REPORT ON THE CHARLES VILLAGE COMMUNITY BENEFITS …charlesvillage.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CVCBD-Final-Report-… · Mr Rafee Al-Mansur The Johns Hopkins University September

REPORT ON

THE CHARLES VILLAGE COMMUNITY

BENEFITS DISTRICT

Prepared for the Abell Foundation

By

Dr Daniel S. Pasciuti

and

Mr Rafee Al-Mansur

The Johns Hopkins University

September 2014

CVCBD Final Report, September, 2014 1 | P a g e

Introduction:

This report presents the findings of a study conducted by the Urban Governance Research Working

Group (RWG) of the Arrighi Center for Global Studies at the Johns Hopkins University and funded by a grant

from the Abell Foundation. This study sought to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of the supplemental

safety and sanitation services being provided in the Charles Village Community Benefits District (CVCBD).

This special benefits district, which was approved by the Maryland State Assembly and drafted into legislation

by the Baltimore City Council, formed in 1994 when residents and property owners within the defined area

voted to impose additional taxes on themselves, in this case at a rate of 12 cents per $100 of assessed property

value, in order to receive enhanced and supplemental public services. The Charles Village Community Benefits

District Management Authority (CVCBDMA) is the entity in charge of using these revenues in order to

promote and market the District, provide supplemental security and maintenance services, provide amenities

in public areas, provide park and recreational programs and functions, and other services and functions as

requested by the Authority and approved by the Mayor and City Council.

Article 14, Subtitle 6 of the Baltimore City Code contains the legislation that broadly defines how the CVCBD

and CVCBDMA should be operated, maintained, and potentially terminated. A sunset provision in the original

legislation was subsequently modified to require that the Baltimore City Council reauthorize the CVCBD every

four years. Failure to recertify the district in any reauthorization would fully abolish the District and the

Management Authority. The Baltimore City Council has voted to reauthorize the CVCBD in 1998, 2002, 2006

and 2010, and is scheduled for vote again in June of 2014.

The Arrighi Center for Global Studies received a grant from the Abell Foundation to fund this study, and

obtained permission from the Charles Village Community Benefits District Management Authority to execute

it. Very limited scholarly research has ever been carried out on the effectiveness of community benefits districts,

and they themselves are a relatively very rare form of urban governance. Through carrying out this study, the

Urban Governance RWG hopes to provide insight as to the effectiveness of the CVCBD and an overall analysis

of community benefits districts that sheds light on; how they function in general, the benefits they are able to

provide, and concerns that have been raised.

Any questions regarding this study should be directed to:

Dr. Daniel S. Pasciuti The Johns Hopkins University, Arrighi Center for Global Studies and the Department of Sociology 526 Mergenthaler Hall 3400 N. Charles St Baltimore, MD 21218 410-516-7676 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Summary:

Between November 2013 and June 2014, the Urban Governance Research Working Group of the

Arrighi Center for Global Studies carried out an evaluation of the Charles Village Community

Benefits District in Baltimore (CVCBD).

This study presents the findings from this evaluation with the following conclusions.

I. The majority of residents and members of the CVCBD area continue to support its

operations and its authorization for the provision of additional services. However, a small

but significant level of opposition among home-owners exists towards the CVCBD.

II. Primarily, members of the community desire for the organization to focus on

sanitation and security with future funding increases focused primarily on security.

1. The supplemental sanitation operations of the CVCBD were generally rated

highly favorable by a super-majority of community members and ranked as a top

priority of continued focus by the community.

2. The overall sanitation operations of the CVCBD appear to be highly efficient

and sustainable under the current operational model.

3. A desire for increased spending on safety was expressed by a super-majority

of the community. However, there is a split amongst community members over

what increased security should entail: installation of additional surveillance

cameras or scheduling additional hours of safety patrol officers.

4. An analysis of the first 6 months of operation for the new security cameras

found no significant differences in overall crime rate but significant reductions in

crimes reported near the new camera locations.

III. The CVCBD appears to be an important factor in mitigating the long term historical

decline which has occurred throughout Baltimore City. While the neighborhoods located

within the district have suffered a significant decline in housing occupancy, related to the

general population decline throughout the city, areas within the CVCBD have seen a less

steep decline and have stabilized over the past 14 years while neighboring areas have

continued to see decline.

1. This is likely due to the ability of the CVCBD to offer services to mitigate the

overall increasing need for certain services throughout the area and by the district’s

ability to tap into alternative social and economic sources – specifically the district’s

ability to access non-governmental sources of funds and other types of support to

augment its existing budget which is derived from surtax money, appears to be

critically important for its ability to maintain and extend its services in the coming

years.


Methodology:

Several different means of data gathering were employed during this evaluation to help enhance the

validity and reliability of the data collected. Quantitative data was derived from the records of the CVCBD itself

and compared to general statistics supplied by Baltimore City, the state of Maryland, and U.S. census data as

well as surveys of community members. CVCBD provided internal operations data that they collected from

October 2012 to October 2013.

Qualitative and quantitative data was derived in an overlapping strategy of surveys and interviews. Initially a list

of known CVCBD supporters and detractors was compiled through conversations and recommendations. This

list was used as a starting point to conduct in-person interviews and understand key issues and ideas which

could be generalized and compiled towards a survey. In almost all cases, interviewees were offered to participate

and comment on the developing survey to address concerns and issues they may have felt were not properly

addressed. Each of these in-person interviews lasted approximately 2-3hrs in length and was open-ended,

although much of the discussions formed around the history and changes to the district. The interviews were

targeted towards known supporters/board members of the CVCBD and known members of the ‘principle’

opposition, a known group of community members who have opposed the re-authorization of the district

multiple times in its history. (Detailed explanations of the surveys used can be found in Appendix A and B).

From this, two surveys were developed that were designed to last between 8 and 15 minutes and focused on

certain overall questions within the district as well as specific questions for individual sub-groups. These surveys

were conducted between November 2013 and June 2014. Finally, members of the research team attended

community and business association meetings throughout the district, as observers, to see the organization and

discussion of the groups and their relationship with the CVCBD. No surveys were conducted at these meetings

but some participants were later contacted for either interviews or to participate in the survey. Although

sometimes presented with the opportunity to survey all participants at these meetings, the researchers decided

against this approach due to concerns this would skew the data collection due to the concern that active

members of community and business associations may not be representative of the community at large12.

1 For the same reasons as online and phone interviewing was rejected, it was assumed that those who routinely attend association meetings were more likely to be from a specific sub-group of the community and not reflect the demographic and socio-economic diversity which exists within the CVCBD. 2 In retrospect this may have been a missed opportunity to compare the ‘active’ members of the community and business

associations within CVCBD to the ‘general’ population of particular neighborhoods. Although this would have created a

new set of surveys distinct from the random surveys conducted throughout the district, it could address the concern of

representation that was raised in interviews and during the reauthorization by the principle opposition. Several CVCBD

Board Member positions are assigned by select community and business associations, and knowing how the views and

agendas of these associations compares to that of the community at large could provide valuable insight on the governance

structure of the CVCBD and its ability to speak for the community at large.

Though this is outside the scope of the original proposal and beyond the capacity of the organization itself – as any changes

to the process by which representation is derived from the community must be done through the Maryland legislature –

the authors noted that representation is a key point of contention amongst the principle opposition and should be

considered in future research on benefits districts more broadly.

