Concept Paper
A Publication of the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission
April 17, 2000.
Introduction
Per the request of the Chairman of the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission, and with the endorsement of the Chairman of Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, Inc., the following concept paper was commissioned to explore some of the issues surrounding a possible merger between the two nonprofit organizations. The purpose of this paper is to assist each agency's Board of Directors in framing a discussion of the two organizations' mutual interests and how these interests could potentially be unified. This paper is not intended to serve as a plan of merger. It is designed neither to articulate the final positions of either organization, nor to obligate the Board of Directors of either organization to a particular position.
The concept paper is divided into three sections. The first section will review the Crime Commission's interests in citizen involvement. The second section will begin with a historical overview of the national Neighborhood Watch movement, before moving into an examination of the two Neighborhood Watch programs operating in Memphis and Shelby County. The third section will discuss various approaches to unifying the two nonprofit organizations around common interests.
Establishing direct connections with citizens and establishing its own citizen constituency were part of the founding vision of the Crime Commission. In its inaugural business plan, the overall objective of the Crime Commission was "to increase citizen involvement in local crime prevention programs and activities" (MSCC 1997 Business Plan). Indeed, citizen involvement was considered paramount to the organization's success: "The effectiveness of the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission will be directly tied to the level of citizen involvement. All Commission efforts and proposed programs require the commitment and involvement of citizens" (Business Plan).
One of the first big public "roll-outs" of the Crime Commission was the launch of a membership drive with a publicly proclaimed goal of attracting 50,000 members in the first year, and 100,000 members after two years.
Two of the strategies for achieving this goal included Neighborhood Watch, Inc:
(Business Plan).
One Board member recalls that the number of citizens projected to be involved in neighborhood watch activities was used as the benchmark for setting the membership goal - i.e., if there are 2,000 Neighborhood Watch groups in the city, and each group has 50 members, then 100,000 people have already stepped forward to support crime prevention in Memphis and Shelby County. Thus, a membership of at least 100,000 should be possible and 100,000 was lifted up as the goal. What is important to recognize here is that Neighborhood Watch factored heavily into the Crime Commission's design and implementation of its community mobilization component.
Neighborhood crime watch programs commonly employ four basic strategies to prevent crime: neighborhood crime awareness and reporting, personal property identification, home security surveys, and community crime prevention (Morgan & Smith 1989). Residents are organized and urged to be sensitive to any signs of crime and are often given special telephone numbers to call (Yin 121). As neighborhood aggregation and identity develop, residents are encouraged to become involved in community projects and programs. The National Crime Prevention Institute suggests that victim-oriented, opportunity-reduction crime prevention grows out of a varied history of society’s efforts to control and reduce wrongdoing (Understanding Crime Prevention 9). Although some studies suggest that Neighborhood Watch programs are less than effective in reducing crime, they may develop both political and sociological benefits (McConville 104). Politically, the identity of a neighborhood as articulated through the community-based organization provides linkage to government and is seen as a proactive approach to citizen concerns. This arrangement gives the municipal government legitimacy in its law enforcement activities and further addresses the issues identified through polls of Memphis citizens with respect to perceptions of criminal activity (City of Memphis Operating Budgets 1997, 1998). It also serves as an interactive conduit for elected officials to receive and respond to neighborhood issues. Sociologically, the relevant community needs are again articulated through community discussion and assist the neighborhood in forming a collective neighborhood consciousness. This translates into a better appreciation of community needs and unity through the common bond of neighborhood personality (Payne 15).
Neighborhood Crime Watch has been described as "grassroots anticrime activism" (Sasson 171). Initially started by citizens, it became formalized in 1972 by the National Sheriff’s Association and has since been associated with law enforcement agencies to educate neighborhoods in recognizing and reporting crime (Mann 6/2). Historically the idea of a neighborhood watch is not new within an urban community. Until the mid-1800s neighborhood civilian citizens called night watchmen were responsible for the order maintenance that progressively has become the function of law enforcement agencies. These watchmen would spread the alarm in the event of fire, prevent destruction by stray animals, and assisted in family matters (Moore 257). This was considered to be a part of citizenry duty, but with the increasing modern problems of an industrial society, this social arrangement became insufficient. Professional law enforcement organizations evolved into full-time uniformed police forces that assumed the citizen watchman duties (Moore 258). Renewed interest has developed as law enforcement sanctioned and formalized crime prevention initiatives. The "war on crime" that began in the 1960s and its associated renewal of community activism returned the concept of a neighborhood formally organizing to prevent crime. In 1967, President Johnson’s Crime Commission report stated that active citizen involvement was important in both, "enhancing the performance of the criminal justice system and in rectifying the social and environmental conditions that give rise to criminal behavior" (Rosenbaum 11).
