ojp.usdoj.gov We believe this data collection effort has initiated a new opportunity to support law enforcement. We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the Bureau of the Census, police departments in the 12 participating cities, those who supplied questions or provided comments on the supplemental survey questions, and all the people who responded to the survey. Joseph E. Brann Director Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Jan M. Chaiken, Ph.D. Director Bureau of Justice Statistics ----------- Highlights ----------- ------------- Victimization -------------- For the first time in 20 years, BJS conducted city-level surveys on crime victimization. These city surveys, different from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), used Random Digit Dialing (RDD) to contact households. Unlike the NCVS, findings from these surveys do not represent national estimates. Among the 12 cities surveyed, violent crime victimization rates ranged from 60 to 85 per 1,000 residents age 12 or older. Nationally, the 1997 violent crime victimization rate in urban areas was 51 per 1,000 residents. Nationally, black residents in urban areas have experienced a higher rate of violent crime than urban whites. This was also the case in a majority of the 12 cities surveyed. In each of the cities, victims said that less than half of the violent crimes involved a weapon. In most of the cities, less than half of the violent crime were reported to the police. The percentage of violent crimes in which the offender was a stranger to the victim ranged from 42% in Tucson to 74% in Los Angeles. -------------------------------------------------------- Violent victimization and property crime rate in 12 cities, 1998 Violent victimization Property rate per 1,000 crimes per residents age 1,000 12 or older households Chicago, IL 68 433 Kansas City, MO 61 331 Knoxville, TN 70 314 Los Angeles, CA 65 347 Madison, WI 70 322 New York, NY 85 260 San Diego, CA 63 308 Savannah, GA 81 445 Spokane, WA 67 411 Springfield, MA 78 365 Tucson, AZ 82 432 Washington, DC 60 445 ----------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- Community attitudes ---------------------- Overall, about 80% or more of the residents in each of the 12 cities said they were satisfied with the quality of life in their neighborhood. The percentage of residents in each city who said they were fearful of crime in their neighborhood ranged from 20% to 48%. Ten percent or less in each city said they were "very fearful" of neighborhood crime. In 11 of the cities, a third or more of the residents said they were fearful of becoming a victim of street crime. Residents fearful of street crime most frequently cited assault with a gun and robbery as the street crimes they most feared. About a quarter to a half of the residents among the 12 cities said they were aware that a serious crime had occurred in their neighborhood in the past 12 months. In general, those aware of such crimes identified a range of crimes such as theft of personal property, burglary, auto theft, gun crimes, and the open sale or use of drugs as having occurred in their neighborhood. Citizens said they were most likely to find out about neighborhood crimes through conversations with their neighbors or from the media. Residents across the 12 cities were generally less likely to have gained their information about local crime from the police. ------------------------------ Percent of residents fearful of neighborhood crime, 1998 Chicago, IL 48% Kansas City, MO 33 Knoxville, TN 30 Los Angeles, CA 44 Madison, WI 20 New York, NY 42 San Diego, CA 30 Savannah, GA 33 Spokane, WA 32 Springfield, MA 45 Tucson, AZ 40 Washington, DC 48 Survey question: "How fearful are you about crime in your neighborhood? Are you very fearful, somewhat fearful, not very fearful, or not at all fearful?" Percents reported combine "very fearful" and "somewhat fearful." ------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------- Using sample data Since the data in this report came from a sample, a sampling error (standard error) is associated with each reported number. All differences discussed in the text are statistically significant at or above the 95%-confidence level. As displayed in figure 1, the reader is cautioned that some apparent differences between and among the cities are not statistically significant. All stated differences in the text are tested at the 95%-confidence level. Standard error tables for selected estimates are provided in Appendix II. --------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- Citizen actions to prevent neighborhood crime ---------------------------------------------- While neighborhood watch meetings were not widely attended, most respondents in each city said they relied on neighbors to watch out for each other. Residents fearful of street crime across the 12 cities most frequently said that to protect themselves they avoided certain areas, going out at night, or going out alone. About a quarter to a third of residents fearful of street crime in each of the cities said they had made an effort to get to know the police in their neighborhood. Another frequently cited security measure was the use of automatic lighting around the house. In several cities about a third of the residents kept a weapon inside the home for security. In 6 cities at least a fifth of the residents kept a weapon in their home for self defense. ---------------------------------------------- Percent of residents who kept a self-defense weapon in their home, 1998 Chicago, IL 13% Kansas City, MO 27 Knoxville, TN 39 Los Angeles, CA 20 Madison, WI 13 New York, NY 8 San Diego. CA 17 Savannah, GA 34 Spokane, WA 30 Springfield, MA 14 Tucson, AZ 31 Washington, DC 7 Question: "In the past 12 months, have you done any of these things to protect yourself from crime in the home, in a direct response to you or your family's fear of crime." See table 25 for complete list of response categories. ------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- Attitudes toward the police and community policing --------------------------------------------------- About 30% or more of the residents in each city said they had some level of contact with the police in the past 12 months. A majority of nearly 80% or more of the residents in each city were satisfied with the police in their neighborhood. In each of the 12 cities, residents fearful of neighborhood crime were less likely to be satisfied with their local police than those who were not fearful of crime in their neighborhood. Likewise, satisfaction with the local police was more widespread among those who had not experienced a violent crime than those who had. Citizen familiarity with the term community policing varied among the 12 cities. About 25% of the citizens in Savannah expressed familiarity, as did 60% or more of those in Chicago, Madison, Springfield, and Washington, D.C. At least 40% of the residents in each city thought the police practiced community policing in their neighborhood. -------------------------------------- Percent of residents who said police are doing community policing, 1998 Chicago, IL 67% Kansas City, MO 52 Knoxville, TN 42 Los Angeles, CA 50 Madison, WI 47 New York, NY 51 San Diego, CA 57 Savannah, GA 48 Spokane, WA 54 Springfield, MA 64 Tucson, AZ 46 Washington, DC 53 Question: "Community policing involves police officers working with the community to address the causes of crime in an effort to reduce problems themselves and the associated fear, through a wide range of activities. Based on this definition, do you think police in your neighborhood practice community policing?" --------------------------------------------- ------------------------- About the 12-city survey ------------------------- BJS surveyed everyone age 12 or older in a representative sample of approximately 800 households in each city. Questions about the neighborhood and community policing were asked only of residents age 16 or older. The Census Bureau used Random Digit Dialing (RDD) methodology to contact sampled households. Phone lists were developed based on zip codes and city boundary information. This method is different from the NCVS. Interviews were conducted during February, March, April, and May of 1998 from Census Bureau telephone call centers in Hagerstown, MD, and Tucson, AZ. In addition to the standard questions from the NCVS, respondents were asked new questions about their neighborhood and local police. The survey used a 12-month reference period. Violent crime findings from the city surveys can be compared to crime reported to the police as published in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). ------------------------------------------ Number of survey respondents, 1998 Persons age Total 12 or older households interviewed Chicago, IL 790 1124 Kansas City, MO 798 1162 Knoxville, TN 756 1198 Los Angeles, CA 844 1121 Madison, WI 731 1162 New York, NY 744 1059 San Diego, CA 791 1131 Savannah, GA 766 1245 Spokane, WA 801 1239 Springfield, MA 771 1231 Tucson, AZ 813 1233 Washington, DC 722 1013 Total 9327 13918 ----------------------------------------- -------------- Introduction -------------- For the first time in 20 years, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) sponsored city-level crime victimization surveys. The Census Bureau conducted the surveys. The National Institute of Justice provided funding for the city survey in Washington, DC, as part of its research support to the District of Columbia Revitalization Initiative. The 12 cities are listed below: * Chicago, Illinois * Kansas City, Missouri * Knoxville, Tennessee * Los Angeles, California * Madison, Wisconsin * New York, New York * San Diego, California * Savannah, Georgia * Spokane, Washington * Springfield, Massachusetts * Tucson, Arizona * Washington, D.C. Cities selected for the survey project had police departments that represented varying stages in the development of community policing. The project surveyed sampled house- holds residing within the selected cities' jurisdictional limits to account for the area served by the local police department. The survey did not capture victimizations experienced by those who lived outside the city limits but that may have occurred within the city. It does include victimizations reported by city residents which may have occurred outside the city limits. Respondents were asked about their experiences with crime over the past 12 months. The Nation's law enforcement community has increasingly requested city-level information regarding crime victimizations and citizen attitudes. BJS and COPS undertook this study to examine how NCVS questions could be administered at a local level using the RDD methodology. The purposes of the project were to collect baseline data on city-level violent crime, to measure fear of crime and community attitudes toward neighborhoods and police, and to test the RDD methodology. This project explored how to use telephone surveys to provide needed information to police departments, citizens, and the criminal justice research community. ------------------ Violent crime ------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Residents age 12 or older in the 12 cities reported similar rates of violent victimizations City ranked by population per 1,000 population -95% -90% -67% est 67% 90% 95% New York 59.4 4.16 8.51 13.2 13.2 8.51 4.16 Los Angeles 47.1 2.83 5.79 8.97 8.97 5.79 2.83 Chicago 50.8 2.76 5.66 8.78 8.78 5.66 2.76 San Diego 46.5 2.64 5.41 8.38 8.38 5.41 2.64 Washington, DC 43.7 2.58 5.28 8.19 8.19 5.28 2.58 Tucson 58.4 3.72 7.61 11.81 11.81 7.61 3.72 Kansas City 41.7 3.07 6.28 9.74 9.74 6.28 3.07 Madison 53.4 2.73 5.6 8.68 8.68 5.6 2.73 Spokane 46.8 3.23 6.62 10.26 10.26 6.62 3.23 Knoxville 53.0 2.69 5.51 8.54 8.54 5.51 2.69 Springfield 54.5 3.71 7.6 11.78 11.78 7.6 3.71 Savannah 55.9 4.08 8.36 12.95 12.95 8.36 4.08 Figure 1 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- The data from the surveys in each city are based on a sample of households. Therefore, the rates and numbers from each survey are estimates and are not exact. Figure 1 shows the violent victimization rate for each city: Each bar shows the range within which the true victimization rate is likely to fall for that city, and the dot represents the best estimate, the most likely value for the rate in each city. There is a greater likelihood that the true rate will fall near the best estimate, and the bars reflect that likelihood: The darker the bar segment, the greater the likelihood. Even though the best estimates of the victimization rates differ between the cities, the bars overlap, meaning that it is possible that the actual numbers are the same. Therefore the differences in the rates between cities may be too small to be statistically significant. For example, the 68% probability ranges for violent crime rates in Washington, D.C., and Tucson do not overlap, indicating that the rates are statistically different for these cities at a 68% confidence level. However, at the more likely levels of 90% or 95% of probability the rates in these two cities are not statistically different; the ranges do overlap. Likewise, at the 95% level none of the cities surveyed had a violent crime rate significantly different from any of the other cities. For additional information about estimates from victimization sample surveys, see Displaying Violent Crime Trends Using Estimates from the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ 167881). ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------- City-wide crime rates ---------------------- Violent crime The violent crime rate per 1,000 persons age 12 or older ranged from 60 to 85 across the 12 surveyed cities. In general the patterns and characteristics of violent crime found in the 12 cities did not differ greatly from those found among all urban areas surveyed in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)* (Source: BJS, Criminal Victimization 1997, NCJ 173385, December 1998.) The 1997 violent crime rate for all urban areas across the Nation as measured by NCVS was 51 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. Overall, black residents in the 12 cities experienced violent victimizations at a rate of 99 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. The violent crime rate for all white residents in the 12 cities was 61 per 1,000 (table 1). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 1. Criminal victimization in 12 cities, by race of victim, 1998 Total Violent crime (a) rates Property crime (b) rates population per 1,000 persons per 1,000 households age 12 or older All (c) White Black All (c) White Black Total 14167416 75 61 99 326 311 387 Chicago, IL 2237203 68 66 50 433 394 478 Kansas City, MO 366351 61 58 58 331 293 465 Knoxville, TN 138066 70 70 -- 314 316 295 Los Angeles, CA 2954058 65 62 114 347 308 503 Madison, WI 164987 70 75 -- 322 327 395 New York, NY 6116941 85 55 123 260 255 311 San Diego, CA 982314 63 64 -- 308 300 416 Savannah, GA 112349 81 75 91 445 437 440 Spokane, WA 156428 67 60 -- 411 398 953 Springfield, MA 122501 78 69 85 365 349 468 Tucson, AZ 380067 82 78 -- 432 424 425 Washington, DC 436151 60 52 67 445 513 383 NCVS urban, 1997 51 310 -- Fewer than 10 cases reported in survey. (a) Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault (aggravated and simple). (b) Property crimes include household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft (personal larceny without contact and household larceny). (c) Includes persons or household heads who are american Indian, Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, and of unknown race. