The Part 1 crime rate captures incidents of homicide, rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny, and auto theft that are reported to the Police Department. These incidents are per 1,000 residents in the neighborhood to allow for comparison across areas. Source: Baltimore Police DepartmentYears Available: 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

This map shows a comparable measure of crime in the United States. The crime index compares the average local crime level to that of the United States as a whole. An index of 100 is average. A crime index of 120 indicates that crime in that area is 20 percent above the national average.The crime data is provided by Applied Geographic Solutions, Inc. (AGS). AGS created models using the FBI Uniform Crime Report databases as the primary data source and using an initial range of about 65 socio-economic characteristics taken from the 2000 Census and AGS’ current year estimates. The crimes included in the models include murder, rape, robbery, assault, burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft. The total crime index incorporates all crimes and provides a useful measure of the relative “overall” crime rate in an area. However, these are unweighted indexes, meaning that a murder is weighted no more heavily than a purse snatching in the computations. The geography depicts states, counties, Census tracts and Census block groups. An urban/rural "mask" layer helps you identify crime patterns in rural and urban settings. The Census tracts and block groups help identify neighborhood-level variation in the crime data.------------------------The Civic Analytics Network collaborates on shared projects that advance the use of data visualization and predictive analytics in solving important urban problems related to economic opportunity, poverty reduction, and addressing the root causes of social problems of equity and opportunity. For more information see About the Civil Analytics Network.

This study examines the question of how some urban neighborhoods maintain a low crime rate despite their proximity and similarity to relatively high crime areas. The purpose of the study is to investigate differences in various dimensions of the concept of territoriality (spatial identity, local ties, social cohesion, informal social control) and physical characteristics (land use, housing, street type, boundary characteristics) in three pairs of neighborhoods in Atlanta, Georgia. The study neighborhoods were selected by locating pairs of adjacent neighborhoods with distinctly different crime levels. The criteria for selection, other than the difference in crime rates and physical adjacency, were comparable racial composition and comparable economic status. This data collection is divided into two files. Part 1, Atlanta Plan File, contains information on every parcel of land within the six neighborhoods in the study. The variables include ownership, type of land use, physical characteristics, characteristics of structures, and assessed value of each parcel of land within the six neighborhoods. This file was used in the data analysis to measure a number of physical characteristics of parcels and blocks in the study neighborhoods, and as the sampling frame for the household survey. The original data were collected by the City of Atlanta Planning Bureau. Part 2, Atlanta Survey File, contains the results of a household survey administered to a stratified random sample of households within each of the study neighborhoods. Variables cover respondents' attitudes and behavior related to the neighborhood, fear of crime, avoidance and protective measures, and victimization experiences. Crime rates, land use, and housing characteristics of the block in which the respondent resided were coded onto each case record.

The property crime rate measures the number of Part 1 crimes identified as being property-based (burglary and auto theft) that are reported to the Police Department. These incidents are per 1,000 residents in the neighborhood to allow for comparison across areas. Source: Baltimore Police Department Years Availabile: 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

This study was conducted in 1979 at the Social Science Research Institute, University of Southern California, and explores the relationship between neighborhood change and crime rates between the years 1950 and 1976. The data were aggregated by unique and consistently-defined spatial areas, referred to as dummy tracts or neighborhoods, within Los Angeles County. By combining United States Census data and administrative data from several state, county, and local agencies, the researchers were able to develop measures that tapped the changing structural and compositional aspects of each neighborhood and their interaction with the patterns of juvenile delinquency. Some of the variables included are annual income, home environment, number of crimes against persons, and number of property crimes.

