An Analysis of a Spatial Relationship between Homeownership and Crime: A Case of the North End of Providence, Rhode Island

This research project examines the spatial relationship between homeownership and crime. The first chapter states the Problem Statement, Objective and Significance of the study, and Organization of the study. The second chapter discusses previous literature related to the study. The four related fields of the literature discussed are, 1) urban neighborhood and crime, 2) built-social environment of urban neighborhood and crime, 3) homeownership and built social environment of urban neighborhood, and 4) homeownership and crime in urban neighborhoods. The third chapter inventories the existing conditions of the North End. It begins with the historical context of the North End. Then, it discusses the population characteristics of the North End, housing characteristics of the North End, and socio-economic characteristics of the North End. The end of this chapter shows the general characteristics of the North End, or summary of findings. The fourth chapter shows the crime statistics of the North End in 2003. It mainly shows the types of crime and the rate and number of each crime in the North End in 2003; the comparison of those data with Providence; and the definitions of each crime. The fifth chapter examines the spatial relationship between the homeownership and the crime patterns of the North End in 2003. This study approaches it by examining a series of spatial ' relationships between the tenure condition and crime patterns within the North End. The last chapter discusses the summary of findings, shortcomings of the study, suggestions for the further study, and conclusion.


Recognized Relationship and Potential Relationship of Urban Neighborhood Element
Population Growth, 1990Growth, -2000 Racial Composition in North End, 1990 Racial  Among these elements, however, safety (in the category of physical well being) must take a significant role for the quality of life since the issue of safety is so deeply rooted in the United States. In a historical context, as a common knowledge of many people, the  (Skogan 1981). Whereas, renters often little care over their living arrangement and their neighborhood since they are likely more mobile and are likely to have a choice of leaving their house once they found a deterioration within their neighborhood. Further, in the study of Schweitzer at el (1999), they demonstrated that the percentage of homeowners was negatively correlated with actual crime; whereas, the residents on higher crime block are more likely to be renters.

1.2.
Objective of the Study

1.3.
This study intends to examine the spatial relationship between the homeownership and crime using the case study approach. The case study is conducted in the North End of Providence, Rhode Island. This area is chosen as the case study area since it demonstrates significant concern about the turnover of housing to absentee landlords in recent years. From the perspective of positive impact of homeownership and negative impact of renters on the safety of neighborhoods, this study aims to examine the spatial relationship between homeownership and crime in the North End of Providence in 2003.

Significance of the Study
One of the most significant elements in quality of one's life is safety. Without a feeling of the safety in a neighborhood, an elderly woman may not be able to walk on the street alone; a mother of kids may not let them play outside; and few people may be found on the street once it gets dark outside. Whereas, the feeling of safety gives people a positive attitude toward their neighborhood. With this feeling of safety throughout the neighborhood, one might find more people on the street. One might find more outdoor activities within the neighborhood. Eventually one might feel that the neighborhood has become a more livable place for its residents.
Many studies have shown the significance of homeownership for the neighborhood's safety and for the residents' quality of life, but few studies have attempted it from a quantitative view point. This study intends to quantitatively analyze the spatial relationship between homeownership and crime in the North End of Providence.

Method of the Study
This study was divided into several tasks in order to accomplish its objective.
1. The literature on relationship between homeownership and safety in urban neighborhoods was reviews and analyzed.
2. The general characteristics and existing spatial pattern of tenure condition of the a) The relationship between built-and-social environment of neighborhoods and crime in the neighborhoods; b) The relationship between homeownership and built-and-social environment of neighborhood; c) The relationship between homeownership and perception of safety in neighborhoods.
The section following this Introduction begins with presenting the literature of ''urban neighborhoods and crime" since urban areas and crime have been thought to have a strong tie in each other.

Urban Neighborhoods and Crime
The United States is a huge and diverse nation with various differences between its regions. There have been many significant changes in the traditional character and nature of American neighborhoods through its history that have been generated by development in the political, economic, and social dynamics of urban areas. (Robert and Harold) Phrase, "urban areas," here, seems to have a common idea. What the urban areas usually tend to have in common is that each is densely populated; its infrastructure (streets, sidewalks, buildings) is older and more likely to be in disrepair; its population will contain greater concentrations of minorities (both ethnic and racial), low-income families, and persons and families on welfare. Urban communities, on the other hand, offer amenities as well. They are convenient, diverse, active, and in many instances vibrant.
Further, many studies have shown the characteristics of urban society. Sociologists have studied the multiple aspects of urban existence in some detail. In their book the Subculture of Violence, Wolfgang and Ferracuti note: Urban life is commonly characterized by population density, spatial mobility, ethnic and class heterogeneity, reduced family functions, and greater anonymity.