Future work should also differentiate reasons for opposition to the reauthorization to understand potential differences in

opposition by members of the community. Specifically, opposition to re-authorization varied substantially based on

different levels of familiarity with the district, indicating the possibility that opposition to re-authorization was derived


Where possible, the researchers have attempted to understand temporal changes within the district by making

comparisons to a study conducted by Dr Cheryl Hyde at the University of Maryland in 2002. This study

utilized an alternative methodology of phone interviews and focus groups to understand and evaluate the

CVCBD and therefore outright comparisons are questionable. However, where clear overlaps occurred

between this study and the earlier one, we have attempted to offer some understanding of potential changes

in the past decade.

from different considerations, such as the additional property tax assessment or those who indicated opposition to re-

authorization while also indicating little to no awareness of the district or its functions, an ‘uniformed’ opposition that

made up at least 25% of cases.


Safety & Sanitation:

A primary objective of this study was to better understand perceptions of safety and sanitation within

the CVCBD, as well as the perceptions of the performance of the CVCBDMA’s safety and sanitation programs.

Our survey asked related questions to understand both the perceived state of the CVCBD in comparison to

Baltimore City at large and to investigate potential spatial and ownership differences within the district.

For safety and sanitation questions about Charles Village by itself, respondents were asked a 1-5 Likert scale of

the following options, respectively:

1 = Unsafe; 2 = Slightly Unsafe; 3 = Neither Unsafe nor Safe; 4 = Slightly Safe; or 5 = Safe

1 = Unclean; 2 = Slightly Unclean; 3 = Neither Unclean nor Clean; 4 = Slightly Clean; 5 = Clean

For questions comparing Charles Village to Baltimore, they were given the following 1-5 Likert scale:

1 = Worse; 2 = Slightly Worse; 3 = Same; 4 = Slightly Better 5 = Better

The following table shows perceptions of safety and sanitation in Charles Village and compared to Baltimore:

Table 1: Perceptions of Overall Safety and Sanitation in Charles Village and Compared to Baltimore

Frequency Mean Median Mode Std. Deviation

Charles Village Safety 189 3.48 4 4/53 1.382

C.V. Safety vs. Baltimore 187 3.91 4 4 1.025

Charles Village Sanitation 187 3.67 4 4 1.148

C.V. Sanitation vs. Baltimore 185 4.00 4 4/59 .978

The above data represents all respondents who completed the survey, regardless of whether it was verified that

they did in fact live or work in the district. According to these findings, respondents generally feel that Charles

Village is more safe than unsafe and more clean than unclean. When asked how they rank Charles Village to

Baltimore in general, 71.1% ranked the safety of Charles Village as either slightly better or better, and 72.5%

ranked the sanitation of Charles Village as either slightly better or better.

The question regarding overall safety was retained in Survey II. The researchers found no significant difference

between in the perception of overall safety within the district with a median and mode of 4 and approximately

55% of all respondents indicating they felt slight safe or safe.

Overall, no statistically significant spatial differences were found within the district. However, some differences

were found when these values were disaggregated by respondents ownership relationship to the district.

3 The distribution of Charles Village Safety is bi-modal with exactly 30.2% of respondents answering 4 and 30.2% of respondents answering 5. The distribution of Charles Village Sanitation vs. Baltimore is also bi-modal with 32.4% of respondents answering 4 and 33.3% of respondents answering 5.


Specifically, Home Owners within the district were found to have significantly different perceptions of the

safety of CVCBD than other groups, including Business Owners. Overall, Renters, Workers, and Business

Owners all had relatively good perceptions towards security within the district area but a significantly higher

portion of Home Owners reported feeling less safe as compared to other sub-groups4.

Within the Business responses, the trend was slightly reversed from the Resident responses, although not

significantly, such that employees of businesses had slightly lower perceptions of security than the business

owners themselves. Thus, when both Business and Resident reponses were combined, the differences found

between Home Owners and Renters were offset enough by business respondents that no overall statistical

difference exists within the district.

FIGURES 1 and 2: Perceptions of Overall Security within CVCBD by Ownership Status

4 This determination is based on a Pearson’s χ2 Test of Independence with 95% confidence.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Unsafe SlightlyUnsafe

NeitherUnsafe

NorSafe

SlightlySafe

Safe

Perc

en

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Own Home

Rent within District

Overall CVCBD Residents

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

Unsafe SlightlyUnsafe

NeitherUnsafe

Nor Safe

SlightlySafe

Safe

Perc

en

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Own Business or Home

Rent or Work withinDistrict

Overall CVCBD

Comparing the proportions

illustrates the overall increase in

perception of security when

Business respondents were

included in the data.


Table 2: Resident Safety Perception Measures “On Your Block”

Frequency Mean Median Mode

Std. Deviation

Overall Safety 100 3.42 4 4 1.357

Safety Walking at Night 99 3.15 3 5 1.574

Police Patrol Presence 98 3.42 4 5 1.435

Approval of Cameras 45 3.98 5 5 1.305

Table 2, above, summarizes the findings of safety perception measures asked to residents regarding the block

they lived on. The above findings represent only those respondents whose location was verified to be within

the district. Respondents outside the district or those who did not provide a valid address were excluded.

“Overall Safety” and “Safety Walking at Night” were asked on a 1-5 Likert scale from Unsafe to Safe, whereas

“Police Patrol Presence” and “Approval of Cameras” were asked on a 1-5 Likert scale from Insufficient to

Sufficient and Disagree to Agree, respectively. 46.5% of residents reported feeling unsafe or slightly unsafe,

while 49.5% of residents reported feeling safe or slightly safe while walking at night. Only 4.0% of residents

were neutral in this question, which seems to indicate a polarized view of night safety in the CVCBD. No

statistical differences were found in response rates based on geographical divisions (i.e. quads or north-south

location). However, weak relationships were found between home ownership and safety (both overall safety

and walking safety at night), in which homeowners report lower values than renters5.

What is also interesting to note from these findings is that residents generally rated their block to be safer than

the degree to which they felt safe walking on their block at night. At the same time, the mean overall safety on

one’s block is the exact same as one’s perceived police patrol presence, and it was found that your opinion of

police presence was highly associated with respondents’ perceptions of overall safety6, which may indicate that

police patrol presence is a strong indicator for one’s perception of safety.

Table 3: Resident Sanitation Perception Measures “On Your Block” & Compared to Baltimore

Frequency Mean Median Mode

Std. Deviation

Overall Sanitation 95 3.01 3 2/47 1.341

Littered Streets vs. Baltimore City 92 3.67 4 5 1.223

Littered Alleys vs. Baltimore City 89 3.37 4 4 1.309

Bulk Trash Collection vs. Baltimore City 88 3.73 4 5 1.162

Rat Infestation vs. Baltimore City 83 3.34 4 4 1.328

Fall Leaves vs. Baltimore City 81 3.81 4 5 1.141

Presence of Trash Cans vs. Baltimore City 85 3.84 4 4/514 1.174

Average of All Services vs. Baltimore City - 3.63 -

5 There was a significant relationship between perceptions of overall safety and home-ownership, at the .05 level, and a weak correlation between night safety and home-ownership. 6 A Pearson’s χ2 Test of Independence was performed and found a highly significant relationship at the 0.01 level. 7 The distribution of Charles Village Sanitation is bi-modal with 31.6% of respondents answering 2 and 28.4% of respondents answering 4. The distribution of Presence of Trash Cans vs. Baltimore City is bi-modal with 31.8% of respondents answering 4 and 35.3% of respondents answering 5.


