NCJ Number
92372
Date Published
1983
Length
148 pages
Annotation
This analysis of possible relationships between four subsidized housing rehabilitation programs in New York City and arson describes patterns associated with suspicious fires, reviews the effectiveness of programmatic antiarson measures, and recommends arson prevention initiatives.
Abstract
The study selected the Section 8 Substantial Rehabilitation Rent Subsidy, the Participation Loan, the J-5l Tax Exemption Abatement, and the Article 8A Rehabilitation Loan Programs for review. Using program and control samples for each program, the analysis compared suspicious fire rates of over l4,OOO buildings between l978 and l98l, of which approximately 9OO had received public rehabilitation assistance. Section 8 buildings had fewer suspicious fires than controls, but specific categories -- Neighborhood Strategy Area submissions, privately owned buildings, and buildings in specific neighborhoods -- within the program displayed an elevated incidence of suspicious fires. Receiving a Participation Loan did not itself appear to increase a building's susceptibility to suspicious fires, but two classes of program buildings -- those located in one neighborhood and those with particular ownership had a greater than expected incidence of suspicious fires. In categories where the data suggested owners may have promoted fires to empty their buildings, the overriding motive probably was gaining entry into programs that require or prefer vacant buildings. Moreover, an owner who is about to rehabilitate a building has little incentive to provide repairs and maintenance, thus creating a risk of fire and arson. Although residential buildings receiving J-5l benefits had more suspicious fires than controls, the sample's small size precluded any definite conclusions. After controlling for building size, there was no significant relationship between Article 8A loan program inclusion and suspicious fires. Recommended arson prevention measures include a required review of the conditions under which buildings being rehabilitated become vacant, thorough project and applicant screening, and explicit selection criteria which prohibit owners found to have harassed tenants by any means from receiving program benefits. Tables and a glossary are supplied.