\
The growth of urban area, or urbanization, has, however, brought serious problem of crime within. As it is well accepted by many people, crime is more likely in urban area than suburban or rural areas. It is well reported that rates for most crimes are highest in the big cities (Barbara) . Human Services have also been actively involved into the crime prevention programs.
Various studies have examined the context of the fact that urban areas have higher crime rate than suburban area. The explanations that have been offered for urban areas having higher rates of crime than suburban have usually centered around the larger number of criminal opportunities available, a greater likelihood of association with those who are already criminals, a more impersonal life that offers greater freedom, and in many cases, the harsher conditions of slum life -often in sharp and visible contrast to the affluence of nearby areas. That these factors operate differently with regard to more serious offenses, suggests that the relationship between the rate of crime and the degree of urbanization is a very complicated one (Barbara).
Coulton and Pendey' s (1992) and many other also argue that the context of urban crime may be caused by the fact that urban areas in the Unite States are increasingly marked by concentrated poverty, which isolates residents from labor markets, and exposes them to crumbling infrastructure, crime, and violence 2.3.

Built Environment of Urban Neighborhoods and Crime
Physical conditions of neighborhoods and urban settings have been linked to both emotional and behavioral outcomes of neighborhood residents. Housing and neighborhood quality, for example, have been identified as a predictor of psychological well-being (Lawton 1997). Skogan and Maxfield (1981) argue that physically deteriorating neighborhood conditions had a negative influence on perceptions of safety. Deteriorated neighborhood conditions increased concerns of safety, but they also decreased levels of satisfaction with the neighborhood physical environment which raised concerns about safety issues.

Defensible Space
There are studies investigating the effect of the built environment on crime and the fear of crime. Oscar Newman formulated a theory of defensible space as a means of reducing crime in urban areas. The theory stated that spaces that convey likelihood of observation and difficulty of escaping are less apt to attract potential criminals. Since then, his theory has been examined and supported by numerous research studies. At the neighbourhood level, spatial settings are favorite subjects in defensible space theory. Certain physical objects such as fences and hedges can be regarded as physical barriers, and neighbourhood watch signs symbolize people watching out for each other. However, even though the defensible space perspective has been quite popular among researchers in the field, some scholars have criticized the theory that it ignores the social aspect of crime prevention. According to them, when there is a strong sense of community among the residents, the physical aspects of the space may be more effective in deterring crime than when the residents do not know and trust one another.

Broken Window
Another area of research into the impact of the built environment on crime has been stimulated by the "broken window" thesis of James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, which states that neighbourhoods characterised by signs of neglect and decay such as trash accumulation, uncared for building exteriors, and broken windows are evidence that residents of the area feel vulnerable and have begun to withdraw from community involvement and upkeep. These indicators may serve as a signal to would-be criminals that residents are not likely to respond to criminal activity, making the area less risky for criminal activity. The physical deterioration also results in a greater fear of crime among the resident. Increased fear of crime results in greater withdrawal and diminution of the sense of community, which then makes crime even more likely.

Land Use
Jacobs focuses on diverse land use, arguing that neighbourhoods with different functions, that is, residential, commercial, institutional, and leisure, may be safer than single functional areas. Multi-functional areas attract a continual flow of people throughout the day and evening, ensuring informal surveillance. In contrast, criminal activity is likely to occur in places that are quiet and deserted. Land and housing might also take on symbolic value and become psychologically rooted in individuals' identity as objects of emotional attachment.

Housing Quality
Austin (2002) argues that housing quality had a positive effect on satisfaction with the local physical environment, which had an impact on perceptions of safety. Housing quality also has a direct impact on perception of safety. He also argues that residents who are more satisfied with the physical environment in their neighborhoods and the people in their neighborhoods are more likely to express higher levels of perceived safety.

