Juvenile Arrests
and Neighborhood Characteristics




         Norris Stough
  University of Texas at Dallas
Table of Contents
Introduction...............................................................................................
Introduction
This project links the home address records of juveniles arrested in Dallas County, Texas
between 1997 and 20...
(1987) published maps revealing the relationship between concentrations of poverty and social
problems.

Sociologists such...
Hypothesis
If juvenile arrests cluster in areas with a high degree of Concentrated Disadvantage or low
Index of Concentrat...
•   For Concentrated Disadvantage, the Nearest Neighbor Index will be lower in
               areas of High to High LISA r...
the attributes of the records there was very little consistency in street naming or address
standardizing conventions.

“C...
These calculations were done within an MS Excel file of the census block group data and then
joined to the block group sha...
Nearest Neighbor, Moran’s I and Local Indications of Spatial
Autocorrelation (LISA) Measures
Nearest neighbor calculations...
Figure 1: Arrests Per Capita v. Index of Concentrated Extremes

                               Arrests Per Capita v. Index...
Nearest Neighbor Index

The nearest neighbor index is the ratio of the observed nearest neighbor distance to the mean
rand...
Figure 4: Nearest Neighbor Index of Concentrated Disadvantage
                           Nearest Neighbor Indices for Conc...
Figure 5: Absolute Moran’s I Score
                                       Relative Absolute Moran's I Score


            ...
Figure 6: Moran's I Score
                                                                                                ...
Figure 8: Arrests Per Capita v. LISA of Concentrated Disadvantage

                               Arrests Per Capita v. LI...
Figure 9: LISA Cluster Map of Index of Concentrated Extremes




Figure 10: Arrests Per Capita v. LISA of Index of Concent...
Figure 11: Nearest Neighbor Index LISA for Index of Concentrated
Extremes
                                                ...
Proportional Mapping of Arrests Per Capita v. Interpolated
Concentrated Disadvantage and Index of Concentrated
Extremes Va...
Figure 14: Index of Concentrated Extremes v. Proportional Arrests Per
Capita




Conclusions
Poverty is nothing new. The G...
Measured quantitatively, the incidence of per capita arrests has a positively relationship with
Concentrated Disadvantage ...
References
Banfield, E.C. 1967. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. New York: Free Press.

Drake, St.C. and H.R. Cayton...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Full Text - Juvenile Arrests And Neighborhood Characteristics

501 views
434 views

Published on

Full text of Graduate Certification project

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
501
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Full Text - Juvenile Arrests And Neighborhood Characteristics

