Over the past 15 years, U.S. has witnessed a general decline in overall rates of youth homicide [
Youth violence has been linked to a variety of factors including individual, family, community, and societal characteristics. Community-level risk can have negative influences even on youth who are not exposed to individual- or family-level risk factors. Major community risk factors for violence include high density of alcohol outlets, community norms favorable toward violence, residential instability, transitions and mobility, low neighborhood attachment, social disorganization, the presence of gangs, and extreme economic deprivation [
Although much research has been conducted on interventions to change the characteristics of individuals and families, less has focused on evaluating interventions and policies designed to change community economic conditions or characteristics of the physical environment. Studies have been conducted on the impact of interventions on individual-level variables; however, evaluations at the community level have been sparse. Some research is emerging that highlights the promise of community- and policy-level strategies in preventing youth violence. For example, modifications to the built environment—such as improvements to the pedestrian environment and architectural changes—can contribute to relative reductions in 911 calls and crimes, possibly through increases in social capital and intolerance of criminal activity [
A consistent literature suggests that the perception of crime is often different from actual crime. For instance, in a study conducted in Australia, results suggested that people often exaggerated the risks of becoming a victim of crime [
When taken into context with other individual factors, this has been referred to as the vulnerability perspective [
In Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, two large economic developments were recently constructed in two historically disadvantaged minority neighborhoods. In August 2009, gambling was legalized in Pittsburgh, and a casino was opened in the North Side neighborhood. The Consol Energy Center (CEC), an indoor sports and entertainment facility, was opened in the Hill District neighborhood in August 2010. These community-level changes provide a unique opportunity to study the potential effect of two different community economic development efforts to examine whether the economic benefits directly have an effect on perceptions and rates of community violence. Specifically, the current study has three objectives: Describing residents’ perceptions of the effect of the arena and casino on neighborhood violence, safety, and economic benefits. Describing residents’ perceptions of change in neighborhood violence, safety, and economic benefits after the opening of the arena and casino. Comparing the above residents’ perceptions with census and police data over the same time.
Results from this study will fill some of the existing gaps in the field around the relationship between community economic development efforts and community violence while highlighting some of the potential mechanisms through which they may have an effect (e.g., job availability for community residents).
We conducted a telephone survey in 2011 using a listed sample of randomly selected telephone numbers in each of six neighborhoods of Pittsburgh (Figure
Intervention and comparison areas by 2000 census tracts.
Two measures were used to evaluate perceived neighborhood violence in the communities. One intended to assess the level of violence currently perceived in the neighborhood. Respondents were asked if they felt safe in their neighborhood both during the day and at night. They were also asked if they felt that violence was common in their neighborhood. The values of the three questions were combined into a current perceived violence index. Higher values indicated higher levels of perceived violence.
The second measures gauged the change in perceived violence over the past five years. Respondents were asked whether, compared with 2006, they thought there was more violent crime.
Employed respondents were identified as those who were employed for wages/salary, self-employed, student, or a combination of those; unemployed respondents were identified as those who responded “none of the above” to the aforementioned employment selections. Respondents were also asked if their household income had changed since 2006, whether the Rivers Casino affected businesses in their neighborhood, and whether they thought either development affected employment or income in their neighborhood.
The analyses were conducted using SPSS, version 21, software (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). We conducted descriptive analyses to examine the various measures of perceived violence and safety and economic benefit. We report the number and percent responding to each question. Responses were compared across neighborhoods. Positive and negative responses are shown in the tables. For contrast, we compared the responses with census and police record data. Pearson’s chi-square tests determined significant differences in proportions for all neighborhoods. If significant at the
Table
Demographic characteristics of study population from survey responses.