Social Environment of Urban Neighborhoods and Crime
Social environments in neighborhoods appeared to affect residents ' perception of the conditions of their neighborhood and their attitudes about crime. Rountree and Land (1996) contend that the relationship between neighborhood' s demographic conditions and perception of safety are particularly pronounced in heterogeneous neighborhoods.
Residents of neighborhoods that had experienced dramatic changes in racial, youth, and elderly composition expressed higher levels of fear than those from areas with less change. Fear was higher in these locales because social and physical problems had arisen not in response to the change itself, but in response to the past change in racial composition of the neighborhood (Taylor & Covington, 1993). Lane and Meeker (2000) similarly argue that a portion of the fear of crime that residents of a neighborhood exhibited is attributable to concern over diversity and the perceived increasing heterogeneity of the neighborhood.
Researches in this field have identified a number of social factors that influence fear of crime and perceptions of safety. Major social factors in attitudes on crime and safety include sex, age, socioeconomic status, education, and race.

a) Sex:
Researches have generally indicated that women experienced higher levels of fear of crime than men (Perkins & Taylor, 1996). Also a portion of expressed fear of crime was altruistic in both genders, but the focus of concern might be different as men reported worrying about women and women reported worrying about children (Gilchrist at el. 1998).

b) Age:
As people age, they view themselves as being less capable of dealing with problems through their own initiative. Lance and Arthur identify the potential elements of elderly being in the fear of crime as physical limits to the actions they can take such as running to avoid assault and social isolation and economic deprivation which lead to vulnerability. Other studies also show that older individuals express higher levels of fear of crime although studies of the actual rates of victimization among them have not been defined clearly. c) Socioeconomic status: Socioeconomic status of individuals has been thought to be associated with perceptions of safety. Austin, Woolever, and Baba ( 1994) found a significant positive relationship between education and increased feeling of perceived safety. In addition, there are studies which argue that higher status in social position was associated with lower levels of fear.

d) Education:
Researches have identified that the level of crime in a community is significantly related to it members' education. It is argued that crime is more prevalent in areas where residents have lower levels of education.

e) Race:
A relationship between fear of crime and the racial composition of place has been widely studied and argued. Ted at el. (1997) has, however, demonstrated '\ that actual racial composition has no consequence for the fear of crime when other relevant factors are controlled.
As shown above, these factors -sex, age, socioeconomic status, education, and racehave been identified as the major social factors which can influence fear of crime and perception of safety of individuals. It should, however, be noted that none of those results are universally accepted ideas and more research is needed to confirm more consistent results.

Homeownership and Built-and-Social Environment of Urban Neighborhoods
The assumption that homeownership is beneficial is widely held. Policy makers and citizens assume that homeownership is a social good that creates better property owners, neighbors and citizens. Social scientists share many of these assumptions. The past literature has examined a multitude of economic, social and psychological outcomes, and demonstrates, in general, that homeownership is connected to decreased residential mobility, increased household financial stability, and improved property maintenance (Rossi & Weber, 1996;Scanlon, 1998). Housing tenure is, however, unequally distributed in the Unties States. Minorities and the poor are more likely to live in homes with structural deficits and overcrowding (Leonard & Lazer, 1992).
The sociology of architecture has examined links between housing quality and well-being, suggesting that housing indeed can impact the satisfaction and health of inhabitants (Van Vliet, et al, 1987) . Homeownership is also said to give people a greater sense of control over their lives. Rohe and Stegman (1994) argue that homeownership makes major contribution to one' s overall satisfaction with life, as a sign that one has "made it." Their research had identified that home buyers were found to have higher levels of life satisfaction, compared to renters. Further, Adrienne and Yip (2000) argue that homeownership will foster a sense of belonging in the community as well as contributing to social stability. William at el. (2002) describe these positive impacts of homeownership as an interesting way, which is "Access to Opportunity." In the article, they argue that potential individual impacts of homeownership, such as wealth creation and improved psychological health, may alter one' s opportunity set by altering how one perceives the local opportunity structures and what one sees as feasible choices. Potential social impacts of home ownership, such as fostering greater participation in voluntary organizations and political affairs, may alter the opportunity structure itself.
Furthermore, Beverlyn' s (2002) view is that homeownership is a key measure for understanding race and gender inequality in urban areas. Homeownership, from a social perspective, is an important form of wealth that determines the hierarchical order of group in society. Unlike household income, homeownership is an asset linked to spatial resources such as better schools and community services and a generally safer environment.