The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was created in the New Deal Era and trained many home appraisers in the 1930s. The HOLC created a neighborhood ranking system infamously known today as redlining. Local real estate developers and appraisers in over 200 cities assigned grades to residential neighborhoods. These maps and neighborhood ratings set the rules for decades of real estate practices. The grades ranged from A to D. A was traditionally colored in green, B was traditionally colored in blue, C was traditionally colored in yellow, and D was traditionally colored in red. A (Best): Always upper- or upper-middle-class White neighborhoods that HOLC defined as posing minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders, as they were "ethnically homogeneous" and had room to be further developed.B (Still Desirable): Generally nearly or completely White, U.S. -born neighborhoods that HOLC defined as "still desirable" and sound investments for mortgage lenders.C (Declining): Areas where the residents were often working-class and/or first or second generation immigrants from Europe. These areas often lacked utilities and were characterized by older building stock.D (Hazardous): Areas here often received this grade because they were "infiltrated" with "undesirable populations" such as Jewish, Asian, Mexican, and Black families. These areas were more likely to be close to industrial areas and to have older housing.Banks received federal backing to lend money for mortgages based on these grades. Many banks simply refused to lend to areas with the lowest grade, making it impossible for people in many areas to become homeowners. While this type of neighborhood classification is no longer legal thanks to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (which was passed in large part due to the activism and work of the NAACP and other groups), the effects of disinvestment due to redlining are still observable today. For example, the health and wealth of neighborhoods in Chicago today can be traced back to redlining (Chicago Tribune). In addition to formerly redlined neighborhoods having fewer resources such as quality schools, access to fresh foods, and health care facilities, new research from the Science Museum of Virginia finds a link between urban heat islands and redlining (Hoffman, et al., 2020). This layer comes out of that work, specifically from University of Richmond's Digital Scholarship Lab. More information on sources and digitization process can be found on the Data and Download and About pages. NOTE: This map has been updated as of 1/16/24 to use a newer version of the data layer which contains more cities than it previously did. As mentioned above, over 200 cities were redlined and therefore this is not a complete dataset of every city that experienced redlining by the HOLC in the 1930s. Map opens in Sacramento, CA. Use bookmarks or the search bar to get to other cities.Cities included in this mapAlabama: Birmingham, Mobile, MontgomeryArizona: PhoenixArkansas: Arkadelphia, Batesville, Camden, Conway, El Dorado, Fort Smith, Little Rock, Russellville, TexarkanaCalifornia: Fresno, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, StocktonColorado: Boulder, Colorado Springs, Denver, Fort Collins, Fort Morgan, Grand Junction, Greeley, Longmont, PuebloConnecticut: Bridgeport and Fairfield; Hartford; New Britain; New Haven; Stamford, Darien, and New Canaan; WaterburyFlorida: Crestview, Daytona Beach, DeFuniak Springs, DeLand, Jacksonville, Miami, New Smyrna, Orlando, Pensacola, St. Petersburg, TampaGeorgia: Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, Macon, SavannahIowa: Boone, Cedar Rapids, Council Bluffs, Davenport, Des Moines, Dubuque, Sioux City, WaterlooIllinois: Aurora, Chicago, Decatur, East St. Louis, Joliet, Peoria, Rockford, SpringfieldIndiana: Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Lake County Gary, Muncie, South Bend, Terre HauteKansas: Atchison, Greater Kansas City, Junction City, Topeka, WichitaKentucky: Covington, Lexington, LouisvilleLouisiana: New Orleans, ShreveportMaine: Augusta, Boothbay, Portland, Sanford, WatervilleMaryland: BaltimoreMassachusetts: Arlington, Belmont, Boston, Braintree, Brockton, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Dedham, Everett, Fall River, Fitchburg, Haverhill, Holyoke Chicopee, Lawrence, Lexington, Lowell, Lynn, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Milton, Needham, New Bedford, Newton, Pittsfield, Quincy, Revere, Salem, Saugus, Somerville, Springfield, Waltham, Watertown, Winchester, Winthrop, WorcesterMichigan: Battle Creek, Bay City, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Jackson, Kalamazoo, Lansing, Muskegon, Pontiac, Saginaw, ToledoMinnesota: Austin, Duluth, Mankato, Minneapolis, Rochester, Staples, St. Cloud, St. PaulMississippi: JacksonMissouri: Cape Girardeau, Carthage, Greater Kansas City, Joplin, Springfield, St. Joseph, St. LouisNorth Carolina: Asheville, Charlotte, Durham, Elizabeth City, Fayetteville, Goldsboro, Greensboro, Hendersonville, High Point, New Bern, Rocky Mount, Statesville, Winston-SalemNorth Dakota: Fargo, Grand Forks, Minot, WillistonNebraska: Lincoln, OmahaNew Hampshire: ManchesterNew Jersey: Atlantic City, Bergen County, Camden, Essex County, Monmouth, Passaic County, Perth Amboy, Trenton, Union CountyNew York: Albany, Binghamton/Johnson City, Bronx, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Elmira, Jamestown, Lower Westchester County, Manhattan, Niagara Falls, Poughkeepsie, Queens, Rochester, Schenectady, Staten Island, Syracuse, Troy, UticaOhio: Akron, Canton, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Hamilton, Lima, Lorain, Portsmouth, Springfield, Toledo, Warren, YoungstownOklahoma: Ada, Alva, Enid, Miami Ottawa County, Muskogee, Norman, Oklahoma City, South McAlester, TulsaOregon: PortlandPennsylvania: Allentown, Altoona, Bethlehem, Chester, Erie, Harrisburg, Johnstown, Lancaster, McKeesport, New Castle, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Wilkes-Barre, YorkRhode Island: Pawtucket & Central Falls, Providence, WoonsocketSouth Carolina: Aiken, Charleston, Columbia, Greater Anderson, Greater Greensville, Orangeburg, Rock Hill, Spartanburg, SumterSouth Dakota: Aberdeen, Huron, Milbank, Mitchell, Rapid City, Sioux Falls, Vermillion, WatertownTennessee: Chattanooga, Elizabethton, Erwin, Greenville, Johnson City, Knoxville, Memphis, NashvilleTexas: Amarillo, Austin, Beaumont, Dallas, El Paso, Forth Worth, Galveston, Houston, Port Arthur, San Antonio, Waco, Wichita FallsUtah: Ogden, Salt Lake CityVirginia: Bristol, Danville, Harrisonburg, Lynchburg, Newport News, Norfolk, Petersburg, Phoebus, Richmond, Roanoke, StauntonVermont: Bennington, Brattleboro, Burlington, Montpelier, Newport City, Poultney, Rutland, Springfield, St. Albans, St. Johnsbury, WindsorWashington: Seattle, Spokane, TacomaWisconsin: Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee County, Oshkosh, RacineWest Virginia: Charleston, Huntington, WheelingAn example of a map produced by the HOLC of Philadelphia:

