Table A2. Cross-lagged models: model treating perceived crime, perceived disorder, cohesion, and collective efficacy as endogenous.

	Model 2 from Table 3
Equation:	(1)		(2)		(3)		(4)
	Crime		Disorder		Cohesion		Collective efficacy (a)
Cohesion (t-1)	-0.234	**	-0.126		0.523	**	0.260	*
	(0.076)		(0.102)		(0.080)		(0.114)
Collective efficacy (t-1)	0.046		-0.086				0.074
	(0.056)		(0.075)				(0.086)
Crime (t-1)	0.149	*	-0.086		0.119		-0.399	**
	(0.072)		(0.075)		(0.083)		(0.100)
Concentrated disadvantage	-0.014		0.026		-0.034		-0.056
	(0.026)		(0.035)		(0.030)		(0.040)
Percent occupied units	-0.060		-0.204		0.206		0.350
	(0.219)		(0.298)		(0.255)		(0.336)
Residential stability	0.053		0.058		-0.057		0.399	†
	(0.152)		(0.206)		(0.177)		(0.232)
Percent African American	-0.087		-0.013		-0.097		-0.016
	(0.111)		(0.150)		(0.128)		(0.168)
Percent Latino	-0.266		-0.289		-0.308		0.699	†
	(0.275)		(0.369)		(0.326)		(0.412)
Racial/ethnic heterogeneity	0.075		0.273		0.123		-0.121
	(0.120)		(0.169)		(0.139)		(0.180)
Population density	0.000		0.016		0.000		0.038
	(0.020)		(0.028)		(0.024)		(0.030)
Unemployment rate	0.041		-0.054		-0.100		0.956	†
	(0.332)		(0.448)		(0.386)		(0.506)
Disorder (t-1)	0.205	**	0.547	**	-0.235	**	-0.105
	(0.068)		(0.094)		(0.080)		(0.091)
R-square	0.31		0.46		0.46		0.31

Notes: (a): this is collective efficacy regarding informal social control behavior of fellow residents

^**p < .01 (two-tail test),

^*p < .05 (two-tail test),

^†p < .05 (one-tail test). Standard errors in parentheses. N = 113 lock groups