March 2002

The University of Memphis
Center for Community Criminology & Research
Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice
405 Mitchell Hall
Memphis, TN 38152
(901) 678-5662
Fax (901) 678-5471
CCCR@cc.memphis.edu

Abstract

This technical report was prepared for the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission at the request of the Director of the Memphis Housing Authority the Memphis Police Department to advance the continuing strategic development of both agencies and to improve the delivery of police services to public housing residents and the broader citizenry of Memphis. The report is divided into four chapters – the importance of public safety in public housing in Memphis, public safety in public housing in the United States, pubilic safety in public housing in Memphis, and police service considerations for public housing in Memphis.

The dynamics of public housing are changing dramatically in the United States,and in Memphis, through both necessity and design. The United Slates Department of Housing and Urban Development, municipal public bousing authorities and local governments, businesses, non-profits and community organizations are attempting physically, socially and economically to transform dilapidated and dangerous public housing developments. Simultaneously, the nation’s major cities continue to engate intensively in matters of crime and public safety in terms of services, quality and costs.

An examination of current Memphis Housing Authority Security and Memphis Police Department operations offers insight about law enforcement services and public safety needs of public housing residents. Public safety services are also considered in terms of quality of service, management and funding concerns using data provided by the Memphis Police Department and the Memphis Housing Authority. In addition, the report includes information collected from grant and budget documents, interviews with agency personnel and a variety of publicly available information.

This project was funded by faculty release time from the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at The University of Memphis for Fall 2001, and was supported by the staff and the Center for Community Criminology and Research.

Acknowledgements

This report would not have been completed without generous contributions of information, time, and energy from a variety of sources and resources:

At the University of Memphis, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, the Center for Community Criminology and Research staff, Elizabeth Henderson, Scott Blankenbeckler and Cindy Martin were all unfailing in providing technical assistance and information systems and moral support. Colleagues at the Department have been supportive in terms of resources, orientation, and problem-solving, especially David R. Forde, Hannah Scott and Mazie Curley.

At the Memphis Police Department. Director Walter Crews, Major Mark Collins, Major Carolyn Jackson, Sergeant Trey Schull, Officer Danny Stamps, Analyst Launa Murphy and Officer David Shedd responded kindly and promptly to requests for information and data.

At the Memphis Housing Authority, Director Robert Libscomb, Howard Terry, Wayne Simpson, and Gia Stokes were particularly helpful. At HUD, Larry Morgan and Catherine Lambert provided excellent insight into the history and workings of modern public housing administration. Memphis Shelby County Library Reference Librarians provided vital direction and assistance as well.

Special thanks are due to Rick Steig, Deputy Director, City of Bartlett Planning and Development, for his mapping tutorial, technical assistance, resourcefulness with data and good will. Dr. Marina L. Myhre, now at HUD, is gratefully acknowledged forher information referrals aid shared insights.

Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the University of Memphis, the Memphis Housing Authority, the Memphis Police Department, or the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission. All errors and omissions are their own.

Table of Contents

Memphis Housing Authority Security
Memphis Police Department
Memphis Police Department Public Housing COAct
The Shelby County Sheriffs Office
Calls for Service and Arrests

List of Tables, Charts and Maps

Appendix 1.  Law Enforcement Agencies in Memphis and Shelby County

Chapter 1: The Importance of Public Safety in Public Housing in Memphis

Crime and public safety concerns have a tremendous impact on the perception and quality of life in American cities. Perhaps in no other urban environment are public safety needs so acute as in public housing. In many ways, the quality of life of public housing residents is a bell-weather for other civic indicators, including economic development, tourism, workforce development, transportation and general perceptions of safety. When crime in public housing is high or highly-reported, housing residents withdraw from the normal social activities enjoyed by other citizens; non-residents generate perceptions that influence their willingness to visit certain areas or interact with public housing residents based on stereotypical misconceptions.

This leads to social isolation of poor, but otherwise law-abiding citizens, and makes obtaining the basic skills necessary to leave public housing as well as participating in the mainstream economy difficult. Conversely, the social isolation and disrepair of many public housing developments invite disorderly conduct and other illegal activities, including drug sales. Over the past decade, housing authorities, security practitioners, residents and researchers across the United States have struggled to address notorious issues of crime and disorder in public housing. This report examines some of the recent changes in orientation and management at the Memphis Housing Authority (MHA) and the potential impact on public safety in terms of residents of public housing developments and the broader citizenry of Memphis.

Memphis is the 18th largest city in the United States; the Memphis Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau¹ is the 44th most populous in the country. While the region and the city of Memphis have enjoyed population growth over the past decade, crime and education have remained persistent concerns of the resident population. Map 1.1. presents Memphis and the other municipalities in Shelby County, Tennessee.