Accordingly, Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, which created the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA). This federally funded assistance organization published and funded a series of crime control strategies during the mid-1970s, one of which included the Neighborhood Watch concept. In 1977, LEAA’s Community Anti-Crime Program was authorized by Congress to assist community organizations and neighborhood groups in actively reducing crime (U.S. Department of Justice, 1978, p.3). Since that early period of recognition and development of a national crime prevention attitude, the Neighborhood Watch concept has gained widespread acceptance both within the criminal justice organizations and communities in which they serve as a palatable method of direct citizen participation in crime prevention.
Citizen participation in neighborhood activities and governance has long been held as central to the formation of an individual’s character as well as establishing traditional values and maintenance of freedom. This philosophy of self-help and self-governance gives a neighborhood identity and polity (Lelling 460).
A Neighborhood Watch program is a process that elicits the traditional neighborhood ideal in its establishment of a surveillance program, which exists as the "community eye" (Darian-Smith 84). This process reaffirms the prevailing structures of power relationships between the state, community and the individual. The program tends to identify the social needs within the community in its protection of property, home and localized neighborhood. The requirement of collective participation polarizes social conflict: criminal against law-abider, and community against the outsider. A definition of neighborhood identity and allegiance to its maintenance reinforces the shared beliefs within the neighborhood, re-establishing lost social regulatory and conformity mechanisms. Neighborhood Watch establishes collectivism on the normally diverse and anonymous nature of urban living and gives cultural meaning by enabling the individual to identify with a group (84-85). The positive results of a successful neighborhood program thus are more than crime prevention, but a reestablishment of the community attributes that may strike at the heart of criminality. According to the Memphis and Shelby County Crime Report-1996, neighborhood-based organizations [must be]
Developed to address the risk factor of weakened social controls and the preventive factor of strengthening bonds between family, school, peers, and the community. Neighborhood-based crime prevention programs organize and coordinate neighborhood residents and various agencies to address local problems and to meet the needs of families and the communities… These so-called block watches mobilize neighborhood residents, hold meetings in which information is disseminated and neighborhood problems are identified.
Community self-defense against crime and disorder is primarily a matter of private social control supported, but never supplanted, by public police. Police, like other agencies of government, should not do for citizens what citizens can do for themselves (Kelling 461). This is the philosophical basis from which Neighborhood Watch programs operate.
According to Trojanowicz, there are two basic problems regarding crime prevention: the lack of community organization and citizen involvement in the crime prevention process, and the lack of personal contact and interaction between the police officer and community residents’ (157). Neighborhood Watch programs endeavor to address both these problems by organizing and encouraging direct community involvement and providing a forum for police/citizen dialogue through neighborhood meetings and events.
In Shelby County there are two distinct but very similar organizations: Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, Inc. and Memphis Police Department Neighborhood Watch.
Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation serving the Mid-South area. It is sponsored by the National Sheriff’s Association and is a member of the National Association of Town Watches. According to a report from the Midwest Research Institute that evaluated the National Neighborhood Watch program:
The National Neighborhood Watch Program is a highly effective, nationally based effort reaching millions of citizens. It is efficiently administered by the National Sheriff’s Association and promoted by a balanced, sound program of news media and special audience coverage. The program has gained and maintained major momentum (4).