Hill-intervention |
North Side |
Spring Garden |
Homewood |
North Oakland |
Squirrel Hill |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | ||||||
Male | 46 (20.4%) | 94 (35.1%) | 50 (28.9%) | 50 (27.9%) | 70 (32.1%) | 69 (33.0%) |
Female | 180 (79.6%) | 174 (64.9%) | 123 (71.1%) | 129 (72.1%) | 148 (67.9%) | 140 (67.0%) |
Age (SD) | 60.3 (16.9) | 60.8 (15.5) | 60.2 (16.0) | 62.2 (17.0) | 69.7 (16.8) | 62.0 (15.7) |
Race | ||||||
White | 16 (7.2%) | 159 (60.0%) | 128 (75.3%) | 10 (5.8%) | 173 (80.8%) | 195 (93.3%) |
Black | 204 (91.5%) | 95 (35.9%) | 40 (23.5%) | 157 (90.8%) | 35 (16.4%) | 4 (1.9%) |
Others | 3 (1.4%) | 11 (4.2%) | 2 (1.2%) | 6 (3.5%) | 6 (2.8%) | 10 (4.8%) |
Education | ||||||
<HS degree | 14 (6.3%) | 21 (7.9%) | 9 (5.2%) | 10 (5.6%) | 10 (4.6%) | 1 (0.5%) |
HS degree |
81 (36.3%) | 86 (32.2%) | 82 (47.4%) | 74 (41.6%) | 24 (11.0%) | 7 (3.4%) |
>HS degree | 128 (57.4%) | 160 (59.9%) | 82 (47.4%) | 94 (52.8%) | 184 (84.4%) | 201 (96.2%) |
Employment | ||||||
Employed | 60 (26.9%) | 99 (36.9%) | 67 (38.7%) | 52 (29.2%) | 49 (22.7%) | 86 (41.8%) |
Not employed | 163 (73.1%) | 169 (63.1%) | 106 (61.3%) | 126 (70.8%) | 167 (77.3%) | 120 (58.3%) |
Marital status | ||||||
Married | 122 (54.5%) | 117 (43.8%) | 51 (29.8%) | 84 (47.5%) | 70 (32.1%) | 31 (14.9%) |
Unmarried | 102 (45.5%) | 150 (56.2%) | 120 (70.2%) | 93 (52.5%) | 148 (67.9%) | 177 (85.1%) |
All data presented as number with percentage of total in parentheses. SD = standard deviation for continuous measure of age.
Demographic characteristics of study neighborhood from the 2010 Census or 2006–2011 ACS.
Hill-intervention |
North Side |
Spring Garden |
Homewood |
North Oakland |
Squirrel Hill |
|
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Total population | 9754 | 12252 | 8038 | 6279 | 12016 | 12378 |
% black | 88.4 | 44.5 | 50.9 | 96 | 17 | 3.5 |
% male | 42.9 | 49.7 | 44.8 | 40.7 | 45.8 | 52.6 |
% unemployed male | 7.9 | 7.2 | 8.8 | 7.3 | 2.7 | 2.3 |
% families in poverty | 38.7 | 23.5 | 31.8 | 35 | 15.7 | 1.3 |
% households female-headed | 26.7 | 17.3 | 26.2 | 29.5 | 8.2 | 5.1 |
% high school education or GED | 83.1 | 86.7 | 84.8 | 86.2 | 94 | 97.7 |
Average median household income |
17465 | 31573 | 25900 | 23862 | 21325 | 86169 |
In Table
Personal safety and household income change since 2006 by neighborhood.
Hill, arena location | North Side, casino location | North Oakland | Spring Garden | Homewood | Squirrel Hill | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
I feel safe in my neighborhood during the day | ||||||
Agree | 192 (90.6%) | 232 (92.4%) | 203 (96.7%) | 153 (91.1%) | 146 (83.9%) | 203 (99.5%) |
Disagree | 14 (6.6%) | 12 (4.8%) | 2 (1.0%) |
12 (7.1%) | 22 (12.6%)# | 0 |
|
212 | 251 | 210 | 174 | 174 | 204 |
|
||||||
I feel safe in my neighborhood at night | ||||||
Agree | 136 (64.2%) | 161 (64.1%) | 137 (65.2%) | 105 (62.5%) | 84 (48.3%) |
187 (91.7%) |
Disagree | 58 (27.4%) | 67 (26.7%) | 46 (21.9%) | 52 (31.0%) | 75 (43.1%) |
7 (3.4%) |
|
212 | 251 | 210 | 168 | 174 | 204 |
|
||||||
Violence is common in my neighborhood | ||||||
Agree | 91 (42.9%) | 85 (34.0%) | 18 (8.6%) |
54 (32.1%) | 108 (62.1%) |
3 (1.5%) |
Disagree | 106 (50.0%) | 139 (55.6%) | 177 (84.3%) |
103 (61.3%) | 48 (27.6%) |
196 (96.1%) |
|
212 | 250 | 210 | 168 | 174 | 204 |
|
||||||
Compared to 2006, there is more violent crime in my neighborhood now | ||||||
Agree | 66 (41.8%) | 56 (29.3%) | 21 (13.7%) |
47 (35.1%) | 59 (40.7%) | 4 (2.4%) |
Disagree | 76 (48.1%) | 111 (58.1%) | 102 (66.7%) |
73 (54.5%) | 60 (41.4%)# | 135 (80.8%) |
|
158 | 191 | 153 | 134 | 145 | 167 |
|
||||||
Household income change from 2006 | ||||||
Increased | 53 (24.3%) | 85 (32.7%) | 49 (23.1%) | 57 (33.9%) | 56 (32.0%) | 67 (34.7%) |
Decreased | 60 (27.5%) | 71 (27.3%) | 66 (31.1%) | 39 (23.2%) | 38 (21.7%) | 51 (26.4%) |
|
218 | 260 | 212 | 168 | 175 | 193 |
#Statistically different from the North Side.
