This article was downloaded by: [Harvard Library]On: 08 October 2014, At: 09:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Gerontological Social WorkPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wger20

Exploring the Dynamics of Middle-Agedand Older Adult Residents' Perceptionsof Neighborhood SafetyRonald O. Pitner a , Mansoo Yu b & Edna Brown ca College of Social Work, University of South Carolina , Columbia,South Carolina, USAb School of Social Work and Public Health Program , University ofMissouri , Columbia, Missouri, USAc Department of Human Development and Family Studies , Universityof Connecticut , Storrs, Connecticut, USAPublished online: 29 Jun 2011.

To cite this article: Ronald O. Pitner , Mansoo Yu & Edna Brown (2011) Exploring the Dynamics ofMiddle-Aged and Older Adult Residents' Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety, Journal of GerontologicalSocial Work, 54:5, 511-527, DOI: 10.1080/01634372.2011.567322

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2011.567322

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 54:511–527, 2011Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0163-4372 print/1540-4048 onlineDOI: 10.1080/01634372.2011.567322

Exploring the Dynamics of Middle-Agedand Older Adult Residents’ Perceptions

of Neighborhood Safety

RONALD O. PITNERCollege of Social Work, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA

MANSOO YUSchool of Social Work and Public Health Program, University of Missouri,

Columbia, Missouri, USA

EDNA BROWNDepartment of Human Development and Family Studies, University of Connecticut,

Storrs, Connecticut, USA

This study examined what variables best predict concernsabout neighborhood safety among middle-aged and older adults.Eighty-five participants were selected from a Midwestern urbanarea. Participants completed a 22-item questionnaire that assessedtheir perceptions of neighborhood safety and vigilance. These itemswere clustered as: (a) community care and vigilance, (b) safetyconcerns, (c) physical incivilities, and (d) social incivilities. Policecrime data were also used in the analyses. Our findings suggestthat aspects of the broken window theory, collective efficacy, andplace attachments play a role in affecting residents’ perceptions ofneighborhood safety.

KEYWORDS community, crime, middle-aged adults, neighbor-hood safety, older-aged adults, perceptions, social and physicalincivilities

Community violence continues to plague the lives of middle-aged andolder adult residents who live in America’s most vulnerable, high-crimeneighborhoods. Such violence leads to resident disengagement, and oftenerodes their overall perceptions of neighborhood safety (e.g., Taylor, 2002).

Received 30 September 2010; accepted 25 February 2011.Address correspondence to Ronald O. Pitner, College of Social Work, University of South

Carolina, DeSaussure 123, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. E-mail: rpitner@sc.edu

511

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

512 R. O. Pitner et al.

Understanding the dynamics that affect residents’ perceptions of neighbor-hood safety could be one key to helping them work together to detercrime. Often, older aged residents of these vulnerable neighborhoods havenot been included in community and capacity building efforts (Crose &Minear, 1998; Silverstone, 2005). As the population ages, it is imperative thatmore attention be focused on including older adults in capacity buildingand community-engagement opportunities. This accentuates the need forframeworks to guide the development of strategies to increase participationof middle aged and older adults in neighborhood efforts to deter crime.Nevertheless, there is a paucity of theory-based empirical research focusedon understanding perceptions of neighborhood safety among middle agedand older adult residents in high crime neighborhoods.

Given the unique social, physical, and psychological concerns thataccompany aging, there is a growing body of literature that suggests thatthe framework that best explains predictors of neighborhood safety for thissignificant portion of the population may be different from those applied toyounger age groups (Bolda, Lowe, Maddox, & Patnaik, 2005; Cheng, 2005;James & Sweaney, 2010; Shields, King, Fulks, & Fallon, 2002). Moreover,research suggests that middle-aged and older adults are most likely thelongest dwelling residents in any particular neighborhood, and desire toremain in their familiar surroundings as long as they feel safe (E. Brown,2007; E. Brown & Jackson, 2004). When possible, older adults prefer to liveindependently, rather than with family, and feeling safe in the neighborhoodis an important aspect of independence (James & Sweaney, 2010). Researchalso indicates that middle-aged and older adult residents’ perceptions ofneighborhood context are important to their overall health and well-being(Haney, 2007). As a consequence, it is important to examine middle-agedand older adult residents’ concerns about neighborhood safety.

Which theoretical frameworks are most appropriate to examine res-idents’ feelings of safety in these vulnerable, high crime neighborhoods?Prior research has been mixed on this question. Although some studies haveconcluded that broken window theory is appropriate to explain predictorsof safety concerns (Bechtel & Churchman, 2002; Colquhoun, 2004; Day,1994; Goldstein, 1994; Greenberg, Rohe, & Williams, 1982; Haney, 2007;Perkins, Meeks, & Taylor, 1992; Roman & Chalfin, 2008; Shields et al., 2002;Taylor, 1997; White, 1990), other studies indicate that collective efficacy (e.g.,Sampson, 2004; Sampson & Graif, 2009; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999;Shamard, 2009), or place attachment frameworks (e.g., B. Brown, Perkins,& Brown, 2003; 2004) are more appropriate.