Homeownership and Crime in Urban Neighborhoods
As mentioned in the beginning of this Chapter, the relationship between homeownership and crime in urban neighborhoods has not been elaborated in the literature, compared to the relationships of other factors. However, based on the literature discussed in above sections which are "built-and-social environment of neighborhood and crime" and "homeownership and built-and-social environment of crime," one might be able to make one assumption. That is, since, according to the literature, there exists a relationship between the condition of built-and-social environment of neighborhoods and crime, and there also exists a relationship between homeownership and built-and-social environment of neighborhoods, there might, therefore, exist a relationship between homeownership and crime in neighborhoods.
This assumption is supported to some extent in the past literature. For example, Wesley and Michael in Coping with crime ( 1981) have found out in their research that people who own houses are more likely to install special locks and bars, reflecting their ability to make such physical modification against criminal activities. Also, a study by Schweitzer at el. revealed that "The residents of higher crime blocks are more likely to be renters, nonwhite, lower income, and new to the block." Furthermore, as many studies have identified, homeowners tend to be involved both physically and socially in their neighborhoods. This may be a result of the facts that homeowners are less mobile than renters, they have made one of the biggest purchases in their life by purchasing a home, and they may be able to feel their neighborhood as their "hometown." The combination of these visible and invisible elements might make homeowners tend to take care of their surrounding places more seriously than renters do.
Homeowners therefore might make effort to make their surrounding place safer as Taub  On the other hand, the rate of White population in the North End declined largely from 80% in 1990 to 55% in 2000. The share of Black or African American population also grew from 10% in 1990 to 16% in 2000 (Table 3.3.2., Figure 3.3.2a, Figure 3.3.2b).

KEY FINDING:
A major finding in the age group compositions is that the number of people in both age groups of "5 to 17" years old and the age of " 18 to 24" years old increased largely in the North End by 60% and 34%, respectively, during the 1990 to 2000 period. Although a similar trend can be seen in Providence in which the number of population in the age group of "5 to 17" and the age group of " 18 to 24" increased by 26% and 16% respectively, the increase rate in the North End was twice larger than Providence. The number of population in both the age of "25 to 34" years old and the age of "65 years and over" decreased in the North End between 1990 and 2000, -8% and -14%, respectively. A similar trend can be seen in Providence where the population in the age group of "25-34" and "65 and over" decreased by 7% and 17% respectively between 1990 and 2000 (Table 3.3.3., Figure 3.3.3).    (Table 3.4.2, Figure 3.4.2a, Figure 3.4.2b).  , which was about 10% lower than that of Providence of $1 ,072 (Table   3.4.3a, Figure 3.4.3a).  (Table 3.4.3b, Figure 3.4.3b).  (Table 3.5.1, Figure   3.5.la, Figure 3.5.lb). were under 18 years hold and 8% were 65 year old and over {Table 3.5.3, Figure 3.5.3).  3.6.

General Characteristics of the North End: Summary of Findings
From the discussions about the existing conditions of the North End above, overall characteristics of the North End can be presented. They are summarized below.

North End is growing/aster than Providence in terms of population:
The population growth in the North End between 1990 and 2000 is 14% increase, larger than Providence population increase of 8%.

North End has more Hispanic population and less White population:
Hispanic population in the North End grew to 23% of total population in the North End in 2000 from just 8% in 1990. On the other hand, White population in the North End decreased to 55% of total population in the North End in 2000 from 80% in 1990.

North End has more young population:
North End's population in the age of 5 to 1 7 year old increased 60% between 1990 and 2000. The age group of 18 to 24 year old also increased 34%. Whereas population in the age of 65 years and over decreased by 14%.

North End has received more renter-occupied units and less owner-occupied units:
Between 1990 and 2000, North End lost owner-occupied units by 3%, but increased renter-occupied units by 8%.

75% of housing structures in the North End are 1-units detached or 2-4 units:
48% of all the houses in the North End are 2-4 units and 27% are 1-units detached.

Average Rent and mortgage cost in the North End are less than Citywide:
Median monthly owner cost (primarily mortgage) in the North End was about 10% lower than Providence, $984 and $1 ,072, respectively. Median monthly rent in the North End ($463) was about 88% of the median rent of Providence ($526).