Squirrel Hill had the least amount of recorded violence in 2011 (0.6 violent crimes per 1000 residents), followed by Oakland (2.6), Spring Garden (10.5), Hill District (12.1), North Side (15.1), and Homewood with the most amount of recorded violence (18.1) when looking at actual violent crime rates in these neighborhoods (see Figure
Violent crime rates by survey neighborhood, 2000–2011.
No neighborhoods were statistically different from either the Hill or the North Side.
Participants in the North Side stated more often that the Rivers Casino has had a positive impact on their life (14.1%) compared with 7.2% of participants from the North Side who responded that the casino has had a negative impact. Participants in Squirrel Hill were more likely to not report positive effects compared with the North side (
Perceived effect of Rivers Casino on neighborhood.
Hill, arena location | North Side, casino location | North Oakland | Spring Garden | Homewood | Squirrel Hill | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
How has the Rivers Casino impacted your life? | ||||||
Positively | 22 (10.6%) | 35 (14.1%) | 18 (8.6%) | 16 (9.5%) | 16 (9.3%) | 4 (2.0%)# |
Negatively | 10 (4.8%) | 18 (7.2%) | 7 (3.3%) | 13 (7.7%) | 10 (5.8%) | 11 (5.4%) |
|
208 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
How has the Rivers Casino affected employment in your neighborhood? | ||||||
Positively | 39 (18.8%) | 65 (26.1%) | 7 (3.3%)# | 26 (15.5%) | 16 (9.3%)# | 4 (2.0%)# |
Negatively | 14 (6.7%) | 11 (4.4%) | 3 (1.4%) | 4 (2.4%) | 3 (1.7%) | 2 (1.0%) |
|
208 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
How has the Rivers Casino affected income in your neighborhood? | ||||||
Positively | 24 (11.5%) | 28 (11.2%) | 8 (3.8%)# | 23 (13.7%) | 10 (5.8%) | 1 (0.5%)# |
Negatively | 22 (10.6%) | 16 (6.4%) | 4 (1.9%) | 4 (2.4%) | 2 (1.2%) | 2 (1.0%)# |
|
208 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
How has the Rivers Casino affected businesses in your neighborhood? | ||||||
Positively | 22 (10.6%)# | 61 (24.5%) | 9 (4.3%)# | 21 (12.5%)# | 6 (3.5%)# | 1 (0.5%)# |
Negatively | 12 (5.8%) | 9 (3.6%) | 4 (1.9%) | 5 (3.0%) | 4 (2.3%) | 2 (1.0%) |
|
208 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
How has the Rivers Casino affected crime in your neighborhood? | ||||||
Decreased | 13 (6.3%) | 9 (3.6%) | 5 (2.4%) | 5 (3.0%) | 5 (2.9%) | 0 |
Increased | 12 (5.8%) | 13 (5.2%) | 5 (2.4%) | 10 (6.0%) | 3 (1.7%) | 3 (1.5%) |
|
208 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
How has the Rivers Casino affected violence in your neighborhood? | ||||||
Decreased | 8 (3.8%) | 9 (3.6%) | 4 (1.9%) | 3 (1.8%) | 5 (2.9%) | 0 |
Increased | 10 (4.8%) | 10 (4.0%) | 4 (1.9%) | 7 (4.2%) | 2 (1.2%) | 3 (1.5%) |
|
208 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
Overall, how has the Rivers Casino affected your neighborhood? | ||||||
Positively | 32 (15.4%) | 61 (24.5%) | 10 (4.8%)# | 24 (14.3%) | 17 (9.9%)# | 2 (1.0%)# |
Negatively | 15 (7.2%) | 15 (6.0%) | 6 (2.9%) | 6 (3.6%) | 4 (2.3%) | 4 (2.0%) |
|
208 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 171 | 204 |
In summary, the North Side appears to have benefitted more from the casino than any other neighborhoods, but this benefit was only reported by a minority of North Side participants. This is reflected in responses to the question “overall, how has the Rivers Casino affected your neighborhood?” The highest rate of responses indicating a positive effect was observed in the North Side, at 24.5%, while the majority of participants in each neighborhood responded “neither positively nor negatively” (58.6% of participants in the North Side). The less disadvantaged neighborhoods, North Oakland and Squirrel Hill, were the only neighborhoods with significant differences.
