Charlotte NC City Within A City Final Methodologies

The following section contains a one-page summary of the research results for the 173 NSAs.

· Quality of life rating for each dimension (Social, Crime, Physical, Economic);

· Individual neighborhood data for each of the 18 variables used in the analysis with comparable citywide data for the same variables. In cases were citywide data could not be calculated or were inappropriate, values were not provided

In the Social Dimension, lower neighborhood quality of life is marked by the following comparisons between neighborhood and citywide variables:

In the Crime Dimension, most neighborhood variables and citywide values were expressed as indices. The citywide crime measure is calibrated to a score of 1. Neighborhood values over 1 indicate a crime rate above the city average; neighborhood values less than 1 mark a below-average crime rate. The greater the deviation from 1, the higher or lower the quality of life on the Crime Dimension. The crime hot spots variable measures the proportion of a neighborhood area contained in a high-crime area, or 'hot spot.' Scores can range from 0.0 to 1.0. Neighborhoods composed of large areas in crime hot spots have a lower quality of life. Conversely, low scores indicate higher quality of life on this dimension.

In the Physical Dimension, lower neighborhood quality of life is marked by the following comparisons between neighborhood and citywide variables.

Finally, in the Economic Dimension, lower neighborhoods quality of life is marked by the following comparison between the neighborhood and city:

Population - The total population of the neighborhood was calculated from Census Block Group statistics.

Source: Claritas Core Trendline Date for all Block Groups in Mecklenburg County, NC, 1998.

Number of Housing Units - The number of housing units was calculated from a digital coverage of the tax parcel file. Each parcel contains the number of housing units and were aggregated for each neighborhood.

Median Household Income - The median household income was calculated from Census Block Group statistics.

Source: Claritas Core Trendline Data for all Block Groups in Mecklenburg County, NC, 1998.

Average House Value - The appraised value for single family homes, condominiums, and townhouses were aggregated from a digital coverage of the tax parcel file. The sum was averaged to obtain the Average House value.

Percent of Persons Receiving Food Stamps - The percent of people in a neighborhood who were receiving Food Stamps as of April 1999.

All individual records of people receiving food stamps were address-matched using GIS (96% match rate). The point data were then identified with all the neighborhoods to get the total number of people receiving foods stamps in each neighborhood.

The total population of the neighborhood was calculated from Census Block Group statistics. The total number of people receiving food stamps was then divided by the total population to get the percentage of total people receiving food stamps for each neighborhood

Sources: Mecklenburg County Department of Social Service Office of Planning and Evaluation.

Percent of Persons over Age 64 - The proportion of the population that is 65 years and older represents the Aged Dependency Ratio.

The total number of people 65 years and older and the total overall population were calculated from Census Block Group Statistics for each neighborhood.

The Aged Dependency Ratio is equal to the total number of aged persons 65 years and older divided by the total population for each neighborhood.

Source: Claritas Core Trendline Date for all Block Groups in Mecklenburg County, NC, 1998.

Average Kindergarten Score – An average achievement score was calculated for each kindergarten student at the end of the year. These achievement scores were averaged from math and verbal scores.

All kindergarten students were address matched using GIS. The point data were identified with neighborhood boundaries. The achievement scores for all kindergarten students were averaged to get an average end-of-year kindergarten achievement score for each neighborhood.

% Children who dropped out of School – Percentage of high school students who dropped out of school

All high school students at the end of the year 1998 were address matched using GIS. The point data were then identified with the neighborhood boundaries to get the total number of high school students per neighborhood.

From the total number of high school students, students who dropped out were identified. The total number of high school students who dropped out was then divided by the total number of high school students to get the percentage of high school students who dropped out.

Percent of Children Competency Exams – Percentage of ninth grade students that passed the required competency exams.

All students who completed the ninth grade as of 1998 were address matched using GIS. The point data were then identified with the neighborhood boundaries to get the total number of ninth grade students for each neighborhood.

From the total number of ninth grade students, students who passed required competency exams were identified. Total number of ninth grade students who passed was then divided by the total number of ninth grade students to get the percentage of ninth grade students who passed the required competency exams.

Percent of Births to Adolescents - Percent of children born in 1997 to women 18 years and younger.

All 1997 birth records for Mecklenburg County were address-matched using GIS (98% match rate). The point data were then identified with the neighborhood boundaries to get a total number of births for each neighborhood.

From the total number of births, births to adolescents were identified. Total births to adolescents were then divided by the total births to get the percentage of total children born to women 18 years and younger for each neighborhood.

Youth Opportunity - A measure of the potential opportunities for youth to get involved in extra-curricular activities within the neighborhood.

