Reducing Crime in Public Housing

• Date: 01 November 2018
• Author: Beth M. Huebner
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12403
• Published date: 01 November 2018

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

DETERRENCE IN PUBLIC HOUSING

Reducing Crime in Public Housing

TheRoleofBanishment

Beth M. Huebner

University of Missouri—St. Louis

Housing can serve as the foundation to successful life transitions. Safe, stable

housing improves social networks and builds social capital, making the devel-

opment of critical social ties more likely (Coleman, 1990). In fact, according to

the “housing first” perspective, stable housing is an essential precursor to a host of positive

individual outcomes (Padgett, Stanhope, Henwood, and Stefancic, 2011), and affordable

housing is the lynchpin of this movement. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of affordable

housing options in most major metropolitan areas and many public housing communities

have long waiting lists (Graffam, Shinkfield, and Hardcastle, 2007). Public housing has

also been marked by crime and disorder, leading researchers and policy makers to look to

develop best practices to improve community safety.

The work presented by JoseTorres and JacobApkarian (2018: 911–937) is an important

contribution to our broader understanding of crime control policies in public housing

authorities (PHAs). Torres and Apkarian (2018) used a sample of 345 individuals banned

over an 8-year period and followedt hem for 3years postban to consider the specific deterrent

effect of a banishment policy in one PHA. The banishment policy was broad in nature and

allowed the community policing unit of the city police department to place anyone on the

ban list. The results of this research add to those in the scant literature on the efficacy of

banishment lists as most extant work in this area was published over a decade prior.

Several important results emerge from the research by Torres and Apkarian (2018).

Banishment significantly reduced subsequent drug and violent crime for individuals who

were arrested when banned. The arrested and banned group, however, only represents a

small portion of the sample, approximately 16%, and the authors were not able to ascertain

whether part of the reduction in offending was a result of incarceration. Contrary to

Direct correspondence to Beth M. Huebner, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of

Missouri–St. Louis, 324 Lucas Hall, One University Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63121-4499 (e-mail:

huebnerb@umsl.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12403 C2018 American Society of Criminology 907

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 17 rIssue 4