  1. 1. Juvenile Arrests and Neighborhood Characteristics Norris Stough University of Texas at Dallas
  2. 2. Table of Contents Introduction.....................................................................................................................................3 Literature Review...........................................................................................................................3 Project Objective............................................................................................................................4 Hypothesis......................................................................................................................................5 Simple Quantitative Analysis.....................................................................................................5 Nearest Neighbor Indices...........................................................................................................5 Moran’s I....................................................................................................................................5 Local Indications of Spatial Autocorrelation (LISA) Measures................................................5 Arrests Per Capita v. Predicted levels of Concentrated Disadvantage and Index of Concentrated Extreme................................................................................................................6 Data Sources...................................................................................................................................6 Arrests.........................................................................................................................................6 Census Block Groups.................................................................................................................6 Spatial Data.................................................................................................................................6 Data Preparation.............................................................................................................................6 Arrests and Census Block Group Data......................................................................................6 Measures of Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes................7 Concentrated Disadvantage....................................................................................................7 Index of Concentrated Extremes............................................................................................8 Nearest Neighbor, Moran’s I and Local Indications of Spatial Autocorrelation (LISA) Measures.....................................................................................................................................9 Data Analysis..................................................................................................................................9 Simple Quantitative Analysis.....................................................................................................9 Figure 1: Arrests Per Capita v. Index of Concentrated Extremes......................................10 Figure 2: Arrests Per Capita v. Concentrated Disadvantage..............................................10 Nearest Neighbor Index............................................................................................................11 Figure 3: Nearest Neighbor Index of Concentrated Extremes...........................................11 Figure 4: Nearest Neighbor Index of Concentrated Disadvantage....................................12 Moran’s I..................................................................................................................................12 Figure 5: Absolute Moran’s I Score....................................................................................13 Figure 6: Moran's I Score....................................................................................................14 LISA Relationships..................................................................................................................14 Figure 7: LISA Cluster Map of Concentrated Disadvantage.............................................14 Figure 8: Arrests Per Capita v. LISA of Concentrated Disadvantage................................15 Figure 9: LISA Cluster Map of Index of Concentrated Extremes.....................................16 Figure 10: Arrests Per Capita v. LISA of Index of Concentrated Extremes......................16 Figure 11: Nearest Neighbor Index LISA for Index of Concentrated Extremes...............17 Figure 12: Nearest Neighbor Index LISA for Concentrated Disadvantage.......................17 Proportional Mapping of Arrests Per Capita v. Interpolated Concentrated Disadvantage and Index of Concentrated Extremes Values..................................................................................18 Figure 13: Concentrated Disadvantage v. Proportional Arrests Per Capita.......................18 Figure 14: Index of Concentrated Extremes v. Proportional Arrests Per Capita...............19 Conclusions...................................................................................................................................19 References.....................................................................................................................................21 2