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Property crime The property crime rate per 1,000 households was 326 for all 12 cities compared to the NCVS urban property crime rate of 310 per 1,000. In the aggregate, black households in the 12 cities experienced property crime at a higher rate than white households. In total, 387 per 1,000 black households compared to 311 per 1,000 white households were victims of property crime. Among the 12 cities, the difference in property crime victimization rates between white and black households varied. In Los Angeles black households had a property crime victimization rate of 503 per 1,000 households, compared to 308 per 1,000 white households. In Washington, DC, whites had a property crime victimization rate of 513 per 1,000 compared to 383 per 1,000 black households. Crimes reported to the police Across all 12 cities, 35% of violent crimes and property crimes were reported to the police (table 2). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 2. Victimizations reported to the police in 12 cities, 1998 Violent crimes (a) Property crimes (b) Total Percent Percent population Number (c) reported Number reported age 12 or older( in 1000s) to police (in 1000s) to police Total 14167416 1056 35% 2369 34% Chicago, IL 2237203 152 38 489 38 Kansas City, MO 366351 22 44 66 45 Knoxville, TN 138066 10 41 23 43 Los Angeles, CA 2954058 191 34 523 33 Madison, WI 164987 12 36 28 37 New York, NY 6116941 521 32 815 29 San Diego, CA 982314 62 36 151 28 Savannah, GA 112349 9 40 24 47 Spokane, WA 156428 10 31 33 38 Springfield, MA 122501 10 58 21 41 Tucson, AZ 380067 31 42 86 44 Washington, DC 436151 26 50 109 41 (a) Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault (aggravated and simple). (b) Property crimes include household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft (personal larceny without contact and household larceny). (c) Does not include cases where reporting to police was unknown. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Within most cities the percentage of crimes reported to police did not differ significantly between violent crime and property crime. Similarly across the Nation about a third of the crimes measured by the NCVS were reported to law enforcement authorities, according to the victims. Gender of victim In general, the rate of violent crime for men age 12 or older was higher than the rate for women. Overall in the cities surveyed, about 93 per 1,000 men and 59 per 1,000 women were victims of violent crime (table 3). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 3. Violent victimization rates in 12 cities, by gender of victim, 1998 Estimated Total number of Rate of violent victimizations population violent per 1,000 persons age 12 or older age 12 or older victimizations Total Male Female Total 14167413 1056327 75 93 59 Chicago, IL 2237202 152136 68 97 43 Kansas City, MO 366352 22263 61 74 50 Knoxville, TN 138065 9634 70 88 53 Los Angeles, CA 2954058 191189 65 89 39 Madison, WI 164988 11615 70 75 66 New York, NY 6116940 521469 85 100 75 San Diego, CA 982313 61844 63 69 57 Savannah, GA 112349 9130 81 94 70 Spokane, WA 156428 10470 67 71 63 Springfield, MA 122500 9502 78 69 84 Tucson, AZ 380067 30992 82 101 63 Washington, DC 436151 26083 60 83 39 Note: Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault (aggravated and simple). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Men were victims of violent crime at over twice the rate of women in Chicago, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. -------------------------------------------------------- Using sample data Since the data in this report came from a sample, a sampling error (standard error) is associated with each reported number. All differences discussed in the text are statistically significant at or above the 95%-confidence level. As displayed in figure 1, the reader is cautioned that some apparent differences between and among the cities are not statistically significant. All stated differences in the text are tested at the 95%-confidence level. Standard error tables for selected estimates are provided in Appendix II. -------------------------------------------------------- Age of victim Although persons ages 12-19 in the 12 cities were 12% of the population surveyed, they were victims of 26% of the violent crime (not shown in a table). The oldest group, age 50 or older, made up 29% of the population but suffered 9% of the violent victimizations. The remaining age groups, 20-34 and 35-49, both experienced violent crimes at levels consistent with their proportion of the population. Victimization experiences among the different age groups in each of the 12 cities were similar to that found by NCVS among the different age groups across the Nation. Weapon use The 12-city survey questionnaire asked the victims of violent crime for information about any weapons used during the incident. Violent crime victims in the 12 cities said the offender had a weapon in at least 20% of the incidents -- ranging to 46% in Savannah (table 4). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 4. Percent of violent victimizations in which a weapon was used in 12 cities, 1998 Estimated number of violent Percent of violent victimizations victimizations in which the offender-- of residents Did not have age 12 or older Had a weapon a weapon Total 937454* 36% 64% Chicago, IL 139338 22 78 Kansas City, MO 20018 20 80 Knoxville, TN 8484 41 59 Los Angeles, CA 166106 38 62 Madison, WI 10871 32 68 New York, NY 462166 41 59 San Diego, CA 52903 26 74 Savannah, GA 8443 46 54 Spokane, WA 8965 26 74 Springfield, MA 8508 34 66 Tucson, AZ 26673 27 73 Washington, DC 24979 36 64 Note: "Weapon" refers to a gun or knife, or something used as a weapon, such as a bottle or wrench. Violent victimizations include rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault (aggravated and simple). *Total number does not include victimizations in which the victim could not determine whether a weapon was present. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Victim-offender relationship Victims of violent crime were asked to describe any prior relationship they may have had with the offender such as being a family member, spouse, intimate, nonrelative, or stranger. Among the total population in the 12 cities surveyed, victims of violent crime were more likely to have been victimized by a stranger than by a nonstranger. The percentage of violent victimizations in which the offender was a stranger ranged from 42% in Tucson to 74% in Los Angeles (table 5). ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 5. Violent victimizations committed by strangers and nonstrangers in 12 cities, 1998 Estimated number Percent of violent of violent victimizations victimizations Involving of residents Involving non- age 12 or older strangers strangers Total 989986 64% 36% Chicago, IL 143587 67 33 Kansas City, MO 20644 47 53 Knoxville, TN 9361 50 50 Los Angeles, CA 181,892 74 26 Madison, WI 10985 62 38 New York, NY 483006 62 38 San Diego, CA 60260 63 37 Savannah, GA 8656 58 42 Spokane, WA 9607 54 46 Springfield, MA 9179 53 47 Tucson, AZ 28492 42 58 Washington, DC 24317 67 33 Note: Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault (aggravated and simple). Table does not include victimizations in which the victim could not determine the number of offenders or whether the offender(s) was a stranger or known by the victim. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In the smaller cities (populations below 200,000) the percentage of violent victimizations committed by a stranger was below the aggregate level for all 12 cities. Black victims of violent crimes reported similar percentages of incidents involving strangers and known offenders. Overall, white victims were more often victimized by a stranger (table 6). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 6. Violent victimizations committed by strangers or nonstrangers in 12 cities, by race of victim, 1998 White victims age 12 or older Black victims age 12 or older Estimated Estimated number of Involving number of Involving violent Involving non- violent Involving non- victimizations strangers strangers victimizations strangers strangers Total 493494 68% 32% 329319 48% 52% Chicago, IL 78731 63 37 36347 52 48 Kansas City, MO 14244 57 43 -- -- -- Knoxville, TN 8607 51 49 -- -- -- Los Angeles, CA 111358 77 23 49254 64 36 Madison, WI 11022 62 38 -- -- -- New York, NY 170099 73 27 209224 43 57 San Diego, CA 47524 63 37 -- -- -- Savannah, GA 4746 55 45 4118 61 39 Spokane, WA 8570 54 46 -- -- -- Springfield, MA 5880 64 36 2191 31 69 Tucson, AZ 23612 40 60 -- -- -- Washington, DC 9101 82 18 14371 58 42 Note: Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault (aggravated and simple). Table does not include victimizations in which the victim could not determine the number of offenders or whether the offender(s) was/were stranger(s) or known by the victim. Zero indicates no cases in the sample. -- Fewer than 10 cases reported in survey. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Race of offender Annual findings from the NCVS have indicated that most violent crimes across the Nation involve victims and offenders of the same race. This pattern was also the case in nearly all the 12 cities where data permitted analysis. Black victims of violent crime committed by a single offender, most often identified the offender as also being black. Across all 12 cities 84% of single-offender incidents committed against a black victim were committed by a black offender (table 7). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 7. Single-offender violent victimization, by perceived race of offender in 12 cities, 1998 Estimated number of single-offender White victims age 12 or older Black victims age 12 or older violent White Black Other White Black Other victimizations offender offender offender Unknown offender offender offender Unknown Total 727826 59% 22% 15% 3% 6% 84% 7% 3% Chicago, IL 115355 41 31 22 6 5 70 17 7 Kansas City, MO 16533 69 23 5 3 -- -- -- -- Knoxville, TN 8568 70 25 3 2 -- -- -- -- Los Angeles, CA 134988 67 13 21 0 8 78 14 0 Madison, WI 9394 77 15 6 2 -- -- -- -- New York, NY 339065 63 26 9 2 4 90 3 3 San Diego, CA 43802 55 20 13 11 -- -- -- -- Savannah, GA 6343 50 47 3 0 7 88 5 0 Spokane, WA 6818 78 3 17 2 -- -- -- -- Springfield, MA 5692 50 33 15 2 21 65 11 4 Tucson, AZ 20702 68 4 28 0 -- -- -- -- Washington, DC 20566 38 47 12 3 0 85 4 11 Note: Violent crimes include rape/sexual assault, robbery, and assault (aggravated and simple). Zero indicates no cases in the sample. Table does not include victimizations in which the victim could not determine the number of offenders or whether the offender(s) was/were stranger(s) or known by the victim. -- Fewer than 10 cases reported in survey. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Overall, white victims of violent crime committed by a single offender most frequently identified whites as their offenders. In most of the cities, white victims reported at least half of the single-offender violent crime incidents were committed by whites. -------------------------------------------------------- Measuring local violent crime Citizen surveys provide a useful tool to collect crime victimization data. The 12-city survey was designed to obtain total violent crime estimates. The survey used the current National Criminal Victimization Survey (NCVS) questionnaire with a series of supplemental questions measuring the residents' attitudes toward crime, their neighborhood, and local police activities. Another source of crime data is the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) based on crimes that are known to the police. Each year through the UCR program, the FBI presents crime statistics for the Nation as a whole as well as for cities. These data are compiled from monthly law enforcement reports or individual crime incident records. The 12-city local victimization survey collected data for all victimizations, whether reported to the police or not. The UCR data are only incidents reported to the police. NCVS data are collected only from residents age 12 or older; UCR data are for victims of all ages. To compare the UCR and NCVS data, only the NCVS incidents that the respondents said were reported to the police were used. To adequately compare NCVS findings with the UCR, common crime definitions have to be used as well. Violent crime data from the NCVS comparable to UCR crimes include rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Because of differences in methodological procedures, the NCVS and UCR data are not strictly comparable, but the table does show generally similar results. Overall, the violent crime rate for robbery and aggravated assault reported in the 12-city survey is similar to that found in the UCR. There were some differences in the two reported crime rates for each city. The UCR violent crime rate was higher than the city-level survey rate in Chicago and Springfield, while in Savannah and Madison the UCR rate was lower. Violent crime measures in the 12 cities, 1997-98 Rapes, robberies, and Total robberies, rapes, aggravated assaults and aggravated reported to the police assaults reported Crimes reported to the police per 1,000 persons/a to the police Robbery/a Aggravated assault City-level City-level City-level City-level survey 1997 UCR survey 1997 UCR survey 1997 UCR survey 1997 UCR All 12 cities 14 15 200128 253031 75893 104146 122444 143574 Tucson, AZ 13 10 5125 5066 1518 1446 3607 3329 Los Angeles, CA 12 16 36731 55962 16464 20506 20267 34043 San Diego, CA 10 8 10092 9722 4237 2604 4635 6734 Savannah, GA 19 8 2100 1146 521 620 1539 465 Chicago, IL /b,c 10 22 21325 61808 13112 25289 8213 36519 Kansas City, MO 13 19 4779 8469 1559 2711 2931 5341 Springfield, MA/d 24 31 2962 4637 1137 473 1583 4078 New York, NY 17 13 105050 92093 30808 44707 74242 45229 Knoxville, TN 16 8 2156 1486 1125 545 1031 844 Spokane, WA 7 7 1048 1383 393 406 655 871 Madison, WI 13 4 2199 854 522 340 1677 433 Washington, DC 15 20 6561 10405 4497 4499 2064 5688 Note: Violent crimes include rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults which were reported to the police NCVS urban violent crime rate for 1997 was 51 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. a/UCR robbery includes commercial robberies. In 1997 approximately 75% of robberies known to the police were residential robberies. b/Complete data were not available for the State of Illinois; therefore it was necessary that their crime counts be estimated. c/Forcible rape figures furnished by the State-level UCR program administered by the Illinois Department of State Police were not in accordance with national UCR guidelines. Therefore, the figures were excluded from the forcible rape category. d/Due to reporting changes or annexations, UCR figures are not comparable to previous years. Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States 1997. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------- Homicide rates for 12 cities, 1985-97 Nationally, the homicide rate rose in the late 1980's and early 1990's to a peak of 9.8 per 100,000 persons in 1991. By 1997 the rate had declined to 6.8 per 100,000 persons. During the 1990's 10 of the 12 cities experienced a decrease in the murder rates per 100,000 persons. Graph: Homicide victimization rates for cities over 100,000 population, 1976-97 City size One Million 500K - 250K - 100K - and over 999K 499K 249K 1976 20.9 19.5 16.5 11.3 1977 24.1 18.1 16.4 11.6 1978 25.4 19.4 16.7 11.0 1979 28.8 21.7 18.6 12.0 1980 30.9 21.3 22.1 13.0 1981 28.2 22.2 22.0 14.3 1982 26.5 19.4 19.1 12.8 1983 27.0 17.2 16.3 10.7 1984 25.5 18.5 16.1 11.7 1985 24.8 17.9 17.2 11.4 1986 24.1 18.4 19.8 12.7 1987 22.9 20.1 16.3 11.7 1988 28.2 20.3 17.7 12.7 1989 28.8 23.8 18.3 13.2 1990 31.9 24.6 21.7 14.1 1991 35.5 24.1 22.4 14.9 1992 31.1 22.9 20.1 13.2 1993 29.9 22.5 25.1 14.6 1994 26.3 19.7 24.0 15.0 1995 22.5 21.1 24.4 13.2 1996 21.6 15.7 21.1 11.9 1997 20.3 19.0 20.4 12.6 Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-97. See the methodology section in Additional Information About the Data for weighting and imputation procedures used. Murder rate per 100,000 Percent change Percent change in rate in rate 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1985-1997 1990-1997 Chicago 22.2 24.8 22.9 22.0 24.8 30.6 32.9 33.1 30.3 33.1 30.0 28.6 27.4 23.4% -10.5% Kansas City 20.5 25.9 29.5 29.9 31.8 27.8 30.8 34.0 35.1 32.3 24.0 23.2 22.1 7.8 -20.5 Knoxville 9.1 16.4 11.4 12.0 15.0 15.1 20.9 20.6 8.2 13.9 11.0 13.2 10.8 18.7 -28.5 Los Angeles 24.4 25.6 24.3 21.6 25.5 28.2 28.9 30.3 30.5 23.8 24.5 20.3 16.3 -33.2 -42.2 Madison 2.3 1.8 3.4 3.4 3.9 1.6 1.