HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/2013 07 Begging and Panhandling - Discussion and Citizen TestimoniesBUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT'
Item No. ,
For Meeting of: 6/18/2013
ITEM TITLE: Public hearing to receive testimony from citizens concerned
with the presence of beggars and panhandlers within the City
and the specific effects the presence of beggars and
panhandlers have had on them.
SUBMITTED BY: Jeff Cutter, City Attorney
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
At the request of a number of Yakima's citizens and Council members a public hearing will be
held to allow the City Council to receive public testimony about specific negative impacts the
presence and actions of beggars and panhandlers has had on those that testify. In order for the
City to attempt to more strictly regulate the presence and activities of beggars and panhandlers
the City must receive the legally necessary support for additional regulations in the form of
specific testimony identifying the harmful effects their presence presents to the public. The legal
department will evaluate all of the testimony received during the hearing and will then provide
the Council with a proposal for whatever additional responsive regulation has been
appropriately supported.
Resolution:
Other (Specify): Memorandum
Contract:
Start Date:
Item Budgeted: NA
Funding Source /Fiscal
Impact:
Strategic Priority:
Insurance Required? No
Mail to:
Phone:
APPROVED FOR
Ordinance:
Contract Term:
End Date:
Amount:
No identified budgetary effect at this point.
Public Safety
City Manager
SUBMITTAL:
RECOMMENDATION:
ATTACHMENTS:
Name:
F-] Panhandling - Preparation for Public Hearing-6-
2013. pdf
Description:
Memorandum re Panhandling- Preparation for Public Nearing -6-
2013
CITY OF YAKIMA
LEGAL
DEPARTMENT
200 South Third Street, Yakuna, Washuigton %Rn (509)575 6(130 F" (509)575 -6160
MEMORANDUM
June 5, 2013
TO: Honorable Mayor Cawley and Members of the City Council
Tony O'Rourke, City Manager
FROM: Jeff Cutter, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Public Hearing To Receive Testimony Re: Begging / Panhandling
The City Council will hold a public hearing on June 18th for the purpose of receiving public
testimony pertaining to the public's concerns with panhandling / begging within the City. This
issue has received City Council consideration several times, the most recent having occurred
during the spring of 2010. As was expressed in my previous Memo presented in the June 4,
2013 Council packet, this issue presents a number of legal challenges that in some respects
act as limitations on the extent to which the right to beg, that being a constitutionally protected
First Amendment right, may be regulated.
In my previous Memorandum, the content of which was taken directly from a Memorandum
Cynthia Martinez prepared for the Council in March of 2010, it was explained that the basis for
further regulation of those begging within the City must be supported by specifically expressed
public concern. As explained, in order for the City to attempt to further regulate the act of
begging or panhandling the information provided by the public during the hearing must go
beyond speculation of potential harms or annoyance presented by the acts and presence of
those begging. The testimony that would be most useful when considering whether additional
restrictions on begging are sufficiently supported to warrant further regulation will focus on the
speaker's specific experiences with beggars / panhandlers that have given rise to personal
perceptions of fear, vulnerability or concern for their own or another persons' safety resulting
from actions of those begging or panhandling.
As testimony is provided during the hearing the Council can assist with developing an effective
record by asking questions that may help a speaker to get to the core basis for their concern
about the presence of beggars. Useful testimony must go beyond the general expression that
the activity of begging is unsightly, unpleasant or undesirable. The testimony that will best meet
the necessary threshold to support additional regulation over this activity will address issues of
personal health and safety that are generated by the presence and activity of beggars the
speakers have encountered, as well as instances where the speaker's actions or plans were
altered from what may have originally been planned based upon a beggar's presence and /or
actions.
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
June 5, 2013
Page 2
To sum it up simply, in order to support additional regulation on the actions and presence of
beggars and panhandlers in the City we will need direct and specific testimony from members
of the public expressing actual fears, safety concerns, health issues and altered courses of
conduct that are caused by the activities of those begging. To the extent the Council can
facilitate the process of getting to these actual expressions of the speaker's feelings resulting
from the specific activities described, the opportunity for additional regulation may be
developed.
Once the public testimony has been received, the Legal Department will analyze it and report
back to you with what if any additional regulation we believe has been supported by the public's
concerns. For your consideration, I am including the present ordinance that addresses begging
in the City. This ordinance was amended following the Council's consideration in 2010, those
changes being reflected in this ordinance as opposed to the previous form that was included on
the my previous Memorandum.
6.75.020 Pedestrian or vehicular interference.
A. A person is guilty of pedestrian or vehicular interference if, in a public place in the city of
Yakima, he or she intentionally:
1. Obstructs pedestrian or vehicular traffic; or
2. Aggressively begs; or
3. Participates in begging within the perimeter of any city public parking lot or within the area
of parking stalls located within the city's public right -of -way.
B. Among the circumstances to be considered in determining whether a person intends to
aggressively beg are whether that person:
1. Touches the person solicited;
2. Follows the person solicited;
3. Directs profane or abusive language toward the person solicited;
4. Uses violent or threatening gestures toward the person solicited; or
5. Persists in begging after the person solicited has given a negative response.
C. The following definitions apply to subsection A of this section:
1. "Obstructs pedestrian or vehicular traffic" means to walk, stand, sit, lie or place an object in
such a manner as to block passage by another person or vehicle to such an extent that evasive
action is necessary to avoid physical contact. Innocent acts which unintentionally and
inadvertently block traffic or cause others to take evasive action; acts authorized as an exercise
of one's constitutional right to picket or to legally protest; and acts authorized by permit issued
Memorandum to Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
June 5, 2013
Page 3
pursuant to this code shall not constitute an obstruction or interference with pedestrian or
vehicular traffic.
2. "Aggressively beg" means to beg with the intent to intimidate another person into giving
money or goods.
3. "Intimidate" means to engage in conduct which would make a reasonable person fearful or
feel compelled.
4. "Beg" means to ask for money or goods as a charity, whether by words, bodily gestures,
signs, or other means.
5. "Public place" means an area generally visible to public view and includes, but is not limited
to, alleys, bridges, buildings, driveways, parking lots, parks, plazas, sidewalks and streets open
to the general public, and doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings accessible to the
public and the grounds enclosing them. (Ord. 2010 -19 § 1, 2010: Ord. 98 -3 § 59 (part), 1998).
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
COPS
COMMIINTTT ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES
U_S_ 13EP6RTMENT OF JUSTICE
Panhandling
by
Michael S. Scott
? T
Problem - Oriented Guides for Police Series
AN
Problem - Oriented Guides for Police Series
Guide No. 13
Panhandling
Michael S. Scott
This project was supported by cooperative agreement #99- CK -WX-
K004 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.
Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the
author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the
U.S. Department of Justice.
www.cops.usdoj.gov
About the Guide Series I i
About the Guide Series
The Problem- Onented Guides for Polz'ce summarize knowledge
about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific
crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention
and to improving the overall response to incidents, not to
investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. The
guides are written for police —of whatever rank or
assignment—who must address the specific problem the guides
cover. The guides will be most useful to officers who
Understand basic problem- oriented policing principles and
methods. The guides are not primers in problem- oriented
policing. They deal only briefly with the initial decision to
focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the
problem, and means to assess the results of a problem -
oriented policing project. They are designed to help police
decide how best to analyze and address a problem they have
already identified. (An assessment guide has been produced
as a companion to this series and the COPS Office has also
published an introductory guide to problem analysis. For
those who want to learn more about the principles and
methods of problem- oriented policing, the assessment and
analysis guides, along with other recommended readings, are
listed at the back of this guide.)
Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the
complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to
spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and
responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before
responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is
most likely to work in your community. You should not
blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must
decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation.
What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what
works in one place may not work everywhere.
ii I Panhandling
Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business.
The guides describe responses that other police
departments have used or that researchers have tested.
While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your
particular problem, they should help give a broader view of
the kinds of things you could do. You may think you
cannot implement some of these responses in your
jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when
police have discovered a more effective response, they have
succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving
the response to the problem.
Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge.
For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is
available to the police; for other problems, little is available.
Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing
research whereas other guides illustrate the need for more
research on that particular problem. Regardless, research
has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you
might have about the problem. The research may help get
you started in designing your own responses, but it cannot
tell you exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the
particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of
keeping the guides readable, not every piece of relevant
research has been cited, nor has every point been attributed
to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed
and distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of
each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they are not a
complete bibliography of research on the subject.
Are willing to work with other community agencies to find
effective solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot
implement many of the responses discussed in the guides.
They must frequently implement them in partnership with
other responsible private and public entities. An effective
problem - solver must know how to forge genuine
About the Guide Series I iii
partnerships with others and be prepared to invest
considerable effort in making these partnerships work.
These guides have drawn on research findings and police
practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.
Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from
country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere
experience common problems. In a world that is becoming
increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be
aware of research and successful practices beyond the borders
of their own countries.
The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide
feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency's
experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may
have effectively addressed a problem using responses not
considered in these guides and your experiences and
knowledge could benefit others. This information will be used
to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback and
share your experiences it should be sent via e -mail to
cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.
Acknowledgments I v
Acknowledgments
The Problem- Onented Guides for Po&e series is very much a
collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary author,
other project team members, COPS Office staff and
anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by
proposing text, recommending research and offering
suggestions on matters of format and style.
The principal project team developing the guide series
comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, University
of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, professor of
criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. Eck, associate
professor of criminal justice, University of Cincinnati;
Michael S. Scott, police consultant, Savannah, Ga.; Rana
Sampson, police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm
Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State
University.
Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw the
project for the COPS Office. Megan Tate Murphy
coordinated the peer reviews for the COPS Office. Suzanne
Fregly edited the guides. Research for the guides was
conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers
University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze by Gisela
Bichler- Robertson, Rob Guerette and Laura Wyckoff
The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members of
the San Diego, National City and Savannah police
departments who provided feedback on the guides' format
and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the line
police officers, police executives and researchers who peer
reviewed each guide.
Contents I vii
Contents
About the Guide Series .................. ..............................i
Acknowledgments ...................... ..............................v
The Problem of Panhandling .............. ..............................1
Related Problems ................. ............................... 3
Factors Contributing to Panhandling ... ............................... 4
Whether Panhandling Intimidates Passersby ........................ 4
Who the Panhandlers Are ........ ............................... 5
Who Gets Panhandled and Who Gives Money to Panhandlers ........... 7
Where and When Panhandling Commonly Occurs .................... 8
Economics of Panhandling ......... .............................10
Economic, Social and Legal Factors That Influence Panhandling Levels ...11
Understanding Your Local Problem ....... ............................... 13
Asking the Right Questions ........... .............................13
Complainants and Donors ......... .............................13
Panhandlers ................... .............................14
Location /Time .................. .............................14
Current Response ............... .............................15
Measuring Your Effectiveness ......... .............................15
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling .. ............................... 17
General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy ................17
Enforcement Responses .............. .............................18
Public Education Responses ........... .............................24
Situational Responses ............... .............................26
Social Services /Treatment Response .. ............................... 28
Response With Limited Effectiveness . ............................... 29
viii I Panhandling
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling ............................... 31
Appendix B: Selected Court Cases on Panhandling . ............................... 35
Endnotes................................... .............................37
References .................................. .............................43
About the Author ............................. .............................51
Recommended Readings ....................... .............................53
Other Guides in This Series ................... ............................... 57
The Problem of Panhandling
This guide addresses the problem of panhandling.t It also
covers nearly equivalent conduct in which, in exchange for
donations, people perform nominal labor such as squeegeeing
(cleaning) the windshields of cars stopped in traffic, holding
car doors open, saving parking spaces, guarding parked cars,
buying subway tokens, and carrying luggage or groceries.
The guide begins by describing the panhandling problem and
reviewing factors that contribute to it. It then identifies a
series of questions that might help you in analyzing your local
problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem, and
what is known about those responses from evaluative research
and police practice.
Generally, there are two types of panhandling: passive and
aggressive. Passive panhandling is soliciting without threat or
menace, often without any words exchanged at all—just a cup
or a hand held out. Aggressive panhandling is soliciting
coercively, with actual or implied threats, or menacing actions.
If a panhandler uses physical force or extremely aggressive
actions, the panhandling may constitute robbery.