Its primary function is to organize and provide educational assistance to local neighborhood groups in their efforts to prevent crime through the Neighborhood Watch concept. In addition, Neighborhood Watch sponsors Youth and Senior programs, victim compensation funding, and a National Night Out program. The latter program is a nationally organized evening of collective crime awareness and recognition. Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, Inc. also provides a matching grant program in which up to $5,000 may be awarded to neighborhood projects that may include drug/fire prevention programs, neighborhood-wide physical clean-up or physical improvements or senior citizen home safety education. Fran Wilson, former Executive Director of Neighborhood Watch, Inc., reported that District Attorney General Bill Gibbons founded the program in 1984 as a citizen controlled non-profit organization independent of formalized law enforcement oversight. A Board of Directors that may include up to 30 members governs the organization. The Board appoints an Executive Director who manages the organization and executes the goals and directives of the Board. The Executive Director disseminates information, reviews grants, educates and assists in developing and organizing Neighborhood Watch groups and crime awareness/prevention related events. Funding for the organization comes from a variety of sources. Revenues are received from contributions, private donations, grants, special events and fundraising. For instance, in its previous fiscal year the City of Memphis awarded $50,000 to Neighborhood Watch, Inc. for crime prevention projects. Some of these revenues are restricted to specific projects such as youth and senior citizen programs, and thus beyond the discretion of the Executive Director.
The Shelby County Sheriff’s Office employs the resources of the Neighborhood Watch, Inc. in its crime prevention activities. Grassroots activities begin with Neighborhood Watch, and the Sheriff’s Office underscores any activities with its own crime prevention department.
In 1986, City of Memphis Mayor Dick Hackett initiated the current Memphis Police Department-sponsored Neighborhood Watch Program. The Crime Prevention Division of the Police Department supervises the program, with civilian part-time coordinators functioning within each Police precinct. These precinct coordinators actively organize the neighborhoods and educate the public in crime awareness and prevention. Paralleling the Neighborhood Watch, Inc. structure, meetings are held in centralized neighborhood locations and are flexible to the specific community residents needs. Guest speakers and crime prevention projects such as property identification markings are some of the activities that are conducted during these meetings. Some of the other program activities include coordination of special events such as Special Olympics, Feed the Hungry campaign, and a Citizen Police Training Academy. Deviating somewhat from traditional crime prevention strategies, the Police Department tends to use their Neighborhood Watch program as a mechanism of community awareness and advocacy. Events such as the Special Olympics, Feed the Hungry program and a Christmas banquet are funneled through the Neighborhood Watch budget.
The Neighborhood Watch budget may draw from the Crime Prevention division budget as needed or utilize its own grants, donations, and fund raising. Besides the approximately 20 uniformed offices assigned to Crime Prevention, the budget includes the salaries of seven civilian precinct organizers. Neighborhood Watch signs are initially purchased within the budget for Neighborhood Watch, then erected and maintained by City of Memphis Public Works Division.
Figure 1. Macro comparison of the Two Neighborhood Watch Programs in Memphis and Shelby County.
Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, Inc. |
MPD Neighborhood Watch |
Crime prevention education |
Crime prevention education |
Crime awareness |
Crime awareness |
Neighborhood watch coordination |
Neighborhood watch coordination |
Youth and Senior programs |
Youth and Senior programs |
National Night Out |
Christmas banquet |
Crime Prevention Month |
Feed the Hungry Program |
Victim Compensation fund |
Citizen Police Academy |
Grant Allocation |
Special Olympics |
Private nonprofit corporation |
City funded within Police Department |
Executive director and volunteers |
Paid precinct coordinators |
Budgeted by grants, donations, Fund raisers, and awards |
City of Memphis budgeted |
Memphis and Shelby County Coverage |
Memphis Coverage |
Figure I. suggests that two very similar organizations exist and function independently of each other within Shelby County. Although the differences in perceived priorities and activities are evident, the overall underlying concept of crime prevention and education through a Neighborhood Watch group remains the same.
What appears to be substantial in this examination is the duality of services, the overlapping of programs, and the similarity in functions. Both agencies provide the basic tenets of crime prevention education, crime awareness and Neighborhood Watch coordination. Slight differences occur in the presentation or style of implementation due to the underlying character of each agency. Quite naturally, a service provided by a local law enforcement agency will differ in delivery from a similar service that is provided by an independent nonprofit, civilian organization.