Toward the Broken Window Theory Hypothesis

Physical and social cues serve as implicit markers for unsafe and violence-prone neighborhoods (Astor, Meyer, & Pitner, 2001; Eck & Weisburd, 1995;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Older Adults’ Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety 513

Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990; Perkins et al., 1992;Pitner & Astor, 2008; Taylor, 1994, 1997; White, 1990). These areas arecharacterized by physical incivilities (e.g., vandalism, graffiti, and debris inyards) and social incivilities (e.g., noisy neighbors, prostitution, drug traffick-ing, and gang-related activity; Perkins, Wandersman, Rich, & Taylor, 1993).Research suggests that increased neighborhood incivilities invoke percep-tions of crime and disorder among residents and potential offenders, whichcould lead to higher neighborhood crime (Perkins et al., 1992; Taylor, 1999;Taylor & Gottfredson, 1986).

Areas that have high rates of social and physical incivilities may bethought of as undefined public spaces (Cisnernos, 1995; Newman, 1995).The term undefined refers to areas that lack ownership. In such areas, res-idents feel that it is not their responsibility to monitor or maintain them. Asa consequence of this lack of ownership, the rates of incivilities in theseareas increase, leading to heightened perceptions of lawlessness and crime.These incivilities in high-crime neighborhoods can be of particular concernto middle-aged residents who may be parenting younger children (Cheng,2005; Coulton & Irwin, 2009), and to older adults who may be in frailhealth (James & Sweaney, 2010). Studies have documented the relationshipbetween incivilities, undefined spaces and residents’ perceptions of dan-ger (Day, 1994; Goldstein, 1994; Perkins et al., 1992). Politicians and policedepartments often refer to this relationship as the broken window theory.

Toward the Collective Efficacy and Place Attachment Hypotheses

Collective efficacy is an agency-oriented perspective focused on residentstaking an active role in shaping their neighborhood communities (Sampson& Raudenbush, 1999). This approach, by default, requires a high levelof community cohesion. Such cohesion militates against residents’ fearof neighborhood crime (Sampson, 2004; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999).Voluminous studies have used the collective efficacy framework, and suggestan inverse relationship between levels of community cohesion and per-ceptions of neighborhood safety (e.g., Ferguson & Mindel, 2007; Franzini,Caughy, Spears, & Esquer, 2005; Sampson, 2004; Sampson & Graif, 2009;Sampson, Morenoff, & Earls, 1999; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Shamard,2009; Wells, Schafer, Varano, & Bynum, 2006).

Place attachment is a term used in environmental psychology thatfocuses on the bonds between residents and their social and physical settings(B. Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2004). In many ways, this concept is similarto collective efficacy in that it emphasizes the importance of neighborhoodcohesion on residents’ perceptions of safety. Yet, it also places emphasison residents’ feelings of pride in their home and neighborhood appearance,and residents’ tenure in their neighborhoods (B. Brown, Perkins, & Douglas,1992; B. Brown & Werner, 1985). B. Brown et al. (2004) suggested that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

514 R. O. Pitner et al.

decreased place attachments can directly increase concerns about neighbor-hood safety. This study used the concept of community care and vigilance,which we conceptualized as a variation of collective efficacy and placeattachment. We defined community care and vigilance as residents’ pridein their neighborhoods and sense of community, as well as their willingnessto take action to protect their neighborhoods.

Previous research has contributed significantly to the knowledge baseon perceptions of neighborhood safety. Nevertheless, there is a paucity ofresearch that comprehensively examines the relative effect of communitycare and vigilance and perceived neighborhood incivilities on neighborhoodsafety concerns among middle aged and older adults. One research study(i.e., Shields et al., 2002) that focused on elderly residents’ perceptions ofcrime examined their contact with neighborhood social networks. This socialnetwork concept has some parallels to our concept of community care andvigilance, because it demonstrates neighborhood engagement and connec-tions to their communities (Haney, 2007). Yet, Shields et al. (2002) did notexamine the role that neighborhood incivilities play in affecting elderly resi-dents’ fear of neighborhood crime. Thus, it is unclear how perceived physicaland social incivilities affect middle-aged and older residents’ concerns aboutneighborhood safety. For example, is it the sole effect of perceived physicalincivilities, the sole effect of perceived social incivilities, or a combined pres-ence of incivilities that have the greater impact on their safety concerns? Weexamined these questions in this study. In addition, because neighborhoodcrime (i.e., crimes against property/person) can have an important effecton residents’ perceptions of neighborhood safety at any age, we examinedwhether crime played a stronger role than community care and vigilance andperceived incivilities in predicting middle aged and older residents’ concernsabout neighborhood safety.