These data were collected to examine the relationships among crime rates, residents' attitudes, physical deterioration, and neighborhood structure in selected urban Baltimore neighborhoods. The data collection provides both block- and individual-level neighborhood data for two time periods, 1981-1982 and 1994. The block-level files (Parts 1-6) include information about physical conditions, land use, people counts, and crime rates. Parts 1-3, the block assessment files, contain researchers' observations of street layout, traffic, housing type, and general upkeep of the neighborhoods. Part 1, Block Assessments, 1981 and 1994, contains the researchers' observations of sampled blocks in 1981, plus selected variables from Part 3 that correspond to items observed in 1981. Nonsampled blocks (in Part 2) are areas where block assessments were done, but no interviews were conducted. The "people counts" file (Part 4) is an actual count of people seen by the researchers on the sampled blocks in 1994. Variables for this file include the number, gender, and approximate age of the people seen and the types of activities they were engaged in during the assessment. Part 5, Land Use Inventory for Sampled Blocks, 1994, is composed of variables describing the types of buildings in the neighborhood and their physical condition. Part 6, Crime Rates and Census Data for All Baltimore Neighborhoods, 1970-1992, includes crime rates from the Baltimore Police Department for aggravated assault, burglary, homicide, larceny, auto theft, rape, and robbery for 1970-1992, and census information from the 1970, 1980, and 1990 United States Censuses on the composition of the housing units and the age, gender, race, education, employment, and income of residents. The individual-level files (Parts 7-9) contain data from interviews with neighborhood leaders, as well as telephone surveys of residents. Part 7, Interviews with Neighborhood Leaders, 1994, includes assessments of the level of involvement in the community by the organization to which the leader belongs and the types of activities sponsored by the organization. The 1982 and 1994 surveys of residents (Parts 8 and 9) asked respondents about different aspects of their neighborhoods, such as physical appearance, problems, and crime and safety issues, as well as the respondents' level of satisfaction with and involvement in their neighborhoods. Demographic information on respondents, such as household size, length of residence, marital status, income, gender, and race, is also provided in this file.

