The purpose of this paper is to compare approaches to policing and addressing offending and anti‐social behaviour in public housing in New York City and UK cities and to discuss whether the different rationales and techniques deployed may be effective in reducing recidivism.
The paper is based on qualitative research undertaken in New York City in 2008 and a series of studies (comprising qualitative and quantitative methods) conducted in the UK for national government departments, local authorities and registered social landlords. The research included analysis of documents and statistics, interviews with policy makers, practitioners, tenants and offenders.
The research established that, in addition to some similarities in approaches, there were significant differences in the policing of public housing and the role of housing in reducing recidivism between New York and UK cities. These included the stronger identification of housing as an element in influencing offending in the UK, key roles for social landlords and housing‐based techniques of governance aimed at intervening in offending households.
The research suggests the need to retain a focus on housing circumstances as a key determinant of both offending behaviour and as a mechanism for reducing recidivism.
The research indicates that reducing recidivism within public housing populations requires the provision of intensive interventions and support services.
The paper provides an original international comparative analysis of public housing‐based approaches to addressing offending and recidivism.