Due to the sensitivities of their funding sources, cost efficiencies and expenditure justifications are always paramount both to public and nonprofit organizations. Resources are allocated to meritorious programs and groups. The inherent duplication of services provided by two separate organizations regarding some of the Neighborhood Watch programs that they support and finance raises two important questions concerning their efficiency and effectiveness. First is the issue of duplication of programs. Both organizations essentially advocate and initiate through their respective Neighborhood Watch programs, along with crime awareness and prevention education. Though their method of delivery may vary somewhat, the underlying message of both organizations remains synonymous, with both organizations serving the same function.
Second is the competition for funding, grants and other limited resources. Both organizations solicit outside funding, grants, and donations to augment their annual budgets. However, these resources are finite and may only become available to the organization which presents itself in the most favorable light. Complications may also occur regarding donations by the public in deciding which organization is more beneficial or deserving. This competition can lead to inter-organizational rivalry and may subsequently interfere with the delivery of crime prevention and education through neighborhood watch.
It may be confusing to the citizens of Memphis and of Shelby County regarding whom to notify regarding information and organizational support of neighborhood watch. This confusion carries over to the other sponsored programs as well as what phone numbers to call in the event of suspicious activity. Citizens may question the legitimacy of two competing organizations that offer basically the same type of information. Finally, the redundancy of programs as well as the cost associated both in manpower and operational resources means an inefficient organizational structure that perhaps could become more coordinated and collectively responsive to the needs of the community.
The integration of the Neighborhood Watch organizations into a single entity, with the accommodation of their unique projects and programs could address some of these concerns. This should include a unified command structure with an identifiable hierarchy sensitive to neighborhood identities and unique circumstances. According to the National Crime Prevention Institute, motivated citizens work with rather than for the crime prevention officer. One cannot be subservient to the other- instead both must collaborate as partners (134).
The organizational structure can maintain its citizen-controlled identity complimented by law enforcement representation. By retaining citizen involvement, especially in an era of perceived governmental influence and control, we recognize the commitment of its citizenry and their unique insight into neighborhood dynamics.
This section presents three scenarios whereby Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, Inc. could forge a stronger relationship with the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission. The first scenario describes a merger of Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch with the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission. The second scenario describes a parent and subsidiary relationship between the Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch and the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission. The third scenario describes the dissolution of Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, with the assets of the corporation transferred to the Crime Commission.
Figure 2. Three Common Scenarios for Uniting Separate Nonprofit Corporations.
Scenario |
Local Examples |
Advantages |
Disadvantages |
| Merger | Shelby Resident Vocational Services (SVRS) and separate housing arm |
|
|
| Parent and Subsidiary | Community Forum and Memphis Community Development Partnership (MCDP) as subsidiaries of the Community Foundation of Greater Memphis, Inc. |
|
|
| Dissolution |
|
|
Figure II provides a clear picture of the common and formal ways in which nonprofit corporations can unite. Of all the potential means of unification, perhaps the merger most visibly accomplishes the twin goals of inclusiveness and synergy. With assets, networks, and goodwill all being combined, the surviving organization is well positioned to succeed both financially and objectively.
Clearly, a merger between the two organizations is appropriate from the perspective of the missions of the two agencies. Both the Crime Commission and Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch are intermediary organizations, i.e. organizations that work through others to build the community's capacity to reduce and prevent crime. Both organizations have the same coverage area, Memphis and Shelby County. Both organizations are strategically interested in citizen involvement.
Because of the relative financial strength of the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission, merging the Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, Inc. into the Crime Commission appears to be more logical than the reverse. A merger of Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch into the Crime Commission is also logical from a mission standpoint as well.
The need for a direct police link to the community through Neighborhood Watch is very strong. This police link may be the only direct contact for a citizen in which to identify with the police. An avenue of education and dialogue in a Neighborhood Watch setting legitimates the police/citizen relationship by providing a formalized method of direct citizen participation in community crime management. By vocalizing and identifying collective neighborhood concerns, neighborhoods "personalize" themselves and establish a neighborhood conscience that may help in deterring crime (Sasson). The Crime Commission, with its strong ties to the law enforcement community (both the Sheriff of Shelby County and the Police Director of the City of Memphis serve as ex officio Board Members) can strengthen the connection between law enforcement and Neighborhood Watch.