  3. 3. Introduction This project links the home address records of juveniles arrested in Dallas County, Texas between 1997 and 2003 with data for census block groups from the 2000 Census to assess the neighborhood characteristics of those arrested. The project assesses neighborhood characteristics quantified by measures of Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes and hypothesizes that if these neighborhood characteristics are indeed indicators of potential criminal activity amongst juveniles then a variety of quantitative, spatial and graphical analyses will show increasing incidences of arrests within theses areas. Results from the analyses confirm this hypothesis. In every case, the expected outcomes confirm a positive relationship between per capita arrests and increasing levels of Concentrated Disadvantage and a negative relationship between per capita arrests and the Index of Concentrated Extremes. Literature Review The characteristics of areas in which juvenile criminal activity occurs and develops have long been of interest to sociologists and criminal studies. Much of this interest has focused on a variety of economic and socio-economic measures that characterize areas of high criminal activity in an effort to demonstrate a causal relationship between economic and social status and crime. Theorists such as Wirth (1938) and Banfield (1967) have observed that the traditional social organizations of a rural society break down in increasingly urbanized concentrations of population; suggesting that areas of concentrated population will be characterized by higher levels of social disorganization. In a classic study, Shaw and McKay (1942) argued that low economic status is a primary cause of the social disorganization leading to high rates of juvenile delinquency. The geographic relationship between areas of concentrated poverty and social problems such as delinquency has been offered as evidence of this link between economic status and crime; suggesting that geographic concentration of poverty causes the concentration of criminal activity in poor neighborhoods (Massey, Condran and Denton 1987). Decades before the development of geographic information systems capable of exploring spatial relationships, individuals such as St. Clair Drake and Horace Cayton (1945) and Wilson 3
  4. 4. (1987) published maps revealing the relationship between concentrations of poverty and social problems. Sociologists such as Massey (1996) and Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls (1997) make a convincing argument that the twentieth century has been characterized by increasing urbanization in general, increasing concentrations of the poor within the urban population and more importantly, an increasing spatial segregation of the non-affluent from the affluent. They make the case for a connection between these areas of concentrated populations of the poor with high levels of social disorganization characterized by higher incidences of crime Massey quantifies this spatial separation of the non-affluent from the affluent in a measure called the Index of Concentration of Extremes (2001). Sampson, Raudenbush, and Earls (1997) explored the relationship between the social disorganization expected from increasing urbanized populations and a variety of measures (receipt of public assistance, unemployment, black residents, female-headed households with children, etc.) quantified by a measure referred to as Concentrated Disadvantage. Their research, though purely statistical, demonstrates the clear relationship between this measure and increased incidences of crime (homicides). Morenoff, Sampson and Raudenbush (1999) revisited the 1997 Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls study, replicating their study but with the addition of spatial measures of the correlation between the Index of Concentration of Extremes and Concentrated Disadvantage and areas of increased incidences of crime (homicides). Their research again confirmed the relationship between Concentrated Disadvantage and increased criminal activity. This study included the Index of Concentrated Extremes as well and confirmed the relationship between this measure of economic disadvantage and criminal activity. Additionally, the spatial analysis demonstrated a relationship between areas of Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes and surrounding areas with similar values. The GIS Workshop project described in the following document also explores these relationships, but with regard to the incidence of juvenile arrests in Dallas County, Texas between 1997 and 2003. Project Objective If Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes are valid measures of expected juvenile crime activity, then this project will demonstrate that juvenile arrests cluster within areas with high Concentrated Disadvantage scores and low Index of Concentrated Extremes scores. 4
  5. 5. Hypothesis If juvenile arrests cluster in areas with a high degree of Concentrated Disadvantage or low Index of Concentrated Extremes, then the following measures will be true for: Simple Quantitative Analysis • There will be a higher incidence of arrests in areas of high Concentrated Disadvantage and low Index of Concentrated Extremes score. • There will be a positive relationship between arrests per capita and Concentrated Disadvantage and a negative relationship between arrests per capita and the Index of Concentrated Extremes. Nearest Neighbor Indices • The nearest neighbor index will be lower for areas of high Concentrated Disadvantage score. • The nearest neighbor index will be lower for areas with a low Index of Concentrated Extremes score. • There will be a negative relationship between the Nearest Neighbor Index and the Concentrated Disadvantage score. • There will be a positive relationship between the Nearest Neighbor Index and the Index of Concentrated Extremes score. Moran’s I • The Moran’s I score for Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes measured against arrests per capita will be higher than for arrests per capita alone. • The value of the Concentrated Disadvantage score will be positive, indicating a positive relationship between arrests per capita and Concentrated Disadvantage. • The value of the Index of Concentrated Extremes score will be negative, indicating a negative relationship between arrests per capita and Concentrated Extreme. Local Indications of Spatial Autocorrelation (LISA) Measures • For Concentrated Disadvantage, arrests per capita will be higher in areas with a High to High LISA relationship than for areas with a Low to Low LISA relationship. • For the Index of Concentrated Extremes, arrests per capita will be lower in areas with a High to High LISA relationship than for areas with a Low to Low LISA relationship. 5
