California Commercial Recycling AB 341 IFMA San Diego Presentation
Summary Presentation of Report on CVCBD
1. Summary Presentation of
Report on Charles Village
Benefits District (CVCBD)
Daniel S. Pasciuti, PhD.
Arrighi Center for Global Studies
Department of Sociology
Rafee Al-Mansur
Arrighi Center for Global Studies
2. Two surveys:
• Survey I (Nov 2013 – June 2014)
Designed to investigate questions
regarding re-authorization, services,
and perceptions of the community
in relation to the CVCBD
• Geographic and
Demographically representative
of the district
• 194 geo-located surveys
(87% of CVCBD)
• Survey II (June 2014 – August 2014)
Designed to focus on questions of
cameras and security primarily
• Not designed to be
representative of the district as a
whole but focused on key areas
where cameras had been
installed
(see Appendices A and B)
Survey I Locations Survey II Locations
Owner Status Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Home or Business Owner 51 30.4 31.3
Renter 72 42.9 44.2
Employee 40 23.8 24.5
Total 163 97.0 100.0
Unknown/Refused to Answer
5 3.0
3. Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Support 58 28.3 51.3 51.3
Oppose 19 9.3 16.8 68.1
No
Opinion
36 17.6 31.9 100.0
Total 113 55.1 100.0
Valid
Missing 99 92 44.9
Total 205 100.0
CVCBD Tax
CVCBD Map
Total
Aware Unaware Aware Unaware
Total
Support 44 13 57.0 Support 35 21 57.0
62.0% 31.7% 50.9% 58.3% 41.2% 50.5%
Oppose 14 5 19.0 Oppose 14 5 19.0
19.7% 12.2% 17.0% 23.3% 9.8% 17.1%
No Opinion 13 23 36.0 No Opinion 11 25 36.0
18.3% 56.1% 32.1% 18.3% 49.0% 32.4%
Total 71 41 112.0 Total 60 51 111.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Re-authorization:
• Majority of respondents supported re-authorization
• Distinct differences of support exist between
respondents who had some level of
awareness of the district vs. those who did not
• No significant geographical differences found
(see Report pgs 8-9,17-19 and Appendix pg 11):
Respondents Aware of CVCBD Surcharge
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
Aware 63 30.9 36.6 36.6
Unawar
109 53.4 63.4 100.0
e
Total 172 84.3 100.0
Respondents Aware of the CVCBD
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulativ
e Percent
Aware 91 44.6 50.6 50.6
Unawar
89 43.6 49.4 100.0
e
Total 180 88.2 100.0
4. Perception of Services and Conditions within
the district :
• Services rated very highly overall
• Differences in Overall Sanitation vs
Specific Services
• No significant geographical differences
found
(see Report pgs 4-7, 15-16 and Appendix C)
Frequency Mean Median Mode Std.
Deviation
Charles Village Safety 189 3.48 4 4/5 1.382
C.V. Safety vs. Baltimore 187 3.91 4 4 1.025
Charles Village
4 4
187 3.67
1.148
Sanitation
C.V. Sanitation vs.
Baltimore
185 4.00
4 4/5
.978
Frequency Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation
Overall Sanitation 95 3.01 3 2/4 1.341
Littered Streets vs. Baltimore
92 3.67 4 5 1.223
City
Littered Alleys vs. Baltimore
City
89 3.37 4 4 1.309
Bulk Trash Collection vs.
Baltimore City
88 3.73 4 5 1.162
Rat Infestation vs. Baltimore
City
83 3.34 4 4 1.328
Fall Leaves vs. Baltimore City 81 3.81 4 5 1.141
Presence of Trash Cans vs.
85 3.84 4 4/5 1.174
Baltimore City
Average of All Services vs.
