Community Assignment: Comparing the Perspectives and Approaches of Three Organizations

Over the course of the semester it has become clear that there are a multitude of perspectives and approaches used when engaging in community development.  While organizations and efforts aimed at community development or revitalization may not explicitly state a position or the framework from which they are operating, it is often possible to use the descriptors presented to understand the perspective employed.  Examining and comparing the websites of three Pittsburgh organizations provides an opportunity to more critically consider how varying perspectives on community development are expressed and put into practice.  While this analysis will not evaluate if the organizations are working in accordance to the perspective they are espousing, it will explore how the perspectives manifest by examining the organizations’ missions, structures, and programs/services. 

The three organizations whose websites are being explored are Oakland Planning and Development Corporation (OPDC),   Hosanna House, and Thomas Merton Center (TMC).  An initial point of information for gaining understanding of an organization's perspective is to examine its mission.  Mission statements provide a concise explanation of the organization's purpose and specify the area(s) of focus, indicating where the organization thinks attention must be given and where they have the ability to create change.  The text to the right provides and mission statement for each of the three organizations.  While each mission statement denotes importance around engaging people, they do so is different ways.  OPDC and Hosanna House both have reference to service delivery, either by acknowledging specific services, such as “job placement services”, or by saying “providing opportunities.” However, OPDC refers to Oakland (the neighborhood it serves) as a collective community, where as Hosanna House focuses on empowerment at a more individual level (families and individuals).  Looking further upstream, the mission statement of TMC is much more systemically focused.  There is importance paid to bringing people together, but it is done so at the level of fostering structural awareness and change.  The comparisons perceived among the organizations' mission statements are further seen when examining other aspects of the websites, as discussed further below.

Each organization is structured in a similar way, however the differences that do exist, as well as the differences in the way the information is presented can provide important insight into the approach of the organizations.  Each organization is governed by a Board of Directors, however only OPDC provides any information on their Board members beyond indicating the member's position (e.g., President).  What OPDC does is indicate the members’ affiliations while also highlighting which members are Oakland residents, or residents of nearby neighborhoods.  In so doing, OPDC builds on the image of being community focused—an image that is again fostered by how OPDC presents its staff and partners.  Whereas TMC lists their four staff members and job titles, and Hosanna House provides a personnel blurb for their Executive Director (heavily focused on business success and personal accolades), OPDC provides personnel bios which not only describe the staff members’ expertise, but also incorporate their connections with the community as well as experiences with community development.  For example, the Executive Director’s bio references her previous experiences while also including descriptors like “Passionate about Oakland not only as a residential neighborhood but as the economic driver and cultural hub of our region.” Including such language builds a focus on Oakland as a community, and the organization viewing itself as an engaged element within that community.  Similar conclusions can be gleaned from an exploration of the organizations’ partners, however it is useful to first examine the programs and services that the organizations highlight on their websites.

The TMC is most unique in their programming among the three organizations analyzed, because they are so structurally focused.  Engaged in three main areas (Peace and Nonviolence; Economic Justice; Environmental Justice), the TMC works to fulfill its mission by bringing people together to consider and respond to systemic issues using a nonviolence ethos.  As such, the TMC views change as a product of creating awareness of system issues and injustices and mobilizing a voice against those issues.  The programs and services organized by OPDC and Hosanna House are more micro focused than those of the TMC, with heavier emphasis on behavioral implications.  Hosanna House is almost entirely behaviorally focused in its programming, focusing on the delivery of such services as: Youth leadership training and mentoring; Addiction recovery programs; Job placement services for the disabled; Pregnancy care services; and Health and fitness programs.  What is seen here is a scope of resources that serve individuals and families.  Even the organization’s community development efforts have an individualistic leaning, with efforts to educate and support potential homeowners about housing options.  OPDC has a number of programs comparable to those of Hosanna House, such as employment support services and education/training programs to prepare students for employment, however they also have more community level emphasis than Hosanna House.  For example, OPDC is engaged in community development planning (Oakland 2025) and transportation initiatives, bringing in a structural perspective to supplement the behavioral approach used in much of their programming. 