  6. 6. • For Concentrated Disadvantage, the Nearest Neighbor Index will be lower in areas of High to High LISA relationships than Low to Low LISA relationships. • For the Index of Concentrated Extremes, the Nearest Neighbor Index will be higher in areas of High to High LISA relationships than for Low to Low LISA relationships. Arrests Per Capita v. Predicted levels of Concentrated Disadvantage and Index of Concentrated Extreme • A proportional mapping of arrests per capita against a background of the predicted level of Concentrated Disadvantage will show clustering of arrests within areas of increasing Concentrated Disadvantage. • A proportional mapping of arrests per capita against a background of the predicted Index of Concentrated Extremes will show clustering of arrests within areas of decreasing Index of Concentrated Extreme. Data Sources Arrests Dallas County Juvenile Services, through Dr. Kimberly Kempf-Leonard, provided the address data for juveniles arrested in Dallas County from 1997 through 2003. Census Block Groups Demographic data necessary to calculate Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes comes from the 2000 Census files available through the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) at www.dfwinfo.com Spatial Data Census Tract, Zip Code, County and Roads shape files come from the North Central Texas Council of Governments at www.dfwinfo.com Data Preparation Arrests and Census Block Group Data The original address data for arrested juveniles was in DBF format. The quality of the data was very poor, with very little consistency in either content or format. There were a considerable number of records missing the attribute data necessary for geocoding and within 6
  7. 7. the attributes of the records there was very little consistency in street naming or address standardizing conventions. “Cleansing” the data required converting the DBF file to MS Excel format. Within Excel, the records were parsed to separate the address record fields, invalid data characters were stripped from the records, attribute values, such apartment numbers and non-text characters, unnecessary for the geocoding process were removed. The address record fields were then concatenated to provide a complete address within one field, as required by the geocoding process. Cleaning up the data eliminated several thousand of the original records. Because these are addresses for those arrested and not crime locations, many thousands of the addresses were outside of the Dallas County study area. Additionally, Dallas County Juvenile Services had already identified many hundreds of the records as “bad addresses”. A check of the “bad addresses” found nothing wrong with the physical address itself, and it is assumed that the designation of “bad address” indicates the juvenile provided an address that later turned out not to be theirs. Eliminating these records reduced the total number of addresses to be geocoded by approximately 12 percent; from approximately 43,000 to approximately 38,000. The Excel file was converted back to DBF format and the 38,000 records were geocoded in ArgGIS; resulting in approximately 32,000 matches within Dallas County - approximately 84% of all the attempted records and 74% of the original records. Geocoding produced a “points” file of addresses. Once the characteristics of Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes was calculated for the census block groups (outlined below) the points file was spatially joined to the block group polygon file. Block group characteristics were attributed to each of the address point records and the block group records were summarized by block group, producing sum counts of the number of arrests per block group. In order to account for the unequal distribution of population of juveniles across Dallas County, arrests were normalized to the number of arrests per capita per block group, as an attribute of the block group polygon file. Since the arrests records covered a six year period and the census data only one year’s population, the 2000 population totals were annualized to a six-year total by multiplying by six. Measures of Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes Concentrated Disadvantage Concentrated Disadvantage represents “economic disadvantage in racially segregated urban neighborhoods. It is defined by the percentage of families below the poverty line, percentage of families receiving public assistance, percentage of unemployed individuals in the civilian labor force, percentage of female-headed families with children, and percentage of residents who are black” (Morenoff et al., 527). Equally weighting the factors and dividing by the number of items calculates the Concentrated Disadvantage score. 7