Isolated incidents of passive panhandling are usually a low
police priority.' In many jurisdictions, panhandling is not even
illegal. Even where it is illegal, police usually tolerate passive
panhandling, for both legal and practical reasons.' Courts in
some jurisdictions have ruled that passive panhandling is
constitutionally protected activity. Police can reasonably
conclude that, absent citizen complaints, their time is better
spent addressing more serious problems. Whether
panhandling and other forms of street disorder cause or
contribute to more serious crime —the broken windows
The Problem of Panhandling I 1
t "Panhandling," a common term in
the United States, is more often
referred to as "begging" elsewhere, or
occasionally, as "cadging."
"Panhandlers" are variously referred
to as "beggars," 'vagrants,"
"vagabonds," "mendicants," or
"cadgers." The term "panhandling"
derives either from the impression
created by someone holding out his
or her hand (as a pan's handle sticks
out from the pan) or from the image
of someone using a pan to collect
money (as gold miners in the
American West used pans to sift for
gold).
2 IPanhandling
t Business owners who work on site
are most likely to call police.
Employees, especially younger
employees, are less likely to do so
because they have less at stake if
panhandling disrupts business
(Goldstein 1993).
If In one study, 50 percent of
panhandlers claimed to have been
mugged within the past year
(Goldstein 1993).
thesis —is hotly debated, but the debate is as yet unsettled.'
Panhandling becomes a higher police priority when it
becomes aggressive or so pervasive that its cumulative effect,
even when done passively, is to make passersby apprehensive.'
Panhandling is of greater concern to merchants who worry
that their customers will be discouraged from patronizing
their business. Merchants are most likely to call police when
panhandling disrupts their commerce.' °t
Police must also be concerned with the welfare of
panhandlers who are vulnerable to physical and verbal assault
by other panhandlers, street robberstt or passersby who react
violently to being panhandled.' Panhandlers often claim
certain spots as their own territory, and disputes and fights
over territory are not uncommon.'
Broadly speaking, public policy perspectives on panhandling
are of two types —the sympathetic view and the unsympathetic
view The sympathetic view, commonly but not unanimously
held by civil libertarians and homeless advocates, is that
panhandling is essential to destitute people's survival, and
should not be regulated by police! Some even view
panhandling as a poignant expression of the plight of the
needy, and an opportunity for the more fortunate to help.'
The unsympathetic view is that panhandling is a blight that
contributes to further community disorder and crime, as well
as to panhandlers' degradation and deterioration as their
underlying problems go unaddressed.10 Those holding this
view believe panhandling should be heavily regulated by
police.
People's opinions about panhandling are rooted in deeply held
beliefs about individual liberty, public order and social
The Problem of Panhandling 1 3
responsibility. Their opinions are also shaped by their actual
exposure to panhandling —the more people are panhandled,
the less sympathetic they are toward panhandlers." While
begging is discouraged on most philosophical grounds and by
most major religions, many people feel torn about whether to
give money to panhandlers." Some people tolerate all sorts of
street disorder, while others are genuinely frightened by it.
This tension between opposing viewpoints will undoubtedly
always exist. This guide takes a more neutral stance: without
passing judgment on the degree of sympathy owed to
panhandlers, it recognizes that police will always be under
some pressure to control panhandling, and that there are
effective and fair ways to do so.
Related Problems
Panhandling and its variants are only one form of disorderly
street conduct and street crime about which police are
concerned. Other forms —not directly addressed in this
guide — include:
• disorderly conduct of day laborers;
• disorderly conduct of public inebriates (e.g., public
intoxication, public drinking, public urination and
defecation, harassment, intimidation, and passing out in
public places);
• disorderly conduct of transients /homeless (e.g., public
camping, public urination and defecation, and sleeping on
sidewalks and benches, and in public libraries);
• disorderly youth in public places;
• harassment (usually sexual) of female pedestrians;
• pickpocketing;
• purse snatching;
• robbery at automated teller machines (ATMs);
• trash picking (for food or to salvage aluminum cans and
bottles);
4 I Panhandling
Understanding the factors that contribute to your panhandling
problem will help you frame your own local analysis
questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize
key intervention points, and select appropriate responses.
Whether Panhandling Intimidates Passersby
Panhandling intimidates some people, even causing some to
avoid areas where they believe they will be panhandled.13 One -
third of San Franciscans surveyed said they gave money to
panhandlers because they felt pressured, and avoided certain
areas because of panhandling; nearly 40 percent expressed
concern for their safety around panhandlers. 14 But most
studies conclude that intentional aggressive panhandling is
rare, largely because panhandlers realize that using aggression
reduces their income, and is more likely to get them arrested
or otherwise draw police attention to them.15
Whether panhandling intimidates passersby depends, of
course, on how aggressive or menacing the panhandler is, but
it also depends on the context in which panhandling occurs.
In other words, an act of panhandling in one context might
• unlicensed street entertainment ;t and
• unlicensed street vending (also referred to as illegal
peddling).
t In some instances, there is a fine
distinction between panhandlers who
Some of these other forms of disorderly street conduct may
use brief entertainment as part of
also be attributable to panhandlers, but this is not necessarily
their solicitation and more -
accomplished street musicians,
so. These problems overlap In various ways, and a local
jugglers, mimes, and other skilled
analysis of them will be necessary to understand how they do.
entertainers.
Factors Contributing to Panhandling
Understanding the factors that contribute to your panhandling
problem will help you frame your own local analysis
questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize
key intervention points, and select appropriate responses.
Whether Panhandling Intimidates Passersby
Panhandling intimidates some people, even causing some to
avoid areas where they believe they will be panhandled.13 One -
third of San Franciscans surveyed said they gave money to
panhandlers because they felt pressured, and avoided certain
areas because of panhandling; nearly 40 percent expressed
concern for their safety around panhandlers. 14 But most
studies conclude that intentional aggressive panhandling is
rare, largely because panhandlers realize that using aggression
reduces their income, and is more likely to get them arrested
or otherwise draw police attention to them.15
Whether panhandling intimidates passersby depends, of
course, on how aggressive or menacing the panhandler is, but
it also depends on the context in which panhandling occurs.
In other words, an act of panhandling in one context might
The Problem of Panhandling I 5
not be intimidating, but the same behavior in a different
context might." Among the contextual factors that influence
how intimidating panhandling is are:
• the time of day (nighttime panhandling is usually more
intimidating than daytime panhandling);
• the ease with which people can avoid panhandlers
(panhandling is more likely to intimidate motorists stuck in
traffic than it is those who can drive away);
• the degree to which people feel especially vulnerable (for
example, being panhandled near an ATM makes some
people feel more vulnerable to being robbed);
• the presence of other passersby (most people feel safer
when there are other people around);
• the physical appearance of the panhandler (panhandlers who
appear to be mentally ill, intoxicated or otherwise
disoriented are most likely to frighten passersby because
their conduct seems particularly unpredictable); 17
• the reputation of the panhandler (panhandlers known to be
aggressive or erratic are more intimidating than those not
known to be so);
• the characteristics of the person being solicited (the elderly
tend to be more intimidated by panhandlers because they
are less sure of their ability to defend themselves from
attack);
• the number of panhandlers (multiple panhandlers working
together are more intimidating than a lone panhandler); and
• the volume of panhandling (the more panhandlers present
in an area, the more intimidating and bothersome
panhandling will seem).
Who the Panhandlers Are
Typically, relatively few panhandlers account for most
complaints to police about panhandling.18 The typical profile
of a panhandler that emerges from a number of studies is
that of an unemployed, unmarried male in his 30s or 40s,
with substance abuse problems, few family ties, a high school
6 IPanhandling
t In many less - developed countries,
children commonly beg to support
themselves and their families, a
phenomenon less common in the
United States and other more highly
developed countries.
If Definitions of homelessness vary,
but at a minimum, most studies have
found that few panhandlers routinely
sleep outdoors at night See,
however, Burke (1998) for evidence
that a high percentage of the
panhandlers in Leicester, England,
have been homeless.
education, and laborer's skills." Some observers have noted
that younger people —many of whom are runaways or
otherwise transient —are turning to panhandling. 20,t A high
percentage of panhandlers in U.S. urban areas are African-
American.21 Some panhandlers suffer from mental illness, but
most do not.22 Many panhandlers have criminal records, but
panhandlers are nearly as likely to have been crime victims as
offenders.23 Some are transient, but most have been in their
community for a long time .21
Contrary to common belief, panhandlers and homeless people
are not necessarily one and the same. Many studies have
found that only a small percentage of homeless people
panhandle, and only a small percentage of panhandlers are
homeless.26,tt
Most studies conclude that panhandlers make rational
economic choices —that is, they look to make money in the
most efficient way possible.27 Panhandlers develop their "sales
pitches," and sometimes compete with one another for the
rights to a particular sales pitch.28 Their sales pitches are
usually, though not always, fraudulent in some respect. Some
panhandlers will admit to passersby that they want money to
buy alcohol (hoping candor will win them favor), though few
will admit they intend to buy illegal drugs. Many panhandlers
make it a habit to always be polite and appreciative, even
when they are refused. Given the frequent hostility they
experience, maintaining their composure can be a remarkable
psychological feat.30 Panhandlers usually give some
consideration to their physical appearance: they must balance
looking needy against looking too offensive or threatening.31
Kip Kellogg
Some panhandlers hope that candor
will increase donations. Here, a
panhandler's donation box reveals
that the money will be spent on beer
as well as on food.
Most panhandlers are not interested in regular employment,
particularly not minimum -wage labor, which many believe
would scarcely be more profitable than panhandling.32 Some
panhandlers' refusal to look for regular employment is better
explained by their unwillingness or inability to commit to
regular work hours, often because of substance abuse
problems. Some panhandlers buy food with the money they
receive, because they dislike the food served in shelters and
soup kitchens."
Who Gets Panhandled and Who Gives Money to Panhandlers
In some communities, nearly everyone who routinely uses
public places has been panhandled.t Many who get panhandled
are themselves people of modest means. Wealthy citizens can
more readily avoid public places where panhandling occurs,
whether consciously, to avoid the nuisances of the street, or
The Problem of Panhandling I 7
t Ninety percent of San Franciscans
surveyed reported having been
panhandled within the past year
(Kelling and Coles 1996).
8 IPanhandling
merely because their lifestyles do not expose them to public
places. Estimates of the percentage of people who report that
they give money to panhandlers range from 10 to 60
percent.34 The percentage of college students who do so
(between 50 and 60 percent) tends to be higher than that of
the general population. There is some evidence that women
and minorities tend to give more freely to panhandlers."
Male - female couples are attractive targets for panhandlers
because the male is likely to want to appear compassionate in
front of the female.36 Panhandlers more commonly target
women than men,37 but some find that lone women are not
suitable targets because they are more likely to fear having
their purses snatched should they open them to get change.38
Conventioneers and tourists are good targets for panhandlers
because they are already psychologically prepared to spend
money." Diners and grocery shoppers are good targets
because dining and grocery shopping remind them of the
contrast between their relative wealth and panhandlers'
apparent poverty. Regular panhandlers try to cultivate regular
donors; some even become acquaintances, if not friends.
Where and When Panhandling Commonly Occurs
Panhandlers need to go where the money is. In other words,
they need to panhandle in communities and specific locations
where the opportunities to collect money are best—where
there are a lot of pedestrians or motorists, especially those
who are most likely to have money and to give it.40
Panhandling is more common in communities that provide a
high level of social services to the needy, because the same
citizens who support social services are also likely to give
money directly to panhandlers; panhandlers are drawn to
communities where both free social services and generous
passersby are plentiful.41 With respect to specific locations,
panhandlers prefer to panhandle where passersby cannot
The Problem of Panhandling I 9
readily avoid them, although doing so can make passersby feel
more intimidated.42
Among the more common, specific panhandling locations are
the following:
• near ATMs, parking meters and telephone booths (because
ATM users, motorists and callers are less likely to say they
do not have any money to give);
• near building entrances /exits and public restrooms with a
lot of pedestrian traffic;
• on or near college campuses (because students tend to be
more sympathetic toward panhandlers);
• near subway, train and bus station entrances /exits (because
of high pedestrian traffic, and because public transportation
users are likely to be carrying cash to buy tickets or tokens);
• on buses and subway trains (because riders are a "captive
audience ");
• near places that provide panhandlers with shade and shelter
from bad weather (such as doorways, alcoves and alleys in
commercial districts);
• in front of convenience stores, restaurants and grocery
stores (because panhandlers' claims to be buying food or
necessities for them or their children seem more plausible,
and because shoppers and diners often feel especially
fortunate and generous);
• at gas stations (because panhandlers' claims that they need
money for gas or to repair their vehicle seem more
plausible);
• at freeway exits /entrances (because motorists will be
stopped or traveling slowly enough to be able to give
money);
• on crowded sidewalks (because it is easier for panhandlers to
blend in with the crowd should the police appear);
• at intersections with traffic signals (because motorists will be
stopped); and
• near liquor stores and drug markets (so the panhandlers do
not have to travel far to buy alcohol or drugs).43
10 1 Panhandling
There are typically daily, weekly, monthly, and seasonal
patterns to panhandling; that is, panhandling levels often
follow fairly predictable cycles, which vary from community
to community. For example, panhandling may increase during
winter months in warm - climate communities as transients
migrate there from cold - weather regions. Panhandling levels
often drop around the dates government benefits are
distributed, because those panhandlers who receive benefits
have the money they need. Once that money runs out, they
resume panhandling.44 Panhandling on or near college
campuses often follows the cycles of students' going to and
coming from classes.45 There are usually daily lulls in
panhandling when those panhandlers who are chronic
inebriates or drug addicts go off to drink or take drugs.
