Executive Summary
(August, 2001)

Neighborhood Revitalization & Disorder:
An Intervention Evaluation

Barbara B. Brown, PI

FCS Dept, University of Utah
225 S 1400 E, Room 228, AEB
barbara.brown@fcs.utah.edu
801-581-7111 ph
801-581-5156 fax

Douglas D. Perkins, Co-PI

HOD Dept., Vanderbilt University
Nashville, TN 37203 
Douglas.D.Perkins@Vanderbilt.Edu
615-322-3386 ph
615-322-1139 fax

Issues and Findings

Discussed in this Brief: A research project examined whether physical incivilities (or disorder) and improvements in a declining first ring suburban Salt Lake City neighborhood were associated with crimes and spillover housing improvement or decline, and whether these relationships vary across street blocks.  In particular, the study examines the consequences to surrounding neighbors of building a new 84-unit single family detached subdivision. The study expands the “broken windows” thesis of crime and disorder by testing the effects of neighborhood improvement and social strengths on crime, fear, incumbent upgrading, and place attachment.

Key issues: The study is a unique examination of a declining neighborhood, before and after the completion of a new subdivision. The research tests whether the subdivision serves as a “civility,,” a new zone of stronger territorial control, and catalyst for lower fear, fewer crimes, improved housing conditions, and stronger place attachments in the surrounding community. Past research focuses on incivilities on public properties and/or very urban areas. Suburban areas near urban centers are facing a major crisis of decline, so it is important to examine incivilities on private properties in suburban areas. Finally, past research emphasizes perceived incivilities, but this study includes both perceived and observed incivilities. 
  
Key findings: Observed incivilities were related to subsequent police reported crime, both before and after the new housing was constructed.  Controlling for necessary demographic variables, unexpected increases in litter and deterioration of lawn conditions predicted subsequent unexpected increases in crime up to 4 to 5 years later. Suburban incivilities are not as criminal as urban incivilities, but they are still important predictors of later crime. Observed incivilities were more important predictors than perceived incivilities (although perceived incivilities do predict fear). Thus incivilities effects are in the environment, not just in residents’ perceptions.

	The new subdivision was a mixed benefit to the community. New residents were attracted by housing affordability, yet they experienced generally high levels of neighborhood confidence and place attachment. They were more likely than newcomers to the surrounding neighborhood to be married homeowners, who might prove stable residents for the declining neighborhoods. Surrounding residents believed the new housing would increase housing costs, property taxes, and traffic.  Residents with perceived proximity to the new housing were less fearful, had better observed home conditions, and reported more home repairs. Problems with incivilities and crime near the blighted site before the new construction waned after construction.

	Place attachment was an important correlate of lower crime (Time 1), lower fear (Time 2), better observed housing conditions (Time 2) and greater housing satisfaction (Time 2). It deserves additional consideration as a neighborhood resource that might be cultivated to protect from disorder and promote a higher quality residential experience.    

Target Audience: Local law enforcement officials and policy makers, especially in older suburban areas; national, state, local, and non-profit housing and urban planning policy makers and practitioners; criminology researchers.

Neighborhood Revitalization & Disorder:
An Intervention Evaluation

	According to the incivilities or “broken windows” theory of crime, physical incivilities in neighborhoods, or symbols of disorder such as graffiti, litter, and broken windows, may pave the way for future crime.  Incivilities are expected to alter residents’ behaviors and attitudes, causing them to withdraw from neighborhood social life and control.  As residents withdraw, good physical structures and appearances may decline further.  Prospective criminals may read such evidence of incivility and decline as signals indicating resident tolerance of unruly or illegal activities.  Consequently, minor problems become major problems of decline and crime over time.

