EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The full report is also available.

Executive Summary

Consistent with the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission's conviction that quality of life offenses should be taken seriously, and that order maintenance strategies are integral to a comprehensive crime prevention initiative, this research report considers the challenge to neighborhood safety posed by "problem properties." Problem properties are "crimogenic," meaning that the presence of abandoned buildings, derelict vacant lots, dilapidated housing, and other neglected properties is associated with concentrations of crime. Problem properties may contribute to such "hotspots" in that they harbor crime (e.g. the abandoned building out of which operates an outdoor drug market), or because their neglect signals a lack of care and concern - which invites anti-social and criminal activity while driving out more legitimate activities and law-abiding residents. When neighborhood conditions signal a lack of care and concern, Kelling and Cole (1996) use the metaphor of "broken windows" to characterize the physical neglect that can trigger crime and anti-social activity.

This report offers a set of recommendations for the design and implementation of a comprehensive problem properties strategy in Memphis. Recommendations follow from analysis of the strengths and limitations of code enforcement as a basic anti-neglect strategy, and from an analysis of urban housing markets and the relationship between poverty, low-income housing and neighborhood blight. We conclude that traditional complaint-based code enforcement by itself cannot sustain a problem properties strategy, but that a new "case management" approach to code enforcement -- in conjunction with other tactics that prioritize and target particular properties for multi-agency action, and that address the underlying need to maintain and improve the supply of affordable housing for low-income Memphians -- can build on what we have learned from this research.

Twelve key findings from the report are outlined below. We also include a list of our concluding recommendations. Complementing this executive summary we offer a more detailed executive report, including supportive discussion for each of our findings as well as attachments excerpted from the full report. The full report is available on the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission website.

Key Findings

1. Problem properties are crimogenic and are defined in terms of

• physical neglect
  
• design and environmental characteristics that lend themselves to anti-social activity
  
• "hotspots" for criminal activity

2. Problem properties strategies are multi-dimensional and include

• strategies to prevent and reverse physical neglect
  
• environmental and architectural remedies based on crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED)
  
• property management techniques including both pre-screening of tenants and low tolerance for anti-social behavior

3. A problem properties strategy demands an affordable housing strategy

• to counter the blight-producing effects of the low-cost housing market
  
• to support efforts of responsible property owners to keep up their property
  
• to address the fear that a problem properties strategy will dangerously reduce the supply of low-cost housing

4. The need for affordable housing in Memphis is reflected in

• the 22% poverty rate and the concentration of poor and low-income residents in inner city neighborhoods
  
• the loss of low-cost housing to demolition in recent years
  
• the continued aging of the housing stock and evident neglect in lower-income and transitional neighborhoods

5. A problem properties initiative cannot be separated from the problems of public housing and Section 8 subsidized housing in that

• public housing in Memphis suffers from blight and crime
  
• much of Memphis' public housing has already been "de-densified," or is scheduled for demolition within the next five years
  
• displaced families will be seeking Section 8 rentals
  
• Section 8 rentals in Memphis are clustering in identifiable neighborhoods
  
• Section 8 housing is at high risk of becoming problem property
  
• government oversight offers opportunities to impose high expectations for place responsible place management

6. Responsible place management is key to problem properties strategies in that

• irresponsible ownership is reflected in an identifiable set of owners and managers associated with a disproportionate share of problem properties
  
• collaboration between community policing and resident management can result in measurable decreases in crime in targeted developments

7. Problem properties strategies impinge on diverse stakeholders, some of whom may not fully support a strategy out of fear or self-interest, including

• low-income owner-occupants whose fears may cause them and their supporters to oppose anti-neglect tactics
  
• absentee investors who perceive that their livelihood may be threatened
  
• affordable housing providers who are themselves concerned about maintaining and expanding the supply of low-cost housing

8. Existing data make it difficult to grasp the prevalence of problem properties in Memphis, but estimates suggest that

• the number of vacant lots -- often reported to be 22,000 -- may be as few as 7,000
  
• the number of abandoned housing units is between 1500 and 5,000
  
• the number of deteriorating housing units probably lies somewhere between 38,000 and 68,000 units
  
• the only way to grasp the parameters of the problem is to undertake a systematic inventory of problem properties

9. Code enforcement in Memphis suffers from inadequate capacity and "under-enforcement," meaning that

• despite a very strong anti-neglect housing code, enforcement suffers in its implementation
  
