Neighbor Perspectives on Safety and Stability Factors in a Diverse Urban Neighborhood

Background and Purpose

Understanding community (dis)organization within urban neighborhoods is key for stability and safety. Although commonly investigated through large-scale surveys, neighbor perceptions of social (dis)order also contribute important data, because key informant interviews provide reliable, stable, and valid measures of community organizational processes (Hardyns et al., 2021). However, little is known about how neighbor perceptions of risk and safety in a rapidly changing context inform urban social policy. This study helps fill this gap by investigating how residents of a racially mixed, rapidly developing urban neighborhood in St. Louis perceived factors for risk and safety in their neighborhood.

Methods

This research was part of a three-year ethnography. Participant observation was conducted at monthly meetings of a local neighborhood association and weekly crime statistics reports for the neighborhood were analyzed in this time. In-depth, semi-structured, qualitative interviews approximately 90-120 minutes in length were conducted with 16 residents of the neighborhood. Convenience sampling – in partnership with a local community organization – and snowball sampling methods were used to recruit participants. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and reviewed for accuracy. Analytic methods used included open, thematic coding and qualitative description analysis.

Results

This analysis identified 12 factors ranging from risk to protective of safety/stability and categorized on a continuum from current behaviors observed within the neighborhood to structural neighborhood elements consolidated from past behaviors/decisions. Four risk factors were perceived, with two regarding neighborhood gun behaviors, both (1) gang activity as well as (2) dangerous self-defense. Risk was also structured by (3) previous decisions permitting neighborhood convenience and service businesses which became common crime sites. Vacant homes were identified as (4) an existing structural risk reinforced by current behaviors (e.g., out-of-state homeowners with abandoned properties). Two additional factors seemed mixed: first, (5) heavy real estate activity promoted homeownership and neighborhood stability, but frequent “flipping” made property appraisal and financing risky for aspiring homebuyers. Second, (6) police cameras in the neighborhood were framed as a protective effort that also seemed low quality (e.g. weakly powered or broken cameras resulting in little practical increase in safety). Six further factors were framed as protective, ranging from more behavioral to more structural: (7) high levels of socio-economic neighborhood integration, e.g. observant neighbors who interacted frequently, e.g. “nice, nosy neighbors,”(8) “patriot customer” residents who intentionally focused their economic activity toward neighborhood shops and restaurants, (9) a strong, responsive, nonprofit subsidized housing provider whose staff addressed emerging issues quickly, (10) well-established community policing and neighborhood liaison officers, (11) high levels of neighborhood green space from parks to large lawns, and (12) architecturally unique commercial conversions to residences, which were framed as discouraging burglary (e.g., “I live in a house that doesn’t look like a house”).

Conclusions and Implications

This study suggests resident perception of neighborhood safety risk and protective factors, both behavioral and structural, is valuable data to inform urban neighborhood policy and innovative initiative. Although observed neighborhood behaviors may be more quickly amenable to social policy and program interventions, cogently identifying structural concerns is also imperative.