NOTE - ERIC1972 Survey ol Inmates of Local Jails, NCJ-19067 Survey of inmates of Local Jails, 1972,...

4811) 188 017

, AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONSFCNS AGENCY

MORT NOPUE CATENOTEAVAILABLE FRCM

EDFS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

DOCUMENT RESUME

CG 014 474

Paez, Adolfo L., Ed.Miami: Public Attitudes,About. Crime. A National CrimeSurvey Peport.Bureau of the Census (FOC), suitland, md.National-Criminal Justic'e Information and StatisticsService (Dept. of Justice/LEAA), Washington, D.C.NCJ-46239: SD-NCS-C-24(77)68p.Superintendent of Pccuments, D.S. Government PrintingCffice, Washington, DC 20402.

MF01/FC03 Plus Postage..Adults: Attitude Measures: *Community Attitudes;Community Surveys: *Crime: *Fear: Law Enforcement:News Media: Pclice Action: *Public Opinion: ResearchProjects: *Security (Psychology)*Florida (Miani): *Victims

ABSTRACTThe National Crime Survey (NCS) program has conducted

a continuous national survey and separate surveys in 26 centralcities to study the impact of crime on American society. Attitudinalinformation cbtained from a 1S74 survey of occupants of 4,929 housingunits (9,EFO residents age 16 and over) in Miami reflects crimetrends, fear cf crime, residential problems, and local policeperformance. Only ane7fourth of the respondents belpaved crime wasrising in their neighborhoods: most felt safe in daylight, 38%.feltmoderately unsafe at night. Men and younger persons felt more securethan others.,t&me was not the major factor in moving, shopping or,entertainment activities. Although most Fersons felt theirneighbcrhoods were safer than cthers in Miami, whites andmonvictimswere more likely than blacks and victims to share this belief.Nonvictims were more likely than victirs to hOld outsidersresponsible-for neighborhood crime. Most judged local police

,performance to be good or average. Ihe appendices contain 37 datatables, the survey questionnaire, and information on sample designand sizev'estiration procedures, reliability, nnd standard error.'(NRB)

13

10

* Reproductions supplied by EDES art the best that can be made *

from the original document. *

***********************************************************************A

N. Miami:Publjcattitudesaboutcrime

A National Crime Survey report

'kJ

V S DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.6-1DUCAT ION wairAnaNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATION

THIS DOCUMENT HAS OF N REPRODUCE() ExAc 1 A S rcuivro POW,IIIF PERSON OR ORGANI7A TION ORIGINAT INC. Ii POINT% OI VII W OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NoT NECESSARILY RERRE.SENT OE F ICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY

I.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Law EnforcementAssistance Administration

National Criminal Justice Informationand Statistics Service

\

National Criminal Juatic Informationand Statistics Service.Reports

Single cropiee are avollabier al no charge Irons ihe National CriminalJustice Reference Service, Sox 11000, 20660. Multiplecopies are for sale by Om Supenntendent of Doca Monts, U.S.

Oovernment Printing Office, WasehIngion, D.C. 20402.

National Crim Survey of victimization:Criminal Victimization in the Untied States (annual)

Summary Filidings of 1977-18 Changes in Crime end of Trends

Since 1973, NCJ-81368A Descriphon of Trends from 1973 to 1977. N6-598981977 (final.report). NCJ-587251978. NCJ-495431975. NCJ 445931974. NCJ-394671813 NCJ 34732

The Cost of NegHgenoe: Losses from Pioventnble HouseholdBurglaries. NCJ-53527

intimate Victims: A Study of Violence Among Friends and

Relatives, NCJ-62310Criminal Victimization SurVeys In

B oston, NCJ-348 le Now Orleans, NCJ- 34825

Buffalo, NCJ-34,020 Oakland, NCJ-34826Cincinnati, NCJ-'34810 Pittsburgh, NCJ-34827Houston, NCJ-34621 San Diebo, NCJ 34028

Miami. NCJ 34822 San Francisco, NCJ34820Milwaukee, NCJ 34823 Washington, DC. NCJ-34030

report 13 volsMinneapolis, NCJ-34824 (finalCriminal Victimization Surveys in 13 American elites (summary

report, 1 vol ). NCJ-18471Public Altitudes About Crime:

B oston, NCJ-48235 New Orleans, NCJ 46242

Buffalo, NCJ-46236 Oakland, NCJ-46243

Cincinnati, NCJ-46237 Pittsburgh, NCJ-46244Houston, NCJ-46238 San Diego, NCJ-46245Miami, NCJ-46239 San Francisco, NCJ. 46246

Milwaukee, NCJ-46240 Washington, D.C. NCJ-46247

Minneapolis, NCJ-46241 (final report. 13 vols )

Criminal Victimization Surveys in Chicago. Detroit, Los Angel.New York, and Philadelphia: A Comperison of 19/2 and 1974

indings. NCJ-36360Criminal Victimization Surveys in Eight American Ciliee:

A Comparison of 1971/72 and 19741,75 FindingsNationalCrime Surveys in Atlanta. Baltimore, Cleveland. Dallas, DenverNewark. Portland. and St Louis, NCJ-36361

Crimes and Victims: A Report on the Dayton San JOse PtlolSurvey of Victimization. NCJ 013314

Applications of the National Crime Survey Victimizationand Attitude Data:

Public Opinion Aboul Crim: The Attitudes of Victims and Non-

victims in Selecled Cities. NCJ-41336LocN Vkilm Surveys: A lieview ol the issues, NCJ-39973The Police and Public Opinion: An Analysis of Victimization and

Altilocie Data from 13 American Cities, NCJ-42018An InOvduction lo the National Crime Survey, NCJ-43732Compensating Victims of Violent Crime: Potential Costs aQd

Coverage of a National Program. NCJ-43387Crime Against Persons in Urban, Suburban, and Rural Areas:

A Comparative Analysis of Victimization Rates. NCJ-53551

Rape Victimliation in 26 American Cities. NCJ 55818Criminal Victimization in Urban Schools. NCJ-56396

et

Notice& Prisoner Statistics:Capital Punishment (annual)

1978, NCJ-591397Prisoners in Skate and Federal lnsillutioni (annual)

December 31. 1978. advance report, NCJ-56324December 31, 1977 (final repor1), NCJ-52701

Census of St6te Correctional Facilities, 1974 advance report.

NCJ-25642Profile of State Prison Inmates: SociodeMographic Findings from

the 1974 Survey ol Inmates Of State Correctional Facilities,

NCJ-58257Census of Prisoners In Slate Correctional Facilities, 1973,

NCJ-34729Census of Jails and Survey of Jail inmates, 1976, preliminary

report. NCJ-55172The Nation's Jails: A report on the census of jails tram the 1972

Survey ol Inmates of Local Jails, NCJ-19067Survey of inmates of Local Jails, 1972, advance report. NCJ-13313

Uniform Parole Reports:Parole In the United States 1078 NCJ 58/21

1111(1 and RI? / NI I 4970,)

Children in Cuetody:Juvenile Delenlion and Correclionni F ncitity

t977 advance reportCensus of Public Juvenile tacamos. NCJ-80007CTIntis of Poivale Juvenile facilities Nr.1 60980

1075 (final report). NCJ 5813918/4 NC.1 579461973. NC.) 4477/19/1, NCJ.13403

Myths and Realities About Crime: A Nontechnical Presentation olSelected information born the National Prisoner StallsticilProgram and the National Crime Survey. NCJ- 46249

ID.Slat Court Model Statistical Dictionary. NCJ 6020

mew Court Carmload Stelletics:The Slew of the Art. NUJ 46934Annual Report 1975 NCJ 51885Annual floport. 1976 NCJ 56599

A Cross-City Comparison ol Felony Cee. Processing, NCJ 55171

National Survey of Court Organization:1977 Supplement to State Judicial Systems NCJ 400221975 Supplement to State Judicial Systems, NCJ-294331971 (full report) NCJ 11427

State afid Local Probalion and Parole Systems, NCJ 41335

State and Local Prosecution and Civil Attorney Systems, NLJ-41334

Trends in Expenditure and Employment Data lot the CriminalJustice System, 1991-77 (annual) NCJ-57463

Expenditure end Employmeni Data lor the Criminal Justice System

(annual)1978 advance report hiCJ- 6.0881917 final ieport, NCJ-53206

Criminal Juslice Agencies in Regions 1-10 110 vols by state)NCJ 17930 30 15151

Dictionary ol Criminal Justice Data Terminpiogy: 1 elms andDefinitions Pioposed 101 Interstate and National Data Count boo

and Exchange. NCJ-36747

Program Plan for Slatistice, 1977-61, NCJ 37811

Utilization of Criminal Justice Statistics Project:Soureebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1976 (annual)

NCJ-53207Public Opinion Regarding Crime, Criminal Justice and Related

Topics NCJ 17419New Directions in Processing of Juvenile Offenders: Tne Denver

Model. NCJ-17420Who Gets Detrained? An Empirical Analms of the PreAdiudicatoly

Detention of Juveniles tri Deriver. NCJ-17417Juvenile Disposition*: Social and Legal Factors Related to the

Processing of Denver Delinquency Cases. NCJ-17418Offender-Based Transaction Statistics: New Directions in Data

Collection and Reporting, NCJ-29645Sentencing of California Felony Offenders, NCJ-29646The Judiciel Processing of Assault and Burglary Offenders rn

Selected California Counties. NCJ-294344Pre-Adjudicatory Detenlion in Three Juvenile Courts, NCJ 34730

Delinquency Dispositions: An Empirical Analysis of ProcessingDecisions in Three Juvenile Courts. NCJ-34734

The Patterns and Distribution of Assault incident CharacteristicsAmong'Social Areas, NCJ-40025

Patterns of Robbery Characteristics. and Their Occurrence AmongSocial Areas, NCJ-40026

Crime-SpecIfic Analysis:The Characteristics of Burglary Incidents, NCJ-42093

An Empirical Examination of Burglary Offender CharacteristiCs.NCJ-4313i

An Empirical Examination of Buiglaiy Offenders and Offense

Characteristics. NCJ-42476Sources °I National Criminal Justice Statistics: An Annctialed

Bibliography, NCJ-45006Federal Criminal Sentencing: Perspectives of Analysis and a

Design tor Research. NCJ-33683Variations in Federal Criminal Sentences: A Statistical Assessment

at the National Level, NCJ 33684Federal Sentencing Patterns: A Study of Geographical Variations,

NCJ-33685Predicting Sentences In Federal Courts: The Feasibility of a

National Sentencing Policy, NCJ-33686

3

Miami:Publicattitudesaboutcrime

A National Crime Survey ReportNo. SD-NCS-C-24, NCJ-46239


Law EnforcementAssistance AdrinIstration

National Criminal Justice Informationand Stttistics Service

For male by the Superineendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Of SeeWashington. D.C. 20402

MAY 1 6 1980

11.5. DI. PAR I MUN I Or JUSI ICU.

Law Enforcement Assistance AdMinistration

Henry S. Dogin, Administrator

Home! I 1.htroptc, it.. pcputy Atiministrat(iilor Administration

Benjamin H. RenshawActing Assistant AdministratorNational Crifinnal Justice Informationand Statistics Service

Charles R. Kindcrmann, Acting Directoi

Statistics Division

CANO111.EDG Af E NTS. 1his report was prepared for the I.aw

Entoicemclit Assistance Administration by thc Bureau of the

Census. In the Law Fnfoicement Assistance Administration. gen-

eral supervision was supplied by Chalks R. Kindeimann. assisted

by Dawn D. Nelson and Palsy A. Klaus:Collection and process-

ing of the survey data were conducted in the Ilurehu of the

Census under the general supervision of Marvin M. Thompson,Demographic Surveys Divishm, assisted by Linda R. Murphyand Robert L. 9odson. The report *as prepared in the Crime

StatliStics Anal sis Stall andel- the general stiperyision of Robert

I'. Parkinson. Adolfo 1...Saer directed and edited the report. The

analysis was ritten by Harold R. Lemma. A technical review

of the report was performed by Louis F. Williams. Statistical

Methods Division, alder the general supervision of Dennis J.

Schwalm

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

United States. National criminal Justice Information and

Statistics Service,Miami: public attitudes about crime.

(A National crime stirycy report; no. SD-NCP-C.-24)

I. Crime and criminalsFIoridaMiami,Public opitipn.

2. Miami, FlajPolicePublic opition. 3.. Piiblic opinion --Flor-ida Miami. I. Wk. II. SCries.

H V6795. M4fill55 1977 301. (5431649759381 77-4)52

.

PS

-

t4.

:001iii"9_19k4!..effteil,":0C

!..

Preface

.1.

.iiiiic cai Iv MI thC 1970s, vtcliin Minn stir %eys have1,s1

been stunted out under the NatU) al Crum Sui'vey(NCS) program to provide _insight into the impact ofcrime, 041,American society. As one of the most ambi-tious (-Bolts yet undertaken tor fdling some ol the gapsin clime data, the sin veys, eakiied out loi the law I ii-I niccincnt Assistance Administration (1 I AA) by theII.S. Btneatro) the Censii, ate supplying the ciumnaljustice community with milk information on crime andits victims, complementing data resoutees already onhand for purposes of planning, evaluation, and analy-sis. Based.on rermseptative sampink of households

mm m rnand coercuil establishents, the p ea has ha.r.1two mirror elements, a contninons nationN-4r,vey-rriidSeparate survys in 26 central cities across the Nation.

Based on a scientifically designed sample of housingunits within each jurisdiction, the city surveys had atwofold purpose: the assessment of public( attitudesabout crime and related matters and the dhelopmentof information on the extent and nature of residents'experiences with selteted (onus ol et-611%191 victimiza-tion. I he attitude questions wer4asked of the occu-pants ol a random half of the housing units selected forthe victimizaikon survey. In order to avoid biasing re-spondents answers to the atilt ude questions, this partof the survey was administered before the victimiza-tion qbestions.. Whereas the attitude questions wereasked of perstms age Wand Over, the victimiiation

A

survey applied to individuals age 12 andoyer. Becausethe attitude questins were designed to elicit personalopinions and perceptions as of the 'date of theinterview, it was not necessary to associate a particulartime frame with this portion of the syrvey, even thoughsoftie queries made reference retta period of (ime.pre-ceding the survey. On the other hand, the victimizationquektions referred to a fixed time frame the 12amonths preceding the month of interviewand re-spondents were asked to recall detailsconcerning theirexperirces as victims of one or more of (he followingcrirqes, whether completed or attempted: r4e, per-sona/ robbery, assault, personail larceny, burglary,hotkehold larceny; and motor vehicle theft. In addi-tion, informaiion about burglary and robbery of busi-nesses and certain ot hex organizations was gathered bymean of a victimization survey,of coMmercia l estab-liVn. ts, conducted separately from the household

'll\%III vev A plevions publication. ("timirra/ 1 ii-w7ii.-11'rum Au, ve1'1 Ilf Mum, (V91 )), pi ovided (.01111)1(.1nm

si%c co% rtilv 01 icsults hom both the himsehold and-commeicial victimization sur veys*

Attitudmal inhumation presented in this I Ciro! t was

"ht"med 11""' mtervtews sytth the oce"p"ific of 4.4119hoosing wilts (9,(00 residents age 1(i and over ), or 9773peu-cnt 01 the units eligible 1 oi inter% lew Results ofthese inter views weir: inflated by means 01 a multistages'ceigliting pi ocedme to produce estimates applicableto all residents age 16 and over and to demographicand social subgroups 6( that population. Beea Ilse theyderived Iron] a survey rather than a complete census,these estiniates ale subitct to samplingc, rot . I hey alsoak-c-'-siibicy to icsponse and processing CFI or s. I lleeffects Of sampling el tor or variability jinn be ocen=rawly determined in a carefully designed survey. In thisreport, analytical statements involVing comparisonshave met the test that the differences eiteitere equat toor greater than apother words, the cthe differences d

rroximately two standaul errors; inlances arc at least 9.5 out of 100 thatL'liot result solely hom samplIng

Estimates based on zero or on about 10 orfewer sample cases were considered unreliable andwere not used in the analysis of survey results.

'the 37 data tables in Appendix I of this report arcorganized in a sequence (hat generally corresponds tothe analytical discussion. Two iechnica 1 ppendixesand a glossa ty lollow the data tables Appendix IIconsists of a facsimile of the survey questionnaire(form NCS 6), and Appendix III supplies informationon sample design and size:the estimation procedure,reliability of estimates, and sipificanee testing; it alsocontains standard error tabla.

1

We have provided an evaluation sheet at tholnd of thispublication It will assist us ih improving future ropoits if youcomplete and return It at youi convonnco ft is postage-paid and noods no stamp

/se

7P6'

4

Contents

PrefacePage

Crime and attitudes 1

Summary 3

Crime trends 6

U.S. and neighborhood Mine trends 6Who are the offenders') 6Chances of personal victimiration 7

Crime and the media 7

Fear of crime 7

Crime as a deterrent to mobility 7

Neighborhood safety 8

Crimeims a,cause for moving away 8Crime as a cause for activity

modification 9

Residential problems and lifestyles 9Neighborhood problems

and selecting a home 9Food and merchandise shopping

practices tO

Entertainment practices 10

Local police performance 10

Are they doing a good, average,or poor job? .10

How can the police improve? 11

Appendixes

I. Survey data.tables 13

Survey instrument 45III, Technical information and reliability

of the estimates 09Sample design and size 49Estimation procedure 49Reliability of estimatesComputation and application

of the standard error 51

Glossary 53

User evaluation, 55

4

Charts

Page

A. Summary findings about crime trends . 4

B. Summary findings about fear of crime 4

C Summary findings about residential problems . 5

D. Sumnuiry findings about police per(ormance

Tables

Appendix 1

Crime trend%

I 1)11.cl:11011 of Crime Irelkh in the United Stales 14

2, Direction of clime trends in the neighborhood 14

3. Comparison of neighborhood crime withgether

metropolitan arca neighborhoods 15

4. Place of residence of persons committingneighborhood crimes

5. Change in the chances of being attacked or robbed

6. Seriousness of crime problem relative to what

newspapers and tekvision report

Fear qf crime

7. Fear of going to parts of the metropolitan arcaduring the day

8. Fear of going to parts of the metropolitan area

at night9. Neighborhood safety when out alone during

the day10. Neighborhood safety when out alone during

thc dayII. Neighborhood safety when out alone during

the day12. Neighborhood safety when out.alone at night

13. Neighborhood safety when out alone at night

141. Neighborhood safety when out alone at night15. Neighborhood dangerous enough to consider

moving elsewhere16. Limitation or change in activities because of fear

of crime

26 Most impoitant reason Go UslIaliV ihuiiig geneial

merchandise shopping to thr suburbs (or neighborhood)

ot doss moss n

27. Change in the frequency wiih cinch persons went out

for evening entertainment .14.

28. Most important reason for increasing or decreasing

the frequency with which persons went mil lot netting

entertainment29. Places usually visited for evening entertainment

15

...JO. Most important reason lou usually seeking esening

entertainment inside or outside the city 37

Local pollee performan

31. Opinion about local police peiformance32 Opinion about local police perfoimance 19

33. Opinion about local police performance 40

34. Whether Of 1101 local police performance needs41

42

improvement35. Most important

performance36. Most importam measure for improving local police

Is peformance37. Most important measure lot improving local police

measure for improving local Police

16 perfoi ma nee

43

44

Appendix III

I. Individual respondent data: Sitandard erroi

17 approximations for estimated percentages 52

Household respondent data: Standard error

IS approximations for estimated percentages 52

' 19

20

2122

23

24

17. Personal limitation or change in activities because

of fear of crime 27

18. Personal limitation or change in activities because

of fear of crime 28

25

26

Residential problems and lifestyles

19. Most important reason for selecting present

neighborhood 29

20. Most important reason for leaving former

residence21. Whether or not there are undesirable

neighborhood characteristics 30

22. Most important neighborhood problem 3(23. Whether or not major food shopping done

in the neighborhood31

24. Most important mason for not doing major food

shopping rn the neighborhood 32

25. ,,Preferred location for general merchandise

shopping 32

vi

.4)

Crime and attitudes

During the 1960's, the President's Commission OnLim Enforcement and Administration of Justiceobserved that "What Am.sric,,n;a does about crimedepen s ultimately upon how Americans see clime.

hc lines along which the Nation takes specificaction against crime will be those that the public be-lieves to be thc necessary ones." Recognition of theimportance of societal perceptions about ei Mir_

prompted the Commission to authorize several publicopinion surveys on the matter.' In addition tomeasuring the degree of conccrn over crime, those andsubsequent surveys provided information on a varietyof related subjects,"such as the mariner in which fear ofcrime affects people's lives, circumstances engenderingfear for personal safety, members of the populationrelatively more intimidated by or fearful of crime, and

i,..._ the effectiveness of criminal justice systems. Based onosufficiently large sample, moreover, attitude surveyscan provide a means for examining the influence ofvictimization experiences upon personal outlooks.Conducted periodically in the same area, attitudesurveys distinguish fluctuations in the degree of publicconcern; conducted under the same proccdures indifferent areas, they provide a basis for comparing atti-tudes in two or more localities. With the advent of thcNational Crime Survey (NCS) program, it becamepossible to conduct, large-scale attitudinal surveysaddressing these and other issues, thereby enablingindividuals to participate in appraising the status ofpublic safety in their communities.

Based on data from a 1974 attitudinal survey, thisreport analyzes the responses of Miami residents toquestions covering four topical areas: crime trends, fearof grime, residential problems and lifestyles, and localpolice performance. Certain questions, relating tohousehold activities, were asked of only one person perhousehold (the "household respondent"), whereasothers were administered to all persons age 16 and over("individual respondents"), including ihe householdrespondent. Results Were obtained for the totalmeasured population and for several demographic andsocial subgroups.

IPresident's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administra-tion ofJustice. The Challenge of Crime in a ftee Society. Washing-ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1967, pp.49 53.

t..

9

Conceptually, the survey mew pointed questionspet taming to he ha \ lot as vell s opinion. Conccimngbehavior, for example, each respondent tor a house-hold was asked where its member s shopped tor foodand other merchandise, where they lived beforemovfng to the plesent neighborhood, and how longthey had lived at that addiess, Additional questionsasked ot the househOld iespondent wcie designed toelicit opinions about the neighborhood in general,about the rationale for selecting that particular com-munity and leaving the former residence, and aboutfactors that influenced shopping inactices. None of thequestions asked ot the household respondent laisedthe subiect of crime. Respondents wele tree to answer Aat will. In contrast, most pf the individual attitudequestions, asked of all household members age 16 andover, dealt specifically with matters relating to crime.These persons were asked for viewpoints on subjectssuch as crime trends in the local community and in theNation, chances of being personally attacked orrobbed, neighborhood safety during the day oi night,the impact of fear of crime on behavior, and the effec-tiveness of the.local police. For many of these ques-tions, response categories were predetermined andinterviewers were instructed to probc for answersmatching those on the questionnaire.