  8. 8. These calculations were done within an MS Excel file of the census block group data and then joined to the block group shape files. The following table provides the census tract file and field number for the necessary demographic variables used to calculate Concentrated Disadvantage. Demographic Variable Census File Field Number Percentage of families below the poverty line SF30007 P090002 Percentage of families receiving public assistance SF30006 P064002 Percentage of unemployed individuals in the civilian labor force SF30004 P043007 and P043014 Percentage of female- headed families with children SF30002 P015016 Percentage of residents who are black SF30001 P006003 The site http://census.nctcog.org/sf3econ_readme.html contains a link to the list of field number descriptions by file. Index of Concentrated Extremes The Index of Concentrated Extremes “is defined for a given neighborhood by the following formula: [(number of affluent families – number of poor families) / total number of families], where “affluent” is defined as families with income above $50,000 and “poor” is defined as families below the poverty line. The ICE index ranges from a theoretical value of –1 (which represents extreme poverty, namely, that all families are poor) to +1 (which signals extreme affluence, namely, that all families are affluent). A value of zero indicates that an equal share of poor and affluent families live in the neighborhood.” (Morenoff et al., 529). Again, these calculations were done within an MS Excel file of the census block group data and then joined to the block group shape files. The following table provides the census tract file and field number for the necessary demographic variables used to calculate the Index of Concentrated Extremes. Demographic Variable Census File Field Number Number of affluent families SF30007 P076011-17 Number of poor families (below poverty line) SF30007 P090002 The site http://census.nctcog.org/sf3econ_readme.html contains a link to the list of field number descriptions by file. 8
  9. 9. Nearest Neighbor, Moran’s I and Local Indications of Spatial Autocorrelation (LISA) Measures Nearest neighbor calculations were completed using CrimeStat. Separate points files for the various categories of analysis (ranges of Concentrated Disadvantage and Index of Concentrated Extremes values and LISA relationships) were generated within ArcGIS from the overall arrests points file by selecting points based on attributes. These points files were there imported into CrimeStat for analysis. Moran’s I and LISA measures were calculated using GeoDA (version 0.95-i5). Separate polygon files for the various categories of analysis (ranges of Concentrated Disadvantage and Index of Concentrated Extremes values and LISA relationships) were generated within ArcGIS from the overall census block group polygons file polygons based on attributes. These points files were there imported into GeoDA for analysis. The LISA relationships for High to High and Low to Low values of Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes were generated within GeoDA. The LISA Cluster maps were then georeferenced using ArcGIS so that the LISA relationship could be attributed to the block group polygon files. Polygons were then selected by their LISA relationship and used to clip the arrests points files for areas of High to High and Low to Low relationships. These points files were again imported into CrimeStat in order to obtain the nearest neighbor indices for areas of High to High and Low to Low LISA relationships. Data Analysis Simple Quantitative Analysis Before performing any exploratory spatial data analysis, a simple quantitative analysis of arrest address data was performed to quantify arrests by category. The analysis provided an overall understanding of the data and a general idea of the relationships that additional spatial analysis might reveal. Categorizing arrests per capita by the Index of Concentrated Extremes (Figure 1) and Concentrated Disadvantage (Figure 2) in equal intervals, immediately reveals the positive relationship between Concentrated Disadvantage and arrests and the negative relationship between the Index of Concentrated Extremes. 9
  10. 10. Figure 1: Arrests Per Capita v. Index of Concentrated Extremes Arrests Per Capita v. Index of Concentrated Extremes 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% Arrests Per Capita 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% -1.0 to -0.5 -0.5 to 0 0 to 0.5 0.5 to 1.0 ICE Index Figure 2: Arrests Per Capita v. Concentrated Disadvantage Arrests Per Capita v. Concentrated Disadvantage Score 6.00% 5.00% 4.00% Arrests Per Capita 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% 0.00% 0.0 to 15.00 15.00 to 30.00 30.00 to 45.00 45.00 to 60.49 Concentrated Disadvantage Score 10
  11. 11. Nearest Neighbor Index The nearest neighbor index is the ratio of the observed nearest neighbor distance to the mean random distance. The index compares the average distance from the closest neighbor to each point with a distance that would be expected on the basis of chance. If the observed average distance is about the same as the mean random distance, then the ratio will be about 1.0. On the other hand, if the observed average distance is smaller than the mean random distance, that is, points are actually closer together than would be expected on the basis of chance, then the nearest neighbor index will be less than 1.0. This is evidence for clustering. Conversely, if the observed average distance is greater than the mean random distance, then the index will be greater than 1.0. This would be evidence for dispersion, that points are more widely dispersed than would be expected on the basis of chance (Levine 2004). The nearest neighbor index is a global measure of the spatial relationship between each point and every other point in the study area. When the nearest neighbor index is calculated based on equal interval ranges of the Index of Concentrated Extremes Score (Figure 3) and Concentrated Disadvantage (Figure 4) the results show an increasing density of arrests within areas of higher Concentrated Disadvantage and lower Index of Concentrated Extremes values. This confirms the positive relationship between Concentrated Disadvantage and arrests per capita and the negative relationship between the Index of Concentrated Extremes and arrests per capita, across Dallas County. Figure 3: Nearest Neighbor Index of Concentrated Extremes Relative Nearest Neighbor Indices for Index of Concentrated Extremes 0.3 0.2491 0.25 0.2317 0.2 0.15 0.1359 0.1286 0.1 0.05 0 ICE -1.0 to -0.50 ICE -0.50 to 0.0 ICE 0.0 to 0.50 ICE 0.50 to 1.0 ICE Score Range 11