Regular panhandlers keep fairly routine schedules, typically
panhandling for four to six hours a day."
Economics of Panhandling
Most evidence confirms that panhandling is not lucrative,
although some panhandlers clearly are able to subsist on a
combination of panhandling money, government benefits,
private charity, and money from odd jobs such as selling
scavenged materials or plasma.47 How much money a
panhandler can make varies depending on his or her skill and
personal appeal, as well as on the area in which he or she
solicits. Estimates vary from a couple of dollars (U.S.) a day
on the low end, to $20 to $50 a day in the mid -range, to about
$300 a day on the high end.48 Women —especially those who
have children with them —and panhandlers who appear to be
disabled tend to receive more money." For this reason, some
panhandlers pretend to be disabled and /or war veterans.
Others use pets as a means of evoking sympathy from
passersby. Panhandlers' regular donors can account for up to
half their receipts."
The Problem of Panhandling I 11
Panhandlers spend much of their money on alcohol, drugs
and tobacco, although some money does go toward food,
transportation and toiletries.` Panhandlers rarely save any
money, partly because they risk having it stolen, and partly
because their primary purpose is to immediately buy alcohol
or drugs."
Economic, Social and Legal factors That Influence
Panhandling Levels
Broad economic, social and legal factors influence the overall
level of panhandling, as well as community tolerance of it.53
Tolerance levels appear to have declined significantly during
the 1990s, at least in the United States, leading to increased
pressure on police to control panhandling.
The state of the economy, at the local, regional and even
national level, affects how much panhandling occurs. As the
economy declines, panhandling increases. As government
benefit programs become more restrictive, panhandling
increases.54 At least as important as economic factors, if not
more so, are social factors. The stronger the social bonds and
social network on which indigent people can rely for
emotional and financial support, the less likely they are to
panhandle." Thus, the weakening of social bonds throughout
society affects the indigent most negatively. As substance
abuse levels rise in society, as, for example, during the crack
epidemic, so too do panhandling levels. As the skid rows in
urban centers are redeveloped, the indigent people who live
there move to areas where their panhandling is less tolerated.
As people with mental illnesses are increasingly released into
the community, often without adequate follow -up care,
panhandling also increases. Where there are inadequate
detoxification and substance -abuse treatment facilities,
panhandling is high." As courts strike down laws that
12 1 Panhandling
authorize police to regulate public disorder, and as police are
less inclined to enforce such laws, panhandling flourishes."
Arrest and incarceration rates may also affect panhandling
levels: convicted offenders often have difficulty getting jobs
after release, and some inevitably turn to panhandling.58
Understanding Your Local Problem 1 13
Understanding Your Local Problem
The information provided above is only a generalized
description of panhandling. You must combine the basic facts
t Analyzing calls for service related
With a more specific Understanding Of your local problem.
to panhandling is important, but it
can be time- consuming because, in
Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a
many police agencies, such calls are
more effective response strategy.
classified under broad categories such
as "disturbance" or "suspicious
person," categories that encompass a
Asking the Right Questions
wide range of behavior. It might be
worthwhile to develop more - specific
call categories, so future problem
The following are some critical questions you should ask in
analysis will be easier.
analyzing your particular panhandling problem, even if the
answers are not always readily available. Your answers to these
and other questions will help you choose the most
appropriate set of responses later on.
Complainants and Donors
(Surveys of citizens and beat police officers will likely be
necessary to gather information about complaints and
complainants, as well as about donors. Most complaints about
panhandling are not formally registered with police.)
• To what extent does panhandling bother or intimidate
others? How many complaints do police receive ?t Do a few
people account for many complaints, or do many people
complain? Are complaints filed with other organizations
(business /neighborhood associations)?
• Who are the complainants? Merchants? Shoppers? Workers?
Students?
• Does panhandling alter people's behavior and routines (e.g.,
do people avoid certain areas or stores)?
• What are the particular complaints? That panhandlers act
aggressively, or that all panhandling is bothersome?
• What do complainants suggest should be done to control
panhandling?
14 I Panhandling
• What percentage of passersby give money to panhandlers?
• Why do people say they give money to panhandlers? What
do they believe the panhandlers use the money for?
Panhandlers
(Surveys of suspected panhandlers, data from agencies that
serve the needy, and discussions with beat police officers can
help you answer the following questions. This information
can help you determine whether there are clusters of
panhandlers with similar characteristics. Different responses
might be warranted for different types of panhandlers.)
• How many panhandlers are in the area? How many are
regulars? How many are occasional?
• What is known about the regular panhandlers? What is their
age, race, gender, family status, employment status, and
employment history? Are they substance abusers? Do they
suffer from mental illness? Do they have criminal records or
a history of criminal victimization? Where do they live (in
shelters, private homes, on the streets)?
• How many of the panhandlers are transient? How many are
new to the area? How many are longtime residents?
• Do the panhandlers know about and use social services in
the area (e.g., shelters, soup kitchens, job training, substance
abuse treatment)?
Location /Time
• Where does panhandling commonly occur? In parks, plazas
and squares? On sidewalks? Near ATMs? Near public
transportation stops and stations?
• What, specifically, makes certain locations especially
attractive or unattractive to panhandlers?
• When is panhandling most prevalent? Are there daily,
weekly, monthly, or seasonal cycles to it?
Understanding Your Local Problem 1 15
Current Response
• How has the panhandling problem previously been handled
in your jurisdiction? How is it currently handled? Is the
current response adequate and appropriate?
• What laws currently regulate panhandling? Are those laws
adequate and /or constitutional?
• Do the police arrest panhandlers? If so, on what charges?
How are the charges processed? Are panhandlers
prosecuted? If so, what is the typical sentence?
• How do other criminal justice officials (prosecutors, judges,
probation officers) view the panhandling problem?
Measuring Your Effectiveness
Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your
efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify
your responses if they are not producing the intended results.
You should take measures of your problem before you
implement responses, to determine how serious the problem
is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they
have been effective. All measures should be taken in both the
target area and the surrounding area. (For more detailed
guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide
to this series, Assessing Kesponses to Problems: An Introductog
Guide for Pohce Problem - Solvers.)
The following are potentially useful measures of the
effectiveness of responses to panhandling:
• number of complaints filed with police about panhandling,
• number of complaints filed with other organizations or
people (e.g., neighborhood /business associations, elected
officials) about panhandling;
• levels of concern expressed about panhandling (from
surveys);
16 I Panhandling
• number of known chronic panhandlers (based on
complaints, contacts and arrests);
• costs of police response to panhandling complaints;
t Lankenau (1999) asserts that most
• evidence that panhandling has been displaced to other areas,
panhandlers will likely turn to other
or is resulting in an increase in other forms of nuisance
illegitimate ways to make money,
behavior or crime (e.g., trash scavenging, shoplifting, theft
rather than find regular employment
or enter treatment programs. Duneier
from aUtOS, purse Snatching prostitution, drug dealing) ,
(1999) states that some panhandlers
and
see crime as one of the few viable
• indicators of the economic health of the area beset with
alternatives to panhandling.
panhandling (e.g., property vacancy rates, shoppers'
presence, commerce levels, tax receipts, private - security
expenditures).
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 1 17
Responses to the Problem of
Panhandling
Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better
understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you
have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline
for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible
responses to address the problem.
The following response strategies provide a foundation of
ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies
are drawn from a variety of research studies and police
reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your
community's problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to
local circumstances, and that you can justify each response
based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy
will involve implementing several different responses. Law
enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing
or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering
what police can do: give careful consideration to who else in
your community shares responsibility for the problem and can
help police better respond to it.
General Considerations for an Effective Response
Strategy
Most researchers and practitioners seem to agree that the
enforcement of laws prohibiting panhandling plays only a part
in controlling the problem." Public education to discourage
people from giving money to panhandlers, informal social
control and adequate social services (especially alcohol and
drug treatment) for panhandlers are the other essential
components of an effective and comprehensive response.
18 I Panhandling
t Goldstein's (1993) study of
panhandling in New Haven, Conn.,
provides an excellent example of
how panhandling is controlled
through informal means. Duneier's
(1999) study of New York City street
vendors, scavengers and panhandlers
also provides an exceptional example
of informal social control on the
street.
Panhandling, like many other forms of street disorder, is
controlled more through informal means than through formal
enforcement.t Panhandlers, merchants, passersby, social
workers, and police beat officers form an intricate social
network of mutual support and regulation. They all have
something to gain by cooperating with one another (and,
consequently, to lose by not cooperating with one another).
Panhandlers obviously gain money, food and some social
interaction from their activity; they risk losing them if they act
too disorderly. Merchants will usually tolerate some
panhandling, though seldom directly in front of their
businesses. Some merchants even give panhandlers food or
hire them to do odd jobs such as wash store windows.
Passersby gain freedom from the harassment and intimidation
of persistent and menacing panhandlers, along with the
positive feelings they experience from truly voluntary charity.
Social workers are more likely to be able to help those street
people who are not frequently arrested for panhandling.
Police beat officers can cultivate panhandlers as informants,
helping the officers stay current with what is happening on
the street.
Enforcement Responses
Whether or not you emphasize enforcement of laws that
regulate panhandling, it is important that the laws be able to
survive legal challenge. Police should have valid enforcement
authority to bolster other responses they use, including issuing
warnings to panhandlers.60 Laws that prohibit aggressive
panhandling or panhandling in specified areas are more likely
to survive legal challenge than those that prohibit all
panhandling. If enforcement of panhandling laws will be a
key component of your strategy, and if you think the
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 1 19
panhandling laws you rely on are vulnerable to legal challenge
(or if you want to draft a new panhandling law), you should
consult legal counsel to help you draft and propose new
legislation. There are a number of model panhandling
ordinances" and legal commentaries on the constitutionality
of panhandling laws" in the literature. See Appendix B for a
list and brief summary of some of the leading cases on the
constitutionality of panhandling and laws that regulate it.
Warning panhandlers and ordering them to "move along" are
perhaps the most common police responses to panhandling.63
Many police beat officers develop working relationships with
regular panhandlers; they use a mix of formal and informal
approaches to keeping panhandling under control.64 Most
officers do not view panhandling as a serious matter, and are
reluctant to devote the time necessary to arrest and book
offenders." Moreover, even when they have the authority to
issue citations and release the offenders, most officers realize
that panhandlers are unlikely to either appear in court or pay a
fine." Prosecutors are equally unlikely to prosecute
panhandling cases, typically viewing them as an unwise use of
scarce prosecutorial resources.'
Panhandler arrests are rare,68,t but when they occur, this is the
typical scenario: An officer issues a panhandler a summons or
citation that sets a court date or specifies a fine. The
panhandler fails to appear in court or fails to pay the fine. A
warrant is issued for the panhandler's arrest. The police later
arrest the panhandler after running a warrant check during a
subsequent encounter. The panhandler is incarcerated for no
more than a couple of days, sentenced to time already served
by the court, and released.
t Goldstein (1993) estimated that
police made arrests for panhandling
in only about 1 percent of all police -
panhandler encounters.