In all likelihood, the specific contours of such a merger would be delineated through the creation of an ad hoc committee comprised of board members from both organizations. However, it is reasonable to expect that the staff of Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, Inc., as well as some of its Board members (perhaps its executive committee, if such a committee exists), would be absorbed into the organizational fabric of Memphis Shelby Crime Commission. This would help to insure that the collective wisdom of Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, Inc. would be sustained through the period of transition.
Furthermore, the timing for this type of merger seems very appropriate for two reasons. Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch is without an executive director, and the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission has hired a new President (to be named within the next thirty days) who is a nationally recognized expert in community policing.
The Crime Commission is also in the process of establishing a pilot Crime Prevention Extension Service. First proposed by the criminologist Marcus Felson in 1994, the concept is based upon the premise that citizens and organizations need a new source of customized information to provide advice based upon the substantial research that is available on preventing crime.
The Crime Prevention Extension Service will:
The Crime Commission will use a major portion of the grant to fund the position of Director of Community Initiatives. The primary responsibility of the Director will be to serve as an effective conduit for information within and between the community members in the designated communities and all participating agencies. If a merger between the Crime Commission and Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, Inc. were to occur, the Director of Community Safety Initiatives could be the responsible agent for coordinating the activities of all local neighborhood watches.
In conclusion, it appears that the coordination of neighborhood watches that would occur as a result of such a merger would be far more powerful than what the current process can afford. Despite the recent reductions in crime locally, Memphis remains in the top ten in overall crime of cities with populations over 500,000. The need for increased citizen involvement is urgent. A merger of Memphis Area Neighborhood Watch, Inc. into the Crime Commission would provide even stronger ally for citizens by creating vertical linkages between crime prevention activists at the grassroots level, and persons and agencies with public safety decision-making authority.
Works Cited
Darian-Smith, Eve. "Neighborhood Watch-Who Watches Whom? Reinterpreting the Concept of Neighborhood," Human Organization. Vol. 52, No. 1. 1993, Society for Applied Anthropology. 83-87.
Kelling, George and James K. Stewart. "Neighborhoods and Police: The Maintenance of Civil Authority."
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. Perspectives on Policing, May 1989, No. 10.
Mann, Stephanie, and M.C. Blakeman. Safe Homes, Safe Neighborhoods, Stopping Crime Where You Live.
Ed. Marcia Stewart and Ralph Warner. Nolo Press, Berkeley. 1993
McConville, Mike, and Dan Shepherd. Watching Police, Watching Communities. New York: Rotledge, 1992. pp. xii-271.
Midwest Research Institute, Evaluation of the National Sheriffs’ Association National Neighborhood Watch
Program, Kansas City, Missouri: Midwest Research Institute, 1977.
Moore, Mark H. and George L. Kelling. "To Serve and Protect": Learning from Police History." The Public Interest " No. 70. 1983, National Affairs. Rpt. in Before the Law, an introduction to the Legal Process. 5th Ed.
Bonsignore, John., et al. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston. 1994. 257-258.
National Crime Prevention Institute, School of Justice Administration. Understanding Crime Prevention.
University of Louisville, Kentucky. Butterworth Publishing, Stoneham, MA. 1986
Regan, Marty. Telephone Interviews, January and March, 2000.
Rosenbaum, Dennis. Community Crime Prevention, Does it Work? Sage Publications, Inc. 1986. 11-19.
Sasson, Theodore, and Margaret K. Nelson. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Vol. 25, July 1996 171-200. 1996, Sage Publications, Inc.
Trojanowicz, Robert, and Dennis M. Payne, Performance Profiles of Foot Verses Motor Officers. Michigan
State University, The National Center for Community Policing. Pp. 1-20. 1985.
Trojanowicz, Robert, and Dennis M. Payne. A Manual for the Establishment and Operation of a Foot Patrol Program. Michigan State University, The National Center for Community Policing. MSU 1985.
Yin et al., Patrolling the Neighborhood Beat, p. 121.