VIOLENCE AMONG ADOLESCENTS LIVING IN PUBLIC HOUSING: A TWO‐SITE ANALYSIS*

Abstract

Research Summary:Current knowledge about violence among public housing residents is extremely limited. Much of what we know about violence in and around public housing is derived from analysis of Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data or victimization surveys of public housing residents. The results of these studies suggest that fear of crime among public housing residents is high and that violent offense rates may be higher in areas that contain public housing compared with similar areas without public housing. Yet, “[r]ecorded crime rates (and victimization rates) are an index not of the rate of participation in crime by residents of an area, but of the rate of crime (or victimization) that occurs in an area whether committed by residents or non‐residents” (Weatherburn et al., 1999:259). Therefore, neither UCR nor victimization data measurement strategies address whether crime in and around public housing emanates from those who reside in public housing. Additionally, much of this research focuses on atypical public housing—large developments with high‐rise buildings located in major metropolitan areas. To complement the existing literature, we compare rates of self‐reported crime and violence among adolescents who reside in public housing in Rochester, N.Y., and Pittsburgh, Pa., with adolescents from the same cities who do not live in public housing. In Rochester, property crime and violence participation rates during adolescence and early adulthood among those in public housing are statistically equivalent to participation rates among those not in public housing. In Pittsburgh, living in public housing during late adolescence and early adulthood— particularly in large housing developments—increases the risk for violent offending, but not for property offending. The current study relies on a relatively small number of subjects in public housing at any single point in time and is based on cross‐sectional analyses. Even so, there are several important policy implications that can be derived from this study, given that it moves down a path heretofore largely unexplored.Policy Implications:If replicated, our findings indicate that not all public housing is inhabited disproportionately by those involved in crime; that to develop appropriate responses, it is essential to discover if the perpetrators of violence are residents or trespassers; that policy should target reducing violence specifically and not crime in general; that a modification to housing allocation policies that limits, to the extent possible, placing families with children in late adolescence into large developments might reduce violence perpetrated by residents; that limited resources directed at reducing violence among residents should be targeted at those developments or buildings that actually have high rates of participation in violence among the residents; and that best practices may be derived from developments where violence is not a problem.