Hypotheses

The purpose of this study is to look more comprehensively at the predictorsof neighborhood safety among this important age group. Following directlyfrom the aforementioned theories and supporting research, four hypotheseswere tested in this study. First, using a collective efficacy and place attach-ment paradigm, we hypothesized that community care and vigilance wouldbe a predictor of middle-aged and older residents’ safety concerns aboutneighborhood crime. Second, using a broken window theory paradigm,we hypothesized that both perceived physical and social incivilities wouldpredict safety concerns about neighborhood crime. Although Shields et al.(2002) found that, among older adults, being a victim of crime did not affectthe victim’s perceptions of neighborhood safety, high levels of neighborhoodcrime can affect one’s perceptions of the well-being and social landscapeof the neighborhood (Elo, Mykyta, Margolis, & Culhone, 2009; Sampson &

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Older Adults’ Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety 515

Raudenbush, 2004). Thus, our third hypothesis was that the level of crime(i.e., police crime reports) would predict safety concerns, and that this wouldvary by type of crime (i.e., crimes against property vs. crimes against per-son). Finally, given that perceived incivilities can erode neighborhood socialcohesion and collective efficacy (e.g., Wells et al., 2006), we hypothesizedthat incivilities (both physical and social) would be the strongest predictorof neighborhood safety among middle aged and older adults.

METHODS

Sample and Participant Selection

This study received university-level approval from the Internal ReviewBoard. The study was conducted in an urban city within a large Midwestern,metropolitan area. There were 85 participants, among whom the majoritywas comprised of women (81%). More than one-third (37%) of partici-pants were White residents, and the other 63% were African Americanresidents. On average, participants lived in their neighborhoods for 19.7years. Moreover, the average age was 61.4. Sixty (71%) participants hadannual incomes under $20,000. Nearly half (49%) of the participants weremiddle-aged adults (ages 40 to 64); the other half were older adults (ages 65or older). Detailed characteristics of the study sample are provided in Table1.

Participants were selected because they received services from a non-profit organization that focused on helping residents who live in highcrime areas feel safer in their neighborhoods. We examined a 6-monthperiod (April 2002 to September 2002) for which the nonprofit organizationprovided services to residents. During that period, 496 residents receivedservices.

The target city was segmented into nine police districts. Given this,we employed a stratified random sampling procedure. Within each of thesenine districts, the sample was stratified by month of service delivery (Aprilthrough September). Residents were then selected randomly by strata. Atotal of 24 residents were selected randomly per district, with the exceptionof District 4 and District 9. For these two districts, few residents receivedservices from the nonprofit organization (2 in each district). Thus, all 4 resi-dents were selected for the sample. Overall, 172 residents were selected, andat least 50% of the selected sample participated from each police district. Ofthose who participated, 85 were 40 years of age or older. This study focuseson this group.

Interview Procedures

We used a mixed data collection procedure that consisted of telephoneinterviews and mailed surveys. Residents who did not complete the mailed

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TAB

LE1

Des

crip

tive

Info

rmat

ion

Ove

rall

sam

ple

(N=

85)

Mid

dle

-age

dad

ults

(n=

42)

Old

erad

ults

(65

or

old

er;

n=

43)

MSD

%M

SD%

MSD

%Si

gnifi

cance

Ran

ge

Dem

ogr

aphic

sA

ge61

.414

.049

.27.

573

.56.

1t=

16.4

∗∗∗

40–

89W

hite

(vs.

Afr

ican

Am

eric

an)

36.6

36.6

36.6

χ2=

0.0

0–

1Fe

mal

e81

.481

.481

.4χ

2=

0.0

0–

1Yea

rsofliv

ing

incu

rren

tre

siden

t19

.714

.614

.212

.025

.415

.1t=

3.8∗∗

∗1

–52

Annual

inco

me

2.2

1.5

2.6

1.7

1.7

1.1

t=3.

1∗∗1

–6

$10,

000

or

less

(1)

49.4

40.5

58.1

$10,

001–

$20,

000

(2)

21.2

14.3

27.9

$20,

001–

$30,

000

(3)

8.2

9.5

7.0

$30,

001

or

more

(4,5

,6)

21.2

35.7

7.0

Per

ceiv

eden

viro

nm

enta

lcr

ime

variab

les

Com

munity

care

and

vigi

lance

22.6

5.4

22.0

4.8

22.4

5.9

t=1.

26

–30

Inci

vilit

y4.

62.

74.

92.

64.

62.

8t=

0.9

0–

10Phys

ical

inci

vilit

y2.

82.

02.

91.

92.

82.

0t=

0.3

0–

6So

cial

inci

vilit

y1.

71.

22.

01.

21.

71.

2t=

1.6

0–

4Crim

eva

riab

les

Crim

esag

ainst

per

son

2.9

1.3

2.9

1.4

3.0

1.4

t=0.

01

–5

Crim

esag

ainst

pro

per

ty1.

60.

61.

80.

41.

50.

7t=

3.0∗

1–

5N

eigh

borh

ood

safe

tyco

nce

rns

6.1

2.5

6.3

2.5

6.3

2.6

t=0.

92

–10

Not

e.∗ p

<.0

5.∗∗

p<

.01.

∗∗∗ p

<.0

01bet

wee

nm

iddle

-age

dad

ults

and

old

erad

ults

.

