1 / 8

Emily k. Asencio University of Akron Robert Nash Parker University of California

Exploring trends in youth homicide with cluster analysis: new methodological pathways to policy tools. Emily k. Asencio University of Akron Robert Nash Parker University of California. Alternative Approach: Hierarchical Cluster Analysis.

lhiggins
Download Presentation

Emily k. Asencio University of Akron Robert Nash Parker University of California

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exploring trends in youth homicide with cluster analysis: new methodological pathways to policy tools Emily k. Asencio University of Akron Robert Nash Parker University of California

  2. Alternative Approach: Hierarchical Cluster Analysis • What if we do not know what variables to classify or cluster on? • Like Matching in experiments, classification by known variables is a weak design • Miss important factors • Inadvertently introduce bias • Cluster Analysis Creates possible groupings based on similarity or difference in the trends across the cities • Run analysis starting with 91 Cities each in their own cluster; data reduction exercise

  3. Hierarchical Cluster Results Aged 18-24 Cluster 1: New York; Dallas; Los Angeles; Houston; Ft. Worth; Denver; /San Antonio; Philadelphia; /San Diego; Atlanta; Corpus Christi;/ San Francisco; Detroit; Chicago; Birmingham; Cleveland; Dayton ;/ Baltimore; Oakland; Knoxville; Long Beach; Rochester;/ Newark,NJ; Flint; Amarillo; New Orleans; Santa Ana; Seattle;/ Akron; Cincinnati; Memphis; Little Rock;/ Columbus,OH; Charlotte; Stockton; Nashville; San Jose;/ Cluster 2: Louisville; Norfolk; El Paso; Milwaukee; Grand Rapids; Miami; Jacksonville; Ft. Lauderdale; Gary; Lubbock; Jackson (Miss); Portland; Fresno; Shreveport; Boston; Mobile;/ Cluster 3: Kansas City; Richmond; Chattanooga; Virginia Beach;/ Lexington-Fayette; Providence; Pittsburgh; Riverside; Salt Lake City; Columbus,GA;/ Sacramento; Austin; Madison; St. Petersburg; Buffalo; Tacoma;/Omaha; Oklahoma City; Washington DC;/ Honolulu; St. Louis;/ Baton Rouge; Anaheim; Raleigh; Minneapolis; Phoenix; Montgomery; Cluster 4: Tampa; Toledo; Colorado Springs;/ Springfield; Syracuse;/ Wichita; Ft. Wayne;/ Tulsa; Des Moines; Indianapolis;/ Lincoln;/ Tucson; Greensboro; Spokane; Las Vegas; /Albuquerque; Jersey City; Anchorage;/ St. Paul; Worcester

  4. What factors predict cluster membership • Set of common predictors from each decade • Estimate a logistic regression for each cluster and decade • What can results tell us about factors that distinguish clusters?

  5. Common Predictors: • Poverty Rate • Percent female headed households • Percent housing owner occupied • Percent Young African American males • Unemployment

  6. Results • Cluster 1 (New York,Dallas, Los Angeles) • 1980: %AA Males • 1990: Owner Occupied • 2005: Owner Occupied • Cluster 2 (Louisville,Norfolk,El Paso) • 1980: Poverty • 1990: Poverty • 2005: No significant effects

  7. Results • Cluster 3 (Kansas City(MO),Richmond,Chattanooga) • 1980: No significant effects • 1990: unemployment • 2005: no significant effects • Cluster 4(Tamps,Toledo,Colorado Sprgs) • 1980: Poverty • 1990: Unemployment; Poverty; Owner Occupied; Young AA Males • 2005: No significant effects

  8. Conclusions • Attempt to use cluster analysis is mixed • Clusters have unusual features • Pattern of preliminary results hard to discern • If better models of the cluster memberships could be developed, cities could see how similar they are to other members • Non cluster cities could look for similarities to one of the clusters • More work on this needs to be done!

More Related