TABLE A4.
Bridging community dynamics
| Community constructs | Indicators | Data source |
|---|---|---|
| Civic engagement (Rosenfeld, Messner, & Baumer, 2001) | Electoral participation: Fraction of the eligible population who voted; | Election Data Book & Elks Membership data |
| Elk Lodge membership: Number of members per 100,000 resident populationa | ||
| Collective efficacy (Wu, 2009) | Average standardized score of the following: percentage of foreign-born residents, percentage of linguistic isolation, and percentage of renters in an area. Higher scores equal weaker collective efficacy | US Census |
| Communitarian social capital (Gomez & Muntaner, 2005) | Bonding relationship with community; bridging relationship between community and government; bridging relationship between community and private developer | Medical archives, historical accounts, past and present newspaper accounts |
| Gang concentration (Katz & Schnebly, 2011) | Count of gang members within each neighborhood | Police gang data |
| Homicide clearance rate (Borg & Parker, 2001) | Average rate over a 3-year period of the number of homicides cleared by an arrest/total number of homicides known to police | FBI Uniform Crime Reports |
| Inequality in police strength (Thacher, 2011) | Ratio of the average police strengthb for agencies serving the 20% of the population in the wealthiest jurisdictions to the average strength for agencies serving the 20% of the population in the poorest jurisdictions | Uniform Crime Reports |
| Informal social control (Martinez et al., 2010) | The neighborhood relative presence of adults per child defined as the ratio of adults (persons aged 18 years and older) to children (persons aged 17 years and younger) | US Census |
| Institutional social capital (Gomez & Muntaner, 2005) | Government support of community housing needs, bridging network between government and private developer; private developer support of community housing needs; ratio of community organizations to population size; relationship between community organizations and institutional entities [accountability vs acceptance]; trust between residents and community organizations; relationship between community organizations and the government [institutional and political support for community residents’ political and economic needs] | Medical archives, historical accounts, past and present newspaper accounts |
| Juvenile arrests (Sugimoto-Matsuda et al., 2012) | Proportion of felony, misdemeanor, petty misdemeanor, violation within the geographic area | Juvenile Justice Information System |
| Neighborhood social interaction/support (Stockdale et al., 2007) | Average household occupancy from U.S. Census was derived by dividing number of persons per square mile by number of occupied housing units per square mile | US Census |
| Police misconduct (Kane, 2005) | Documentation of officers who were dismissed or retired under questionable circumstances who used their employment status to engage in job-specific malpractice (profit-motivated corruption, violence, miscellaneous crimes, administrative misconduct and drug-related crimes) that involved citizens in the communities the officers served | Records analysis of City police data (personnel orders) |
| Police responsiveness to communities (Kane, 2005) | Mean number of violent crime arrests per officer at the precinct level by dividing the number of arrests for violent crimes per precinct by the number of officers assigned to each precinct; standardized by the average number of arrests for violent crime per officer in the low disadvantaged precincts; values lower than the standardized value were under-policed and higher values were over-policed | US Census; City police data |
| Police use of force (Terrill & Reisig, 2003) | Acts that threaten or inflict physical harm on suspects | Field observations |
| Force was ranked in the following manner: none, verbal (commands and threats), physical restraint (pat downs, firm grip, handcuffing), and impact methods (pain compliance techniques, takedown maneuvers, strikes with the body, and strikes with external mechanisms) | ||
| Religious Integration (Barkan et al., 2013) | Percentages of adherents of religious congregations | US Religion Census (Religious Congregations and Membership Study) |
| Social capital (Congdon, 2011) | Index of census response rate (U.S. Census), associational density per capita (CBP), tax-exempt non-profit organizations per capita (NCCS), turnout rates for an election (EAC) | US Census, County Business Patterns, National Center for Charitable Statistics, and US Election Assistance Commission |
| Social network, cohesiveness (Silenzio et al., 2009) | Diameter: Maximum number of individuals who must be passed through on a path connecting any two members of the network; | mySpaceCrawler,(version 6) was used to collect data; Network package (version 1.3) available for R was used to analyze data; Pajek (version 1.17) was used to visualize the data |
| Average connectivity (cohesiveness): Number of paths (social ties) between any two members (more different, redundant paths between two member the greater their connectedness); | ||
| Density (cohesiveness): Number of all social ties in the network/all possible ties if every member was connected to every other member; | ||
| Average nodal degree (popularity): Number of neighboring members of the network to whom a given individual is directly connected; | ||
| Nodal degree distribution: Range in number of direct connections of each member of the network (e.g., 100% connected to one person; 80% connected to three members) |
a
Multiple indicators that represent some form of an index are formatted with the prefix “index of”; constructs that are represented by multiple sub-constructs are underlined and indices are separated by semi-colons; otherwise, multiple indicators that are not part of an index are separated by commas.
b
Police strength indicator is found in Table A2.