The above table shows that when residents were asked about the overall sanitation on one’s block, the average

response was 3.01, or that the sanitation of one’s block was neither unclean nor clean. However, when asked

about the particular services that the CVCBDMA provides (sweeping streets and alleys, collecting bulk trash,

the rate abatement program, sweeping fall leaves, and providing public trash cans), most residents leaned

towards reporting that Charles Village fared slightly better than Baltimore in general.

FIGURE 3: Perception of Overall Sanitation “On Your Block” and Services Compared to Baltimore

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

5 Period Likert Scale

Overall Sanitation

Littered Streets

Littered Alleys

Bulk Trash Collection

Rat Infestation

Fall Leaves

Presence of Trashcans


Awareness and Performance of District:

Respondents were asked several questions regarding their understanding and awareness of the

CVCBD and specifically if they had an opinion about the scheduled reauthorization for 2014, or about its

successful reauthorization after June 2014. To assess awareness of the CVCBD, respondents were provided a

map asked if they were aware that the outlined boundary on the map was the area of the district. Further, they

were asked if they were aware that all properties within the district were assessed an additional 12 cents per

100 dollars of assessed value. The results of these questions are shown below in Table 8.8

Table 4: Respondent Awareness of Charles Village Benefits District Prior to Reauthorization

In 2002, Dr Hyde’s study of the CVCBD indicated an 82% awareness of the district (129 of 157 surveys), a

figure very different from the level of awareness found by this study in 2014. While this may represent a

significant decrease in the level of awareness in the district, it should be remembered that Dr Hyde’s study

over-sampled home-owners within the district and both the 2002 and our 2014 study found significant

differences in awareness between home-owners and business owners and other members of the CVCBD

community.

Figure 4a: Respondent Perception of Performance of CVCBD

The 2002 study of the CVCBD by Dr Hyde also asked a similar question regarding the perceived

effectiveness of the CVCBD but on a 4 period Likert scale. In 2002, 19.2% of respondents felt the district

had “greatly helped their neighborhood” and another 47.4% felt it had “somewhat helped”. Further, only

5.1% felt it had “harmed” the neighborhood.

Although a direct comparison cannot be made here, due to both the different number of options and the

choice of responses, between the 2002 and 2014 surveys, this potentially indicates a polarization amongst

8 The results for surveys after June 2014 were nearly identical with no significant differences in awareness.

Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

Aware 91 50.6 50.6 Aware 63 36.6 36.6

Unaware 89 49.4 100 Unaware 109 63.4 100

Total 180 100 Total 172 100

Respondents Aware of the CVCBD Respondents Aware of CVCBD Surcharge

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

Poor SlightlyPoor

Neutral SlightlyGood

Good

Pe

rce

nta

ge


residents regarding their perception of the CVCBD over the past decade. Our 2014 possibly indicates a

relatively stable level of overall satisfaction (66.6% of the 2002 respondents reported the CVCBD “helped” or

“slightly helped” as opposed to 59.6% of the 2014 respondents reported the performance of the CVCBD as

“good” or “slightly good”. However, a much higher percentage of respondents indicated dissatisfaction with

the CVCBD in 2014 as opposed to 2002 (22.8% of 2014 respondents indicated “Poor” versus 5.1% of 2002

respondents indicated “harmed”)9. However, for surveys conducted after reauthorization was complete, the

results changed significantly. A majority of respondents, after the conclusion of reauthorization by the City

Council, indicated a “Neutral” opinion on the performance of the CVCBD10.

Figure 4b: Respondent Perception of Performance of CVCBD (post-reauthorization)

9 The decision was made to not replicate this question for the 2014 survey to keep all survey questions on an equal period Likert scale and prevent potential confusion amongst respondents. However, this may have been a mistake as replicating this question would have potentially provided a much clearer understanding of possible temporal changes to the level of support or opposition to the CBCBD over the previous 12 years. 10 This may simply be a statistical anomaly based on the small subsection of the respondents taken after reauthorization had been completed or may indicate an important difference in positions when there are no immediately ‘contentious’ issues within the district. However, the results for Survey II were highly concentrated geographically and made no attempt to be representative of the district either spatially or demographically.


Housing Conditions and Vacancy Rates:

To address one of the more contentious issues of the CVCBD, its ability to affect change within its

neighborhood for residents and businesses, the researchers have attempted to compare housing conditions

within the district to other areas of Baltimore City with similar demographic and economic conditions11.

Tables 5 and 6 break down the substantial differences within the CVCBD with significant differences in both

vacancy levels and home-ownership (at the .01 level) within the district with the northern sections of the

district having significantly lower levels of vacancy and the western portions of the district with significantly

higher levels of home-ownership.

However, direct comparison has proven especially difficult due to the intersection of many unique conditions

within the district including high level of rental properties within the CVCBD12 and large variations within the

district by both Quadrant and neighborhood. Only a few other areas of Baltimore City have large ‘anchor’

institutions, similar to Johns Hopkins University, with many of these anchor institutions either outside the

central area of the city, such as Morgan State, or are located within special taxing districts similar to CVCBD,

such as the MICA and UB located within the Midtown Community Benefits District.

Table 5: Breakdown of Housing Conditions with the CVCBD by Neighborhood

11 Primarily this refers to the presence of large, ‘anchor’, institutions (i.e. Johns Hopkins University) but also the presence of significant commercial areas intermixed with predominantly residential housing. 12 Initially it was considered likely that the high level of rental units within the area was due to the large student population at Johns Hopkins University. However, an examination of the historical housing trends within the area indicated that the high percentage of rental housing existed prior to 1970 and thus pre-dates the significant expansion of JHU’s student population. Overall, the percentage of rental units within the district today is very similar to the percentage of rental units that existed throughout the area in the 1960s.

Neighborhood Total Occupied Owner-Occupied Renter Vacant

Charles Village CVCBD 3410 2956 526 2430 454

86.69% 17.79% 82.21% 13.31%

Abell Total 515 440 248 192 75

85.44% 56.36% 43.64% 14.56%

Harwood Total 749 570 303 267 179

76.10% 53.16% 46.84% 23.90%

Barclay CVCBD 553 381 74 307 172

68.90% 19.42% 80.58% 31.10%

Old Goucher Total 405 344 17 327 61

84.94% 4.94% 95.06% 15.06%

Charles North CVCBD 236 146 14 132 90

61.86% 9.59% 90.41% 38.14%

Additional Elements 25 13 4 9 11

CVCBD TOTAL 5893 4850 1186 3664 1042

82.30% 24.45% 75.55% 17.68%


Table 6: Breakdown of Housing Conditions with the CVCBD by Quadrant

These values can be compared to Figure 5 which shows the level of housing vacancy within a substantial

section of Baltimore City, normalized by standard deviations from the mean. In this way, the level of housing

vacancy is a proportion to the overall level of housing within each neighborhood and thus controls for the

overall number of residential homes within a given geographic space.

Figure 5: Vacancy Levels in Baltimore City Neighborhoods (Normalized Housing Standard Deviations)13

13 Note: Values on the map are distorted in certain ‘neighborhoods’ by the presence of very few homes (i.e. The Johns Hopkins Homewood campus indicates a high levels of vacancy but this is the result of 13 homes being included within this boundary in the 2010 US Census of which 4, or 30.7%, were vacant). Therefore, caution is urged before drawing any conclusions using this map.