Concern over crime and violence has led to many initiatives by public and private organizations, including the establishment of the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission, aimed at addressing crime and its impact on the city, its citizens and surrounding areas. Recent Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) compiled Uniform Crime Report (UCR) rates have consistently placed Memphis above its population rank for most major index offenses. Chart 1.2. displays the aggregate Type 1 Index offenses for Memphis from 1981-2000 (Jones, 2002). Reported crime peaked in Memphis in 1997 before returning to pre-1986 levels in 1998 and 1999. According to preliminary FBI reports, crime rates appear to be down generally around the nation, with the exception of homicide in major cities (FBI, 2001). Interest in crime control and urban renewal is not limited to the government and private sectors; grassroots, neighborhood and community development organizations have also become involved in creating safer communities through local initiatives and partnerships.

New ideas about the relationship between general economic and social conditions (including crime) have promoted new approaches by the Memphis Housing Authority to manage resident needs in public housing; these will be discussed more extensively below.

Simultaneously, public and private initiatives in Memphis and Shelby County address issues of education, workforce development, transportation and quality of resident life. These include Memphis 2005; continued downtown redevelopment; and the continued development of Memphis as a regional tourist and business travel center.
Many of the current and former housing developments form a ring along and around downtown Memphis. The vitality of public housing is crucial to Memphis, especially downtown, from neighborhood, labor force and quality of life perspectives. In addition to the Peabody Hotel, Redbird Stadium, Peabody Place, and the Cook Convention Center Expansion, current development plans include a new NBA arena, a reengineered Mud Island, and a continued expansion of office and housing units. Map 1.3. shows Memphis and the currently occupied MHA developments; Map 1.4. presents MHA developments within the geographic context of downtown Memphis.

The urban unrest and economic development trends of the late 1960's and early 1970's had a deleterious impact on the development and primacy of downtown urban centers, like Memphis', for several decades. Repeated calls and efforts for renewal have been undertaken in almost every major urban area in the United States; these efforts have taken many forms (Business and Special Improvement Districts, Urban Enterprise Zones, Community Development Corporations) and generally concentrate on activities designed to promote the safety and cleanliness of designated geographic areas. Many of these types of initiatives were first attempted in commercial, tourist or shopping districts with some indications of success. Elements of those models have expanded into the community development sector through community development corporations, externally funded initiatives, and cooperative and partnership programs with government and other organizations.

Public safety in public housing is essential to Memphis' municipal health and development for several reasons: the ability of Memphis' most disadvantaged residents to have opportunities to participate in meaningful economic and social activities; the geographic location of public housing relative to urban core and downtown economic development; the necessity for resident inclusion in sustainable development in terms of employment, education, and recreation; and the important real and symbolic civic values of equal treatment and opportunities for residents of public housing. Crime and fear of crime in and around public housing should not be allowed to victimize or to distress residents or to prevent citizens from enjoying the areas in and around public housing developments.
   
United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides funding, subsidies and oversight to over 3,300 housing authorities throughout the United States and housing support to over 2 million people through housing, voucher and other aid programs². Through a variety of administratively distinct offices, HUD offers an extensive array of housing, fair housing, Indian housing, lead hazard control, community planning and development; HUD supports research internally through its office of Policy Development and Research (HUD, 2000). In addition to providing funding, training and technical assistance, HUD has monitored the performance of its funded agencies through the Public Housing Management Assessment Program (PHMAP) since 1992 and subsequently with the Public Housing Assessment System (PHAS) since 1998. Both systems reflect an increased awareness and emphasis on providing objective oversight criteria to measure fairly and effectively the performance of the public housing authorities. HUD operates Troubled Agency Recovery Centers (TARCs) to provide more comprehensive on-site participation in technical, administrative or management assistance.

HUD distributes major funding for public housing programs through dedicated and temporary funds. The approximate value of the national HUD budget for FY 2001 was over 32 billion dollars (HUD, 2001). The Capital, Operating and Demolition/Disposition funds are established to fund modernization, operations, and removal of dilapidated public housing. From the public safety standpoint, the Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP), designed to assist local housing authorities and residents in reducing and eliminating drugs and drug-related crime from developments, has provided significant funding to public housing authorities since its establishment in 1994 as a response to escalating levels and perceptions of violence in public housing. Other HUD programs include Section 8 vouchers³, Resident Opportunities and Self Sufficiency Program, Homeownership, and Moving to Work Program (HUD, 2001)

Many Americans can remember public housing as a modest, stable environment for low income families, the disabled and the elderly, rather than the socially-isolated, poorly maintained, crime-generating complexes all-too-frequently recognized as modern public housing. There are numerous and complicated reasons for the shift in the reality of public housing, including design issues, lack of place and resident management, poor maintenance, urban core job loss, fraud and other general social ills that became manifest in public housing at its worst over the past thirty years.