	Past research on incivilities has overlooked the possibility that there can be a “civilities” effect as well. That is, neighborhoods may be improved in ways that may affect residents’ attitudes and fears, risk of crime, and physical conditions of homes. The 1996 Homeownership Zone program from HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development) is explicitly based on the assumption that new infusions of money and buildings into neighborhoods may help revitalize them. Resulting new subdivisions are typically built in areas that had vacant buildings or environmentally degraded “brownfield” areas. Consequently, new subdivisions may replace a vacuum of control in the neighborhood, where incivilities flourish. New subdivisions may possibly generate spillover benefits to the surrounding neighborhood. The new housing may remove incivilities and trouble makers, new residents who move in may be eager to improve the neighborhood, and older surrounding residents may see the new subdivision as such a benefit to their neighborhood that they are inspired to maintain or improve their own properties. 

	However there have been few evaluations of the effects of new subdivisions on crime-related outcomes such as crime, fear, and housing improvement or decline. Those that have been conducted suggest that positive spillover effects occur infrequently, or are limited to improvements very spatially close to the housing intervention. Research also neglects to ask surrounding residents what they believe the new subdivision will do for their neighborhood. Given that the incivilities thesis asserts that residents react negatively to visible signs of decline, it is logical to posit that residents will react positively to signs of improvement. Such reactions have long been documented in studies of how individuals perceive territories that have been personalized by their residents. 

	It is also important to ascertain who moves into new subdivisions, in order to determine whether they will become positive social forces in the neighborhood.  It is possible that the new residents move in only because the housing is affordable; if residents do not become attached to or confident about the neighborhood, their effects as the social instruments of neighborhood revitalization may be limited. 

	An important conceptual and policy related issue concerns the role of incivilities in fairly suburban settings. The incivilities thesis was developed from observations of incivilities on public properties and/or very urban areas. For example, the original incivilities thesis speculated about the effects of an alcoholic slumped in the gutter outside of a liquor store or a prostitute patrolling a commercial strip. Incivilities are likely to be less criminal in suburban areas. Furthermore, suburban sites may be more likely to support positive social dynamics to counter or prevent incivilities. Positive processes associated with suburban communities include territoriality and place attachments to the home and neighborhood and feelings of social cohesion and control over the residential area.

	Despite such strengths, suburban neighborhoods are facing unprecedented threats in the next decades, threats which merit investigation of the incivilities thesis in suburban areas. Suburban decline has been predicted to become a major and influential crisis in metropolitan areas for the next 50 years. The large stock of post World War II housing, built to size and style standards no longer attractive to much of today’s home buying market, will reach a point where major investments and revitalization will be needed to prevent the kinds of decline problems historically associated with more urbanized parts of our cities. If incivilities are less remarkable in declining suburban areas, are they still predictive of crime related problems?  For example, does living in a dwelling with a bad lawn or a property with visible litter predict  subsequent crime? If so, then incivilities are indeed important symbols and environmental conditions related to crime.  

	Past research suggests that the strongest and most stable research finding is that perceived incivilities relate to perceived crime related outcomes, such as fear.   Often residents’ perceptions of incivilities have been cited as grounds for public policies that reduce the incidence of visible environmental incivilities.  However, residents’ perceptions of incivilities may not match reality. It is important for researchers to assess both resident perceptions of incivilities and objective signs of incivilities present in the neighborhood in order to understand whether the problems created by disorder are in the realm of residents’ reactions or physical conditions. If incivilities are perceived by some residents as a problem, policies may be targeted to those individuals. If observed incivilities are related to crime, whether the residents notice them or not, then incivilities removal campaigns are more justified.  

Study site and procedures

	The present study examines a declining first ring suburb of Salt Lake City that was targeted for a new subdivision as a revitalization intervention. City officials secured a HUD demonstration grant to build an 84-unit single family detached housing subdivision on a former brownfield site. The new subdivision replaced an abandoned school, its crumbling parking lot, a defunct florist/nursery, and a garbage strewn field. The HUD grant provided environmental clean-up (from pesticide contamination by the former floral property), floodplain mitigation, and infrastructure (new roads, sewers, etc.) in order to attract a private developer. The resulting homes look identical to middle class subdivisions provided by the same builder in other neighborhoods. 