• perhaps only 20% of non-compliant properties are in the code enforcement system at any point in time; multi-family complexes are particularly under-represented in the system
  
• among less serious violations that tend to proceed more severe problems, the year-end compliance rate is no more than 75%
  
• more serious problems requiring substantial rehabilitation or demolition remain in code enforcement files for years

10. Under-enforcement is endemic to complaint-based code enforcement in that

• code enforcement perceives itself faced with insurmountable challenges
  
• inspector discretion results in inconsistent enforcement
  
• the magnitude of neighborhood blight requires prioritization and targeting rather than complaint-driven responses
  
• the lack of articulation between code enforcement and other agencies makes it difficult to coordinate tactics and leverage resources

11. A problem properties initiative requires "segmented" strategies that

• take into account the reality of low-income owner-occupants and their likely need for assistance with minor to moderate repair
  
• counter the opportunities for absentee investors to exploit under-enforcement for their own ends; rental properties are four times more likely than owner-occupied properties to be in violation and there is a subset of owners specializing in low-cost rentals
  
• are based on clear, consistent, and certain sanctions as applied to prioritized and targeted categories of properties and violators

12. Other cities have begun to implement "case management" and related innovations that

• enable code enforcement to strengthen its technological and organizational capacity, take full advantage of existing laws, and reinforce "resolve" on the part of all personnel
  
• are based on sound data collection and analysis
  
• prioritize crimogenic properties for targeted enforcement
  
• take advantage of under-utilized tools such as civil remedies for nuisance abatement, receivership for nuisance and neglected properties, and expedited property transfers to responsible redevelopers

• leverage resources as part of a multi-agency collaboration

Recommendations

1. Upgrade the computer system to support systematic monitoring of complaints, violations, properties.

2. Institute internal systems of accountability that monitor the progress of inspections, the efficacy of inspector decisions, and that flag particular properties for case review.

3. Design and implement a baseline inventory of problem properties in Memphis.

4. Make more systematic use of enforcement authority vested in the Anti-Neglect Housing Code.

5. Implement a strategic planning process to eradicate and prevent blight and restore neighborhoods.

6.Establish an inter-agency Problem Properties Task Force to case manage designated properties.

7. Consider the full range of civil and administrative remedies that can be applied to problem properties.

8.Institute a receivership system for problem properties.

9. Strengthen and streamline the processes for acquiring problem properties and land and making them available to private and not-for-profit (re)developers of affordable housing.

10.Consider systematic enforcement/regularized inspections for multi-family, rental properties, and/or properties with a history of violations.

In Memphis, the time seems ripe to design and implement a comprehensive problem properties initiative. Code enforcement under Division of Public Services Director Donnie Mitchell is primed to participate; without their cooperation and willingness to open up their data to constructive criticism, this report would not have been possible. Mayor Herenton has prioritized neighborhoods for his third term in office and has begun to envision how a neighborhood strategy will complement the highly successful strategy of downtown redevelopment. The Memphis Police Department under Director Walter Crews has expressed its commitment to community policing and has demonstrated a willingness to deploy COACT (community policing) officers to support nuisance abatement efforts. District Attorney General Bill Gibbons has identified nuisance abatement strategies as a priority innovation to deal with drug dealing and other crimes associated with problem properties. The Division of Housing and Community Development under Director Robert Lipscomb has already asked a committee of the Memphis Affordable Housing Commission to design a methodology for a problem properties inventory; he envisions a consolidated planning process where housing and neighborhoods, and public safety and crime prevention will be two interrelated focus areas. Community development corporations, the Memphis Community Development Partnership, and the Community Development Council are increasingly poised to fully participate in neighborhood restoration strategies, while the newly established Community Redevelopment Agency (a joint city-county agency) is bringing new powers to expedite land acquisition and redevelopment to the table. Finally, the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission, along with the Center for Community Criminology and the Mid-South Training Institute at the University of Memphis, are well-positioned to support such a collaboration through coordination, analytical support, and training, all of which are essential to a well-designed and well-deployed initiative.

Visit the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission website at www.memphiscrime.org to read the full report.

See also the report by The Center for Livable Cities, Inc.,
Helping Progress Continue, Improving Public Conduct and the Public Spaces in Memphis.

Back to Research