QUAD Total Housing Occupied Owner-Occupied Mortgage/Owner Clear/Owner Renter Vacant

TOTAL QUAD 1 1145 850 274 213 61 576 295

74.24% 32.24% 67.76% 25.76%

TOTAL QUAD 2 1092 849 95 71 24 754 243

77.75% 11.19% 88.81% 22.25%

TOTAL QUAD 3 2040 1790 251 175 76 1539 250

87.75% 14.02% 85.98% 12.25%

TOTAL QUAD 4 1616 1361 566 441 125 795 255

84.22% 41.59% 58.41% 15.78%

TOTAL ALL 5893 4850 1186 900 286 3664 1043

82.30% 24.45% 75.55% 17.70%


Therefore, after considering multiple options, three proxy measures were considered to try and understand

the potential impact the CVCBD has had on the area. The first comparison was made using a sub-section of

the district. Most neighborhoods within the CVCBD are either wholly or almost wholly contained or only a

very small segment is contained within its boundaries. However, the neighborhood of Barclay is split with

approximately 37% of its housing contained within the district and the other 63% existing outside the district

boundaries, offering an initial opportunity to evaluate differences between the sections of the neighborhood

where the CVCBD provides services, versus the sections of the neighborhood which were only covered by

the City of Baltimore.

The difference in the separate elements of the Barclay neighborhood proved highly significant (at the .01

level) indicating that the occupancy rates of the CVCBD portion of the neighborhood was significantly higher

and the vacancy rate was significantly lower than what would have been otherwise expected. This portion of

the district also indicated strong favorability towards CVCBD reauthorization, discussed below, and thus

presents one aspect of an interesting, if qualified, possible conclusion.

Table 7: Breakdown of Housing Conditions within Barclay Neighborhood

However, as this is only one component of the overall district and there are other potential factors involved

in this disparity, including the spatial proximity of the non-CVCBD portion of the neighborhood to

neighborhoods with extremely high vacancy levels, the authors caution in any causal interpretation of this

finding.

Thus, a second comparison was made to several areas to the east of the CVCBD14 by combining the Better

Waverly, Coldstream, Homestead, Montebello, and East Baltimore Midway neighborhoods; this area will be

referred to as the ‘comparison area’ from this point on. Although this area does not have a large scale ‘anchor’

institution, it met many other comparable metrics including a highly diverse population, several important

14 A similar comparison was not made to the east of the CVCBD due to the geographic breaks, both natural and

artificial, created by the presence of the Johns Hopkins Homewood campus, Wyman Park, and the Jones Falls area.

Further, the Barclay neighbourhood was divided such that the eastern portion is not included within the district.

Therefore, it was considered important to understand a possible historical divergence of the CVCBD neighborhoods

compared to areas to the east.

Neighborhood Total Occupied Owner-Occupied Renter Vacant

CVCBD Barclay 192 151 34 117 41

304 195 36 159 109

57 35 4 31 22

553 381 74 307 172

68.90% 19.42% 80.58% 31.10%

Non-CVCBD Barclay 343 271 42 229 72

219 132 40 92 87

375 171 67 104 204

937 574 149 425 363

61.26% 25.96% 74.04% 38.74%

TOTAL NONCVCBD

BARCLAY

TOTAL CVCBD

BARCLAY


commercial corridors, including the same Greenmount Ave corridor which exists within the CVCBD, and

intermixed with nearly equivalent residential spaces of approximately 6,000 homes each15. Comparing the

values below, the percentage of occupied homes within the CVCBD vs the comparison area is significantly

higher and the percentage of vacancies is significantly lower.

Table 8: Comparison of Housing Conditions in 2010, CVCBD vs Comparison Area

Finally, this comparison was also made using historical census information to understand if the present

differences were long standing or recent conditions. The authors note several interesting findings in this

comparison.

One, the areas of the CVCBD and the comparable area to the east had historically similar housing conditions;

with the exception of rental housing vs home ownership (see appendix). However, these areas began to

diverge sometime in the 1990s. Vacancy rates in both areas increased dramatically between the 1980 and 2000

census, however the comparison area began with a slightly lower vacancy rate, 6.98% vs 8.78%, but by 2000

had a vacancy rate that was approximately 1.5% pts higher than the CVCBD. Over the next 10 years, from

2000 to 2010, the vacancy rate within the CVCBD has remained relatively stable while the comparison area

has continued to see significant increases in the overall number of vacant housing units.

Figure 6a: Comparison of Historical Housing Conditions: 1970-2010

15 The decision was explicitly made to exclude the non-CVCBD portion of the Barclay neighbourhood from this comparison. Since it had already been determined that there was a significant difference within the neighbourhood, it was felt that including the non-CVCBD portion of Barclay into the comparison area would have influenced the possibility of finding a significant difference in the larger comparison.

Total Occupied Owner-Occupied Renter Vacant

CVCBD 5893 4850 1186 3664 1042

82.30% 24.45% 75.55% 17.68%

Comparison Area 6079 4596 2202 2394 1483

75.60% 47.91% 52.09% 24.40%


A sub-sample of these two areas was also considered. Based on the normalized housing values observed in

Figure 11, the two neighborhoods of Charles Village and Better Waverly were compared due to their

relatively similar levels of vacancy and to understand if the overall differences in vacancy rates observed

between the CVCBD and the comparison area would remain when sampling only the area with the least level

of housing vacancy in the comparison area, Better Waverly.

The authors found that the historical differences observed in Figure 12a were replicated in the sub-sample

comparison. While levels of vacancy have mirrored each other from 1980 to 2010, a sharp rise beginning in

1990 followed by a moderate decline through the first decade of the 2000s, the two neighborhoods have

switched positions. In the 1980s it was Better Waverly which had a lower level of housing vacancy while

Charles Village fared slightly worse; there was exactly a 4 percentage point difference in vacancy in 1980.

However, in the 1990s this situation was reversed and by 2010 the level of vacancy in Charles Village is 3.6

percentage points lower than Better Waverly.

Figure 6b: Comparison of Historical Housing Conditions, Charles Village vs Better Waverly: 1980-

2010

Therefore, the authors offer a tentative conclusion that the presence of the CVCBD has mitigated the larger

conditions of population decline for areas within the district. Although all three comparisons made within this

study have clear limitations, especially in the ability to infer direct causality between the creation and

operation of the CVCBD and the current condition of housing, cumulatively they indicate a strong

correlation between the formation and re-organization of the CVCBD in 2004 and the stabilization of

neighborhoods within the district.

Focusing specifically on the period from 2000 to the present, all three comparisons indicate that

neighborhoods within the CVCBD have stabilized from the long term historical downturn while the adjacent

area has continued to see population decline and abandonment.


Desired Priorities and Services:

Respondents were asked several questions regarding how they would like to see the CVCBD allocate

its time and resources for the community. These questions were asked in two ways. One question simply

asked respondents to rank 5 categories of services the district could provide under the original provisions for

which it was chartered; Safety, Sanitation, Promotion and Marketing, Public Amenities, and Recreational

Programs. Respondents were not required to rank all 5 categories and some respondents chose to only rank

services they felt the district should be involved in and left the remaining categories unranked. The results of

this question are shown below in Figure 7.