  12. 12. Figure 4: Nearest Neighbor Index of Concentrated Disadvantage Nearest Neighbor Indices for Concentrated Disadvantage 0.3500 0.3000 0.2500 0.2000 0.1500 0.1000 0.0500 0.0000 0 - 15 15 - 30 30 - 45 45 - 60 Concentrated Disadvantage Score Moran’s I The univariate Moran’s I is a measure of the correlation of a variable with itself in space, the bivariate Moran’s I is a measure of the correlation of one variable with another variable in space. This project compares the relative Moran’s I scores of arrests per capita alone and then arrests per capita when measured against the variables of Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes. Values closer to zero indicate less clustering, while values closer to one indicate more clustering. The absolute value of the Moran’s I score (Figure 5) measures the relationship between arrests per capita in an, relative to the level of arrests per capita, the level of Concentrated Disadvantage, or the degree of the Index of Concentrated Extremes for surrounding areas. The higher values for the Concentrated Disadvantage and Index of Concentrated Extremes variable as compared to the arrests per capita variable confirms that arrests are more highly clustered in these areas than overall. 12
  13. 13. Figure 5: Absolute Moran’s I Score Relative Absolute Moran's I Score 0.3500 0.3009 0.3000 0.2601 0.2500 Moran's I Score 0.2000 0.1460 0.1500 0.1000 0.0500 0.0000 Arrests Concentrated Disadvantage Score Index of Concentrated Extreme Score Arrests Per Capita v. Measurement Category A Moran’s I scatter plot with the Index of Concentrated Extremes on the X axis and arrests per capita on the Y axis produces a downward sloping line. As the Index of Concentrated Extremes moves from –1.0 to 1.0, arrests per capita fall, thereby producing the negative value of the Bivariate Moran’s I score (Figure 6) for arrests per capita versus the Index of Concentrated Extremes. The again confirms the negative relationship between arrests per capita and the Index of Concentrated Extremes and the higher incidence or arrests in areas with lower Index of Concentrated Extremes scores. 13
  14. 14. Figure 6: Moran's I Score Relative Moran's I Score Index of Concentrated Extreme -0.3009 Score Arrests Per Capita v. Measurement Category Negative relationship between Index of Concentrated Extremes score and arrests per capita Concentrated Disadvantage Score 0.2601 Postive relationship between Concentrated Disadvantage score and arrests per capita 0.1460 Arrests -0.4000 -0.3000 -0.2000 -0.1000 0.0000 0.1000 0.2000 0.3000 Moran's I Score LISA Relationships LISA statistics detect local spatial autocorrelation and identify local clusters where adjacent areas have similar values. LISA maps identify four types of spatial autocorrelation based on a weights matrix that defines their contiguity: Spatial clusters (negative near negative values and positive near positive values) and spatial outliers (negative near positive values and positive near negative values). This project focuses on the comparison of arrests per capita for areas of High to High (positive near positive values) and Low to Low (negative near negative) LISA relationships for Concentrated Disadvantage and Index of Concentrated Extremes scores. LISA Cluster Maps for Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes (Figures 7 & 9) clearly indicate significant clustering of these values. Extracting the arrests per capita for High to High and Low to Low areas and comparing the relative arrests per capita (Figures 8 & 10) and Nearest Neighbor Indices (Figures 11 & 12) shows a higher incidence of arrests per capita in areas of High to High Concentrated Disadvantage and Low to Low Index of Concentrated Extremes than for arrests overall. The incidence of arrests is also lower than overall for areas with Low to Low levels of Concentrated Disadvantage and High to High levels for the Index of Concentrated Extremes. Additionally, the Nearest Neighbor Indices reflect increased clustering of arrests in areas with High to High Concentrated Disadvantage and Low to Low Index of Concentrated Extremes levels, compared to arrests overall. Figure 7: LISA Cluster Map of Concentrated Disadvantage 14
  15. 15. Figure 8: Arrests Per Capita v. LISA of Concentrated Disadvantage Arrests Per Capita v. LISA of Concentrated Disadvantage 4.00% 3.50% 3.00% Arrests Per Capita 2.50% 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% High to High Low to Low Overall Arrests Per Capita LISA Relationship 15
  16. 16. Figure 9: LISA Cluster Map of Index of Concentrated Extremes Figure 10: Arrests Per Capita v. LISA of Index of Concentrated Extremes Arrests Per Capita v. LISA of Index of Concentrated Extremes Score 3.50% 3.00% 2.50% Arrests Per Capita 2.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.50% 0.00% High to High Low to Low Overall Arrests Per Capita LISA Relationship 16
  17. 17. Figure 11: Nearest Neighbor Index LISA for Index of Concentrated Extremes Relative Nearest Neighbor Indices 0.3 0.2455 0.25 More Clustered - Less Clustered 0.2 0.1923 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 ICE Low To Low LISA ICE High to High LISA Index of Concentrated Extremes LISA Relationship Figure 12: Nearest Neighbor Index LISA for Concentrated Disadvantage Relative Nearest Neighbor Indices 0.3000 0.2507 0.2500 More Clustered - Less Clustered 0.2000 0.1890 0.1500 0.1000 0.0500 0.0000 Concentrated Disadvantage High to High LISA Concentrated Disadvantage Low to Low LISA 17 Concentrated Disadvantage LISA Relationship
