Indicator SC.1.j Residents' perceived safety

SC.1.j Residents' perceived safety

Download PDF map.

SC.1.j Residents' perceived safety

Download PDF map.

Residents' perceived safety during the day and night (2009)
    During the Day During the Night

Supervisoral District

 Neighborhoods Very unsafe or unsafe Neither safe nor unsafe Very safe or safe Very unsafe or unsafe Neither safe nor unsafe Very safe or safe
1 Richmond,     Laurel Heights  2% 7% 91% 12% 26% 61%
2 Marina,     Presidio,         Cow Hollow,   Pacific Heights 3% 7% 90% 13% 21% 66%
3 North Beach, Chinatown, Russian Hills,     Nob Hill, Downtown  5% 7% 87% 19% 24% 56%
4 Outer Sunset, Parkside  3% 10% 86% 20% 23% 56%
5 Western Addition,      Haight-Ashbury,    Cole Valley 6% 8% 86% 23% 21% 56%
6 SOMA,           Rincon Hill,      Civic Center 13% 17% 70% 37% 25% 37%
7 Merced,         Inner Sunset, Forest Hill, Lakeside  4% 7% 90% 13% 21% 66%
8 Castro,             Noe Valley, Dolores Heights, Diamond Heights, Duboce Triangle 3% 6% 90% 14% 20% 66%
9 Mission,       Bernal Heights  4% 16% 81% 33% 36% 32%
10 Potrero Hill,       Bay View Hunters Point,        Visitation Valley 15% 13% 72% 49% 21% 29%
11 Excelsior,     Mission Terrace, Ingleside, Oceanview,   Merced Heights 15% 21% 64% 49% 22% 28%
San Francisco 6% 10% 84% 25% 23% 52%

Data Source

Data from the San Francisco City Survey Report 2009 by the City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Controller. Available at: http://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=904

Map and table created by San Francisco Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section using ArcGIS software.

Table data is presented by supervisoral district. Detailed information regarding geographic units of analysis, their definitions, and their boundaries can be found in the HDMT at the following links:

http://www.thehdmt.org/etc/Geographic_Units_of_Analysis.pdf

http://www.thehdmt.org/data_map_methods.php .

Explanation and Limitations

The map and table represent answers given by San Francisco residents to a question on the 2009 City Survey.

According to the City Survey Report 2009, the City Survey (formerly called Citizen Survey) is conducted by the San Francisco Controller's Office in order to measure residents' opinions about the quality and level of City services.  A total of 2,770 randomly selected San Francisco residents were surveyed, including 1,821 who filled out a mailed questionnaire (representing a cooperation rate of 17%) and 802 who were contacted by telephone (representing a cooperation rate of 33%).  The survey was available in English, Spanish, and Chinese.  Cooperation rates in 2009, the number of surveys returned out of the total number of valid attempts (i.e. valid addresses and valid phone numbers), dropped from the 2007 cooperation rates (which was 27% by mail and 40% by phone).

According to the report, the characteristics of the survey respondents do not perfectly match the characteristics of the general population in San Francisco. Compared to the general population, the survey respondents were more educated, more likely to identify as White/Caucasian and less likely to identify as African American/Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Latino/Hispanic; more likely to be over 44 years old; and less likely to live alone.  

The questions used to construct these maps and tables were, "How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood during the day?" and "How safe do you feel walking alone in your neighborhood at night?" The possible answers were "very safe," "safe," "neither safe nor unsafe," "unsafe," or "very unsafe." A total of 2,732 respondents answered the first question; the number of responses in each supervisoral district ranged from 133 to 308. A total of 2,667 respondents answered the second question; the number of responses in each supervisoral district ranged from 126 to 300. The tables were collapsed to conserve space, showing “very safe or safe,” “neither safe or unsafe,” and “unsafe or very unsafe” for day and night time responses.  Because of rounding, some of the rows may not add to 100%. The two maps show the percent of respondents in each supervisoral district who answered that they felt either "safe" or "very safe" walking alone in their neighborhood during the day/night.