Baltimore City
- 3.63 -
30
20
10
0
Unsafe Slightly
Unsafe
Neither
Unsafe Nor
Safe
Slightly Safe Safe
#of Resp
Perception of Safety (North vs South)
North of 27th St
South of 27th St
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Worse Slightly
Worse
Same Slightly
Better
Better
Number of Respondents
Perception of Sanitation Issues vs. Baltimore City
Littered Streets
Littered Alleys
Bulk Trash
Rat Infestation
Fall Leaves
Trash Cans
5. 40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Unsafe Slightly
Unsafe
Neither
Unsafe Nor
Safe
Slightly Safe Safe
Percentage of Respondents
Own Home
Rent within District
Overall CVCBD Residents
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Unsafe Slightly
Unsafe
Neither
Unsafe Nor
Safe
Slightly Safe Safe
Percentage of Respondents
Own Business or Home
Rent or Work within District
Overall CVCBD
Differences in Perception
• Home owners vs others
Home owners more likely to
report feeling unsafe or
slightly unsafe than any other
type of respondent
Own
Business or
Home
Rent or Work
within District Total
Overall_Safety Unsafe 9 9 18
Slightly Unsafe 12 19 31
Neither Unsafe
6 11 17
Nor Safe
Slightly Safe 14 30 44
Safe 10 40 50
Total 51 109 160
Home Owners vs Renters
All Home or Work Surveys
6. 90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Ranking of CVCBD Services
Allocation of Money to Services
1 2 3 4 5
Number of Respondents
Ranking from 1st to 5th
Patrol
Camera
Sanitation
Rat
Trashcan
0
1 2 3 4 5
Number of Respondents
Ranking from 1st to 5th
Sanitation
Safety
Promoting/Marketing
Public Amenities
Recreational Programs
Desired Future Services:
• Differences between general and specific
services
• Defining Security
• No correlation between desire for
additional patrol officers and desire
for additional cameras
(see Report pgs 15-16)
7. Cameras:
• Survey Results
• Survey I conducted in locations prior
to (or just after) camera installations
(Nov-Dec 2013)
• Survey II conducted 6 months or more
after cameras were installed (June-
August 2014)
• Super-majority support cameras
(64.7%)
• Less than half (48.6%) of respondents
indicated any knowledge of camera
existence in Survey II
• Low perception of impact on crime
(only 33% indicated they felt cameras
had changed the level of safety in
the area)
• Crime Statistics
• No overall difference in crime rates
(2013 vs 2014)
• Significant differences in areas where
concentrated cameras
Number of Crimes by Neighborhood within CVCBD
Number of Crimes Number of Crimes
Neighborhood Jan - June 2013 Jan - June 2014 % Difference
Abell 56 55 -1.79%
Barclay 69 60 -13.04%
Better Waverly 64 23 -64.06%
Charles North 73 64 -12.33%
Charles Village 175 156 -10.86%
Harwood 51 60 17.65%
Johns Hopkins Homewood 1 2 100.00%
Old Goucher 71 75 5.63%
Remington 10 10 0.00%
Number of Crimes by Location within CVCBD
Number of Crimes Number of Crimes
Neighborhood Jan - June 2013 Jan - June 2014 % Difference
Total CVCBD 570 505 -11.40%
Excluding Waverly 506 482 -4.74%
25th St Cooridor 154 107 -30.52%
Charles St Cooridor 151 138 -8.61%
9. Contact Information:
Dan Pasciuti
pasciuti@jhu.edu
258 Mergenthaler Hall
3400 N. Charles St
410-516-7379
10. 2010 Census Survey I
Methodology (Appendix)
White 6654
45.58
% 88
42.93
%
Black or African American 5175
35.45
% 84
40.98
%
American Indian or Alaskan Native 44 0.30% 4 1.95%
Asian 2002
13.72
% 10 4.88%
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander 14 0.10% 0 0.00%
Hispanic/Latino 688 4.71% 4 1.95%
Other/Refused to Answer 14 6.83%
Total 14597 205
Quadrant Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Percent
First 28 19.4 22.2
Second 30 20.8 23.8
Third 33 22.9 26.2
Fourth 35 24.3 27.8
Total 126 87.5 100.0
Unknown/Outside of District
18 12.5
Owner Status QUAD
1 2 3 4 Total
Own Home or Business 13 4 8 20 45
Rent or Work 15 25 25 13 78
Total 28 29 33 33 123
Owner Status North of 27th
St
South of 27th
St
Total
Own Home or Business
Rent or Work
28
45
20
46
48
91
Total 73 66 139
11. 16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Unsafe Slightly Unsafe Neither Unsafe
Nor Safe
Slightly Safe Safe
Number of Respondents
Quad 1
Quad 2
Quad 3
Quad 4
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Unsafe Slightly Unsafe Neither Unsafe
Nor Safe
Slightly Safe Safe
Number of Respondents
North of 27th St
South of 27th St
Respondent
Location QUAD
Quad 1 Quad 2 Quad 3 Quad 4 Total
Unsafe 4 2 3 5 14
Slightly Unsafe 5 8 5 6 24
Neither Unsafe Nor
1 5 2 5 13
Safe
Slightly Safe 13 5 10 8 36
Safe 6 9 14 12 41
Total 29 29 34 36 128
Respondent Location
North of 27th
St
South of 27th
St Total
Unsafe 6 8 14
Slightly Unsafe 14 13 27
Neither Unsafe Nor Safe 7 9 16
Slightly Safe 22 19 41
Safe 18 28 46
Total 67 77 144