Figure 7: Ranking of CVCBD Services

As expected, the overall response was for additional security within the district. However, due to the high

cost of security provision, a further question was developed which asked respondents to consider specific

services based on a set cost whereby individuals could understand the relative differences in services that

could be acquired on a set budget. Specifically, services were broken down into increments such that each

service increment would cost approximately $16,71016 and were explained as follows17:

For an additional $16,710, the CVCBD can provide any of the following services. Please number them based

on that you would like the most, with 1 being your first choice and 5 being your last choice.

2 off-duty officers patrolling the district 4 hours a week

1 security camera monitored by Baltimore City Police 24/7

1 sanitation worker cleaning streets and alleys 22 hours a week

315 rat stations checked weekly

15 public trash cans checked daily

16 The value of $16,710 was chosen by the average cost of a obtaining, installing, and monitoring a single security camera

in 2013. 17 These numbers were obtained through the cooperation of the CVCBD and reflect their internal estimates of service

costs as well as calculations by the researchers using CVCBD internal data.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Ranking from 1st to 5th

Sanitation

Safety

Promoting/Marketing

Public Amenities

Recreational Programs


Figure 8: Ranking of Specific CVCBD Services by Cost of Provision

When respondents were asked to consider the different levels of service provision that could be attained

based on limited resources several differences emerged. Overall, the majority of respondents indicated the

desire for additional police officers regardless of the relatively high cost per hour this course of action

implied. While the addition of security cameras followed, with 61 of 131 surveys indicating either a 1 or 2,

there was a difference between individual’s desire for security and their choice of how that security would be

provisioned.

Specifically, there was a strong correlation between an individual’s placement of Security as a high priority and

their placement of either Patrol Officers or Security Cameras as a high priority but not both. There was no

correlation between the level of priority an individual made regarding Patrol Officers and the level of priority

they chose regarding Security Cameras. This potentially indicates that respondents who want Security may be

split on how they want that security implemented and that individuals may not see Security Cameras and

Patrol Officers as interchangeable in the ability to provide adequate security within the district.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

Nu

mb

er

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Ranking from 1st to 5th

Patrol Officers

Security Camera

Sanitation Worker

Rat Stations

Public Transcans


Reauthorization:

In addition to questions regarding perception and awareness of the CVCBD, understanding residents

and businesses attitudes towards the reauthorization process was considered essential as at no time since the

initial authorization of the CVCBD in 1994 has the overall community had an opportunity to vote on the

continuation of the district itself18. Therefore, to understand potential differences between the those members

of the community with clear access to the governing board of CVCBD and those who may not have a clear

voice in the governing of the district, the researchers considered the question of reauthorization itself to be

highly important.

Of those surveyed, only 113 answered the question regarding reauthorization due to the initial decision to

only ask respondents to answer the question on reauthorization if they first indicated an awareness of the

CVCBD itself. However, many respondents answered this part of the survey regardless and in hindsight this

question should have been asked of all respondents regardless of awareness to better understand potential

differences between residents with and without knowledge of the district.

Table 9: Breakdown of Reauthorization by All Respondents

18 A principle reason for this is the expense and logistics of conducting a community-wide referendum and therefore ensuring the sampling methodology employed by this survey would achieve a representative sample of the population was considered of paramount importance.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Support 58 28.3 51.3 51.3

Oppose 19 9.3 16.8 68.1

No

Opinion36 17.6 31.9 100.0

Total 113 55.1 100.0

Missing 99 92 44.9

Total 205 100.0

Valid


Table 10: Breakdown of Reauthorization by Type of Awareness

Dr Hyde’s 2002 study of the CVCBD also asked this question but was added to the survey late and only

received 51 responses to the question. The 2002 study indicated 68.6% support, 25.5% opposition, and 5.9%

“Unsure”. If we only consider surveys which indicated either support or opposition to the reauthorization

question, the overall levels of both support and opposition remain relatively unchanged from the 2002 survey.

However, our 2014 survey indicates a much higher percentage of respondents with “no opinion” on the

question of reauthorization. This could indicate a general trend of disengagement from the district over the

past 12 years but would require a better understanding of why those respondents who indicated some level of

awareness of the CVCBD chose to no offer an opinion as the question of reauthorization in this study19.

Finally, the researchers sought to understand if there were any spatial or other differences amongst the

supporters or opposition. First by looking for differences by both Quadrant and by a north-south division of

the CVCBD at 27th Street. While there is a higher percentage of support for reauthorization in Quadrant 1

and higher levels of opposition in Quadrants 3 and 4, the researchers found no statistically significant

differences by spatial differentiation within the district in regards to reauthorization (See Figure 9 below).

19 The authors caution in any causal or direct interpretation of this finding as the results from the 2002 study were both very small (only 51 respondents) and, as noted previously, had a significantly different sampling distribution of the district due to its methodology.

Aware Unaware Aware Unaware

Support 44 13 57.0 Support 35 21 57.0

62.0% 31.7% 50.9% 58.3% 41.2% 50.5%

Oppose 14 5 19.0 Oppose 14 5 19.0

19.7% 12.2% 17.0% 23.3% 9.8% 17.1%

No Opinion 13 23 36.0 No Opinion 11 25 36.0

18.3% 56.1% 32.1% 18.3% 49.0% 32.4%

Total 71 41 112.0 Total 60 51 111.0

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

CVCBD TaxTotal

CVCBD MapTotal


Figure 9: Reauthorization by Quadrant

However, when we examined differences by ownership within the district, the researchers found significant

differences between those who own a home or business and those who rent or work within the district’s

boundaries20. Specifically, the sub group of residents was found to be the principle mechanism underlying the

difference, where home-owners were found to have a significantly different level of response to the question

of reauthorization than renters21. While overall, home-owners supported the district with 58.8% indicating

they supported reauthorization by the City Council, another 32.4% of home-owners opposed reauthorization

with only 8.8% having no opinion. This is in contrast to renters who were relatively split on the question of

reauthorization by either supporting the reauthorization (50%) or having no opinion (45.2%). Only 4.8% of

renters, specifically 2 cases, indicated opposition to reauthorization by the City Council out of 76 total

responses.

20 A Pearson’s χ2 Test of Independence was performed and found a highly significant relationship at the 0.001 level for both overall differences between owners and non-owners and between home-owners and renters. No statistically significant relationship was found between business owners and employees within the district, however this sample is so small (n=23) as to be considered highly inaccurate of any results. 21 No significant differences were found between business owners and employees.

Quadrant 1

Support: 76.5%

Oppose: 5.9%

No Opinion: 17.6%

Quadrant 2

Support: 52.9%

Oppose: 11.8%

No Opinion: 35.3%

Quadrant 3

Support: 56.5%

Oppose: 21.7%

No Opinion: 21.7%

Quadrant 4

Support: 42.1%

Oppose: 26.3%

No Opinion: 31.6%


Following the results of Survey II, after the successful reauthorization of the CVCBD, the results were

significantly different with almost no indications of continued opposition to the district. While indications of

‘support’ of the district declined to less than 50% of respondents, the largest group of respondents, 48.4%,

indicated they had ‘No Opinion’ on reauthorization. Opposition to the reauthorization of the district declined

to only 6.5%. Of those who indicated any level of familiarity with the CVCBD in the second survey, a 3 or

higher, the percentages change slightly, with 60% of respondents supportive of the reauthorization and 1/3

of respondents with no opinion. The level of opposition remained unchanged and starkly lower than the level

of opposition observed in Survey I.