Although the attitude survey has provided a wealthof data, the rrsults are opinions. For example, certainresidents may have perceived crime as a growing threator neighborhood siffety as deteriorating, when, in fact,crime had declined and neighborhoods had becomesafer. Furthermore, individuals from the same neigh-.borhood or with similar personal characteristicsand/ or experiences may have had conflicting opinionsabout any given issue. Nevertheless, people's opinions,beliefs, and perceptions about crime are important be-cause they may influence behavior, bring about,changes in certain routine activities, affect househqdsecurity measures, or result in pressures on localauthorities to improve police services.

The relationship between victimization experiencesand attitudes is a recurring theme in the analyticalsection of this report. Information concerning suchexperiences was gathered with separate question-naires, Forms NCS 3 and 4, used in administering thevictimization component of the survey. Victimizationsurvey results appeared in Criminal Victimization Sur-veys in Miami (1977), which also contains a detaileddescription of the survey-measured crimes, a discus-sion of the limitations of the central city surveys, andfacsimiles of Forms NCS 3 and 4. For the purpose ofthis report, individuals who were victims of the follow-ing crimes, whether completed or attempted, dming

the 12 months prior to the month of the interview were

considered "victimized"; rape, personal robbery,

assault, and personal larceny. Similarly, members ofhouseholds that experienced one or more of three types

of offenses burglary, household larceny, and motor

vehicle theft were categorized as victims. Thesecrimes are det ined in the glossary. Persons who experi-

enced crimes, other than those measured by the pro-

gram, or who were victimized by any of the relevantoffenes outside of the I2-month reference, period,

were classified as "not victimized." Limitations in-

herent in the victimization surveYthat may haveaffected the accuracy of distinguishing victims fromnonvictims resulted from the problem of victim re-

call (the differing ability of respondents to remember

crimes) and from the phenomenon of telescoping (the .tendency of some respondents to recount incidents

occurring outside, usually before, the appropriate timeframe). Moreover, some crimes were sustained by vic-

tims outside of their city of residence; these may have

had little or no effect in the formrktion of attitudes

about local matters.Despite the difficulties in distinguishing precisely

between victims and nonvictims, it was deemed impor-

tant to explore the possiblity that being a victim ofcrime, irrespective of the level of seriousness or the fre-

quency of occurrence, has an impact on behavior rine.'attitudes. Adopting a simple dichotomous victimiza-

tion experience variablevictimized and not victim-ized for purposes of' tabulation -and ahalysis alsostemmed from the desirability of attaining the highest

possible degree of statistical reliability, even at the cost

of using these brow! categories. Ideally, the Victim

category should have distinguished the type or serious,:

ness of crimes, the recency of the events, iTd/ or the

number of offenses sustained.2 Such a procedure-seem-

ingly would have yielded more refined measures of the

effects of crime upon attitudes. By reducing ttienumber of sample cases on which estimates were !,

Vased, however, such a subcategorization of victims !

would have weakened the statistical validity of corn- \parisons between the victims and nonvictims,

2Survey results presented in this report contain attitudinal datafurnished by the victims of "series victimimtions" (see glossary).

2

Summary

Most residents. of Miami shared the belief that crimein the Nation had increased during the year or twoprior to the survey and that their chances of fallingvictim to violent attack had also I isen liii thei moic,when asked to assess the impact of crime on pei sona Iactivity, more than three fourths said leaf of attackhad affected American lives.

Miamians' appeared to be less concerned aboutcrime in, their own neighborhoods. Only about onefourth believed crime to be on the mei ease in thevicintiy of their homes, and most regarded the neigh-borhood as safer than Awls in the mot ropolita n area.In addition, fewer than I in 5 household respondentsidentified crimc as the most serious neighborhoodproblem. Given such opinions, it is not surprising thatnearly all residents said they. felt at least reasonablysafe whcn out alone in the neighborhood during theday. However, the hours after dark appeared to causegreater insecurity: 38 percent of the people felt at leastmoderately unsafe at night. As for the perpetrators ofneighborhood crimc, outsiders were more frequentlyblamed than neighboring residents.

Queried about the effect of crime on their own lives,fewer than half of Miami's residents said they hadlimited or ehangecl their activities. And when it came tospecific acitivities such as dining out or going to atheater, crime or fcar of crime was rarely mentioned asan important consideration. Furthermore, crime wasnot the major reason given for moving front an oldneighborhood, selecting a new one, or shopping at aparticular location.

Opinions about crime were generally homogeneousacross all sectors of the population, although therewere often differences in the strength of viewpoints. Toillustrate, most individuals, regardless of their race orexperience with crime, believed their neighborhood tobe safer than others in the Miimi area, yet whites ornonvictims were more likely than blacks or victims toshare this belief. Similarly, men or younger personstended to feel more secure than others when out alonein the neighborhood., and.nonvictims were more likelythan victims to hold outsiders responsible for neigh-borhood crime.

Local law enforcement authorities were judged to begood or average by a majority of the population.

Nem lifeless, it was the consensus duo police se, viec.scould be npgiadcd. mainh IIIilt%1%111g Ilic %I/t' of Ow

police force or by bettel deployment of available per-sonnel. Compared with the total population, blackswere more likely io give the police pool ratings and tocall toi imploNements III

Ate

es

3

Chart A. Summary findings about crime trends

Drection04 U S /limn(lable

)iftit !Rillof neighborhood crime(Table 2)

Increased

Same

Decreased

Irv-lensed

Same

Decreased

sComparative

Less ato

neighbortiood safety Average(Table 3) Safer

;Amour R (entityof otterxkirs(ram, 4)

Diaocesof beteg victimired(Table 5)

Crime flul mrtrayedby news [-node s

(Table 6)

Outsiders

NeighborsDon't kno'k

IncreasedSame

Decree SO

Moro sonousSarno,

Lmis serious

16111111111111111111i

'1111 5

21

7

6

4

11111111111111111111111111111111111131

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

11111111111110

1111111111111111111111111111 24

11132

111 111111111111111111111111111111.

111111111 8

32

43

II 111111111H11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I

11111111111111 1

50

53

62

10

0 10 20 30 40 50 60PERCENT

70 130

Chart B. Summary findings about fear of crime

Inhibits daytimemovement(Table 7)

Inhibits nighttimemovement(Table 0)

l.TaYtime neighborhoodsafely(Table 9)Nighttime neighborhoodsafely(Table 12)

Home relocationconsidere'd(Table ,15)

Population limitingactivities(Table 16)

Neighbots_limitingaCtiville6(Table 16)

Respondent limitingactivities(Table 16)

Ytis

No

Yes

No

Unsafe

Safe

Unsafe

Safe

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

"..,-r

90 100

20

111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111101111111111111111111111111

25

hhhhhhIhhhuhIhIhhhhhhhhIhhhhhIuhhhIhhIhhhhIIhhIIhuhhhhhhhhhhhIIhhhhhhhI61

72

hill° ill tIlt 111111 I H II II no till, Ht I Hu Hi

38

IhhlhhIhhIhlIIhhIIllhhlhhhhhhIlhhlIhhIhhhIhhhhhIIIhiIIiIIhhhIhIhIhhIhhhI

19

62

1111111111111111111111111111111111111H11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

1111111111111111111111 20

hhhhhlhhIluIhuIhuIIlhhhIhhIhhlhhIuuhhuIhuhIhuhIhIllhlh46

45

61

1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111155

70

79

91

1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 T

1 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 90 90PERCENT

12,

100

Chart C. Summary findings about residential problems

110a3da fix ienvingltI wilyibortic 1,41

(1ntile 20)

.

Reason tor choosingntornood

ciabin 1e)

Uid 004i/hi/oil wodfeatures(TOW -0)

Mato nergi1PorhoodOtkkin-1.itstMc 2,71, .

if

Crime srifoN

t orationrfisfikesi

House dislitrod

()um .satoly

locator' irked

risme med.

Yeir

No'

Clime

nvuonnvil

11arl3tro4tellorl

111111{1111111111111111111111111

1111(11111111111111111111111111111111111

JS

IIIIIIIIH1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111

11111111111111111111111111

H111111111 1111111

11111111111111111111 111

1

1111111111111111111111111111111

co

r .

37 -Is

I I r r 1 r10 20 30 . 4Q , 60 60 70 CO 00 100

.,OFFfeNT

Z....,'

Chart D. Summary findings: *Qui police performance

job performance(Win)(Table 31)

Need for improvement(Table 34)

Maln ImprOvemeneeded(Table 35)

ftrp

tj.

Good

Average

P001

Yes-

PersonneljeSburces

Operarionalpractice*

Community. reletiont

43.

.

111111111111111111111111

II

I I

ifillilUil

.

-rs

86'

410 51) 60 70 86 ooPERCENT

100 ,

Crime trends

.

This section Of the report deals with the percept Ums

of Miami residents with respect to.national and com-munity crime trends, personal safety, and t hc accuracywith which newspapers and television were thought tohe reporting the crime problem. .1 he findings weiedrawn from Data fables I through 6, found m Ap-,pendiX I. The relevant quesiiOns, appearing in the lac--simile of the survey instrument (Appendix II are 9a,

. 9c, 10a, 12, 15a, and 15b: each questionlmas asked ofpersons. age 16 and over.

U.S. and neighbortoOd crime trendsMost residents of Mina's age 16 and over beheyea'

crime was on lhe upswing tltroughout the United.States. Seven-tenths of the populatiOn said that there.had been an increase in crime in the year or two prior toIhe -survey, J6 percent believed crime remained atioutthe same, and 5 percent suggested it was ortthe decline.Of the 'remainder, 9 percent did not have an opinion_and feiver than'l percent did not respond. When askedabout the the,direction of crime in their own neighbor-hoods, people were somewhat less concerned. Thosewho believed neighborhood crime Was on the increasecomprised a -much smaller proportion of the popula-tion (27 percent) than for the questiOn on nationalcrime, wherea9a much larger number (45 percent) be-lieved there was no change. As before, however, fewpersons (7 percent). thought crime was on the decline.A sizeable number of personsdid not know or:declinedto respond because they were relative newc-omers tothe neighborhood.

Opinions about national and local crime trends.shOwed little variati n among persons of different sex

.

, timed when they were asked to compote neighhoihoods within the Mmmi metropolitan Inca Si xtpcieent ol thc populace h&c\ ed then o%11 commumties to be less or much less dangei Oils than others in thecity, 31 percent regArded them as avetage. and only 6twrecnt considered them to be more or much moledangeions 1 he modal (most common) response was"less dangei oils" (,16 petient). win:teas- the most un-common was -much mole dangeious- pcicent).There were statistically significant variations in the fdistribution of responses for diff&ent types of individ-uals, howevei, in no group was. the propation ofpersons who perceived 'their neighborhoods as worsethan 'twill ge to eater than I I perci-nt.-ihe ligine appli-cable to victimired indiyiduals. 4 bus, it appeared thatfew people felt so-endahgeted in their own commhnities 'that they rated them as less secdre than others.Differences of 'opinion were more likely to have /involved the "about average," "less dankerous," and"much less dangerous" categories. To illustrate, two-third s'of Mnimi's white population, but tynly two-fifthsof the black population, regarded their vicinities as less

r much .1ess, dangerous' than Others; blacks, on the,.other hand, had. a far fligher proportion of "aboutaverage" responses than whites (52 vs. 26 percent). InlAddiiion, persons age 35 and over, taken asa group, orthose who had not been, victimized in he preceding.year were more likely thain their counterparts to regardtheir communities as less or much less danOrous.

or age. As for race, acks were more apt than whites toregard crime as a wing threat to the local commu-nity. There were addition, noticeable differences ofopinion between individuals who had fallen victim toopersonal or household crime during thc 12 monthsleading up to the interview and ihost who had not. Vic-tiMized individuals.were more likely than nonvictimsto believe crime had increased, both in the Nation (16.vs. 68 percent) and in the neighborhood (37 vs. 25 per-

cent).That residents tended to regard their own vicinities

as relatively secure against crime was further Ma:

Who are the offenders?Along with questions concerning crime trends and

relative neighborhood safety, M ianii residents wereasked about the place of residence of offenders, specifi-cally whether most neigliborhood criacs were thought'to be the work of percons witgb or outside theyicinity. Itis important to note.that a fairly large rium-her of individuals, 16-percent of the total measuredpopulation, indicated thit!, crimes were not happen-,ing in the neighborhood -,N;Athites, persons over the ageof 34, 6r nonvictims beink more likely than others tofeel this wayand 24 percent did not know whom:toblame. Forty-three percent of the residents, the largestsingle grouP, stated that outsiders were the malgfac-

Abrs, whereas 10 percent singled out neighborhoodresidents, and 6 percent held outsiders and people from.,,..the vicinity equally responsible. Therefore, a majority .of those persons who recognized the existence ofneighborhood crime and hod an, opinion about theidentity of the perpetrators blamed outsiders, a findingthat held for all the measured subgroups:Nonetheless,persons who had firsthand experience as victims of

crime, lint were not necessarily victimized in the neighhot hood or had not necvNsitailv seen the Menders,mauled focal iclatitel) mow ol ten thannonvictims and were less likely to contend there was noci ime in the neighborhood oi to have no opinion onthe subject.

One-fourth of all hlacloi,compated to only 6 peicentof %suites. atti ncighhoi hood t lune to lot-al lesidents. taken as a gioup, )oungel peisons (age 16 34 )were much more likely than older persons to blamecommunity members. These relationships no doubtrelate to findings of t he vietimiiation component of thesurvey, which determined tha( blacks or younger per-sons had highei vietimitation rates lot climes olviolence OAS!, rape. robbet v, and assault) than otlwipersons.'

Chances of personal victhilization

When the issue of personal vulnerability was raised.53.percent of the residents of Miami said their chances

4 of being attacked or lobbed had gone up Over the pastfew yoars, 32 percent fat the odds wile about the same,and- 8 percent believed the risk 'had diminshcd.Although the most common reply elieh of themeasured subgrotips was that personal vulnerahpityhad increased, there were variations in the size Of thisresponse. Fot: example, 61 percent of all victims com-pared with 51 ercent of nonvietims believed thenehanees of attack had risen. Ilowevei, whites orfemales, groups with relaly low victimization ratesfor personal crimes of violence, wer e. more likely tdperceive a higher level of risk than blackS or males,,groups with comparatively high rates of victimization.Surprisingly, age did not appear to be related to per-ceptions of personal vulnera

Crdne and the media

In recent years the'' public has become increasinglycritical of newspaper and television coverage of Olenews. Critics have charged that newspapers and televi-sion have portrayed American society only at its worst,and that coverage is often distorted or one-sided. Withregard to the reporting of crime, however, Miamiresidents were not overly critical of the media; half ofthe population stated that the crime problem wasabout as serious as portrayed by the newspapers andtelevision, 32 percent belitnied the problem to beevenmom serious than reported, and I I percent suggestedits graVilikgs had been -exaggerated by the coverage.

'United States. National Criminal Justice Information and.Sta-.. ashes Service. Criminal Vicamizarkm Sunwys in 13 AmMean"

Cities. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June1975, p. 93.

I hese attitudes were gehevallv homogeneons, althougha slightly highei pricentage iii victims (11 blacks, COM-

cd s Ith storms tuislis or ss hi tes, LollsIdeled 01111C .1more serious problem than reported by the media.

Fear of crime

Among other. things, 'Twits covered thus tar haveshown that many iesidents ol Miami believed minehad increased over the veal% leading up to the survey,and. m addition. Ich then own chances 01 beingattacked oi lobbed had I !sell Whether 01 not theylemed lot then personal safety is a matte! treated inthis section of the report. Also examined is the impactof the feat of crime on activity patterns and on consid-erations regarding changes of residence. Surveyquestions I la, I lb, I lc, I3a, 13b, 16a, 16h, and 16eall asked ol persons age 16 and over and Data Tables7 through 18 are referenced here.

V"Crime as a deterrent to mobility

Individuals were asked if there were certain a'retts ofMiami wherg they had reason to go or would like logobut were afraid to do so because of crime. Seventy-twopercent 01 the measured population stated that duringthe daytime they weie not al raid to travel to othrattas, and one-fifth expressed some apprehension.4

Time, of day appeared to be aft iMportant considera-tion in assessing the danger of 'traveling to other neiih-borhoods. When residents were asked about the eve:-ning hours, three-fifths of the population, a somewhatlower proportion than was registered for the previousquestion, said they did not fear moving about. Thisdisparity between responses for the daytime and night-time questions held for all demographic subcompo-nents and for both Victims and nonvictims.

Although the majority believed there was little tofear from traveling about the city in Other the daytimeor at night, the proportion of persons who felt this wayvaried among the measured subgroups. The disparitybetween racial groups was the most pronounced, withblacks beinglesS fearful than whites of moving aboutwhen the need or wish arose. Approximately 81 per-mkt of blacks, compared with 69 percent of whites,

1As indicated previously, respondents Were not queried regardingall parts of the metropolitan arca but only about those they nodedor yesired to enter, Thus, it is reasona&le to assume that higb riskphices, thbse most highly fearcd, were excluded frotu coniaderationby many respondents. I-Iad the queitions applied unconditionally toall sectors of the area, the pattern of responses no doubt would havediffered.

15

7

stated they wen. not fearl id during the daytime, lotnighttime, the comparable I igures were 68 and S9 per-

,cent, I espectv.ely. Mcp gave a somewhat higliet piportion .of "no fear" responses than women for bothday and night, whereas nonvictims were shownlo beless fearful than victims only during nighttime. 1

Among persons mkt age 65 their- appeated to be a

greater reluctance to trivel to othet neighborhoodsduring the day as age increased, although statisticalsignificance was not always forthcoming. Surprisingly,however, the pioportion of elderly persons (age 65 and

over) who said they weie not afraid to move about thecity during the day or at night was .highei than the

norm. 1 hat the elderly showed evidence ot being less

apprehensive dia n others is quite remit I ;cable in view of

the fact that they were generally considered lobe more

fearful than younger people. Tlw possibility exists that

this finding is an artifact of question design and not a

true indication of disparate attitudeslitAs suggestedbefore, the neighborhoods under consideration were

those the respondent wanted or needed to enter, and it

is not unlikely that the areas assessed varied with age.

Persons alle 65 and over may well have considered only

a few regularly visited neighborhoods which they re-

garded as safe, whereas younger persons may havepassgd judgment on a wider variety of places.

Neighborhood safetyAn additional measure of the impact of e me on

attitudes was obtained from a question conèciingpersonal safety within the' neighborhood. During hedaytime,. 51 percent of the residents believed them-

selves to be very safe t,heoout alone in the local com-munity, 40 percent felt reasonably safe, 7 percentsomewhat unsafe, and only 2 percent very unsafe.

A general feeling of security was in evidence for all the

identifiable subgroups, even ,thottgh the degree of

safety perceived sometimes varied significantly. Forexample, 62 percent of Miami's male poptdationconsidered themselves to be very 'safe but only 43percent of females felt the same way. By contrast, 45

percent of all women as opposed to 33 percent of men

felt reasonably safe; response differences between the

sexes existed for both races and most age groups.Regarding agc, sizeable variations were evident only

between the youngest and olclest respondents. Of

persons age 16 -19, 54 percent felt very safe and 37

percent felt reasonably safe, whereas 88 percent of the

responses by individuals age 65 and over were equally

divided between those two categories.As was the case with fear of traveling to other neigh-

borhoods, the dighttime period caused greater fear of

attack than the daytime. Overall, 23 percent felt very

Crime as a cause for moving awayNot wit lista nd Mg the fact dm I many Mia liii tesidents

questioned die safety of then own neighbor hoods, pal

ticularly during nighttime, few individuals were soconcerned about crime that they serivsly thoughtabout leaving thc area Only 19 percent t he residents

who telt at least somewhat unsafe ell het in the day oi at

nighter both) constdeted moving soniewheie else.

Paradoxically, women or older individuals those who

were mote likely to express misgivings about the safety

safe at night, 39 percent felt reasonably safe, 22 percent

some wha t unsafe, a nd.17 percent very unsafe. Perhaps

the most significant finding was that 38 percent of thepopulation, about four tunes the number recorded in

the pievious question, considered their own neighbor-Ltood'A to be at least somewhat unsafe at night. Not un-expectedly, a higher proportion .of victims than non-...* .victims said they felt somewhat or very unsafe when

out alone at night.Roughly half of Miami's women, compared to only

one-fourth of its men, regarded the condition ol theirneighborhoods at night as somewhat or very unsafe.

The disparity between the sexes for those maintainingthey felt very unsafe was even more marked: 23 percent

of all women but only 8 percent of men 'said they felt

that way.Although rotighly comparable proportions of

whites and blacks felt either reasonably safe or some-

what unsafe in their neighborhoods at night, there

were differences of opinion involving the two alterna-tive responses, i.e., the "very safe" and "very unsafe:'categorres. "Very safe" responses were reiistered by 24

per9ent of whites as opposed to 15 percent of blacks,

anq these percentages were reversed for the "veryunsafe" category.5 At most age levels, therefore, blacks

were more likely than whites to express someklegree of

insecurity about nighttime safety, and, conversely, less

likely to feel at least somewhat Secure. This patternmaintained for females; aMong males of each race,

however, significant response differences existed only

for persons age 35 -49 and 50-64.Age by itself was not a particularly useful indicator

of response variability; only for persons age 65 and

over was there appreciable deviation from the norm.Of tire elderly persons, 48 pereent felt at least some-

what'unsafe when out alone in the neighborhood al

night, compared to 38 percent for an personsmeasured.

5For the remainder of this topic, responses of "very sok" and"reasonably safe" were combined and compared with the sum of"somewhat unsafe" and "very unsafe" answers.

