Banishment Policies

• Date: 01 November 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12405
• Published date: 01 November 2018

POLICY ESSAY

DETERRENCE IN PUBLIC HOUSING

Banishment Policies

Establishing Parameters and Assessing Effectiveness

William Terrill

Arizona State University

Astereotypical view of public housing is often its connection with urban decay and

crime (Mazerolle and Terrill, 1997). Indeed, many study findings demonstrate

that crime is generally higher in public housing sites than in other locations within

a city (Annan and Skogan, 1993; Brill and Associates, 1977; Dunworth and Saiger, 1993;

Mazerolle, Ready, Terrill, and Waring, 2000; Roncek, Bell, and Francik, 1981). Relatedly,

local, state, and federal governmental programs have attempted several initiatives over the

years designed to improve crime prevention and control. Such approaches have included,

but have not been limited to, the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA)program

as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, employing crime prevention through environ-

ment design (CPTED) and other situational crime prevention techniques, enhanced police

presence through additional patrols (including vertical patrols) and the use of overtime

pay, and numerous forms of interagency collaborations. At times, such efforts have

drawn on incorporating community policing and problem-solving teams with local social

service agencies and housing officials in an attempt to tackle crime and disorder in public

housing more systematically. Such efforts have produced somewhat mixed results amid

varying degrees of success (Collins, Greene, Kane, Stokes, and Piquero, 1998; Giacomazzi,

McGarrell, and Thurman, 1996; Mazerolle et al., 2000; Newman and Franck, 1980;

Wesiel, 1990).

Jose Torres and Jacob Apkarian (2018: 911–937) assess the effectiveness of a

banishment policy in an unidentified public housing site by drawing on a sample of banned

individuals over a 6-year period. More specifically, as noted by Torres and Apkarian, the

goal of the study was “to address whether being banned prevents an individual from

coming back to public housing to offend.” Based on the findings, it is clear that the

banishment policy did indeed have the desired effect. For those arrested for a crime at

Direct correspondence to William Terrill, School of Criminology & Criminal Justice, Arizona State University,

411 N. Central Ave., Office 622B, Phoenix, AZ 85004 (e-mail: wcterrill@gmail.com).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12405 C2018 American Society of Criminology 939

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 4