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 2.5 0.5 1.5 -34.8 -6.3 New York 19.3 22.0 23.0 25.8 25.8 30.7 29.3 27.1 26.5 21.3 16.1 13.4 10.5 -45.6 -65.8 San Diego 9.7 10.1 9.2 13.4 11.0 12.2 14.7 12.7 11.5 9.7 7.9 6.8 5.7 -41.2 -53.3 Savannah 26.3 19.1 16.0 12.6 13.5 24.0 42.0 16.0 23.3 20.0 18.8 15.0 18.1 -31.2 -24.6 Spokane 5.1 5.6 9.1 5.7 5.1 4.5 3.8 6.4 6.8 3.6 11.7 7.5 5.4 5.9 20.0 Springfield 11.9 4.0 5.3 6.7 4.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 13.0 10.3 12.7 8.0 6.0 -49.6 -27.7 Tucson 8.4 10.3 6.1 8.1 -- 7.4 5.8 9.9 10.3 8.4 14.4 9.7 10.3 22.6 39.2 Washington, DC 23.5 31.0 36.2 59.5 71.9 77.8 80.6 75.2 78.5 70.0 65.0 73.1 56.9 142.1 -26.9 -- Did not report Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States 1985-97. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- Community perceptions ---------------------- Graph: Percent of residents who said they were fearful of crime in their city or neighborhood, or of being a victim of street crime, 1998 Fear of being Fear of crime A victim of Fear of crime In city Street crime In neighborhood Los Angeles, CA 0.797 0.592 0.438 Springfield, MA 0.767 0.46 0.452 Washington, DC 0.738 0.511 0.477 Chicago, IL 0.735 0.527 0.477 Kansas City, MO 0.728 0.413 0.326 Savannah, GA 0.726 0.426 0.325 Percent for all sites 0.708 0.523 0.416 Tucson, AZ 0.703 0.403 0.401 New York, NY 0.683 0.541 0.418 Knoxville, TN 0.624 0.352 0.3 Spokane, WA 0.62 0.307 0.323 San Diego, CA 0.576 0.417 0.295 Madison, WI 0.36 0.247 0.199 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Population age 16 or older in 12 cities, by race, 1998 The survey questions on community attitudes were asked only of those residents age 16 or older. City populations differed in size and racial composition. The number of residents age 16 or older varied from about 100,000 to more than 5 million. The proportion of the black population in the 12 cities ranged from 2% in Spokane to 53% in Washington, D.C: Percent of total population age 16 or older Total White Black Other* Total 13252672 61% 23% 16% Chicago, IL 2085056 57 32 11 Kansas City, MO 349260 74 21 5 Knoxville, TN 130144 90 8 2 Los Angeles, CA 2810891 63 14 22 Madison, WI 157983 91 4 6 New York, NY 5661180 55 28 17 San Diego, CA 925803 76 6 18 Savannah, GA 104495 58 39 3 Spokane, WA 145476 93 2 5 Springfield, MA 110791 71 21 8 Tucson, AZ 359000 83 4 13 Washington, DC 412593 41 53 6 *Includes Asian, Pacific Islander and American Indian, Aleut, and Eskimo. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------- Community attitudes ---------------------------- The neighborhood About 80% or more of the residents in each of the 12 cities said they were satisfied with the quality of life in their neighborhood. Few residents, 6% or less in any of the 12 cities, were "very dissatisfied" with their neighborhood (table 8). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 8. Residents in 12 cities, by degree of satisfaction with the quality of of life in their neighborhood, 1998 Estimated Percent of residents age 16 or older number of Satisfied Dissatisfied residents age Very Dis- Very 16 or older Total Satisfied Satisfied Total satisfied Dissatisfied Total 12577831 83% 26% 57% 17% 13% 4% Chicago, IL 1983510 81 22 59 19 14 5 Kansas City, MO 343658 90 36 55 10 7 3 Knoxville, TN 122785 93 44 49 8 6 1 Los Angeles, CA 2730287 82 27 55 18 14 3 Madison, WI 152422 96 55 41 4 3 1 New York, NY 5242943 81 21 60 19 13 6 San Diego, CA 911275 94 45 49 6 5 2 Savannah, GA 98293 88 29 59 12 10 2 Spokane, WA 142410 91 37 54 9 7 1 Springfield, MA 104039 80 20 59 20 14 6 Tucson, AZ 352640 89 31 58 11 8 2 Washington, DC 393569 79 26 53 21 17 4 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Question: "How satisfied are you with the quality of life in your neighborhood? Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Less than half the residents in each of the cities were fearful of crime in their neighborhood (table 9). Fewer than 1 in 10 in each of the cities said they were "very fearful." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 9. Residents in 12 cities, by degree of fear of neighborhood crime, 1998 Estimated Percent of residents age 16 or older number of Fearful Not fearful residents age Very Somewhat Not Very Not at all 16 or older Total Fearful Fearful Total Fearful Fearful Total 12597016 42% 7% 35% 58% 37% 22% Chicago, IL 1985495 48 9 39 52 34 18 Kansas City, MO 343285 33 4 28 67 43 25 Knoxville, TN 122814 30 3 27 70 41 29 Los Angeles, CA 2761158 44 8 36 56 36 20 Madison, WI 152269 20 1 19 80 46 34 New York, NY 5236728 42 7 35 58 36 22 San Diego, CA 907779 30 3 27 71 44 27 Savannah, GA 97239 33 5 28 68 39 29 Spokane, WA 142194 32 3 30 68 39 28 Springfield, MA 105135 45 9 36 55 34 20 Tucson, AZ 353347 40 5 35 60 37 23 Washington, DC 389573 48 7 40 52 34 18 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Question: "How fearful are you about crime in your neighborhood? Are you very fearful, somewhat fearful, not very fearful, or not at all fearful?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Residents who said they were very or somewhat fearful of crime in their neighborhood were asked if their level of fear had changed at all over the past 12 months (table 10). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 10. Residents in 12 cities who expressed fear of neighborhood crime, by whether their level of fear had changed, 1998 Estimated In the previous 12 months Number of fear of crime in neighborhood- Residents age Total Stayed the 16 or older Percent Increased Decreased Same Total 5210677 100 19% 8% 73% Chicago, IL 941366 100 25 8 68 Kansas City, MO 110958 100 25 6 69 Knoxville, TN 36783 100 34 4 61 Los Angeles, CA 1202378 100 18 6 76 Madison, WI 30125 100 24 8 68 New York, NY 2173941 100 15 10 75 San Diego, CA 266251 100 19 9 72 Savannah, GA 31219 100 23 6 71 Spokane, WA 45586 100 31 7 62 Springfield, MA 47128 100 41 3 57 Tucson, AZ 140334 100 26 7 67 Washington, DC 184608 100 15 10 75 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Asked only of those who indicated they were "somewhat fearful" or "very fearful" of crime in their neighborhood. Question: "Over the past 12 months, have your fears increased, decreased, or stayed the same?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The majority of residents who were fearful of crime said their fear of neighborhood crime had not changed over the past 12 months. Each of the 12 cities generally had few residents (10% or less) who thought their fear of crime had decreased over the past year. Neighborhood crime Between a quarter and a half of the residents in the 12 cities indicated that a serious crime had occurred in their neighborhood over the past 12 months. About 10% in each city said they were not aware of the crime situation in their neighborhood. In Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC, over 40% said they were aware of a serious crime that had taken place in their neighborhood (table 11). ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 11. Residents in 12 cities who said serious crime had occurred in their neighborhood, 1998 Estimated number of Percent of residents residents age Reporting Not reporting Not aware 16 or older serious crime serious crime of crime Total 11918619 39% 50% 11% Chicago, IL 1909191 43 46 11 Kansas City, MO 329112 32 57 11 Knoxville, TN 118901 28 62 10 Los Angeles, CA 2581393 33 53 13 Madison, WI 149970 29 64 7 New York, NY 4909999 43 47 10 San Diego, CA 872268 32 57 11 Savannah, GA 95515 27 64 9 Spokane, WA 139095 32 57 12 Springfield, MA 101425 36 56 8 Tucson, AZ 342385 31 55 14 Washington, DC 369365 50 44 7 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Question: "To the best of your knowledge, have any serious crimes occurred in your neighborhood in the past 12 months?" ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Residents who said they were aware of serious crimes in their neighborhood were asked to identify the types of serious crimes which had occurred in their neighborhood over the past 12 months. Overall, the same proportion of all residents (about 20%) identified theft of personal property, burglary, auto theft, violent attacks, and gun crimes as the types of crimes which had occurred in their neighborhood (table 12). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 12. Types of crime which residents said occurred in their neighborhood, 1998 Estimated Percent of all residents who identified a type of serious crime which Number of had occurred in their neighborhood residents age Open drug Open drug Auto Theft/ Violent Sexual 16 or older sales use theft property Burglary attacks Gun crime assault Murder Total 12844374 16% 14% 19% 21% 20% 19% 19% 9% 15% Chicago, IL 2025146 19 15 21 26 25 24 26 11 21 Kansas City, MO 339739 9 8 13 20 20 11 11 4 7 Knoxville, TN 128081 7 6 8 16 17 7 7 5 5 Los Angeles, CA 2725774 13 10 17 17 18 14 17 5 11 Madison, WI 155411 7 7 4 14 13 12 11 7 5 New York, NY 5462528 18 17 20 21 21 22 19 12 16 San Diego, CA 910853 10 10 16 17 16 13 12 5 8 Savannah, GA 103766 9 7 10 15 15 9 10 3 9 Spokane, WA 141797 10 8 8 19 18 11 10 4 8 Springfield, MA 108368 17 14 17 18 17 17 14 10 19 Tucson, AZ 349234 10 7 11 19 18 11 13 3 7 Washington, DC 393677 22 17 26 32 27 24 27 12 19 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Estimated number of respondents age 16 or older represents the largest category. The total number of respondents varies by each response category. Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses. Asked only of those residents who said they knew of serious crimes which had occurred in their neighborhood in the past 12 months. Question: "Which of the following types of serious crimes do you know to have occurred in your neighborhood in the past 12 months -- people openly selling drugs, people openly using drugs, auto theft, theft of personal property, breaking and entering to steal personal property, violent physical attacks, crimes committed with guns sexual assault/rape, murder." ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ About a fifth of all the residents in Chicago, Springfield, and Washington, D.C. said they were aware of a murder in their neighborhood. One of the serious crimes which people said they were least aware of was sexual assault. Residents in the 12 cities who said they were aware of serious crimes in their neighborhood were asked how they found out about these crimes. In most of the cities residents primarily received information about serious neighborhood crime either from attending a community meeting or from the media. Few residents said they became aware of serious crime from the police (table 13). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 13. Sources of information for residents in 12 cities on serious crimes that had occurred in their neighborhood, 1998 Percent of all residents who identified sources of information on serious neighborhood crime Estimated Resident number of was victim Wit- Neighbor- residents age or knew nessed hood Other 16 or older victim crime meeting Police Media ways Total 13252673 5% 7% 20% 4% 16% 5% Chicago, IL 2085055 6 7 23 4 19 5 Kansas City, MO 349260 4 4 20 4 11 4 Knoxville, TN 130143 6 3 17 2 10 2 Los Angeles, CA 2810892 4 6 17 5 10 5 Madison, WI 157985 3 3 14 2 19 3 New York, NY 5661180 5 7 22 4 17 5 San Diego, CA 925803 4 5 16 3 13 5 Savannah, GA 104494 5 5 15 2 9 2 Spokane, WA 145476 5 4 17 3 13 4 Springfield, MA 110792 4 5 18 2 22 4 Tucson, AZ 359001 5 5 17 3 10 5 Washington, DC 412592 6 8 29 7 23 6 Note: Estimated number of respondents age 16 or older represents largest category. Other ways" include "received information through a public kiosk/terminal or by visiting a police substation." Residents could provide more than one source of information. Asked only of those residents who said they knew the type of serious crimes which had occurred in their neighborhood in the past 12 months. Question: "How did you find out about these crimes?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Among all residents in each city, about two-thirds or more said they were well-informed about crimes which occurred in their neighborhood (table 14). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 14. Residents in 12 cities, by whether they considered themselves well informed about crime in their neighborhood, 1998 Residents age 16 or older Percent Estimated well-informed number about crime Total 11921692 65% Chicago, IL 1898138 63 Kansas City, MO 327390 73 Knoxville, TN 117730 80 Los Angeles, CA 2602552 65 Madison, WI 144760 76 New York, NY 4943781 62 San Diego, CA 845649 70 Savannah, GA 93999 79 Spokane, WA 134994 76 Springfield, MA 101724 75 Tucson, AZ 338095 70 Washington, DC 372880 69 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Question: "Overall, do you think you are well-informed of crime which occurs in your neighborhood?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neighborhood conditions The 12-city survey asked residents about a series of conditions and activities which may have existed in their neighborhood. Residents said a variety of conditions existed in their neighborhood (table 15). These conditions included abandoned buildings and cars, poor lighting, trash, and empty lots. At least a fifth of the residents in each city mentioned "poor lighting" as a condition which existed in their neighborhood. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 15. Residents in 12 cities who identified conditions which existed in their neighborhood, Estimated Percent of all residents age 16 or older who identified number of Abandoned residents age cars/ Rundown Poor Overgrown 16 or older Building Buildings Lighting Shrubs/Tree Trash Empty Lots Total 12696240 22% 21% 27% 18% 23% 19% Chicago, IL 2008041 28 28 23 18 26 25 Kansas City, MO 344544 17 19 29 19 18 19 Knoxville, TN 123236 12 14 24 23 13 21 Los Angeles, CA 2763084 20 18 29 23 16 19 Madison, WI 151562 9 10 27 19 14 10 New York, NY 5305779 23 21 25 14 30 18 San Diego, CA 906290 11 11 27 20 11 14 Savannah, GA 98425 16 17 22 19 15 18 Spokane, WA 142270 18 17 28 22 15 21 Springfield, MA 104572 26 28 27 21 22 19 Tucson, AZ 354785 18 19 50 26 17 27 Washington, DC 393652 34 30 29 23 30 18 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Estimated number age 16 or older represents largest category. The total number of respondents varies by each respondents varies by each response category. Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses. Question: "Do any of the following conditions or activities exist in your neighborhood -- abandoned and/or buildings, rundown/neglected buildings, poor lighting, overgrown shrubs/trees, trash, empty lots?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Neighborhood activities Residents were also asked about various activities which may have been present in their neighborhood. Residents frequently said panhandling, vandalism, loitering and public drinking/drug use existed in their neighborhood (table 16). In three cities about half said there was loitering in their neighborhood. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 16. Residents in 12 cities who identified activities which existed in their neighborhood, 1998 Percent of all residents age 16 or older who identified- Estimated Transients/ number of Public Pan- homeless residents age drinking or Public Vandalism handling/ sleeping 16 or older drug use Drug sales or graffiti Prostitution begging Loitering Truancy on street Total 12696240 29% 24% 40% 10% 35% 43% 28% 29% Chicago, IL 2008041 35 30 47 14 41 50 29 26 Kansas City, MO 344544 18 14 18 5 9 20 19 5 Knoxville, TN 123236 11 9 17 4 8 13 14 7 Los Angeles, CA 2763084 24 20 42 12 39 36 24 35 Madison, WI 151562 19 10 25 2 11 24 20 8 New York, NY 5305779 33 28 42 10 36 52 33 31 San Diego, CA 906290 19 13 33 7 28 31 21 27 Savannah, GA 98425 19 16 15 5 13 24 19 9 Spokane, WA 142270 18 12 29 4 9 16 19 6 Springfield, MA 104572 25 22 27 7 13 31 29 7 Tucson, AZ 354785 20 14 50 3 25 26 24 22 Washington, DC 393652 35 31 29 12 46 51 23 32 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category. The total number of respondents varies by each response category. Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses. Question: "Do any of the following conditions or activities exist in your neighborhood illegal public drinking/public drug use, public drug sales, vandalism or graffiti, prostitution, panhandling/begging, loitering/hanging out, truancy/youth skipping school, transients/homeless sleeping on benches, streets?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Residents who identified a neighborhood condition or activity were asked if any of these conditions or activities made them feel less safe in their neighborhood, and if so, which one impacted their feeling of safety the most. Not all the residents felt that the existence of these specific conditions or activities affected their perception of public safety. For example, between 17% and 36% of all the residents in each city said the conditions or activities made them feel less safe (table 17). Across the cities, public drug use, loitering and poor lighting were among the conditions that affected residents' sense of safety (table 18). --------------------------------------------------------------- Table 17. Residents in 12 cities who said a condition/ activity made them feel less safe in their neighborhood, 1998 Residents age 16 or older Estimated Number of Percent of Residents Residents Total 13079428 30% Chicago, IL 2068756 36 Kansas City, MO 344883 20 Knoxville, TN 129673 17 Los Angeles, CA 2773663 33 Madison, WI 157241 17 New York, NY 5561217 29 San Diego, CA 922216 22 Savannah, GA 104178 20 Spokane, WA 143562 20 Springfield, MA 109860 24 Tucson, AZ 354856 30 Washington, DC 409323 35 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Asked only of those who identified a condition or activity that existed in their neighborhood. Questions: "Do any of the conditions you just mentioned make you feel less safe in your neighborhood?" -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 18. Residents in 12 cities who identified activities or conditions that made them feel less safe, by which most affected their feeling of safety, 1998 Estimated Percent of residents who identified a condition or an activity which most affected their safety number of Open residents age Poor drinking and Open 16 or older lighting drug use drug sales Vandalism Loitering Other* Total 3594640 8% 15% 17% 8% 21% 33% Chicago, IL 678739 5 13 22 11 24 24 Kansas City, MO 62586 28 14 14 11 13 20 Knoxville, TN 19858 23 9 16 14 12 21 Los Angeles, CA 844194 9 12 10 14 16 41 Madison, WI 25546 20 17 13 7 14 28 New York, NY 1481001 4 18 19 -- 26 30 San Diego, CA 188931 21 11 8 12 12 35 Savannah, GA 18939 13 16 18 -- 20 30 Spokane, WA 26073 17 16 16 17 11 22 Springfield, MA 23917 13 19 23 7 21 16 Tucson, AZ 96310 22 11 9 15 11 33 Washington, DC 128546 9 15 22 -- 20 33 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from table. Asked only of those who identified a condition/activity that existed in their neighborhood and said it affected their feeling of safety. The total number of respondents varies by each response category. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. --Fewer than 10 respondents." Question: "Which one of the conditions just mentioned affects your feeling of safety the most?" *"Other" includes prostitution, panhandling, truancy, transients/homeless sleeping in public, abandoned cars, rundown buildings, overgrown trees, and trash. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Residents in Los Angeles, San Diego, and Tucson who had identified a condition frequently said transients and the homeless sleeping in public were problems that made them feel less safe (not shown in table). Few respondents in any of the 12 cities mentioned abandoned cars, trash, abandoned buildings, overgrown trees, or empty lots as most affecting their feeling of safety. --------------------------------------- Residents' attitudes toward their city --------------------------------------- Residents were asked about the conditions of their city and about their perceived risk of becoming a victim of street crime in the city. A majority of the residents in each of the 12 cities said they were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the quality of life in the city. This ranged from 56% in Los Angeles to 95% in Madison (table 19). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 19. Residents in 12 cities, by degree of satisfaction with the quality of life in their city, 1998 Estimated Percent of satisfaction with quality of life number of Satisfied Dissatisfied residents age Very Dis- Very 16 or older Total satisfied Satisfied Total satisfied dissatisfied Total 12395789 69% 12% 58% 31% 24% 7% Chicago, IL 1975488 68 13 56 32 26 6 Kansas City, MO 337584 70 11 59 30 23 7 Knoxville, TN 121924 85 28 57 15 13 2 Los Angeles, CA 2710225 56 7 50 44 33 11 Madison, WI 152124 95 46 48 6 5 1 New York, NY 5114424 72 9 63 28 22 6 San Diego, CA 900796 90 32 58 10 8 2 Savannah, GA 97114 71 13 58 29 22 7 Spokane, WA 140965 81 21 60 19 17 2 Springfield, MA 102836 57 4 53 43 35 9 Tucson, AZ 353262 78 17 61 22 17 4 Washington, DC 389047 59 8 50 41 32 10 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Question: "How satisfied are you with the quality of life in your city? Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- About a third or more of the residents in Madison (46%) and San Diego (32%) said they were "very satisfied" with the quality of life in their city. The percentage of residents expressing dissatisfaction with the quality of life in their city varied, ranging from 6% in Madison to 44% in Los Angeles. However, in many of the cities fewer residents were satisfied with the quality of life in their city as compared to the quality of life in their neighborhood. More than half of the residents in 11 cities were "somewhat fearful" or "very fearful" of crime in their city (table 20). In each of the cities a higher proportion of residents said they were fearful of crime in their city than in their respective neighborhoods. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 20. Residents in 12 cities, by degree of fear of crime in their city, 1998 Percent of residents 16 or older Estimated Fearful Not fearful Number of Very Somewhat Not very Not at all Residents Total fearful fearful Total fearful fearful Total 12440671 71% 18% 53% 29% 21% 8% Chicago, IL 1970708 74 20 54 27 19 8 Kansas City, MO 337094 73 17 56 27 22 6 Knoxville, TN 121960 62 12 51 38 28 9 Los Angeles, CA 2737851 80 24 56 20 14 7 Madison, WI 151352 36 2 34 64 51 13 New York, NY 5142188 68 17 51 32 22 10 San Diego, CA 894738 58 9 49 42 35 8 Savannah, GA 96190 73 18 55 27 19 8 Spokane, WA 141827 62 10 52 38 30 8 Springfield, MA 104175 77 23 53 23 16 7 Tucson, AZ 352353 70 15 56 30 23 7 Washington, DC 390235 74 21 53 26 18 8 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Question: "How fearful are you about crime in your city? Are you very fearful, somewhat fearful, not very fearful, or not at all fearful?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In most of the 12 cities, about three-quarters of the residents who were fearful of crime in their city said their level of fear about crime in the city had remained about the same over the past 12 months. Few, ranging from 2% to 11%, indicated that their level of fear had decreased (table 21). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 21. Residents in 12 cities who expressed fear of crime in their city, by whether their level of fear had changed, 1998 Estimated number of In the previous 12 months fear of crime in city -- residents age Total Stayed the 16 or older percent Increased Decreased same Total 8745982 100% 18% 8% 75% Chicago, IL 1441581 100 20 5 75 Kansas City, MO 244534 100 22 4 75 Knoxville, TN 75988 100 33 2 65 Los Angeles, CA 2153598 100 20 6 74 Madison, WI 54352 100 24 4 73 New York, NY 3490565 100 13 11 76 San Diego, CA 515038 100 16 6 78 Savannah, GA 68996 100 21 4 75 Spokane, WA 87685 100 42 3 56 Springfield, MA 79417 100 40 2 58 Tucson, AZ 247269 100 29 2 69 Washington, DC 286959 100 13 7 80 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Asked only of those who said they were very fearful or somewhat fearful of crime in their city. Question: "Over the last 12 months, have your fears increased, decreased, or stayed the same?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ When residents were asked if they were afraid of becoming a victim of street crime, except for Madison residents, about a third or more said they were fearful of becoming a victim of street crime (table 22). ------------------------------------------------------------- Table 22. Residents in 12 cities who said they were afraid of becoming a victim of street crime in their city, 1998 Residents age 16 or older Percent Estimated with fear of number street crime Total 12446470 52% Chicago, IL 1971332 53 Kansas City, MO 337128 41 Knoxville, TN 121693 35 Los Angeles, CA 2689497 60 Madison, WI 149992 25 New York, NY 5217814 53 San Diego, CA 885545 42 Savannah, GA 96103 43 Spokane, WA 139116 31 Springfield, MA 102943 47 Tucson, AZ 347141 41 Washington, DC 388166 51 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Question: "Are you afraid of becoming a victim of street crime in the city?" --------------------------------------------------------- Respondents who said they were afraid of becoming a victim of street crime were then asked to identify the type of street crime they feared the most. Overall, robbery and assault with a gun/deadly force were the street crimes most frequently mentioned among all the residents (table 23). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 23. Residents in 12 cities, by the type of street crime they most feared, 1998 Estimated number of Percent of all residents who identified a type of crime they most feared residents age Physical Assault Sexual 16 or older Robbery assault with gun assault Murder Total 12420723 14% 4% 16% 6% 6% Chicago, IL 1956384 16 3 14 7 7 Kansas City, MO 336979 14 4 13 4 3 Knoxville, TN 123821 11 3 10 4 2 Los Angeles, CA 2604976 14 5 23 5 8 Madison, WI 155059 9 4 4 4 -- New York, NY 5269927 14 3 14 8 6 San Diego, CA 894077 12 6 12 4 3 Savannah, GA 98451 15 3 11 3 3 Spokane, WA 140868 8 5 9 3 3 Springfield, MA 104914 12 5 10 5 8 Tucson, AZ 343746 10 4 16 4 3 Washington, DC 391521 18 2 18 3 5 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Asked only of those who said they were afraid of becoming a victim of street crime in their city. --Fewer then 10 respondents. Question: "What type of street crime are you most afraid of -- robbery, someone stealing from you, physical assault that does not involve a gun (non-domestic violence). assault with a gun, someone hurting you with a deadly weapon, sexual assault/rape, murder?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Those residents who said they were afraid of becoming a victim of street crime were asked to describe what measures they used to protect themselves against crime occurring outside the home. To avoid becoming a victim of street crime, those residents most commonly said they don't go out alone, don't go out after dark, and avoid certain routes or areas of the city. In eight cities, 20% or more of the residents fearful of street crime said they planned to move out of the neighborhood to avoid crime. Among residents afraid of street crime, between a fifth to a third made an effort to get to know the neighborhood police. In six cities, at least 20% of these residents said they carried a self-defense weapon (table 24). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 24. Residents in 12 cities fearful of street crime, by actions they took to protect themselves from crime outside their home, 1998 Percent of persons fearful of street crime who -- Estimated Avoided number of Carried a Carried a certain Avoided Avoided residents age self-defense self-defense routes going out going 16 or older warning device weapon and areas at night out alone Total 6509867 10% 14% 44% 49% 48% Chicago, IL 1039490 13 22 48 51 48 Kansas City, MO 138885 14 23 37 45 48 Knoxville, TN 42575 16 23 40 46 46 Los Angeles, CA 1622136 10 17 45 52 47 Madison, WI 37427 9 11 44 39 40 New York, NY 2784226 8 8 44 48 47 San Diego, CA 371845 11 14 33 43 48 Savannah, GA 40929 12 29 40 51 54 Spokane, WA 43489 14 23 41 46 48 Springfield, MA 47863 11 14 46 53 59 Tucson, AZ 141634 14 28 40 48 49 Washington, DC 199368 12 14 51 48 49 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category. Total number of respondents varies by each response category. Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses. Asked only of those residents who said they were afraid of becoming a victim of street crime. Question: "Here are some things people do to avoid becoming a victim of crime that takes place outside the home. In the past 12 months, have you done any of these things -- you carry a self-defense warning device such as a whistle or alarm, you carry a self-defense weapon (includes knife, gun, club, mace, stun-gun), you no longer take certain routes or go into certain areas in your neighborhood, you avoid going out at night, you avoid going out alone?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 24. (continued) Estimated Percent of residents fearful of street crime who -- number of Took a Attended Got to know Took other residents age self-defense community police in Planned to preventive 16 or older class meetings neighborhood relocate measures Total 6509867 11% 18% 26% 25% 10% Chicago, IL 1039490 9 25 34 29 9 Kansas City, MO 138885 11 19 29 25 14 Knoxville, TN 42575 9 22 31 17 12 Los Angeles, CA 1622136 14 17 24 26 8 Madison, WI 37427 13 13 22 18 14 New York, NY 2784226 9 15 24 24 10 San Diego, CA 371845 13 21 24 15 11 Savannah, GA 40929 10 23 37 23 8 Spokane, WA 43489 12 20 25 19 13 Springfield, MA 47863 10 14 34 29 9 Tucson, AZ 141634 16 21 28 25 11 Washington, DC 199368 8 26 31 20 13 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category. Total number of respondents varies by each response category. Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses. Asked only of those residents who said they were afraid of becoming a victim of street crime. Question: "Here are some things people do to avoid becoming a victim of crime that takes place outside the home. In the past 12 months, have you done any of these things you took a self-defense class, you attended community meetings in your neighborhood, you made an effort to get to know the police in your neighborhood, you planned to relocate to outside your neighborhood?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- Crime prevention measures -------------------------- All residents were asked about the types of security measures they took to protect themselves from crime in their homes as well as crime which might occur in the street. The most frequently cited security actions taken by residents in the 12 cities to protect themselves from crime in their home included adding outside or automatic lighting, arranging with neighbors to watch out for each other, and installing extra locks. About a third or more of the residents in Knoxville, Savannah, Spokane, and Tucson kept a weapon inside the home for self defense. Less frequently mentioned were installing security systems, attending neighborhood watch meetings, or asking police to conduct a home security check (table 25). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 25. Residents in 12 cities who took action to protect themselves from crime in their home, by the type of action taken, 1998 Percent of all residents who-- Estimated Requested number of Attended Watched Installed police Owned residents age watch out for security security guard 16 or older meetings other's safety system Check dog Total 12737662 11% 61% 18% 5% 15% Chicago, IL 2009342 17 65 18 6 16 Kansas City, MO 344390 13 72 18 7 19 Knoxville, TN 123672 12 72 17 5 21 Los Angeles, CA 2782894 11 66 21 5 25 Madison, WI 152702 5 51 4 2 10 New York, NY 5315324 9 54 17 4 9 San Diego, CA 910508 10 68 14 4 15 Savannah, GA 98389 16 73 19 10 24 Spokane, WA 143515 14 75 12 3 25 Springfield, MA 105571 7 67 21 8 18 Tucson, AZ 355691 15 70 15 5 29 Washington, DC 395664 15 64 15 7 6 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category. Total number of respondents varies by each response category. Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses. Question: "In the past 12 months, have you done any of these things to protect yourself from crime in the home, in a direct response to you or your family's fear of crime -- you go to neighborhood watch meetings, you and your neighbors have agreed to watch out for each other's safety, you've installed a security system for your home, you've asked the police department to do a home security check, you have guard dogs at home?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 25. (Continued) Percent of all residents who-- Estimated Kept number of Placed self-defense Added Took residents age ID numbers Installed weapons automatic other 16 or older on property extra locks in home lighting precautions Total 12737662 17% 41% 14% 33% 18% Chicago, IL 2009342 18 41 13 36 17 Kansas City, MO 344390 23 40 27 42 18 Knoxville, TN 123672 24 36 39 40 15 Los Angeles, CA 2782894 21 42 20 43 19 Madison, WI 152702 14 23 13 27 18 New York, NY 5315324 14 40 8 24 19 San Diego, CA 910508 20 44 17 39 15 Savannah, GA 98389 23 43 34 44 17 Spokane, WA 143515 30 44 30 49 19 Springfield, MA 105571 18 42 14 48 15 Tucson, AZ 355691 25 49 31 44 19 Washington, DC 395664 14 32 7 30 22 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category. Total number of respondents varies by each response category. Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses. Question: "In the past 12 months, have you done any of these things to protect yourself from crime in the home, in a direct response to you or your family's fear of crime -- you've engraved security identification numbers on all your belongings, you've installed extra locks on windows and/or doors, you keep weapons inside the home, you've added outside automatic lighting (e.g. timers)?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ Community crime prevention meetings ------------------------------------ Residents were not widely familiar with community watch meetings held in their neighborhood. About a third or less of the residents in each of the cities said they had heard about community meetings concerning crime that took place in their neighborhood (table 26). -------------------------------------------------------- Table 26. Residents in 12 cities who had heard about a meeting concerning crime in their neighborhood, 1998 Residents age 16 or older Percent who Estimated heard about number a meeting Total 12524175 24% Chicago, IL 1982067 38 Kansas City, MO 340045 20 Knoxville, TN 122509 16 Los Angeles, CA 2741853 19 Madison, WI 150836 18 New York, NY 5201213 23 San Diego, CA 900086 17 Savannah, GA 97445 15 Spokane, WA 141766 19 Springfield, MA 104421 25 Tucson, AZ 351060 18 Washington, DC 390874 33 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Question: "In the past 12 months, have you heard about any community meetings concerning crime in your neighborhood?" ------------------------------------------------------ Community meetings on crime were not widely attended. In each city, 10% or less of the residents had attended a community meeting on crime within the past year (table 27). ------------------------------------------------------ Table 27. Residents in 12 cities who attended a meeting concerning crime in their neighborhood, 1998 Residents age 16 or older Percent who Estimated attended a number a meeting Total 13251676 6% Chicago, IL 2085055 10 Kansas City, MO 349260 5 Knoxville, TN 130142 4 Los Angeles, CA 2810892 6 Madison, WI 157985 3 New York, NY 5661180 6 San Diego, CA 924886 4 Savannah, GA 104415 4 Spokane, WA 145476 5 Springfield, MA 110792 5 Tucson, AZ 359000 5 Washington, DC 412593 10 Note: Asked only of those who said they heard about community meeting on crime. Question: "In the past 12 months, have you attended any of these community meetings?" -------------------------------------------------------- Residents in the 12 cities who knew about the meeting but did not attend most frequently said they failed to attend because they did not have time or the meeting was held during work hours (table 28). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 28. Residents in 12 cities who did not attend a meeting concerning crime in their neighborhood, by reasons for not attending, 1998 Percent not attending meetings because- Estimated Meeting number of held Not residents age during No time especially Other 16 or older work hour to attend concerned reasons Total 11708877 3% 6% 2% 9% Chicago, IL 1791876 6 10 3 14 Kansas City, MO 322031 3 5 1 8 Knoxville, TN 117378 2 3 1 7 Los Angeles, CA 2590886 2 5 1 7 Madison, WI 146594 3 4 4 8 New York, NY 4866822 3 6 2 8 San Diego, CA 859908 3 4 1 6 Savannah, GA 93225 3 2 -- 6 Spokane, WA 135112 3 5 1 8 Springfield, MA 99621 5 5 -- 11 Tucson, AZ 334376 4 4 -- 6 Washington, DC 351048 5 10 2 14 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category. Total number of respondents varies by each response category. Asked only of those who said they had heard about a community meeting concerning crime in their neighborhood, but had not attended a meeting in the past 12 months. "Other reasons" include "did not know time or location," "unable to obtain transportation," "unable to obtain child care," "meeting held in unsafe part of town," "won't help crime problem," and "meeting is too far away." --Fewer than 10 respondents. Zero indicates no cases in sample. Questions: "What are your reasons for not attending any meetings?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------- Attitudes toward the local police ---------------------------------- Residents in each of the 12 cities were asked if they had been in contact with the local police for any reason over the past 12 months. About 3 in 10 residents or more in each city -- ranging from 29% in New York to 44% in Savannah and Tucson -- said they had contact of some kind with the police over the past 12 months (table 29). --------------------------------------------------- Table 29. Residents in 12 cities who had contact with local police for any reason, 1998 Residents age 16 or older Percent Estimated with police number contact Total 12738135 35% Chicago, IL 2010498 41 Kansas City, MO 345262 42 Knoxville, TN 123430 40 Los Angeles, CA 2782789 36 Madison, WI 152763 43 New York, NY 5317897 29 San Diego, CA 909065 38 Savannah, GA 98024 44 Spokane, WA 143179 41 Springfield, MA 105361 43 Tucson, AZ 355051 44 Washington, DC 394816 40 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Question: "In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with the local police for any reason?" --------------------------------------------------------- Overall, 8% of the residents had contact with the police because they reported a crime; 6% called for police service; 6% had a casual conversation with the police; and 6% said they had provided information to the police (table 30). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 30. Residents in 12 cities, by types of contact with police, 1998 Percent of all residents who- Estimated Participated Involved number of Had casual Called Provided Reported Asked for in community in traffic Worked residents age conversation police information a crime information activity with violations/ with police Other 16 or older with police for service for police to police or advice with police accidents on problem Contact* Total 13252674 6% 6% 6% 8% 2% 1% 5% 2% 10% Chicago, IL 2085054 8 7 6 12 2 2 6 2 11 Kansas City, MO 349260 10 9 7 10 2 2 7 2 10 Knoxville, TN 130143 9 6 5 10 1 2 8 2 9 Los Angeles, CA 2810892 6 7 9 8 2 1 4 2 11 Madison, WI 157985 8 7 7 10 2 2 8 3 14 New York, NY 5661180 5 3 4 7 1 -- 5 2 9 San Diego, CA 925803 8 7 8 8 2 2 7 2 9 Savannah, GA 104494 10 7 5 12 2 2 7 1 13 Spokane, WA 145477 6 7 8 12 2 2 5 3 12 Springfield, MA 110792 9 7 6 11 3 2 4 2 14 Tucson, AZ 359001 8 10 8 13 2 2 6 2 11 Washington, DC 412593 7 6 5 11 3 4 4 2 13 Note: Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category. Total number of respondents varies by each response category. Asked only of those who said they had contact with the local police in the past 12 months. --Fewer than 10 respondents. *"Other contact" includes "responded to police survey." Questions: "How would you best describe your contact with the police?" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A majority of respondents across all 12 cities said they had not noticed a change in police presence in the past 12 months (table 31). Twenty-three percent of all respondents reported an increase in police presence. In two of the largest cities, New York (26%) and Los Angeles (23%), about a quarter of the residents reported increases in police presence. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 31. Residents in 12 cities who observed a change in police presence in their neighborhood, 1998 Estimated Percent of residents who said police number of presence in their neighborhood- residents age Did not Never see 16 or older Increased Decreased change Police Total 12170240 23% 5% 68% 5% Chicago, IL 1945421 17 5 75 3 Kansas City, MO 333760 15 4 76 5 Knoxville, TN 119311 13 3 77 7 Los Angeles, CA 2651357 23 4 68 5 Madison, WI 146606 13 2 82 4 New York, NY 5039589 26 6 63 5 San Diego, CA 875953 19 3 72 5 Savannah, GA 95835 16 5 75 4 Spokane, WA 137779 13 3 75 9 Springfield, MA 101052 33 2 62 3 Tucson, AZ 345162 19 4 70 8 Washington, DC 378415 26 3 67 4 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Question: "In the past 12 months, have you observed any increases or decreases in police officer presence in your neighborhood or did the number stay the same?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Residents were asked what kind of activities they saw police doing in their neighborhood. Thirty-seven percent of respondents reported seeing police talking to residents (table 32). Recreational and school activities with children (30%) and facilitating crime watch and prevention activities (27%) were other commonly reported police activities. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 32. Residents in 12 cities who observed police activities, by type of activity, 1998 Percent of residents who said they saw police Estimated Opening number of Talking Talking with Attending Facilitating substation/ Doing residents age with Business community prevention Involving information other 16 or older residents owners meetings activities with kids centers activities Total 12030433 37% 24% 22% 27% 30% 19% 26% Chicago, IL 1934459 41 29 34 30 31 13 22 Kansas City, MO 328858 35 14 22 26 37 13 23 Knoxville, TN 113754 25 17 17 24 37 18 24 Los Angeles, CA 2612038 34 17 20 23 32 25 24 Madison, WI 146805 34 12 16 19 31 18 25 New York, NY 5007973 38 30 19 29 26 13 29 San Diego, CA 858278 36 18 19 24 34 31 25 Savannah, GA 93577 35 16 24 34 39 32 23 Spokane, WA 130001 29 9 21 28 43 58 19 Springfield, MA 101518 44 29 27 32 44 30 31 Tucson, AZ 327270 34 12 19 25 33 27 24 Washington, DC 375902 42 29 33 32 28 27 29 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category. Total number of respondents varies by each response category. Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses. Question: "In the past 12 months, what activities have you seen police doing police talking with residents in the neighborhood, police talking with business owners, police attending community meetings, police facilitating crime watch and prevention activities such as nights out, police involved with kids through recreational or school activities, police opening police substations or information centers?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Satisfaction with local police The household telephone survey asked residents age 16 or older about their level of satisfaction with the police who served their neighborhood. The vast majority of residents in each of the 12 cities were "satisfied" or "very satisfied" with the local police. The level of satisfaction with the police ranged from 97% of residents in Madison reporting being "satisfied" or "very satisfied" to 78% in Washington, D.C. (table 33). Few residents in the 12 cities, 6% or less, said they were "very dissatisfied" with the police. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 33. Residents in 12 cities, by degree of satisfaction with local police, 1998 Estimated Percent of residents number of Satisfied Dissatisfied residents age Very Very 16 or older Total satisfied Satisfied Total Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Total 11913071 85% 18% 66% 15% 12% 3% Chicago, IL 1901575 80 16 64 20 15 4 Kansas City, MO 330761 89 24 65 11 7 4 Knoxville, TN 116356 89 22 66 11 9 2 Los Angeles, CA 2557680 86 20 66 14 12 3 Madison, WI 147236 97 31 66 3 3 -- New York, NY 4973711 84 16 67 16 13 4 San Diego, CA 848531 93 25 68 7 6 1 Savannah, GA 93110 86 21 65 15 10 4 Spokane, WA 133288 87 19 68 13 11 2 Springfield, MA 102609 87 23 64 13 10 3 Tucson, AZ 336711 87 19 68 13 10 3 Washington, DC 371503 78 14 63 22 17 6 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from table. Details may not add to total because of rounding. -- Fewer than 10 respondents. Question: "In general, how satisfied are you with the police who serve your neighborhood? Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In total, white residents in the 12 cities were more likely than black residents to have said they were satisfied with the police who served their neighborhood (table 34). The proportion of black residents who said they were satisfied with the police ranged from 63% in Knoxville to 97% in Madison. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 34. Residents in 12 cities, by degree of satisfaction with local police, by race, 1998 Estimated Percent of residents number of White Black Other residents age Dis- Dis- Dis- 16 or older Satisfied satisfied Satisfied satisfied Satisfied satisfied Total 11913070 90% 10% 76% 24% 78% 22% Chicago, IL 1901575 89 11 69 31 67 33 Kansas City, MO 330762 90 10 86 14 84 16 Knoxville, TN 116355 91 9 63 37 100 0 Los Angeles, CA 2557679 89 11 82 18 80 20 Madison, WI 147236 97 3 97 3 98 2 New York, NY 4973710 89 11 77 23 77 23 San Diego, CA 848530 95 5 89 11 87 13 Savannah, GA 93110 88 12 81 19 92 8 Spokane, WA 133289 88 12 79 21 73 27 Springfield, MA 102609 90 10 76 24 82 18 Tucson, AZ 336713 88 12 91 9 76 24 Washington, DC 371502 81 19 75 25 83 17 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from table. Details may not add to total because of rounding. Zero indicates no cases in sample. *Includes Asian, Pacific Islander and American Indian, Aleut, and Eskimo. Question: "In general, how satisfied are you with the police who serve your neighborhood? Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied?" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For each of the 12 cities, residents who had been a victim of violent crime were less likely than others to say they were satisfied with the local police (table 35). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 35. Residents in 12 cities degree of satisfaction with the police, by whether they were a victim of violent crime, 1998 Estimated Percent of residents number of Victim of violent crime Not a victim of violent crime residents age Satisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Dissatisfied 16 or older with police with police with police with police Total 11913070 69% 31% 86% 14% Chicago, IL 1901576 75 25 81 19 Kansas City, MO 330761 72 28 90 10 Knoxville, TN 116356 74 26 89 11 Los Angeles, CA 2557679 74 26 86 14 Madison, WI 147236 92 8 97 3 New York, NY 4973712 61 39 85 15 San Diego, CA 848531 81 19 94 6 Savannah, GA 93110 69 31 86 14 Spokane, WA 133288 74 26 88 12 Springfield, MA 102607 69 31 88 12 Tucson, AZ 336711 70 30 88 12 Washington, DC 371503 69 31 78 22 Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Don't know responses and refusals to answers are excluded from analysis. Question: "How satisfied are you with the police are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied?" "Satisfied" includes "very satisfied" and "satisfied." "Dissatisfied" includes "dissatisfied" and "very dissatisfied." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Likewise, compared to those who were not fearful of neighborhood crime, persons who were fearful of crime in their neighborhood were somewhat less likely to be satisfied with the local police (table 36). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 36. Residents in 12 cities degree of satisfaction with police, by whether they were fearful of crime in their neighborhood, 1998 Percent of residents Fearful of Not fearful of Estimated neighborhood crime neighborhood crime number of Dis- Dis- residents age Satisfied satisfied Satisfied satisfied 16 or older with police with police with police with police Total 11762723 79% 22% 89% 11% Chicago, IL 1868212 76 24 84 16 Kansas City, MO 328837 84 16 92 8 Knoxville, TN 115284 81 19 92 8 Los Angeles, CA 2538139 81 19 89 11 Madison, WI 146901 91 9 98 2 New York, NY 4893634 77 23 88 12 San Diego, CA 845941 87 13 95 5 Savannah, GA 91982 77 23 90 10 Spokane, WA 132261 80 20 90 10 Springfield, MA 101958 80 20 92 8 Tucson, AZ 333972 79 21 92 8 Washington, DC 365602 69 31 85 15 Note: Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Don't know responses and refusals to answers are excluded from analysis. Question: "How fearful are you of crime in your neighborhood?" "Fearful" includes those who said they were "very" or "somewhat fearful." "Not fearful" includes those who said they were "not very fearful" or "not at all fearful." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- Community policing ------------------- Police crime prevention Sixty percent of respondents from all 12 cities indicated that in the past 12 months the police had worked at least "somewhat" with neighborhood residents on crime prevention and safety (table 37). The percent of residents who identified police activity regarding crime prevention in the neighborhoods varied from about 50% of the residents in Knoxville, Spokane, and Tucson to 68% in Chicago. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 37. Residents in 12 cities who evaluated the level of work police were doing to prevent crime, 1998 Estimated number of Percent of residents who said police were doing- residents age At least somewhat Not much Nothing 16 or older Total A lot Some Total very little at all Total 8112979 60% 17% 43% 40% 23% 17% Chicago, IL 1429016 68 19 49 32 20 12 Kansas City, MO 238250 60 14 46 41 19 21 Knoxville, TN 86678 50 10 40 50 26 23 Los Angeles, CA 1793979 57 15 42 43 23 19 Madison, WI 100620 60 11 50 40 24 16 New York, NY 3148976 59 20 40 41 25 16 San Diego, CA 547820 63 14 49 37 22 15 Savannah, GA 73755 58 14 44 42 20 22 Spokane, WA 100599 51 10 41 49 26 23 Springfield, MA 77419 66 19 47 35 20 15 Tucson, AZ 251564 54 10 44 46 23 23 Washington, DC 264303 64 15 50 36 21 15 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Details may not add to total because of rounding. Question: "How much are police doing with the residents of your neighborhood to prevent crime and safety problems; a lot, some, very little, or nothing at all?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The survey asked each of the residents a series of questions related to community policing and citizens' preference for police activity. Over half of all respondents said they were familiar with the term "community policing" (table 38). In Chicago, 73% of the residents were familiar with community policing. ----------------------------------------------------- Table 38. Residents in 12 cities who were familiar with the term "community policing," 1998 Percent of Estimated residents number of familiar with residents age community 16 or older policing Total 12548085 54% Chicago, IL 1992242 73 Kansas City, MO 338859 52 Knoxville, TN 121455 45 Los Angeles, CA 2737268 49 Madison, WI 150298 60 New York, NY 5232448 50 San Diego, CA 894461 57 Savannah, GA 96724 25 Spokane, WA 140358 55 Springfield, MA 103881 69 Tucson, AZ 352703 39 Washington, DC 387388 60 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from anaylsis. *When known, local terms for community policing were used in question wording. For example, in Chicago "CAPS" was used. Question: "Are you familiar with the term community policing'?" ----------------------------------------------------------------- When given a definition of "community policing," 54% of the total residents in the 12 cities said they thought police in their neighborhood practiced community policing (table 39). Across the 12 cities the percentage of residents who thought their local police practiced community policing ranged from 42% in Knoxville to 67% in Chicago. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Table 39. Residents in 12 cities who said their police practiced community policing, 1998 Estimated Percent of Number of residents who Residents said police practiced Age 16 or older community policing* Total 9176371 54% Chicago, IL 1480734 67 Kansas City, MO 271550 52 Knoxville, TN 95850 42 Los Angeles, CA 1974335 50 Madison, WI 122825 47 New York, NY 3728768 51 San Diego, CA 661900 57 Savannah, GA 76199 48 Spokane, WA 114318 54 Springfield, MA 86008 64 Tucson, AZ 268419 46 Washington, DC 295465 53 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. *Including those residents who said police practiced community policing "somewhat." Question: "Community policing involves police officers working with the community to address the causes of crime in an effort to reduce the problems and the associated fear, through a wide range of activities. Based on the definition, do you think the police in your neighborhood practice community policing?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Residents who reported community policing activities in their neighborhoods became aware of those activities in different ways. Overall, about a third of the residents said they became aware of community policing in their neighborhood because they saw the police doing community policing activities (20%) or they heard about it in the media (12%) (table 40). The remaining residents stated several other ways of learning about such activities, including talking with neighbors and children, neighborhood meetings and newsletters, advertising in the community, and police patrols. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 40. Residents in 12 cities who said their police practice community policing, by sources of information in their neighborhood, 1998 Percent of all residents who said police practiced community policing because they -- Estimated Saw in the media number of Saw police doing that police were Had residents age community policing doing community other 16 or older activities policing knowledge Total 9176371 20% 12% 27% Chicago, IL 1480734 23 16 37 Kansas City, MO 271550 20 13 22 Knoxville, TN 95850 14 12 18 Los Angeles, CA 1974335 21 13 21 Madison, WI 122825 16 15 20 New York, NY 3728768 17 9 28 San Diego, CA 661900 23 15 25 Savannah, GA 76199 18 10 21 Spokane, WA 114318 19 18 26 Springfield, MA 86008 29 17 26 Tucson, AZ 268419 18 15 19 Washington, DC 295465 25 9 25 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Asked only of those residents who said the police were practicing community policing in their neighborhood." Question: "How do you know?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Police activities of increased patrols and attending community meetings were each observed by about a third of the residents who reported seeing police practicing community policing in their neighborhoods (table 41). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 41. Residents in 12 cities who said they saw police practicing community policing, by type of activities observed, 1998 Percent of residents who said they saw police practicing community policing activities: Estimated Increased Increased Working with Conducting number of presence patrol by community Attending crime Running residents age Enforcing in high vehicle, to address community prevention youth Other 16 or older traffic laws crime area foot, or bike problems meetings workshops programs activities Total 1834531 11% 16% 33% 23% 30% 10% 19% 35% Chicago, IL 342593 9 14 35 26 31 11 15 31 Kansas City, MO 55486 11 15 29 24 29 5 23 38 Knoxville, TN 13531 16 17 40 23 28 15 20 43 Los Angeles, CA 413957 12 17 33 22 30 9 20 37 Madison, WI 19967 14 12 35 22 23 7 28 44 New York, NY 651819 9 17 33 25 33 10 19 32 San Diego, CA 153879 20 18 28 21 20 10 22 41 Savannah, GA 13636 11 13 41 18 30 7 18 35 Spokane, WA 21400 12 14 22 24 25 20 26 42 Springfield, MA 24573 7 15 60 17 23 10 26 33 Tucson, AZ 49144 13 23 30 17 23 10 20 39 Washington, DC 74546 5 14 39 20 40 7 15 42 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category. Total number of respondents varies by response category. Totals exceed 100% due to multiple responses. Asked only of those residents who said they thought the police in their neighborhood practiced community policing and said they saw them doing community policing. Other activities include, "conducted surveys." Question: "You said you saw the police doing community policing activities. Please specify what type of activities you saw the police participating in?" (open-ended question) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall about half of the residents in the 12 cities said their local police did not practice community policing. Of these respondents most in each city wished the police did practice community policing (table 42). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 42. Residents in 12 cities who said police did not practice community policing but wished that the police did, 1998 Residents reporting police did not practice community policing Estimated number of Percent who wished police residents age 16 or older practiced community policing Total 6,914,327 86% Chicago, IL 892,591 90 Kansas City, MO 176,659 83 Knoxville, TN 73,399 72 Los Angeles, CA 1,640,927 89 Madison, WI 83,054 57 New York, NY 2,989,595 87 San Diego, CA 469,406 74 Savannah, GA 52,791 80 Spokane, WA 71,738 72 Springfield, MA 46,187 85 Tucson, AZ 200,530 80 Washington, DC 217,450 90 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Not asked of those residents who said they thought the police did practice community policing in their neighborhood. Question: "Do you wish the police in your neighborhood practiced community policing?" --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall, of those residents who said they did not have community policing but wanted it, 46% indicated they would like more police officers patrolling the streets (table 43). Almost half specified "other activities," with most responses involving increased police visibility and contact with residents. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Table 43. Residents in 12 cities who said police did not practice community policing, by types of police activities they would like, 1998 Percent of residents who wanted police to-- Estimated Increase Removed Conduct number of number Assign Trash/ security residents age Work with of police same Evict bad Clean up Work with checks/ Not do Other 16 or older community on street officers tenants streets Kids surveys anything activities Total 5943774 25% 46% 7% 4% 5% 13% 5% 6% 49% Chicago, IL 801690 25 47 5 4 6 13 5 8 48 Kansas City, MO 146338 26 42 9 3 3 13 6 6 45 Knoxville, TN 53123 23 44 6 3 3 10 6 8 43 Los Angeles, CA 1453044 29 48 7 5 4 11 5 5 45 Madison, WI 47740 25 38 7 3 4 14 6 7 42 New York, NY 2604328 22 45 7 4 6 14 5 6 53 San Diego, CA 348693 29 46 9 3 2 12 6 6 39 Savannah, GA 42195 26 47 5 3 3 12 4 7 44 Spokane, WA 51862 23 45 7 3 -- 12 4 9 41 Springfield, MA 39256 22 46 7 3 4 11 5 7 47 Tucson, AZ 160746 30 45 9 3 5 12 6 5 42 Washington, DC 194759 25 44 9 4 5 13 5 6 51 Note: Don't know responses and refusals to answer are excluded from analysis. Estimated number of residents age 16 or older represents largest category. Total number of respondents varies by each response category. Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses. Asked only of those who said the police were not practicing community policing in their neighborhood but wished the police did. -- Fewer than 10 respondents. Question: "What types of things do you wish the police were doing in your neighborhood?" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------- Methodology ------------- The methodological description of the study is based on the material presented in the Census Bureau's NCVS Research Memorandum No. 98-02 -- Community-Oriented Policing Services: Project Description and Analysis Plan -- Revised by Denise Lewis and Elaine Hock, May 1, 1998. This survey was designed to obtain total violent crime estimates in 12 selected cities. The survey used the current National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) questionnaire with a series of supplemental questions measuring the attitudes in each city. The NCVS collects data in interviews from all household members age 12 or older about victimizations that occurred within the preceding 6 months. For the purposes of the 12-city survey, respondents were asked about incidents that occurred within the last year. Information on any of the following crimes is collected: * Violent crimes of rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault * Personal crimes of theft * Household crimes of burglary, larceny, and motor vehicle theft. The data collection was done using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI). The data collection took place over a 4-month period starting in February 1998. --------------- Sample design --------------- The 12-city survey sample design is a simple random sample of telephone numbers within each city. People residing within the city boundaries of interest were the target population. The Demographic Statistical Methods Division (DSMD) used the GENESYS Random-Digit Dialing (RDD) Sampling System to select zip codes associated with each of the 12 cities. The GENESYS RDD Sampling System selects telephone numbers at a unit called a cell. These cells are grouped to form projects. For the 12-city survey, a cell contained the appropriate zip codes for each sample city, and the project was the sample city itself. GENESYS numbers are contained in banks which are sets of 100 potential telephone numbers. These numbers have the same area code and five-digit prefix. Only those banks that contained at least one listed telephone number were used. By excluding banks that contained only unlisted numbers, a slight coverage bias was incurred. After obtaining GENESYS banks of phone numbers for zip codes within the 12 cities, DSMD obtained zip code maps that showed county and city boundaries. The zip