8

Of 1 heli neighboi hoods %vele less apt than men 01younger persons (age 16 34) to have considered !docating.6 By contrast, blacks or victims of cr line, groupsexhibiting relatively more apprehension than whites ornonvictims, were also more likely to have thought ofmoving. In this regal& !tidal disparities were the mostsinking: 29 percent of blacks compared with 16

percent of whites said a move had been contemplated

Crime as a causefor activity modification

Although moving out of a comn unity must beregarded as a relatively drastic preventive measure,there ,aie many othei less extienie steps individualsmay take to reduce the threat of ci iminal victimization,including modifications in customaly activities.Residents were asked if they thought people in generalor people in their own neighborhood had .limited orchanged their activities in the recent past, ca if theythemselves had altered theil way of living because oft heir fear of crime. Some four-fifths of respondentsbelieved people in general had changed their lives in aneffort to reduce a perceived threat. When asked to con-sider their neighbors, however, a much smaller propor-tion, 51 percent. felt there had been some change. Thisdecline in the proportion perceiving change, as thegroup in -question became more identifiable, appearedto be consistent with findings from the previous sectionwhich showed that Miami residents believed crime tobe more of a problem in the Nation as a whole than intheir own communities. The trend was completedwhen residents were asked to consider their own activ-ity patterns; 45 percent said they had altered their life-style because of fear of crime and 55 percent said theyhad not. Thus, the results from this series of questionsshow that residgnts of Miami believed fear of crimehad a greater impaFt oil "others," be they pernile ingenerill or neighbors, than on themselves.'

The impact of fear of crime on personal activityvaried among subgroups. Sex was possibly the mostimportant variable in this regard; roughly half of all

^Based en responses shown in DAIS Table 15, this observation issomewhal misleading because the-source question was asked only ofpersons ho said they felt unsafe during daytime and/or nighttime.Totaling L,p6rcent of the relevant population. individuals who wereasked the question included 24 percent of all males, contrasted with50 percent of all females. Thus, 7 percent of the total population kite16 and over --including 6 percent of males and .8 percent offemales --said they had seriously considered moving.

'Similar findings were reported in Garofalo, James. NationalCriminal Justice Information and Statistics Service. Public Opiniohabout Crime: The Attitudes qf Victims-and Nonvictims in SelectedCities.

women but only 17 peicent of men said ilin hadlimited of changed th activities beca u se of the feat of

ci mu:, with signifiuts dleiences existing at each agelevel. Furthermore, irrespective of age, white fenuileswere knore likely than white males to have reorderedtheir activities, hut for blacks the differences werestatistically valid only Nu vet cons in gi ()ups bet wentthe ages of 20 and 49 (..ompared with white tesidents,blacks mote frequently changed their activities in re-action to fear of crime; a reSionship that prevailed formost age groups. And, although differences betweenmatching se xage gioupings were not alwa ys statisti-(-ally significant. it appeared that a higher proportionof black males or females than then white countyt part shad alteted then personal activities

Residential riroblemsand lifestyles

t he initial attitude survey questions were designedto gather information about certain specific behavioralpractices of Miami householders and to explore per-ceptins about a widc range of community problems,one ofVwhich was crime. As indicated in the sectionentitled "Crime and Attitudes,- certain questions wereasked of only one member of each household, knownas the household respondent. Information gatheredfrom such persons is treated in this section of the reportand found in Data Tables 19 through 26; the pertinentdata were based on survey questions 2a thiough 7b. Inaddition, the responses to queStions 8a through 8f,relating to certain aspects of personal lifestyle, also areexamined in this section; the relevant questions wereasked Of all household members age 16 and ovcr,including the household respondent, and the resultsa r'e displayed in Data Tables 27 through10. As can beseen from the questionnaire, and unlike the procedureused in developing the information discussed in thetwo prveding sections of this report, the questionsthat served as a basis for the topics covered here did notreveal to respondents that the development of data oncrime was the main purpose of the survey.,

Neighborhood probleinsand selecting a home

At the start of the survey, members of householdssituated at the same address 5 years or less Were askedwhat had been the reasons for.leaving their former

9

home nd lot moving into then prrsent li6ationRespondents 5,110 volunteered 11101c 111;111 one n,woto ettc.11,qucly WCIC aSkcd to pick the most 1110)01unitone. Forboth inqUifieS, Crime was mentioned by Only a

small number of respondents: 2 percent suggested that

clime was the major reason they left then former placeof lesulence and 4 ye, cent "said safety [loin ci ime was

of prime consideration in selecting the present neigh-

borhood Responses that might have incorporatedconcern over antisocial activities, such as -goodschools,- "neighbor hood characterattics," or "influx ofbad elements," were also relat ively uncommon. Fact ors

such as locatIon and the chili actericrics of the old and

no% (1%5r-flings were much mote Important considera-

tions.Asked a bont coirditions m the neighborhood. sonic

seven-tenths of all household respondents stated there

were no undesirable features, whereas 30 percent iden-

tified one or more areas of concern. Seventeen percent

of persons in the latter group considered crime themost serious issue and afrot her one-fourth identifiedmatters possibly related to OMR', such as problemneighbors and the influx of an undesirable element.

Enviromnental problems such as trash, noise, and

congestion were most botiThrsome to 37 Percept of the

respondents.

Food and merchandisa"shopping practices

To first householders, food shopping surely must

rank as one of the most impOrtant activities performed

on a regular basis. ln response to a question concern-ing major food shopping practices, some four-fifths ofthe hOuschold respondents said they shoppfd in their

own commnities, and. 18 percent, including a dispro-portionately large number of blacks, said they shopped

elsewhere. Crime or fear of crime was infrequentlycited as thc major reason for shopping outside the

neighborhood; more often than n.,,cA, factors such as the

absence of neighborhood stores or their inadequacywet*. given as the most important reasons.

(its for other kinds oT shopping, such as for clothing

and general merchandise, most respondents (67percent) usually preferred to go to neighborhood orsuburban stores, whereas a minority preferred thedowntown area. Only 8 percent of the respondenttwho shopped in the neighborhood or went to thesuburbs did so primarily because they feared criminal

attack downtown. Convenience or cttet selectionwere commonly cited as the major re. ons for choos-

ing a particular area.

Enhrtalnmnt practicasQuestions ilcitaming lo evening fr111r1 1a111111C111

jr;fiterns the freqneiwy with which people went ontand the location of the establishmems were asked of

all respondents. Sixty-four percent of the populationwent out in thevevenin4 with the same regular ity, theyhad a yeat of two plevIonsly, 26 peteent had reducedtheir activities, and 10 peteent went out mote ()Ile%

the most common teason given lot cintailing eveningentertainment, accounting for about one-lour th of the

total, was lack of money. About one-tenth of thcresidents who had cut back did so primarily because

they feared crime, not surprisingly, etime or Ica; ofcrime was rarely cited as a reason for increasingactivities,

1 heaters and iestamants inside the city were pre-ferred by three-lourths of the residents, whereas 14

percent said they went outside the city ancf 1.1 percentpatronized establishments in both areas. Some 14

pei cent of those who went outside the city and farfewer of those who remained in thc city tited crime as

the major reason.

Local police performance

Following the series of questions concerning neigh-borhood safety nd crime as a deterren to personalmobility, indiv. uals age 16 and over were asked to

assess the ove all performance of the local police andto suggest ways, if any, iii which police effectivenessmight be improved. Data Tables 31 through 37,derived from survey questions 14a and 14b, contain theresults on which this discussion is based.

/ Are thay doing good,average, or poor job?

Aldetermined by the survey, the public's assessmentof the Miami police was positive, if not overwhelm-ingly favorable. Some 43 percent of the measured pop-

ulation believed the local authorities were doing agood job and 37 perccnt an average job, whereas only12 percent rated police performance as poor. This

finding appears to indicate that concern over risingcrime rates and increaging personal vulnerability hadnot translated into criticism of tilie municipal police.But there were differences of opinion in this regard,

particularly beiween the races. Whites exhibited amuch more favorable view of their local police thanblacks; nearly half qf all whites said the police weredoing a good job, one-third an average Job, and one-

1 8

10

, I

tenth a pool lob, wlieleas only otufated them as good. one-hall 115 8%1;11one filth its pool With few esceptions

-I mufti 'Of blacks, and about

lit( tal dispio i

ties re amed their significance across sex-age ea te-gimes

Wit i respect to age, younger persons were moreit ical ofthe police 01111101de, pei sons Of Pc( sobs age

w, W A t. e lil I eioiticd nobt c pet tot man. c as46 pei cent as avciagc and 1 pci cent as

_

mong individuals age 35 and over the compai able

pi oportions were 48, 32, and 11 As a ruleyoungerpersons of either race and sex were less fa vorably ldis-,

posed toward the police 1t han ot het iesidents, but dd.-welt- not a It .1 ys statistically sign!l icant

small sue of the gionp% on Which thebased

let c nces

bccarise ol thecSt mutes wc

Although the relationship between CM en contactwith the criminal mstice system and atti les towardthe police was not directly examitrd, victimired indi-vidnak, many of whom came into contact with tirpolice as a tesult of then expcitence with ciunc,exhibited a lowei opinion of the police than nonvic-tons. Whereas 34 percent of those affected by crimerated the police favorably, 46 percent of the nonvictimsresponded in that fashion. In addition, victims weresoMewhat more likely than nonvictims to regard policepet lot !flatlet. as poor.

How can the police Improve?Irrespective of wq1 they tkought of police perfortit

;ince, Miami rcsid.nts were inclined to believe g,osliciel fectiveness could be improved. Onlfv 12 pet cent ofindividuals asked about ways to imi ove the forcereplied that no improvement was nee( d.. Blacks (8percent) or persons who had srpred a victimization(10) were somewhat less likely than others to hold thisview?

.A yariety of specific suggest ions'were m

0.ade concern-,ing the most important way to upgrade police perform-,.ance, but only a few were regularly cited. The most fre-quently voiced opipion was that more lice wereneeded (37 percent) and that additiOn olice shouldbtk used in certain areas and at certain times of the day. ..

.,-,-

(19 percent). Oat 4uggcstions, each accounting forroughly a tenth of the responses, included improvingresponsiveness and placing emphasis on more impor-tant duties, such as crime prevention.

Tecommenda non% that focused upon impios mugIRA %mind tUsolilces iii opci animal plat ficcs act mintedlot some pcit cul ol Ilw espolises N pe CCM 01

the residents cited a teed 101 impt ming communitylehations, and 5 peicent had other unspecified re-sponses

White mu! black 1 csidcnts appeated to be , t oddsot ci the bust w.iN to npgt adc police perlm main CNeal!) hall of all whites bill only a fifth of all blacksconsidered an increase in thetue of the local force orimprovement in the quality ol personnel to be the mostimportant considerations Blacks, by contrast, weir.mote likely than whites tkr call lot a change in opeia-tional piacticez,v lot hettei community !Hanoi>.Within the lattei eatcgoty, I ecicent of blacks spe-cifically mentioned the de'velopiikent of a more 'cour-teous attitude and 9 percent klt the police should stopdiscriminating; the corresponding figures for whiteswere 4 and I percent. Finally, persons age 35 and over

nonvictims were mme likely than younger peisonsor victims, respectively, to regal d improvements ielatmg to personnel resources as Ci ticial, bin were less aptto suggest measures concerning operational practicesor community relations.

"the eight spccilic rcsponw items comer( in Qucstion 14b weirc mbiI1C(1 into brcc calcgolicS, 81 follow% I ommuum relinonn

-11 mote mi lemistepi thr attitude. community [(lotions-and( ) 'Don't di criminate. 'Operarnmalprouricei:( I) "Concentrate onmore impm iii ot duties. Ise nous crime, etc ", (2) "Re Moir prompt.responsive, alert:, (3) "Nccd more iraffic control": and (4) "Needmore policemen of particular type (foot, car) In certain areas or atcertain nines An& personnel re.sourrei: ( I) "Ibre nThre policemen-and (2) "Improve traminvise qualifications or pay, recitnimentpolicies

9

1.

Appendix I

NSuniey data tables

Th'e 37 statistical data tables-in this dppendivresentthe results of the Miami attitudinal survey conductedearly in l974l1 They are oiganiied topically, generallypaialleling the icpores analytical disc ussion lou eachsubject, the data tables consist of ct oss-tabulauuns 01personal (or household) characteristics and the rde-vant response categories. For a given popufittion group,each table displays the percent distribution of answersto a question.

All statistical datA generated bv the savey are esti-mates that vary in 'their degree of 'reliability and aresubject to variances, or errors, associated with the factthat they were derived, from a sample survey ratherthan a complete enumeration. Constraints on interpre-

, lation and other uses of the data, as well as guidelinesfor determining their reliability, arc set forth in Appen-dix 111. As a general rule, however, estimates based onzero or on about 10 or fewcy sam6le cases have beenconsidered unreliable. Such estimates, qualified byfootnotes to the data tables, were not used for analyti-cal iourposes% in this report.

Each data table parenthetically *displays the size ofthe groupfor which a distribution of responses was cal-culated. As with the percentages, these base figures arcestimates. On tables showing t he a nswers of individualrespondents (Tables 1-18 and 27-37), the figuresreflect an adjustment based on an tncl4endent post-

.411 Census estimate of the City's resident population. Fordata from household respondents (Tables 19-26), thebases were generated solely by the survey itself.

A note beneath each data table identifies the ques-tion that served as source of the data. As an expedientin preparing,tables, certain response categories werereworded and/ orlabbreviated. The questionnaire fac-simile (Appendix 11) shOuld be consulted for the exactwording of both the questions and the response cate-gories. For questionnaire items that carried theinstruction "Mark all that apply," thereby enabling a

respondent to furnish,more than a single answer, thedata tables reflect only the answer designated. by therespondent Its being the most important one ratherthan all iiinswers. given.

The first six data tables were used in preparing the"Crime Wrends" section of the report. Tables 47-18relate to the topic "Fear of Crime"; Tables 19-30 cover"Residential Probkms and Lifestyles"; .and the lastseven tables display infoimation concerning "LocalPolice Performance."

k 2o

Att

4

Table 1. Direction of crime trends In the United States

(Percent distribution of responses for the population age 16 andtover)

Population characteristic Total

AU persons (282,800) 100. 0

SexWale (125,000)Female (157,700)

RaceWhiteBlack 54,20D)Other 2,000)

16492044 29,90025-34 42,100

, 35-49 70,5005044 67,70065 and over (51,700)

Victimisation experienceMot victimised (225,100)Victimised (57,700)

100.0100.0

100.0100,0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100. 0100.0

Same Doors:toed Don't know Not available

69.7

69.270.1

15.9

5.1

5.3

6.24.6

8.7

7.59. 7

0.4

0.30.5

69.372.6

15.816.q,

5.35.0

9.1

6.0 0:)0138.1 17.1 6. 0 38.8 10.0

70.8 18.8 3.4 6.6 0.472.9 16.0 4.8 6.2 10.172.4 16.4 4.5 6.5 10.3

C 68.6 16.4 5.8 8.8 0.568.7 15.2 6.7 8.9 0.5

68.3 14.2 4.4 12.5 0.6

68.1 16.14 5.4 10. 0 0,476.2 14.8 a

4.8 3. 6 1 10.4

WYK: Data based on question 10m. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Figures in parentheses refer to population in the group.

Mstisate, based on sero or on about 10 or fewer sample cases, in statistically unreliable.

Tails 2. Direction of Arne trends in the neld6borhood(Percent distribution 9f responses for the population age 16 and over)

PoculatiOn Characteristic Total Increased Same seedHaven' t lived

. here that long Don' t know Not availabl

All persons (282,800) IVHexWale (125,000)Fella (157, 7u))

Rao.

1C0.81'

100.0100. 0

27.2

26.627.7.

44.7

46.6

43.2

.1,

8.1

6.4

7.9

7.68.2

12.8_

10. 914.3

0.2

"1 0.2

whit. 100.0 25.3 45.6 6.4 8.4 14.0 0.2

sack 54,200)Othor 2,000)

100.0100.0

35.8110.6

44334g7

10,5

)o.o4.8

32,07.5

20.71 0.1%0.0

Aso1649 22,80020-24 2Moo .

100.01000

28.929.4

42.841.1

.'6.6

6.4

10.111.4

I1411.7

10.1

.

1 0.0

25-34 42,100 100.0 29.7 41.3' 6.7 10.7 11.4 10.1 -

35-49 70,500 100.0 25.7 46,2 7.5 9.0 11.4 :i0.250-64 67,700 i 100.0 26.0 48.0 8.0 5.0 12.9 r 1 Oa65 and ovek (51,700) i- V

100.0 t 27.0 44.0 -6.4 5.2 17.0 4

Viotieisation experienceNot yietimisea (22,100y 100.0 24.7 /46.1 6.9 8.1 14.0 . 0.2Viodud.s.d (57,700)

4-100.0 37.2. 39.6 7.9 7.1 8.0 1062,

ROM Data bayed on quotation 9a. Detail may not add tO total because of rounding.. Figures in pareniheses refer to populatiOn in the group.iletionate, based on %aro or on about 10 or fewer sample cases, is statistically unreliable,

'

Tablet?. Comparison of neighborhood crime with other metropolitan area neighborhoods

(Percent distribution of responses for the population age 16 and over)

Population characteristic

AU persons (282,800)

8ex

Male (125,000)Peinale (157,700)

Roc

WhiteMack 54,200)Other 2,CCO)

it16-1920-24 27,90029-34 42,10035-49 70,50050-64 67,70065 and over (51,700)

Victimisation experienceMet victimised (225,100).Victimised (57,700)

TotalMuch moredangerous

Noradangeroue

Aboutaverage

Less

dangerousMuch leesdangerous Not available

100. 0 1.0 5.0 31. 0 45.6 16.5 1. 0

100.0 1.1 5.1 29.7 45.5 17.7 0.9100.0 1 1.0 5.0 31.9 45.7 15.5 1.0

100.0 0.8 4.4 26.0 49.3 18.6 f 0.9100.0 2.0 7.5 51.5 30.2 7.8 1.0100.0 10.0 '6.0 34.7 41.4 110.1 17.8

100.0 1.6 6.1 32.5 42.7 16.2 10.9100.0 1.8 7.1 35.9 41.5 12.9 10.8100.0 1.1 6.7 38.2 39.6 13.4 1.0100.0 0.7 3.9 28. 2 48.8 17.5 0.9100.0100.0

1.00.4

4.1

4-727. 8

29. 747.846.7

18.716.6

0.61.5

100. 0 0.7 4.0 29.2 47.7 17.4 1.0100.0 ?.3 8.8 37.8 37.4 12.7 1.0

lam Data based on questlen12, Lmtail may not add Co total becauee of rounding. Figures in parentheses refer to population in the group.Intimate, based on sero or on about 10 or fewer sample cases, is stiatistically unreliable.

Table 4. Place of residence of .pirsoni committing neighborhood crimes(Percent distribution of responses for the population age 16 and over)

Population O'haracteristit


Sex

Male (125,000)Pmnale (157,700).

RaceWhiteBlack 54,200)Other 2,000)

'Ms

1

16-19 22,80020-24 2700025-34 42,100 .

35-49 70,50050-64 67,700.65 end aver (51,700)

Victimisation experienceMot Victimised (225,100)Victiaised c(57,700)

Total.No neighborhoodcriine

People livinghere Outsiders

Equallypy both Don't know . .Not aVailable

160.0 15.8 4 43.2 6.1 24.3 0.8

100.0100.0

15.915.7

10.0

9.545.541.4

6.4

5.921.426.7

0.80.8

100.0 19.0 6.4 44.2 4.6 25,0 0.8160.0 2.6 23,5 39.7 12.4 20,9 0.8100.0 16.5 18.8 24.7 12.9 47.1 .0

100.0 130. 14.6 43.8 8.4 19.8 10.4100.0 11.5 16.7 . 42.9 7.4 20.8 10.7100.0 9.8 16.5 40.4 6.9 25.8 10.7100.0 17.8 8.1 45.3 5.9 21.9 0.9100.0 18.6 7.2 44.5 9.2 23.8 0.8100.0 17.8 3.8 41.0 5.3 31.1

100.0 18.3 7.2 42.5 5.8 25.5 ^ 0.7100.0

= .6.1 19.5 46.2 7.5 19.8 0.9

MUM Data based on question 9c. Detail may not add to totil because of rounding. Figures in parentheses'Zitimate, based on sero or on about 10 cc^ fewer sample cases, is statistically unreliable.

22refer to population in the group.

e4

Table 5. Change In the chances of be k g Mtacked or robbed

(Forcent distri)ution of reeponsee for the population e 16 and over)


All persons (282,800)

Sax.

pale (125,000)resale (157,700)

DaceWhiteKeck 54,200)Other 2,000)

Age. 16-19;044 27,9C025-34 42,1003 9 70,930

67,70065 end over (51,700)

Victimigation experienceMot victimised (225,100)Victimised (57,700)

Total Going up Same Going down No opinion Not available

100.0 53.1 32.3 8.1 k.3 0.3

100.0 49.8 35.7 8.9 5.3 0.3100.0 55.8 29.5 7.5 7.0 0.2

100.0 54.1 31.5 7.5 6.7 0.3100.0 49.7 35.4 10.7 4.0 '0.2100.0 34.6 38.7 17.3 19.4

A0.0

100.0 46.0 38.4%

9.5 5.6 10.5

100.0 53.6 6.5 4.1100.0 57.1 i05% 8.2 4.5 10.1

100.0 52.5 33.2 7.8 6.3 10.2.100.0 55.4 29.4 9.1 5.9 10.31100.0 90.6 32.1 7.3 9.7 10.3

100.0 51.0 33.1 8.4 7.2 0.2100.0 61.3 28.9 7.0 2.5

10714 Delta based on question 15a. Detail may not add to iotal because of rounding. Figuree IO parentheses refer to population in the group.'Estimate, based on sero ca"on about 10 or fewer sample cases, iv etatietically unreliablef

-Table 6. Seriousness of crime problem relative to what newspapers and television report

(Percent distribution of responses for the i.opulatiCo age 16 and over)

hpulation characteristic


3sxNals (125,000)Panel. (157,700)

lace

,0001.Other 2

whit+"Lack 54,200)

*'16-19 22,11C0

$P,724'15-34

35-49 70,50350-64 67,7005 sad over ( , 700 )

noiinisation experienceyitstdmised (225,100)

7V1011miSed157,700)

Total Lass serious Same Nora serious No.opinion Not availabl.

100.0 10.9 50.2 31.6 6. 9 o. 5

100.0 12.8 49.7 31.3 5.6a

m., a100.0 9.3 50.6 31.8 7.9 0.4

100.0 11.8 49.5 30.7 7.5 0.4100.0 6.6 53.6

411135.5 3.7 0.6

100.01 14.8 38.2 27.8 19.3 1 Q.0

100.0 . 12.4 50.6 31.8 4.9 10.4100.0 10.3 54.0 31.5 4.0 10.2100.0 11.4 50.2 33.3 4.8 *CO100.0 11.7 90.8 30.6 6.6 1 10.4100,0 11.1 48.2 312.4 7.6 0.7100.0 8.6 49.8 30.5 10.6 10.5

-

100.0 11.0 $1.1 29.6 7.9 0.51CO. 0 10.3 46.6 39.4 3.2

)101111e'. Debit bawd on question 15b. Detail soy 44 add to total because of roUnding. Pigures in parentheses refer to population in the &rot*.41t1mato, booed onosro or oo oboot 10 or fewer sample cases, is statistically unreliable.