HOPE VI funding was the work of the National Commission on Severely Distressed Public Housing, charged with "the eradication of severely distressed public housing (HUD, 2001). The Commission's recommendations concerning physical improvements, management improvements and social and community services have provided many cities the opportunity to attempt to transform the physical, social and community space in public housing through improved environmental design, collocation of social and governmental services, enhancing the residential and commercial opportunity structure, promoting mixed income neighborhoods and resident empowerment). HOPE VI funds allow for revitalization and demolition to improve the general social and community context for public housing residents. As of March 2001, HOPE VI has awarded 318 grants for over $ 4 billion dollars of planning, revitalization and demolition (HUD, 2001). The continued form and funding of HUD aid to public housing authorities will develop after administrative review of PHDEP, HOPE VI, and other HUD programs under the Bush Administration.

In addition to the programs described above, HUD has also taken directive action in terms of making public housing more secure. Recently, through a five-year grant to the Center for Public Safety, HUD facilitated the creation of strategic plans for 25 public housing authority police departments⁴, conducted regional and national workshops and educational presentations, and provided technical assistance to housing authority security staff and security directors in conjunction with residents and municipal police officials. HUD's commissioned safety service plans addressed a wide range of patrol, policy, dispatch, prevention, community police, fiscal, information management and other topics. During fiscal year (FY) 1997, HUD supported the delivery of agreements, plans, and manuals to eight agencies in preparation for accreditation (described in the next chapter)⁵. Among those, Cleveland, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia, now are among the now accredited housing authority police agencies.

   
Memphis Housing Authority

The recent history of the Memphis Housing Authority (MHA) is very encouraging. The Memphis Housing Authority merged with Housing and Community Development (HCD) in February 1999; its leadership is actively engaged with a Citywide consolidated strategic planning process designed to integrate and systemize the design, execution and delivery of city services within a vital economic and social environment. MHA announced in December 2001 that it had been removed from two of HUD's troubled agency lists (Section 8 rent subsidies and public housing) ahead of schedule (Downing, 2001). MHA remains under HUD TARC oversight.

In 2001, MHA reopened several developments after renovation or new construction; MHA also closed five notorious developments. MHA continues to explore alternatives to improve its housing stock through HOPE VI applications, and as part of its merger with HCD, shift orientation to engage in non-traditional public-private partnerships to accelerate the availability of affordable quality housing for Memphis residents.

Much of MHA's recent turnaround was fueled by scathing audit ratings and a threatened take-over by HUD, the agency that provides a majority of MHA's funding through operational, capital and special funding streams. MHA has been placed on the troubled agency list three times in the past 16 years, has experienced management, financial, occupancy, maintenance and security woes over the past decade, and at times has seriously jeopardized its funding streams for operations. Troubling audit findings from the agency's past have stressed lax management, poor maintenance, poor rental rates, and a host of other ills well-known to public housing advocates. With a great deal of effort, city leaders have made inroads into the persistent over-employment, waste and service delivery failures that have certainly not improved the quality of public housing in Memphis.    

Memphis Housing Authority Developments

As of December 15, 2001, there were 17 developments under the management of the Memphis Housing Authority (MHA). Table 1.5. below lists the stock and build date of MHA developments. The MHA is the second oldest housing authority in the United States; while some of the active developments date to the late 1930's and 1940's, the majority of current housing was constructed in 1970s. Age has not been kind to most of MHA's current portfolio. Over the past several years, the resident population of public housing developments has declined as MHAs housing stock has been selectively culled, with residents relocated into Section 8 or other housing alternatives. This paper only addresses public safety issues related to the managed portfolio of seventeen currently active Memphis Housing Authority developments⁶.

   

The MHA portfolio ranges from family to elderly apartments in high and low rise settings. Barry Homes, Borda Tower, Jefferson Square and Venson Center are MHA's senior housing residences. Together, these high-rise buildings house approximately 800 MHA residents, and generate the fewest maintenance and crime concerns⁷. As is the case in many senior-only complexes that generally experience less crime than other public housing developments, these facilities use access control, CCTV, public housing security to protect residents supplemented by a private contract guard service.

Many MHA developments are concentrated in the urban core area west of I-240 downtown (see maps 1.3 and 1.4), although there are several in north and south Memphis. Most of the family developments are in various stages of planning for renewal or removal. MHA and HCD are heavily involved in working with multiple agencies to address the serious needs of the residents of public housing developments in Memphis. A partial listing of public housing resident services partners from MHA's PHA Plans include the Boys and Girls Club, Bridges, Knowledge Quest, several childcare centers, senior companion and homemaker programs, and scholarships (MHA, 2000).