20 I Panhandling
1. Prohibiting aggressive panhandling. Laws that prohibit
aggressive panhandling are more likely to survive legal challenge
than laws that prohibit all panhandling, and are therefore to
be encouraged.' A growing number of jurisdictions have
enacted aggressive - panhandling laws, most within the past 10
years.tt Enforcing aggressive - panhandling laws can be difficult,
partly because few panhandlers behave aggressively, and partly
because many victims of aggressive panhandling do not
report the offense to police or are unwilling to file a
complaint. Police can use proactive enforcement methods
such as having officers serve as decoys, giving panhandlers the
opportunity to panhandle them aggressively.73 Some agencies
have provided officers with special legal training before
enforcing aggressive - panhandling laws.74 Enforcing other laws
panhandlers commonly violate —those regarding drinking in
public, trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc.can help control
some aspects of the panhandling problem.
Because prosecutors and judges are unlikely to view isolated
panhandling cases as serious matters, it is advisable to prepare
and present to the court some background information on
t British antisocial behavior orders
panhandling 's overall impact on the community. Aproblem-
are similar in some respects to
American restraining and nuisance
impact statement can help prosecutors and judges understand
abatement orders.
the overall negative effect the seemingly minor offense of
panhandling is having on the community." In the United
If Among the jurisdictions to have
enacted aggressive - panhandling laws
��
Kingdom, police can apply to the courts for an antisocial
are the states of Hawaii and
behavior order" against individuals or groups as one means of
California, and the cities of San
controlling their persistent low -level offending.' Violations of
Francisco; Seattle; Minneapolis;
Albuquerque, N.M.; Atlanta;
the orders can result In relatively severe jail sentences.t It is
Baltimore; Cincinnati; Dallas; Tulsa,
unknown how effective the orders have been in controlling
Okla.; and Washington, D.C.
panhandling.
1. Prohibiting aggressive panhandling. Laws that prohibit
aggressive panhandling are more likely to survive legal challenge
than laws that prohibit all panhandling, and are therefore to
be encouraged.' A growing number of jurisdictions have
enacted aggressive - panhandling laws, most within the past 10
years.tt Enforcing aggressive - panhandling laws can be difficult,
partly because few panhandlers behave aggressively, and partly
because many victims of aggressive panhandling do not
report the offense to police or are unwilling to file a
complaint. Police can use proactive enforcement methods
such as having officers serve as decoys, giving panhandlers the
opportunity to panhandle them aggressively.73 Some agencies
have provided officers with special legal training before
enforcing aggressive - panhandling laws.74 Enforcing other laws
panhandlers commonly violate —those regarding drinking in
public, trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc.can help control
some aspects of the panhandling problem.
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 1 21
Police need not heavily enforce aggressive- panhandling laws
in order to control panhandling, the informal norms among
most panhandlers discourage aggressive panhandling anyway. 75
Panhandlers exercise some influence over one another's
behavior, to minimize complaints and keep police from
intervening.' Enforcing aggressive - panhandling laws can
serve to reinforce the informal norms because aggressive
panhandling by the few makes panhandling less profitable for
others."
Aggressive - panhandling laws typically include the following
specific prohibitions:
• confronting someone in a way that would cause a reasonable
person to fear bodily harm;
• touching someone without his or her consent;
• continuing to panhandle or follow someone after he or she
has refused to give money;
• intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe passage of
a person or vehicle;
• using obscene or abusive language toward someone while
attempting to panhandle him or her; and
• acting with intent to intimidate someone into giving
money78
2. Prohibiting panhandling in specified areas. Many
courts have held that laws can restrict where panhandling
occurs. Panhandlers are increasingly being prohibited from
panhandling:
• near ATMs;
• on public transportation vehicles and near stations and
stops;
22 I Panhandling
• near business entrances /exits;
• on private property, if posted by the owner; and
• on public beaches and boardwalks.'
One legal commentator has proposed a novel approach to
regulating panhandling: zoning laws that would strictly
prohibit panhandling in some areas, allow limited panhandling
in other areas, and allow almost all panhandling in yet other
areas.80 The literature does not report any jurisdiction that has
adopted this approach as a matter of law, though clearly,
police officers informally vary their enforcement depending
on community tolerance levels in different parts of their
jurisdiction.
Kip Kellogg
panhandling in specified areas.
3. Prohibiting interference with pedestrians or vehicles.
Some jurisdictions have enacted laws that specifically prohibit
impeding pedestrians' ability to walk either by standing or by
lying down in the way. Enforcement can be difficult where
such laws require police to establish the panhandler's intent to
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 1 23
obstruct others. The city of Seattle drafted a law that
eliminated the need to establish intent, and that law survived a
legal challenge.81 Where panhandling occurs on roads, as car
window - washing usually does, enforcing laws that prohibit
interfering with motor vehicle traffic can help control the
problem.82
4. Banning panhandlers from certain areas as a
condition of probation. Because panhandling's viability
depends so heavily on good locations, banning troublesome
panhandlers from those locations as a condition of probation,
at least temporarily, might serve to discourage them from
panhandling and, perhaps, compel them to consider legitimate
employment or substance abuse treatment.83 Convicted
panhandlers might also be temporarily banned from publicly
funded shelters.84 Alternatively, courts could use civil
injunctions and restraining orders to control chronic
panhandlers' conduct, although actual use of this approach
does not appear in the literature.85 Obviously, police will
require prosecutors' endorsements and judicial approval to
advance these sorts of responses.
5. Sentencing convicted panhandlers to appropriate
community service. Some jurisdictions have made wide use
of community service sentences tailored to the particular
offender and offense.86 For example, officers in St. Louis
asked courts to sentence chronic panhandlers to community
service cleaning the streets, sidewalks and alleys in the area
where they panhandled.87
6. Requiring panhandlers to obtain solicitation permits.
Some cities, including Wilmington, Del., and New Orleans,
have at some time required panhandlers and window washers
to obtain solicitation permits, just as permits are required
from street vendors and others who solicit money in public.8 ,t
t Licensing schemes for beggars
reportedly have existed in England as
far back as 1530 (Teir 1993). The
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
(1994) has published guidance on
drafting laws enabling permit
systems, though the language seems
designed to inhibit panhandling,
rather than allow it.
24 I Panhandling
Little is known about the effectiveness of such permit
schemes.
Public Education Responses
7. Discouraging people from giving money to
panhandlers, and encouraging them to give to charities
that serve the needy. In all likelihood, if people stopped
giving money to panhandlers, panhandling would cease.89
Public education campaigns are intended to discourage people
from giving money to panhandlers. They typically offer three
main arguments: 1) panhandlers usually use the money to buy
alcohol and drugs, rather than goods and services that will
improve their condition; 2) giving panhandlers small amounts
of money is insufficient to address the underlying
circumstances that cause them to panhandle; and 3) social
services are available to meet panhandlers' food, clothing,
shelter, health care, and employment needs. Some people do
not understand the relationship between panhandling and
substance abuse, or are unaware of available social services,
however obvious these factors may seem to police.90 Public
education messages have been conveyed via posters,
pamphlets, movie trailers, and charity collection points." A
poster campaign was an important element of the New York
City Transit Authority's effort to control subway
panhandling.92 In Nashville and Memphis, Tenn., special
parking meters were used as collection points for charities that
serve the needy.93 Some police officers have invested a lot of
their own time making personal appeals to discourage people
from giving money to panhandlers.94 Some cities, such as
Evanston, Ill., have hired trained civilians to make such
appeals." Not everyone will be persuaded by the appeals;
some will undoubtedly perceive them as uncaring.
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 1 25
STOP PANHANDLING!
Area merchants and the Madison Police Department ask you
to help discourage panhandling in Madison by refusing
those who ask for change On the street. By doing this, you
will foster a better environment for all.
Avoid supporting what Is In many cases an alcoholic
and destructive lifestyle.
Basic needs are available through support agencies for
those who wish to utilize them and you need not feel guilty
when saying no to panhandlers. You are also encouraged to
contact the Madison Police dispatcher, 28l regarding
any individual who verbally or physically threatens you in an
attempt to obtain money. Such Individuals are subject to
arrest and prosecution. Area merchants will assist you in
making such contact- Your cooperation will help maintain a
harassment -free climate in public places in the city of
Madison. City ordinance 24.12.
Sponsored 4y! Greater State Street Business Aasorlatlon
and the Madison Pol Ice Department
as tms one
Wis., have been used effectively to discourage
people from giving money to panhandlers.
8. Using civilian patrols to monitor and discourage
panhandling. In Baltimore, a business improvement district
group hired police - trained, uniformed, unarmed civilian
public - safety guides to intervene in low -level disorder
incidents, and to radio police if their warnings were not
heeded." Portland, Ore., developed a similar program,' as did
Evanston.98
26 I Panhandling
Situational Responses
10. Modifying the physical environment to discourage
panhandlers from congregating in the area. Among the
environmental features conducive to or facilitating
panhandling are the following: access to water (for drinking,
bathing and filling buckets for window washing); restrooms;
unsecured garbage dumpsters (for scavenging food and
sellable materials); and places to sit or lie down, protected
from the elements. These physical features can be modified to
discourage panhandling.10' Police in Santa Ana, Calif., as part
of a larger effort to control aggressive panhandling,
persuaded business owners to modify many physical features
of their property, to make it less attractive to panhandlers,
without inconveniencing customers.10' A number of police
efforts to address broader problems related to transient
encampments — problems that included panhandling —entailed
9. Encouraging people to buy and give panhandlers
vouchers, instead of money. Some communities have
t The earliest reported Program was
instituted programs whereby people can buy and give
in Los Angeles. other cities where
panhandlers vouchers redeemable for food, shelter,
voucher programs have been
transportation, or other necessities, but not for alcohol or
instituted include Berkeley, Santa Cruz
and San Francisco, Calif.; Nashville;
tobacco.t Typically, a private nonprofit organization prints and
Memphis; New Haven; Portland, ore.;
sells the vouchers and serves as the broker between buyers
Chicago; Seattle; Boulder, Colo.; New
York, and Edmonton, Alberta
and merchants. Some vouchers are printed In a way that
(Elhckson 1996; New York Times 1993;
makes them difficult to counterfeit. Vouchers are often
I'allstreetJournal1993). Some
accompanied with printed information about where they can
communities have considered and
rejected voucher programs (Evanston
be redeemed and what social services are available to the
Police Department 1995).
needy. Window signs and flyers are commonly used to
advertise voucher programs. There is some risk, however, that
panhandlers will exchange the vouchers for money through a
black market," or that few people will buy the vouchers, as
has been reported in some jurisdictions. "'
Situational Responses
10. Modifying the physical environment to discourage
panhandlers from congregating in the area. Among the
environmental features conducive to or facilitating
panhandling are the following: access to water (for drinking,
bathing and filling buckets for window washing); restrooms;
unsecured garbage dumpsters (for scavenging food and
sellable materials); and places to sit or lie down, protected
from the elements. These physical features can be modified to
discourage panhandling.10' Police in Santa Ana, Calif., as part
of a larger effort to control aggressive panhandling,
persuaded business owners to modify many physical features
of their property, to make it less attractive to panhandlers,
without inconveniencing customers.10' A number of police
efforts to address broader problems related to transient
encampments — problems that included panhandling —entailed
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 1 27
removing the transients from the encampments and referring
them to social service agencies. 103
11. Regulating alcohol sales to chronic inebriates who
panhandle in the area. Because many panhandlers are
chronic inebriates, and because they spend so much of their
panhandling money on alcohol, enforcing laws that prohibit
alcohol sales to intoxicated people or chronic inebriates is one
means of discouraging panhandling in the area. Several police
agencies have reported using this approach in their efforts to
control panhandling and other problems related to chronic
inebriates.104 Alternatively, merchants might be persuaded to
change their sales practices to discourage panhandlers from
shopping at their stores (e.g., by eliminating such products as
fortified wine or not selling single containers of beer).