, 2 3

4

Table 7. Fear of going to parts of the eiriidropolitan area during the day

(Percent dietributkonof responses for thl population age 16 and: over)

Population characteristic Total Yes No Not available

All persons (282,800) 100.0 20.0 71-5, 8.5-

Sex .

Male (125;000) 100.0 18.5 75.4 6.1Female (157,700) 100.0 21.2 68.4 10.4

RaceWhite 100.0 21.0 69.2 9-8Elack 54,200) 100.0 16.1 80.8 3.1Other 2,000) 100.0 11.9 85.1 19.0

Age16-19 100.0 15.8 77.2 7.020-24 27,900 100.0 160. 76.0 8.025-34 42,1 C0

35-49 70,500100.01C0.0

19.223.4

72.368.6

8-48.0

50-64 67,700 1C0.0 22.7 67.5 9.865 and over (51,700) 100.0 16.6 75.1 8.3

VictiMization experience,Not vittimissed (225,100) 100.0 19.6 71.7 8.7

Victimited (57,709) 100.0 21. 8 70-7 7-5

NOTE: Data based on Detailquestion 13a. may nct add to total because of rounding. Figure'sin parentheses refer to copulation in the group.

'Estimate, based on about 10 or fewer sample cases, is statistically unreliable.

14

24

Table 8. Fear of going to pails of the metropolitan area at night(Percent distribution or responses for the population Age 16 and aver)

Population characteristic Total


SexMale (125,000)

100.0

100.0Female (157,700) 100.0

RaceWhite 100.0Black

r226,600)

54,200) 100.0Other ,000) 100.0

Age16-19 22,800 100.020-24 27,900 100.025-34 42,100 10o.0

r 35-49 70,500 100.0\ 50-64 67,700 100.0 .

65 and aver (51,700) 100.0

ictimization experienceNot victimized (225,1C0)Victimized (57,700)

loo.q10,3.0

Yea No Not availaUe

25.0

25.125.0

25.323.9

25\4

25.026.

26.

26.626.219.7

23.730.4

60.8'

, 63.658.6

59.068.165.9

62.759.2

59.459.5 .58.367.0

62.2

55.4 S._

14.2

11.416.4

15.78.0

'8.7

12.314.514.313.915.613.3

14.214.2

: Ilata based on question'13b. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Figuresin parentheses refer to population iii the group.

stimate, based on about 10 or fewer sample cases, is statistically unreliabie.

Table 9. Neighborhood safety when out alone during the day1Percent distribution of responses 'for the population age 16 and over)

1-

Pcgmil.ation characteristic Total Very oafs Reasonably safe Somewhat unsafe Very unsafe Not. available

All persona (282,800)Sex

flea (125,000)Vemia. (157, 700)

RagaWhite 226,600)Black 54, 200)Other 2,000)

AII .

16-19* 20-24 , 27,900

25-34 f 42,1001549 70,50050-64 67,70065 and atm' (51, 700)

Victimiliation experience:Not victimized (2251100)

,, Victimised (57,1700)

100.0

100.0 ,

100.0

100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

51.2

61.842..8

54.737.033.4

54.054.751,955.349.643.9

52.048.1

39.5

32.944.8

36.352.3

57.0

36.739.339.036.940.543.5

39.439.9

cy,

F

6.7

iktO8.9 .

6.57.8

14.4

7.14.56.55.57.4

6.38.2

2.3

1.03.3

2.22.6

1 4.4

1.0

2.12. 22.23.2

2.03.4

0.3 .

0.30.2

0.31 0.31 0.0

1 0.41 0.01 0.110.31 0.2

0.6

0.31 0.3

.

,

.

trtTEVRat.a 4150 on question.1.1ht Detai1 may nOt add to total because of rounding. Figurea par.entheses refer to population in the' group.*Zatimate, :based ors zero or on tibout 10 or fewer sample casee, is statistically unreliable.

26

Table 10. Neighborhood safety when out alone during the day(Pemont (Ustribution of reoponsos for the pophlaCiou age 16.and over)

Pdpulati on characteristic Tntal Very aafe ReationaUly safe Somewhat unsafe Very tut5afe Not available

Sex and sIteSale Z1(-1920-2425-34

35-49504465 and

Peolkle.

16-1920-24

25-3495-495044'37,90065 ,and

Race 'and age

White

lt:191

2425-3435-4950-6465 and

mock16-1920-24

25-3435-4950-6465 and

10,30011,70019,00032,500

129,900over (21,700)

12,50016,20023,2003a,100

1over (30,0QQ)

16,50019,70030,10055.80058,100over (46,300)

6,1100)

7,700)11,6Qa14,10019,400)over (5,200)

/

A

4*--,, 4

V

V

.-

,

10Q.0100.0100.0,100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100i0100.0100.0100.0100.0

4.,31.

--

'

'

'64.e

68,462.5

65.360.650.4

41:844.743.1'46.7

41.039.3

1,..,

-:

58.361.356.760.952.444.8

431230..4

39.8 ,

33,933.5,35.7

27.8 '

27.9

33.329.3

3.34 7

44.

47.6

44.3T

46.244. 0

32.3

33.335.332.0

38.14:2.7

47,454.1-

49.755.1

54.350.1

4 ,.

,

12.42.93.34.2

5.0

.10.9

5.79. 26.5

. 9.8, 11.3

6.94.05.75,0

71'58.4

7,85,98.57.47.2

11. 2

4

.

;

10.310.8,10.7

10.71.4

1.4

3.1w2.0

- 3.t3.4' .

2 ,, 9,

-.4.6

1.9

2.2.1.81.83.4

'11.611.7

11.11

3.1

12.4

.

1

\

10.610.010.210.510.3

10.4

10.210.0

10.110.1,10.2

10.8

10.6

10.1

10.210.210. 6

10.010. 01011210ex

10.410.6

, _ , .-4,

,.,A0TEt Data baled on queptinn 11b. Detail may not add tOtotedA,Op unauel of roding,- flgurez.in 007.eUtheeesyeter,. ..

lintimate, based on zero dr on about 10 or fewer sample caeleuqAs statistiOAly'Obteltabte,

I . ,, v.., ,.7,-)1.-°;*

'- -. %, 44,. ,-,....,. ....'

'

,

tO'population in the

.1 .

,

Tab lp 11. Neighborhood safety when out alone duri7 the day

(Percent distribution of reeponsea foi the pecolation age 16 and over)i114


Race, sex,Whit.

NIsle

16-1920-2425-3435-49504465 and

0 Female

50-64.

, 20-24

35-49

16-19

25-34

65 and'

and age

140.26,00025,900over-(19,300)

,

9 200)

16,50029,90032,200ppOr (27,000)

1 .

2,9002,8005,2006,3003,800over 2,200)

Olaak .\

Mlle

. 35-49

16-19

):::74

95-6465 'sea

Oemile6-19 3,

1

5,' '

2

50064 5,6001

0-2445-34 6,400

J* 33-42 7,?00

65 and. over 3,6010)..

ft

Total Very safe. Reasonably safe SoMewhat unsafe Very unsafe Not available

100.0 77.3 20.2 '11.7 1 0.0 10.8

100.0 73.0 23.e '2.1 '1.1 1 0.0

100.0 66.9 29.8 2.5 ' 0.6 10. 2

100.0 70.2 25.2 3.8 0.4 10.3

100.0 63.8 30.6 4.3 1 1.1 ;0.2.

100.0 62.3 4,1.3 4.7 11.4 10.3

100.0 43.2 42.0 11.0 3.5 10.3

100.0 51.8 40.9 5.5 11.8 10.0

100.0 48.3 39.9 8.3 3.4 10.0

1W-0 , 52.9 37.9 6.1 3.0 10.1

100.0 43.3 44.1 10.1 2.4 10.2

100. Q 39.5 43.8 11.1 4.8 10.9

11

100.0i '48.5 46.2 14.3 11.1 10.0

100.0 52.9 , 42.5 14.6 10.0 10.0

100.0 50.9 43.0 15.0 11.1 10.0

100.0 45.8 45.3 6.0 11.9 11.0

100.0 40.6 49.5 15.7 13.2 10.9

100.0 34.0 55.046,3 11.4 '1.4

100.0 3444 . 48.6 11.0 12.0 10.0

-100.0 3044 60.5 6.5 12.6

100.0 30.9 55.0 11.2 12.3 10.4

100.0 24.3 62.9 8.6 -4.1 10.0

100.0 44.28.7 57.6 8.2 5.5 10.0

100.0 36.9 46.6 13.3 13.2 10.0

NNE: Data based on question 11b. Detail may not

based.on sero or on about 10 or fewer

,

a

add to total because of rounding.Figures_in parentheses refer to population in the group.

sample cases, in statistically unreliable.

fox

Table 12. Neighborhood safety when out alone at night(rercent distribution of responses (or the population age 16 ani over)

Population characteristic Total' Very site Reasonably safe 3omewhat unsafe Very tuleafe Not avallelae


Sex

Nale (125,000)Female (157,700)

, Race

WhiteEls& 54,200)OtHIF 2,000)

, Age16,1920-24 27,90025-34 42,10035-49 70,50050-64 67,70065-and over (51,700)

,

Victimisation experienceNot victimised (225,100Victimised (57,700)

100.0

100.0100.0

.

100.0. -400.0

100.0 .

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0

22.5

31.215.6

24.315.3

1 12.7

25.223.621.527.122.1

15.9

23.518.6

39.1

44.414.9

. 39.038.951.6

40.142.043.339.038.035.0

.

40.135.2.

..

21.5

16.1, 25.9

21.322.523.5

20.529.219.021.722.822.9

21.223.0

-

\

16.5

8.023.2

15.023.0

1 12.2

13314.215.912.116.925.1

14.9224

,

t

Q.4

0.30.4

0.41 0.2

1 0.0

1 0.7

1 0,01 0.3

10.210.3

1..0

0.41 0.3

NOM Data based an question lla. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Figpres in parentheses rfer to population in the group.181timate, based on sero or on about 10 or fewer sample cases, is statistically unreliable.

.!

,

,29W

Table 13. Neighborhood safety when mit alone at nightA (poritent diatribution of roaponaos for thu population age 16 and over)

FOUlation oharacteriotic Total Vory +safe 'lloanonahlY apfe Somewhat unsafe Very unaafo Nob available

Rex and ogeRale

16-19 10,30020-24 11,700

25-34 19,000

35-49 32,500

50-64 29,90065 and over (21000)

Female16-10 12,50020-24 16,290

25-34 29,20095-49 38,10050-6h 37,90065 and cr.er (30,000)

Race and ageWhite

26-4 10,700

) -49 55,00025-34 30,100

58,10065 and ovei (46,300)

Black16-19 6,100)

. 20-24 7,70025-34 11,600)

31,749 14,100)FL64 91400)1

*05 and Over (5,200)

o

..,

e

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

'too. 0

100.0.100.0100.0100.0100.0100. 0

A60. 0M0.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

&.

37.736.730.6-

36.628.621.2

14.814.114.018.916.912.1

27.526.324.230.1

23.6

16.3

19.917.1

14.615.6

13.112.0

k

45.347.050.542.3 ,

4/.741.1

,

95.938.437.536.2

33.530.7

38.042.043.440.038.1

)4.8

44.739.943.135.4

35.936.8

r

12.812.1

12.1

15.418.121.4

26.926.024.727.026.5

2h.1

19.917.619.320.422.9.23.6

22.325.918.226.522.4

17.1

3.04.26.5

5.,6

9.315.9

22.221.423.617.722.8

31.8

',.

13.61.3.2

12.89.4

15.124.3

13.117.0\24.0

22.5

R8.3,02.9

11.2110. 0

1 0. 313. 0 3

10 4

1 0.2

0.01 0.210.2i0011.4.

1 0.910.0 -

*0.31 0,2

' 1.0

1.0.0

10.0*0.210.0

. t.0.4"14

,.

?Cril: Data based On question lla. Detail may not add to total beoauoe of rounding. Figureo in parentheses refer tO population in the group.

lEetimate, baeed on zero or on about 10 or fewer sample caeca, in statistically unreliable.

wr

Table 14, Neighborhood safety when out alone at night(tercent distribution of respoileee fOr the population age 16 end aver)


Race t sex, and ageWhit.

Hale16-19 7,301

1

20-24 8, 80025-34 13,60035-49 26,0001

er (65 and ov19,300150-64 25, 900

resale16-19 9,200)20-24 10, 90025-34 16, 50035-49 29,9005O-64 32,65 and over

BlackHale

16-19 2,90020-24 2,000

) 25-34 5,20035-49 6,30050-64 3,60065 mat over 2,200)

Female16-19 3,20020-24 5,00025-34 6,40035-49 7000 .

50-64 5,60065t end over 3,000)

(27,00Q)

Total Very safe Reanonahly. safe Somewhat uneafe Very uneafe Not available

100. 0 41.9 42.1 13.1 3 11. 7100. 0 30.5 46.0 10.5 4.1 10 .0100.0 32. 7 50- 5 10.8 5- 5 0. 4100. 0 39.9 42.1 13.4 4-4 1 0.2100. 0 30.0 43.0 17.. 8.3 1 0.2100.0 21.7 41.6 21.9 14-5 1 0.3

100. 0 15.9 34.8 25.4 23.5 0.3100. 0 16-5 39-6 23. 3 20.6 10.0100. 0 17.1 37-6 26.3 18.9 1.0.2100. 0 21.6 38.1 26 13.7 1 0.2100.0 18.4 33.6 2 '20. 5 0.4100.0 .12-5 29.9 ,24: 8 31.3 1.4

100. 0 28.3 s 51.6 12.7 17.4 Id.°100.0 30.6 49.1 15.8 4.5100. 0 50. 4 15.1 9-5 0.0100.0 23.5 42. 7 23.7 10.1 10.0100.0100. 0

20.217.1

40-836- 4

21.816.5 rta

10. 91.4

100. 0 12.2 38.5 31.0 18.3 10.03100.0 9.7 34.9 31.5 24.03 10.o100.0 6.1 37.2 20.6 35.6 0.4100.0 9.3 29.6 28. 7 32.4 10.0100.0 8.3 )2.5 22.8 36-5 10.03100.0 853 37-0 17. 5 36.1 11.1

IIDTBt Data bailed on question lla. Detail may not add to total because Of rounding. Figures in parenthesee refer to population in the group./Estimate, based on zero or on about 10 or fewer sample cases, is statistically unreliable.

31

,

N..

.

-414!

Table 15. Neighborhood dangerous enough to onsider moving tsewhere

(Percent di4ribution of responses for the pop ation age 16 and over)

Population characteristic Total es No Not available

All persons (108,800) 100.0 18.8 ' 78.0 3. 2

SexMale (30,600) 100.0 23. 7 73.2 i ) 3.1

Female (78,300) 100.0 16. 9 79- 9 3.2

Race 400`

White 83,000) 100.0 15. 5 81.5 3.0Black 25,100) 100.0 29.1 66. 9 3. 9

Othei; 700) 100,.0. ' 1 29.0 71.0 y0.0

Age16,19 8,0003 q 100.0 24.0 72. 3 * 33.7

20-24 9,700 ,100.0 23,2 75.2 1 1.6

25-34 14,35-49 24, 000

100.0100.0

25.120.0

70. 877. 7

4.12.3

50-64 27,200 1 100.0 16.1 80.0 4.0

65 and over (25,100) 100.0 13-4 83. 5 3.1'

Victimization experienceNot victimised (82, 000 ) 100.01 16. 5 80.3 3.1

Victind.zed (26i000) 100.0. 25.6 71.0

NM: -Data base% on question lic. 'Detail may not add to total because -of rounding. Figures

in parentheses refer 'to population in the group.\

s'Estimate, based 'on zero or on about 10 lor fewer Sample cases, is statistically unreliable.

4

Table 16. Limitation or change in activities beçóuse of fear of crime

(PerCent distribution of responors Tar the population age 16 and over).

,

Pcptil ati on charac teristic

-.A All persons (282,000)

% Kale (125,000)Al,,Pemale (157,1700)ro

RaC6Whito264600)

Other 2,000)Mack 54,200)

Ate16-19

5044 67,700

20-44 27,90025-34 42,10035-49 70,500

65 and over (51,700)

!Ict.i1istion experienceNot victimised (22S 100Victimised (57, 700)

reople Reuerja PvPic in kcIghtto_digodP9r21.1Total' Yes No Not available Total Yee No Not available Total Ye 0 Not. available

100.0

100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.01 CO. 0

100.0100.0

100.0100.0

76.7

77.479.6

77.465.1

. 59. 7

75.777.68C .376.681.476.8

77.4134.2

p 20.2

21.719.0

21.613.734.6

23.221.416.522.3

17.919.7

21.514.9

1.1

0.91.2

1.01.2

1 5.7

11.01.11.21.1

0.71.4

1.10.9

100.0

100.0100.0

100.0100.010Q. 0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0

51.4

49.552.

11, .t51

33.3

46.149. 2'52.4

47.953.754.6

49.658.4

46.0

48.543. 9

46:657.4

62.4

49.447.344.749.543.642.7

, 47.938.4

2.7

1.93.3

2.6

1.91 4.3

2.43.52.92. 5

2. 5

2.6

2.53.2

;

100.0

1 CO. 0

1C0.0

1 C0.0

100.0100.0

100c0100.0100.0103.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0

44.8

37.350.7

42. 753.837.6

36.3'41.244. 743. 247.149.7

43.549.8

54.8

62.446.9

045.662.2

62.958.855.156.452. 749.7

,i06.1.49.9

0.4

O. 3

0.4

O. 30.6

s O. 0

L0.8)'0.0

0. 3O. 5

10.20.6

0.40.3

"Cris Data billed an questions 16., 16b, and 16c. Detail may not add to total because ogroup,

1fttisate, based an zero or on about 10 or fewer sample cases, is statistically unreliable.

33

. Figures in parentheses refer to population ht the

Table 17. Personal lirnitnthm or change/n activities beause of feumr of crime

(Percent distribution of responses for the population Ige 16 and;over)


Sex Aft ageMale

16-1920-2425 -

65 indFemale

16-1920-2425-3435-4950-64

65 and

1

10,a0011,70019,00032,50029,900over (21,700)

12,50016,20023,20038,10037,900over (30,000)

Race and ageWhite16-19 16,50020-24 19,70025-34 1:31,100

35-49 55,80050-64 58,10065 and over, (46,300)

Black16.49 61100 )

20-24 7,70025-34 11,600)

35-119 14,100 )

50154 9,400). 65-and over (5,200)

Total Yes

100.0 2412

100.0 31.7

100.0 35.8100.0 36.8

100.0 39.6

100.0 45.4

100.0 46.4,100.0 48.0100.0 51.9100.0 48.6100.0 52.9

100.0 52.9

100.0 33.9100.0 311.1

100.0 40. 8

103.0 39.3100.0 46.0100.0 49.04

100.0 43.1100.0 49.,106.o 55.2 r

100.0 58.0100.010C1.0 57.2 -

\\ No Not available

75.2 10.6

68.3 10.063.7 10.562.8 10.460.1 10.3

54.5 10.1

52.6 11.0

52.0 10.0

48.0 10.1

50.8 10.5

46.9 10.2

481.2 10.9

65.2 10.9

61.9 10.0

59.1 10.2

60.2 10.5

53.91

50.7.0.1'0.3

56.3 JO.550.7 10.0

44.3 10.5

41.8 10.2

45.0 10,7

39.9

NaTEI Data based on question I6c. Detail may not add to totalin parentheses refer to populat*n in the group.

"Estimate, bAsed on zero o4hon about q.0 or fewer.sample caps

k

because of rounding. Figures

, is statistically unreliable.

Table 18. Personal limitation or change in activities because of fear of crime(Percent distribution of responses for the population age 16 and over)

Population characteristit Total Yes No Not available

Race? se(, 'White

Male16-1920-2425-34

35-4950-6465 and

Female16-1920-24

5-345-490-64

65 and

SlackMale

16-1920-24257.34

35-4950-64

65 andFemale16-1920-2425-34

35-4950-6465 and

11nd age

7 3018,800

26,00025,900over (19,100

9,200)

1

10,90016,50029,90032,200ovei: (27,000)

2,9002,8005,2006,3003,800over (2,200)

3,2005,0006,4007,9005,600

over (3,000)

100.0 19.8 79.4100.0 29.8 70.2100.0 32.1 67.4100.0 33.3 66.3100.0 384 61.0100.0 44.1 55.9

100.0 45.5- 53.8100.0 44.9 55.1100.0. 47.9 52.1100.0 44.5 54.9100.0 51.8 48.2100.0 52.5 47.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0

I 100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.04,

34.9 65.1

37.4 62.6

45.6 53.850.5 49.546.9 52.259.2 39.4

50.6 48.455.9 44.162.9 X).763.9 35.759.4 40.155.6 40.2

10.810.010.410.510:12

10.0

11.010.010.010.610.1 ()

10.5

10.010.010.610.010.911.3

11.010.010.5

10.410.514.2

0-

NOTE: Data based on question 16c. Detail may not add to ttotal because of rdunding. Figuresin parentheses refer to population in the group.

',Estimate based.on zero or on ?bout 10 or fewer aample cases is statistically' unreliable.

35

Table 19. Most important reason forselecting present neighborhood

(Percent di atributi on of answers by houschol d respondents )

Household chartVeri stic7

All households (75,400)

RaceWhite 59,700Black 1 5, 000Other 700) '

Annual family incaseLess than $3,000 (14,500)$3,000-$7,499 26,501 ....

$7,500-$9,999 10,500

$10, ow-V.4,999 12, 9(0)$15,000-S24, 999 5,400)t25, 000 or more 1, 900)Not available (3,000)

Vic ttmizati on experienceNot victimised (58,600)Victimized (16, 800)

TotalAl ys lived Inncl hborhood

Neighborhoodcharacteristics Good schools

Safe fromcrime

Lack'ofchoice Right price Location

1(X). 0

100.0100. 0100. 0

100.01 00.0100. 0100. 0100.0100.0100. 0

100.0100.0

\

. 3.31 0.71 O. 0

2.73.1.3. 51.63.1

1 0.03.3

2. 82.4

1 .