Median household income in the North End was slightly less than that of Citywide:
Median household income in the North End in 2000 was $25,306, which is about $1 ,500 below the median household income of Providence ($26,876).

Twenty eight percent of total population in the North End was below the poverty line:
There were 28% (4,495) of population living below the poverty line, compared to the 29% in Providence.
Next chapter will discuss the crime characteristics of the North End in 2003.

Introduction
The causes and origins of crime have been the subjects of investigation by varied disciplines historically. Some factors which are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place, according to the U.S Department of Justice, are: • Population density and degree of urbanization reminded that this study does not deal with all the types of crime; that is, some types of crime are intentionally excluded from this study. Those excluded are "Forcible Rape" \ and "Sexual Assault-Other," These data could not be gathered since these data were so sensitive that Providence Police Department could not disclose.

Types of Crimes in the North End in 2003
This section presents the types and statistics of crime in the North

FINDING:
There were 263 cases of the crime in the category of " Simple Assault" in the North End in 2003 . The crime rate per 1000 population was 14.9, which was slightly lower than that of Providence of 15.5 (Table 4.      Rate/1000 Population ""'""'-""" .,,_., __ 12.6 6.6 Providence North End

FINDING:
There were 117 cases of the crime in the category of"Larceny from Vehicle" in the North End in 2003. The crime rate per 1000 population was 6.6, which was about a half of Providence of 12.6 (Table 4.2.5, Figure 4.2.5, and Map 4.2.5).

Shoplifting
Definition: The act of stealing goods that are on display in a store.

FINDING:
There were 32 cases of the crime in the category of "Shoplifting" in the North End in 2003. The crime rate per 1000 population was 1.8 (

FINDING:
There were 472 cases of the crime in the category of "Larceny" in the

FINDING:
There were 172 cases of the crime in the category of "Burglary" in the North End in 2003 . The crime rate per 1000 population was 9.8, which was same as Providence of 9.8 (Table 4.

FINDING:
There were 67 cases of the crime in the category of"Drug Related" in the North End in 2003. The crime rate per 1000 population was 3.8, which was about 45% of Providence of 6.8 (Table 4.2.10, Figure 4.2.10, and Map 4.2.10).

Vandalism
Definition: Willful or malicious destruction, injury, disfigurement, or defacement of any public or private property, real or personal, without consent of the owner or persons having custody or control. Attempts are included.

FINDING:
There were 321 cases of the crime in the category of "Vandalism" in the North End in 2003 . The crime rate per 1000 population was 18.2, which was slightly less than that of Providence of20.7 (Table 4.   (263). The sum of these three types of crime accounts for 905, which is nearly 60% of the total number of the selected types of crime (Table 4.3, and Map 4.3). Next chapter will examine about the relationship between the homeownership and crime in the North End.

Introduction
This chapter will examine the spatial relationship between the homeownership and the crime patterns in the North End in 2003. This study will approach it by examining a series of spatial relationships between the tenure condition and crime patterns within the North End. The spatial relationships to be examined are as follows.

Analysis 2: Spatial Relationship between Absentee Landlord Rate and Crime
This section presents the analysis of spatial relationship between the tenure condition and crime patterns in the North End. As shown in Map 5.3.1, the crime incident areas seem fairly spread out in the whole area of the North End except those areas where number of housing units is small and an area in the north part of Charles neighborhood. As Map 5.3.2 shows, the two neighborhoods, Wanskuck and Charles, are clearly devided by the existence of Route 146. The existence of highway is very often said to be so powerful in terms of domination of built environment in the area that it could divide one neighborhood which has had one similar characteristic within the neighborhood into two neighborhoods with very different characteristics. Based on this reality, for this study, the study will first analyze each neighborhood's crime and tenure pattern, and then make a comparison between the two neighborhoods.
First, the study presents the number of crime in both Charles and Wanskuck separately (Table 5.3, Figure 5.3a).   Next, the study presents the number and rate of owner occupied units and absentee landlord units in both Charles and Wanskuck (Table 5.3b).      . This means that the number of crime in Area-2 was four times higher than Area-I.
From above analysis, it can be concluded that one major finding between tenure condition and number of crime in the two areas is that the area with the higher rate of absentee landlord, or low rate of owner-occupied units, has the higher number of crime (in this case, it is Area-2); whereas, the area with the higher rate of owner-occupied units has the lower number of crime (in this case, it is Area-I).