12. Controlling window- washing materials. Several police
agencies have reported on ways to control how squeegee
men /panhandlers acquire, store and use window - washing
materials. Santa Ana police asked nearby businesses to
remove an outdoor water fountain that squeegee men were
using to fill their buckets.105 Vancouver, British Columbia,
police discovered where squeegee men stored their buckets
and squeegees, and had property owners secure the storage
places. They also had gas station owners engrave their
squeegee equipment with identifying marks to deter theft by
panhandlers.10'
13. Promoting legitimate uses of public places to
displace panhandlers. Police in Staffordshire, England,
encouraged the municipal authority to promote street
musicians in public places where panhandlers abounded, as
one means to discourage panhandlers from begging in the
area. 107 The underlying logic was that passersby would likely
notice the distinction between those who solicit money in
28 I Panhandling
exchange for something pleasant, and those who panhandle
but offer nothing in return. Passersby would theoretically be
less inclined to give money to panhandlers, thereby
discouraging panhandling. Similarly, the New York /New
Jersey Port Authority promoted new and attractive businesses
in the Manhattan bus terminal as part of a larger strategy to
reduce crime and disorder, including panhandling. Complaints
about panhandling in the terminal declined by one -third over
a four -year period.10'
Social Services /Treatment Response
14. Providing adequate social services and substance
abuse treatment to reduce panhandlers' need to
panhandle. To address some of the underlying problems of
many panhandlers (e.g., substance abuse, lack of marketable
skills, mental illness, inadequate housing), police may need to
advocate new social services, or help coordinate existing
services.10' Police can be and have long been instrumental in
advocating and coordinating social services for panhandlers,
and in referring people to those services.11' Fontana, Calif.,
police coordinated a highly successful program that provided
panhandlers and other transients with a wide range of health
care, food, job training, and housing placement services. They
offered treatment as an alternative to enforcement; they
enforced laws regulating street disorder, including
panhandling, and transported those willing to accept
treatment to the social service center. "' New York /New
Jersey Port Authority police did likewise in helping to control
panhandling and other forms of crime and disorder in the
Port Authority bus terminal in New York City. "'
Short -term substance -abuse treatment programs, however, are
not likely to be effective for most panhandlers —their
addictions are too strong —and most who participate in short-
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 1 29
term programs quickly revert to their old habits.11'
Unfortunately, long -term programs cost more than most
communities are willing to spend. Police could advocate the
most chronic offenders' being given priority for long -term
treatment programs, or the courts could mandate such
programs.11' Some social service outreach efforts target those
people identified as causing the most problems for the
community."' In Madison, Wis., detoxification workers even
took to the streets to proactively monitor the conduct of their
most difficult clients. Some panhandlers will, of course, refuse
social service and treatment offers because they are unwilling
to make the lifestyle changes usually required to stay in the
programs."'
Response With Limited Effectiveness
15. Enforcing laws that prohibit all panhandling. Many
laws that prohibit all panhandling were written long ago and
are vaguely and broadly worded: consequently, they are
unlikely to survive a legal challenge.t About half of the states
and over a third of major cities in America have laws that
prohibit all or some forms of panhandling. "'
t See Teir (1993) for a discussion of
the long history of laws prohibiting
and regulating begging.
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling 1 31
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to
Panhandling
The table below summarizes the responses to panhandling,
the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the
conditions under which they ought to work best, and some
factors you should consider before implementing a particular
response. It is critical that you tailor responses to local
circumstances, and that you can justify each response based
on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will
involve implementing several different responses. Law
enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing
or solving the problem.
Response
Page No.
Response
How It
Works
Considerations
No.
Works
Best If...
Enforcement responses
1.
20
Prohibiting
Subjects the most
...the law can
Enforcement is
aggressive
offensive
survive legal
difficult because
panhandling
panhandlers to
challenge, and
few panhandlers
criminal penalties;
panhandlers are
are intentionally
reinforces
clearly informed
aggressive;
informal rules of
of what
officers should be
conduct among
constitutes legal
properly trained
panhandlers
vs. illegal conduct
to make
aggressive -
panhandling
charges
2.
21
Prohibiting
Restricts
...the law can
Costs associated
panhandling in
panhandling in
survive legal
with properly
specified areas
areas where it is
challenge,
posting areas
most likely to
panhandlers are
where
disrupt commerce
clearly informed
panhandling is
and be
of where they
prohibited
intimidating
cannot
panhandle, and
enforcement is
consistent
32 I Panhandling
Response
Page No.
Response
How It
Works
Considerations
No.
Works
Best If...
3.
22
Prohibiting
Restricts conduct
...the law can
Proving intent to
interference with
that commonly
survive legal
interfere with
pedestrians or
disrupts
challenge, and
pedestrians can be
vehicles
commerce and
enforcement is
difficult
intimidates
consistent
pedestrians; deals
directly with
window washing
by denying
window washers
access to
motorists
4.
23
Banning
Denies
...panhandlers are
Requires the
panhandlers from
panhandlers
clearly informed
cooperation of
certain areas as a
access to areas
of where they
prosecutors, judges
condition of
where
cannot go, and
and probation
probation
panhandling is
police officers are
officials
profitable
informed of
which
panhandlers are
banned from the
area
5.
23
Sentencing
Tailors the
... the community
Requires the
convicted
punishment to
service is
cooperation of
panhandlers to
the offense;
meaningful and
prosecutors, judges
appropriate
makes the
properly
and corrections
community
offender consider
supervised
officials
service
the impact
Panhandling has
on the
community
6.
23
Requiring
Discourages
...police officers
May be viewed as
panhandlers to
panhandling
are informed of
unfair by the public;
obtain solicitation
through
the permit
little is known
permits
procedural
requirement and
about how effective
requirements that
consistently
this approach is
many panhandlers
enforce it
are unlikely to
follow; allows for
easier
enforcement (no
witnesses are
required
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling 1 33
Response
Page No.
Response
How It
Works
Considerations
No.
Works
Best If...
Public Education responses
7.
24
Discouraging
Decreases the
...the message
May require new
people from
supply of money
that adequate
investments in
giving money to
to panhandlers
social services are
social services to
panhandlers, and
and, consequently,
available is
make the message
encouraging them
lowers the level
credible, and the
credible; advertising
to give to
of panhandling
message is heavily
and promoting the
charities that
promoted
message incurs
serve the needy
costs
8.
25
Using civilian
Increases the level
...civilian
Salary, training and
patrols to
of official
patrollers are
equipment costs
monitor and
monitoring and
properly trained
discourage
intervention
and supported by
panhandling
police
9.
26
Encouraging
Restricts
... supported by
Start -up and
people to buy and
panhandlers'
merchants and
administrative costs
give panhandlers
ability to buy
the community
for the program, a
vouchers, instead
alcohol and drugs
black market may
of money
allow panhandlers
to convert vouchers
to cash,
undermining the
program; people
may not buy
vouchers
Situational responses
10.
26
Modifying the
Discourages
...private (and
Requires property
physical
panhandlers from
public) property
owners'
environment to
soliciting in an
owners
cooperation; costs
discourage
area by making it
understand how
of making
panhandlers from
less comfortable
the environment
environmental
congregating in
to do so
can contribute to
changes; some risk
the area
panhandling
that changes will
also make the area
less attractive for
legitimate users
11.
27
Regulating
Forces
...liquor license
Will not address
alcohol sales to
panhandlers to
holders
panhandlers who
chronic inebriates
travel farther to
understand the
are not chronic
who panhandle in
buy alcohol,
rationale for
inebriates, including
the area
thereby
liquor law
drug addicts
potentially
enforcement, and
displacing them
enforcement is
from the area
consistent
34 I Panhandling
Response
Page No.
Response
How It
Works
Considerations
No.
Works
Best If...
12.
27
Controlling
Makes window
...property
Costs (usually
window - washing
washing
owners cooperate
modest ) of
materials
(squeegeeing)
in efforts to
modifying the
more difficult
control the use of
environment or
the materials
securing the
materials
13.
27
Promoting
Discourages
...passersby
May attract more
legitimate uses of
people from
approve of and
people to an area,
public places to
giving money to
support legitimate
making it more
displace
panhandlers by
street solicitors
attractive to
panhandlers
encouraging them
panhandlers
to give to
legitimate street
solicitors
Social Services / Treatment Response
14.
28
Providing
Removes
...there are
May require
adequate social
panhandlers'
outreach efforts
substantial new
services and
excuses for
to identify and
investments in
substance abuse
panhandling;
serve panhandlers
social services if
treatment to
undermines the
who will benefit
the community is
reduce
rationale for
from social
lacking them
panhandlers' need
giving money to
services, especially
to panhandle
panhandlers,
the most chronic
addresses the
offenders;
underlying
substance -abuse
problems that
treatment
cause some
programs are
people to
sufficiently long -
panhandle
term to be
effective;
panhandling
enforcement is
consistent, to
motivate
panhandlers to
seek legitimate
aid; and social
services and
police efforts are
coordinated
Response Vith Limited Effectiveness
15.
29
Enforcing laws
Unlikely to survive
that prohibit all
legal challenge
panhandling
Appendix B: Selected Court Cases on Panhandling 1 35
Appendix B: Selected Court Cases on
Panhandling
The following are some notable U.S. court cases addressing
the constitutionality of panhandling and laws that regulate it.
You should consult local legal counsel to determine the state
of the law in your jurisdiction.
Berkeley Community Health Project v. Berkeley, 902 F. Supp. 1084
(N.D. Cal. 1995) and 966 R Supp. 941 (N.D. Cal. 1997).
Struck down an ordinance that, among other restrictions,
banned begging at night. The city subsequently deleted that
provision from the ordinance, leaving only an ATM
restriction intact.
Blair v. Shanahan, 775 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Struck
down a ban on accosting people to beg. The decision was
subsequently vacated, 919 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1996).
C.C.B. v. State, 458 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984). Struck
down a total ban on begging in public.
Carreras v. City of Anaheim, 768 R 2d 1039, 1046 (9th Cir.
1985). Held that the California Constitution is broader than
the U.S. Constitution in protecting speech; struck down
begging ordinances.
Chad v. Fort Lauderdale, 861 R Supp. 1057 (S.D. Fla. 1994).
Upheld a ban on begging on the beach and boardwalk.
City of Seattle v. Wl'ebster, 802 P. 2d 1333 (Wash. 1990), cent.
denied, 111 S. Ct. 1690 (1991). Upheld an ordinance
banning sidewalk obstruction.
36 I Panhandling
Doucette v. Santa Monica, 995 R Supp. 1192 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
Upheld time, place and manner restrictions on begging.
Greater Cincinnati Coa&ion for Me Homeless v. City of Cincinnati, 56
R 3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 1995). Cites evidence that the
enforcement of an anti - begging ordinance reduced the
incidence of begging.
Loper v. Nex York City Pohce Department, 999 R 2d 699 (2d Cir.
1993). Struck down a ban on loitering for the purposes of
begging on city streets.
Los Angeles ANance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles, 157 E 3d
1162 (9th Cir. 1998). Struck down an aggressive - begging
ordinance. The California Supreme Court subsequently
overturned the lower court's ruling on the constitutionality
of the ordinance, sending the case back to the federal
district court.
State ex rel. Wl'ilhams v. City Court of Tucson, 520 P. 2d 1166
(Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). Upheld a loitering- for - the - purposes-
of- begging ordinance.
Ulmer v. Municipal Court for Oakland - Piedmont Judicial District, 55
Cal. App. 3d 263, 127 Cal. Rpt. 445 (1976). Upheld a ban
on begging that was later struck down by the Blair court.
Young v. Nex York City TransitAuMoraty, 903 E 2d 146 (2d Cir.
1990). Upheld a ban on begging in the subway.
Endnotes 1 37
Endnotes
Cosgrove and Grant (1997).
Burke (2000).
Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Kozlowski (1999); Leoussis (1995); Harcourt (1998);
Skogan (1990).
` Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Ellickson (1996); Vancouver Police Department (1999);
Fontana Police Department (1998).
Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Fontana Police
Department (1998); Manning (2000).
Burke (1998); Goldstein (1993); Teir (1993); Lankenau (1999); St. Petersburg Police
Department (1997); Manning (2000).
Goldstein (1993); Vancouver Police Department (1999).
a See Ammann (2000); Barta (1999); Burns (1992); Hershkoff position in Hershkoff and
Conner (1993); Lankenau (1999); Munzer (1997); Harcourt (1998).
Munzer (1997).
0 See Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996); Burke (2000); Teir (1998, 1993); Conner
position in Hershkoff and Conner (1993); Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994).
" Wilson (1991).
Ellickson (1996).
Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996).
14 Kelling and Coles (1996).
Burke (2000); Lankenau (1999).
Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Kelling (1999).
" Goldstein (1993).
8 Ellickson (1996); Goldstein (1993); University of Wisconsin- Madison Department of
Police and Security (1997); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Alexandria Police
Department (1995); Evanston Police Department (1995); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort
Pierce, Ha., case study); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000).