  18. 18. Proportional Mapping of Arrests Per Capita v. Interpolated Concentrated Disadvantage and Index of Concentrated Extremes Values Economic and social characteristics, such as Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes are not typically well defined by the imposition of artificial boundaries such as census block groups. Change between these areas is more gradual and better envisioned as a transition across the areas than as an absolute change at the block group boundary. An interpolation of the predicted value for a location captures this transition by producing an expected value for an area based on the values of the surrounding areas. The predicted measures of Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes versus a proportional symbology of the arrests per capita for each census block group (Figures 13 & 14) captures the transitional change in these measures while reflecting the degree to which arrests per capita varies in these block groups. Clearly, arrests per capita are proportionally higher in those areas where the predicted value for Concentrated Disadvantage are higher and the Index of Concentrated Extremes is lower. Figure 13: Concentrated Disadvantage v. Proportional Arrests Per Capita 18
  19. 19. Figure 14: Index of Concentrated Extremes v. Proportional Arrests Per Capita Conclusions Poverty is nothing new. The Gospels say, “for you always have the poor with you” (John 12:8). As the literature review suggests though, “with” is an increasingly relative measure. Indeed, there are increasing numbers of the “poor.” What is new is the degree to which the poor are concentrated in areas separate from the rich and the extent to which this concentration and separation results in increased criminal activity. This study hypothesized that if the neighborhood characteristics quantified by two measures – Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes – were valid indicators of expected increased levels of crime, then juvenile arrest records would show a pattern of increased clustering within areas of high Concentrated Disadvantage and low Index of Concentrated Extremes scores. The results show exactly that. 19
  20. 20. Measured quantitatively, the incidence of per capita arrests has a positively relationship with Concentrated Disadvantage values and a negative relationship the Index of Concentrated Extremes values. An overall measure of the spatial distribution of arrests across Dallas County, the Nearest Neighbor Indices, indicates increased clustering in areas of high Concentrated Disadvantage and low indices of Concentrated Extremes. Comparing the degree to which arrests per capita in one area is related to arrests per capita, Concentrated Disadvantage or the Index of Concentrated Extremes for surrounding areas - the Bivariate Moran’s I measure - found a stronger relationship with the degree of Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes than for arrests per capita in general. Analyzing areas of High to High or Low to Low clustering, the LISA relationships, for Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes produces the same results; higher incidences of arrests in areas of high Concentrated Disadvantage and low Indices of Concentrated Extremes. Finally, a proportional mapping of arrests per capita against the background of predicted values of Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes, depicts increasing arrest rates in areas where theses measures are predicted to be their worst. The evidence supports the hypothesis. Juvenile arrests in Dallas County do cluster within areas of high Concentrated Disadvantage and low Index of Concentrated Extremes. Arrests per capita increase as the level of Concentrated Disadvantage increases. Arrests per capita increase as the Index of Concentrated Extremes decreases. Finally, Concentrated Disadvantage and the Index of Concentrated Extremes are valid indicators for expected higher incidences of juvenile arrests 20
  21. 21. References Banfield, E.C. 1967. The Moral Basis of a Backward Society. New York: Free Press. Drake, St.C. and H.R. Cayton. 1945. Black Metropolis: A Study of Life in a Northern City. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Levine, Ned. 2004. Crimestat: A Spatial Statistics Program for the Analysis of Crime Incident Locations (v 3.0). Ned Levine & Associates, Houston, TX and the National Institute of Justice, Washington, D.C. Massey, Douglas S. 1996. “The Age of Extremes: Concentrated Affluence and Poverty in the Twenty-First Century.” Demography 33:395-412. Massey, Douglas S. 2001. “The Prodigal Paradigm Returns: Ecology Comes Back to Sociology.” Pp. 41-48 in Does It Take a Village? Community Effects on Children, Adolescents, and Families, edited by Alan Booth and Ann Crouter. Mahway, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Massey, Douglas S., G.A Condran, and N.A. Denton. 1987. “The Effect of Residential Segregation on Black Social and Economic Well-Being.” Social Forces 66:29-57 Morenoff, Jeffrey D. Robert J. Sampson and Stephen W. Raudenbush. 2001. “Neighborhood Inequality, Collective Efficacy, and the Spatial Dynamics of Urban Violence.” Ann Arbor: Population Studies Center, University of Michigan Shaw, Clifford and Henry McKay. 1942. (1969, 2nd edition). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sampson, Robert J. Stephen Raudenbush and Felton Earls. 1997. “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science 277:918-924 Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass,and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press Wirth, L. 1938. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” American Journal of Sociology 44:3-24. 21

×