Several concerns necessitate the immediate and serious reconsideration of the scope and provision of police and security services to residents of public housing. Over the past several years, U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has significantly changed housing and funding strategies as well as expectations of local government participation and oversight of federally funded housing programs. Many of the strategic shifts at HUD on a local level are informed by new urbanism, a philosophy and form that advocates a return to geographically consolidated, urban communities that preserve, create and enhance "the value of traditional, walkable, interconnected mixed-use neighborhoods" (New Urban News, 1999), and a better understanding of the dynamics of poverty, crime and social isolation. HUD has also provided significant national impetus in the re-emergence of applications of defensible space and crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) in housing through funding, conferences, and technical assistance. Focal changes in housing policy are evident in HUD's promotion through competitive funding of HOPE VI Communities, multi-income rental and owner-based residential housing with light commercial support for community needs, as well as in decisions to close significant numbers of deteriorated units throughout the nation with a corresponding increase in housing subsidy/voucher programs(e.g. -Section 8). Additionally, HOPE VI and public-private partnerships are beginning to address the severe demands for affordable housing in the Memphis area. Funding shifts at HUD will play a major role in the availability of funding for dedicated police and security services at the remaining Memphis Housing Authority public housing developments.

There are three agencies directly involved with the delivery of law enforcement and public safety services⁸ within Memphis Housing Authority Developments-- Memphis Housing Authority Security (MHAS), the Memphis Police Department (MPD), and the Shelby County Sheriffs Department, although MHA Security and the Memphis Police Department respond to the overwhelming majority of calls-for-service. The Memphis Housing Authority Security Department responds to calls and complaints on the public housing campuses and other MHA-managed and maintained property, including administrative offices and warehouses. MHAS responds to resident calls-for-service for a variety of community complaints (i.e. - loud noise, kids hanging out), problems (lock-outs and medical emergencies), and crimes, and notifies the Memphis Police Department immediately upon a report of a criminal incident. The Memphis Police Department serves public housing residents directly through its patrol division and through its dedicated public housing Community Action (COAct) unit, which supports (and develops) community-based activities and standards through foot and bike patrol and other neighborhood-based policing techniques; the MPD responds to calls-for-service at MHA properties, provides victim support and investigation services to public housing residents and victims, and provides arrestee transport and processing for those detained by MHAS. The role of each agency in providing safety services at MHA public housing sites is described in more detail in Chapter three.

The next chapter describes different methods of policing public housing and examines how other municipalities deliver public housing police services. Chapter three examines the current security operations at MHA Security and MPD and presents summary data concerning recent calls-for-service and arrests in public housing. The final chapter examines police service considerations in Memphis with respect to the changing dynamics of public housing and other economic and residential development concerns.

Chapter 2: Public Safety in Public Housing in the Urban United States

The purpose of this section is to frame the development of public housing and consequent safety issues within the context of larger social and economic changes in urban areas over the past several decades. Many of the problems and issues discussed in this section apply generally to almost all large municipal housing authorities in the United States; these issues are shaped by the influence of federal policies and local characteristics and needs. Responses within different jurisdictions to various crime and public safety problems may provide insight, direction or reference to additional resources to allow local adoption of successful programs (Mace, 1999).

Over a decade ago, Weisel (1990) identified several still-salient elements of managing public safety in public housing in her report on policing drug problems in public housing - the quality of the housing stock, the housing authority's management priorities, the municipality's political and financial structure, operational enforcement of lease regulations and the impact of enforcement. In reviewing their research on the Chicago Housing Authority, Popkin et al. (2000) describe "the failure of Chicago Police to provide sufficient services to residents" (p. 22), crumbling buildings, inadequate government services (postal, fire, schools, transportation), vandalism and urban decay, and the rise of gang control and enhanced isolation. It is now widely acknowledged that the physical and social architecture of public housing contributes to the despicable conditions and demise of function and form in public housing. Characterized by poor construction and maintenance, poor access control and security, and increasingly poor and socially isolated people, modern public housing has been considered a disastrous blight for residents and municipal leaders. These conditions are among the primary reasons that HUD is focusing on reconstructing multi-income, new urban communities and demolishing ruined sites; in this new context, the role of local housing authorities will continue to evolve as voucher programs relocate an increasingly larger percentage of former public housing development residents to private dwellings through vouchers.

Over the past decades, police departments have returned to community-based operations in the form of substations, bike and foot patrol, resident support services and activities, collocation of police and other municipal and social services. This has been the case in policing in public housing as well. Police and housing authorities are increasingly involved in developing and supporting events that promote positive community social interactions and environments. Through federally-sponsored initiatives such as Operation Clean Sweep, Operation Saturation, Gun Buy Back programs, and similar initiatives, federal and local authorities have been able to invest significant resources in attempting to remove from public housing people and weapons that facilitate violence, and contribute to a general lack of safety orientation.

