U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-03-2013, 03:04 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,335 posts, read 5,725,886 times
Reputation: 2058

Advertisements

TOP 10 (least crime)

Neighborhood Crimes per 1000 ppl
Pleasant Ridge 23

Hyde Park 25.3

Mount Washington 29.6

Madisonville 49.4

Oakley 58.3

Mt. Lookout/
Columbia Tusculum 59.7

Hartwell 77.4

College Hill 77.6

East End 87.6

Sedamsville/Riverside
/Sayler Park 92



BOTTOM 10 (most crime)

neighborhood
crime per 1000 ppl
West End 193.1

Linwood 204.6

Walnut Hills 211.7

Over-the-Rhine 284.6

Camp Washington 298.6

Fay Apartments 307.4

CBD-Riverfront 326.3

South Fairmount 355.2

California 441.4

Lower Price Hill
/Queensgate 520.1



There are many different ways to look at crime. In Cincinnati, it is very pocket-concentrated. Non drug-related violent crime continues to be very rare.

As a point of reference, mason crime rate is 8 per 1000 people.

Source: http://news.cincinnati.com/interacti...ers-Cincinnati
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-03-2013, 03:27 PM
 
Location: Cincinnati(Silverton)
1,576 posts, read 2,302,369 times
Reputation: 651
Crime went up 243% in Pleasant Ridge since 2000.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 07:29 PM
 
Location: Indianapolis and Cincinnati
682 posts, read 1,387,611 times
Reputation: 609
It would be interesting to look at the population factor component. By that I mean that many of the "high crime" neighborhoods have less population. So the crime per 1000 is automatically unrealistically high.

One breakin in a neighborhood of 6000 people counts mote than a neighborhood of 24,000.

Thats why I find this type of statistic extremely misleading.

For example I get our neighorhood crime statistics as president of my neighborhood association. In December 2012 there were just 61 Crimes in South Fairmount, reported FOR THE WHOLE MONTH!

Theft, at 14 reported incidents, was the largest reported crime, and that was down 13% from 2011 when it was 16. There were 2 cases of breaking and entering, down 75 percent from 8 in 2011.

I used to get Crime stats from my very upscale downtown Indy neighborhood and we would have loved to have numbers this low.

I would bet if one looks at the NUMBER of crimes in a neighborhood and not relate it to population, in some of those "safe" neighbrohoods on that list there probably have more burglaries, more car breakins, and more acts of domestic violence, but it get "diluted" by the fact there are far more people living in those neighborhoods.

In S. Fairmount, there was 1 domestic violence case an 83 % decrease from 6 in 2011 . There were 5 burglaries , a 44% decrease from 9 in 2011.

The city reports numbers the way they do, to "protect' the reputation of "elite' neighborhoods. If you could get raw data, the average person might draw differrent conclusion. My neighbors Jaguars and Mercedes are probably safer in S Fairmount than they would be near the university or parked in Hyde Park.

And at least in my area there are only 1 or two homes with repeat calls. I bet you can't say that around the university?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 09:41 PM
 
1,295 posts, read 1,519,013 times
Reputation: 687
There are good reasons to use per capita numbers, but I agree they don't tell the whole story. California a hotbed of crime? LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 09:54 PM
 
874 posts, read 1,028,470 times
Reputation: 695
I'm very surprised that a)Mason has that low a crime rate and b)there aren't Cincinnati neighborhoods with a lower crime rate than Mason. In Dayton, the mayor brings up every once in a while that about 20% of the neighborhoods have a lower crime rate than Oakwood, and Cincinnati doesn't usually have anywhere near the crime rate that Dayton does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 10:14 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
31,157 posts, read 57,274,608 times
Reputation: 52008
Quote:
Originally Posted by natininja View Post
There are good reasons to use per capita numbers, but I agree they don't tell the whole story. California a hotbed of crime? LOL.
Probably just a bunch of drunk and disorderlies from Lebo's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Cambridge, MA
4,730 posts, read 10,929,204 times
Reputation: 6449
Given a choice I'd rather loiter at any place along the riverfront as opposed to the Madison/Whetsel corner, or along Hamilton Ave between Cedar and North Bend with all its vacant storefronts. And how could tiny backwater Linwood be more dangerous than the West End??? Maybe it stems from rowdy customers, and dine-and-dashers, at Terry's Turf Club. Those east-siders are a rough bunch, I tell ya!

Something tells me my homie progmac was looking for another way to extol Pleasant Ridge.

The "crime indexes" I see a lot of are also very misleading. "Pocket-concentrated" well describes the reality of what constitutes a dangerous area. The indexes (indices?) seem to be based on ZIP code and therefore don't have much factual basis. It defies logic that a street in Silverton could be four times safer than one in Kennedy Heights a mere three blocks distant. BUT...Silverton's ZIP code is shared by sleepy Deer Park while that of Kennedy Heights doesn't span quieter territory. And by the same token, many parts of town including one of my "pet" communities (yes, Roselawn) are all but crime-free. However, they get pushed into much worse categories by hot spots: a park plagued by drug dealing here, an apartment complex gone sketchy there.

All these studies and statistics are still no substitute for making repeated personal visits to a neighborhood and viewing actual call logs at the local police station.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 05:42 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati
3,335 posts, read 5,725,886 times
Reputation: 2058
Quote:
Originally Posted by goyguy View Post
Something tells me my homie progmac was looking for another way to extol Pleasant Ridge.
Yeah, that's pretty fair. I was going to post it in the other thread where the OPs "parents" (in laws??) I don't remember said that pleasant ridge was a dangerous place to live.

The missing component is the so called "part one" crime, which i believe is more of the stuff people 'worry about'. I have at one point or another seen a list of this. Hyde park and the like definitely come out ahead of the ridge.

The other piece of commentary is that if living in a crime-free area is absolutely the most important thing to you, don't live in the City. Live in one of the suburbs, that have a third of the crime.

I sort of regretted posting this the minute after I did. But I figured it might fade away.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Mason, OH
9,259 posts, read 13,358,349 times
Reputation: 1919
Quote:
Originally Posted by dxdtdemon View Post
I'm very surprised that a)Mason has that low a crime rate and b)there aren't Cincinnati neighborhoods with a lower crime rate than Mason. In Dayton, the mayor brings up every once in a while that about 20% of the neighborhoods have a lower crime rate than Oakwood, and Cincinnati doesn't usually have anywhere near the crime rate that Dayton does.
I am not surprised about Mason. But I do agree population based numbers can be misleading. The 8 per 1000 ppl looks good, but when you consider Mason's population is around 35,000 today that is an actual number of 280 which I consider high for the area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-04-2013, 08:02 AM
 
Location: Cincinnati
4,007 posts, read 4,827,124 times
Reputation: 924
The source link is historical. The most recent data it reports is from 2010, obviously three years ago. Crime rates can change drastically in that amount of time.

Nothing more to see here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Ohio > Cincinnati
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top