After reviewing the programs these organizations administer, it is interesting to return to a discussion of their structures and consider their partnerships as well as their use of volunteers.  In first examining their partnerships, the TMC does not provide any information on their partners, reflecting their approach through mobilization rather than funding driven programming.  Similarly, they do not seek to attract volunteers, as they want people to engage at the issue level and serve as advocates for the system level changes.  Hosanna House’s use of partners and volunteers is quite different.  Their partners are heavily aligned with specific programs, for example, one partner is Women’s Choice Network, and the descriptor states “our network of medical and ministry centers offers free and confidential resources to women and men who have questions about pregnancy, abortion, sexually transmitted diseases and related issues.” With all of Hosanna House’s partners being described in this way, one can see an emphasis on service delivery to support individuals.  Adding to this assessment is the organization’s use of volunteers—while the volunteers page states that volunteers are an integral part of Hosanna House’s success, the use of volunteers is not mentioned throughout the site, nor is the page a primary destination within the site (in contrast, there is a direct link to donating on the main page). 

OPDC shows quite a bit of divergence from the above discussed approaches to partnerships and volunteers.  First, OPDC emphasizes volunteering, citing it as a pillar of community unity and development, in both its mission statement and its programming.  It further builds on this emphasis through the website, by careful branding, such as using the main tag line “Community Improvement through Involvement”  and heading areas with titles like “I am Oakland” and “Your Oakland”.  This perspective of broad community emphasis is also seen in OPDC’s partnerships, which show horizontal links to the community with a range of partnering organizations—from for profits to nonprofits to government, OPDC is linked to key leadership throughout the city (e.g. UPMC, Councilmen and Representatives, City of Pittsburgh, PPS,  and foundations [Heinz Endowments, Pittsburgh Partnership for Neighborhood Development]).

By comparing OPDC, Hosanna House, and the TMC, we can begin to see the myriad of perspectives and approaches used to support and positively impact communities.  While these organizations may not represent the full scope, we are able to see important similarities and differences that teach us about the practical application of community development theories and perspectives.  The TMC embodies a structural approach, seeking to engage people in deepening awareness and working for systemic injustices.  While Hosanna House also cares about bringing people together, it does so as a means of supporting individuals, so they have the skills and resources to be successful.  OPDC has a similar behavioral perspective, providing services that support individual skill development and opportunity realization, however they incorporate a community dynamic which seeks to improve the community systems and engage community members in the efforts of change.  Each organization seeks to bring people together for the bettermnt of lives, however the perspective they use and the approach they take to fulfill the goal of improvement are quite different, and these differences can be seen by exploring the information they present and their manner of presenting it.  

Urban Blight and Collective Consciousness: Responding to the Image of "Other"

Bedford Park Avenue Station, Bronx, NY
Photo Credit: Adam Moriera/City Limits

In class we have had a number of discussions around the impact the image of the city has on its vitality.  Thinking both within the United States, and in a larger global context, these discussions have often focused on the image of cities in terms of crime, diversity, and resources.  For example, in a post by a fellow classmate, Biqing Huang, a lens is used to explore how people often have dichotomous images of cities, seeing on one hand a cultural and economic hub that promotes innovation and growth, while on the other hand envisioning poverty and crime—fearing areas that are “labeled by color and are considered as dangerous.” Building on these discussions I find to interesting to consider the impacts these images have on responses to urban issues, most specifically how the perspective used when considering urban blight has distorted, if not eradicated, the issue from the public consciousness. 

In his 1991 article, As Urban Blight Worsens, Victims Find Their Isolation Is Deepening, Peter Applebome examines the intensifying segregation felt by residents of impoverished areas of cities.  However, what really caught my attention of Applebome’s assessment was his identification of a disconnect between the American public and the urban poor, noting that insulation from the problems of poverty is the norm in America (poverty is considered the problem of other individuals, rather than recognized as a societal issue concerning us all).  Applebome notes that many Americans not only separate themselves from poverty in a theoretical manner, but also quite literally:

Reston Town Center
Photo Credit: Global Village Encyclopedia

The effect of moving residents as well as jobs out of cities is a new kind of community. "If you go to a place like Reston Town Center outside Washington," Mr. Lockwood said, "they've created a downtown without crime, without graffiti, without poor people. It's not only white flight, it's total abandonment of the center city."