Police Services in Public Housing

In the United States, there are three primary methods of policing public housing developments: municipal police department services; housing police and security department service; and private guard or contract security services. Security in modern public housing developments is generally a combination of these methods. Each has distinct advantages and disadvantages related to scope of services, powers and authority, cost and management.

Municipal Police Services

In this model, the municipal police agency is the primary provider of security services to public housing residents. A majority of the largest housing authorities use the municipal police department to manage public housing security and safety concerns. Officers working in public housing developments are generally deployed through special housing units or directly through patrol. Patrol and other security service arrangements are generally secured by agreement between the Housing Authority's Board of Directors and Municipal and Police leaders.

Several major urban housing authorities have changed their approach to public safety in public housing in the past few years. The New York Police Department (NYPD) recently incorporated the New York Housing Authority Police, now the NYPD Housing Bureau. The merging of the former New York City Transit Police Department several years earlier set the precedent for consolidation in New York City police agencies. A recently commissioned report by T.A.G. Associates recommended that the Philadelphia Housing Authority follow suit and "eliminate a number of police services the authority currently provides, and shift those responsibilities to the city's police department" (Naymik, 1998). Among the changes outlined, dedicated assignment of officers to developments, reduction and ultimately elimination of PHA Police Department shifts and patrols, special and tactical operations. Philadelphia and New York examined the cost-benefit of separate security forces for public housing residents and determined that a single police agency for the city and public housing residents was the most appropriate police service option for public housing. The merger proposal generated controversy particular among PHA Police union leaders (Naymik, 1999); Philadelphia continues to explore alternatives to improve public safety in public housing. Table 2.1. displays data regarding the predominant security agency for the 25 largest housing authorities, and Memphis' peer cities⁹.

Housing Authority Police and Security Departments

Housing Authority Police Departments

There are two basic types of Housing Authority security departments. The first is a state-certified police agency with full enforcement powers, independent from a city's municipal police department, and trained under the same guidelines as municipal police officers. These officers attend the same academies, adhere to similar regulations and may enjoy opportunities for lateral employment transfer between agencies.

There are several types of certification relevant for law enforcement agencies. The most general is certification of an agency by a state body, such as committee, commission or other organization designed to oversee the certification process for law enforcement agencies and personnel. This process involves design, execution, compliance and reporting on standards and training promulgated for that purpose. Each employee performing law enforcement tasks must also be certified by successfully completing the state's minimum level training requirements. When an agency is certified, it becomes incumbent on the agency to monitor its employees for compliance with certification conditions, and retrain or remove those who remain uncertified beyond defined or probationary time limits. Annual in-service training for law enforcement officials is frequently required to assure an officer remain knowledgeable of legal changes and enforcement techniques and maintain proficiency with firearms. The pinnacle of agency certification is accreditation.

                                  
The Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA) was established in 1979 by four law enforcement membership associations: Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), National Sheriff's Association (NSA), National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE), and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP). With a professional staff and a 21-member Commission, CALEA produces information and training materials to support voluntary accreditation activities in three areas: law enforcement, public safety communications, and public safety training. CALEA also offers two recognition and alliance programs to facilitate future accreditation. Accreditation is a mark of excellence; compliance with 443 standards is necessary to secure and maintain that status. Table 2.2 displays the CALEA-accredited public housing authority police departments prior to recent action by CALEA in March 2002. Police and Housing Police Departments that have met the challenges of accreditation demonstrate focus and commitment to providing an exceptional level of public service with the framework of a professional, future-oriented enforcement agency. Only eight of the nation's largest cities have Housing Police Departments that have achieved accredited status.

Housing Security Departments

The second type of in-house full-time enforcement method is a housing authority security or public safety department with civilian security employees. Enforcement-oriented personnel in these Departments may be called officers or investigators; they attend to a wide range of safety and security functions, including responding to calls of criminal activities. As employees of the Housing Authority, depending on the laws and regulations of the jurisdiction, these officers and investigators may or may not be armed and may or may not have the power to transport arrestees. In these circumstances, cooperative agreements with municipal police are necessary to process arrests.

Both types of housing security departments may supplement the force with off-duty municipal officers. In the case of housing police departments (HPDs), off-duty or overtime officers are usually drawn from the HPD's internal pool of officers. In the case of housing security departments (HSD's), supplementary officers may be hired through local municipal police or county sheriff agencies should anticipated duties necessitate a sworn officer.