	The study began in 1993 (Time 1) with an observation of physical incivilities on 488 residential lots on 59 blocks surrounding the planned housing site, followed by interviews with 357 residents during 1994-95 and interviews with new residents in the newly built housing in 1997. NIJ funded a reassessment of these blocks, including 618 resident interviews and 901 systematic observations of physical conditions, in 1998-1999 (Time 2). During the year 2000,  police crime report and city building permit data were collected as outcome variables to predict from resident interviews and physical observations. In addition, cross sectional analyses were completed for the 56 interviewed residents in the new subdivision. Analyses of both fear of crime and place attachment levels of residents surrounding the new subdivision were conducted at Time 2.  
	
	The analyses utilize Hierarchical Linear Models (HLM) in order to analyze appropriately the between block variability. Analyses tested whether proximity to the new subdivision, along with perceived and observed incivilities, residents’ social cohesion, and place attachments predict police reports of crime and resident reports of fear. In addition, proximity to the new subdivision and social and physical qualities of the neighborhood predict residents’ reported housing repairs and housing satisfaction, official building permits, and observed housing conditions. Highlights of the research are summarized below. 

Sample characteristics 

	At Time 1, before the new subdivision was completed, long-term residents in the surrounding neighborhood have significantly fewer crimes reported, better housing conditions, and more home satisfaction than do short-term residents (see Table 1).  Thus, recent in-movers to the neighborhood were unlikely to be able to revitalize the neighborhood themselves, without targeted revitalization resources.  Observed conditions improved significantly over time while the proportion of home owners and ethnic and religious minorities increased.  The number and overall value of building permits at sampled addresses was smaller at Time 2, but did not change significantly for the neighborhood as a whole.

 Attitudes toward the new subdivision 

	Although there were newspaper articles advising of the new housing subdivision and it was a frequent topic at the Community Council meetings, only 48% of surveyed residents knew of the planned new development. When they were asked how the new housing  would affect the neighborhood, more residents thought there would be more costs than benefits. In particular, more than 70% believed property taxes, traffic, and housing costs would go up. Fewer believed there would be offsetting benefits in terms of lower crime, greater economic opportunity, or improved housing conditions or neighborhood reputation.  

                                                                                    Mean expectation

New subdivision residents

	The residents who moved to the new 84-unit subdivision (New West residents in column 1, Table 1) were more likely to be homeowners, wealthier, more Asian, less Hispanic, and more married than the newcomers to the surrounding Old West neighborhood in the same time frame (Column 2, Table 1). Despite greater wealth, 55% of the new subdivision residents secured housing assistance to purchase homes, due to rising housing prices.  Also, most said housing affordability was a reason or the major reason to move to the subdivision. Therefore, new subdivision residents were attracted for mostly practical reasons–they were not predisposed to come to the neighborhood due to strong attractions to the older surrounding neighborhood.  

	Nevertheless, residents generally reported higher levels of confidence in the neighborhood and place attachment (a measure combining attachment to home, block, and neighborhood) than residents in the surrounding neighborhood, controlling for religion, marital status, and ethnicity/race. Therefore, the new residents did bring resources that may lead to more stability in the area and more income mixing.  

Associations with crime, Time 1

	During the baseline, when the new housing had not been built or was under construction, 349 residents on 58 blocks had both interview and police crime report data available after their interviews until 9 months after the interviews were completed. Homeowners and residents of properties with fewer observed physical incivilities were less likely to experience later police reports of crime (although the Time 1 analysis does not control for pre-existing levels of crime). In addition, residents living on blocks with fewer homeowners, lower levels of place attachment to the home, and more observed incivilities experienced more subsequent crime.  

