Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy

• p. 6 Ref. 7

  Res. Crime Delinquency 21, 303 (1983)

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Rests on outside knowledge: that J. Res. Crime Delinquency vol. 21 (Taylor, Gottfredson & Brower, p. 303) was published in 1984. The p6 image confirms the printed entry reads 21, 303 (1983). This cannot be verified from the files.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 1 Abstract, last sentence

  residential instability with violence are largely mediated by collective efficacy

• p. 6 Discussion and Implications, para 2

  mediated a substantial portion of the association of res-idential stability and disadvantage with multiple measures of violence

• p. 5 Table 4, 1995 homicide events, Residential stability

  0.093 0.042 2.18 ... 0.208 0.046 4.52

• p. 5 Results, perceived violence

  col-lective efficacy appeared to partially medi-ate

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: Checked the abstract on p1, the Results on p5 and Table 4, and the Discussion on p6. For perceived violence, the disadvantage coefficient falls by about 38% and the stability coefficient by about 45%. For victimization, both fall substantially. For homicide, the disadvantage coefficient falls by about 32%, but the stability coefficient goes from 0.093 to 0.208, and model 1 shows stability positively, not negatively, associated with homicide. Footnote 33 (p7) acknowledges the homicide stability result. The Discussion's "multiple measures" is literally true for two of the three outcomes. The abstract's general "largely mediated" wording is broader than the Results' "partially mediate" and does not hold for homicide. This is a wording/scope issue for the authors, not a numeric error.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 6 Further Tests, second test

  NCs where the population was more than 75% black (see the first row of Table 1)

• p. 2 Table 1, first row

  ≥75% black

• p. 6

  the 125 NCs where the population was more than

Judge's note: The p2 Table 1 image shows "≥75% black" with 77, 37 and 11 NCs, totalling 125. The count matches, so the same set is meant. Only the stated threshold wording differs.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 6 Table 5, Intercept row, Victimization as outcome

  −2.015 0.042 −49.24

Only the authors can say what is right here.

Judge's note: The p6 image confirms the values. Every other cell of Table 5 matches coefficient/SE within SE rounding: 3.772/0.379, 0.073/0.060, -1.176/0.251, 0.397/0.070, -1.107/0.272. The SE range 0.0415-0.0425 gives t between -47.4 and -48.6. This is an inconsequential intercept, so it is a query for the authors.

Second check: another model agreed

• p. 1 Author affiliation footnote

  Chicago, IL, 60637 and is a Research Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, Chicago, IL 60611, USA

Judge's note: The p1 page image shows a comma before the first ZIP code only. This is a cosmetic punctuation inconsistency.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 6 Discussion and Implications, second paragraph

  immigration concentration

• p. 3 Table 2 factor label

  Immigrant concentration

• p. 6 Discussion, first paragraph on three dimensions

  concentrated disad-vantage, immigration concentration, and residential stability

Judge's note: The p6 image shows "concentrated disadvantage, immigration concentration, and residential stability". Table 2 on p3 and Tables 3-5 use "Immigrant concentration". The variable label is inconsistent, but the meaning is clear.

Second check: none (judge only)

• p. 6 Further Tests, first paragraph

  significantly (p , 0.01)

• p. 3 Measures

  P , 0.001

Judge's note: The page images confirm lowercase p on p6 and capital P on p3 and p5. This is cosmetic only.

Second check: none (judge only)