When asked, “how has the Consol Energy Center impacted your life?,” the majority of participants in each neighborhood answered “neither positively nor negatively” (69.6% of participants from the Hill District, where the arena is located, and around 80% of participants in all other neighborhoods). When asked, “how has the Consol Energy Center affected income in your neighborhood?,” the most common answer across all neighborhoods was “neither positively nor negatively” (44.4% of participants in the Hill District, location of the CEC). Responses to the other economic questions followed a similar pattern. 31.9% of participants from the Hill District reported that the Consol Energy Center had a positive effect on employment in their neighborhood, and 24.6% of participants from the Hill District reported that the Consol Energy Center had a positive effect on local businesses in their neighborhood. Participants from every other neighborhood reported statistically significantly lower proportions of positive effects on the economic questions compared to the Hill (
Perceived effect of Consol Energy Center on neighborhood.
Hill, arena location | North Side, casino location | North Oakland | Spring Garden | Homewood | Squirrel Hill | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
How has the Consol Energy Center impacted your life? | ||||||
Positively | 35 (16.9%) | 28 (11.2%) | 19 (9.1%) | 18 (10.7%) | 18 (10.5%) | 29 (14.2%) |
Negatively | 23 (11.1%) | 7 (2.8%) |
12 (5.7%) | 5 (3.0%) |
4 (2.3%) |
4 (2.0%) |
|
207 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
How has the Consol Energy Center affected employment in your neighborhood? | ||||||
Positively | 66 (31.9%) | 29 (11.6%) |
15 (7.2%) |
17 (10.1%) |
18 (10.5%) |
2 (1.0%) |
Negatively | 12 (5.8%) | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.0%) | 2 (1.2%) | 1 (0.6%) | 0 |
|
207 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
How has the Consol Energy Center affected income in your neighborhood? | ||||||
Positively | 56 (27.1%) | 27 (10.8%) |
11 (5.3%) |
8 (4.8%) |
11 (6.4%) |
3 (1.5%) |
Negatively | 11 (5.3%) | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.0%) | 3 (1.8%) | 1 (0.6%) | 0 |
|
207 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
How has the Consol Energy Center affected local businesses in your neighborhood? | ||||||
Positively | 51 (24.6%) | 28 (11.2%) |
11 (5.3%) |
7 (4.2%) |
5 (2.9%) |
8 (3.9%) |
Negatively | 12 (5.8%) | 3 (1.2%) | 3 (1.4%) | 3 (1.8%) | 3 (1.7%) | 1 (0.5%) |
|
207 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
How has the Consol Energy Center affected crime in your neighborhood? | ||||||
Decreased | 17 (8.2%) | 4 (1.6%) |
4 (1.9%) | 2 (1.2%) |
3 (1.7%) | 2 (1.0%) |
Increased | 9 (4.3%) | 5 (2.0%) | 6 (2.9%) | 3 (1.8%) | 3 (1.7%) | 0 |
|
207 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
How has the Consol Energy Center affected violence in your neighborhood? | ||||||
Decreased | 19 (9.2%) | 2 (0.8%) |
4 (1.9%) |
2 (1.2%) |
3 (1.7%) |
1 (0.5%) |
Increased | 10 (4.8%) | 7 (2.8%) | 7 (3.3%) | 4 (2.4%) | 3 (1.7%) | 1 (0.5%) |
|
207 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
|
||||||
Overall, how has the Consol Energy Center affected your neighborhood? | ||||||
Positively | 68 (32.9%) | 34 (13.7%) |
20 (9.6%) |
13 (7.7%) |
12 (7.0%) |
11 (5.4%) |
Negatively | 20 (9.7%) | 5 (2.0%) |
8 (3.8%) | 3 (1.8%) |
5 (2.9%) | 1 (0.5%) |
|
207 | 249 | 209 | 168 | 172 | 204 |
In response to the question “how has the Consol Energy Center affected crime in your neighborhood?,” the majority of participants in each neighborhood responded “neither positively nor negatively” (68.6% of participants from the Hill District), followed by the response “do not know/unsure” (18.8% of participants from the Hill District). Responses to the question “how has the Consol Energy Center affected violence in your neighborhood?” followed a similar pattern, with 68.6% of participants from the Hill District responding “neither positively nor negatively” and 17.4% of participants from the Hill District responding “do not know/unsure.”