Burke (1998); Stark (1992); Lankenau (1999); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston
Police Department (1995, n.d.); Goldstein (1993); Santa Ana Police Department (1993);
Chicago Tribune (1994); Manning (2000).
zo Burke (1998).
Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston Police
Department (1995); Duneier (1999).
38 I Panhandling
Goldstein (1993); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Luckenbach
and Acosta (1993).
z3 Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); New York City Police Department
(1994); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Chicago Tiibune (1994); Evanston Police
Department (n.d.); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000).
24 Goldstein (1993); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); University of Wisconsin -
Madison Department of Police and Security (1997).
zs Ellickson (1996); Stark (1992); Goldstein (1993).
2� Ellickson (1996); Teir (1998); Goldstein (1993); Fontana Police Department (1998);
Chicago Tribune (1994); Manning (2000).
27 Stark (1992).
28 Burke (1998); Lankenau (1999).
29 Stark (1992).
o Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993).
31 Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993).
32 Goldstein (1993); Ellickson (1996).
" Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993).
34 Ellickson (1996); Kelling and Coles (1996); Butterfield (1988).
Burns (1992).
Stark (1992).
37 Wilson (1991).
a Stark (1992).
Stark (1992); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997).
4D Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Stark (1992); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Duneier
(1999).
41 Ellickson (1996); Fontana Police Department (1998); University of Wisconsin- Madison
Department of Police and Security (1997); Santa Ana Police Department (1993).
4z Leoussis (1995).
43 Stark (1992); Seattle Police Department (2000); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce
case study).
44 Goldstein (1993).
45 University of Wisconsin- Madison Department of Police and Security (1997).
46 Goldstein (1993).
47 Goldstein (1993); Burke (1998); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston Police
Department (n.d.); Ellickson (1996); Stark (1992); Duneier (1999).
48 Ellickson (1996); Mabry (1994); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993);
Manning (2000); Duneier (1999).
Endnotes 1 39
Burns (1992).
o Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993).
51 Burke (1998); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and
Acosta (1993).
z Stark (1992); Goldstein (1993).
Burke (1998); Ellickson (1996).
4 Burke (1998).
Ellickson (1996).
Stark (1992).
Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Teir (1993).
a Ellickson (1996).
Goldstein (1993); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996);
Evanston Police Department (1995).
60 Ellickson (1996); Goldstein (1993).
Teir (1993); Center for the Community Interest (1996); Criminal
Justice Legal Foundation (1994).
z Kelling and Coles (1996); Barta (1999); Ellickson (1996);
Delmonico (1996); Kozlowski (1999); Leoussis (1995); Mabry
(1994); Mitchell (1994); Nichols (1997); Teir (1998, 1993); Walston
(1999); Hershkoff and Conner (1993); Munzer (1997).
Leoussis (1995).
64 Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996).
�5 Goldstein (1993).
Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Little (1992).
67 Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Goldstein (1993).
8 New York City Police Department (1994); Cosgrove and Grant
(1997); Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Leoussis (1995); Teir
(1993); Goldstein (1993).
Ammann (2000).
70 St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Vancouver Police
Department (1999); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project);
Savannah Police Department (1995).
71 Bland and Read (2000).
71 Kelling and Coles (1996); Kelling (1999).
73 Savannah Police Department (1995).
40 I Panhandling
" Kelling and Coles (1996) (discussing Seattle's response to
panhandling); Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Felson et al.
(1996).
Ellickson (1996); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993).
Goldstein (1993).
" Burke (2000); Delmonico (1996).
8 Kelling and Coles (1996).
Kelling and Coles (1996); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson
(1996); Mabry (1994); Teir (1998); Kozlowski (1999) (citing a Fort
Lauderdale law).
80 Ellickson (1996); see Munzer (1997) for a critique of Ellickson's
zoning proposal.
81 Kelling and Coles (1996) (citing a Seattle law).
82 Vancouver Police Department (1999); New York City Police
Department (1994).
a3 University of Wisconsin- Madison Department of Police and
Security (1997).
84 Teir (1993).
a5 Ellickson (1996).
a� Ammann (2000); Harcourt (1998).
87 Heimberger (1992).
88 Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Mabry (1994);
Ybarra (1996); Santa Ana Police Department (1993).
a Ellickson (1996).
0 Manning (2000).
Ellickson (1996); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Santa Ana Police
Department (1993); Vancouver Police Department (1999);
Evanston Police Department (1995); Higdon and Huber (1987);
Manning (2000); Cosgrove and Grant (1997).
Barta (1999); Harcourt (1998).
Ellickson (1996).
94 University of Wisconsin- Madison Department of Police and
Security (1997); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case
study).
�5 Evanston Police Department (1995).
Kelling and Coles (1996).
97 Nkrumah (1998); Egan (1993).
Endnotes 1 41
98 Evanston Police Department (1995).
Goldstein (1993).
0o Egan (1993).
01 Burns (1992); Green Bay Police Department (1999); Vancouver
Police Department (1999); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce
case study); Felson et al. (1996); Duneier (1999).
oz Santa Ana Police Department (1993).
03 Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce and San Diego case
studies); Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Kelling and Coles
(1996) (discussion of San Francisco's Operation Matrix).
04 Seattle Police Department (2000); Alexandria Police Department
(1995); Green Bay Police Department (1999); Higdon and Huber
(1987) (Dundalk project).
os Santa Ana Police Department (1993).
o� Vancouver Police Department (1999).
107 Manning (2000).
08 Felson et al. (1996).
o� Stark (1992).
o Bittner (1967); Kelhng and Coles (1994); Burke (1998); Goldstein
(1993); Little (1992); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case
study); Fontana Police Department (1998); Higdon and Huber
(1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000); Felson et al. (1996).
Fontana Police Department (1998).
11z Felson et al. (1996).
Goldstein (1993).
114 Manning (2000).
115 University of Wisconsin- Madison Department of Police and
Security (1997); Manning (2000).
116 Manning (2000); Goldstein (1993); Stark (1992); Kelling and
Coles (1994); Evanston Police Department (1995).
117 Leoussis (1995); Teir (1998, 1993).
References) 43
References
Alexandria (Va.) Police Department (1995). "Alexandria
Alcohol Interdiction Program." Submission for the Herman
Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem- Oriented
Policing.
Ammann, J. (2000). "Addressing Quality -of -Life Crimes in
Our Cities: Criminalization, Community Courts and
Community Compassion." Saint Louis University Lan Journal
44:811 -820.
Barta, P. (1999). "Giuliani, Broken Windows and the Right To
Beg." Georgetoym Journal of Poverty Lay )& Po§g 6:165 -194.
Bittner, E. (1967). "The Police on Skid Row: A Study of
Peace Keeping." American Sociological Kevieav 32(5):699 -715.
Bland, N., and T. Read (2000). Po§ ing Anti-So zal Behaviour:
Police Research Series, Paper 123. London: Home Office.
Burke, R. (2000). "The Regulation of Begging and Vagrancy:
A Critical Discussion." Crime Prevention and Community Safety
2(2):43-52.
(1998). "Begging, Vagrancy and Disorder." In R.H.
Burke (ed.), Zero Tolerance Po§ ing. Leicester, England:
Perpetuity Press.
Burns, M. (1992). "Fearing the Mirror: Responding to Beggars
In a'Kinder and Gentler' America." Hastings Constitutional
LaavQuarterly 19(3):783 -844.
Butterfield, E (1988). "New Yorkers Growing Angry Over
Aggressive Panhandlers." Neav York Times, July 28, p. Al.
44 I Panhandling
Center for the Community Interest (1996). "Aggressive
Panhandling (Model Ordinance)." Washington, D.C.: Center
for the Community Interest.
wwwcommunitymterest .org /backgrounders
/panhandling.htm.
Chicago Tribune (1994). "Evanston Fights Panhandlers —With a
Smile." May 27, p. 1.
Cosgrove, C., and A. Grant (1997). National Survey of Municipal
Police Departments on Urban Quality- of -Lafe Initiatives.
Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.
Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994). A Guide To
Kegulating Panhandling. Sacramento, Calif.: Criminal Justice
Legal Foundation.
Delmonico, D. (1996). "Aggressive Panhandling Legislation
and the Constitution: Evisceration of Fundamental
Rights —Or Valid Restrictions Upon Offensive Conduct ?"
Hastings Constitutional LaavQuarterly 23:557 -590.
Duneier, M. (1999). Siden)alk. New York: Farrar, Straus and
Giroux.
Egan, T. (1993). "In 3 Progressive Cities, It's Law vs. Street
People." Neav York Times, Dec. 12.
Ellickson, R. (1996). "Controlling Chronic Misconduct in City
Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Skid Rows and Public -Space
Zoning." Yale Lazar journal 105(5):1165 -1248.
References) 45
Evanston Police Department (1995). "Anti - Panhandling
Strategy." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for
Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing. Cited in Sampson,
R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Came and Other Pub§c- Safety
Problems: Case Studies in Problem Solving. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice. Also published as Mulholland,
J., J. Sowa and E. Steinhoff (1997). "Evanston Reduces
Aggressive Panhandling by Influencing the Behavior of
Givers." Problem Solving Quarterly 10(1):9 -12.
(n.d.). "Panhandling in Evanston: Preliminary
Report." Evanston, Ill.: Evanston Police Department.
Felson, M., M. Belanger, G. Bichler, C. Bruzinski, G.
Campbell, C. Fried, K. Grofik, L Mazur, A. O'Regan, P.
Sweeney, A. Ullman, and L. Williams (1996). "Redesigning
Hell: Preventing Crime and Disorder at the Port Authority
Bus Terminal." In R. Clarke (ed.), Preventing Mass Transit
Crime. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 6. Mousey, N.Y.: Criminal
Justice Press.
Fontana Police Department (1998). "Transient Enrichment
Network." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award
for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing.
Goldstein, B. (1993). "Panhandlers at Yale: A Case Study in
the Limits of Law" Indiana Lax Revien) 27(2):295 -359.
Green Bay (Wis.) Police Department (1999). "Street Sweeping,
Broadway Style." Submission for the Herman Goldstein
Award for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing.
Published in Police Executive Research Forum, National
Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (2000). Excellence in Problem - Oriented Policing:
The 9999 Herman GoldsteinAavard Vinners. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.
46 I Panhandling
Harcourt, B. (1998). "Reflecting on the Subject: A Critique of
the Social Influence Conception of Deterrence, the Broken
Windows Theory and Order - Maintenance Policing, New
York Style." Michigan Lazar Kevien) 97:291 -389.
Heimberger, B. (1992). "Working the Nightshift." Problem -
SolvingQuarterly 5(4):1 -2.
Hershkoff, H., and R. Conner (1993). "Aggressive
Panhandling Laws." ABA journal 79 Qune):40 -41.
Higdon, R. and P. Huber (1987). Hon) To Fight Pear: The COPE
Program Package. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive
Research Forum.
Kelling, G. (1999). 'Broken Vindoms' and Police Discretion.
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Kelling, G., and C. Coles (1996). Fixing Broken Vindoms:
Kestonng Order and Keducing Cnme in Our Communities. New
York: Free Press.
(1994). "Disorder and the Court." Pub§c Interest 116
(Summer) :57 -74.
Kozlowski, J. (1999). "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?
Panhandling in Public Parks and Places." NKPA Lay) Kevien)
34 (December):34 -41.
Lankenau, S. (1999). "Stronger Than Dirt: Public Humiliation
and Status Enhancement Among Panhandlers." Journal of
ContemporarJ Ethnography 28(3):288 -318.
Leoussis, E (1995). "The New Constitutional Right To Beg —Is
Begging Really Protected Speech ?" Saint Louis University
Pub§c Lazar Kevie)ar 14(2):529 -550.
References) 47
Little, J. (1992). "Moral Dilemma." St. Louis Post - Dispatch, June
7, p. C1.
Luckenbach, R., and P. Acosta (1993). "The Street Beggar:
Victim or Con Artist ?" The Po§ce Chief (October): 126-128.
Mabry, C. (1994). "Brother, Can You Spare Some
Change? —And Your Privacy, Too ?: Avoiding a Fatal
Collision Between Public Interests and Beggars' First
Amendment Rights." University of San Pvanc?'sco Lay, Keviex
28(2):310 -341.
Manning, N. (2000). "The Make -It -Count Scheme: A
Partnership Response to Begging in Stoke -on -Trent City
Centre." Problem- SolvingQuavtevly 13(3):5 -8.