Crime and Incivilities: Before & after new housing, Near & far from new housing

	After the new subdivision was constructed, the combined baseline and post-construction data set again showed that observed incivilities, homeowners, age (older blocks but younger individuals), and low levels of home attachment on the block were associated with subsequent crime. Importantly, there was a Time by Distance interaction effect, demonstrating that both police reported crime and observed incivilities were highest at Time 1 closest to the abandoned building site and lowest furthest away from the site (Figures 1 & 2). By Time 2, distance from the newly built housing was less important–nearby areas experienced less and more distant areas experienced more crime and incivilities. An analysis that was conducted only on Time 2 data revealed less powerful predictions of subsequent crime (attachment and incivilities were insignificant for post-interview crime rates). 

Predicting changes in crime, Time 1 to Time 2

	Assessments of the eight-item incivilities composite, and two particular incivilities--litter and poor lawn conditions (i.e., brown, weedy, or unmown)-- predict crime in varied patterns over time. Block level regression analyses show that 1993 incivilities predict (p = .056) unexpected increases in crime during 1999 to 2000. This analysis controls for home ownership and unexpected changes in home ownership; Time 1 crime; and unexpected changes in incivilities. These results were significant enough to examine HLM models that assessed crime rates in the months after the housing assessments were completed. 

	Model A of Table 2 shows that, at Time 2,  police reported crimes are related to observed incivilities at the block level, with a trend toward a significant association at the individual level (p = .080). In addition, model B shows that Time 2 incivilities are more prevalent on blocks that are experiencing unexpected increases in crime. Model C shows that blocks with more incivilities in 1993 predict a trend (p = 078) toward greater unexpected crime changes in 1999-2000, changes that are independent of the initial level of crime at Time 1. All Model C tests were rerun with Time 1 crime as a control as well, and no significance level changes were observed.

	Similar patterns of effects occur for the individual incivility of a poor lawn. Here, the cross sectional relationships between poor lawns and more crime are also significant at the block level. Model B shows that poor lawns at Time 2 are indicative of increasing crime levels at Time 2, significantly for the block and with a trend (p = .083) at the individual level. Longitudinally, blocks with poor lawns in 1993 predict unexpected increases in crime in 1999-2000.

	Relationships between litter and crime were the most significant. Cross sectionally, blocks and individual properties with more litter at Time 2 had more crime at Time 2. Model B shows that blocks with more litter at Time 2 also showed a tendency (p = .068) to increasing levels of crime; individual properties with more litter at Time 2 were properties with unexpected increases in crime.  Blocks with more litter in 1993 predicted unexpected increases in crime in 1999-2000. In addition, individual properties that saw unexpected increases in litter also showed unexpected increases in crime.  

	In sum, these results show that incivilities are not simply associated cross sectionally with crime. Block with poor lawns or litter in 1993 experienced unexpected increases in crime in 1999-2000. That is, even when controlling for crime at Time 1, litter and poor lawns predicted unexpected increases in crime years later. In addition, unexpected increases in litter in front of a property from 1993 to 1998 means additional risk of unexpected increases in crime reports for that particular household.   	

Associations with fear of crime 

	A multilevel analysis of fear of crime assessed fear by asking residents if they felt fear if out alone at night on their block, fear if stopped by a stranger for directions in the neighborhood, worry over household victimization, and if they avoided specific neighborhood places due to danger (4 items, coefficient alpha = .77). Consistent with past research, residents who are female, with children (p = .071), who report past crime victimization, who perceive more incivilities, or who have high levels of these qualities on their blocks are more fearful. However, blocks with fewer assessed incivilities had residents who felt more fearful and blocks with lower social efficacy tend to experience more fear (p = .058). The research also integrates place attachment with the incivilities and fear of crime research. On blocks or properties with low place attachment residents express more fear.

Associations with incumbent upgrading of homes surrounding the new subdivision 

	 Incumbent upgrading was measured several ways. Trained observers rated target houses for roof condition, litter, peeling paint, lawn conditions, and home improvements, among other features. Analyses of observed conditions tested whether block conditions at Time 2 could be predicted from block conditions at Time 1 and unexpected changes in block conditions at Time 2. Residents’ self-reports indicated how many of a list of home improvements they made in the past year. Housing satisfaction included residents’ judgments of their home condition and their satisfaction with their home. Neither official city building permits, nor the recorded monetary value of those permits, had substantial between-block variation or predictability. 