516

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Older Adults’ Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety 517

survey were contacted by telephone, and they then completed the survey onthe telephone. Given that we used a stratified random sampling procedure,our study participants were representative of the overall group of residentswho received services during the months of April and September.

We also collected police crime data for the 9 districts. The crime cate-gories (i.e., total crimes against persons and total crimes against property)were coded, where lower numbers denote lower levels of crime and highernumbers denote higher levels.

Instrument

Participants completed a 22-item questionnaire that consisted of questionspertaining to neighborhood safety concerns (2 items), perceived environ-mental crime variables: community care and vigilance (6 items), physicalincivilities (6 items) and social incivilities (4 items), as well as demographicinformation. Safety concerns assessed the degree to which the person feltunsafe in his or her neighborhood, and the degree he or she felt it wasunsafe for children and adults. Community care and vigilance items were:“People watch out for each other in my neighborhood;” “if I witnessed acrime in my neighborhood, I would report it;” “people in my neighbor-hood care about the area;” “my neighborhood feels like a community;” “Ifeel good about living in my neighborhood;” and “there is not a lot ofcrime in my neighborhood.” Physical incivilities items pertained to decayedand run-down buildings, abandoned buildings, vacant lots, debris in thestreets, graffiti, and poor lighting. Finally, social incivilities pertained togangs, drug traffickers, homeless people, and nuisance and problem neigh-bors making the neighborhood unsafe. Items were rated on a Likert scaleranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The data demon-strated acceptable internal consistency reliability for each of the summedmeasures: neighborhood safety concerns (alpha = 0.78), physical incivili-ties (alpha = 0.72), social incivilities (alpha = 0.59), and community care andvigilance (alpha = 0.78) in this sample.

Data Analysis

Chi-square tests and independent t-tests were performed to examinewhether demographic variables (i.e., race, gender, annual income, andlength of residency), perceived environmental crime variables, crime vari-ables, and neighborhood safety concerns differed between middle-agedadults (ages 40–64 years old) and older adults (65 years or older). Univariateanalyses were performed to estimate the frequency of physical and socialincivilities. Zero-order correlations were employed to assess associations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

518 R. O. Pitner et al.

among continuous study variables. Finally, a forward stepwise multi-ple linear regression analysis was conducted to investigate which of theindependent variables (i.e., demographics, perceived environmental crimevariables, and crime variables) significantly predicted the dependent vari-able (i.e., neighborhood safety concerns). Analyses were conducted usingSAS 9.2 (SAS Institute Inc, 2009). In addition, we used statistical power todetermine our sample size (Cohen, 1988). Based on an anticipated mediumeffect size (f2 = .25), alpha = .05 and number of predictors at 4, minimumtotal sample size was calculated at 80 participants with a statistical powerof 0.95 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007). Thus our sample size issatisfactory.

RESULTS

Descriptive Information

A description of participants is presented in Table 1. The age of participantsranged from 40 to 89, with an average of 61.4 (SD = 14.0). Sixty-three percentof the participants were African American, with the remaining participantsbeing White. Participants were predominantly women (81%). On average,participants lived in their current residence for 19.7 years (SD = 14.6), witha range of 1–52 years. Annual household income ranged from 1 (less than$10,000) to 6 ($50,000 to $75,000), with the mode lying $10,000 or less(46%). On the other hand, one-fifth (21%) earned above $30,000.

In this study, perceived environmental crime variables consisted ofitems assessing community care and vigilance, and physical and social inci-vilities. The higher an individual scored on these items, the stronger theendorsement of the item. Overall, participants reported a mean score of22.6 (SD = 5.4) for community care and vigilance, scores ranged from 6 to30. Participants also indicated an average score of 4.6 (SD = 2.7) on itemsassessing incivilities, with a range of 0–10. The average number of physicalincivilities endorsed was 2.8 (SD = 2.0), with a range of 0–6; and the aver-age number of social incivilities endorsed was 1.7 (SD = 1.2), with a rangeof 0–4.

In terms of crime variables, both crimes against person and crimesagainst property ranged from 1 to 5, where higher numbers indicated higherlevels of crime. The mode for both crime variables was level 2 (crimesagainst person, 53%, and crimes against property, 60%). Last, safety con-cerns consisted of items assessing residents’ perceived neighborhood safety;higher scores represented a greater endorsement of the item (i.e., greaterfeelings of being unsafe). Overall, participants reported a mean score of 6.1(SD = 2.5) for neighborhood safety concerns, with a range of 2 to 10.