This compilation includes five historical datasets that are part of the University of Pittsburgh Library collection. The datasets were transcribed from The Pittsburgh Neighborhood Atlas, published in 1977. The atlas was prepared by the Pittsburgh Neighborhood Alliance. The information provides an insight into the neighborhoods conditions and the direction in which they were moving at the time of preparation. Much of the material describing neighborhood characteristics came from figures compiled for smaller areas: voting districts or census blocks. The five datasets in this collection provide data about overall neighborhood satisfaction and satisfaction with public services, based on a city-wide citizen survey. Also included are statistics about public assistance, the crime rate and the changes in real estate and mortgage loans transactions.

This dataset tracks annual distribution of students across grade levels in Neighborhood School

1930's Neighborhood Redlining Grade (ESRI Living Atlas, 2022). The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was created in the New Deal Era and trained many home appraisers in the 1930s. The HOLC created a neighborhood ranking system infamously known today as redlining. Local real estate developers and appraisers in over 200 cities assigned grades to residential neighborhoods. These maps and neighborhood ratings set the rules for decades of real estate practices. The grades ranged from A to D. A was traditionally colored in green, B was traditionally colored in blue, C was traditionally colored in yellow, and D was traditionally colored in red. A (Best): Always upper- or upper-middle-class White neighborhoods that HOLC defined as posing minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders, as they were "ethnically homogeneous" and had room to be further developed.B (Still Desirable): Generally nearly or completely White, U.S. -born neighborhoods that HOLC defined as "still desirable" and sound investments for mortgage lenders.C (Declining): Areas where the residents were often working-class and/or first or second generation immigrants from Europe. These areas often lacked utilities and were characterized by older building stock.D (Hazardous): Areas here often received this grade because they were "infiltrated" with "undesirable populations" such as Jewish, Asian, Mexican, and Black families. These areas were more likely to be close to industrial areas and to have older housing.For more detailed information use this link.

This dataset tracks annual total students amount from 2006 to 2023 for University Neighborhood High School

Small area /neighborhood names in Santa Clara County. The areas shown on the map were calculated using Census 2010 tract boundaries and are combined into areas with a common place name. Input was provided by city and county planning departments. The boundaries shown are not considered definitive, but rather general in nature. Any naming will be partially correct, and partially incorrect. These boundaries were also required to follow the outlines of census tract boundaries and thus will not follow, in all instances, boundary lines which may be deemed more appropriate.

Context

This dataset is used to find the best neighborhood to open a new gym in Toronto city. The data was collected the neighborhood profile data https://open.toronto.ca/dataset/neighbourhood-profiles/ and the crime data https://open.toronto.ca/dataset/neighbourhood-crime-rates/ and the venues information was obtained from Foursquare API.

Content

Total population: The population for each neighborhood of Toronto city during 2016. number of educated people: The number of educated people per neighborhood. number of 15-45: The number of population aged from 15 to 45. number of employers: The number of employers per neighborhood. long_latt: The longitudes and latitudes for each neighborhood. number of gyms: The number of gyms in each neighborhood. number of venues: The number of venues in each neighborhood.