Mitchell, C. (1994). "Aggressive Panhandling Legislation and
Free Speech Claims: Begging for Trouble." Nex York Lay)
School Lay) Keviex 39(4):697-717.
Munzer, S. (1997). "Ellickson on 'Chronic Misconduct' in
Urban Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Bench Squatters and Day
Laborers." Harvard Civil lights — Civil Liberties Lay) Keviex
32:1 -48.
New York City Police Department (1994). Po§ce Strategy No. S:
Reclaiming the Pubhc Spaces of Nex York. New York: New
York City Police Department.
Near York Times (1993). "Plan Helps Panhandlers With
Vouchers, Not Quarters." Current Events Edition. Sept. 26,
p. I42.
Nichols, P. (1997). "The Panhandler's First Amendment Right:
A Critique of Loper v New York City Police Department
and Related Academic Commentary." South Cavo§na Lay)
Keviex 48:267 -291.
48 I Panhandling
Nkrumah, W. (1998). "Shoppers Can Get Vouchers To Offer
Panhandlers." The Oregonian, Nov 25. www.oregonnve.com.
St. Petersburg (Fla.) Police Department (1997). "Repeat
Alcoholic Offenders in Downtown St. Petersburg."
Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for
Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing.
Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tack§ng Came and Other
Pubhc- Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem- Solving.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Santa Ana Police Department (1993). "Harbor Plaza /Riverbed
Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for
Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing. Cited in Sampson,
R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Came and Other Pub§c- Safety
Problems: Case Studies in Problem- Solving. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice. Also published as Tegeler, B.
(1993). "Shopping Center Blues." Problem - Solving Quarterly
6(4):4 -5.
Savannah (Ga.) Police Department (1995). "Crime
Suppression Unit P.O.P. Project." Submission for the
Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem-
Oriented Policing.
Seattle Police Department (2000). Problem Solving. Nine Case
Studies and Lessons Learned. Seattle: Seattle Police
Department.
Skogan, W. (1990). Disorder and Decline: Came and the Spiral of
Decay in American Neighborhoods. New York: Free Press.
Stark, L. (1992). "From Lemons to Lemonade: An
Ethnographic Sketch of Late 20th Century Panhandling."
Neav England Journal of Pub§c Po§g 8(1):341 -352.
References) 49
Teir, R. (1998). "Restoring Order in Urban Public Spaces."
Texas Revien) of Lazar & Politics 2:256 -291.
(1993). "Maintaining Safety and Civility in Public
Spaces: A Constitutional Approach to Panhandling."
Louisiana Lazar Reviex 54(2):285 -338.
University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Police and
Security (1997). "UW Police Response to Alcoholic
Vagrants." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for
Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing.
Vancouver Police Department (1999). "Intersecting
Solutions." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award
for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing.
WUall Street Journal (1993). "Vouchers for Panhandlers." Aug. 26,
p. Al.
Walston, G. (1999). "Examining the Constitutional
Implications of Begging Prohibitions in California." WVhittier
Lazar Renex 20:547 -575.
Wilson, G. (1991). "Exposure to Panhandling and Beliefs
About Poverty Causation." Sociology and Social Research
76(1):14 -19.
Ybarra, M. (1996). "Don't Ask, Don't Beg, Don't Sit." Neav
York Times, May 19.
About the Author) 51
About the Author
Michael S Scott
Michael S. Scott is an independent police consultant based in
Savannah, Ga. He was formerly chief of police in Lauderhill,
Fla.; served in various civilian administrative positions in the
St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce, Fla., and New York City
police departments; and was a police officer in the Madison,
Wis., Police Department. Scott developed training programs
in problem- oriented policing at the Police Executive Research
Forum (PERF), and is a judge for PERF's Herman Goldstein
Award for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing. He is the
author of Problem Onented Polz'cing. Reflections on the First 20
Years, and coauthor (with Rana Sampson) of Tack§ng Cnme
and Other Pub§c- Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem- Solving.
Scott holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a
bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin - Madison.
Recommended Readings 1 53
Recommended Readings
A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their
Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This
guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners
to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying
public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It
provides guidance on whether and how to conduct cost -
effective surveys.
• Assessing Responses to Problems: An
Introductory Guide for Police Problem- Solvers, by
John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide is
a companion to the Problem- Onented Guides for Po§ce series. It
provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing
problem- oriented policing efforts.
• Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel
(Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with
accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic
pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The
document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov /bjs.
• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke
(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of
volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing
opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of
initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
54 I Panhandling
• Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing. The 9999
Herman Goldstein Award Winners. This document
produced by the National Institute of Justice in
collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum
provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the
annual award program that recognizes exemplary problem -
oriented responses to various community problems. A
similar publication is available for the award winners from
subsequent years. The documents are also available at
www.ojp.usdoj.gov /nil'.
• Not Rocket Science? Problem - Solving and Crime
Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office
Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and
describes the factors that make problem - solving effective or
ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in
England and Wales.
• Opportunity Makes the Thief Practical Theory for
Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V.
Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98,
1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity
theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have
practical implications for the police in their efforts to
prevent crime.
• Problem- Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein
(McGraw -Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990).
Explains the principles and methods of problem- oriented
policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses
how a police agency can implement the concept.
Recommended Readings 1 55
• Problem- Oriented Policing: Reflections on the
First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,
2000). Describes how the most critical elements of
Herman Goldstein's problem- oriented policing model have
developed in practice over its 20 -year history, and proposes
future directions for problem- oriented policing. The report
is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.
• Problem- Solving: Problem- Oriented Policing in
Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman
(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the
rationale behind problem- oriented policing and the
problem - solving process, and provides examples of
effective problem - solving in one agency.
• Problem - Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime
and Disorder Through Problem - Solving
Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott
Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, 1998) (also available at
wwwcops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief introduction to
problem - solving, basic information on the SARA model
and detailed suggestions about the problem - solving process.
• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case
Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke
(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and
methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over
20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.
56 I Panhandling
Tack ling Crime and Other Public- Safety Problems:
Case Studies in Problem - Solving, by Rana Sampson
and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available
at wwwcops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective
police problem - solving on 18 types of crime and disorder
problems.
Using Analysis for Problem - Solving: A Guidebook
for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for
police to analyzing problems within the context of
problem- oriented policing.
Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement
Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G.
LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains
many of the basics of research as it applies to police
management and problem - solving.
Other Guides in This Series 1 57
Other Guides in This Series
Problem- Oriented Guides for Police series:
1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.
Rana Sampson. 2001.
5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001.
6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.
10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V.
Clarke. 2002.
11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.
12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002.
13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002.
14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002.
15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.
16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.
17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.
18. Burglary of Single - Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel.
2002.
19. Misuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.
Companion guide to the Problem- Oriented Guides for Police series:
• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for
Police Problem - Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002.
58 I Panhandling
Other Related COPS Office Publications
• Using Analysis for Problem - Solving: A Guidebook for Law
Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum. 2001.
• Problem- Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years.
Michael S. Scott. 2001.
• Tackling Crime and Other Public - Safety Problems: Case
Studies in Problem - Solving. Rana Sampson and Michael S.
Scott. 2000.
• Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative
Justice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced
Approach to Public Safety. Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999.
• Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing
Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 2000.
• Problem - Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and
Disorder Through Problem - Solving Partnerships. Karin
Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg
Townsend. 1998.
For more information about the Problem- Onented Guides for Po&e series
and other COPS Office publications, please call the Department of
Justice Response Center at 1- 800 - 421 -6770 or check our website at
www.cops.usdoj.gov.
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
1100 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
To obtain details on COPS programs, call the
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770
Visit the COPS internet web site at the address listed below.
e012011407 Created Date: January 29, 2002
fI
.r
A?=
*r
Deposit change you might ordinarily
give directly to a panhandler.
It's a better way to help.
100% of the money collected will be
distributed among established
organizations within the city of
Atlanta who serve the homeless.
www.StopPanhdndlmgAtlanta.coti ,
P SFIR
handling
H
"b11c g� :�opr 4 Fwaa oI Atlanta
�q �W+taoA r.om
RKatlanta�
Distributed &te
Meeting ((0
Plans & Initiatives I STOP Panhandling
Page I of 2
M
STOP PANHANDLING ATLANTA
PANHANDLING IS NOT THE ANSWER
You lose because I-lanhandiers often use your money to support,
their addictions to a cohoi and drugs. They lose by continuing
these destructive be!iav:or lcaner than seeking help. The more:
you give your change t� paTihclndiers, the 'nore Oieir lives don't
change, ISEV 'E
Food is readi�v available for IhOSe If! naeL., as vie!] as shelter
and other support sorvwc5. Supporting ;ncal organt7armns char
provide these serve rs ib the best way to nelp. A jundtlon of 5100 can provide one week of transitional
housing with -nte-,:,e processional services for someone in need.
Invest in long-lern'y solufloTI by giving your financial support and volunteering your time to help local
organizations and service providers. To learn more about alternatives to handouts, please call the
Ambassador Force of Downtown Atlanta at (404) 2IS-9600
RESPONDING TO PANHANDLERS
• Asking for money is illegal anytime in Downtown Atlanta, and after dark throughout the City
• If you would like to report an illegal panhandler, please call the Ambassador Force of Downtown
Atlanta at ;404; 215-9600 Of Worse, if YOU feel threatened or if the panhandler shows
aggressive behavior, immediately call 911 for police assistance.
• If you encounter a pinhanclier, always walk away with certainty and confidence.
• Make eve co;:tact and acknowledge the person witti a nod. Choose to resloond politely, and
simply say "no" or ' ,,)rTy"
• If you wan,, to offer panhandlers something, consider bottled water or food gtft certificates
rather, rh3n money
- FOLLOW US
bbWNTOWN*
ATLANTA NEWS ;-6
2— 1 RESOURCES
Downtown lands Coca-
Cola IT Center and
2,000 jobs About CAP & ADID
Receive Design opl":,ns
for New StildiLmn
CAP Announces its
2013 Board of
Directors
View More News >
L NKS
Downtown
Atlanta Better
Interactive Map
MARTA Approves
Downtown Maps
Additional $7 Million
MONTHLY
for Atlanta Streetcar
View on Mobile Phone
Receive Design opl":,ns
for New StildiLmn
CAP Announces its
2013 Board of
Directors
View More News >
L NKS
Atlanta Better
SIGN UP b
Buildings Challenge
RECEIVE OUR
Makes Sponsorship
MONTHLY
Gains
NEWSLETTERS
Members 5ection
Get the latest news and
Get Around
hear about upcoming
The Atlanta Falcons
events'
and Georgia World
Congress Center
<
Receive Design opl":,ns
for New StildiLmn
CAP Announces its
2013 Board of
Directors
View More News >
L NKS
DOWNTOWN MAPS
Hame
I>'� Businecs
lnlemcb— map" D0-10,1dlbie. MilPS
About CAP & A0 I L)
P13,15 & I"itiati.es
Ambassador F—ce
Members 5ection
Get Around
Pm-ss Roc,,n
Have Fun
1-iiCki, Photo Gallery
Live Here
site map
SZ
11 0'
http://www.atlantadowntown.com/initiatives/stop-panl-iandling
201' Central Atlanta Progress
So Hurl Plaza Suite 110
Atlanta, CA 30303
!4041 656-1877
Powered by Geocentric
6/18/2013
'Plans & Initiatives I STOP Panhandling I Redirect Giving Page I of 2
0 i A
REDIRECT GIVING
If you'd like to offer a real life change to someone, in need, ontribute to one of the following service
providers
REGIONAL COMMISSION ON HOMELESSNESS
i Y A
c/o the Unite,i Way of !,feLoipolttan 4
Attarta
100 Edgewoort Ave- NF Atlanta, GA 30303 2�—
Donate now to the United •,,Jay
GATEWAY 24/7 HOMELESS SERVICES CENTER
275 Pryor Street, S%,V, Atlanta, GA 30303
To make a cionador to Gateway 2417 contact Vince Sm.th,
Executive Director at
404-215-6601 or -nad
GIVING METERS
x 4 240
G , A.T-E ., W. A. Y
Special "Giving Nle.ers" are also available to deposit change you might
ordinarily give direct y to a panhandler It's a better %vaY to help. All
proceeds •0l fr,�-- 9:1;->n vu that provide corriprehei,srv,, serv:ceS
for rnose who are t- i1v in rued.
Giving Morel ", okl lK
Q&A About Panhandling Prevention Giving Meters
What are the giving meters and their purpose?