On average, middle-aged adults (ages 40 to 64) reported a signifi-cantly higher income than older-aged (ages 65 or older) adults (t = 3.11,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Older Adults’ Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety 519

TABLE 2 Percentage of Sample Reporting Incivilities

Overall sample(N = 85)

Middle-agedadults (n = 42)

Older adults(n = 43)

Any incivility 96.5% 100% 93.2%Any physical incivility 84.9% 83.7% 86.1%

Decayed and rundown buildings 59.3% 67.4% 51.2%Abandon buildings 53.5% 51.2% 55.8%Poor lighting 57.0% 62.8% 51.2%Vacant lots 45.4% 46.5% 44.2%Debris 41.9% 39.5% 44.2%Graffiti 27.9% 23.3% 32.6%

Any social incivility 81.4% 88.4% 74.4%Drug traffickers and addicts 69.8% 74.4% 65.1%Gangs 48.8% 53.5% 44.2%Nuisance and problem neighbors 34.9% 41.9% 27.9%Homeless people 20.9% 25.6% 16.3%

p = 0.002). Moreover, compared to older adults, middle-aged adults lived inareas that had higher levels of crimes against property (t = 2.96, p = 0.004).There were no age group differences in terms of race, gender, physical andsocial incivilities, crimes against person, and neighborhood safety concerns.

Table 2 presents the percentage of participants who identified specificincivilities. An overwhelming percentage of participants (96%) identified atleast one type of incivility that they perceived as making their neighborhoodless safe. Regarding specific incivilities, 85% identified at least one physi-cal incivility, and 81% identified at least one social incivility that made theirneighborhoods unsafe. Among the subtypes of physical incivilities, a greaterpercentage of participants reported that decayed buildings made their neigh-borhoods less safe (59%), followed by poor lighting (57%), abandonedbuildings (54%), vacant lots (45%), debris (42%), and graffiti (28%). Amongthe subtypes of social incivilities, a greater percentage reported that drugtraffickers and addicts made their neighborhoods less safe (70%), followedby gangs (49%), nuisance and problem neighbors (35%), and homeless peo-ple (21%). Although no significant relationships were found between ageand incivilities, it is worth noting that middle-aged adults identified moresocial incivilities than older-aged adults.

Bivariate Correlations

Table 3 presents correlations of the six continuous variables in the study.As can be seen, higher levels of neighborhood safety concerns were asso-ciated with higher levels of perceived physical and social incivilities, highercrimes against person and property, and lower levels of community careand vigilance. Higher levels of community care and vigilance were associ-ated with lower levels of social incivilities. There was a positive correlation

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

520 R. O. Pitner et al.

TABLE 3 Correlations of Study Variables (N = 85)

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F)

(A) Age 1.00(B) Years of living in current resident 0.38∗∗∗ 1.00(C) Community care and vigilance 0.13 0.02 1.00(D) Physical incivility −0.03 −0.01 −0.10 1.00(E) Social incivility −0.17 −0.13 −0.34∗∗ 0.41 1.00(F) Neighborhood safety concerns −0.10 −0.01 −0.24∗ 0.33∗∗ 0.25∗ 1.00

Note. Only continuous variables were included for correlation analysis.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p < .001.

between age and years of living in current resident. These correlations werestatistically significant, with r values ranging from .24 to .38.

Stepwise Multiple Linear Regression Analyses for PredictingNeighborhood Safety Concerns

Results of a forward stepwise multiple linear regression analysis showed thatthere were four significant predictors of neighborhood safety concerns. Asshown in Table 4, physical incivility was the strongest predictor variableaccepted in a first step and explained 11% of the variance in neighborhoodsafety concerns. In a second step, the crimes against property variable wasaccepted and explained another 7% of the variance (Partial R2 = 0.07). Theexplained variance was raised to 18% (R2 = 0.18). In a third step, commu-nity care and vigilance was added to the model and explained another 5%of the variance (Partial R2 = 0.05). The explained variance was raised to23% (R2 = 0.23). Last, in a fourth step, gender was accepted and explainedanother 4% of the variance (Partial R2 = 0.04). The explained variance wasraised to 27% (R2 = 0.27).

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine what variables best predictmiddle-aged and older adult residents’ concerns about neighborhood safety.Our findings support the first and third hypotheses, and partially supportour second and fourth hypotheses. Specifically, we hypothesized that com-munity care and vigilance (hypothesis 1) and crime (hypothesis 3) wouldpredict safety concerns, which was the case. Findings from the stepwisemultiple linear regression analysis partially supported hypothesis 4, indicat-ing that physical incivility accounted for the greatest variance in predictingneighborhood safety concerns among middle-aged and older adults. Onthe other hand, we hypothesized that both physical and social incivilities

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

TAB

LE4

Step

wis

eReg

ress

ion

Anal

ysis

for

Pre

dic

ting

Nei

ghborh

ood

Safe

tyConce

rns

Am

ong

Mid

dle

Age

dan

dO

lder

Adults

(N=

85)

Model

stat

istic

sChan

gest

atis

tics

Pre

dic

tor

βSE

tp

Val

ue

Fp

Val

ue

R2

Par

tial

R2

Par

tial

Rp

valu

e

Step

1Phys

ical

inci

vilit

y0.

330.

1310

.00.

002

10.0

0.00

20.

110.

110.

002

Step

2Phys

ical

inci

vilit

y0.

280.

137.

330.

008

8.8

<.0

010.

180.

070.