Case 2: In Wanskuck Neighborhood
In this section, the study conducts a similar analysis of Case I but within Wanskuck.
Firstly, the study will focus on the two areas in the Wanskuck. The two areas selected for this analysis are: Area-3 is in the south part ofWanskuck; Area-4 is in the west part of Wanskuck (Map 5.4.2a).    A key finding between tenure condition and number of crime in the two areas, Area-3 and Area-4, is that the area with higher rate of absentee landlord has a large number of crime (in this case, it is Area-4 ); whereas, the area with the higher rate of owner-occupied units has a smaller number of crimes (in this case, it is Area-3).

Combing Area-1 through -4
Lastly, the study compares the result of Area-1 through Area-4 into one table and make a comparison between them. Table 5.4.3 shows the number of total occupied residential units in Area-1 through Area-4. Also, it shows the number and percentage of owneroccupied and absentee landlord units in Area-1 through Area-4. In addition, it shows the number of crime Area-1 through Area-4. One trend can be seen for all the four areas analyzed. As similar to the analyses discussed, the area with a small rate of absentee landlord units has also a small number of crimes ( Figure 5.4.3). Area-I fits well into this trend: Area-1 which has the lowest rate of absentee landlord among the other three areas has the lowest number of crimes. On the other hand, the area with a large rate of absentee landlord units has a large number of crimes. Area-3 fits into this trend: Area-3 which has the highest rate of absentee landlord among the other three areas has the largest number of crimes.

CHAPTER6 CONCLUSION
From the results of a series of analyses in Chapter 5, there seems to be a spatial relationship between homeownership and crime. In the analyses of examining the relationship between the tenure condition and the crime in Chapter 5, there was one notable similar trend throughout the three analyses; The neighborhood with high rate of crime has higher rate of absentee landlords than the neighborhood with lower rate of crime.
In the first analysis which examines the tenure condition and crime in the two neighborhoods, Charles and Wanskuck, there was a trend that Wanskuck, which received crimes as nearly twice as Charles, had higher rate of absentee landlord units among total occupied residential units than the rate of absentee landlord units among total occupied residential units in Charles.
In the second analysis of the two selected areas in Charles, there was even more significant relationship between the tenure condition and crime. The tenure condition had a strong correlation with the number of crime in this analysis. Especially, Area-1, in which the rate of owner occupied units among total occupied residential units was high, 73%, compared to the North End average, had a very small number of crimes.
In the third analysis of the two selected areas in Wanskuck, although not significant, there was yet a similar result to both the first and second analysis described above. Area-3, which had higher rate of absentee landlords within the area than that of Area-4, also had higher number of crime than Area-4. "\

Shortcomings of the Study
One serious shortcoming of this study is the lack of variables to make more effective comparisons on the spatial analysis. Although the analyses in this study seem to have shown a connection between the homeownership and crime at least to some extent, there might be other potential factors which could affect the crime rate. Those potential factors include, 1) area' s racial composition, 2) resident's educational level and income level, 3) family composition, 4) the condition of built environment in the area, 5) means of transportation, and many others. Although I have been able to collect some of the factors described above, those are numerical data only, and not spatial data. Without taking the variety of these variables into consideration spatially, the study of the spatial relationship between homeownership and crime can not be analyzed effectively.

Suggestion for Further Studies
For a more in-depth study, more variables would be needed. Since the cause of crime and perception of safety within a neighborhood are very complicated, a researcher who desires to find out a spatial relationship between homeownership and crime patterns would need to take into consideration not only the tenure conditions but also as many other potential variables as possible.

Conclusion
The positive impacts of the homeownership have been studied for years. Those impacts include not only the owner' s care of the surrounding physical environment, such as prevention of physical deteriorations and preservation of aesthetics of housing units, but also owner's own desire to keep their community safe for themselves and for their family.
Their desire would likely lead them to actively communicate with other residents and talk about safety of their neighborhood. They may try to keep their eyes on the street as much as possible so that they can prevent potential criminals by themselves. Eventually, they may create a notion of "community-pride" among the residents of the neighborhood.