The g;ving meters a,r refitted parking meters locamd throughout the city
that provide an outlet for people to ,,live tneir spare change and have it
go directly to orgam. ations that help the homeless, rather than giving change to panhandlers because
a) the panhandlers may nol, be homeless and b) if thev are, giving them spate change is noc what will
get them into housing.
Where does the money go?
of the monev collected will go towards organizations that aid the homeless, like United Way's
Regional Commission on Homelessness and the Gdteway 24/7 Homeless Service, Center
How many meters are currently in Atlanta and where are they located?
There are currently IS meters in Atlanta in the foNo•rvinq
Who controls the meters?
The meters will be installed and managed by the City of Atlanta's Public Vlotks department. One
hundred petccni: of the money collected will be distributed among established orgar,allons within the
city of Atlanta whc serve the homeless.
How often are the meters serviced?
The Giving meters wfl be serviced according to the CiLy s established parking meter management
schedule.
Has this system been proven to work elsewhere?
Yes, this system fas plover, successful in numerous cities throughout the country, Including Athens,
Ga. Chattanooga, T -enn., and Deliver, Colo.
DOWNTOWN
ATLANTA NEWS
Downtown lands Coca-
Cola IT Center and
2,000 jobs
.l 1".", 1 j. — - 1:11
MARTA Approves
Additional $7 MiHion
for Atlanta Streetcar
Atlanta Better
Buildings Challenge
Makes Sponsorship
Gains
!w"!j" •)!";
The Atlanta Falcons
and Georgia Would
Congress Center
Rrcnivc Design Options
for New St-,diom
CAP Announces its
2013 Board of
Directors
View More News >
FOLLOW US
RESOURCES
About CAP & ADID
Downtown
Interactive Map
Downtown Maps
View on Mobile Phone
SIGN UP b
RECEIVE OUR
'MONTHLY
NEWSLETTERS
Get the latest news and
hear about upcoming
events'
http://atlantadowntown.com/initiatives/stop-panhandling/redirect-giving 6/18/2013
Sample panhandling letter for use with your employees /guests, company bulletin board
positing:
Dear (Employee /guest):
(Your company name) has joined efforts to provide meaningful support to those who are
homeless in our city. Our goal is to help those who are less fortunate to make lasting
improvements in their lives.
If you are approached by someone on the street asking for money, consider the following
information:
• According to City of Atlanta Code, it is unlawful for any person(s) to solicit funds
or any item of monetary value in the tourist triangle in downtown Atlanta.
• Homelessness and panhandling are different issues. There is a population of
homeless that sadly have not connected with available services. Separately,
there is a small population of panhandlers that systematically exploit donations
from well- intentioned people.
• (Your company) supports the United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta and other local
services that provide for those who are less fortunate.
Our recommendations:
Giving money encourages panhandling. It does little to provide food or shelter to
anyone truly in need.
When approached by a panhandler, respond with one of the attached referral cards.
The cards provide information about local agencies with a proven track record in
helping the homeless. If you'd like to offer a real life change to someone in need,
contribute to one of the following service providers:
- Regional Commission on Homelessness, c/o United Way of Metropolitan Atlanta,
100 Edgewood Ave. NE, Atlanta, GA 30303
www.unitedwayatlanta.orVeO- homeless.asp
- Gateway 2417 Homeless Services Center, 275 Pryor St., SW, Atlanta, GA 30303
www. atewayctnorg
Collection points will also be available to deposit change you might ordinarily give directly to
a panhandler. All proceeds will be given to agencies that provide comprehensive services for
those who are truly in need.
We encourage you to alert the Atlanta Police Department or the Ambassador Force® of
Downtown Atlanta (404- 215 -9600) of any solicitations encountered.
Thank you for your interest and for your assistance in supporting a lasting and long -term
solution to help those in need. We welcome your comments and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Distributed th
Price, Cally
' eting
From: Davenport, Joan
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 2:57 PM
To: O'Rourke, Tony; Price, Cally
Subject: Giving Meters
I found a total of 15 communities that have installed a version of the "Giving Meters ":
1. Atlanta
2. Denver
3. Washington DC
4. San Francisco
5. Miami
6. Nashville
7. Orlando, FL
8. Springfield MO
9. Seattle, (University Way area)
10. Lawrence Kansas
11. Cleveland
12. Baltimore
13. Las Vegas
14. Minneapolis
15. Virginia Beach
From the stories I have gathered, Denver was probably the original program in the 16th Street Mall area. Theirs were
originally Yellow, but they just upgraded them with Green and Blue colors.
Revenues have not been huge from any program, but these are considered an education tool and a way to "redirect
giving" to appropriate organizations. Atlanta City Council votes every year on which program to fund with these
revenues. Denver has raised about $200,000 since 2007. Many cities offer private businesses the opportunity
to sponsor a giving meter, which could be placed on private land, like in a parking lot or shopping center or front door of
an establishment.
Joan Davenport, AICP
Strategic Project Manager
City of Yakima
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
(509) 576 -6417
joan.davenport(5yakimawa.gov
1
Distributed t th
Meeting 00/3
Top 10 intersections where accidents occurred in 2012
Intersection
# of accidents
1 1 st St &Washington Ave
31
2 1st St & Nob Hill Blvd
25
3 40th Ave & Nob Hill Blvd
20
4 40th Ave & Fruitvale Blvd
18
5 1 st St & Mead Ave
18
6 40th Ave & Summitview Ave
17
7 16th Ave & Nob Hill Blvd
16
8 Fair Ave & Nob Hill Blvd
15
9 18th St & Nob Hill Blvd
15
10 16th Ave & Surnm1tview Ave
15
Distributed t th
Meeting_ --
Comments for panhandling hearing
6/17/13 Chuck Luna, 249 -0573 — "I used to work at Walmart. The homeless man,
Brian, that the TV and newspaper keep featuring has a car and
motorhome If he were homeless, he would not have these things. I think
the panhandlers need to register with the City or police department and be
able to prove they are homeless."
6/17/13 Julie — "I believe the panhandlers are dealing drugs. I was at 3rd Avenue
and Nob Hill and watched a panhandler step off the corner into traffic. He
approached a black sedan with loud music and handed the driver a small
package of something The man gave him a large bill It wasn't just a one
dollar bill "
6/18/13 Jim & Karen Thomas, Ikthomas109(a),q.com. I cant make the meeting
tonight but would like to voice my concerns on this matter. We have many
guests who are shocked by the amount of them we have in town. We all
think it is just as bad if not worse than graffiti !!!!!!!!! They need to go, and
to threaten us in the news paper by saying crime would be worse if they
did not do this, GET A JOB like the rest of us have to do for the money
they want to beg from us. They sure can put in a full day BEGGING !! and
getting TAX FREE MONEY, I am so tired of seeing them
EVERYWHERE!!!!!!! Please do something about it, I remember when it
was against the law to be a vagrant I guess you call that THE GOOD OLE
DAYS It really is dust like graffiti, and they get pretty pushy about it, I don't
like the way they act it does not make me feel safe when they walk right
up to your window
6/18/13 Deanna Pemberton, gramcrkrRclearwire.net. What about the
Constitution ? ? ? ?? Why are you bothering the homeless Panhandlers?
Tell the citiizens to stop giving the Panhandlers money!!
Offer the Panhandlers the address of a shelter, our police officers need to
fight crime! If some one is attacked, call 911!!!
Are you going to stop the Salvation Army, the men in white cloths and
Santa Claus ? ? ??
What about our Constitution ? ? ??
Do you now think that you are God ? ?? To do what ever you want ? ??
Price, Cally
From: Joyce <quilter504 @aol com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9.06 AM
To: O'Rourke, Tony
Subject: Fwd Panhandling issue
Mr Orourke
I was listening to KIT this morning and felt that I had to respond to their topic of panhandling I am sending you my
comments that I sent to them since I am not able to attend your meeting to discuss this problem As I told them, I am not
a city resident but I do come into Yakima to shop The three incidents that I listed below were all within the last two
weeks The gentleman at Target did not want to take no for an answer and since I was carrying my 15month old grand
daughter, I was even more concerned I do feel that since the soft hearted folks do not seem to understand that they are
indeed perpetuating the problem that the city needs to step in and do something to protect the safety of those who come
in to the city to shop
I am wondering if Code Enforcement could check out the guy in the bushes at BiMart. He was situated south of the coffee
stand and before the first exit onto
40th
Personally, I feel that these examples show the seriousness of the situation and they are just what I have recently
experienced One can only imagine how many other people have had similar experiences These things to me are more
important than focusing on smoking in parks
Thank you for your time
Joyce Miller
697 -3468
From: Joyce [mailto.guilter504CQaol . com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 8 14 AM
To: Lance Tormey, Mike Bastinelli, Dave Ettl
Subject: RE Panhandling issue
1 Require them to have a business license Charge a hefty amount for it. Don't give it away In effect, they are a
business and should be treated as such No license and they get one warning then JAIL. This would require an address
and information would be submitted for tax purposes They are standing out there begging (expressing their right of free
speech) making money and not paying a dime in taxes for their earnings
2 Them having a business license should not affect the nonprofits since they presently have their 503C status
3 As far as car washes etc for student groups, many of them are a splinter off of a non - profit and should be treated as
such
If such an ordnance would affect political sign holding, so be it. This act has also gotten to the point of
ridiculousness There are times I would like to tell
Gov Inslee where those signs belong since he started it in the area
THREE RECENT PANHANDLING INCIDENTS
1 About two weeks ago, I was driving north on 40th Ave in the area of BiMart. A guy hopped off of the island in the
middle of the road and ran to
a car going northbound Cars had to slow to avoid hitting him and finally come to a stop This is a dangerous thing to do
especially during the peak driving times
2 On this past Sunday we were leaving the AM /PM on 40th As we drove along the edge of the BiMart parking lot to get
to the entry to 40th Ave ,
a man jumped out of the bushes to our car It looks as though he is living in between the bushes He is the same guy
with the signs from over by
Fred Meyer They are the signs saying Truth etc But, he has a tent like thing in the bushes with belongings.
3 While getting my grand daughter out of her carseat at the Target parking lot, I was approached by a man who said
that he needed help with his car
I held my grand daughter, locked the car and took off for the store He followed telling me he needed to get to work in
Sunnyside I told him that I
knew nothing about cars and did not carry cash He continued telling me his car was a Bob's Burger & Brew and that he
needed help to get to work.
In the store I went and proceeded to the first employee I saw and told them They went out and chased him away
These incidents make people uncomfortable and I am sure would make people thing twice about going places
I am not a resident of the city but I will contact the City Manager re my experiences since the city of Yakima does need
shoppers to come in to the area
Do you happen to have the e mail address for the City Manager?
Thank you for listening
Joyce Miller
Danny Bird of Moonlit Ride Limousine W1_ Anom 3908 River Rd. 1'
Yakima, Wa. k,(��
Distribute¢ t �"
,Meeting
I live on the corner of 40th & River Rd. I am against panhandler's in
Yakima. I wake up an there there all day. They go to the bathroom behind
the wall. They leave there garbage. They leave there sign's so there there in
the morning. One threatened to set fire to my shop. Brian the one on the
frount page {June 15 2013 } called me a communist because I ask him to
leave {more than once). One day I was down on 1St & Nob Hill an one
came across 2 lane's of traffic tapping on my back window asking my
client's for money. A couple of them even came to the door asking for
money. Last summer they cought a group of them in the Bi Mart parking lot
in there motor home with a table filled with drugs. Come to find out there
were 3 or 4 group's in motor home's selling drugs. They found that one
with a lot of cash with heroin {Odeed }. Homeless I don't think so. It's a
business. What is the mission for? The one's I have talked to will not go to
the mission because they can't drink do there drugs and have a curfew. I'm
a tax payer an my tax dollor's an your tax dollor's payed for that sidewalk
there on. Seam's to me they have all the right's an I have none. An they do
not pay taxes. It dose not make Yakima look to good with a panhadler on
every corner when people come to Yakima to a soccer or baseball game.
Where there is a park not 200 ft. away. George Mitchell from MiDee Stitch
& Saddle an my brother an I have got are corner pretty much panhandler
free. But something need's to be done or they will be back an they will be
more aggressive. If you think I'm being unfair fell free to come get them
an have them out side your house or business all day.
Thank You
Danny Bird
Moonlit Ride Limousine
0��