16.612. 91 7. 5

12. 515.118.617. 017.421. 216-8

15.716.2

'

.

2 . 91, 0. 9

1 0. 0

1 1.52.42. 93.4

1 2.212.41 2. 0

2.711.6

J. t)

3.82 . 7

1 2.9

2.83.73.24.7

1 3.01 3.81 3.3

,

3.34.7

14.3

9.4

33,52 18.1

22.016. 51 0.1

7. 924.61 6. 51 9. 7,:

13.915.8

11.9

14.21 2_1

.21 8.4

.49.91 5.110.711.411. 7"2.32 7.6

14.810,5

12- 7

35.322.2

1:39. 9

28.130. 834. 837- 539.447. 625. 5

32.433.8

,Cliaracterintles Cithe ndof house not available

9-4

9. 2 5.210.5 4.61 3.6 3 8.8

.

5-7 4.88. 7 4.4

12. 2 4. 011.0 5.413.3 1 5.0

1 7. S 1 8.410.4 11.4

9.3 ,5.19.7 5.3

NOM: Data based on question 2a. Detail may'not add to total because of rounding. Figures in parentheses refer tii households in the group.I Estimate, based on zero or on about. 10 or fewer sampl e cases, Is statistically Imre). table. 1,1

0 j-1

-0Table 20. Most important reason for leaving former.realdence

(Percent distribution of answers .1396 household respondenta )

Uvfng I alux . Ot-hertharacteristics Wanted better Wanted cheaper arrgements of bad Neighborhood and not

Household characteristic Total- Location of house house . house Forced out , ehand elements (rime characteristics availltble

All households (75,400)Race ,.

WhiteMackOther

,9, 700)15,000)700)

4Annual family income

4.

Less than $3,000 (14, 500) -$3,000-$7,499 (26,500)

$7, 5N-$9, 999 (10, 500)$10,0e0-$14,999$15,000424,999 5,400)$25,000 or more 1, 900)Not available (3, 800)

VictimizatiOn experienceNot victimized (58,600)Victimized (16,800)

100.0

100.0100.0100. 0

100. 0100.0100. 01 00. 0100. 0100.0100.0

100.0100.0

24.3

25.618. 9

1 25.1

22. 9' 26. 7

20. 023. 223.130.027.1

,24.124.9

.,.

"'-.

13. 3

14.110.1

111. 5

9. 712. 5

,1 18.116.113. 97. 3

11.6

14.010.7

13.3

13.412. 9

114, 7

6.410. 517.419.020.623.911. 9

13. 313.1

8.2

8.1.88

24.1

ffii772 "5- 95.35.7

21.324. 5L,

8.5,6.9

7. 3

5.813.713.2.

10. 29.24.74. 3

12.6'3.79.1

7.66. 4

13 1 4

12.18.6

11.1.3

12.813.313.913. 515.415.112.'3

12. 5

16.7

\1

1,3

1.410.1i10.0

11.71.0

11.3t O. 912.210.011.3

1.411. 0

2.3

2.2%2. 70.0

2.32.33.0

21. 912.213_321.2

1. 93.4

3. 5

3.25.1

1 2.9

3.93.2,4.2

5.314.412.512.7

. 3.05.4-

13,1

, 14. 28,3

126.4

13`: 313. 911.612.49.1

1 14.8.18.2

13.611.4

A . .NM: Data based on question 4a. Detail may ,not add to total because of rounding. nguies in parenthood refer to households in t e group.

.0 lEatimate, based on zero or on about 10 Or fewer sample cases, is Otati stically unreliable. 3 71.4 ,

,

5

Table 21. Whether or not there are undesirable neighborhood characteristics(Percent distribution of answers by household respondents)

Household characteristic Total Yes No Not available

All households (123,100)

;Race; Whitei Black 25,300

Other 800)

iqnnual family inccmeLess than $3,000 (23, 200) .c\

100.0

100.0100.0100. 0

100. 0

30.4

28.4'

38.316. 7

30.7

69.2

71 261.183.3

69.0

0.4

0.410. 510.0

1 0.3

$3,000-$7,499 (41,600) 100,0 / 29.4 70.0 1 O. 5

$7,500-$9,999 (15,800) 100.0 / 25.9 73.6 1 0.5

$10,000-$14,999 100.0 30.4 69.4 1 0.1

$15, 000-$24., 999 10,200) loo.o 38.1 61.3 1 0.4

, $25,000 or more 3,600) 100.0 35.4 64.5 1 0.0

Not available (7,600) 100.0 31.0 168.3 1 0.7

Arictimizfation experience Ai)

Not victjmized (971000) 100.0 26.9 72.7 0.4

Victimizee(26,100) 100.0 43.2 56.3 10.4

OWE: Data based on queAtion 5a. Detail may not add to total becasue of rounding. Figures

in parentheses refer to households in the group.,IEstimate, based on zero or on about 10 or fePer sample cases, is statistically unreliable.

38

Table 22. Mott impOrtant neighborhood problem(Percent histribution of answors by household rospondonte)

ousehold chAracterietic Total. like, parkingEnvironmolta1problems Crime

Public '.inadequateLransportation schools, shopping

Influx ofbad elements

Problems withneighbors

Othor andnot Available

All 'households. (37,400)

$.Race

100.0 9. 3

-

36.9, 16.9 1.7 2.2 10.0 15.3 7.7

) White 27,600) 100.0 11.1! 34.8 16.1 1.9 2.8 10.7 14.7 7-9Black 9,700) 100.0 4.2 43.1 18.9 1.0 0.8 16.8 6. 8

Cther 1100) 100.0 10.0 , 40.4 1 0.0 O. 0 0.0 I 20.5 1 15.1,

Annual family incomeLeen than $3,000 (7,200) 100.0 1 2. 8 37- 3 22.2 3 2. t.) 1 2. 4 10.6 15.9 5.983,000-87,499 (12,200) 100.0 7. 5 36.3 18.2 1 1.6 3 1. 9 11.1 16.2 7.1$7,500-$9,999 (4,100) IOW() 11.2 37.1 16.6 1 0.7 1 2.4 7.8 42.2 12.0$10,000-$14,999 100.0 13.4, 33-6 14.0 1 2.5 21.7 10.3 15.6 8.9S15,000-324. 999. 3,91:03 . 100:0 13.9 45.1 8.0 0.0 3. 4 17.0 15.2 1 6.7$25,000 or more 1,300 100.0. 24.2 33. 7 15.4 o 1 5. 5 1 10.8 1 13.1 7.0Not available (2,400) 100.0 1 8.4 35.4 21.1 1 1.3 I 10.1 14. 8 7- 6

Victimization experienceNot victimized (26,100) 100. 0 9.6 39.0 14.4 1.11 2.5 10.2 15. 2 7.3Victimized,(11,300) 100.0 32.0 22.8 11.5 9.7 15.4 8.5

NOTE: Data based on question 5a. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Figures.in par4ptheace refer to households in the group.2 Estimate, based on zero or on about 10 or fewer sample cases, is statietically unrelialAe.

Table 23. Whether or not mai r food shopping dor in the neighborhood(Percent distribUtion o answers by household respondents)

Household characteristic ' ot al Yes No , Not available

Ail households (123,100)Race = -

White 97, 101Black 25, 300Other 800)

Annual family inccme (

Less' than $31000 (23 200)$3, 000-$7, 499 (41,600)$7, 500-$9, 999 (15, 800)$10,.000-$14,999 21 , 200)$15, 000-$24, 999 10, 200)$25,000 or more 3, 600)Not available (7, 600)

Victimization experienceNot victimized "(97, 000)Victimized (26 , 16b)

100. 0..

100. 0100. 0100. 0

Dir.()

iolo.o100.0100. 0100. 0100. 0100. 0

100. 0100. 0

81. 3

. . s

86. 5.

61.183. 3 r '

81. 380. 781. 984.179. 082. 078. 4

3 Q 82. 4' 76. 9

18. 4

13.238. 3

1 16. 7

18. 419. 217.815. 720. 418. 020. 2

17. 222. 6

I

0.3?

2 0.71 0. 0

' 0.32 0.22 0.32 0. 22 0.42 0.02 1. 3

2 0.32 0.4

.

NOTE Data . bas\ed on question '6a. Detail may not add to total because of, rounding. Figuresin parentheses refer to households in the group.

2 Zstimate, based on zero or on about 10 'or fewer sample eases, is statistically unreliable.

i

"3:.

r

Table 24. float ImPortant" reason 'for not doing major fOcid shopping In the nelghborhdoil(Percent distribution of answers by household respondents)

Household characteri et Total No neighborhood stores Inadequate totorco H1gh prIvon Crlme Not 10a11nble,

households (22,600) 100.0 27:0 ,h0.7 19.h - 2.2 10.7

MMeWhite 100.0 39.6 .14.4 13.7/auk 2,700) 100.0 42.6 25.9 11.8 7.0Other '100) 100.0 160.1,T 10.0 118.9 1 20.) lo.o

Annual firstly IncLITIOLeee than $3,000 (4,00);3, 000-$7, 699 WOO

100.0100.0

26.825.5 il(4):7)

24.221.5-

1 0..52. 9

13. 810. 5

$7, 500-$9, 999 (2, 800 100.0 21.2 51.2 18.0 11.8 ' 7. AU01000-314, 999 300 )$15,000-524,999 00)

100.0100.0

28.430.6

41.747.4

16.6110.5

1 .i 3, 2. 9

, 10. 08.6

:$25,000 or more (6oO 100.0 51.4 13p.o 13.7 ,o.o o. 5-.%Not available (1,600 100.0 20.4 36.8 21.3 1.9 . 6

Victiadzation experienceNot victimised (16,700) 100.0 39.5 19.9 . 1.8 11.4Victktited (5',900) ' 100.0 26.0 ' 17.7 1 3.4 8:7

WM: Data based on.nuestion 6a. Detail may not add to total becauee of rounding. Figdres in parentheses refer to households in the group.2Estimato, based on zero or on about 10 or fewer sample canes, is stati5tical1y unreliable.

Table 25. Preferretloation for oeneral:hierChandlse shoppind'(Percent distribution of Answers by household respondent's)

Household Characteristic

-.#

Total

Suburban orneighborhood Downtdwn Not.available

All households (.23,100)

RaceV,

Whiteack 25,300)-ti

Other 800) .

Annual family incomeLess than $3,000 (23,200)$3, co0-$7,499 411)500$7,500-$9,999 15t8q0$10,000-$14,999

$25,000 or more 3,600)$15,000-$24,0 ? 10,200

Not available (7,600)Victimization experience

Not victimised (97,040). .,

Victimized...(26,101q),..msA

100.0

100.0loa.0100.0

'100.0100.0 -100,0100. 0100.0100. 0100. 0

109.0.,-

.,100.0,

.

67.1

71.a49.558.9

55.963.670.417 '. 17 9.72.672.6

67.3,

. '6 6. 5

31.1

. 26.3

49.235.6

41:1% .

35.2.28.8rg3.7

19.02.1e6

23% 4

31.1

.31.1

1:8

1.31 6.1

2.81.3

10.811.21 1.2

5... 8

4.0

1.6., ?..3

,NbTE: pata based on qUeAion .7a. Detail may not!, add to total because, of rounding:- Figures

in 'parentliottee','refer to houellifelds in Oa. trOilp..4:: !.-.

I Estimatet:' litiaed on about 10 lor-Xewer. sample cases., is statistieNY unreliable. -..- , . '

.

ftal

0.

Table 28. Most important reason for usually doing general merchandise shoppingin the suburbs (or neighborhood) or downtown

(Percent dietributa of anowers by houeehold re.epondente)

TYpe of shcpper andbouwohold characteristic Total

Butterparking

Dottertreneportation

Noceccnvenient

Dotter ooloclion, Crime in -

more etores other locationDotteretore hours jolter pricee

Prefer etores,location, etc.

Other andnot available

Snburban (or neighborhood)shopper:,

All houeeholds (82,700) 100.0 11.6 2. 5 48. 4 12.5 7.7 1.2 5. 5 3.2Race

WhiteBleck 12,500 )

100.0100.0

12.65-9

2.6I 2.0

48.546.9

11.319.7

9.0 -2

0.131.2

I 1. I4.6

10.47. 09.8

1.23.3 N

Other 500) 100.0 '5.6 10.0 66.7' I 5.4 ' 5.7 -1 0.0 2 5.3 1 5.7 1 5.5,Annual family Income

Lose then 33,000 (13,000)$3,00047,499 (26,400)

-100.0100.0

4.910.2

5.72.3

55.653.8

7-7 6.36.7

I 1.01 0.9

7.55.7

6.96.6

4.43.4

$7,50049,949(11,100) 100.0 12.0 '1.2 44.9 16.9 -7.6 I 0.9 6.2 7. 2 3.0S10,008-314,999 100.0 15. 9 2.0 42.7 14.0 2. 2 4-4. 6.9 2.0115,000-324,999 8,100) 100.0 15.8 1 1.8 38. 7 15.5 11.4 1 . 4.8 8. 3 I 2.1$25,000 or wore 2,600) 100.0 15.6 0.0 37-4 23.5 I 4.4 0.0 1 0.9 15. 5 I 2.7No4 reliable (5,500) 100.0 12.8 I 2.7 48.5 10.9 6.1, ' 0.5 ' 3.8 9:1 5.4

. Victimisation 1.)_experienceNot iictimised (65,300) 100.0 11.4 2. 9 49.9 7.8 1.2 5-4 6.7 3.4Victimized (17,4(X)) 100.0 12.3 1 1.1 42.7 7.4 ' 0.9 5.6 10.0 2.8

Downtown shcppers

All households (38,300). 100.0 10.6 8. 0-1

34.8 27.1 1 0.2 ' 0.4 17.7 8.9 2.5

RaceMike 25,600) 100.0 10.3 9.6 35.7 23.9 1 0.0 ' 0.4 17.4 9.5 3.2 .Black 12,4001 100.0 I O. 7 4.4 32.5 34.1 I 0.6 1 0.4 10.6 7.6 I 1-.2

-. Other 300) 100.0 ' 0.0 '179 ' 65.1 i 8. 9 I 0.0 I 0.0 "0.0 18.1 ' 0.0.

Annual family incomeLees than *3,000 (9,600)

_

100.0 '0.0 12.8- 34.3 23.6 I 0.0 ' 0.7 21.0 5.9 I 1.883,000-87,499 (14,600) 100.0 0.4 6.7 30.9 0.3 1 0.3 18 8 7.0 2.317,500-89,999 (4,600) 100.0 31.1 I 5.1 32. a 26.7 1 0.0 3 0.0 15.6 15.5 '810,000-814,999 5,000)S15,000-824099 1,900)

100.0100.0

' 0-4'1-0

'5.6' 8.8

34.5446

25.921.2

' 0.41 0.0

1 0.40.0

15.613.0

13.69.3

2 3.2

1 2.6$25,000 or more 800) 100.0 1 0.0 , 1 3.1 42-5 1 276 0.0 1 0.0 I 3.1 1 14.8 1 9.0Sot available (1,800) 100.0 ' 0.0 ' 8.4 43.9 26,3 0.0 0.0 13.0 7. 2 1 1.1

Victimization experienceNot victimized (30,100) 100.0 ' 0.3 8.4 35.5 25.1 0.4 18.4 2.5Victimized (8,100) 100.0 1 0-9 6. 7 32.) 34.5 inwam'IP 1 0.6 I 0. 3 14.9 7.4 I 2.4

NOM 'Date based on question 7b. Detail may not add to total because of rounciing. Figuree in parentheses rofur to households in the group.'Estimate, based on zera or on about 10 or fewer sample cases, is statistically unreliable.

41

Table 27. Change hn the frequency with whigp ,personswent cmut for evening entertain rfltr

(Percent distribution of responses for the populat On age 16 and over)

Population characteristic Total More Less Not available

All. persons (282,800) 100.0 -9.7 0.9 25.9 . 0.5

Sex

Male (125,000) 100.0 10.1s 65.1 24.3 0.5

Female (157,700) 100.0 9.5 62.9 27.1 - 0.5

RaceWhite 226,600) 1 (X) '9 2 67.4 .23.0 0.5

Black 54,200) 100.0 12,2 49.1 38.1 0.6

Cther 2,000) 100.0 5 64.5 25.0

Age16-19 22,800 100.0 30.5 47.3 22.0 1 0.3

20-24 27,900 100.0 19.1 49.9 30.7 1 0.2

25-34 42,100 100.0 12.1 55.4 32.1 1 0.4

35-49 70,500 100.0 8.7 67.2 23.5 0.6

50-64 67,700 100.0 4.3 71.1 24.4 10.2

65 and over (51,700) 100.0 2.2 71.5 25.1 1.1

Victimization experienceNot victimized (225,100) 100.0 8.6 67.2 23.6 0.6

Victimized (57,700) 100.0 14.0 51.0 34.7 10,3

WrE: Data based-on question 8b. Detail may not add to total because of rounding.parentheses refer to population in.the group.

'Estimate, based on about 10 or fewer !Ample cases, is statiptically

Figures,in

Table 28. Most important reason for increasing or decreasing the frequencywith which persons went out for evening entertainment

(Percent dietributi on of ronponeea for the poind ation age. 16 and over)

Type of change 1.n frequencyand population charm; teri at lo Total Htmoy

Pl acre togo, e Ic. Cony (qIl. env e

Ownheal th

TraneporLotion Afse rtmdly

Activi Lica,etc. Crime

Want to,vie.

Other and not,available

Pereona going out pore

A11 peraone (27,560) .100.0 15.3 .15.8 3.5 1..1 2.2 10, 7. 16.2 8.2 1.9 16.5 8b.4

SexMale -(12,00) 100.0 16.2 15.7 3.3 1 0.9 2.9 9.7 14.1 9- 8 1 1.2 17.3 8.9Fmk' cr (11, , 900) 1()O. 0 14.5 15.9 3. 7 11.2 1.1 .6 11.6 le. 0 6.8 2.6 15.9 8.2

RaceWhi to (2b, tkX)) 100.0 17. 3 15. 7 3.5 1.1 2.0 10.5 17.6 8.2 1.7 13.1 9.1Black (6,600) 100.0 9.0 15.6 1 1.2 1 0.5 1 2. 8 11.6 12. 0 7. 9 12.0 77.6 6.9Other (1200) 100.0 1 HI. 0 1 1,1.9 1 O. 0 1 0. 0 1 0.0 1 0. 0 119.7 1 0.0 0.0 1 0.0

Age16-19 7,000 100.0 7.9 17.8 10.9. 10.0 11.8 32.3 6.0 6.5 10.4 16.9 9.620-24 5,300 100.0 4.1 20.3 1 2.2 1 0.0 14.1 7.4 11.7 14.1 11.8 17.9 2.325-34 5,1003549 6,200

100.0100.0

19.620.3

14.413.2

1 4.0 -, 7.2.

1 0.01 0.5

11.11 1.9

1 1.7

1 0.927.520.4

5.2

7.7 : (2).8( 16 1N

10.69.4

50-64 2,900 .100.0 114.9 12.8 1 5.2 1 5.0 1 2.2 1 2.0 20.0 1 8.8 1 2.0 17.3 1 10.065 and over 1400) 100.0 12.6 1 10.7 1 0.0 1 10.8 1 2.6 1 10.2 1 15.6 1 5.2 1 13.1 16.3 13.2

ViCiamileuron experienceNot. victimized (19,500) 100.0 15.8 1 . 1 3.6 1..5 2.2 10.7 16.3 7.3 2.0 16.1 9.4Victimized (8,100) 100.0 14.0 17.6 1 3.3 1 0.0 1 2.2 10.8 15.9 10.3 1 1.9 17.7 6.2

Persons going out less -oftenAll peisons (73,200) . 100.0 23.6.4 3.5 1.9 9.1 3.5 6.9 1 .8 10.3 10.8 5.5 7.0

SexMale (30,400) '100.0

.268 /Ki` 2.7 8. 0 3.9 7.9 14. 12.4 7.6 5.4 8.0

Petnale (42,900) 100.0 21.3 3. :Pr' 1.4 9. 9 3. 3 6.1 20.1 8. 8 13.0 5.7 6.4Race

-N

White 52;100) 100. 0 24.7 .tt 8 1.7 9.3 4.0 /1.5 16.6 10.7 10.5 4.1 7.2Black 20,600) 100.0 .20.6 2.6 . 2. 7 13.13 2-4 V.)-5 20. 8 9.0 11.8 9.2 6.7Other 500) 100.0 1 28.9 1 12.3 1 0.0 1 6.0 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 12.0 1 29.3 1 0.0 1 5.5 1 6.0

Age16-19 5, it.) 100.0 11.3 ,1 0.0 1 0.0 6.4 1 1.8 16.4 27.8 1 1.3 8.7 ,s 7.420-24 8,600 1CO. 0 2 -5 5.3 1 1..0 1 1.3 4.4 1 1.1 28.1 11.6 5.7 6.1 6.825-34 100. 0 2 .6 .4.3 3.8 2.8 2.7' 1 0.4 28.4 14.1 6.4 4.8 5.735-4950-64

16,60016-1500

100.01CO. 0 (

33.221. 5

' 3.01.9

2.11 1.8

3.910.1

1 1.74.0

3.29.3

17.514.7

11. 07.8

10.115.8

6.55.3

7.87-7

65 and aver (13,000) 1CO. 0 2-3 1 1.4 1 1.4 29.9 4.4 .20.8 4.6 1 1.1 16.7 3.8 6.7

Victimisation experienceNot victimized (53,200) 100.0 23.4 2.8 2.2 10.6 3.3 7.2 17.7 9.6 11.0 5.) 6.8Victimized (20,000) 100.0' 24.1 5.5 1 1.2 5.1 4.0 5.9 '18.0 12.3 10.1 6.2 7.7

POTE: Data based on question 8b. Detail may net 'add to total bebauee of rounding. Figures in parentheses refer to population in the group.*Estimate, based on zero or on about 10 or -fewer sartiple casescits atatistically unreliable.

Table 29. Places usually visited for -evening entertainment(Percent distributl.on of reeponees the population ago 16 and oft)

Population characteristic Total Inside city

1

(iuteldo city About equal Not available

All persons (173, WO)

SexNal (84,300) . 100.0P *le (09,300) _ 1(X). 0

lor's 100.0

aWhite 140,900)Mick 31,700)Other 1,000)

Ass -

16-1920-24 24,60025-34_ 33,100

35 9 45,1003 33,900

-,

65 and over (16,100)

Viotindzetiop experienceNot victiOsed (131,700)-4....,,,..