Private Guard Services and Contract Security Officers

Contract security employees are generally hired to patrol and monitor designated areas or buildings within a housing authority's portfolio, in the same way that malls and amusement parks might arrange security. Contract employees may or may not be accorded all the rights and responsibilities of law enforcement officers, regarding weapons, arrest and transportation power. In some instances, all housing security contract employees are members of municipal or county law enforcement agencies. In others, contract guards are supplemented with municipal police through contractual or other agreements.

The Chicago Housing Authority through much of the 1990's relied on contract security guards heavily, even though the guards received only twenty hours of training, were not drug-screened, and were paid $5-6 hourly (Popkin et al., 2000). Against potentially armed criminals with little or no reinforcement, the contract security officers could not reasonably be expected to alter the dynamic of crime and violence. Residents at many developments complained about the guards' failure to appear, failure to prevent crime, and disrespectful treatment of residents (Popkin et al., 2000). At one point, the Housing Authority's six (6) security vendors were billing for guard services not delivered (p. 110). In such instances, the housing authority has little recourse except to pressure the vendor to improve services or terminate the contract - and to address the conditions that make the developments unmanageable for conventional activities and suitable for crime.

Review of Public Safety in Public Housing

There are advantages and disadvantages associated with each of the three main methods for delivering police and public safety services to public housing residents. Table 2.3. presents a summary table of advantages and disadvantages of each method. Advantages of the in-house security models of Housing Police or Housing Security include closer direction and supervision over employees, the potential for better training, employee work-attachment and loyalty. Housing agency interests can potentially be better served by having dedicated staff for a geographically discrete area (presuming good employees, good training, good management and good physical plant). Sworn housing police have the powers to enforce arrest and conduct investigations. Some research on crime in public housing indicates that sworn officers are frequently considered by residents to be "real" police, as opposed to "rent-a-cops", and may carry the authority, if not the respect, of the state, more easily than do non-law enforcement security personnel. In these circumstances, civilian security personnel may not be similarly acknowledged or respected by residents. Conversely, if the local police department has a reputation for poor services to public housing residents, dedicated security staff may be well-respected and well-received. Conflicts about perceived and actual scope of authority and perceived mis-use of power by either sworn officer or public housing security personnel can undermine the ability of the agencies and residents to develop the safest community. Liability issues and costs related to citizen lawsuits are important factors that may emerge over inappropriate application of police powers and inadequate training and supervision.

The major disadvantage of in-house security solutions is the major advantage of contract security: the cost of personnel. In most businesses, personnel costs account for 60% or more of expenses. Sworn officers are more costly than civilian security counterparts. Municipal police employees are equally costly, and police funding and manpower allocation are ongoing, critical concerns for law enforcement leaders. In-house personnel generate human resource issues and frequently, union-negotiated, regulations about flexible scheduling. In the case of contract guard services, these issues are the responsibility of the guard service. This approach allows the conservation of housing authority financial resources, although it may place increased demands on municipal police and other agencies.

In some cases, contract guard services provide more experienced employees, have better technology and management support than a public housing authority can provide. However, issues of authority, ability, impact, supervision and the treatment of residents may emerge as concerns if the security vendor does not provide professional services, including employee supervision, background checks, and training.

Regardless of the security model used by a housing authority, cooperation between Housing Authority Security, Municipal Police Agencies, and contract guard services, can sometimes enhance or impede the quality of public safety services to the residents of public housing developments. Turf rivalries and interagency competition can obscure the needs of the residents as the driving force for agency activity. Cordial and professional agency interactions allow the integration of multiple resources for better services to residents and working relationships between agency personnel.

The next chapter examines the mix of these methods used at Memphis Housing Authority developments. Memphis Housing Authority has an in-house department composed of sworn officers and civilian security personnel; the Memphis Police Department operates a special public housing unit, and provides additional arrest, transport and special operations services to MHA. MHA also contracts with a private guard company to patrol specific developments. The next chapter examines the current service mix used at Memphis Housing Authority Developments.
   
Chapter Three: Crime and Public Housing in Memphis

Crime in public housing across the country has apparently decreased since the dramatic peaks reported nationally in the late 1980's and mid-late 1990's. In public housing in Memphis, crime also appears to have also decreased since that time, although meaningful comparisons are difficult because both the Memphis Police Department and the Memphis Housing Authority have significantly changed the manner in which they serve public housing residents over the past six years, the manner in which they collect and share data¹⁰, and the number of MHA developments, units and residents. As more attention and energy are devoted to making general improvements in the physical plant of public housing (particularly for newly renovated or opened developments), significant advances in public housing safety may result from the removal of some of the crime-attracting features of public housing (vacant, derelict units).