	In order to emphasize important results that are consistent across the three remaining indicators of incumbent upgrading (self-reports, observed conditions, and subjective housing satisfaction), associations that were significant in at least two of three analyses are presented. In terms of demographic variables, it is not surprising that higher income and home ownership relate to higher levels of incumbent upgrading. More years of residence related to better observed conditions and satisfaction, but when income and home ownership are statistically controlled, newcomers report making more housing repairs.  

	Residents’ perceptions of quality of life problems are also important. This six item composite included perceived incivilities (vacant homes, neighbors who let their property run down, graffiti, stray dogs) and common suburban neighborhood complaints (against traffic and loud neighbors). When blocks have unexpected decreases in these problems from Time 1 to Time 2, residents have higher housing satisfaction and better observed home conditions. Incumbent upgrading is also associated with high levels of place attachment at Time 2 (for observed home conditions or housing satisfaction outcomes) and unexpected increases in attachment from Time 1 to Time 2 (for reported repairs and housing satisfaction outcomes). Once again, these results show that it is important to include both weaknesses and strengths of neighborhoods in examining resistance to neighborhood decline.    	
	
	The effects of the new subdivision are apparent in an indirect way. Actual physical distance to the new subdivision did not predict incumbent upgrading, but psychological/functional proximity to it was associated with slightly more upgrading. Psychological/functional proximity is a composite measure reflecting that residents knew of the new subdivision, frequently drove by it, knew some residents there, and considered it to be a part of their neighborhood. Those who felt connected to the new subdivision in these ways had better observed housing conditions and reported more repairs.  

Associations with place attachment  

	Recall that in suburban areas especially, place attachment may be a resident and neighborhood strength that may counteract or reduce the consequences of neighborhood weaknesses, such as incivilities or fear. Consistent with past research, home owners, individuals on blocks with more homeowners, and long term residents expressed more attachment to the home, the block and the neighborhood.

	White non-Hispanic individuals and blocks with more non-Hispanic white  individuals have residents who expressed less place attachment.  Residents who were fearful or who lived on blocks with high fear expressed lower place attachment.  Residents who reported a greater sense of collective efficacy (a combination of social cohesion and social control) or who lived on blocks high in collective efficacy expressed greater place attachment. Residents who lived on blocks with fewer physical incivilities also expressed greater place attachment. Given the association between place attachment and crime (at Time 1) as well as fear (at Time 2), place attachment is worthy of investigation by researchers interested in neighborhood strengths that are associated with reduced crime related outcomes.
   
Policy implications

	Objectively observed physical incivilities are good predictors of later police reported crime. These effects occurred at both the individual and the block levels, and at both Time 1 and Time 2. In fact, these predictors of crime were more significant than residents’ reports of incivilities and when important individual difference predictors (such as home ownership) were controlled.  Consequently, the present research confirms an important link between actually observed incivilities and crime related outcomes. Incivilities are not just in the heads of residents, they are in the environment and associated with future crime reports.  

	The finding of block-level effects, independent of individual-level effects (a strength of the chosen statistical technique) confirms the importance of the street block as a unit of analysis for research, as a source of influence on residents, and as a focus of organizing for city and community leaders.  Even if an individual’s property is well-maintained, that individual experiences more risk of a future police report if his or her neighbors’ properties show incivilities.  Because additional risks of crime accrued to individuals in many cases because of their block context, block level improvement efforts are especially important. Block incivilities, like second-hand smoke, creates risks for individuals nearby. 