010

Crim

esag

ainst

pro

per

ty0.

270.

426.

910.

102

Step

3Com

munity

care

and

vigi

lance

−0.2

30.

045.

380.

023

8.0

<.0

010.

230.

050.

023

Phys

ical

inci

vilit

y0.

250.

136.

300.

014

Crim

esag

ainst

pro

per

ty0.

280.

417.

950.

006

Step

4Fe

mal

e0.

200.

634.

220.

043

7.3

<.0

010.

270.

040.

043

Com

munity

care

and

vigi

lance

−0.2

00.

044.

480.

037

Phys

ical

inci

vilit

y0.

260.

127.

010.

009

Crim

esag

ainst

pro

per

ty0.

280.

408.

300.

005

Not

e.β

=st

andar

diz

edes

timat

epar

amet

er;SE

=st

andar

der

ror.

521

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

522 R. O. Pitner et al.

would predict safety concerns in hypothesis 2. This hypothesis was partiallysupported because only physical incivility predicted safety concerns.

Overall, our findings are consistent with previous research in showingthat higher levels of neighborhood safety concerns are correlated with higherlevels of perceived physical incivilities (e.g., Astor et al., 2001; Colquhoun,2004; Perkins et al., 1992; Pitner & Astor, 2008; Taylor, 1997), higher crimesagainst property (e.g., Taylor, 2002), and lower levels of community careand vigilance (e.g., Sampson & Graif, 2009; Shamard, 2009). Unlike theseprevious studies, we uniquely examined the independent effects of com-munity care and vigilance, incivilities, and crime on middle aged and olderadult residents’ concerns about neighborhood safety in a sample of residentsliving in high crime neighborhoods.

Specifically, two perceived environmental crime variables were sig-nificant predictors of safety concerns: Community care and vigilance andperceived physical incivilities. Consistent with research on collective effi-cacy and place attachments, our findings suggest that when residents expresspride and a sense of community in their neighborhoods, as well as a will-ingness to take action to protect their neighborhood, they are less likelyto have concerns about neighborhood safety. It appears that their feelingsand overall perceptions of collective engagement may militate against safetyconcerns about neighborhood crime. On the other hand, heightened lev-els of perceived physical incivilities increase neighborhood safety concerns.Most participants (96%) in this study perceived the presence of any incivil-ity (physical or social) as a potential issue that makes their neighborhoodsless safe. The more residents perceived higher levels of debris in streets,poor lighting, abandoned and decayed buildings, vacant lots, and graffiti,the higher their concerns about neighborhood safety. It is interesting to notethat social incivilities (e.g., gangs, drug traffickers/ addicts, homeless peo-ple, and nuisance neighbors) did not predict concerns about neighborhoodsafety in this study. One compelling reason why this may be the case is thatsocial incivilities are not constant fixtures in neighborhoods. More specifi-cally, sometimes drug traffickers, homeless people, and/or gangs may bepresent, other times they may not, whereas the presence of neighborhoodphysical incivilities (e.g., an abandon building) is often much more con-stant. Thus, physical incivilities may provide a better indicator of the socialconditions of the neighborhood than social incivilities.

In our study, both community care and vigilance and physical incivili-ties were operationalized as components of perceived environmental crimevariables. Consistent with previous studies (e.g., Sampson, 2004; Sampson &Graif, 2009; Wells et al., 2006), our findings suggest that both were significantpredictors of neighborhood safety concerns among middle aged and olderadult residents. Physical incivilities had a stronger effect than communitycare and vigilance in predicting middle aged and older adult residents’ safetyconcerns. In addition, compared to crimes against person (e.g., violent acts

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Older Adults’ Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety 523

such as murder, battery, and assault), crimes against property (e.g., burglary,larceny-theft, arson, vandalism, motor vehicle theft) were the only predictorof neighborhood safety concerns. It could be that crimes against propertyprovide a better indication of the social conditions of the neighborhood.Thus, higher levels of crimes against property may directly increase fears ofneighborhood crime, particularly among middle aged and older adults.

Study Limitations

Our findings add to the knowledge base on perceptions of neighborhoodcrime and safety. However, this study is not without limitations, and ourfindings should be interpreted within a context of these limitations. First, thecross-sectional nature of the data restricts causal interpretations. Second,perceived environmental crime variables and neighborhood safety con-cerns were based on self-reports. Thus, response bias could have affectedsome findings, such as actual presence of physical and social incivilities.Conducting an environmental inventory would have helped corroboratethe overall level of neighborhood physical and social incivilities. Third, thesummed measure for social incivilities had a lower-than-expected internalconsistency reliability. Most studies document social incivilities through theuse of an environmental inventory. In this study, we documented socialincivilities through participant self-reports. Future studies should examinethe role that data collected through self-reports versus through the use ofan environmental inventory play in affecting internal consistency reliabili-ties. Fourth, our sample was small. Although the sample was representativeof the residents who received services from the nonprofit organization, itmay not have been representative of residents living in the larger area. Thislimits the generalizability of our findings. Finally, we measured communitycare and vigilance, which is not identical to measures of collective efficacy.This may have affected some of our findings. Despite these limitations, webelieve that our study yields some novel information, thus, adding to theliterature base on middle-aged and older adult residents who live in highcrime areas.

