summary presentation of report on cvcbd
TRANSCRIPT
Summary Presentation of Report on Charles Village Benefits District (CVCBD)
Daniel S. Pasciuti, PhD. Arrighi Center for
Global StudiesDepartment of
SociologyRafee Al-Mansur
Arrighi Center for Global Studies
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
CumulativePercent
Home or Business Owner
51 30.4 31.3
Renter 72 42.9 44.2Employee 40 23.8 24.5
Total 163 97.0 100.0
Unknown/Refused to Answer
5
3.0
Frequency Percent Valid PercentCumulative
Percent
Support 58 28.3 51.3 51.3Oppose 19 9.3 16.8 68.1No Opinion
36 17.6 31.9 100.0
Total 113 55.1 100.0
Missing 99 92 44.9
Total 205 100.0
Valid
Aware Unaware Aware Unaware
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%
CVCBD TaxTotal
CVCBD MapTotal
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 PercentValid
PercentCumulative Percent
Aware 63 30.9 36.6 36.6Unaware 109 53.4 63.4 100.0Total 172 84.3 100.0
Respondents Aware of the CVCBD
Frequency PercentValid
PercentCumulative Percent
Aware 91 44.6 50.6 50.6Unaware 89 43.6 49.4 100.0Total 180 88.2 100.0
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 Sanitation 187 3.67 4 4 1.148
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 1.341Littered Streets vs. Baltimore City 92 3.67 4 5 1.223
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. Baltimore City 85 3.84 4 4/5 1.174
Average of All Services vs. Baltimore City - 3.63 -
Unsafe Slightly Unsafe
Neither Unsafe Nor
Safe
Slightly Safe
Safe0
102030
Perception of Safety (North vs South)
North of 27th StSouth of 27th St
#of
Res
pWorse Slightly
WorseSame Slightly
BetterBetter
05
101520253035
Perception of Sanitation Issues vs. Baltimore City
Littered StreetsLittered AlleysBulk TrashRat InfestationFall LeavesTrash Cans
Num
ber
of R
espo
nden
ts
Unsafe Slightly Unsafe
Neither Unsafe Nor
Safe
Slightly Safe
Safe0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Own HomeRent within DistrictOverall CVCBD Residents
Perc
enta
ge o
f Re
spon
dent
s
Unsafe Slightly Unsafe
Neither Unsafe Nor
Safe
Slightly Safe
Safe0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Own Business or HomeRent or Work within DistrictOverall CVCBD
Perc
enta
ge o
f Re
spon
dent
s
Own Business or Home
Rent or Work within District Total
Overall_Safety
Unsafe 9 9 18Slightly Unsafe 12 19 31Neither Unsafe Nor Safe
6 11 17
Slightly Safe 14 30 44Safe 10 40 50
Total 51 109 160
Differences in Perception• Home owners vs others
Home owners more likely to report feeling unsafe or slightly unsafe than any
other type of respondent
Home Owners vs Renters
All Home or Work Surveys
1 2 3 4 50
10
20
30
40
50
60
Allocation of Money to Services
PatrolCameraSanitationRatTrashcan
Ranking from 1st to 5th
Num
ber
of R
espo
nden
ts
1 2 3 4 50
102030405060708090
Ranking of CVCBD Services
SanitationSafetyPromoting/MarketingPublic AmenitiesRecreational Programs
Ranking from 1st to 5th
Num
ber
of R
espo
nden
ts
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)
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
(see Report pgs 15-16)
Number of Crimes Number of CrimesNeighborhood 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 Number of CrimesNeighborhood 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%
Number of Crimes by Neighborhood within CVCBD
Number of Crimes by Location within CVCBD
Housing Conditions:• Barclay Housing Comparison
• Statistically significant differences in vacancy rates in Barclay
• Comparison with other areas• Historical Housing Comparison