What Applebome describes is a public discourse which assumes the urban poor are “the other” and the issues of urban blight is a concern for “them.” The pervasiveness of this perspective is further examined in Gregory Mantsios’ excerpt Media Magic: Making Class Invisible.  In this piece, Mantsios explores that image of the poor perpetuated by media, explaining the inequalities are predominately hidden from public view, and if they are portrayed they “are provided with messages that obscure the nature of class realities and blame the victims of class dominated society for their own plight.”

I believe the disconnect between the general public and the experiences of poor areas and residents is a significant issue, because it influences the response to communities’ and individuals’ needs.  As a means of countering this disconnect I think there needs to exist an effort for improved social integration.  Fostering engagement among the American public would support a more collective consciousness, hopefully detaching the label of “the other” from the poor.  For example, by better integrating people from low socioeconomic statuses into community systems and processes (e.g., encouraging representation from low-income residents in community groups and city discussion bodies), these residents would not only build their personal assets and capacities but would also develop relationships that would make them less distant from the more economically secure residents. 

One way of fostering the public’s engagement in issues of urban blight would be to enrich the understanding of the importance of cities.  In the video below, Edward Glaesaer provides insights into the critical functions of cities, explaining their role in creating change and breading knowledge and progress.  Glaesaer, a Professor of Economics at Harvard, states that “human kinds greatest hits…are made in cities.”  He goes on to note the significance of human capital in promoting the ability for cities to function to their potential.  This point is of particular merit because it emphasizes the need to support both cities and their residents as means for general growth (not just individual city prosperity). 

In addition to the resources included within the post, readers who enjoyed this discussion may be interested in the following:

• Urban America: US cities in the global economy. In this 2012 report, the McKinsey Global Institute (the business and economics research arm of a large market consulting firm) provides data supporting the claim that “the strength of the U.S. economy rests on a broad base of large cities.” While the report does not provide recommendations for how to foster city success, it does address the importance of city vitality. 
• The Economic Strength of Cities.  Video of Richard Florida’s talk at the Aspen Ideas Festival provides his perspective of the role of cities in cultivating intellectual and cultural development, while also being a vehicle of economic growth.   
• Engaging with the urban poor and their organizations for poverty reduction and urban governance.  United Nations Development Programme, which focuses its work in four main areas (poverty reduction, democratic governance, crisis prevention and recovery, and environment and sustainable development), released this 2011 report, which explores the impact of organizations developed and managed by the urban poor and how these organization's engage with government.  This document provides interesting insight on the success that can materialize out of engaging rather than isolating the urban poor. 

A Comprehensive Response to Urban Poverty

Photo Credit: City of Henderson, NV

As a macro-level social work student the issue of community development and revitalization is at the forefront of many discussions. While these discussions have often involved the review and assessment of programs used at local, state, and federal levels to combat urban blight, I had not previously considered categorizing the programs into approach schema and exploring the assumptions and outcomes of the approaches generally. Nicholas Lemann’s 1994 article, The Myth of Community Development, caused me to reframe the way I understand community development efforts.

The crux of Lemann’s argument is that government revitalization efforts have been a continuous rebranding of the same approach—an approach that has been ineffective and has, in the long run, hindered the case of providing social support to the disadvantaged. Lemann explains that for decades the government has taken an approach based on economic investment, which is aimed at integrating enterprise into areas so community members have the opportunity to work themselves up. Citing programs under Johnson (Model Cities), Reagan and Bush (Enterprise Zones), and Clinton (Empowerment Zones), Lemann identified a reoccurring approach which framed community revitalization around economic investment; a framing that is an easier political sell because of public discourse connecting welfare to handouts.

Lemann goes on to suggest that the ineffectiveness of these government programs break down the case for government aid in blighted communities as they cause the general public to see government efforts as futile—the perception becomes that government support is the problem, not economic revitalization as the approach. As such, approaches that have shown success in supporting the needs and growth of urban areas are often masked as economic development, rather than social support. For example, Community Development Corporations, which support communities through the provision of housing, safety, education and job services have been effective in garnering improvements because they address the multifaceted needs of a community. Based on this success, Lemann calls for a new perspective on community development, focusing on comprehensive support rather than economic revitalization.