Implications for Practice

The overarching implication of our findings is that social workers/community organizers should focus on building residents’ sense of pride intheir neighborhoods and mobilizing residents into action to improve com-munity conditions, which may directly decrease their concerns about neigh-borhood safety. This might be accomplished by creating more volunteeropportunities for residents of all ages. For example, community partnershipscan be formed through senior centers that serve as volunteer opportunitiesfor younger residents (i.e., elementary school-aged, teenagers, and young

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

524 R. O. Pitner et al.

adults). In addition, neighborhood watch programs should include adultresidents of all ages. Such efforts could further foster collective efficacy andplace attachments, solidify relationships, and build mutual trust among res-idents. This might result in residents taking action to reduce neighborhoodincivilities, and ultimately, reduce neighborhood crime that affects residents’feeling safe in their neighborhoods. Community collaborations have beenshown to be beneficial to health and well-being of residents (Bolda, Lowe,Maddox, & Patnaik, 2005; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).

Our findings imply that residents’ level of collective efficacy and placeattachment will increase when they collectively take action to decreaseneighborhood incivilities. However, many agencies are not aware of or fail tomake special efforts to include older adults in community organizing efforts(Crose, & Minear, 1998). There is a need for residents of all ages to getinvolved in community improvement efforts to combat fear of neighborhoodcrime. Our findings indicate that middle-aged and older adults are similar intheir concerns about neighborhood safety. Thus, future intervention strate-gies should be focused on residents of all ages, particularly middle-aged andolder adults, getting involved with community-level civic engagement inter-ventions designed to reduce neighborhood incivilities. This, we believe, willhave the greatest potential to bolster residents’ perceptions of neighborhoodsafety.

Conclusion

Our findings are consistent with research on collective efficacy and placeattachment in that they show that the sense of pride and the sense of com-munity, as well as residents’ willingness to protect their neighborhood, affecthow concerned they will be about neighborhood safety. In addition, ourfindings are consistent with research on broken window theory in suggestingthat the presence of physical incivilities can also affect residents’ concernsabout neighborhood safety. Overall, it does not seem to be an either/orproposition. Rather, all of these variables play important roles in predictingresidents’ perceptions of, and concerns about, neighborhood safety. Thus,collective efficacy, place attachments, and broken window theory are allimportant determinants of residents’ perceptions of neighborhood safety.

REFERENCES

Astor, R., Meyer, H., & Pitner, R. (2001). Elementary and middle school students’perceptions of violence-prone school sub-contexts. Elementary School Journal,101, 511–528.

Bechtel, R., & Churchman, A. (2002). Handbook of environmental psychology. NewYork, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Older Adults’ Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety 525

Bolda, E., Lowe, J., Maddox, G., & Patnaik, B. (2005). Community partnerships forolder adults: A case study. Families in Society, 86 , 411–418.

Brown, B., Perkins, D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing neigh-borhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 23, 259–271.

Brown, B., Perkins, D., & Brown, G. (2004). Incivilities, place attachments andcrime: Block and individual effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24,359–371.

Brown, B., Perkins, D., & Douglas, D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachments.Human Behavior & Environment: Advances in Theory & Research, 12, 279–304.

Brown, B., & Werner, C. (1985). Social cohesiveness, territoriality, and holidaydecorations: The influence of cul-de-sacs. Environment and Behavior, 17 ,539–565.

Brown, E. (2007). Care recipients’ psychological well being: The role of sense ofcontrol and caregiver type. Aging and Mental Health, 11, 405–414.

Brown, E., & Jackson, J. (2004). Age-related issues among minority populations.In C. Spielberger, & R. K. Lee (Eds.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology (pp.79–90). London, England: Elsevier.

Cheng, T. (2005). Welfare-to-work: Impact on four parenting practices of TANFrecipients. Journal of Social Service Research, 31, 25–42.

Cisnernos, H. G. (1995). Defensible space: Deterring crime and building commu-nity (HUD-1512-PDR). Washington DC: US Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Colquhoun, I. (2004). Design out crime: Creating safe and sustainable communities.Boston, MA: Elsevier.

Coulton, C., & Irwin, M. (2009). Parental and community level correlates of par-ticipation in out-of-school activities among children living in low incomeneighborhoods. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 300–308.

Crose, R., & Minear, M. (1998). Project CARE: A model for establishing neighborhoodcenters to increase access to services by low-income, minority elders. Journalof Gerontological Social Work, 30(3–4), 73–82.

Day, K. (1994). Conceptualizing women’s fear of sexual assault on campus: A reviewof causes and recommendations for change. Environment and Behavior, 26 ,742–765.