(see Report pgs 10-14)
Neighborhood Total Occupied Owner-Occupied Renter VacantCVCBD Barclay 192 151 34 117 41
304 195 36 159 10957 35 4 31 22
553 381 74 307 17268.90% 19.42% 80.58% 31.10%
Non-CVCBD Barclay 343 271 42 229 72219 132 40 92 87375 171 67 104 204
937 574 149 425 36361.26% 25.96% 74.04% 38.74%
TOTAL NONCVCBD BARCLAY
TOTAL CVCBD BARCLAY
Housing Conditions with Barclay
Historical Housing Conditions Comparison
2010
Census Survey I
White 665445.58
% 8842.93
%
Black or African American 517535.45
% 8440.98
%American Indian or Alaskan Native 44 0.30% 4 1.95%
Asian 200213.72
% 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%
Total1459
7 205 Quadrant
Frequency
Percent
CumulativePercent
First 28 19.4 22.2Second 30 20.8 23.8Third 33 22.9 26.2
Fourth 35 24.3 27.8Total 126 87.5 100.0
Unknown/Outside of District
18
12.5
Owner Status QUAD Total
1 2 3 4
Own Home or Business
13 4 8 20 45
Rent or Work 15 25 25 13 78Total 28 29 33 33 123
Owner Status North of 27th St
South of 27th St
Total
Own Home or Business Rent or Work
2845
2046
4891
Total 73 66 139
Methodology (Appendix)
Unsafe Slightly Unsafe Neither Unsafe Nor Safe
Slightly Safe Safe0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
Quad 1Quad 2Quad 3Quad 4
Num
ber
of R
espo
nden
ts
Unsafe
Slightl
y Unsa
fe
Neithe
r Unsa
fe Nor
Safe
Slightl
y Safe Saf
e0
5
10
15
20
25
30
North of 27th StSouth of 27th St
Num
ber
of R
espo
nden
ts
Respondent Location QUAD
Total Quad 1 Quad 2 Quad 3 Quad 4Unsafe 4 2 3 5 14Slightly Unsafe 5 8 5 6 24Neither Unsafe Nor Safe 1 5 2 5 13Slightly Safe 13 5 10 8 36Safe 6 9 14 12 41
Total 29 29 34 36 128
Respondent LocationNorth of 27th
StSouth of 27th
St TotalUnsafe 6 8 14Slightly Unsafe 14 13 27Neither Unsafe Nor Safe 7 9 16Slightly Safe 22 19 41Safe 18 28 46
Total 67 77 144
Neighborhood Total OccupiedOwner-
Occupied Renter VacantBetter Waverly 1383 1149 434 715 234 83.08% 37.77% 62.23% 16.92%Coldstream - Homestead 3140 2428 1257 1171 712 77.32% 51.77% 48.23% 22.68%East Baltimore Midway 1556 1019 511 508 537 65.49% 50.15% 49.85% 34.51%Greenmount West 854 570 135 435 284 66.74% 23.68% 76.32% 33.26%Hamden 3858 3432 1913 1519 426 88.96% 55.74% 44.26% 11.04%Oakenshawe 575 505 262 243 70 87.83% 51.88% 48.12% 12.17%Remington 1250 1072 521 551 178 85.76% 48.60% 51.40% 14.24%Waverly 1269 1079 638 441 190 85.03% 59.13% 40.87% 14.97%Wyman Park 679 610 412 198 69 89.84% 67.54% 32.46% 10.16%
Neighborhood Total OccupiedOwner-
Occupied Renter VacantCharles Village CVCBD 3410 2956 526 2430 454 86.69% 17.79% 82.21% 13.31%Abell Total 515 440 248 192 75 85.44% 56.36% 43.64% 14.56%Harwood Total 749 570 303 267 179 76.10% 53.16% 46.84% 23.90%Barclay CVCBD 553 381 74 307 172 68.90% 19.42% 80.58% 31.10%Old Goucher Total 405 344 17 327 61 84.94% 4.94% 95.06% 15.06%Charles North CVCBD 236 146 14 132 90 61.86% 9.59% 90.41% 38.14%Additional Elements 25 13 4 9 11 CVCBD TOTAL 5893 4850 1186 3664 1042 82.30% 24.45% 75.55% 17.68%
Housing Conditions within CVCBDHousing Conditions Select Neighborhoods
Rental Housing in Baltimore
QUADTotal
HousingOccupi
edOwner-
OccupiedMortgage/
OwnerClear/Owner
Renter Vacant
TOTAL QUAD 1 1145 850 274 213 61 576 295
74.24% 32.24%67.76
%25.76
% TOTAL QUAD 2 1092 849 95 71 24 754 243
77.75% 11.19%88.81
%22.25
% TOTAL QUAD 3 2040 1790 251 175 76 1539 250
87.75% 14.02%85.98
%12.25
% TOTAL QUAD 4 1616 1361 566 441 125 795 255
84.22% 41.59%58.41
%15.78
%
TOTAL ALL 5893 4850 1186 900 286 3664 1043
82.30% 24.45% 75.55
%17.70
%
Housing Conditions by CVCBD Quadrant