Banishment

• Author: Jacob Apkarian,Jose A. Torres
• Published date: 01 November 2018
• Date: 01 November 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12399

RESEARCH ARTICLE

DETERRENCE IN PUBLIC HOUSING

Banishment

A Test of Specific Deterrence in Public Housing

Jose A. Torres

Louisiana State University

Jacob Apkarian

City University of New York, York College

Research Summary

Wetest the degree to which a public housing banishment policy specifically deters overall

drug and violent offenses in public housing using a stratified sample of 345 individuals,

banned between 2004 and 2012, in one public housing authority (PHA). We find

that individual offending (trespass, drug, violent, gun, and property offenses) in public

housing increases after being banned. Increases in trespass offenses, specifically for male

offenders with limited history of offending prior to being banned, primarily explain

the increases. Being banned, however,significantly reduced drug and violent offending

for individuals with histories of drug and violent offending in public housing. These

individuals were arrested when they were banned, which suggests to us that bans alone

may not reduce drug and violent offending.

Policy Implications

Banishment enforcement should be tailored toward drug and violent offenders using

focused deterrence strategies. Targeted enforcement could minimize the harm done to

those who are violating bans with legitimate reasons for being in public housing, such

as those fulfilling familial obligations, while still producing crime reduction benefits. As

a benefit, these changes may increase police legitimacy among public housing residents

Direct correspondence to Jose A. Torres, Louisiana State University, 126 Stubbs Hall, Baton Rouge, LA 70803

(e-mail: jtorres@lsu.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12399 C2018 American Society of Criminology 911

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 4

Research Article Deterrence in Public Housing

as they watch police in their communities provide fair and meaningful solutions as it

relates to crime brought on by nonresidents.

Keywords

crime prevention, deterrence, banishment, public housing, policing

Public housing authorities (PHAs) have enacted formal banishment policies for non-

residents over the past three decades (Graham, Walker, Maher, Gilmore, and James,

2003; O’Leary, 1996). Although the duration of the ban can vary, banishment

policies have allowed PHAs to ban nonresidents for criminal acts, past or present, and for

noncriminal acts (see Charlotte Housing Authority, 2018; Rockford Housing Authority,

2018).1Once banned, individuals can be placed on a ban list maintained by PHAs or police

(Beck, 2004) and can be arrested for trespassing if found on PHA property (Goldstein,

2003). Banishment targets nonresidents who are viewed as a primary source of criminal

behavior within public housing (Graham et al., 2003; Hunter and Frist-Riutort, 1989;

Torres, 2017; Walsh, Vito, Tewksbury,and Wilson, 2000). In this way, banishment policies

act on principles of “specific deterrence” by allowing for the possibility that the experience

of being issued a formal ban, a civil punishment, will deter nonresidents from returning to

public housing to offend.

Empirical research on banishment in public housing has been scant and has been

focused on neighborhood-level effects and comparisons. In recent studies, researchers have

found that banishment increases trespass arrests and drug arrests with modest property

crime reductions (Torres, Apkarian, and Hawdon, 2016), and that trespass enforcement has

been concentrated in public housing communities disproportionately populated by racial

minorities (Fagan, Davies, and Carlis, 2012). A few early public housing crime interventions

did include banishment (Barbrey, 2004; McGarrell, Giacomazzi, and Thurman, 1999;

Walsh et al., 2000), but such policies were part of larger crime reduction strategies within

public housing, making it hard for evaluations to decipher the direct impact of no-trespass

policies on crime.

The goal of this study is to address whether being banned prevents an individual from

coming back to public housing to offend. Thus, this study fills a gap in the literature by

testing the specific deterrent effect of banishment. The study is centered on a sample of 345

banned individuals, and we use multilevel regression models to test the degree to which

being banned deters, overall, drug and violent offending in a PHA in one southeastern U.S.

city. In addition, we run models predicting trespass offenses to understand the degree to

which individuals violate their bans. The evidence provided challenges claims that banish-

ment prevents individuals from returning to public housing and forces PHAs and police

1. Although banishment policies have been used outside of public housing (see Beckett and Herbert,

2009), hereafter “banishment” refers to its use within public housing only.

912 Criminology & Public Policy