	Furthermore, the types of environmental predictors of crime go beyond those of incivilities identified in earlier studies of more urban settings. That is, it is not simply minor crimes such as graffiti that put residents at risk, it can also be the more minor suburban annoyances of a poorly maintained lawn, or bits of litter in the yard. Therefore, collaborative teams of residents, non-profits, and others involved in neighborhood improvement may want to consider programs that enhance pride of place as a positive goal that may have the benefits of crime reduction.

	Providing a nice lawn and keeping litter away from one’s home may be actions of a territorial nature that are consistent with higher levels of place attachment and lower levels of crime and incivilities. Yard care and clean up are actions that residents often take spontaneously. However, policy makers may want to provide residents with options that could be a natural extension of such individualistic activities, which may maximize the possibility of positive spillover effects from the presence of concerned residents who actively maintain their properties. Other researchers have found that collective efforts of “place managers,” those individuals who assume control over places and their informal policing, are related to decreases in physical incivilities and increases in civil behavior. Furthermore, policies aimed at property improvements (e.g., code enforcement, evictions) have been found linked to safer and better maintained residential areas. Such policies may be especially attractive ways to get residents with good individual property conditions more involved with block level improvements. These residents may then become stronger neighborhood assets if they are provided the proper place improvement tools and policies.
	
	In general, various measures of place attachment emerged as a significant predictors of both crime (at Time 1) and fear (at Time 2). Place attachment also predicted better observed housing conditions and higher reported resident satisfaction with the residence.. Higher place attachments were also predicted by higher collective efficacy, lower fear of crime, and fewer housing incivilities. Thus, place attachments merit more research attention as an important part of the incivilities framework in particular and of healthy communities more generally.  Given that the protective benefits of place attachment occur at both individual and block levels, fear reduction interventions may profit from programs designed to allow place attachments to flourish.

	Before the new housing subdivision was completed, the highest levels of crime and observed incivilities occurred in the blocks surrounding the abandoned and litter-strewn redevelopment site. The lowest levels of crime and incivilities occurred further away. After the new housing was in place, the levels of crime and incivility immediately surrounding the site went down, but levels increased further away. It is impossible to know what created the change in the geographic patterning of crime. The increase in the more distant zone may have resulted from an independent change in conditions in that area, such as fewer homeowners and more incivilities, or the increase in crime may have reflected the displacement of crime from the new housing over 5000 feet away.   

	These data provide qualified support for the central purpose of the HUD and city-sponsored intervention. The provision of subsidized infrastructure helped attract a private developer to build new housing; an ethnically diverse group of residents moved in. New housing residents expressed confidence in and attachment to the new subdivision. Furthermore, residents living closest to the new housing experienced fewer incivilities and crimes.  Given that current policies most akin to this one–the Homeownership Zones– encourage the development of at least 300 units (compared to the 84 units in the present study), such larger scale housing interventions may have even more powerful effects on the surrounding neighborhood.

Table 1: Sampled resident characteristics, attitudes, crime rate, and home improvements	
								
	1997	T1:1994-95 Old West	ST-LTa	T1	T2:1998-99	T1-T2b	
Variable	New West 	Short-term	Long-term	T-value	Total	Old West	T-value	
								