Victimized (41,900)

75.i 13.5

73.8 13.9 12.376. 7 13.1

100.0 ilk 74.6 1.4 3100. 9 117 77.

96g410.3

100. 0 . 1 2.6

100.0100.01..-01.1.0is' 11

100.0

140.0100'10

73.674.178-374.073.5

14.2AR15.010.7

) 14.614.6

76.4 12.171.6 17. 9

10. 0

11.011.5

1 11.4

10.712.210.810.811.1

11.5

1 0.11 0.3

1 0.2.0.310.0

t01to.811,

10.21 0.2.00

0.4

11.4 1 O.10.3 1 0.2

OR: Data baled on question tid. Detal may not add to total because of rounding. Figures in parentheses reCor to population in the group.1 getimate, based on taro or on about 10 or fewer ample: capes., is statistically unreliable.

N/

9-44,

44

11,

1

Table 90. Most important reason for usually seeking evening entertainment inside or outside the city ."

4

(Percent dintribution of responsee f or the pqmiatton age 16 and over)

1.6

Type of pl ace and popu-lation characteriatic

Convenience, Parking, '"Came inTotal etc. traffic other place

Moroto do

Preferfi 11 I 11 en

Other aroanmore expennive

Friends,relatIvee

Other andnot avail ab e

Pereons entertained inaido cityAll pert) (1)0,600)

SexSale (62 00)

cFemale ( 400)

White

OtherBlack

5, 100)

Age16-1920-24 1

5-34 241).-,49 35,yo-64 25,165 and ove (11,800)

Victimization experienceNot victimized (100,600)Victimized (30, 000)

. .

Persona entertained outside cityAll persons (23, 400)

SexMale.411,700)Female (11 , 700)

Race Iv

White 20,100) 100. 0 26.5 4. 5 16.2Black 3,300) 100.0 25. 8 1 3. 7 11. 8Other 110(J) 100.0 1 O. 0 1 0. 0 1 0-0

Age.aw

16-19 2, 000 100.0 36.0 1 0.0 1 10. 3 9. 8

,20-.24 3,500 100.0 14.6 1 3.5 11. 7 8.45-34 5,000 100. 0 28.6 1 3. 5 14. 7 6. 9

35-49 4,000 100.0 22.4 1 4. 9 16. 5 7, 6.0

50-64 5,000 100.0 31.6 1 5. 7 15.6 1 2.365 and over 2, 300) 100.0 25.3 1. 9.0 13. 9 lik. 1-1 . 3

1(X). 0 67.0 1.2 h.() I.% t 1.7 0. 2.1

i100.0 67. 9 1.3 1.:2 h.2 12.7 1.7 8.9 2.0

100.0 66.2 1.1 1.8 3. 7 12.0 1.6 11.4 2.2:

100.0 66.5

(.3 1

1.5 3.14 13.2,1.(ti

10.1 2.2100.0 - 68.7 0.1

1'6.5 8:7 10.6 1.9

100.0 , 80.4 0.0 1. , 3- 0.0 9.6 0.0 ' 6.6 " 0. 0

100.0 61.9 1 O. 1 1 0.6 9.8 9.1

100.0 67.2 1 0.5 1-. 5 6.4 11.0 2.8100.0 .- 67.1 1. 3 1 1.2 4%8 13.0 1..9

100.0 66.0 I. :3 1. 6 ?.9 13.3 2.5100.0 69.6 1.6 2. 2 1 0.6 13.8 1 0.7106.0 68.8 1 2. 0 1- 1. 0 1 1. 3 11.1 1 0. 5

100.0 67. 0 1.2 1. 7 3. 9 . 11.8 1.7100.0 67.2 1 .1 I. 0. 9 1,.1 .14.1 1. 5

100. 4 26.4 4.4 14.2 5. 7 33.2\\\,

0.8

100. 0 26. 0 ' 6. 0 11. 0 6. 0\ 35.3 0. 8

100. 0 26.0 2. 7 17.4 5.4 31.2 1 0.0

4. 31.811.6 41. 31 0.0 1 100. 0

Victimization experienceNot)victiflp.zed (15,900)V1ctim1ze3 (7,500)

100.0 30.2 5. 7 13.6.100.0 18.4 11.6 15.1,

21.442.934.838.727.630.5

1 0.61. 9

1 0.0

16.48.47.9

10.09.5

11.0

2.22.91.62.22.8

10.1, 2.39. 7 1.4

12.5

11.413.6

12.811.0

,1 0.0

1 2.1 16.12.5 14.6

1 0.010.61 0. 0 1.4. 9

0.0 16%2

4.2 30. 9 1 0.69. 0 38.3 1. 1.2

2. 71 2. 810.0

14.3 111.72.2

1,2. 91 2.4

3. 8

12.3 2.61 3. 0 1 1.1

RN& Data based on queetion 8e. Det ay not add to tdtal because of rounding. Figures in parentheses refer to population in the group.1 Estimate, based on zero or on about 10 fewer sample caeca, is statistically unreliable.

45:4

aloft

4

Table 31. Opinion abgut local polio) 'performanca.(Percent distribution of responses fOr the pcpulation-age 16 and over)

"4.

Pcsudation characteristic 21/4.1 Good Average

411 persons (282,000) 106.0 43.4 36.8

SexHalo (125,000) 100.0 43.9 38.6

Female (157,700) 100.0 43.0 35.3

RaceWhit. 100.0 47. 9 33.7

Mack 54,200) 100.0 24.2 50.0

Other 2,000) 100.0 61.4 28.2

Atm16-19 100.0 32.3 48.1

20-24 27,900 100.0 33.2 49.625-34 42,100 100.0 34.7 42.7

35-49 70, 500 100.0 44.9 34.1

50-64 67,700 100.0 49.9 33.4

65 and over (51,700) 100.0 50.6 28.0

111.9t4miBalton experienceMt victimized (22,100) 100.0 45.8 34.8

Victimised (57,700) 100.0 34.3 44.4

Poor Don't know

12.2 7.0,f

12.2 4.7r' 12.3 8.9

10.8 7.218.712.6

12.1 4.715.4 3

16.0 6.013.7 6.89.7

.6.4

9.3 11.6

11.2 7.616.2 4.8

Not available

0.5

0. 60.5

0.50.810.0

10410.410.60.50.7

10.4

0.610.3

91: Data based on question 14a. Detail may not add to tctal because of rounding. Figures in parentheses refer to population in the group.

litimate, based on zero or on about 10 ccr-fewer eample cases, is statistically unreliable.

46

4

TOle 32, Opinion about local police performance1 (Percent dintribution of reoponono for the population age 16 and over)

ulation characteristic

.7"8a and ageKale

50-64 29,90

-16-1911,700

35-49 32,500

20-24

0

25_34 19,000

65 nd ovet (21,700)Niel°16-19

35-49 38,10025-34 23,220-24 16,200

00

50-64 37,90065 and aver (30,000)

,

'Race and Age*lite16-19 16,500

1

20-24 19,700\ 25-34 30,10035-49 55,8005044 58,10065 and over (46,300)

Black16-19 6,100) 420-24 7,700)25-34 11,600)35-49 14,100)50-64 9,400) .65 and over (5,200)

Total Oood Average Poor Don't know Not available

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100, 0

100.0100.0100.0foo.o100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100. 0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

31. 4

33.335.2

44.751.0

52.4

33.0

33.134.345.049.0

49.3

39.236.840.849.1

52.852.7

12.621.9

17.827.1

NO32.6

,

)

51.1

50.542.936.3

34.930.7

45.748.842.532.3

32.226.1

43.847.339.2

31.331.026.8

60.257.351.946,147.837.7

-

/

14.512.416.7

13.1

9.6

9.4

16.111.8

15.514.2

9.7

9.3

12.210.713.112. 39.48.0

24.6

15.924.219.311.814.1

12.72.94.65.33..6

7.3

476.07.28.18.6

14.0

4.34.66.46.96.3

11.3

12.6_5.05.16.46.7

14.0

I

10.310.810.610.610.810.3

10.510.2'0.510.5

10.510.5

10.510.610,510.40.5

10.3

10.010010.8

01.211.4

NOTE: Data based on question 14a. Detail may not add to 40 becaune of rounding. Figures in parentheses rofer to population in the group.

N.4:Entimate,-baned on zero or on about 10 or fewer nample cauen, is statistically unreliable,

47

Table 33. Opinion about local police performance


Race, aox, and ageWhite

Kale16-19 7,300k20-24 8,800)

025-3415-49 26,0050-64 25, 94:11.1

65 and over 09, 300)Female

16-19 9,200)

254 16, 500) "N9 9 29,900)50-64 32, 200)65 and over (27,000)

10,5000)

BlackMale

16-19 2, 90020-24 2, 80025-34 5,20035-49 6,30050-64 3,00065 and over 2,200)

Female16-19 3,20020-24 5,00025-34 6,40035-49 700050-64 5,60065 and over 3,000)

(Percent di stributi on of reeponeee for the po)ula(i on age 16 and- ove)

Total, Good Average Poor Don' t. kncot Not. avai 1 able

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

.,

i %'

40.436.639.948.953.555.1

311. 337.041.649.352.251.0

1.8.520.221.426.234.631.7

16.322.814.927.730.833.3

44.848.641.533.633.028.1

42. 946-337.329.329.425.9

66.759.547-348.648.250.4

54.456.055.644.047.528.5

1

1)4.011.313.911.79.39.4

13.110.2

4 12.512. 99,48.3

23.815.724.618. 912.19.7

25.316.023.919.611.717.6

1 3.41 2. 5

4. 35.53.57.1

5.06.38.18.18. 5

14-4

1 1.11 4.61. 5.51 4. 51 2.718.1

14.11 5.2

5.17.99.4

18.3

1

1 0.41 1.11 0.410.31 0.6

1 0.610.31 0.51 0.41 0.51 0.3

1 0.01 0.01 1.21 1.81 2.410.0

1 0.01 0.01 0.51 0.71 0.6A 2.2

NOM Data based on question 14a. Detail rosy not add to total because of rounding. Figures in parentheses refer to poPulstion in thefletiaate, based cn atm or on about 10 or fewer samplecaseer, is statistically unreliable.

4 8 44

group-

4 }:

Table 34. Whether or mit local police performance needs Improvement

(Percent distributibn of retkponees for the poyulation ;.-ge 16 and over)

ttopUlation characteristic Total Yea 1.!(:)Not available

per8onp-(26174;-0)- 100.0 86.2 23..7 2.1

SexMale (118,400)

Smale (143,000)100.0100.0

86.586.0

11.112.2

2.41.9

te)

100.0 85.5 12.4. 2.1

t':akck 50,300 100.0 89.6 8.3 2.1

'Other 1,800) 100.0 73.4 21.7 1 4.9

,.4ge

16-19 21,800 100.0 88.4 9.6 2.1

20-24 26,500 100.0 88. 9 9.6 1.539,400 100.0 88.2 9.3 2.65,400 100.0 86.8 11.1

''50-64 63,000 100.0 84.8 13.0 2.2

65 and over (45,500) ' 100.0 82.9, 15.1 2.0

Victimization experience=,..tiot victimized (206,700) 100,0 85.8 12.2 2.0

: Victimized (54,800) 100,0 87.7 9.7

1

14)11 i'''Dati based on oestion 1414Detail;b0. notli,dd to total becauee of:,rOurang.'- Figur?in parentbeses refer to popuration in the group.

lEstimate, based on about 10 or fewer sample cases, is statistically.unreliabYe.

4 9

f

.10

Table 35. Most Important measure for Improving local police perfonnanse(Poreon diutribation of roaponnes For the population age 1( mid over)

Mont important manure

Sox RaceAil '

peraons Malo Female White Black(197,900) (92,600) (105,300) (158,000) (39,000)

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

,Pereonnol reeourcenTotalMore police

4.t .4 43. 1 . 41.9 0.117,:76

....-"

..../-Y.'

Operational practicen

Total

Greater promptness, etc.

Dotter training

Focus on more importantdutiett, etc.

34,17531.3134

11.8

.

37.4

41.6

19:C-

5.8

411.77

3;71:36 ( 4:1).1';

13.2

40.41.0

11.8'

0.6

,...... 3.0

23.o

12x

0.9Increaned traffic control 0.8 0.7 10.4t

0.8

Coamunity rhationn

More polico cartpinareas, times

1,11-

19.3 19.4 19.1 19.2 19.3

Total 9.0 9.7 8.4 5.8 ' 22.1

Courtesy, attitudes, etc.' 6.1 6.3 5.9 4.4 13.2

Don't discriminate 2.9 404 2.5 1.4 8.9

5.2 5.4 5.0 5.6 3.5Other;

Mfr

Agok'

..vIctimigmtison 0,1109rionce

*7-

Othor(900)

16-19(16,600)

20-24(20,600)

I

4!5-34(30,700)

35-49(51quoo)

,

-

50-64(47,400)

65. endover .

(31,700)

Notv1ctIjiud Victimized(15 ,3oo) - (42,500)

100.0

44444:777

lo.o

110.6'3.5

20.0

130.6

110.613.5

17.1

20.0

100.0

'3.4:11, .11

47.5

15.616.4

10.1

15.3

15.910:

.,- 4.5

100.0

34.7

1!:g015.1

14.2

10.6

15.2

14.8

9:35

N.' 5.4

100.0,

.)2413746.1(51)95

12.31

. 10.6

15.4

14.1

8.8

5.4

5.4

100.0

44.4

:952

1.812.2

0.8

19.4

7.54.92.6

4.9

100.0

47.6

N-:::40;

411, 9.30.7

21.4

5.2

3.91.3

5.9

100.0

49.1

45.83.3

41.4

7.48.1

1.6

4.3

4.94.2'

10.7

4.5

100.0

45.040.05.0

41.9

11.010.9

0.8

19.2

8.1

5.42.6

5.1

100.0

33.327.8

5.5

48.4

14.913.40.8

::::

8.7

3.9.

5.6

NOM Data based on question 14b. 6:rai1 may not add to total becaune of rounding., Figures in parentheses refer to pItntimate, bari\ on on zero44:ir on about. 10 or fewer sample canes, is 04.at1nt1cal1y unreliable.

ion in the group. .8

Table 341. Most Important measure forImproving local polloslmsdorMance

(Percent distribution of reeponnes for the population age 16 and.over)

Populatiodcharacteristic-s

Personnel Operational Community

Total resources practices relations Other

Sex find ageMale

16-19 8,000) 4'00.0 36.3 .45.1 15.4 '3.1

20-24 9,100) 100.0 37.8 39.2 16.9 6.1

25-34 14.1004,100

35-49 2

100.0100.0

35.6

43.3

41.942.5

16.49.1

6.25.1

50-64 22,400 100.0 49.7 39.5 4.9 5.8

65 and over (14,900) 100.0 47.6 42,7 4.2 5.4

Female16-19 8,600) 100.0 28.0 49.5 16.6 5.9

20-24 11,500 100.0 32.3 49.7 13.1 -4.925-34 16,600 100.0 35.4 47.3 4.9

35-49 26,800 100.0' 45.5 43.8 6.1 4.7

50-64 25,000 100.0 45.6 42.9 5.4

65 and over (16,700) 100.0 50.4 40.3 5.6 , 3.7

Race and ageWhite

16719 11,700 100.0 J9.6 44.9 11.7 3.820-24 14,800 100.0 39.9 43.6 10.4 6.1

25-34 21,700 100.0 44.5 41.1 .8.0 6.4

35-49 40, 00 100.0 50.4 39.7. 4.6 5.2

50-64 41, 100.0 50.6 39.2 3.7 6.4

05 and over (28,400) 100.0 51.8 39.1 4.1 5.0

Black16-19 100.0 13.8 54.2 25.7 6.4

20-24 5,703 100.0 20.4 49.9 25.7 24.1

25-34 8,800 100.0 13.4 53.6 29.7 3.4

35-49 10,600) 100.0 22.0 55.6 18.7 3.6

50-64 6,000) 100.0 27.3 55.3 15.4 12.0

65 and over (3,100) 100.0 22.8 64.1 12.2 . 11.0

NOTE: Data based on questionj4b. Detail may not add to total because of rounding. Figures

inparentheses'refer to population in the group.'Estimate, based on about 10 or Power sample cases, is statistically unrelieNe.

)4-

44"-

3N

52

Table 37. Most Important measure for Improving_ ace performance

(Percapt distribution of responses for the population age 1 and over)

ion characteristic

Race, sex, andWhite

Male16-1920-2425-3435-49

h 50-6465 and

Female16-1920-2425-34

35-4?50-6465 and

BlackMale

16-1920-2425-34

35-4950-6465 and over (1,500)

Female16 -19 2 4C020-24

.25-34 4,90035-49 5,800

393%)65 and over''(1,700)

age

5,400)7,100)10,100 .

19,2013`

19,600over (13,400)

6,300)7,800)

20,90021,700aver (15,000)

2,5002,0003,9004,8002,700

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0100.0

Personnelresources

111

45.7 (41.3 /

43.748.452.750.4 at34.238.745.352.3

48.553.1

16.223.614.0 023.228.3

119.3

25'.7

11.1100.0700 18.2100.0

12.9100.021.1100.026100.0

Operationalpractices

41.139.940.74AZ37.740.2

48.247.041.639.240.738.1

54.9, 37.9

45.350.752.267.6

53.2 ' 28.9 16. 8

56.3 20.9 14.660. 23.9 13.1

59.8-k, 15.6 '3.4

100.0 61.1 13.2 ti.58.2 ' 14.8

s.gA l

Communityml ati one

11.4

11.7

8.5

3.43.6

7.53.4

1 4.04.7

22.9,

9

3 9

,3

16.211.0

Other

11.7

7.1

7.15.46.2

5.9

5.65.2

5.65.06.74.1

15.13.613.813.8

13. 3

12.3.

NOTE: Data based on- question 14b. Detail maY not add to total.theoause of rounding. Figures .

in patentheses refer to population in the group.

1 Estimate, based on zero' or on about 10 or fewer sample cases, is statistically unreliable.

V.

53

H

Survey Instrumeni

--Form NCS 6, the attitude survey instrument, con-tains two battcrps of questions. The first of these,-covering items 1 through 7. was used to elicit dit fa froma knowkdgephle adult member of each household (i.e.,the household iespondent). Questions 8 t Niough

were asked directly of each household member age 16and,over,including the household respondent. Unlikethe procedtire followed sin the v.ct.m.int.on compo-nent of the survey, there was .no provision tor proxyresOnses Qn fichltlf 'of indiViduals who were absent Orincapacitated auring the interviewing period.

Data on the.chikraeteristics of those interviewed, aswell as details concerning any experiences as victims ofthe measured crimes, were gathered with separateinstruments, Forms NCS 3 and 4,- which were admin-

.

istered immediately after NCS 6. Following is a fac-simile of the latter questionnte; supplemental formswere available for use in householdsereffiore thanthree persons .were interviewed: Facsimiliep Of FormsNCS 3 and 4 have not been included in this report, butcan be found ih Criminal Victimization Surveys inMiami, 1977.

4.

-54 h

t"

4 6

'1.114P

....... RN 4

1. 1,6.14 , D., .st e1.116,81

NATIONAL CRIME SURVEYCENTRAL CIIItS SAMPLE

ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE

No. 41 VIOS2. A0iky)/1. j.erott

No I II 1 11,oao IG fill. 1 IIl o... .1. 44.44% 444444144, 4141 44444. 1. ,..I n1, I...

A 1 4441,41 41,4441,

l'SV Sumo'

liSme of houselnito head

C Ilr..s 104 ncsn

010) 1 VI APlac el

010111..10

7110i44

3 Othr1 Z

Intepelr net blalndEet -I. me numOe

1(3.D

( VPI

CENSUS l.f SE Owl Y

1 1 `f C

HOUSEHOO ATTITUDE QUESTIONSASA only hOttSCDOld rCSporiden1

Before we get to the major portion of the survey, f would like to askyou a lee questions !elated to subjects which seem lo be1o1 someconcern 16 people. These questiops ask you what you think, whatyr.14) feel, yOut attitudes and opinions

I How long have you lived al this address,

(n0) less 11,in I ye..2 1 I s:<4.1 Aseic

1,kie.lis4 Jain(' Non S yeaes 51(11' ,0 5o

r 41

Calle! !MI Segmentt

Wdld you leave Mete? Any.othee Nelson? 4504.1, ao MAI 14,41

01 31,044 loser to lob, Is.nag, II.0005. gif001. 5l.O141l,iO Oil . 10111'

flOos (40Ntment) O. 0,000Ity Clta.Of WO, Ought).

1 ' 141,144421 Ile4140040g, OS11 110001

!Want1 h

41 No 4 14041 0 tell. 1910 .... g I on.l.n.igfI. ell )1.40ge .44.444, .14 4 41404444444411 .4131 1141441- .4.41,14441

h. 14,, 4100r rlHatt eIrmeni Inevlog n.

O. 'Cluing 40 old neiplioulood, ailtiIJtE

v , I Didn't Idle neighboihOod chmArlailAICI en.nonment.I.Oble.lo5 wtil, nelghtfOr5,

Specng

if ',Nut. IhAl, WM, lIkISI,n1

Which reason would you say was the most Important?

SI Is there 34413114 you don't like about this neighbothope-On) No - Ar/P ion.

Ng} What? Anything else, lAollA 1150--(329 TrAll it, paik,nR

blvlionmental Problems lout,. noise, oyertiowchnr?. Cit.

3 Come oi loll ill Come4 robin Powwow Lotion pinbInin

9 6 0140001/410 sellouts. shoPPolli lC .1.1,es.

i. Bad element ...me 411

7 i Li OM% N. 41e4chbnis, Vat f0. leo 1st,, of °En ghlfei

It 016, 57

(lio)

.b, Which ploblem would you say s the most sellOOSY

n101 00.0 4000' '

?a. Why did you select thikparticular neighboihood, Any other reason?.1/ I/441 Apply I

Neiglibuineed chalacivisl.cs%10.011 17

6004 If IfoofsSalt! Nom giInfe

4 only eim,snie oulit tie found. Citl, of ellOrre

I. Pore es.is oglitI-Oration - Oise to job. !minty, titonijO, schoo1 shOPPlng elciiouse lapaeiment I OF Propelly leifsfst sag 9o31.ty,y714 space. etc.

8 Aloayl lived 1104 840800100d

9 011ie,

- - -

type of neighbors, EMI( 011111{111,

ill (owe 1,4344 one rim Ion'

b. Which reason would you say was the most important?