Overall then, the majority of respondents continue to support the CVCBD and reauthorization by the City

Council. However, several important elements should not be overlooked. One, the percentage of individuals

within district who are unaware of the CVCBD and its operations seems high, possibly due to the high

percentage of rental homes within certain areas of the district and the potentially transient population this

implies. The second being the potential discord regarding the CVCBD between residents of the district,

specifically home-owners, indicated by both questions regarding reauthorization, perception of performance

of the CVCBD, and perceptions of security which all indicated some level of polarization. However, this level

of opposition found within the district may not be continuous but instead may fluctuate based on perceived

external conditions, specifically the political contest over reauthorization or other functions.


Camera Impact on Crime and Perception of Crime:

A central purpose in performing Survey II was to attempt to identify changes within the district based on the

installation and operation of new security cameras purchased and installed by the CVCBD in 2013. Thus,

Survey II was performed along specific corridors of the CVCBD where cameras had been installed by January

of 2014 and were being utilized by the Baltimore City Police Department. The researchers generally stayed

within one block of camera locations to both understand if there were perceived differences in the level of

safety in these locations and to directly assess responses to questions regarding these cameras.

Figure 10: Survey II Area and Camera Locations

Overall, a super-majority of respondent (64.7%) indicated they approved of the cameras. However, only half

(48.6%) of respondents indicated any knowledge that the cameras had been installed and were functioning22

while a slightly majority (53.3%) indicated they felt the cameras had currently made no impact in the level of

crime and safety in the area and only 33.3% indicating they felt the cameras had a positive impact. When we

controlled for only those individuals who indicated knowledge of cameras and perceptions of their impact,

the values became relatively split with 56.3% indicating no impact on crime and 43.7% indicating a positive or

slightly positive impact.

Further, the researchers compared crime reports by the Baltimore City Police Department in 2013 to 2014 to

understand what direct impact, if any, the installation of the cameras had in the area. While all crime data for

22 Researchers routinely had to point out the cameras to respondents as many seemed unable to locate the cameras even when they were directly asked.


2013 was coded, it was decided to only use the first 6 months of crime data for 2013 for two reasons; one was

the staggered installation of the cameras throughout the latter part of 2013 and the second was to make some

attempt to control for external temporal differences in crime between the two years on the assumption that

crime levels may be affected by seasonal changes.

Table 11a: Number or Crimes by Neighborhood within CVCBD

Table 11a shows the varying changes in overall numbers of crimes within the CVCBD from the first half of

2013 to the first half of 2014 with mixed results23. While Table 11b shows the cumulative level of crime by

specific groupings. Overall, the number of crimes reported within the CVCBD has declined by over 11%

through the first six months of 2014. However, when we exclude the Waverly Main Street corridor along

Greenmount Ave, the overall level has declined by less than 5%. The authors then examined specific

corridors along 25th Street and North Charles St, where 7 of the new cameras were installed, and found a

significant reduction in crime when only looking at the area in direct proximity of the new cameras.

Table 11b: Number or Crimes by Location within CVCBD

There the authors offer several qualified responses to the above information. One, the cameras appear to

have had an impact in reducing the level of crimes within a very specific spatial radius. However, this has not

yet led to a significant decrease in overall crime but instead may have simply moved the criminal activity to

other areas within the district. Two, the lack of visibility of the cameras and the camera program more

generally may be hindering their effectiveness to change perceptions of safety within the district.

23 Only crimes which occurred within the CVCBD spatial boundaries were counted.

Number of Crimes Number of Crimes

Neighborhood Jan - June 2013 Jan - June 2014 % Difference

Abell 56 55 -1.79%

Barclay 69 60 -13.04%

Better Waverly 64 23 -64.06%

Charles North 73 64 -12.33%

Charles Village 175 156 -10.86%

Harwood 51 60 17.65%

Johns Hopkins Homewood 1 2 100.00%

Old Goucher 71 75 5.63%

Remington 10 10 0.00%

Number of Crimes Number of Crimes

Neighborhood Jan - June 2013 Jan - June 2014 % Difference

Total CVCBD 570 505 -11.40%

Excluding Waverly 506 482 -4.74%

25th St Cooridor 154 107 -30.52%

Charles St Cooridor 151 138 -8.61%

CVCBD Final Report Appendix, September, 2014 1 | P a g e

Appendix A: Survey:

A survey of Charles Village residents was conducted by a research team from the Johns Hopkins University.

This method of surveying has both a low response rate and is highly time-intensive. For this particular project, it is

estimated that overall less than 20% of those approached were willing or able to respond to the questionnaire, and

each completed survey represents, on average, approximately 30 minutes of man-hours to collect.

In-person surveying was used, as opposed to on-line, phone/mail-in, or focus groups, to ensure spatial coverage and

demographic representation of the district. These alternative forms of surveying have, historically, extremely low

response rates and are often demographically and socially skewed towards persons of higher socio-economic status

and whites1. Of central concern were groups that may not have access to computers or would be unwilling or unable

to respond to phone or mailed interviews due to language or writing barriers2.

Spatial coverage was considered of paramount concern to reflect the attitudes and concerns of all streets and

neighborhoods throughout the district. Thus, a rolling, in-person survey methodology provided the opportunity to

adjust times and locations of the survey groups to ‘fill in’ gaps in the spatial coverage of the district over the period

the interviews were conducted. The primary researchers maintained a map of all survey locations and the number of

completed surveys in each area was continuously updated.

The teams were at all times led by either Dr. Pasciuti or Mr. Al-Mansur and consisted of faculty and undergraduates

of the Johns Hopkins and Morgan State Universities. Surveying was conducted from November 2013 to June 2014.

Teams primarily operated during the week, although surveying was also conducted on weekends. In addition, survey

times were varied such that groups went in the morning, around midday, and in the afternoon/evening to have a

complete sampling of persons who live, work or otherwise maintain a presence within the district boundaries

regardless of varied schedules.

From this, two surveys were developed that were designed to last between 8 and 15 minutes and focused on certain

overall questions within the district as well as specific questions for individual sub-groups. These surveys were

conducted between November 2013 and June 2014. Finally, members of the research team attended community and

business association meetings throughout the district, as observers, to see the organization and discussion of the

groups and their relationship with the CVCBD. No surveys were conducted at these meetings but some participants

were later contacted for either interviews or to participate in the survey. Although sometimes presented with the

opportunity to survey all participants at these meetings, the researchers decided against this approach due to

concerns this would skew the data collection due to the concern that active members of community and business

associations may not be representative of the community at large34.

1 Dr Cheryl Hyde used phone interviews and focus groups in her 2002 study of the CVCBD and noted both a low overall response rate and a large oversampling of whites and homeowners in the district, suggesting her results were skewed by the methodology used. This is part of the reason a more labor intensive methodology was used for this study. 2 By using in-person surveying, members of the research team were able to fill in information dictated by the respondent, rephrase a question in the survey, or define a term, if requested, to facilitate the respondents’ ability to answer as many questions as possible. 3 For the same reasons as online and phone interviewing was rejected, it was assumed that those who routinely attend association meetings were more likely to be from a specific sub-group of the community and not reflect the demographic and socio-economic diversity which exists within the CVCBD. 4 In retrospect this may have been a missed opportunity to compare the ‘active’ members of the community and business

associations within CVCBD to the ‘general’ population of particular neighborhoods. Although this would have created a new set

of surveys distinct from the random surveys conducted throughout the district, it could address the concern of representation.