Following Lemann’s article, Robert O. Zdenek, a Senior Program Associate for The Annie E. Casey Foundation, published a response suggesting that the distinction Lemann makes between economic revitalization and community development is not appropriate. Zdenek states, “Economic development impacts and is impacted by key social and political factors in a community ranging from access to quality education and social services to the availability of decent and affordable housing.” Here, I believe Lemann makes a stronger case for delineating between economic revitalization efforts and the work of Community Development Corporations, because of the policy development process described by Lemann. By emphasizing a distinction between the two there is an opportunity to understand the shortcomings of the common siloed approaches to development. Furthermore, the distinction enables a recognition that failed economic reinvestment initiatives do not represent a need to disengage government from community support (rather, they represent the shortcomings of the approach itself).

Where I do think Zdenek makes important points is in his assessment of the failures of economic revitalization efforts by the government, as well as his valuation for integrating approaches to community development. He contends that economic revitalization is not useless, rather it has been insufficiently implemented, either becomes of poor funding, incomplete policy, or because it was not coordinated with other development efforts. I believe that by integrating the approaches suggested by Lemann and Zdenek, there is an opportunity to develop a more comprehensive response to urban poverty. Supports typical to Community Development Corporations would provide the spectrum of services that, when coordinated, can help improve the standing of community members. These services, including housing, job training, education, health care, and safety, provide a system where the needs of people are recognized holistically, rather than in isolation. In addition, the economic revitalization approach would provide a foundation of opportunity for the community members. The Community Development Corporation supports would provide the skills and assets, and an economically strong environment would provide the context for those skills and assets to be exercised.

In addition to the resources included within the post, readers who enjoyed this discussion may be interested in the following:

• Comprehensive Approaches to Urban Development: Gentrification, Community, and Business in Harlem, New York. In this 2006 paper from Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, the authors explore if neighborhood development should place based or people based. The paper provides an interesting breakdown of the gentrification process, and raises good questions about the considerations to make about new businesses and existing residents when engaging in community development. 
• COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Comprehensive Approaches Address Multiple Needs but Are Challenging to Implement. The U.S. General Accounting Office produce this 1995 report to advise Congress on why multifaceted approaches are touted by community development experts, the challenges of implementing such approaches, and what role government can take to support these approaches. 
• Works in Progress: Comprehensive Approaches to Community Development. This 2006 bulletin provides information on the development and implementation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives; initiatives that build on Community Development Corporations by adding additional responses to community needs, such as “building community leadership and cohesion, improving education opportunities, building wealth, increasing civic participation, and repairing the physical conditions and infrastructure of a neighborhood.” The piece provides examples of such efforts and explores the outcomes. 

Perspectives for Understanding the Urban Economic Divide

Photo Credit: http://liu.english.ucsb.edu/wiki1/images/2/2b/Sign.jpg

In a previous post I referred to a series of recent articles examining the growing inequality gap proliferating from the division of the labor force into professionalized and low-skilled jobs.  Within that post I explored the topic from a position of leadership development, considering how leaders could be fostered from within the struggling, low-skilled labor clusters, as a means of creating community assets and igniting growth.  However, in reviewing the re-emergence of the culture of poverty school of thought, I have found myself examining the labor force divide with new questions. 

First, I think it is worthwhile to explain that I see a distinction between many of the current culture of poverty scholars and Charles Murray, who I believe continues a stance of inherent deficiency.  Taking readings such as Richard Thompson Ford’s “Why the Poor Stay Poor”, Patricia Cohen’s “Culture of Poverty Makes a Comeback”, and Small, Harding & Lamont’s “Reconsidering Culture and Poverty”, you can see an exploration of the influences of culture, which also takes into account structural forces.  In some ways I see the discussions of many culture of poverty scholars as comparable to a discussion of social capital, rather than deficiency. For example, Small, Harding & Lamont reference work by Annette Lareau which suggests “poor children may do worse over their lifetimes in part because their parents are more committed to “natural growth” than “concerted cultivation” as their cultural model for child-rearing.” While the culture of poverty model contends that the cultural forces at play, the child-rearing strategy, influence outcomes, it does not proclaim the culture is in and of itself lacking. Rather, one can say that the skills learned through concerted cultivation, such as independent thinking and comfort expressing ideas to authority figures, are skills touted in the dominant society. Furthermore, the cultural aspects discussed by these scholars are not considered stagnate and unwavering, they are instead understood in a broader context, influenced by the history and experiences of people within a larger society.