In summary, participants from the Hill District reported benefitting the most from the Consol Energy Center. When asked, “overall, how has the Consol Energy Center affected your neighborhood?,” 32.9% of participants from the Hill District reported that the arena had a positive effect while 46.4% of respondents reported that the arena had neither a positive nor a negative effect, and 9.7% reported a negative effect. Participants in all other neighborhoods reported statistically significantly lower levels of positive effects in comparison (
Many factors influence the prevalence of youth violence. Community economic development is one strategy that may lead to more resources and opportunities within neighborhoods. This, in turn, may result in reductions in community-level rates of violence. This study addressed the relationship between two large economic development efforts within the city of Pittsburgh—a casino and a sports arena—on perceptions of economic opportunities and community safety. Overall, we found that residents in neighborhoods with the large-scale economic developments reported more development in specific economic benefits than did residents from other neighborhoods. A large proportion of Hill District respondents thought violent crime had increased since 2006 even though it actually decreased more in the Hill District than in any other survey neighborhoods. In addition, Hill District respondents felt less safe than North Side respondents did, even though the North Side experiences more crime than the Hill District. However, the crime rates are calculated per residents. If more crime in the North Side is being committed by nonresidents in the entertainment districts than crime in the Hill District being committed by nonresidents coming into the Hill, the North Side residents may actually be experiencing less violence near their homes than Hill District residents.
When participants’ perceptions are compared with the actual violent crime rates for their neighborhoods, they often matched. Participants from Squirrel Hill were most likely to say they felt safe during the day or night and were least likely to believe that violence is common in their neighborhood while participants from Homewood were least likely to say they felt safe during the day or night and were most likely to believe that violence is common in their neighborhood. Accordingly, the 2011 violent crime rates indicate that Squirrel Hill experienced the least amount of violence (0.6 violent crimes per 1000 residents) of the six neighborhoods survey while Homewood experienced the most (18.1 violent crimes per 1000 residents). It should be noted, however, that although the majority of participants from Homewood agreed that violence is common in their neighborhood and indeed it is thirty times more common in Homewood than Squirrel Hill, the majority of participants did not feel unsafe, even at night. Participants were also mostly correct in their perceptions about the change in violence since 2006. The majority from every neighborhood did not believe that there was more violence now than in 2006, and indeed violent crime rates have decreased in every neighborhood except Spring Garden, which saw a slight increase. Interestingly, however, the rate of violent crime in Spring Garden in 2011 was at its lowest since 2006 due to a spike in 2007, so it may have been difficult for participants in that neighborhood to differentiate between the slight increase in violence compared with 2006 and the decrease in violence seen almost every year since 2007. Even though Homewood and the Hill District had the greatest declines in violence from 2006 to 2011 of all survey neighborhoods, this was not evident in the participant responses in these neighborhoods.
When the perception of crime is taken into context with other individual factors, it has been referred to as the vulnerability perspective [
Two major criminological theories on crime, the broken windows hypothesis [
Surprisingly, there has been a dearth of research examining whether casinos positively benefit community residents [
Grinols argues that economic development occurs when welfare or utility increases within a neighborhood [
There are a large number of studies that have assessed the effect of large-scale developments on violence. However, these are mostly related to casinos, and the results are varied. In a study by Grinols and Mustard, casino and noncasino counties were evaluated after the construction and opening of casinos [
Interestingly, in the Grinols and Mustard study, the increase in violent crime occurred most noticeably after a three-year lag [
This initial work is important in identifying how neighborhood residents perceive the large-scale economic developments in these neighborhoods. The potential benefits to a community are directly related to public health outcomes as well as public policy. More in-depth studies should be conducted to assess long-term effects as well as the social pathways through which these effects occur.
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.
This study was supported in part by a research grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (U01-CE001630).