Several CVCBD Board Member positions are assigned by select community and business associations, and knowing how the


Survey I Organization:

Survey I was designed to operate in 3 stages. Part I, an initial single page, asked general demographic

questions and, importantly, the respondents relationship to the district: Residential, Business, Student, or Visitor.

Potential respondents were shown a map of the area which included the CVCBD and asked if they lived, worked,

studied, or otherwise visited the area and if they would be willing to participate in a short survey regarding security

and sanitation provision5. This portion was completed by all respondents, compiling the 205 total survey responses

obtained by the study as of April 30, 2014 with the time, date, and location where the survey was conducted,

aggregated to the 100 block level of the North-South street (i.e. 2500 St Paul). The locations of all completed surveys

were kept to try and ensure geographic coverage of the district so that each survey group could target areas of the

district where there were limited, or no, surveys completed.

Part II was a longer two page questionnaire, based on the respondents reported relationship to the district, and

included focused questions regarding the specific block(s) in which they were located. This portion of the survey was

slightly different for each subgroup. We also asked for the location where a respondent lived, worked, or visited (at

the 100 block level) to verify their relationship to the district6.

Finally, Part III was a questionnaire provided to all respondents that specifically asked questions regarding the

district, if respondents were involved or identified with organizations within the district (i.e. community groups for

residents or business associations for workers), and specific questions regarding the CVCBD itself, the overall

assessment of conditions within the district and reauthorization. This was deliberately left to the end to try and limit

biased answers, if individuals had a predisposition for or against the district. While this did not prevent individuals

from quickly determining our interests prior to the final questionnaire, it hopefully limited the potential bias of

respondents to local conditions, as opposed to district-wide perceptions.

As each portion of the survey was administered separately, each respondent was assigned a Master ID to ensure each

sub section of the survey could be identified with the other sections to prevent mixing of results.

Survey II Organization:

Survey II was simplified to two pages in length. It retained the general demographic questions and CVCBD

evaluation questions from Survey I but focused on questions of security and the presence of cameras. Each

survey was assigned a Master ID, separate from the coding using in Survey I, to ensure differentiation between

the two databases.

views and agendas of these associations compares to that of the community at large could provide valuable insight on the

governance structure of the CVCBD. Though this is outside the scope of the original proposal, we discovered that representation

is a key point of contention amongst the opposition and should be considered in future work on the CVCBD. 5 No monetary compensation was offered for participation, however on several occasions other compensation was proffered such as shoveling a walkway or car, or watching for a particular bus, while the respondent completed the survey. 6 Respondents were not required to fill out this portion of the survey. However, unverified locations were excluded from analysis that attempted to draw conclusions from specific sub-groups within the district.


Appendix B: Survey Breakdown and Representation:

A total of 205 initial surveys (Survey I) were completed and collected over the period from November 2013

to June 2014. Survey I covered 87% of the approximately 100 city blocks encompassed within the district. The

spatial coverage claim was achieved by aggregating all survey locations to the 100 block level of the North-South

street and then buffering a 300’ radius around that point. A distance of 300 feet was used as the approximate length

of a city block, the average city block being between 264’ and 352’ in length. The total area of the overlapping zones

of geographic coverage was then calculated in square meters and compared to the total square meters of land

encompassed by the CVCBD. See Figure A1.

FIGURE A1: Spatial Coverage of Surveys in the Charles Village area.

While 205 surveys is a small proportion of the overall population in the district, both the sampling method used and

spatial coverage achieved provide the researchers with confidence that the sample is representative of the overall

population at large. Further confidence in the representativeness of the sample was achieved by comparing the

survey demographics to the 2010 U.S. Census values for the district. See Tables A1 thru A3.


TABLE A1: Racial Comparison of 2010 Census and Surveys.

Race 2010 Census CVCBD Survey

White 6654 45.58% 88 42.93%

Black or African American 5175 35.45% 84 40.98%

American Indian or Alaskan Native 44 0.30% 4 1.95%

Asian 2002 13.72% 10 4.88%

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander

14

0.10%

0

0.00%

Hispanic/Latino 688 4.71% 4 1.95%

Other/Refused to Answer 14 6.83%

Total 14597 205

Other general information about the demographic profile of respondents is displayed in Table 2 below.

TABLE A2: Demographic Profile of Survey Respondents

Gender

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Male 115 56.4 56.9

Femal 87 42.6 43.1

Unknown/Refused to Answer 2 1.0 100.0

Income

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

<25k 72 35.3 35.3

25-49k 47 23.0 58.3

50-74k 24 11.8 70.1

75k-99k 17 8.3 78.4

100k-149k 16 7.8 86.3

150k-199k 5 2.5 88.7

>199k 4 2.0 90.7

Unknown/Refused to Answer 19 9.3 100.0

Education

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

<High School 15 7.4 7.5

High School/GED 43 21.1 28.9

Some College 39 19.1 48.3

2-year college 12 5.9 54.2

4-year college 48 23.5 78.1

Master's Degree 33 16.2 94.5

Doctoral Degree 6 2.9 97.5

Professional Degree 5 2.5 100.0

Unknown/Refused to Answer 4 1.5

A breakdown of the surveys by sub-group is displayed in Table A3 below as well as the spatial distribution of sub-

groups in Figure A2. The geo-referencing match displayed in Table A3 is the percentage of locations we were able to


verify based on respondents’ answers. The overall geo-referencing match rate was approximately 86% (167 matches

of 194 surveys where location information was asked)7.

Table A3: Distribution of Surveys by Sub-Groupings8

Residential Business Visitor Student

Total 118 51 25 15

Total w/address 103 49 15 N/A

Total within district 97 47 15 N/A

Geo-referencing Percentage 87% 96% 60% N/A

This distribution is very different from Dr Hyde’s survey in 2002 which sampled 157 residents and business owners within the CVCBD and primarily sampled home-owners, 60% of the survey respondents in 2002 were home- owners, as opposed to only 32% of respondents in our 2014 survey. Dr Hyde also noted that the survey was over- represented by white respondents (71.5% of respondents) and therefore did not reflect the racial diversity of the CVCBD.

FIGURE A2: Spatial Coverage of Surveys by Sub-Groupings (‘Student’ Surveys Not Shown)

7 Note: Students surveys are not included in these numbers or in Figure A2, as geographic location was not asked. Instead we asked the University or College the respondent was attending. All ‘Student’ surveys reported an affiliation with Johns Hopkins University. 8 Note: The number of sub-group surveys in Table A3 sum to 209, more than the 205 completed surveys, due to some respondents answering as a combination of more than one sub-group. These respondents were provided the option of either filling out the survey for which they most identified with or filling out surveys for each group they fell within. This created a situation where we have more than one sub-group survey for several respondents but each was only allowed to complete one total survey regarding demographics and views on the CVCBD, Parts I and III of the survey respectively.


We have further broken down the distribution of respondents by district spatial differentiations, by Quad location

and individual’s relationship to the community, as a property/business owner, a renter, or an employee. See Tables

A4 and A5 below.