Murray, in contrast, extorts a position which connects character deficiency to poverty.  While moving away from race discussions, Murray continued this perspective in his 2010 book, “Coming Apart”, by connecting IQ scores to the behavioral aspects that keep poor people poor.  This perspective downplays external forces and influences, and emphasizes qualities within individuals (Murray does move slightly away from describing IQ in terms of “innate” ability, to that of “intractable” but the distinction seems superficial in my opinion, as Murray’s perspective of the “deficiencies” seems steadfast in being independent from any social, political, or economic influence).

What was of interest to me in reading reviews of Murray’s work was the perspective it brings to the current economic geography of the country, with division between the professionalized and low-skilled labor markets. In a series entitled “Class-Divided Cities”, Richard Florida examines the segregation of the creative and service classes in America’s cities, as can be seen in the mapping of DC to the right.  The areas that are predominately service class are also the poorest in the city, specifically the Southeast quadrant, which has a reputation of poverty and crime.  Murray’s perspective would postulate that those living in Southeast D.C. are lacking the IQ to make the appropriate choices, fulfill the requirements of higher sector jobs, and improve their standing in the labor force. 

Countering such claims from Murray and his supporters, a more structuralist perspective may contend that the divide is a reflection of the opportunities available to the labor force; opportunities in both employment and education/training.  In the video below, Florida discusses the need to transform service jobs into creative jobs, taking the stance that the American economy does not need to return to a manufacturing foundation, but rather needs to adjust to the current landscape and make the jobs that are available better.  Very much counter to many of Murray’s notions of people, Florida states that every person should be considered a creative person, and viewed as a creator.  He goes on to explain that the education system could be changed to better foster exploration (rather than continuing down the rigid, formal testing experience currently in place), and that the government has a role in upgrading the jobs that exist, so that service jobs are better jobs. 

http://www.creativeclass.com/richard_florida/multimedia_showcase?media=MSNBC-The_Dylan_Ratigan_Show-Quantity_plus_Quality_Creating_High-Paying_Jobs&play=true

This contrast between Murray and Florida shows how the same social phenomena can be understood very differently, and how the understanding of the issue influences the approach suggested for responding to it.

In addition to the resources included within the post, readers who enjoyed this discussion may be interested in the following:

• The Devastating Disconnect Between Rich and Poor.  This post from SALTLAW blog (“a community of progressive law teachers working for justice, diversity and academic excellence”) provides an analysis of the perspective postulated by Murray in “Coming Apart.”  The author explores Murray’s examination of the class divide in America, but moves away from other critiques I have seen by focusing in part on the disconnect between the classes, specifically the distance the rich place between themselves and the poor.
• Reconsidering the ‘Culture of Poverty.’ Within days of publishing her article “Culture of Poverty Makes a Comeback” Patricia Cohen appeared on NPR’s “Talk of the Nation”, speaking with host Neal Cohan, as well as Columbia University Professor Sudhir Venkatesh.  The conversation not only presents Cohen’s arguments from her New York Times piece, but also further explores the factors contributing to poverty, that questions social scientists must grapple with when trying to combat poverty, and the variations in experiences of poverty—hearing from callers about their personal experiences and perspectives. 
• Where the Skills Are.  This 2011 Florida article, which appeared in The Atlantic, provides an thought-provoking analysis of the labor market in cities, eliciting both structural and behavioral perspectives.  Florida not only explores the geographic clustering of job sectors, but also discusses the skills required for individual success within the sectors, and how innovation and knowledge is fostered in high density cities.  It is interesting to compare the arguments made by Florida in this piece, to the points he highlights in the video presented above.  

Perceptions, Norms, and Social Integration: Dynamics of Community Safety

Photo Credit: Gazette.net

While working at my last organization, I was tasked with identifying programs that had demonstrated effectiveness in curbing violence. The marquee program selected was an effort by the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society called the Philadelphia LandCare Program, which greens and maintains vacant lots in an effort to encourage neighborhood development and stimulate a healthier and safer community. The theoretical backing of this type of initiative links directly to the propositions put forth by Kelling and Wilson in their 1982 article Broken Windows: The police and neighborhood safety; with the program description stating “Blighted lots detract from the look and feel of neighborhoods and attract criminal activity...”  The program put into practice the idea that order maintenance, through such activities as greening disarrayed lots, can impact the well-being of the community, with program evaluation results indicating a decrease in gun violence as well as improvements in health indicators among residents (e.g., descreased stress, increased exercise). 

