My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Evaluation of Camera Use to Prevent Crime in Commuter Parking Facilities within the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Parking Facilities, 2004-2009

Version
v0
Resource Type
Dataset : observational data
Creator
  • La Vigne, Nancy (Urban Institute)
Other Title
  • Archival Version (Subtitle)
Publication Date
2015-02-27
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
Language
English
Free Keywords
burglary; commuting (travel); crime control; larceny; surveillance; vandalism; vehicles
Description
  • Abstract

    This study sought to identify what parking facility characteristics and management practices within the Washington Metro Transit Police (MTP) might create opportunities for crime, analyze those findings in relation to past crimes, and identify promising crime reduction strategies. The project consisted of three main research components: (1) identification of the magnitude of car crime in commuter parking facilities and possible strategies for prevention of such car crime; (2) identification and implementation of a crime prevention strategy; and (3) evaluation of the strategy's effectiveness. In partnership with the MTP staff, the research team created a blocked randomized experimental design involving 50 matched pairs of commuter parking facilities in which a combination of live and dummy digital cameras were deployed, along with accompanying signage, at the exits of one randomly selected facility from each pairing. After a period of 12 months following camera implementation, the research team analyzed the impact of the cameras on crime occurring in and around Metro's parking facilities.
  • Abstract

    The specific goals of the study were to: Identify the environmental characteristics and management practices of WMATA's parking facilities and how they may create criminal opportunities;; Analyze those characteristics and practices in relation to the incidence, prevalence, and distribution of crimes in WMATA's parking facilities using historical crime data;; Work with MTP to identify and implement promising strategies to reduce car crime and prioritize those strategies with regard to their anticipated effectiveness;; Implement one selected strategy in half of WMATA's 50 commuter lots through a blocked randomized experimental design; and ; Evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention through a difference-in-differences (DiD) analysis and a cost-benefit analysis.;
  • Abstract

    This project consists of three main research components: (1) identification of the magnitude of car crime in commuter parking facilities and possible strategies for prevention of such car crime; (2) identification and implementation of a crime prevention strategy; and (3) evaluation of the strategy's effectiveness. In partnership with the MTP staff, the research team created a blocked randomized experimental design involving 50 matched pairs of commuter parking facilities in which a combination of live and dummy digital cameras were deployed, along with accompanying signage, at the exits of one randomly selected facility from each pairing. After a period of 12 months following camera implementation, the research team analyzed the impact of the cameras on crime occurring in and around Metro's parking facilities.Research processes involved the collection and analysis of crime data from MTP and jurisdictions in which WMATA operates, as well as the physical and environmental characteristics of Metro's parking facilities. These data, along with conversations with MTP on the feasibility of various interventions, informed the choice of intervention (recordable digital cameras) and the random selection process employed to determine which facilities would receive the intervention. After a 12-month intervention period, the effectiveness of the intervention was examined through a variety of statistical tests including a Difference-in-Differences (DiD) analysis. The stations visited had several common characteristics. All of the stations had bus bays located near the entrance, storage areas for bicycles, and Kiss and Ride accommodations enabling drivers to drop off passengers near the Metro entrance without parking their vehicles. In addition, all but one of the stations had metered parking spaces located near the all-day parking facilities. For classification purposes, the facilities were placed in one of three categories: (1) garages; (2) surface lots; and (3) combination facilities, which have a parking garage that is partially or completely surrounded by a surface lot that shares the same set of vehicle entrances and exits. In total, researchers conducted observations at 52 facilities: 32 surface lots, 15 garages, and five combination facilities. At the time of the site observations, the capacities of the WMATA-owned parking facilities ranged from 194 spaces to 5,069 spaces. During the site visits, 35 percent of the facilities were completely full (100 percent of spaces utilized), 46 percent of the facilities were mostly full (80-99 percent of spaces utilized), and 19 percent of the facilities were less than 80 percent full.To provide context on the operations of Metro parking facilities, administrative data on Metro operations were collected from MTP and other offices within Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA). These data included hours of parking facility operation and staffing, parking facility utilization, and policing practices. This information, in conjunction with the crime data and site observations, helped to inform the overall understanding of each parking facility's criminal opportunities.
  • Abstract

