Objectives
Our study examines whether prioritizing vacant properties for demolition or rehab based on their criminal histories is a worthwhile endeavor in terms of reducing crime.
Methods
Using a difference-in-differences design, we analyzed the effects of demolitions and rehabs on drug, lower-level, property, violent, and total crimes in Cleveland, Ohio (2015–2017). Treatment effects were estimated at the parcel and network levels, with spatially relevant buffer sizes selected using the Network Cross K-function.
Results
Rehabs were associated with modest but statistically significant reductions in violent and drug-related crimes at the parcel level, though only for select quarters. Demolitions showed no crime reduction benefits. The analysis provided no support for prioritizing properties for remediation based on their past criminal histories.
Conclusions
Rehabs may offer greater potential for reducing crime than demolitions, though their effects are modest and context dependent. We discuss the limitations of our study and identify areas for future inquiry.