Female (%)	8.00	57	64	1.27    	62	66	2.15*   	
Homeowner (%)	98	50	79	5.67***	71	75	2.09*   	
Age (in years)	34	36	51	7.55***	47	44	-4.30*** 	
Income (in 1994 dollars)				1.77    			.05  	
 less than 12,000
	5.4	12.6	07.8		09.1	25.4		
  12,000 - 17,500
	0.0	37.9	35.2		36.0	13.5		
  17,501 - 25,000
	3.6	13.8	16.1		15.5	22.8		
    25,001-36,500
	30.4	24.1	18.3		19.9	17.0		
  36,501- or more
	60.7	11.5	22.6		19.6	21.3		
Marital status (%)								
     Married	76.8	41.2	59.7	3.09**  	54.4	53.0	-0.72     	
     Widowed	--	01.0	11.9		08.8	10.3		
Separated or divorced	14.3	33.0	13.8		19.0	18.0		
    Never married
	7.1	20.6	12.3		14.8	18.8		
Race (%)								
     White	60.0	60.0	73.6	2.27*   	69.3	61.4	-3.39*** 	
     Asian	23.6	01.1	02.3		02.3	01.8		
     Hispanic	12.7	33.7	23.1		23.1	27.9		
     Other	03.6	05.3	05.8		02.8	08.9		
Religion								
     LDS	57.1	28.0	53.4	4.27***	46.2	35.6	-5.51***	
     Catholic	14.3	32.3	22.4		23.6	30.2		
     Protestant	2.0	8.6	4.8		6.3	14.0		
     Other	26.5	31.2	19.6		23.9	20.2		
Home attachment	8.00	6.93	7.91	3.89***	7.64	8.00	 -2.52*    	
Neighborhood attachment	7.10	6.15	7.03	3.91***	6.78	7.06	-2.02*   	
Police reports per month	--	0.08	0.04	-4.26***	0.05	0.05	.37 	
Fear of crime	2.56	2.47	2.59	 1.36     	2.56	2.39	-5.62***	
Building permits per year	--	.040	.023	-1.50     	0.03	0.02	-3.81***	
Building permit value/year	--	132.4	146.2	0.09    	262.2	153.1	-2.33*   	
Reported upgrading	--	0.39	0.36	-0.77    	0.37	0.39	1.81  	
Inventoried conditions 	--	0.50	0.57	4.22***	0.55	0.57	 4.39***	
Home satisfaction	--	7.01	7.70	3.26***	7.51	7.58	0.98   	
	
a t-test of short- vs. long-term residents, Time 1. b  Time 1 vs. Time 2 single sample t-tests.
*p<.05. **p<.01. ***p<.001.	

Table 2: Predicting Police Reports with Time 1, Time 2 and Unexpected Change  ()) in Selected Incivilities from Time 1 to Time 2: HLM Results	
				Final Police Reports	
Predictors	Crime outcome	Model	Variables	Coefficient	p = 	
Incivilities 
(8 items)	Time 2	1a
	L1 (House), Time 2
L2 (Block), Time 2	 .003098
 .010789	.080
.001	
	Time 2
change	1b
	L1 (House), Time 2
L2 (Block), Time 2 	 .036093
 .369162	.453
.023	
	Time 2
change	1c
	L1 incivilities, Time 1
L1 incivilties ), Time 1-2
L2 incivilities, Time 1
L2 incivilities ), Time 1-2	 .019896
 .011194
 .215450
 .041298	.796
.686
.078
.589	
Bad lawn condition	Time 2	3a
	L1 (House), Time 2
L2 (Block), Time 2	 .002910
 .018094	.116
.001	
	Time 2 change	3b
	L1 (House), Time 2
L2 (Block), Time 2	 .100742
 .768016	.083
.001	
	Time 2 change	3c
	L1 lawn, Time 1
L1 lawn ), Time 1-2
L2 lawn, Time 1
L2 lawn ), Time 1-2	 .052752
 .041866
 .590328
 .118897	.438
.152
.025
.211	
Litter	Time 2	2a
	L1 (House), Time 2
L2 (Block), Time 2	 .003642
 .006250	.000
.000	
	Time 2 change	2b
	L1 (House), Time 2
L2 (Block), Time 2	 .072634
 .169258	.001
.068	
	Time 2 change	2c
	L1 litter, Time 1
L1 litter ), Time 1-2
L2 litter, Time 1
L2 litter ), Time 1-2	-.013342
 .094210
 .072277
 .114818	.413
.001
.016
.112	
Note. All models control for Time 2 individual homeownership, age, interview mode, and the time interval between Time 1 and Time 2 assessments of incivilities. Models named “A” and “B” also control for Time 2, block level homeownership and age; “C” models also control for Time1 block level homeownership and age and the change in ownership from Time 1 to Time 2. Final reports are collected after house conditions were rated.