“Opportunities” were defined as locations within the community that offered programs and activities for youth up to age 18. Locations included YMCA/YWCAs, churches, schools (offering before and/or after school programs), recreation centers, community centers and libraries. Opportunity locations were scored as follows:

· Churches–Because churches provide services beyond their neighborhood boundaries, each church was buffered by a ¼-mile ring that was considered to be a reasonable walking distance for youth to utilize the services offered by the church. Each church was given a score of 1, which was a minimal score that identified the church as a potential activity center. Each residential unit captured by the buffer zone was assigned a score of 1.

· Schools–Schools were given a score of 1 for a before-school program and a score of 1 for an after-school program. The highest score possible for a single school was 2 for having both programs in place. Because these schools provided services beyond their neighborhood boundaries, each school was buffered by a ¼-mile ring that was considered to be a reasonable walking distance for youth to utilize the services offered by the school. Each residential unit captured by the buffer zone was assigned a score of based on the programs provided by the adjacent school

· Recreation Centers, Community Centers and YWCA/YMCAs–Because these centers provide services beyond their neighborhood boundaries, each center was buffered by a ¼-mile ring that was considered to be a reasonable walking distance for youth to utilize the services offered by the center. Each center was given a score of 3, which was assigned to every residential unit within the buffer zone.

· Libraries–Libraries were scored using the same methodology as the Centers except that a library was given a score of 2, indicating that it potentially offered greater services than a church but fewer than a Recreation Centers, Community Centers or YWCA/YMCAs. Each residential unit that fell in the buffer zone was assigned a score of 2.

Each residential unit within a neighborhood had the potential of receiving a score ranging from 0 to 9. The score for each neighborhood was calculated based the average youth opportunity score for each residential unit. This composite score represents the total number and types of opportunities available to youth.

0.0 - 0.93	Low Youth Opportunity
0.931 - 1.307	Medium Youth Opportunity
1.307+	High Youth Opportunity

Neighborhood Organizations – The total number of neighborhood organizations for each neighborhood was identified.

All neighborhood organizations on record were address matched using GIS. The point data were identified with neighborhood boundaries. The total number of neighborhood organizations was aggregated for each neighborhood.

Violent Crime Rate - The level of violent crime in each neighborhood as compared with the level of violent crime in the City of Charlotte.

The locations of violent crime offenses in 1998 were address-matched using GIS. For the purpose of this study, violent crimes include homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults defined according to UCR (Uniform Crime Report) standards. The point data were then intersected with all neighborhoods to get the total number of crimes per neighborhood. The total number of violent crimes was also summed for the City of Charlotte.

The population of each neighborhood and the City of Charlotte was calculated from Census Block Group statistics. The number of violent crime incidents for each neighborhood was divided by the population of each neighborhood to get the rate of violent crime. The total number of violent crime incidents for the City of Charlotte was divided by the population of Charlotte to get the rate of violent crime. The rate of violent crime per population for each neighborhood was then compared to the rate of violent crime per population for the city.

The Location Quotient method was used for the comparison. The results indicate the share of all violent crime in the City of Charlotte captured by the individual neighborhood. For instance, a score of 2.00 indicates that the particular neighborhood has a rate of violent crime that is twice the rate of violent crime in the city.

Sources: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Research and Planning Department.

Juvenile Crime Rate - The level of juvenile crime in each neighborhood as compared with the level of juvenile crime in the City of Charlotte.

The locations of juvenile crime offenses in 1998 were address-matched using GIS. For the purpose of this study, For the purpose of this study, juvenile crime offenses are based on individuals arrested under the age of 16. This definition is based on North Carolina state statutes, which generally define a juvenile offender according to this age definition. The point data were then intersected with all neighborhoods to get the total number of crimes per neighborhood. The total number of juvenile crimes was also summed for the City of Charlotte.

The population of each neighborhood and the City of Charlotte was calculated from Census Block Group statistics. The number of juvenile crime incidents for each neighborhood was divided by the population of each neighborhood to get the rate of juvenile crime. The total number of juvenile crime incidents for the City of Charlotte was divided by the population of Charlotte to get the rate of juvenile crime. The rate of juvenile crime per population for each neighborhood was then compared to the rate of juvenile crime per population for the city.

The Location Quotient method was used for the comparison. The results indicate the share of all juvenile crime in the City of Charlotte captured by the individual neighborhood. For instance, a score of 2.00 indicates that the particular neighborhood has a rate of juvenile crime that is twice the rate of juvenile crime in the city.

Sources: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Research and Planning Department.

Property Crime Rate - The level of property crime in each neighborhood as compared with the level of property crime in the City of Charlotte.