1.111. n,on0e/

qi06a Do you do your Major Idod shopping In this neighbphood?

o Yes - SKIP in laNu - Why not, Any Other reason? 00 Mai Apply)

1 No pores in nelhboillood, 0111115 nye Convenient

2 Stores in neiRldrodmoil iwefeft Metter)S104 c1 elsosliere

I 14011 wales. COslun.51Ily OF vs (bropet

4 CfnIMI Of WI 01 Mull:

Other lnecar -vIll more Man 000 1040001

b. Which feason would you say Is'the most Important?

Enter Ituno ET01,01

33. Where did you live before you moved here?

3)3 1 Oiffsnle U.S. ,

2 Insn.le limas Of this citySKIP to

3 Somewneee else in u.S spool('

Stole

Coind7

b. Did you live inside the limits ol a city, town, village:etc.?I No

yes . Ewe. name nit. 14, tonn, Olt

ls. When youshop lot things other than food, such as clothing and genitalmerchandise, do you USUALLY go to surbuiban or neighborhood shoppingcenters or do you shop "downtown?"

,Siol.nollan or neiChonilmoil

!-Omonlown

b. Why Is that? A4 y other season? iforro. ill Pm:(3011,1 pirliroR, less PAID<

2 Ileum warisinutiilion

Piore On Ve e rit

4 I Cleft selection, mew< stores, inme choice

5 , Witold of ce Ime

C. Stole houl3 better

7 ; nelfef full 05!Pseleis (honest stores, 10(7110n, 501VICO, employees

9 Other -

(II 0400 11410 0110 0M5001

c. Which one would 'you 1.ay is the most important reason?

Umo, (tom nun)00,

INTERVIEWER - Comp/Ede Inleivieks mu) household lospondsent,beginning with Individual Attiludo Questions.

r

e

5 5

/

(lir) me nuna,e,

WI

Qte)

04_9

Q4i)

Key's:Nne.

INDIVIDUAI ATTIT (MP QUESTIOS4S - Ask1119101N. Mtn! PIIPCORD

le Row Olen do you go ego in ine vening IN ntettalwawni, nit In asto testaments, theaters, etc.?

( I Once a wen ot mon. 41 12 04 3 tanwl a ye.

2 11011 111.1, 0212 411,3W A. thAtt wit I A 0321110

1 I Abakz1 ipm A nnontn

b Do you go to these places Mee 04 Ins non, than you did a yewof two ego/

About Ihe fa". - Mir cc, A

ii !lesi

hi 11m then ut lowesyea! 01 000.1,1

} Why? Any uthei tea

Illoory

j !Pin.% 10 10. 1010111.10 0 16111,

31 1C011011111.C

" llallh 1000o1.11,ensonilettun

; Age

Son? SI // mol

r ialont 11111.11111*chl11,14en. pacen111

In( :Astnall. 0141(1100191 1 CI tele 01 IOW 01 21 in*

10: !went to, 10..10, A."( Ovelwil

Otto., Srcelly

/II 1/30, 11c Which 'canon would you say In the most inpoctoot7

Met door nwlbe

So( ti huuseh01,1 13151711,01/ 113 10 Oftfe/

CHECK 1 Ock 1 I I end 1/ 1113 1.03 0 1 11)111,P1i Iit 111ra

ITEM tl I I Ns All II, 111. gni?, In

Iti I. 116. heitioodnacei denralosin anhuth SO make you think H1110011,about mon rei somewhere else'

0( 1Nu IIAIP to en

Yee - thy bon't you? Any other reason? 1,41 a0.011-2

Mlowl lo

1Can'I (Ind 01110, 1101,11111

)i !I111111.1.-.1 Iloos11 00.1,11,

C.0.-.08/11110 0.0.3 1.

11 I 110 10 .,0/211 100n

01 111.011111m ge

I, on., ''1

11 .4011 Ma,d Which reanon would you nay in tha moil 111141011.111?

/WU nor4w,

CHECK is bon 2, 3 mal n tea

ITEM A No SIIP 10 Oa 1; Yen ASK no

d. you do 10 out SO rtstuants or theateisusually In the city or cubicle of the 'city?

tzsuirry III II* (IlyUsually uulnune ol the lIly

I I Aboul enuel 3101P I"

\e Why do you usually go (outside the city In the OW Any One,lesson? (12.70 all MAI pplylI : !Uwe runymoent.1/0111121. I 1 AsIrl In gel lhOie. 0/11, n e 00011.10.

21 1 Penktng Problemt Deltic

31 1100 much (lime In 011011 Mate

41, 1 Mae to dr2

oi ;hello lbellsullec111113 (106100/2010. !Ocelots. WI

61 'Mon! Insonninde In olho4 Area

DeCaus0 0140104S. ,0141Iv0s

ti! !Mho, Sp.c.l

11 ca,

I which lesson wool you say is the most important'

(11. at dal, norAlor^9a. Now I'd like to get your Opinions about Mere in general.

Within the past year 04 two.* you think that crime in your--neighborhood has Increased, decreased, or remained about the same?

lIncleasa0 4; !Don't know, 311P to e

2 1 1Drel000en hoed hiveSon.e 31(IP Mel long SKIP 0,1

b. Were you thinking about any specific kinds of crimes whin you saidyou think ohne In youi neighborhood has (increased decreesed)?

O 1 rro Yes - What kinds of aintet?

LLIIc..tfow about any climes which may be happening in you; nelghbortrood -

would yoq say they are committad mostly by the people who livehere in thls neighborhood or moally by cutsiders7

(.) 11-1Mo crime% happening 31; .10u1sIdeisneighbolIntod 4: 1 Equally by boll,

21_ r.opht Iiv,ic g 1101. 61' 100114 1.11013

12. How do you think yOui neighborhood compares with others In thinmetropolitan area In teems of clime? Would yen say II is -

(11S) 1. IWO; more dangerous? al. 'Less dangerous?

r ! !More dangerous? - r,; ;INich dangetous,

About Amato?

I la Are them some parts of this 1110112Q0111110 2111s wheat you have aoroalon to to a would like to go DURING Tilt DAY, but me alialdto because ol iii ol clime

(13_ ) : ;No Nes WO nictionill'

00

-Qs!)

00 .p.rlFIC plocAul A.01121 -b. How *bout AT NIGHT are [Mrs sows pasts 04 this area where you hare a

reason to go or would like to go but are afraid to because of fear ot clime7

01 Iwo yes Which sectIon(1)?

Oh Apet plAcou A.enholow?

14a. Would you say, In /envoi, that you( local polke me doing a goodlob, an 119011,11 job, w a Foot fob?

I 1. Good 31. 'Puny

Z1, 1AyaIste 4 1Don't know - SNIP lo 160

b. In vital ways could thly leveret Any Othel ways. "7 i12ki0 all 17201 11110.11.1

i I No 1M111213'.0111111..1101/ - SKIP 10 1N1

21 11111. MVO 13011c113.11

3, !COOL enlist, on 01011 10121011201 001101. Set 11). (WOO, elf .

4; 10a MOI1110n9/1. tetyontlye,

o1 Oniony* holomg, 1101111ot 2110111 of ply. /el 6,0101001 0010 'es

O De neue (01.1,10011S. 00,110Yr 01111110f. (Onynuitetv in1/11/0130

000.1 (111(11 llllll le

N00(.1 010,11 Dattn. conuoi

Ii N..d m01. pollrnsen ol 112,11Cul10 type 0001. Loll mSaIta11101501 01 II ce111/10 10,01

lut_IDon't know

1, I -I (WM! - Spot- fly

'*1110V ANNA Mao 004 way!c. Which vtould, you say is the most important,

(1,D7 ( Wel Ilya, 11000W1

10a. Within the past year 04 Iwo do you think that crime*tn the UnitedStates has Increased, decreased, 04 remalard about Ito same?

z! 1Decleasedj 41 1000.1 knena

1( -1111(111030d 3" 'SenseASK 10 Iln

h. Ilferyon thinking about any sPe-cilic kinds el Crimes wimilYou saidyou think crime In the U.S. hajodincressedidecrymetbt

O E10 No Yes - WIP/Mnds of crimes? .11

ISA. Now I have some more questions about you( opinions Concerning crime.Please take this card. Vinod teapeoclonl 0111100e 1 1.3,C or". 12 3 5741Look al the FIRST set cd statements. Which cm do you agree with most?

I-104Y LhanCen of Wog attacked or robbed hay. DEMI UPIn the post few years

2 t_ hey chances of being attacked/4 lobbed have GONE DOWNin tm poll taw yeafe

31 !My Lhandes l being AIIAL Med 01 Obtsed 11000111 CliAngedIn (ha pelt few yeah%

al. I No Oplit100

b. Which the SECOND group do you agree with most?

I! I Calm is LESS %mono% 114111 II.. nexspapsis mai TV lay

21_ (Cgjnsa is MOW fehout Men the naeaallaPels awl 1V SAN

31:1C1Inle IS MAO AS sellouS As the newspniels and 0114;ty

4 cj No opinion

.1

4

Ha. ttosa safe do yoo feel or would you feel being out alone in you;neighborhood AT NIGHT?

O r [7 1 Vety sale s I SOmewhal unsale

2 LiRevionably note i 1Vely tsillAfe

b. How about DURING-THE-CiAY you feel cc wouldyou (eel being oul alone In your neighbmhood?

(ivory sale 3 L I Somewhat tinsels

j !Reasonably safe 4 L] Vely unsafe

roma NC I- 11.2.111

el

(_5

Ha. Do you think PEOPLE IN GENERAL have limited 04 caunged theiractivities In the past few years because *ay are afraleof crime?

I 1 Yen 2: I Nu- -

b. Do you think that most revrit IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD have limited orchaneet their activities In the past few years because they ale afraid of CI1Mre

Yes 71.1140- -c. In general, have YOU limited cc changed four activities in the past few

years because of (Ike?

I L1 Y.0 Zu NO11' INTERVIEWER - Confirm* Infervisre WW1 fhts iespOodont on fiCS-3

Page /

56

eso

App.ndlx III

Technical Inforn4ittionand reliability of the estimates

Sul vey tesults contained in this publication alebased on data gatheied din mg cal ly 1974 It om p..ei soilsie%iding within the city limits of Miaim. mellidmgthose king, m eeithim types of gioup quai tels, such :11d OM it ories, rooming houses, and religious groupdwellings. Nonresidents of the City, includ mg tom ist sand cOmm atm, did not fall within the scope of thesurvoy. Sunda rly, clew members of merchant vessels,Aimed 1-oiees pel;onnel living in intlitary ba rrack s.and nistitutionahied peions. such as oilcchimalfacility inmates, woe nol undct eonale ;Won Wohthese eXeCptiorls, all pet sonsage 16 and Over hying inunits designated -.Iot the sample were eligible to belime/ viewed. .

Fitch interviewei"'s firs& eontact with a unit selectedfoi the survey was in pet son, and, if it wet e not possibleto sccute inlet views with all eligible members of tlwhousehold during the Initial visit, Interviews by tele-phone wet e pet missible therealtcl. Proxy responseswere not permitted for the attitude survey. Surveyiecords were processed and weighted,. yieldmg 'resultsrepresentative both of the eity's population as a wholeand ol variobs sectors within the population. Be-cause they ale based on a sample survey rather t ha n acomplete enumeration, the icsults ale estunales.

Sample design and size

Estimates from the survey 1u re based or c itaobtained from a stratified sample. The basic ft mefrom which the attitude sample was drawn the city'scomplete houskng inventory, as determined by the 1970Census of Population and !lousing was the same asthat for the victimization survey. A determination wasmade that a sample roughly half thc size of the victimi-zation sample would yield enough attitudinal data onwhich to base reliable estimates. For the purptse ofselecting the victimization sample, the city's hotsingunits were distributed among 105 strata on the basis ofvarious characteristics. Occupied units, which com-prised -the majority, were grouped into 100 stratadefined by a combination of the following_character-istics: type of tenure (owned -or rented); number ofhousehold members (five categories); household in-come (five categories); and race of head of household(white or other than white). Housing units vacant atthe time of the Census were assigned to an additionalfour strata, where they were distributed on the basis ofrental or property value. A single stratum incotporatedgroup quarters.

aci nullut liii units built alter" the 19 .70 ( 'el1\11,sample was diaw id .111 IlldepetldelllC.11 MIN issiiiI fiti ilit t olistrik lion 01residential housing within the city !his enabled theproper lepresentation in the slItyey of pet sons Occupy-ing housing built altei 1970.

lit oidci to dc%'clop the hail Sample ickimeeelIol the

muttnir in yrs. each unit svo. ANNirned to I

ot I? p.inck. vkith unit, in the In smer'llanek. beIngdesignated lot the attitude sill vey. 11lis procedureiesulted in the selection of 6,070 housing units. Diningthe suicycy period( I .004 of these units wet e I ound to bevacant, demolished, convcited to nonicsalential use,tempoiaidv occupied hs othris%"%ineligible lot lwth the sictunuation nd ttitudesulycvs At tn additional I 17 units N. !sited inteiviewers it was impossible to conduct Interviews because

the occupants Quild not be reached abet iepeated calls,did not wish to pailicipate in the suryey, oi were un-available fin oiber leasons I heielole, Otte, views weletaken with the occupants of 4,929 housing units, andthe late of participation among units qualified lotterviewulg was 97.3 percent u wParticipating nits ere

occupied( by a total of 9,909 persons age 16 and over,or an average of two residents of the relevant aes perunit. Inter vie ws we, e conducted witli NI(650 ofV111.e

pet sons, resulting in a response rate of 97.4 'lei-centamong eligible tesidents.

Estimation procedure

Data records generated by the attitude survey wereassigned either of two sets of final tabulation weights,one for, the records of individual respondents anda not het for those of household respondents. In eachcase, the final weight was the product of twoctle-ments- a factor of roughly twice the weight used intabulating victimization data estimates and a ratio esti-mation factor. The following steps determined thctabulation weight for personal victimization data andwere, therefore, an integral part of the estimation pro-cedure for attitude data gathered from individualrespondents: (I) a basic weight, reflecting the selectedunit's probability of being included in the sample; (2)afactor to compensate for thc subsampling of units, asituation that arose in instances where the-interviewerdiscovered many more units at the sample address thanhad been listed in the decennial Census; (3) a within-household noninterview adjustment to account forsituations where at least one but not ail eligible personsin a household were interviewed; (4) a houselitAd non-interview adjustment to account for households quali-,fied in the survey but front which aminterview was notobtained; (5) a household ratio estimate factor for

49

bringing estimates developed 110111 I Iiç samplc 01 1970

housing units into adinstment with the completeCensus count of such wills: and (Ma population limoestimate faitin thatbi ought the sample estimate intoaccord with post-Census 1:M1111111es of 11 le population

ir age 1 2 11 11(1 OVel 1111(1 11(1111sled 1 he (1111a 101 possible

bia s resulting I, um undercoverage Or overcovelage01 I ie population

I he household !atm estimation ocedni c (step .$)

achieved a slight teduction in the extent 01 samplingvariability, 1 heieby !educing the margin of errOr 111 111etabulated survey !esults. It also Coln pensald1 for 111eexcills1011 I00111 eaCh stratum of a nv householdsalready included in samples 101 certain 01 hei CensusBut eau plop:1MS I 11(' hO1lsellold fano estimator wasnot applied to Intel view tecoids ga ied 1 10111 resi-

dents of won') quaiteis in of units -onstineted Ate!the Censns. For household yid inn ition data (andattitudejdata trom household respoi lents), the finalweight incorporated all of the steps escribed above

except the third and sixth.I limo estimation fact oi sfc0m1 element of the

1 nal weight, Was an adjustment I hi inging data Ii om11 aim ride survey (lich, as indicated. was based on ahall sample) into aceold with data tram the victimiia-lion survey (based on the whole sample). I his adjust-ment, required because the attitude sample was ran-domly const I octet] I 10111 the victinUrat ion sample, was

used lot the age, sex, ahd race characteristics olrespondents.

Reliability of estipatesAs previously noted, survey reps contained in this

report ale estimates. Despite the Nrcca kitions taken to

mimmire sampling variability, the estimatel alesubject to errors arising from the tact that the sampleemployed yArs only one 01 a large numbei of possible'sample4 of equal silt' that could have been used apply-ing the ksame sample design and selection jfrocedures.Estimales derived from different samples may'. slilysomewhat; they alsomay differ from figures tlevelopedflom the average of all possible samples, even if thesurveys were administered with the sante schedules,instructions, and inter viewe s.

The st. ndard error of a survey-estimate is a measure

, of the v riation among estimates from all possiblesa mple'Tfud is, therefore, a gauge of the precision withwhich the estimate from a particulai sample approxi-mates the average result of all possibfe samples. The

estimate and its associated standard error may be usedto construct a confidence interval, that is, an interVal

a prescribed probabiVt6hat it would includethe average result of ahlpossiblc samples. The average

50

s ;due 01 all possible samples may oi may not becontaimid iii aus 11.11 hculai romPuftd unrl sal 110"u,ei , the chances ale about 68 mit of 100 dim Virscs

ised csomme would difhl h ton On elarcilicsultol all possible samples by less than one standaicieiloiSimilaily, the chain-es ale about 90 oul oj 100 that ihrdirk-fence would hr less than 1.6 times tin- sta tidal d(Aim, about 9S out ol 100 !hat the d 1..ei clii e mu hi hr

2 0 nincs thc standaid cli ot. and 99 (int ot 100(that it ss ould he less duo n 2. 11111cs 111C s1,1 Ili la 1 (1 1'1 1 01

I hc 68 pi-1cent confidence Intelsat Is 'defined as therange of values given by the estimate minus thestandard error and the estimate plus dle sill ndaidel to!, thc chances are -68 in 100 that the rivet age s aloeof all possible samples 5% mild tall within that hingeSimilaily. the pet alit cold nlence noel Is

as the estiniate plus or minus two N1alldald 101s

In addition to samIrling emu, the estimales pie-

seated in this wpm t are subject to nonsampling error,chiefly al fecting the !teem:Icy of the dim met ion between 'victims and uonvieoms /\ mawt soince ol nonsani-piing emu IS ichlcd 10 Ihr 01 i espondents to le-call whethei Oi nm tho sscie s ict !mired dining themonths prior to the time ol interview Research on w-eall indicates that the ability to remember a crimevaries with the time nue va I between vict imi/at ion andinterview, the type 01 crime, and, pet haps, the socio-demographic chaiacteristics of the iespondilit. I aken

togetlitr, tecall oblems may result in an wideh state-ment ol the -Hue- numbei ol sictunired pelsons and

households, as defined 1 or the purpose ol this report.Anodici somee ol nonsampling cum pertaming tovirtimi-ration experience involves telescoping, or bring-ing within the appropriate 12-month releicnee periodsict imirat ions that (weni red bef ore or alter the close olthe period.

Although the problems of recall and telescopingprobably -Weakened the dillerentiation between \ mc-tuns and nonviChuns, these would not have affected the

data on personal attitudes or behavior. Nevertheless,such data may have been alketed by nonsa iii plingemus resulting front incomplete or erroneous re-sponses, systematic mistakes introduced by Intel view-ers, and improper coiling and pi ocessing of data.4v1a ny of these mous also would occut m a completeCensus. Quality control measures, such as interviewerobservation and a reinterview program, as well as editprocedures in the lick] and at the clerical and conwinerprocessing stages. Were utiliied 10 keep such errors atan acceptably low level. As calculated for this survey,the standard emus partially measure only thoserandom nonsampling errors arising from response andinterviewer errors; they do not, however, take intoaccount any systematic biases in the data.

58

Regarding the reliability 01 data, it should be notedthat estimates based on /el° oi On ;ibo(It I() 01 fewersample cases ha e been considered um eliable !such

estimates are identified in footnotes to the data tablesand were not used for purposes of analysis in thisreport. For Miami, a minimum weighted estimate of

was considered statistically reliable, as was anypercentage based on such a figure

Computation ahd applicationof the standard error

I.01 %UM' \ cq1111alcs lelni1111 to colic, tfie ladRidual01 household respondents. standard et lois displayedon tables at the end of this appendix Gin be used forgauging sampling variability. 4 hese errors are approx-imations Sill&suggest an order of magnitude of thestandard error rather thanilObe precrse ci ror associatedwith any given estimate. !able I contains standaiderrol approximations applicable to information fromindividual respondents and I able I I gives el tors fordata derived hom household iespondents. pet-centages not -specifically listed in the tables, linearinterpolation must be used to approximate the stand-ard el ror.

To illustrate the application of standard errors inmeasuring sampling variability, Data Table 1 in thisreport shows that 69.7 percent of all Miami residentsage 16 and over (282,800 persons) believed crime in theUnited States had increased. Two-w linkar interpo-lation of pita listed in Table I wou yield a standarderror of Nbout 0.5 percent. Consequently, chances arc68 out of 100 that the estimated pe ontage of 69.7would be- within 0.5 percentage p. nts'of the averageresult from all possible samples; i.e., the 68 percentconfidence interval assotrated witli the estimate wouldbe frOm 69.2 to 70.2. Furthermore, the chalices are 95out of 100 that the estimated percentage would beroughly within one percentage point of the average forall samples: i.e., the 95 percent co'nfidence intervalwould be about 68.7 to -70.7 percent. Standard errorsassociated with data from household respondents arecalculated in the same manner, using Table II.

In comparing two gample estimates, the standarderror of the difference between the two figures isapproximately equal to the square root of the sum ofthe squartis of the standard errors of each estimateconsidere0 Separately. As an example, Data Table 12shows that 31.2 percent of males and 15.6 percent offemales felt very safe when out alone in the neighbor-hood at night, a difference of 15.6 percentage points.The standard error for each estimate, determined byinterpolation, was about 0,9 (males) and 0.6 (females).

1o,

Using the lot mirk dew, Med previously, the standardcum of the daft-it:lice between 11 2 and 15 6 peicent isetplessed as \ (0 9)' 01 6r, %1111(11 Ctitiils 4ipin \Imately 1.1. finis, the confidence interval at one stand-ard error around the difference of 15.6 would be from14.5 to 16.7 (15.6 plus or minus 1.1 ) and at two stand-ard er 1 ois 110111 I 1 4 to 1 1 8 !he !alio of a difference toits standaid eiroi &lures a %AR- that can be crpiated toa level of significance VOI example, a iatio of about2 0 (in more) denotes that the difference is significarkat the 515percent confidence level (or higher); a ratioranging between about 1.6 and 2.0 indicates that thedifference is signIlicant at a confidence level between90 and 95 percent, and a ratio of less than about 1.6defines a level of confidence below 90. pcicent. In theabove example, the Ialio of the diffeicfice (15.6) to thestandard error (1.1) is equal to 14.2,a figure well abovethe 2.0 minimum level of confidence applied in thisreport. .1'hus, it was concluded that the differencebetween the two proportions was statistically signifi-cant For data gathered from household respondents,the significance of dif ferences between two sampleestimates is tested by the same proccduie, using stand-ard errors in .11-able II.