While the above example demonstrates the aspect of Broken Windows that most people focus on, Kelling and Wilson’s analysis went much further in exploring the topic of safety in communities.  In the article, the authors examine the role of police, and how a change in their role (“from order-maintenance to law enforcement”) has negatively influenced the ability to uphold safety in neighborhoods.  In considering Kelling and Wilson’s ideas around tending to order as a means of thwarting the proliferation of more serious crime I believe the authors open the door to deeper discussion in three areas: the influence of perception, the development and regulation of norms, and the facets of social integration.

Photo Credit: occupydenver.org

Perception has an important and influential role in community identity.  The public perception of an area can be the driving force of how that area is understood, even if the perception is “untrue.”  Kelling and Wilson acknowledge the power of perception early in their article by giving credence to the fact that while using foot-patrols in Newark, NJ did not decrease real crime, it did make residents feel safer.  As such, what people believe about a community dictates the character of that community.  What is also important about perception is that is can be built on exceptions, rather than norms.  David Kennedy, Director of the Center for Crime Prevention and Control at John Jay College Of Criminal Justice, noted in a practice brief that even in areas characterized by violence and crime, such actions are not as rampant as believed, citing numbers for Los Angeles indicating that 141 gang homicides means there are 64,859 gang members “not killing anybody.”  Similarly, as Kelling and Wilson explain, an area can be perceived as unsafe based on markers that are not criminal acts in and of themselves; e.g., panhandlers and vacant lots. This all shows that perception is a multifaceted factor which has influence over the understanding of an area and what changes are needed.

Norms are another important component of community safety, and a component Killing and Wilson considered when they asked: “Should police activity on the street be shaped, in important ways, by the standards of the neighborhood rather than by the rules of the state?”  While the authors are seeking to consider who should dictate what constitutes order in a community, the community itself or a larger regulatory body, I think a relevant discussion exists at the level of community control.  Assuming the community is able to determine what will and will not be tolerated, the formation and acceptance of these norms is an important aspect of community cohesion.  The community is delineating the boundaries of acceptable behavior, and determining what constitutes safety.  As such, there must exist a social contract between community members, recognizing the agreed upon limits, which community members choose to follow or not. 

The recognition of the influence of both perception and norms leads to a discussion of social integration and stigmatization within communities.  How people feel about a community dictates their characterization of that community, even when perceptions are based on indirect beliefs.  This may mean that community members, or even strangers, become ostracized because of the perceptions they are connected to.  Furthermore, social integration and stigmatization are effected by and affect the creation and maintenance of norms.  Sociologist and Political Scientists, including Robert Putnam, often consider social norms a form of social capital, enabling those who control or fall within the norms to build on their connections and collaborative abilities and direct what constitutes appropriate and meaningful interaction.  As such, residents who are more integrated into the social fabric of the community are positioned to set the norms of the community, and therefore create a system of order that supports themselves and their actions while potentially ostracizing and disengaging others. 

By further considering perception, norms, and social integration, we can see that Kelling and Wilson's ideas went far beyond the upkeep of windows.  The areas they explore in Broken Windows provide a perspective for understanding some of the dynamics of a community that influence safety and well-being, and implore us to think critically about the interplay of these factors when approaching responses to community issues.  

In addition to the resources included within the post, readers who enjoyed this discussion may be interested in the following:

• A difference-in-differences analysis of health, safety, and greening vacant urban space.  This 2011 piece, from the American Journal of Epidemiology, provides the results from a decade-long analysis of the impact of greening vacant lots in Philadelphia. 
• Norms as Social Capital.  In this chapter, from the 1987 book “Economic imperialism: The economic approach applied outside the field of economics”, sociologist James S. Coleman describes what social norms are, their role in social control, why they are internalized, and how they relate to social capital. 
• Principals of Good Policing.  This 2003 report from the U.S. Department of Justice provides a more recent perspective on policing.  Building on Kelling and Wilson’s ideas about the role of police, readers may enjoy reviewing the section on Police-Community Partnership—for example, beginning on page 42, the report provides strengths and outcomes of good police and community relations, discussing the impacts of effective collaboration between the two in reducing crime and the fear of crime.