The present service delivery mix to public housing developments among agencies has developed over time as a result of agency management of resources and priorities, staffing, funding availability and other less readily identifiable factors, such as agency leadership, political environment and labor force issues. In 1992, the Memphis Police Department had planned to place up to 45 officers in public housing developments while adding 285 officers to its overall ranks (Perrusquia, 1992). However, due to municipal economic concerns, labor market competition and the cost of training and deploying police officers, Memphis, like many cities, has been unable to expand its law enforcement agencies as quickly as it would like to meet continually growing service demands.

Over the course of the early and mid-1990's in Memphis and nationally, there were extensive and heated civic discussions between municipal, police, and housing leaders and residents to attempt to address the issues of security and public safety in housing developments (Johnson, 1997; Brosnan, 1996; Robinson, 1996; Perrusquia, 1992). Today, Memphis Housing Authority developments are patrolled by a combination of MHA Security, Memphis Police Department, the Shelby County Sheriffs Office, and private patrol services to address the needs of public housing residents. MHA contracts with the MPD, SCSO and private security vendors for additional specialized services, including overtime for drug sweeps and special operations, routine patrol at elder developments and special monitoring and prevention equipment. Most safety and law enforcement services in public housing developments are provided by MHA Security and the Memphis Police Department.

Memphis Housing Authority Security

MHA has had personnel performing security functions for several decades. Over the past decade, the staff size of MHA Security (MHAS) has generally increased as crime and concern over crime in public housing has gained increasing scrutiny and significant federal funds have been directed towards controlling crime in public housing. The Memphis Housing Authority Security Department has operated around the clock since August 1, 1996. Chart 3.1. presents the organizational structure of Memphis Housing Authority Security. The number of employees has varied over the past decade with the changing funding horizon, plans, and demands for security at the 17, formerly 22, public housing developments. The Memphis Housing Authority Security Department currently has about 67 employees, up from 62 in January 2001, and an increase of 14 since February 2000. The staff complement contains a mix of sworn officers and civilian employees. MHA Security officers are called Investigators.

Organized into three shifts, MHA Security responds to incidents within MHA managed public housing developments. Incidents range from criminal activity to medical emergencies, from resident lock-outs to noise complaints and disorderly disturbances. Without a centralized headquarters to conduct all activities, MHA Security uses several MHA sites to conduct muster, direct assignments and operations. MHA Security has recently upgraded its fleet of automobiles and bikes, and has regularly over the past five years updated additional security equipment, including fencing, cameras and lighting on many of its properties. Table 3.2. presents a summary of MHAS Security Data for FYs 1999-2000, and a monthly summary of incident reports for FY00 and FY01.

The expansion in the size of the MHA Security was in part due to concern over the safety of public housing residents, the availability of federal funds targeting public housing security through U.S. HUD, and the continuing difficulty of the Memphis Police Department to increase to an ideal sworn complement. However, the number of MHA Security employees fluctuated through the mid-1990's due to layoffs necessitated by funding restrictions. MHA Security has also generated some controversy and litigation over resident treatment, legal authority, sexual harassment and the qualifications and training of MHA Security investigators (Marino, 1998; Jones, 1998).

  
MHA Security has worked to become more professionally oriented since becoming a 24/7 agency. In addition to becoming a P.O.S.T. certified agency¹¹, the MHA Security Department has developed formal operating policies and procedures over the past several years. MHA Security began keeping records in a formal, systematic manner in 1996 as an element of the 1996 Public Housing Drug Elimination Program (PHDEP) grant. MHA Security gained an access terminal to Shelby County Criminal Court records to determine criminal histories on applicants for public housing in 1996; in 1997, MHA Security secured the use of a National Criminal Information Computer terminal to aid in performing background investigations of potential public housing residents.

These information system capabilities have enhanced the internal ability of MHA to manage tenant background checks, to verify criminal histories and to take action more quickly against residents involved in criminal activity. As a result, MHA Security has identified and addressed a small percentage of lease and other code violators, reportedly 48 violations in FY 2001 and 44 in FY 2000 (2.2% of the incidents recorded by MHA Security); through its One Strike program, a low-tolerance lease violation enforcement program (MHAS, 2000; 2001). Evictions of unruly or disruptive tenants and reduction of related disturbances have a strong impact on the quality of life of remaining residents, in terms of the comfort they afford and the message they send about the manner in which MHA property may be used. If applicant screening and lease enforcement for all MHA activities (including Section 8) continue to improve, some potentially disorder generating conditions may be successfully minimized or avoided in the redeveloped and reconstituted housing developments.