Mils*

51

Table I. Individual respondent data: Standard error approximations for estimated percentages

(60 chuncoa out of 100)

Ut1olAuJJ2221.C.011t vr_0110Wovo_UX_1111i.Y1d9.10_LoWknIA9111:1.

:00 Qf porcont 1.0 or_99.0 2-5 or 97.5 5.0 or 15.0 10.0 yr 10.0 2).0 or

100

250500

1,0002,5005,000

10,00025.00050,000

100,000?.50,000

500.000

6.44 .0

2.92.01.3

0.90.60.40.10.20.1

0.1

10.96.3

4.53.2

2.01.4

1.00.60.40.30.20.1

1,-.

)184..(

4.3

4.42.02_01.4

0.90.40.4

0.30.2 *

19.2

12.2

6.6

6.1

3.0

(021111;1,

0.40.3

"

27-017.612.48. a5.6

3.9.t1

1.81...

0.90.5

0.4

32.1

20.314.310. 1

6.4

653.22.c1.4

1.0

0.60.5

NDTE: Tho standard errorn Ln (.ltis LabIo aro applioablo to information In Data Tubloa 1-16 and 27-37.

Table Ii. Household respondent data: Standard error approximations for estimated percentages

(68 chancon out or 100)

&time"), mrcont of &uniof ! lhouoolNld reopolgent..0

Baeo of porcoa 1.0 or 99.0 2.5 or 97.5 5.0 or 95.0 10:0 alt 90.0 25.0 or 75.0 50.0

100 5.0 7.6 10.9 15.0 21.6 ; 24.9

250 3.1 4.9 6.9 9.5 13.7 15.4

500 2.2 3.5 4.9 6.7 9.7 11.2

Imo 1.6 2.5 3.4_ 4'.7 6.8 7.9

2,500 1.0 .7 1.6 2.2 3.0 4.3 5.0

5,000 0.7 1.1 1.5 2.1 3.1

10,000 0.5 0.8 1.1 1.5 2.2 2.5

25,000 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.9 1.4 1.6;'

50,000 Q.2 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.0 1.1'

100,000 0.2 ,, 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.7

,250,000 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5i,

MOTS: The standard errors in this tans aro applicable *o-lnformalion in Data, b1os 19-26.

/

s

Glossary

Age. i lie appi opi late age eatcgot) is delci minedby each respondent's agt as of the last day oi the monthpreceding the inteview.

Annual family incomeInelndev the income ofthe household head and all 01 lICI !elated pet \oilsiesiding in the same househokl unit. Uo% els the 1 2

months pieceding the intci sICW Mid IlldthIcs wages,salaries, net income from busi nes or hi m n n, pesios,s

interest, dividends, rent, ani

d : ny othei forin of

monetary income Fire income Of persons (1111-Cla ted tothe head of the household is excluded.

AssquitAn linhiwinl physical attack, whet heiaggi avated 01 simple, npon a person. Inchidesattempted assault N% Oh 01 W11110111 a weapon 1 \chides

rape and attempted tape, as well as attacks involvingthe! t or attempted thdt, which are classified as

robbery.Burglarythflawf ul oi I orcible entry of a resi-

dence. usually, hilt not necessa 1 dy, attended hy theft.Indupes attempted lot cible enti.).

Central city 1"he largest city of a standard metropolitan statistical irea (SMSA).

Community relati9nsRefers to question 1 4b

(ways of Improving police per! ormance) and includes--,

4wo response categories: "Be mole eon! Worts, improveattitude, Community relations" and .2'1 )011'1 disci-ionnate."

Downtown shopping areaThe central shoppingdistrict of the city where the respondent lives.

Evening entertainmentRefers to entertainmentavailable in public places, such as restaurants, t heaters,bowling alleys, nightelutA, bars, ice cream pal lors, etc.I...xcludes club meetings, shopping, and social visits tothe homes of relatives or acquaintances.:

General merchandise shopping-- Refers to

shopping for goods other than food, such as clothing,furniture, housewares, -etc.

Head of household For classification purposes,only one individual per household can be the head per-son. In husband-wife households, the husband arbi-trarily is c4nAderep to be the head. In otherhouseholds, the head person the individual soregarded by its members; genera y, that person is thechicf breadwinner. .

HouseholdConsists of the occupants of separateliving quarters meeting either of the following criteria:(I) Persons, whether present or temporarily absent,w1rse usual place of residence is the housing unit inquestion, or (2) Persons staying in the housing unitwho have no usual plac e. of residence elsewhere.

61

Ji

Household attitude questions hews I tin ough[min NCS I 01 llollse holds that .consisi 01 mon.

dian one meinhei die miestioos apply iohome hold

Housghold larceny 1 heft 01 attempted theft ofpi Opel h. 01 cash lioni a mesitlenec oi its immediatevicinity I-oreihle attempted loteihle entry. orimuil.isIiml entty ale not invoked

Household respondentA kno lcdgc.Ihlc ttliilincitritei 011 the household, most I icquciitl the head ofhousehold ou that pet son's spouse. I:01 each house-hold, such a pet son a uswei s the "household ttitudeqiiestions

Individual attitude questions-1 tents 8 through1 6 01 I 01111 N( Hie questions Apply to eaclipei \on, not the clime household .

Individual respondent fach person, age 1 6 and

vci , the household respondent, who partici--pates in the survey. All such persons answer the "indi-vidual quest ions."

Local police 1 lic police force in the city \Oleic theiespondent lives at the tune ol the tateu view .

s to shopping lot theMajor food shoppingbilik of the household groceries.

Measured crimes For ihe purpose of thi report,the offenses are rape, i)ersOna I robbery, assault,personal larceny, burglary, household larceny, andniotot vehichz,thdt, as determined by the victimizationcompOnent of the survey. Includes both completed -andattempted acts that occurred during the 1 monthsprim to the month of interview.

Motor vehicle theftStealing or unauthorizedtaking of a motor vehicle, including attonpts at suchacts. Motor vehicles inelude automobilçs, trucks,inotoreyele, and any other motoriied vehicles legallyallowed on public roads and highways

Neighborhood Fite genettl vi ivity of" The

respondent's dwelling. The boundaries of a neighbor-hood define an area with which the respondent identi-fies..

NonvlctimSee "Not victimized," below.Not victimizedFor the purpose of this report,

pe nrtns not categorried as "yid i m i ied "(see bel ow) a reconsidered "not vietimind."

OffenderThe perpetrator of a crime.Operational practicesRefers to question 14b

(ways of improving police performance) and includesfour response categories: "Concentrate on moreimportant duties, serious crime, otc."; "Be moreprompt, responsive, alert"; "Need more traffic con-''trol"; and "Need more policemen of particular type(foot, car) in certain areas or at certain times."

5.3

1

Personal larceny-- [hat or attempted theft ofproperty or cash, either with contact (but without 1 ince

Or threat Of force) or without direct contact betweenvictim and offender.

Personnel resourcesRefers to question 14b

(ways of improving pohce performance) and includestwo response categories: -Hire mole policemen- and"Improve training, raise quialifications or pay, rectum

.../-merit policies.-

RacDetermined by the interviewer upon obser-vation, And asked only about persons not related to the

head of household who were not present at thc time ol

interview. "[he racial categories distinguished arcwhite, black, and other The category "other "consists

mainly of American Indians and/or persons of As11111

ancestry.RapeCarnal knowledge through the use ol force

or the threat of force, including attempts. Statutoryrape (without force) is excluded. Includes both hetero-sexual and homosexual fee.

Rate of victimizationSee "Victimization tate,-

below. .

RobberyTheft or attempted theft, directly from a

person, of property or cash by I 0 n-CC or threat of force,

with or without a weapon.Ws vidimizations-1 late 01 more criminal

events similar, if not identical, in nature and incurredby a person unable to identify separately the details of

number of such ac . the term Is applicable tooteach act, or, in sonic case to recount accurately the

total ,

each of the crimes measured by the Victimizationcomponent of the survey.

Suburban or neighborhood shopping areas2Shopping centers of districts either outside the'City-limits or in outlying areas of the city near the respond-

ent's residence..1fictIMSee "Victimized," below.

..VIOniltatIon-rklecific criminal act as it affects a

single victitn, whether a 'person Or household. 'Incriminal bets against persons, the number of victimiza-

tions is determi d by the number of victims of suchacts. Each crimi al act against a household is assumed

to involve a sin le victim, the affected household.

Victimizatio rideFor crimes against persons,the viaimization rate, a measure of occurrence amongpopulation groups, at risk, is computed on the basis of

the number of -victimizations per 1,000. resident

population age 12 and over. For crimes against house-

holds, victimization rates are calculated on the basis of

thc number of vietimizations !ler 1,000 households.

54

VICIIMIzed I'M the Pm row Of this !rpm t.

pet sons ale legal (led as -victimized-11 din meet colic!of R% o ci itei la ( I ) I hes pei sonalk es pc! icoced one ,,,

more ot the following cr munal VICIIIIIihilloils (1111 ing

the 12 monfhs prior to Our month of interyiew: rape,personal robber y, assault, or personal larce4iy. Or. (2)I he y ale member s of a household that espy! ieneed one

ot mow ol the lollomog (-normal (whim/mons(hum the same tone hallit- hut Om v. limischold Ian

ceny, r motor vehicle the! t.

6,2

U.S DEPAIIIMIN1 JOST-ICIt AW I NI MAC/ MI NT ASSIST ANCI ADMIN I1 fiA 110N

USL.11 LVALUAl ION OULS11ONNAIIIL

Miami: Public Attitudes About rinieNCJ 46239, SD NCS C 74

Dear Reader:The Law Enforcement Assistance dministration is interested in your comments and suggestions

about this report. We have provid in form for whatever opinions you wish to express about it. Pleasecut out both of these pages, staple them together on one corner, and fold so that the Law LnforcementAssistance Administration address appears.on the outside. After folding, use tape to seal closed. Nopostage stamp is necessary.

Thank you for your help

1. For what purpose did you use this report?

Nit

2. For that purpose, the report-- Met most of my' needs LiMet some of my needs L1Met none of my needs

3. How will this report be useful to you?

I Data soutc I 1 Other (please. _

t I leaching material.

ri Reference for article or report

ri General informatiOn

1111 Criminal jushce program planning--Or--

4. Which parts of the report, if any, were difficult to understand ?r use? How conld they be irnproved?

In Will ApT he lul to me (pleaSe explain)

t.

5. Can you point out specific parts of the text or table notes that are not clear or terms that need to be defined?

Page 1

63

6. Are there ways this report could be improved that you have not mentioned?

.01

7. Please suggest other topics you would like to see addressed in future analytic reports using National Crime

Survey victimization and/or attitude data.

8. In what capacity did you use this report?

O Rowarchee

P. Et locatoroir

0. Stodent

O Criminal justice stoney employee

O Government other than criminal pastier, - Specify

-1

O Other - Specify

'Page 2

9. If you used this report as a governmental employee, please indicate the level of government.

i I f iwforal I I city

EA I Other - Specifyslat.

ri -County ---

-M. If you used this report as a criminal justice agency employee, please indicate the sector in which you work.

0 Law enforcement (polic.) ti Correc 1 ions.-

0 Legal services and prosecution 0 Parole

II Public or private defense services Ll Criminal justice planning agency

1 1 Courts or court administration I I Other criminal justice agency Specify type

1 1 Probation

,

11. If you used this report as a criminal justice employee, please indicate the type of position you hold.Mark all that apply.

C.) Agency or institution administrator 0 Program or project manager

f I General program planner/evaluator/analyst I I Statistician

70 Eludget planner/evaluator/enelyst 'V i i Other Specify

0 Operations or management planner/evsluator/analyst

12. Additional comments

c

,1-

..

, .

,

N

,

Page 3

I.

OPTIONALName Tehophone

Numbor and street

City State ZIP Cod.

(Fold here)

NCJ -46239SD NCS C -24

.4


Washington, D.C. 20531

1Law Enforcimint Attendance Administration

(11,7wwwwwwU.S.MAIL

POSTAGE AND FEES PAIDU S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

JUS-436

Director, Statistics DivisionNational Criminal Justice Information and Statisics Service-Law Enforcement Assistance AdministrationU.S. Departmont of JusticeWashington, D.C. 20531

(Fold tiara)

Page 4

6 6

1

NCJRS REGISTRATION

NCJ 46239NCS

The National Criminal Justice Reference Service (N(I RS) abstiacts documents published in the criminal jtslice tieki Personswho are refotcred with die Rocienuc syvicc leceive aninnint.rinviv:L dot ument% itt thcn .tatcd Aikkalci v%I and of delforms hitireo vorlos ol I FAA awl M-1155 publics, tkm% v,a) are iegisleted With Ihe Ref euent and Wish le bo.vleaw plovide youi name and inallinf: addiosN antl lit

Stoto

h)he Apri,9,11:11t Ito \

Tolophono

ZIP Codo

Please Snd me aNCJRS registration

. form.

Please send me tharoports listodnolow

Nemo

Number end *bast

City

le/r

U.S. DEPONENT OF JUSTICELaw Enforainont Assistance Adminlair a3onWashington, D.C. r531

-J

(Fold hero)

POSTAGE AND FEES PAIDU S DEPARTMENT QF JUSTICE

User Services Department 42National Criminal Justice Reference ServiceLaw Enforcement Assistance AdministrationU.S.': Department of JusticeBox 6000Rockville, Maryland 20050

,

JUS-436

U.S. MAIL 1

(Fold here)

It you wish to receive Copies of any 01 the National Ciimmal Justice Information and StatisticsService reports listed inside the front cover, please list them below and include yout time and address in the space provided above,

6"1

4

r.

4

National Criminal Justice informationand Statistics Service Reports

tingle cookie ary avaltable 91 no charge from the National CriminalJuana* Reference Ss,vc., boa-4000, Rocky lite, Md. 201130. Multiplecopies ere for sale hy the Superintendent 01 Documents, U.S.Government Printing (Race, NSilehington, D.C.20402.

National Crime Survey of vitilmIzatIon7Criminal Victimitation in the UtillIsd Slat** (annual)

,Itirrentny fincliO99 of 1911 76 Menges ii r rime and ofSince ;973. NCJ-61368

A Doscriplion of I ferefg horn 1913 to 19// NCJ ')98981977 (final report). NCJ 58725..1978. NCJ. 495431975. NCJ-445931974. NCJ-394671973. NCJ 34732

The Corn of negligence: lossesBurglaries NCJ 53527

intimate Victims: A Sfliny of ViolenceRelatives. NCJ 62319

Criminal Victimization Surveys in 'BOston, NCJ-34018 New Orleans, NCJ 34825Buffalo, NCJ -34020 Oakland; NCJ 3,4826Cincinnati, NCJ-3481:9 Pittsburgh, NCJ-34821Houston, NCJ-34821 San Diego, NCJ-34828Miami. NCJ-34822 San Fraricisco, NCJ-34829Milwaukee, NCJ-34823 Washington, D.C. NCJ34030Minneapolis, NCJ 34824 (final report. 13.vols ) _

Criminal Victimization Surveys in 13 Anrrican Cilitereport. 1 vol ). NCJ- 1847 t

Public Attitudes About Crime:Boston, NCJ-48235 New Orleans, NCJ-16242Buffalo, NCJ-46236 Oakland, NCJ-46243 I

Cincinnati, NC,!-46237 Pittsburgh. NCJ-46244Houston, !ICJ-413238 San Diego, NCJ 746245

Miami, NCJ-46239 San Francisco, NCJ -46246 .

Milwaukee, NC3-46240 Wshington. D.C. NCJ-4624(Minneapolis, NCJ 46241 (final report. 13 vols )

Crlininal Victimization Surveys In Chicago, Detroit, Lqi Angeles,New York, nd Philadelphla:-A C.:onionlison ol 19/2 and 191.1 e v.

NCJ 36360Criminal Victimization Surveys In Eight American Cities:

A Crimparison of 1971/72 and 1974/75 Findings NationalCrime Surveys in Atlanta. Baltimore. Cleveland. Dallas Denver.Newark. Portland. and SI Louis. NCJ-36361

Crimes and Victims: A Report-on the Dayton Sari Jose Pi101

Survey of Victimization. NCJ-013314

Applications of the National Crime Survey Victimizationand Attitude.Data:

Public Opinion About Crime: The Attitudes of Viclims and Non-victims In Selected Cities. NCJ 41336

Local Victim Surveys: A Review of the Issues. NCJ-39973The- Police and Public Opinion: An Analysis of Victimwation and

Altitude Data from 13 American Cities. NCJ-42018An Introduction to the National Crime Survey, KJ-43732Compensating Victims of Violent Crime: Potential Costs and

Coverage of a National Program, NCJ-43387Crime Against Persons In Lkban, Suburban, and Rural Areas:

A Comparative Analysis of Victimization Rato.s. NCJ 53551

(tape Victimizatioh in 26 AmeriCan Cities. NCJ 5:31178Criminal Victimization In Urban Schools. NC.1 56396 1

r

C.

from Preventehle Hougehold

Aanong !glands and

National Prisoner Statistics:Capital Punishment (annual)

1978, NCJ-SPrisohere in st and Federal lestiltitions (annual)

.,,

December 54. 1978, advance report. NC4-58324December 30977 (final report). NCJ-52701 ,

Census of Stale Correctional Facilities, 1974 advance relpott.

NCJ-25642 ,

Profile of State Pilsen inmates: Sleciodomographic Findings from

the 1974 Survey ot InrAates of State Correctional Facilities,NCJ-58257 --`

, Ceitaus Of P*lson.rijn State CorreCtional Fabilities, 1973, ,

NCJ-34729 4"s

Census of Jails and Survey ot Jail 'inmates, 19711,,proliminhry.

report, NCJ-55172The Nation's Jail*: A report On the census of jadslfroin the 1972

Survey of Inmates ol local tdiJs. NCJ-19067

- Survey of Inmates of Local 1972, advance report. NCJ-13313

Uniform Parole Reports:Pistol. In the United States 1001 1%. J 511/21

mit and 111:1 bh I

Children In Custody ,

,Iiiseiele (intention end info, WIN

1077 advance report,Census of Public .'Juvenile I aciiities. NCJ.00901Census of Private Juvenile I in rlrluoi NC.I 00908

1975 (final report), NC-1-50131)19/4 NC.1 !i194619/3. NcJ 44771)0;1 Ni I 11401

Myths and 11.81111os About Crime: A Nontre unit ni pnownialion ofSulotted lnformalion hum the Nationai Primmer StatisticsProgiani and the National Crinie Survey. NCJ-46240

State Court Mo:flailatisticai Dictionary, NCJ- 62320

Stale Court Caseload Statistics-The Stale of the Aff. NCJ 46934Anniini Report. 1975 NC,i S11185

r Annual Benoit 19 /6,* NC J

' A Cross Clly Comparison of Felony Case Processing, Nt..I 551 /

National Survey of Court Orgnization1977 Supplement to Stale Judicial Systems NCJ-400221975 Supplement to Slate Judicial Systems. NCJ-294331971 (fulrrepor1). NC.1 11427

Slate and Local Probation and Parole Systems, NCJ-41335

Slate end LOcal Prosecution and Civil Attorney Systems, NC.I 3 4

Trends in Expenditure and Employment Data for th CrliqjnsiJustice System, 1971 77 (annual). NCJ 57463

iripendllure and Employment Data !or the Criminel Justice System(annual) -

1970 advance ((mod. NCJ- 6.)."0301917 fmal report. NCJ-53206

Criminal Justice Agencies in Regions 1-10 (10 vols .by state)NCIf 17930-38. 15151 -

Dictionary of Criminal Justice Qata.Ternginology: leogs andChilinitions Proposed fog Intrustate and National Dine Collectionand I. )(change. NUJ-3(j/4/

Program Mi)i lot Statistics, 1977 011 NCJ 31811 ,

Utilization of Criminal Justice Statistics Project:, ourcebobk of Criminal Justice Shitistics 1970 (annual). -,

NCJ-53207Puillic Opinion Regerding Crime, Criminal Juilice. and Related

opics. NCJ 17419N. Directions In Processing of Juvenile Ofienders. Tho Denvei

. Model. NCJ 17420 -Who Gels 13,1alned7 Aii [inpuical Analysis of the Pre,Adiudicakiry

Detention of Juveniles in Delivel. NQJ-17417Juvenile Dispositions. Social arid legal rectors 14/11;0141d the

Processing of Denver Delinquency Cases. NCJ-011ender-Based Transection Statistics: Now Directions in Data

Collection arid Reporting. NCJ-29645 .Sentencing ef Califdrnie Felony Offenders, NCJ-2£1646The Judicial Processing.ol Montan and Burglary Olfenders in

Selected Calitorpia ourrt,es, NCJ-29644Pre-Adjudicatory DitentIon In Three* slavanile Courts, NCJ 34130

Delinquency Dispositions; An kmpincll Analysis ol ProcessingDecisions in Ihr-oe Juvenile Courts. NCJ 34734

The Patterns and Distribution of Assault incident CharacteristicsAmong Social Areas. NCJ 40025

Patterns of Robbery 9haracteristics andThee Occurrence AniOngSoctal Areas. NCJ-40026

Crimji-Specific Analysis: . -

TKe Charactoristits ol Burglary Ini3derilt. k1CJ-42093An Empuical'Exammation of Burglary Offender Characte

NCJ-43131 ,

An Empirical Examination of Burglary Offend.ers andOffenseCharacteristics, NSJ 42476

Sources of National Criminal Justice, Stalislies:. An AnnotatedBibliography. NCJ-45006

FederitiCrimlnal SenlencIngt,Perspectives of Analysis arid aDesign for Research NCJ-33663

,

VariatIoni In Federal Criminal Sentences: A Statislical Assess ment'at the National leveL NCJ33684

Federal Sentencing Patterns: A Study of Geographical Variations.

NCJ-33685Predicting Seniences in Ferleral Courts: The I potability of a

National Sentencing Policy, NCJ-336136

60VERNME5IT PRINTINO OFFICE 19db 0-311-379/1322

NOTE - ERIC1972 Survey ol Inmates of Local Jails, NCJ-19067 Survey of inmates of Local Jails, 1972,...

Documents

Transcript of NOTE - ERIC1972 Survey ol Inmates of Local Jails, NCJ-19067 Survey of inmates of Local Jails, 1972,...