There is a newer and more authoritative version of this layer here! It is owned by the University of Richmond's Digital Scholarship Lab and contains data on many more cities.The Home Owners' Loan Corporation (HOLC) was created in the New Deal Era and trained many home appraisers in the 1930s. The HOLC created a neighborhood ranking system infamously known today as redlining. Local real estate developers and appraisers in over 200 cities assigned grades to residential neighborhoods. These maps and neighborhood ratings set the rules for decades of real estate practices. The grades ranged from A to D. A was traditionally colored in green, B was traditionally colored in blue, C was traditionally colored in yellow, and D was traditionally colored in red. A (Best): Always upper- or upper-middle-class White neighborhoods that HOLC defined as posing minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders, as they were "ethnically homogeneous" and had room to be further developed.B (Still Desirable): Generally nearly or completely White, U.S. -born neighborhoods that HOLC defined as "still desirable" and sound investments for mortgage lenders.C (Declining): Areas where the residents were often working-class and/or first or second generation immigrants from Europe. These areas often lacked utilities and were characterized by older building stock.D (Hazardous): Areas here often received this grade because they were "infiltrated" with "undesirable populations" such as Jewish, Asian, Mexican, and Black families. These areas were more likely to be close to industrial areas and to have older housing.Banks received federal backing to lend money for mortgages based on these grades. Many banks simply refused to lend to areas with the lowest grade, making it impossible for people in many areas to become homeowners. While this type of neighborhood classification is no longer legal thanks to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (which was passed in large part due to the activism and work of the NAACP and other groups), the effects of disinvestment due to redlining are still observable today. For example, the health and wealth of neighborhoods in Chicago today can be traced back to redlining (Chicago Tribune). In addition to formerly redlined neighborhoods having fewer resources such as quality schools, access to fresh foods, and health care facilities, new research from the Science Museum of Virginia finds a link between urban heat islands and redlining (Hoffman, et al., 2020). This layer comes out of that work, specifically from University of Richmond's Digital Scholarship Lab. More information on sources and digitization process can be found on the Data and Download and About pages. This layer includes 7,148 neighborhoods spanning 143 cities across the continental United States. NOTE: As mentioned above, over 200 cities were redlined and therefore this is not a complete dataset of every city that experienced redlining by the HOLC in the 1930s. More cities are available in this feature layer from University of Richmond.Cities included in this layerAlabama: Birmingham, Mobile, MontgomeryCalifornia: Fresno, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, StocktonColorado: DenverConnecticut: East Hartford, New Britain, New Haven, StamfordFlorida: Jacksonville, Miami, St. Petersburg, TampaGeorgia: Atlanta, Augusta, Chattanooga, Columbus, MaconIllinois: Aurora, Chicago, Decatur, Joliet, GaryIndiana: Evansville, Fort Wayne, Indianapolis, Gary, Muncie, South Bend, Terre HauteKansas: Greater Kansas City, WichitaKentucky: Lexington, LouisvilleLouisiana: New OrleansMassachusetts: Arlington, Belmont, Boston, Braintree, Brockton, Brookline, Cambridge, Chelsea, Dedham, Everett, Haverhill, Holyoke Chicopee, Lexington, Malden, Medford, Melrose, Milton, Needham, Newton, Quincy, Revere, Saugus, Somerville, Waltham, Watertown, Winchester, WinthropMaryland: BaltimoreMichigan: Battle Creek, Bay City, Detroit, Flint, Grand Rapids, Kalamazoo, Muskegon, Pontiac, Saginaw, ToledoMinnesota: Duluth, MinneapolisMissouri: Greater Kansas City, Springfield, St. Joseph, St. LouisNorth Carolina: Asheville, Charlotte, Durham, Greensboro, Winston SalemNew Hampshire: ManchesterNew Jersey: Atlantic City, Bergen Co., Camden, Essex County, Hudson County, TrentonNew York: Bronx, Brooklyn, Buffalo, Elmira, Binghamton/Johnson City, Lower Westchester Co., Manhattan, Niagara Falls, Poughkeepsie, Queens, Rochester, Staten Island, Syracuse, UticaOhio: Akron, Canton, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Hamilton, Lima, Lorrain, Portsmouth, Springfield, Toledo, Warren, YoungstownOregon: PortlandPennsylvania: Altoona, Erie, Johnstown, New Castle, Philadelphia, PittsburghSouth Carolina: AugustaTennessee: Chattanooga, KnoxvilleTexas: DallasVirginia: Lynchburg, Norfolk, Richmond, RoanokeWashington: Seattle, Spokane, TacomaWisconsin: Kenosha, Milwaukee, Oshkosh, RacineWest Virginia: Charleston, WheelingAn example of a map produced by the HOLC of Philadelphia:

Table of ACS Demographics and profile represented at the NTA level. NTAs are aggregations of census tracts that are subsets of New York City's 55 Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs)

SANDAG provides an annual report on crime in the San Diego region. This dataset contains data from the 2009 through 2022 editions of the report. Data for 2023 is converted from California Incident Based Reporting System (CIBRS) data provided by SANDAG. Additional data comes from Arjis and DOJ OpenJustice. Some data for previous years reports is updated with new editions. "San Diego County" includes all cities and unincorporated areas in San Diego County. "Sheriff - Total" includes the contract cities and the unincorporated area served by the San Diego County Sheriff's Department. California and United States data come from the FBI's Annual Crime Reports.