codes that were wholly within city boundaries were included in the sample. In the zip codes that crossed boundaries, DSMD looked at population counts to determine which zip codes to include. Cut-off levels for inclusion of zip codes were determined on a city-by-city basis. The cut-offs used included as much city population as possible while minimizing the population outside the city. Approximately 870 household interviews, or 1,600 individual interviews, were required within each city to obtain total crime estimates at the 10% coefficient of variation level. Prior NCVS results suggested that there were an estimated 1.84 eligible persons per household. This number was applied to the estimated number of household interviews to obtain the 1,600 individual interviews within each city. Applying these estimates for all 12 cities produced a required total sample size of 10,440 household cases. Exact household counts varied across cities based on differences in the percent of the city population age 12 or older. Target household interview counts were -- Total 10,449 Tucson, AZ 878 Springfield, MA 894 Los Angeles, CA 881 New York, NY 866 San Diego, CA 868 Knoxville, TN 844 Savannah, GA 891 Spokane, WA 875 Chicago, IL 885 Madison, WI 840 Kansas City, MO 884 Washington, DC 843 The target household sample sizes were then increased by four types of inflation factors: geographic screenouts, nonrespondents, ineligible respondents, and nonresidential respondents. Based on previous studies of this type it was estimated that approximately 40,000 telephone numbers would need to be screened to obtain the required number of interviews. The monthly designated sample size for the first month was based on the Telephone Point of Purchase Survey (TPOPS) interview and screenout rates. DSMD provided phone numbers for additional households in the first month to ensure that the final sample size was achieved. This was done to allow for additional sampling in the following months if the expected number of interviews was not attained. Survey interview and screen-out rates replaced TPOPS rates as the survey progressed. This allowed more accurate projections of interview counts. The designated sample sizes were adjusted among the cities in April and May to take into account inflation that differed across the 12 cities. Telephone numbers were edited to eliminate numbers already in a prior month's sample. Listed business numbers were eliminated from the sample using the GENESYS Sampling System. ----------------------------- Nonsampling sources of error ----------------------------- In addition to sampling error, other sources of error can affect the data collected. These sources include: * The inability to obtain information about all cases in the sample. To reach the established target sample size of approximately 800 households per city almost twice that number of households had to be contacted by telephone. If respondents in fact differ from nonrespondents, this could be a source of significant bias in the estimates. * Data collection errors resulting from recording and coding data and errors in estimating values for missing data * Failure to represent all city-wide household units with the selected sample (undercoverage). This survey excluded the nontelephone households and households with unlisted phone numbers in strictly unlisted phone banks. Although there is evidence that nontelephone households have somewhat different victimization rates than other households, the size of these groups is small enough that the effect on overall rates would not be large. * Respondent recall error and the unboundedness of the interview. In the regular NCVS, interviews are bounded, as households are interviewed more than once to exclude incidents outside the time reference period. This was not possible in the 12-city RDD survey. Source: Census Bureau Memorandum Source and Accuracy Statement for the 1998 Community Oriented Policing Services Survey, by Alan Tupek, September 24, 1998. -------------------------------- Weighting/estimation procedures -------------------------------- Each person, household, and person incident received a full sample final weight. The final weight was the product of all the components presented in the table on this page. The weighting was done independently within each of the 12 cities. The weights calculated for each person, household, and person incident contain the following four components: * Base weight is the inverse of the probability of selecting the household's telephone number. * Multiple phone number factor adjusts for households with more than one telephone number and therefore a higher probability of selection. * Household noninterview adjustment factor adjusts for household noninterviews. This includes both in scope noninterviews and a portion of the cases with unknown eligibility. Fifty percent of the unknown eligibility cases were assumed to be in-scope noninterviews. ---------------------------------------- Components of the COPS final weights Components House- of final weight Persons holds Incidents Base weight X X X Multiple phone number factor X X X Household noninterview adjustment factor X X X Within-household noninterview factor X X Population ratio estimate factor X X X Multiple-victim adjustment factor X * Population ratio estimate factor adjusts the weighted person totals to the estimated city population for each of the surveyed cities. DSMD determined the growth rate for each city based on April 1, 1990, and July 1, 1996 city population counts. These growth rates were then applied to the July 1996 counts to estimate city populations for February 1998. Further adjustments were made to reflect each city's population age 12 older, (eligible to take part in this survey). The person and person incident weights also included the Within-Household Noninterview Factor (WHNF). The WHNF inflates the weights of interviewed persons within interviewed households to account for noninterviewed persons within interviewed households. The weight assigned for the household is the weight of the principal person excluding the WHNF; this weight is also used to construct household incident estimates. The incident weight also includes the Multiple-Victim Adjustment Factor (MVAF). This factor reduces the weights of multiple persons involved in a single victimization. ------------------------------------------- Replicate weighting and variance estimation ------------------------------------------- The sample used for a survey is one of a large number of possible samples of equal size that could have been obtained using the same sample design and selection procedures. Information collected from the sample surveyed is used to estimate characteristics of the entire population. The accuracy of those estimates must be measured to determine whether apparent differences are significant or part of the estimates' variation. The standard error of a survey estimate is a measure of the variation among that estimate from all possible samples. DSMD has traditionally developed generalized variance functions that modeled the standard error for each type of characteristic studied. Generalized variance functions derive standard errors which are applicable to a wide variety of items and which can be prepared at a moderate cost, but require a number of approximations. For the 12-city survey, variance estimation is based on the concept of replication. Through the use of replicate weights, users can compute standard errors for any characteristic that is relevant to their area of interest. The standard errors are more accurate than with the previously used approximations obtained through generalized variance functions. Replicate samples were created by randomly assigning a replicate code (1 to R) within each primary sampling unit (PSU). For the 12-city survey, a replicate code of r=1, ..., 30 was assigned to each sample case at the time of sampling. This created thirty replicate samples (R), each containing 1/30 of the sample. Replicate methods of variance estimation require reweighted replicate samples. The 12 cities replicate samples were reweighted by rerunning the basic weighting program 30 times with the following revisions: * excluded one replicate sample for each iteration of the weighting procedure. * increased the base weight of each replicate sample by a factor of 30/(30-1) to account for the exclusion of one replicate sample during each iteration. The survey data can now be used to calculate estimators for each characteristic of interest and each estimator variance. The appropriate replication method to calculate variances is the "simple jackknife" because the 12-city survey used a simple random sample. The simple jackknife procedure requires that replicate codes (1 to R) be randomly assigned to each case, which was done during sampling. To calculate an estimator and its variance, first calculate the estimator of interest using the complete sample. Then recalculate the estimator for each of the 30 reweighted replicate samples. The simple jackknife variance estimator is: where: R = the total number of reweighted replicate samples y/r = the reweighted replicate sample estimator y = the complete sample estimator Use of replicate weights to calculate variances requires a vast number of computations. Software programs have been developed to perform these procedures. ---------------------------------------------------- Number of survey respondents, 1998 Households Persons City Target Actual Target Actual Total 10449 9327 19200 13918 Chicago, IL 885 790 1600 1124 Kansas City, MO 884 798 1600 1162 Knoxville, TN 844 756 1600 1198 Los Angeles, CA 881 844 1600 1121 Madison, WI 840 731 1600 1162 New York, NY 866 744 1600 1059 San Diego, CA 868 791 1600 1131 Savannah, GA 891 766 1600 1245 Spokane, WA 875 801 1600 1239 Springfield, MA 894 771 1600 1231 Tucson, AZ 878 813 1600 1233 Washington, DC 843 722 1600 1013 --------------------------------------------------- ------------- References ------------- Battaglia, Michael P., et al. Pre-Identification of nonworking and business telephone numbers in list-assisted random-digit-dialing samples. Abt Associates Inc., 55 Wheeler Street Cambridge, MA 02138 (undated). Brick, J. Michael, et al. Bias in list assisted-telephone samples. Westat Inc., 1650 Research Blvd. Rockville, MD 20850. Groves, Robert M., et al. Telephone Survey Methodology (Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics/Applied Probability and Statistics) John Wiley and Sons, New York, November 1988. Kulp, Dale W, et al. Dynamics of "list-assisted" random-digit-dialing (RDD) frame coverage. GENESYS Sampling Systems, 565 Virginia Drive, Fort Washington, Pennsylvania 19034 (undated) Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1993, BJS Report, NCJ 151657, May 1996. The Effects of the Redesign on Victimization Estimates, BJS Technical Report, NCJ 164381, May 1997. --------------------------- Appendix I Survey Instrument --------------------------- The survey questions related to community attitudes were developed through a collaboration between the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. A number of survey instruments were reviewed during the development of the community policing questions. Specific questions were adapted from policing surveys conducted in -- Chicago, Illinois, Knoxville, Tennessee, Pocatello, Idaho, and Tempe, Arizona. Comments on the survey instrument were provided by Gary Cordner of Eastern Kentucky University, Wes Skogan of Northwestern University, and Deborah Weisel of the Police Executive Research Forum. The Bureau of the Census reviewed the final instrument prior to field work. Copies of the National Crime Victimization Survey can be obtained from the BJS website http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Large City RDD Victimization Survey Community Policing Questions ----------------------------------------------------------------- Note 1: If the respondent is 16 years old or older AND interviewed by self-response, continue the interview with the COPS questions, otherwise skip to the FILLROSTER screen, if there are other household members 12 years of age or older to be interviewed, or to THANK-YOU to end the interview with the household. Section A. Perception/Identification of the Crime Problem 1a. Now, I am going to ask you a few questions about crime in your current neighborhood. To the best of your knowledge, have any serious crimes occurred in your neighborhood in the past 12 months, that is between ? (PROBE, IF NECESSARY) ( 1 ) Yes - Ask 1b ( 2 ) No - Skip to 2 ( 3 ) Not aware of any crime occurring in current neighborhood - Skip to 2 ( D) Don't know - Skip to 2. 1b. Which of the following types of serious crimes do you know to have occurred in your neighborhood in the past 12 months . . . (READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH CATEGORY) (1) Yes (2) No (3) Don't know . . . People openly selling drugs . . . People openly using drugs . . . Auto-theft . . . Theft of personal property . . . Breaking and entering to steal personal property . . . Violent physical attacks . . . Crimes committed with guns . . . Sexual assault/Rape . . . Murder 1c. How did you find out about these crimes? (DO NOT PROBE. ENTER THE CODE FOR ALL CATEGORIES THAT APPLY). Was there any other way you found out? (WHEN FINISHED, ENTER "N" FOR 'NO MORE) ---- ( 1 ) Respondent or someone they know was victimized. ---- ( 2 ) Witnessed criminal acts in neighborhood. ---- ( 3 ) Learned about crime through conversations with neighbors, neighborhood associations/civic organizations' newsletters, and/or community meetings. ---- ( 4 ) Received information directly from the local police through community meetings, newsletters, pamphlets, crime bulletins, and/or police Internet websites. ---- ( 5 ) Received information through the media, such as newspapers, television, and radio. ---- ( 6 ) Received information through a public kiosk/terminal or by visiting a police substation. ---- ( 7 ) Other (Specify) Section B. Fear of crime/Quality of Life 2. Overall, do you think you are well informed of crime which occurs in your neighborhood? ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No ( D) Don't know. 3a. Now I'd like to ask you questions about your fear of crime and quality of life in both your current neighborhood and in your city. How satisfied are you with the quality of life in your NEIGHBORHOOD? Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? ( 1 ) Very satisfied ( 2 ) Satisfied ( 3 ) Dissatisfied ( 4 ) Very dissatisfied ( D) Don't know. 3b. How satisfied are you with the quality of life in your city? Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? ( 1 ) Very satisfied ( 2 ) Satisfied ( 3 ) Dissatisfied ( 4 ) Very dissatisfied ( D) Don't know. 4a. How fearful are you about crime in your NEIGHBORHOOD? Are you very fearful, somewhat fearful, not very fearful, or not at all fearful? ( 1 ) Very fearful ( 2 ) Somewhat fearful ( 3 ) Not very fearful - Skip to 5a ( 4 ) Not at all fearful - Skip to 5a ( D) Don't know - Skip to 5a. 4b. Over the last 12 months, have your fears increased, decreased, or stayed the same? ( 1 ) Increased ( 2 ) Decreased ( 3 ) Stayed the same ( D) Don't know. 5a. How fearful are you about crime in your city? Are you very fearful, somewhat fearful, not very fearful, or not at all fearful? ( 1 ) Very fearful ( 2 ) Somewhat fearful ( 3 ) Not very fearful - Skip to 6a ( 4 ) Not at all fearful - Skip to 6a ( D) Don't know - Skip to 6a. 5b. Over the last 12 months, have your fears increased, decreased, or stayed the same? ( 1 ) Increased ( 2 ) Decreased ( 3 ) Stayed the same ( D) Don't know. 6a. Now I am going to ask you a few questions that are more NEIGHBORHOOD specific. Do any of the following conditions or activities exist in your neighborhood ? (READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH CATEGORY) (1) Yes (2) No (3) Don't know . . . Abandoned cars and/or buildings . . . Rundown/neglected buildings . . . Poor lighting . . . Overgrown shrubs/trees . . . Trash . . . Empty lots . . . Illegal public drinking/public drug use . . . Public drug sales . . . Vandalism or Graffiti . . . Prostitution . . . Panhandling/Begging . . . Loitering/"hanging out" . . . Truancy/youth skipping school . . . Transients/Homeless sleeping on benches, streets NOTE 2: Do any of the categories in 6a contain an entry of 1? [ ] Yes - Ask 6b [ ] No - Skip to 7. 