The locations of property crime offenses in 1998 were address-matched using GIS. For the purpose of this study, property crimes include burglaries, larcenies, vehicle thefts, arsons, and vandalisms defined according to UCR (Uniform Crime Report) standards. The point data were then intersected with all neighborhoods to get the total number of crimes per neighborhood. The total number of property crimes was also summed for the City of Charlotte.

The population of each neighborhood and the City of Charlotte was calculated from Census Block Group statistics. The number of property crime incidents for each neighborhood was divided by the population of each neighborhood to get the rate of property crime. The total number of property crime incidents for the City of Charlotte was divided by the population of Charlotte to get the rate of property crime. The rate of property crime per population for each neighborhood was then compared to the rate of property crime per population for the city.

The Location Quotient method was used for the comparison. The results indicate the share of all property crime in the City of Charlotte captured by the individual neighborhood. For instance, a score of 2.00 indicates that the particular neighborhood has a rate of property crime that is twice the rate of property crime in the city.

Sources: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Research and Planning Department.

Crime Hot Spots - Areas in neighborhoods that have high concentration of violent crime, defined using GIS Grid applications.

The locations of violent crime offenses for 1998 were address-matched using GIS. For the purpose of this study, the crimes compiled in the hotspot analysis were violent crimes including homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults defined according to UCR (Uniform Crime Report) standards. A density grid was created from the violent crime data using a 250' cell size, a 1500' search radius, and the kernel method. Cells with a density greater than 3 standard deviations above the mean of the grid were considered hot cells.

The total number of hot cells was divided by the total number of cells for each neighborhood to get the proportion of a neighborhood that is considered a violent crime hotspot.

Source: Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, Research and Planning Department.

Appearance Index – A sample was taken of all the appearance code violations in Mecklenburg County.

The sample consisted of ten percent of violations recorded from April 1998 to March 1999. The sample records were then address matched with GIS. This point data were identified with neighborhood boundaries to get the total number of sampled appearance code violations for each neighborhood.

Percent Substandard Housing - Percent of housing units in a neighborhood rated as deteriorated or dilapidated by the Charlotte Housing Survey.

Records of all houses survey were address matched using GIS. The point data were then intersected with all neighborhoods to get the total number of surveys for each neighborhood.

For each record, deteriorated or dilapidated houses were identified. The total number of deteriorated dilapidated houses surveyed in each neighborhood was then divided by the total number of surveys in each neighborhood to get the percentage of substandard housing.

Home Ownership - Percentage of all residential units that were owner-occupied in 1998.

By utilizing the tax parcel database, each tax record was assigned to a neighborhood using GIS. Each tax record was analyzed for residential use and owner occupancy. The records were summarized for each neighborhood by residential units.

From each neighborhood, the number of owner-occupied units and total occupied units were calculated. The owner-occupied units were divided by the total occupied-units to get the percent of home ownership for each neighborhood.

Projected Infrastructure Improvement Costs – An estimate of construction costs for sidewalk, curb, and minor drainage only, not including any funds for the repair or installation of major drainage systems. Estimates are for each neighborhood.

The total area of the neighborhood is calculated in square miles. The estimated construction costs were divided by the total area to get the infrastructure cost per square mile for each neighborhood.

Source: Charlotte Engineering and Building Maintenance Department Assessments, 1999.

Percent of Persons with Access to Public Transportation – The percentage of neighborhood residents, who live within walking distance of public transportation, defined using the Charlotte Transit Bus Routes as of March 1999.

By utilizing the tax parcel database, each tax record was assigned to a neighborhood using GIS. Each tax record was analyzed for residential use and the total number of residential units was calculated for each neighborhood.

The bus routes were buffered by ¼ mile using GIS. The tax parcels that fell within the buffer boundaries were used to calculate the number of residential units accessible to public transportation. The number of residential units accessible to public transportation was divided by the total number of residential units to get the percentage of residents accessible to public transportation for each neighborhood.

Percent of Persons with Access to Basic Retail Facilities – The percentage of neighborhood residents that are within walking distance to a grocery store and/or a pharmacy.

Grocery stores and pharmacy addresses were address matched in GIS and buffered by ¼ mile. The tax parcels that fell within the buffer boundaries were used to calculate the number of residential units accessible to basic retail. The number of residential units accessible to basic retail was divided by the total number of residential units to get the percentage of residents accessible to basic retail for each neighborhood.

Pedestrian Friendliness Index – An index of pedestrian friendliness based on the total length of sidewalks in each neighborhood as compared to the total length of the streets. Index values could rank from 0-2.0. The index score were scaled using the following qualitative ranking.

Percent Change in Income – Percent increase or decrease in median household income from 1990 to 1998. The following equation was used:

Source: Claritas Core Trendline Data for all Block Groups in Mecklenburg County, NC, 1998.

Neighborhood Profiles: User Guide