Table A4: Distribution of Surveys by Owner Status and CVCBD Quadrant

Owner Status

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Home or Business Owner 51 30.4 31.3

Renter 72 42.9 44.2

Employee 40 23.8 24.5

Total 163 97.0 100.0

Unknown/Refused to Answer

5

3.0

Quadrant

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

First 28 19.4 22.2

Second 30 20.8 23.8

Third 33 22.9 26.2

Fourth 35 24.3 27.8

Total 126 87.5 100.0

Unknown/Outside of District

18

12.5

Table A5: Cross-tabulation of Surveys: Ownership Status by Spatial Position within CVCBD9

Owner Status QUAD

Total 1 2 3 4

Own Home or Business 13 4 8 20 45

Rent or Work 15 25 25 13 78

Total 28 29 33 33 123

Owner Status North of 27th St South of 27th St Total

Own Home or Business

Rent or Work

28

45

20

46

48

91

Total 73 66 139

9 Note: The total numbers are not consistent due to the coding process used in the survey collection. Survey locations were aggregated to the 100 block level, therefore it was impossible to differentiate survey locations along the two north-south corridors which differentiate the district’s quadrants; St Paul and Guilford Ave. For example, a survey reported at 2500 St Paul could not be determined if it was in Quad 1 or Quad 2 and was therefore left out of the cross-tabulation. In addition, several respondents chose not to state where they lived/worked, or simply did not answer the question correctly, so their information could not be included.


FIGURE A3: Quadrant Boundaries


Appendix C: Perceptions

FIGURE A4 Perception of Overall Sanitation within CVCBD by Ownership Status

Neither Students nor Visitors responses to these questions were included in these results due to several factors. For

both groups the overall numbers were low (15 students and 25 visitors) as neither of these groups was the primary

target of the research.

For Visitors, only 60% of visitors surveyed provided a location to where they were visiting within the district,

therefore confirming where in the district their perceptions and opinions were shaped by, was limited. Further, of

those who did provide a location, they were overwhelmingly in the southern half of the district (approximately 69%)

and those were primarily visiting Quadrant 2 (approximately 90% of visitors in the southern half of the district were

located within Quad 2).

It should be noted however, that nearly half of all visitors reported feeling safe (48%) and almost two-thirds reported

feeling slightly safe or safe within the district (64%). A similar trend holds for sanitation as well with nearly half

(48%) of visitors feeling the district was slightly clean and more than two-thirds (68%) reporting the district as

slightly clean or clean.

For Student responses we did not collect location information as all students reported their affiliation with Johns

Hopkins University. However, it should be noted that, similar to the visitors, the majority of students reported

feeling either slightly safe or safe (80%) and a slight majority (53%) feeling the district was slightly clean or clean.

One interesting difference between these groups was their perception of security cameras. While visitor responses

were varied with a bi-modal distribution split between ‘neutral’ and ‘agree’ on the presence of cameras, Students

overwhelmingly supported the presence of cameras in the area with 80% of all those surveyed indicating they either

‘slightly agreed’ or ‘agreed’ with the presence of cameras in the district10.

10 No conclusions should be drawn from these values as the absolute numbers were so small as to have no ability to claim these values represent the overall population of Johns Hopkins Students or Visitors to the CVCBD area.

Own Business or Home

Rent or Work within District

Overall CVCBD

Unclean Neither Unclean

nor Clean

Slightly Clean

Perc

en

tag

e o

f R

esp

on

den

ts


FIGURE A5: Perceptions of Safety and Sanitation in Charles Village and Compared to Baltimore

FIGURE A6: Perceptions of Overall CVCBD Safety by Quad Location of Resident/Worker

FIGURE A7: Perceptions of Overall CVCBD Safety by North-South Location of Resident/Worker

Charles Village Safety

C.V. Safety vs.

Baltimore

Charles Village

Sanitation

C.V. Sanitationvs. Baltimore

2 3

5 Period Likert Scale

4 5

Quad 1

Quad 2

Quad 3

Quad 4

Unsafe Slightly Unsafe Neither Unsafe Slightly Safe Nor Safe

5%

0%

South of 27th St

North of 27th St

Overall CVCBD

Slightly Unsafe

Slightly Safe Unsafe Nor

Safe

Safe

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

en

ts

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

den

ts

CVCBD Final Report Appendix, August, 2014 10 | P a g e

FIGURE A8: Perceptions of Overall CVCBD Sanitation by Quad Location of Resident/Worker

FIGURE A9: Perceptions of Overall CVCBD Sanitation by North-South Location of Resident/Worker

Along with a general question of awareness of the CVCDB, respondents were asked about their self-determined

level of familiarity (on a 1-5 Likert Scale) and its services. Only 75 of the 91 people who were aware of the CVCBD

answered this question, although an additional 41 respondents answered this question who had not indicated an

awareness of the district in the earlier questions (coded as 99-1 thru 99-5). Table A6, below, presents a breakdown

of the overall response of respondents and the subset of only those respondents who had initially indicated

awareness of the CVCBD.

Quad 1

Quad 2

Quad 3

Quad 4

Slightly Unclean

Neither Unclean nor

Clean

Slightly Clean

5%

0%

South of 27th St

North of 27th St

Overall CVCBD

Slightly Unclean

Slightly Clean Unclean nor

Clean

Per

cen

tage

of

Res

po

nd

en

ts

Nu

mb

er o

f R

esp

on

den

ts


Table A6: Respondent Familiarity with Charles Village Benefits District Services

To assess the perceived level of performance of the CVCBD by respondents, the researchers chose to only take the

opinions of those who both indicated awareness of the CVCBD and indicated at least some level of familiarity with

its services (those who reported a 3 or higher on the Likert scale). The 57 remaining responses are broken down in

Table A7.

Table A7: Respondent Perception of Performance of CVCBD

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Poor 13 22.8 22.8

Slightly Poor 3 5.3 28.1

Neutral 7 12.3 40.4

Slightly Good 14 24.6 64.9

Good 20 35.1 100.0

Total 57 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Unfamiliar

12

5.9

5.9

Slightly Unfamiliar 6 2.9 8.8

So-so/Neutral 8 3.9 12.7

Slightly Familiar 13 6.4 19.1

Very Familiar 36 17.6 36.8

No Answer 88 43.1 79.9

99-1 29 14.2 94.1

99-2 5 2.5 96.5

99-3 4 2.0 98.5

99-4 1 .5 99.0

99-5 2 1.0 100.0

Total 204 100.0

Frequency

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Unfamiliar

12

16.0

16.0

Slightly Unfamiliar 6 8.0 24.0

So-so/Neutral 8 10.7 34.7

Slightly Familiar 13 17.3 52.0

Very Familiar 36 48.0 100.0

Total 75 100.0


Appendix D: Housing

Table A8: Breakdown of Housing Conditions for Select Neighborhoods in 2010

Figure A10: Comparison of Historical Rental Housing Conditions: 1970-2010

As mentioned previously, the CVCBD is somewhat unique within the general area of Baltimore due to the very high

percentage of housing which is used as rental property, rather than owner-occupied. However, high levels of rental


housing units is both a historical constant and endemic of much of the housing stock in the central part of Baltimore

itself.

Thus, the only comparable areas of Baltimore where the authors could hold the high level of rental conditions

constant were areas which also had benefits districts in Midtown, Downtown, and the Waterfront. While this would

be highly beneficial to compare the existing districts within Baltimore City, it was beyond the scope and capacity of

this study.

Figure A11: Rental Levels in Baltimore City Neighborhoods (Normalized Housing Standard Deviations)11

11 Note: Values on the map are distorted in certain ‘neighborhoods’ by the presence of very few homes.

Documents

REPORT ON THE CHARLES VILLAGE COMMUNITY BENEFITS …charlesvillage.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/CVCBD-Final-Report-… · Mr Rafee Al-Mansur The Johns Hopkins University September