6b. Do any of the conditions you just mentioned make you feel less safe in your NEIGHBORHOOD? ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No - Skip to 7 ( D) Don't know - Skip to 7. 6c. Which one of the conditions just mentioned affects your feeling of safety the most? (DO NOT READ RESPONSE CATEGORIES UNLESS REQUESTED BY THE RESPONDENT) ( 1 ) Abandoned cars ( 2 ) Rundown/neglected buildings ( 3 ) Poor lighting ( 4 ) Overgrown shrubs/trees ( 5 ) Trash ( 6 ) Empty lots ( 7 ) Illegal public drinking/public drug use ( 8 ) Public drug sales ( 9 ) Vandalism or Graffiti ( 10 ) Prostitution ( 11 ) Panhandling/Begging ( 12 ) Loitering/"hanging out" ( 13 ) Truancy/youth skipping school ( 14 ) Transients/Homeless sleeping on benches, streets (D) Don't know. 7. Here are some things people DO to protect themselves or their property from crime that takes place AT HOME. In the past 12 months, have you done any of these things to protect yourself from crime in the home, in a direct response to you or your family's fear of crime?. (READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH CATEGORY) (1) Yes (2) No (3) Don't know . . . You go to neighborhood watch meetings. . . . You and your neighbors have agreed to watch out for each other's safety. . . . You've installed a security system for your home. . . . You've asked the police department to do a home security check. . . . You have guard dogs at home. . . . You've engraved security identification numbers on all your belongings. . . . You've installed extra locks on windows and/or doors. . . . You keep weapons inside the home. . . . You've added outside and/or automatic lighting (e.g timers). . . . Are there any other precautions you take that I haven't described? (Specify). 8a. The next few questions pertain to ALL areas of your city. Are you afraid of becoming a victim of STREET crime? ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No- Skip to 9a ( D) Don't know - Skip to 9a. 8b. What type of street crime are you MOST afraid of? (READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE) ( 1 ) Robbery, someone stealing from you ( 2 ) Physical assault that does not involve a gun (non-domestic violence) ( 3 ) Assault with a gun, someone hurting you with a deadly weapon ( 4 ) Sexual assault/Rape ( 5 ) Murder, OR ( D) Don't know. 8c. Here are some things people DO to avoid becoming a victim of crime that takes place outside the home. In the past 12 months, have you done any of these things?. (READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH CATEGORY) (1) Yes (2) No (3)Don't know . . . You carry a self-defense warning device such as a whistle or alarm. . . . You carry a self-defense weapon (includes knife, gun, club, mace, stun-gun). . . . You no longer take certain routes or go into certain areas in your neighborhood. . . . You avoid going out at night. . . . You avoid going out alone. . . . You took a self-defense class. . . . You attend community meetings in your neighborhood. . . . You've made an effort to get to know the police in your neighborhood. . . . You plan to relocate to outside of your neighborhood. OR . . . Have you taken other preventative measures that I haven't described? (Specify). Section C. Police Contact/Visibility 9a. Now, I am going to ask about the LOCAL police. In the past 12 months, have you been in contact with the LOCAL police for any reason? ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No - Skip to 10 ( D) Don't know/Can't remember - Skip to 10. 9b. How would you best describe your contact with the police? (DO NOT PROBE. ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR ALL CATEGORIES THAT APPLY. WHEN FINISHED, ENTER "N" FOR 'NO MORE'. ---- ( 1 ) Casual conversation with a police officer. ---- ( 2 ) Officer responding to respondent's call for service. ---- ( 3 ) Gave information to police about a crime or incident (e.g. crime tip). ---- ( 4 ) Reported a crime to the police. ---- ( 5 ) Participated in a survey given by the police department. ---- ( 6 ) Asked the police for information or advice. ---- ( 7 ) Participated in a community activity that involved the police (e.g. clean-up, social event, community meeting). ---- ( 8 ) Traffic violations/traffic accidents. ---- ( 9 ) Working with police to address specific problems. ---- ( 10 ) Other (Specify). 10. In the past 12 months, have you observed any increases or decreases in police officer presence in your neighborhood or did the number stay the same? ( 1 ) Increase ( 2 ) Decrease ( 3 ) No change ( 4 ) Never see police in my neighborhood ( D) Don't know. 11. In the past 12 months, what activities have you seen police doing? (READ EACH CATEGORY THEN ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR EACH CATEGORY) (1) Yes (2) No (3) Don't know . . . Police talking with residents in the neighborhood. . . . Police talking with business owners in the neighborhood. . . . Police attending community meetings. . . . Police facilitating crime watch and prevention activities such as nights out. . . . Police involved with kids through recreational or school activities . . . Police opening police substations or information centers. . . . Are there any other activities that you've noticed police are involved in (Specify). OR . . . Have you noticed any other activities? 12a. In the past 12 months, have you heard about any community meetings concerning crime taking place in your neighborhood? ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No - Skip to 13 ( D) Don't know - Skip to 13. 12b. In the past 12 months, have you attended any of these community meetings? ( 1 ) Yes - Skip to 13 ( 2 ) No ( D) Don't know - Skip to 13. 12c. What are your reasons for not attending any meetings? (DO NOT PROBE. ENTER THE CODE FOR ALL CATEGORIES THAT APPLY.) ---- ( 1 ) Aware of meetings, but do not know location and/or dates/times. ---- ( 2 ) Unable to obtain transportation. ---- ( 3 ) Unable to obtain child care. ---- ( 4 ) Meetings held in unsafe/scary part of town. ---- ( 5 ) Attendance would not help crime problem. ---- ( 6 ) Meeting place is too far. ---- ( 7 ) Meeting times take place during work hours. ---- ( 8 ) Don't have the time to attend ---- ( 9 ) Not especially concerned about crime in my neighborhood. ---- (10 ) Other (Specify) ---- ( D) Don't know. Section D. Satisfaction with Police/Availability of Police 13. In general, how satisfied are you with the police who serve your neighborhood? Are you very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, or very dissatisfied? ( 1 ) Very satisfied ( 2 ) Satisfied ( 3 ) Dissatisfied ( 4 ) Very Dissatisfied ( D) Don't know (no opinion; not aware of police services). 14. Does the police department servicing your neighborhood have a phone number for you to call for non-emergencies, other than 911? ( 1 ) Yes (includes respondents who may not remember the number itself) ( 2 ) No ( D) Don't know/can't remember. Section E. Responsibility for Crime Prevention 15. How much work are police doing with the residents of your neighborhood to prevent crime and safety problems, a lot, some, very little, or nothing at all? ( 1 ) A lot ( 2 ) Some ( 3 ) Very little ( 4 ) Nothing at all ( D ) Don't know. Section F. Knowledge of Community Policing 16a. Are you familiar with the term "Community Policing?" ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No ( D) Don't Know. 16b. Community policing involves police officers working with the community to address the causes of crime in an effort to reduce the problems themselves and the associated fear, through a wide range of activities. Based on the definition, do you think the police in your neighborhood practice community policing? ( 1 ) Yes - Skip to 17a ( 3 ) Somewhat - Skip to 17a ( 2 ) No ( D) Don't know . 16c. Do you wish the police in your neighborhood practiced community policing? ( 1 ) Yes ( 2 ) No ( D) Don't know. NOTE 5: Is there a response of 2 or D in 16c? [ ] Yes - Skip to FILLROSTER, if there are other household members 12 years of age or older to be interviewed, otherwise skip to THANK-YOU to end the interview with the household. [ ] No - Ask 16d 16d. What type of things do you wish the police were doing in your neighborhood? (DO NOT PROBE.) ---- ( 1 ) Working with the community to prevent crime ---- ( 2 ) Increasing the number of officers patrolling the streets ---- ( 3 ) Assigning the same officers to my neighborhood day in and day out ---- ( 4 ) Removing the trash, abandoned cars, destroying abandoned buildings or helping to evict bad tenants ---- ( 5 ) Cleaning up the streets ---- ( 6 ) Working more with the children in the area/ giving them a safe place to play ---- ( 7 ) Doing home security checks/surveys ---- ( 8 ) Do not want them to do anything/they are doing what I want them to do ---- ( 9 ) Other (Specify). NOTE 6: If any response in 16d, skip to FILLROSTER, if there are any other household members 12 years of age or older to be interviewed, otherwise skip to THANK YOU to end the interview with the household. 17a. How do you know? (DO NOT PROBE. ENTER CODE FOR ALL CATEGORIES THAT APPLY.) ---- ( 1 ) Saw police doing community policing activities ---- ( 2 ) Saw in newspaper, on TV, or heard on the radio that police were doing community policing ---- ( 3 ) Other (Specify). ---- ( D) Don't know. NOTE 7: Is there an entry of 1 in 17a? [ ] Yes - ask 17b. [ ] No - Skip to FILLROSTER if there are any other household members 12 years of age or older who need to be interviewed, otherwise skip to THANK YOU to end the interview with the household. 17b. You said you saw the police doing community policing activities. Please specify what types of activities you saw the police participating in. (DO NOT READ CATEGORIES. ENTER THE APPROPRIATE CODE FOR ALL CATEGORIES THAT APPLY.) ---- ( 1 ) Traffic enforcement ---- ( 2 ) Increasing their presence in high crime/"bad" areas ---- ( 3 ) Increasing patrol by vehicle/foot/bike patrol ---- ( 4 ) Working with the community and/or business owners to address specific problems ---- ( 5 ) Attending community meetings ---- ( 6 ) Conducting crime prevention or community policing workshops ---- ( 7 ) Conducting community and/or business surveys about neighborhood problems ---- ( 8 ) Running youth programs like DARE, GREAT, PAL ---- ( 9 ) Other (Specify). End interview. --------------------- Appendix II --------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix table 1. Standard errors for selected estimates, 1998 Fear of crime Violent crimes Property crimes In city In neighbor- Rate per Percent Rate per Percent percent hood percent 1,000 Number reported 1,000 Number reported fearful fearful persons (1,000's) to police persons (1,000's) to police Total 0.80 0.86 6.37 90.18 3.63 12.18 88.35 1.64 Chicago, IL 1.25 1.91 8.78 19.64 4.70 25.40 28.63 2.71 Kansas City, MO 1.59 1.65 9.74 3.57 5.74 30.81 6.11 3.42 Knoxville, TN 1.26 1.34 8.54 1.18 6.78 26.89 1.94 3.01 Los Angeles, CA 1.14 1.59 8.97 26.50 7.88 24.68 37.02 2.90 Madison, WI 1.39 1.40 8.68 1.43 5.82 32.32 2.78 5.00 New York, NY 1.65 1.69 13.20 80.72 6.09 21.63 67.87 3.84 San Diego, CA 1.67 1.56 8.38 8.23 6.61 23.78 11.68 2.88 Savannah, GA 1.48 1.50 12.95 1.46 8.01 27.01 1.46 3.67 Spokane, WA 1.16 1.51 10.26 1.60 5.19 29.35 2.38 2.93 Springfield, MA 1.43 1.72 11.78 1.44 5.87 30.02 1.75 2.72 Tucson, AZ 1.43 1.63 11.81 4.49 5.04 29.49 5.86 2.43 Washington, DC 1.57 2.20 8.19 3.57 8.90 36.33 8.93 3.17 See Methodology section for description of calculations of standard errors. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix table 2. Standard errors for satisfaction with police estimates, 1998 Percent satisfied with police Total White Black Other Total 0.68 0.74 1.93 2.03 Chicago, IL 1.47 1.35 2.38 5.56 Kansas City, MO 1.05 1.35 3.02 6.15 Knoxville, TN 1.02 0.99 7.35 0.00 Los Angeles, CA 1.34 1.64 4.41 2.75 Madison, WI 0.79 0.88 3.11 1.96 New York, NY 1.53 1.75 3.21 3.83 San Diego, CA 0.71 0.76 3.35 2.69 Savannah, GA 0.95 1.43 1.48 4.39 Spokane, WA 1.33 1.25 11.15 7.43 Springfield, MA 1.25 1.35 2.71 4.05 Tucson, AZ 0.96 0.96 4.70 3.91 Washington, DC 1.45 2.23 2.27 7.59 See Methodology section for description of calculation of standard errors. -------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix table 3. Incidents used to calculate rates of crime Violent crime incidents Property crime incidents Victim race Household race Total White Black Other Total White Black Other Total 1056327 516391 337064 202872 2365223 1375965 655782 333476 Chicago, IL 152136 82492 37178 32466 488093 250089 175978 62026 Kansas City, MO 22263 15863 4494 1906 65715 43455 19072 3188 Knoxville, TN 9634 8607 923 104 22647 20405 1835 407 Los Angeles, CA 191189 115404 49254 26531 520865 293323 110628 116914 Madison, WI 11614 11338 0 276 27735 25366 1360 1009 New York, NY 521470 182220 214839 124411 814937 448779 267321 98837 San Diego, CA 61844 47524 6087 8233 151176 112979 12267 25930 Savannah, GA 9129 4745 4118 266 24053 13827 8981 1245 Spokane, WA 10471 8689 889 893 33393 30226 1067 2100 Springfield, MA 9502 5881 2191 1430 21258 14387 5411 1460 Tucson, AZ 30993 24527 1421 5045 85859 70342 2844 12673 Washington, DC 26082 9101 15670 1311 109492 52787 49018 7687 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appendix table 4. Populations used to calculate rates of crime Population Number of Households Total White Black Other Total White Black Other Total 14167416 8488609 3401856 2276951 7251110 4430682 1695832 1124596 Chicago, IL 2237203 1241089 742591 253523 1127553 634599 368492 124462 Kansas City, MO 366351 271397 77899 17055 198303 148264 41038 9001 Knoxville, TN 138066 123238 11644 3184 72228 64642 6227 1359 Los Angeles, CA 2954058 1856651 431939 665468 1499930 953045 220044 326841 Madison, WI 164987 150289 5684 9014 86154 77589 3446 5119 New York, NY 6116941 3317344 1752530 1047067 3137685 1758658 859342 519685 San Diego, CA 982314 743711 58668 179935 491217 376317 29481 85419 Savannah, GA 112349 63440 45132 3777 54084 31632 20399 2053 Spokane, WA 156428 144919 3796 7713 81177 76000 1120 4057 Springfield, MA 122501 85717 25854 10930 58230 41257 11554 5419 Tucson, AZ 380067 315133 13544 51390 198706 165720 6691 26295 Washington, DC 436151 175681 232575 27895 245843 102959 127998 14886 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------- Sources of additional information on community policing Office of Community Oriented Policing Services --------------------------------------------------------- To obtain information about COPS grant programs, call the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770 or access the COPS website at http://www.usdoj.gov/cops/ --------------------------------------------- Local police departments in the study cities --------------------------------------------- Information about the police departments and their forms of community policing can be obtained from the following locally maintained websites: Chicago, IL -- www.ci.chi.il.us/CommunityPolicing Kansas City, MO -- www.kcpd.org Knoxville, TN -- www.ci.knoxville.tn.us/departments/kpd.htm Los Angeles, CA -- www.lapdonline.org/index.htm Madison, WI -- www.ci.madison.wi.us/police/poldept.html New York City, NY -- www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/nypd San Diego, CA -- www.sannet.gov/police/index.html Savannah, GA -- www.savannahpd.org Springfield, MA -- www.spfldpd.org/ Spokane, WA -- www.ior.com/~spd Tucson, AZ -- www.ci.tucson.az.us/police Washington, DC -- www.mpdc.org END OF FILE, 6/3/99, tld