Over the past decade, many of the activities and personnel of MHA Security have been supported through PHDEP grants. The future of the PHDEP program is questionable; it seems likely program funding will be reduced or significantly altered in 2002 under the Bush Administration's proposed budget (LEFN, 2001). One possible replacement strategy at the Federal level may involve redirecting funds into demand management strategies under the Drug Enforcement Administration. Table 3.3. presents security expenditures, including PHDEP funds, for the Memphis Housing Authority from 1997-2001. The average cost for security expenditures at MHA over the past 5 years exceeds $ 2 million dollars annually. Recent estimates indicate that MHA has approximately 5,740 units in its developments and about 25,000 residents, a cost of approximately $81 per resident annual for MHAS Security services

Under its chartering authority, according to an opinion issued by the Tennessee Attorney General, the Memphis Housing Authority Security Department has the power to arrest, but not the power to transport arrestees. MHAS must rely on the MPD or SCSO to transport arrestees with MHAS officers generally not accompanying MPD officers to the Shelby County Jail. . During research on this report, several sources anonymously and anecdotally indicated concern over the unavailability of the arresting MHAS officer at the jail for a probable cause hearing. In Shelby County, Judicial Commissioners on duty at the jail review each arrest to determine probable cause and consequent charges.

Without the arresting MHAS officer present at the hearing to clarify facts or answer questions pertaining to the arrest , it has been reported that on occasion some suspects are released because of a finding by a Judicial Commissioner that probable cause for the arrest was lacking. This places the presenting (transporting) agency, the Memphis Police Department, in a dilemma regarding the appropriate disposition of persons seized by MHAS officers. As a result of this offender processing by two separate agencies concerns about the perceived validity of MHA Security initiated arrests may be arising in the minds of law enforcement officers, judicial officials, and the wider community¹².

Memphis Police Department

The Memphis Police Department is the largest municipal police agency in the state of Tennessee. The Memphis Police Department handled 868,238 calls-for-service in 2000 and 883,336 in 1999. Its fiscal year operating budget forecast for 2000-2001 was $149,848,843; its proposed FY 2001-2002 budget is $156,444,287. The Department's commissioned complement is 1,853; the MPD has 898 civilian employees. The MPD serves an area over 300 square miles with over 1,000 vehicles.

The MPD is organized functionally into five administration and service divisions: Executive Administration, Administrative Services, Patrol, Investigative Services and Special Operations. Patrol operations are conducted from eight precincts within two Districts. Map 3.4. shows Memphis Police Department Precincts and Memphis Housing Authority Developments. Four of the eight MPD precincts contain public housing developments. Maps 3.5-3.8. present each MPD precinct that contains MHA public housing developments.

In addition to supporting an excellent array of tactical and special units necessary for a modern metropolis, the MPD is becoming increasingly invested in the community policing philosophy. Many community-related services are delivered at the MPD's 16 community policing substations or CoActs, short-hand for "community action." Based at various socially and geographically strategic locations, CoActs house a variety of public safety, health and prevention activities with government and private services for residents. CoActs provide flexibility and integration into community activities that the demands of police patrol activities sometimes preclude -- direct, ongoing interaction with involved and law-abiding citizens.

Memphis Police Department, Public Housing Co-Act

The MPD Public Housing CoAct (PHCOACT) has as its primary focus "to provide a safe environment for all residents in each housing development through the elimination of drugs and other criminal activity" in Memphis' housing units (www.memphispolice.org). The MPD established the Public Housing CoAct in July 1996 (about a month before MHA Security became full-time) with an assigned complement of about twenty officers, in recognition of its long-time concern with rising violence and drugs in public housing. The MPD CoAct is currently located in a partially converted residence on Beach Street near LeMoyne College and the site of the recently renovated LeMoyne Gardens. This location is relatively new, and perhaps impermanent; continuing development in and around MHA properties may generate a more appropriate property for these purposes.

PHCOACT Officers work two shifts, day and evening (0800-2400)¹³. Like other MPD units, officers bid for their work assignments based on seniority. PHCOACT Officers work the developments independently, and in support of each other, patrol officers and the MHA Security officers. When the PHCOACT is not on duty, MHA Security and the Memphis Police Department are the primary responding agencies. MHAS notifies the MPD immediately about crime and serious disorder incidents.

PHCOACT Officers and Commanders regularly receive information about calls-for-service and crimes in public housing. PHCOACT and MHA Security supervisors interact and communicate regularly and frequently to enhance the coordination and effectiveness of their officers efforts. In addition to monthly COMPSTAT reports (generated from MPD and MHA data), MPD Information Services generates "short forms", incident and arrest reports with narratives regarding salient cases in their area. This format enables the commanding officer to provide officers sufficient detail to allow them to assert ownership and control, or at least management prerogative, over certain types of incidents occurring within their beats. This type of in-rotation offense specialization allows officers to develop new skills in a familiar environment in an ongoing basis. Assignment rotation for responsibilities may have positive impacts on the morale, responsibility and ultimate performance of employees.

The Shelby County Sheriff's Office

The Shelby County Sheriff's Office is the 15th largest sheriffs office in the United States with about 540