This dataset tracks annual total students amount from 2003 to 2023 for Our World Neighborhood Charter School

Each quarter, ACT Policing issues crime statistics illustrating the offences reported or becoming known in suburbs across Canberra.

The selected offences highlighted in the statistics include: assault, sexual offences, robbery, burglary, motor vehicle theft, other theft (such as shoplifting and fraud) and property damage. It is important to note that these numbers may fluctuate as new complainants come forward, more Traffic Infringement Notices are downloaded into the system, or when complaints are withdrawn.

It should also be noted that the individual geographical areas will not combine to the ACT totals due to the exclusion of rural sectors and other regions.

It is important for the community to understand there may be a straight-forward explanation for a spike in offences in their neighbourhood.

For example, sexual offences in Narrabundah increased from two in the January to March last year, to 32 in the first quarter of 2012. These 32 sexual offences relate to one historical case which was reported to police in January 2012, and which has since been finalised.

The smaller the number of reported offences involved, the greater the chance for a dramatic percentage increase.

An interactive crime map is also available on the ACT Policing website https://www.policenews.act.gov.au/crime-statistics-and-data/crime-statistics

The 2017-2018 School Neighborhood Poverty Estimates are based on school locations from the 2017-2018 Common Core of Data (CCD) school file and income data from families with children ages 5 to 17 in the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2014-2018 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year collection. The ACS is a continuous household survey that collects social, demographic, economic, and housing information from the population in the United States each month. The Census Bureau calculates the income-to-poverty ratio (IPR) based on money income reported for families relative to the poverty thresholds, which are determined based on the family size and structure. Noncash benefits (such as food stamps and housing subsidies) are excluded, as are capital gains and losses. The IPR is the percentage of family income that is above or below the federal poverty level. The IPR indicator ranges from 0 to a top-coded value of 999. A family with income at the poverty threshold has an IPR value of 100. The estimates in this file reflect the IPR for the neighborhoods around schools which may be different from the neighborhood conditions of students enrolled in schools.All information contained in this file is in the public domain. Data users are advised to review NCES program documentation and feature class metadata to understand the limitations and appropriate use of these data.

This study was designed to collect comprehensive data on the types of "crime prevention through environmental design" (CPTED) methods used by cities of 30,000 population and larger, the extent to which these methods were used, and their perceived effectiveness. A related goal was to discern trends, variations, and expansion of CPTED principles traditionally employed in crime prevention and deterrence. "Security by design" stems from the theory that proper design and effective use of the built environment can lead to a reduction in the incidence and fear of crime and an improvement in quality of life. Examples are improving street lighting in high-crime locations, traffic re-routing and control to hamper drug trafficking and other crimes, inclusion of security provisions in city building codes, and comprehensive review of planned development to ensure careful consideration of security. To gather these data, the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM), which had previously studied a variety of issues including the fear of crime, mailed a survey to the mayors of 1,060 cities in 1994. Follow-up surveys were sent in 1995 and 1996. The surveys gathered information about the role of CPTED in a variety of local government policies and procedures, local ordinances, and regulations relating to building, local development, and zoning. Information was also collected on processes that offered opportunities for integrating CPTED principles into local development or redevelopment and the incorporation of CPTED into decisions about the location, design, and management of public facilities. Questions focused on whether the city used CPTED principles, which CPTED techniques were used (architectural features, landscaping and landscape materials, land-use planning, physical security devices, traffic circulation systems, or other), the city department with primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with CPTED zoning ordinances/building codes and other departments that actively participated in that enforcement (mayor's office, fire department, public works department, planning department, city manager, economic development office, police department, building department, parks and recreation, zoning department, city attorney, community development office, or other), the review process for proposed development, security measures for public facilities, traffic diversion and control, and urban beautification programs. Respondents were also asked about other security-by-design features being used, including whether they were mandatory or optional, if optional, how they were instituted (legislation, regulation, state building code, or other), and if applicable, how they were legislated (city ordinance, city resolution, or state law). Information was also collected on the perceived effectiveness of each technique, if local development regulations existed regarding convenience stores, if joint code enforcement was in place, if banks, neighborhood groups, private security agencies, or other groups were involved in the traffic diversion and control program, and the responding city's population, per capita income, and form of government.