    There are 87 datasets for this study, with approximately 18 files per parking location and two sets of files that contain multiple parking locations combined. All datasets contain the same three variables described below. Each dataset represents the number of crimes reported during the month/year for various crime types (including crime categories with several crime types combined). The variables in the dataset include: TARGET represented the number of crimes occurring in the specified area that received the intervention during the given month/year.; TO_DATE represents the month and year the crime occurred (MM/DD/YYYY), with the day set to "1" for all cases.; COMP represents the number of crimes occurring in the specified area that were used as a control area for comparison purposes.; The types of crimes were: auto theft without attempts, auto theft with attempts, attempted auto theft, and car-related crime. All crime, property crime, larceny and violent crime were included for only the analysis of all stations combined. Car-related crime included motor vehicle theft, attempted motor vehicle theft and theft from automobiles (including theft of merchandise within cars and theft of auto parts and accessories. The site observation instrument contained 60 questions that applied to all types of facilities, twelve questions specific to parking garages, and three questions specific to parking lots.Facilities were "blocked" on certain characteristics/clusters of characteristics to maximize the equivalence of the groups. Blocking is a term used to describe matching of groups within similar scores on particular variable(s) so that treatment and control groups each containing units with similar characteristics on the blocking variable(s). Random assignment with matched pairs of WMATA parking lots was employed. Initially, all 52 independent parking facilities was anticipated for inclusion in the study (located at 35 Metro stations), allowing the random assignment of 26 facilities to the treatment and 26 facilities to control. However, it was subsequently learned that one of the facilities would be closing before the end of 2006, thus eliminating the possibility of post-treatment analysis of crime and reducing the sample size to an odd number of facilities. The research team therefore excluded another facility from the randomization process.
  • Methods

    ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks..
  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS0: Study-Level Files
    • DS1: All Locations Att Data
    • DS2: All Locations Combo Data
    • DS3: All Locations From Data
    • DS4: All Locations Lar Data
    • DS5: All Locations Mvt Data
    • DS6: All Locations Of Data
    • DS7: All Locations Prop Data
    • DS8: All Locations Tot Data
    • DS9: All Locations Vio Data
    • DS10: Branch Avenue Asst Data
    • DS11: Branch Avenue Att Data
    • DS12: Branch Avenue Combo Data
    • DS13: Branch Avenue From Data
    • DS14: Branch Avenue Lar Data
    • DS15: Branch Avenue Mvt Data
    • DS16: Branch Avenue Of Data
    • DS17: Control Branch Avenue Att Data
    • DS18: Control Branch Avenue Combo Data
    • DS19: Control Branch Avenue From Data
    • DS20: Control Branch Avenue Lar Data
    • DS21: Control Branch Avenue Mvt Data
    • DS22: Control Branch Avenue Of Data
    • DS23: Control College Park Att Data
    • DS24: Control College Park Combo Data
    • DS25: Control College Park From Data
    • DS26: Control College Park Lar Data
    • DS27: Control College Park Mvt Data
    • DS28: Control College Park Of Data
    • DS29: Control Huntington Att Data
    • DS30: Control Huntington Combo Data
    • DS31: Control Huntington From Data
    • DS32: Control Huntington Lar Data
    • DS33: Control Huntington Mvt Data
    • DS34: Control Huntington Of Data
    • DS35: Control Huntington Prop Data
    • DS36: College Park Att Data
    • DS37: College Park Combo Data
    • DS38: College Park From Data
    • DS39: College Park Lar Data
    • DS40: College Park Mvt Data
    • DS41: College Park Of Data
    • DS42: Control Shady Grove Att Data
    • DS43: Control Shady Grove Combo Data
    • DS44: Control Shady Grove From Data
    • DS45: Control Shady Grove Mvt Data
    • DS46: Control Shady Grove Of Data
    • DS47: Control Twinbrook Att Data
    • DS48: Control Twinbrook Combo Data
    • DS49: Control Twinbrook From Data
    • DS50: Control Twinbrook Mvt Data
    • DS51: Control Twinbrook Of Data
    • DS52: Control Vienna Att Data
    • DS53: Control Vienna Combo Data
    • DS54: Control Vienna From Data
    • DS55: Control Vienna Lar Data
    • DS56: Control Vienna Mvt Data
    • DS57: Control Vienna Of Data
    • DS58: Huntington Att Data
    • DS59: Huntington Combo Data
    • DS60: Huntington From Data
    • DS61: Huntington Lar Data
    • DS62: Huntington Mvt Data
    • DS63: Huntington Of Data
    • DS64: All Single Lot Att Data
    • DS65: All Single Lot Combo Data
    • DS66: All Single Lot From Data
    • DS67: All Single Lot Lar Data
    • DS68: All Single Lot Mvt Data
    • DS69: All Single Lot Of Data
    • DS70: Shady Grove Att Data
    • DS71: Shady Grove Combo Data
    • DS72: Shady Grove From Data
    • DS73: Shady Grove Lar Data
    • DS74: Shady Grove Mvt Data
    • DS75: Shady Grove Of Data
    • DS76: Twinbrook Att Data
    • DS77: Twinbrook Combo Data
    • DS78: Twinbrook From Data
    • DS79: Twinbrook Lar Data
    • DS80: Twinbrook Mvt Data
    • DS81: Twinbrook Of Data
    • DS82: Vienna Att Data
    • DS83: Vienna Combo Data
    • DS84: Vienna From Data
    • DS85: Vienna Lar Data
    • DS86: Vienna Mvt Data
    • DS87: Vienna Of Data
Temporal Coverage
  • 2004 / 2010
    Time period: 2004--2010
  • 2004 / 2005
    Collection date: 2004--2005
Geographic Coverage
  • District of Columbia
Sampled Universe
Crime in 50 of Washington Metro Area Transit Authority's parking facilities occurring in 2004 and 2005.
Sampling
The research team generated a list of matched pairs based on the following characteristics: surrounding area crime rate (i.e. high, medium, low), lot/garage capacity, AM/PM payment policy, facility type (e.g. garage, lot or combination facility)and Metrorail line (e.g. red, green, orange). In conducting the site observations, researchers visited a total of 35 different stations on the WMATA's red, orange, yellow, green, and blue lines. The majority of the stations (26) had only one parking facility each, while the remaining nine stations had multiple parking facilities.
Collection Mode
  • record abstracts, coded on-site observation

Note
Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (2005-IJ-CX-0034).
Availability
Delivery
This version of the study is no longer available on the web. If you need to acquire this version of the data, you have to contact ICPSR User Support (help@icpsr.umich.edu).
Alternative Identifiers
  • 32521 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Relations
  • Is previous version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR32521.v1
Publications
  • La Vigne, Nancy G., Lowry, Samantha S.. Evaluation of Camera Use to Prevent Crime in Commuter Parking Facilities: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Technical Report.NCJ 236740, Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center. 2011.
    • ID: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236740.pdf (URL)
  • La Vigne, Nancy G., Lowry, Samantha S.. Evaluation of Cameras to Prevent Crime in Commuter Parking Facilities: A Summary. NCJ 243329, Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Institute. 2011.
    • ID: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412457-Evaluation-of-Cameras-to-Prevent-Crime-in-Commuter-Parking-Facilities.pdf (URL)

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 6 | Registration Date: 2015-06-16

La Vigne, Nancy (2015): Evaluation of Camera Use to Prevent Crime in Commuter Parking Facilities within the Washington Metro Area Transit Authority (WMATA) Parking Facilities, 2004-2009. Archival Version. Version: v0. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32521