Since each supervisoral district contains several neighborhoods, it is not possible compare the answers given by people living in different neighborhoods within the districts. In addition, different people may report different levels of perceived safety in the same situation, or the same level of perceived safety for different reasons. For example, one person's concerns about safety may reflect his/her knowledge of crimes that have taken place in the neighborhood, while another's may reflect physical characteristics of the neighborhood, such as poor lighting.

For more information, the City Survey Report 2009—including information about the survey responses and methodology and a sample survey questionnaire—is available at: http://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=904

The relationship between the built environment, social cohesion, and safety is complex. Community violence decreases the safety of a neighborhood, inhibiting social interactions and adversely affecting social cohesion.a This can create a vicious circle, as social cohesion can be a valuable tool in decreasing crime.b Studies have found a negative relationship between neighborhood residents' levels of mutual trust/willingness to take action and levels of violent crime.c,d In addition, the level of safety perceived by residents of a neighborhood may differ from objective measures of the level of safety (e.g. crime rates), and may be influenced by the residents' feelings of integration into the social fabric of the neighborhood or by other aspects of social cohesion.e,f

Why is this a Community Health Indicator?

Homicides, physical assaults, and rapes/sexual assaults are direct and adverse health outcomes for a community. Witnessing and experiencing community violence causes longer term behavioral and emotional problems in youth.g Community violence also impacts the perceived safety of a neighborhood, inhibiting social interactions and adversely affecting social cohesion.a Residents' worries about safety in their neighborhoods can be a cause of chronic stress.h One study found that residents of neighborhoods with greater safety (as reported by other residents of the neighborhood) had less hypertension than residents of neighborhoods with less safety.i Residents' feelings about safety in their neighborhoods can also be a disincentive to engage in physical activity outdoors, particularly among women and older persons.j  In a large scale study involving over 600,000 residents in Sweden, the rate of violent crime in an individual’s neighborhood predicted their risk for coronary heart disease, regardless of individual demographic and socioeconomic measures.k  Encouraging students to walk or bicycle to school can help combat the rising rates of childhood obesity by encouraging regular physical exercise. However, parental concerns about neighborhood crime strongly influence their willingness to allow their children to actively commute to school.l

  1. Fullilove MT, Heon V, Jimenez W, Parsons C, Green LL, Fullilove RE. 1998. Injury and anomie: effects of violence on an inner-city community. Am J Public Health 88(6):924-7.
  2. Putnam R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
  3. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F. 1997. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science 277:918-924.
  4. Kennedy BP, Kawachi I, Prothrow-Stith D, Lochner K, Gupta V. 1998. Social capital, income inequality, and firearm violent crime. Social Science & Medicine 47:7-17.
  5. Rountree PW, Land KC. 1996. Perceived risk versus fear of crime: empirical evidence of conceptually distinct reactions in survey data. Social Forces 1996: 1353-1376.
  6. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW. 2004. Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows.” Social Psychology Quarterly 2004: 319-342.
  7. Perez-Smith AM, Albus KE, Weist MD. 2001. Exposure to violence and neighborhood affiliation among inner-city youth. J Clin Child Psychol 30(4):464-72.
  8. Altschuler A, Somkin CP, Adler NE. 2004. Local services and amenities, neighborhood social capital, and health. Social Science & Medicine 59: 1219-1229.
  9. Mujahid MS, Diex Roux AV, Morenoff JD, Raghunathan TE, Cooper RS, Ni H, Shea S. 2008. Neighborhood characteristics and hypertension. Epidemiology 19: 590-598.
  10. Foster S, Giles-Corti B. 2008. The built environment, neighborhood crime, and constrained physical activity: An exploration of inconsistent findings. Preventive Medicine [e-pub ahead of print]. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18499242?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum . Retrieved 6/30/2008.

  11. Sundquist K, Theobald H, Yang M, et al. Neighborhood violent crime and unemployment increase the risk of coronary heart disease: a multilevel study in an urban setting. Soc Sci Med. 2006;62(8):2061-2071.

  12. Kerr J, Rosenberg D, Sallis JF, et al. Active commuting to school: Associations with environment and parental concerns. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;38(4):787-794.