Eck, J., & Weisburd, D. (1995). Crime places in crime theory. In J. Eck & D. Weisburd(Eds.), Crime Prevention Studies: Vol. 4. Crime and place (p. 1034). Monsey,NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Elo, I., Mykyta, L., Margolis, R., & Culhone, J. (2009). Perceptions of neighborhooddisorder: The role of individual and neighborhood characteristics. Social ScienceQuarterly, 90, 1298–1320.

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A., & Buchner, A. (2007). G∗Power 3: A flexible statisticalpower analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences.Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.

Ferguson, K., & Mindel, C. (2007). Modeling fear of crime in Dallas neighborhoods:A test of social capital theory. Crime & Delinquency, 53, 322–349.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

526 R. O. Pitner et al.

Franzini, L., Caughy, M., Spears, W., & Esquer, M. (2005). Neighborhood economicconditions, social processes, and self-rated health in low-income neighbor-hoods in Texas: A multilevel latent variable model. Social Science & Medicine,61, 1135–1150.

Goldstein, A. (1994). The ecology of aggression. New York, NY: Plenum.Greenberg, A., Rohe, W., & Williams, J. (1982). Safety in urban neighborhoods: A

comparison of physical characteristics and informal territorial control in highand low crime neighborhoods. Population and Environment, 5, 141–165.

Haney, T. (2007). “Broken windows” and self-esteem: Subjective understandings ofneighborhood poverty and disorder. Social Science Research, 36 , 968–994.

James, R., & Sweaney, A. (2010). Housing dissatisfaction and cognitive decline inolder adults. Journal of Housing for the Elderly, 24, 93–106.

Newman, O. (1995). Defensible space: A new physical planning tool for urbanrevitalization. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, 149–155.

Perkins, D., Florin, P., Rich, R., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. (1990). Participationand the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime andcommunity context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 83–115.

Perkins, D., Meeks, J., & Taylor, R. (1992). The physical environment of street blocksand resident perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory andmeasurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 21–34.

Perkins, D., Wandersman, A., Rich, R., & Taylor, R. (1993). The physical environ-ment of street crime: Defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 13, 29–49.

Pitner, R., & Astor, R. (2008). Children’s reasoning about poverty, physicaldeterioration, danger, and retribution in neighborhood contexts. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 28, 327–338.

Roman, C., & Chalfin, A. (2008). Fear of walking outdoors: A multilevel ecologicanalysis of crime and disorder. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34,306–312.

Sampson, R. (2004). Neighborhood and community: Collective efficacy and commu-nity safety. New Economy, 11, 106–113.

Sampson, R., & Graif, C. (2009). Neighborhood social capital as differentialsocial organization: Resident and leadership dimensions. American BehavioralScientist, 52, 1579–1605.

Sampson, R., Morenoff, J., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamicsof collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633–660.

Sampson, R., & Raudenbush, S. (1999). Systematic social observation of publicspaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journalof Sociology, 105, 603–651.

Sampson, R., & Raudenbush, S. (2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma andthe social construction of “Broken Windows.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 67 ,319–342.

Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime:A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277 , 918–924.

SAS Institute Inc. (2009). Base SAS 9.2 Procedures Guide. Cary, NC: Author.Shamard, S. (2009). Collective efficacy and fear of crime in the Mat-Su Borough.

Alaska Justice Forum, 25, 4–7.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Older Adults’ Perceptions of Neighborhood Safety 527

Shields, G., King, W., Fulks, S., & Fallon, L. (2002). Determinants of perceived safetyamong the elderly: An exploratory study. Journal of Gerontological Social Work,38(3), 73–83.

Silverstone, B. (2005). Social work with older people of tomorrow: Restoring theperson-in-situation. Families in Society, 86 , 309–319.

Taylor, R. (1994). Research methods in criminal justice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Taylor, R. (1997). Social order and disorder of street blocks and neighborhoods:

Ecology, microecology and the systemic model of social disorganization.Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 33, 113–155.

Taylor, R. (1999). The incivilities thesis: Theory, measurement and policy. InR. Langworthy (Ed.), Measuring what matters (pp. 65–88). Washington, DC:National Institute of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Taylor, R. (2002). Crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED): Yes,no, maybe, unknowable, and all of the above. In R. Bechtel & A. Churchman(Eds.), Handbook of environmental psychology (pp. 413–426). New York, NY:John Wiley & Sons.

Taylor, R., & Gottfredson, S. (1986). Environmental design, crime and prevention:An examination of community dynamics. In A. J. Reiss, Jr., & M. Tonry (Eds.),Communities and crime (pp. 387–416). Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

Wells, W., Schafer, J., Varano, S., & Bynum, T. (2006). Neighborhood resi-dents’ production of order: The effects of collective efficacy on responses toneighborhood problems. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 523–550.

White, G. (1990). Neighborhood permeability and burglary rates. Justice Quarterly,7 , 57–68.

Wilson, J., & Kelling, G. (1982, March). Broken windows: The police andneighborhood safety. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.streetgangs.com/academic/brokenwindows.html

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Har

vard

Lib

rary

] at

09:

24 0

8 O

ctob

er 2

014