Panhandling Committee PacketSpokane e
jvalley�
Panhandling
Committee
Valley
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhait@spokanevattey.org
Memorandum
To: Bill Gothmann, City Council Member
From: Mike Connelly, City Attorney
CC:
Date: June 23, 2008
Re: Panhandling — public awareness campaign
At the request of the City Council, our office has drafted the following memorandum in
relation to potential approaches the City may take toward panhandling. Specifically, the
Council requested more information on the efficacy of a public awareness campaign.
1. Effectiveness of Public Awareness Campaign
Due to the many factors that influence the level of panhandling and the lack of long -term
data on panhandling, it is difficult to accurately gauge the effectiveness of public awareness
campaigns. Additionally, most problems and the associated education campaigns deal with
centralized panhandling in downtown areas. Thus, data on city -wide campaigns is very
limited. In Washington, staff could find no City that had engaged in a large scale public
awareness campaign. However, there were other business districts and non - Washington
cities with public awareness campaigns. Below is a list of cities with different types of
campaigns and discussion about their effectiveness.
• Spokane — Downtown Spokane Partnership maintained a program downtown asking
for donations in drop boxes located at various businesses. However, this program was
modified and has become the "Give Real Change, Not Spare Change" program. This is a
"prototypical" program in that it is based on brochures handed out in the downtown area in
an attempt to combat downtown shoppers from giving money to panhandlers. This program
is combined with the Downtown Spokane Security Ambassadors program, a service that
provides non - police assistance to downtown customers for a wide range of problems,
including encounters with aggressive panhandlers. Statistics have not been kept, though in
talking with Todd Babcock, a City Council assistant who is working on the panhandling
issue, it appears that Spokane is attempting to adopt an ordinance similar to the recently
enacted Tacoma provision that prevents solicitation in certain areas and in certain forms. See
RCA dated May 22, 2007 for an analysis of time, place and manner restrictions. Spokane is
waiting to see how the Tacoma statute works, and whether it will withstand legal challenge
before adopting such a provision.
• Seattle — Downtown Seattle Association and Metro Improvement District (MID) in the
City of Seattle started a poster and sign campaign in January of 2007. The campaign, entitled
"Have a heart, Give Smart," was directed at the downtown businesses, the public, and
panhandlers to educate them on panhandling. The program involves use of posters and
handouts placed in downtown businesses. "Give Smart" is supposed to encourage persons to
give to local social organizations rather than individuals. As part of the campaign, MID
began keeping detailed records regarding panhandling solicitations. While statistics for the
first quarter of 2007 showed a 38% increase in panhandling solicitations from the previous
year, the number steadily declined and showed a 32% decline for the month of September
2007 as to September 2006, and a total decline of 14% for the third quarter of 2007. The
police enforce an aggressive panhandling provision for threatening begging that is almost
identical to the City of Spokane Valley provision.
e Portland, Oregon — Portland Business Alliance started a "Real Change, Not Spare
Change" program a little over a year ago. This program involved placing ten "change
meters" throughout Portland that also contain brochures and information regarding
panhandling. It is concentrated in areas with high foot traffic and perceived panhandling
problems. Additionally, the program encourages people to give to the meters as the money
received is matched by the Portland Business Alliance and distributed to local social
organizations. Statistics are sparse, especially since the program involves a large area.
However, the Business Association does have plans to increase the number of meters and are
also looking at alternatives to increase the matching money in order to provide more social
programs. A link to this program is www.portlandalliance.com/downtown services /real-
change.html
• Nashville, Tennessee — Again, started within the last year, the Downtown business
administration started a poster and brochure educational program. There is no hard evidence
about the effectiveness of the program, though at least some downtown business owners feel
there are fewer panhandlers downtown. Nashville was going to adopt a time, place, and
manner restriction provision, but after large pressure from various social groups, has decided
to wait and see how the education campaign works.
• Evanston, Illinois — Evanston has a comprehensive program which was specifically
developed as a reaction to a perceived panhandling problem in the downtown area. The
program involves city personnel, police, EvMark, which is a downtown marketing
association, and the Evanston Chamber of Commerce to educate downtown businesses,
customers, and local college students about the negative effects of giving to panhandlers.
The program utilizes downtown posters and handouts to promote donations to local social
service groups rather than to individual panhandlers. In his five year experience with the
program, Sergeant Dennis Preedle feels that there "seems" to be a reduction of the number of
regular panhandlers. However, he is not sure that there has been a major impact in the
overall number of panhandlers. Sergeant Preedle feels that at least part of the reason for this
however, is due to the yearly crop of new incoming Northwestern University students who
have not been educated by the program.
• Cincinnati, Ohio — While Cincinnati does not have a significant public education
program, they do have a licensing statute and social outreach program that are notable.
Though the statistics regarding the effectiveness of licensing are largely anecdotal, it is clear
that there are typically upwards of 100 registrations yearly. However, some of these are from
L
people registering as part of a protest group. Additionally, there are normally 100+ arrests
made for violating the panhandling law (though not all for lack of a license). However,
without hard data, the anecdotal evidence suggests that registration has only shifted where
the panhandlers operate and has not significantly impacted the problem. Not surprisingly,
the social outreach program, which was funded by the Downtown Partnership at around the
cost of $50,000, has been the most effective program because the workers get panhandlers
help for any addictions, help them find transitional housing, education, and job opportunities.
Thus, as one police officer noted, the outreach is really a "cure" as opposed to a part-time
band -aid that the law and arrests provide.
2. Legality of Licensing/Permitting Scheme for Panhandlers
Council has also asked about the legality of a licensing/permitting scheme for
panhandling. Staff has not found any city in Washington that has a panhandling
licensing/permitting scheme. However, maintaining such a program would be difficult
unless the scheme did not place an excessive financial burden on applicants, did not allow
unfettered government discretion or delay in granting/denying permits, and allowed
expedited judicial review of denials of permits. Additionally, any measures that punish
panhandlers for not having a license cannot act as a form of restriction or prohibition of the
speech. Additional practical considerations are that such schemes may not effectively reduce
panhandling, could by costly (through administration of issuing permits and enforcement),
and may be difficult to enforce.
In Washington, free speech is afforded greater protection than under the U.S.
Constitution. Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 Wash. 2d 103, 117 (1997). Panhandling is
a form of protected speech, and as such, receives strong protection. City of Seattle v.
McConahy, 86 Wash. App. 557, 568 (1997). Prior restraints, or restricting/prohibiting the
speech in advance of publication, are per se unconstitutional when imposed on protected
constitutional speech (of which panhandling/solicitation is a class). JJR, Inc. v. City of
Seattle, 126 Wash. 2d 1, 6 (1995); O'Day v. King County, 109 Wash. 2d 796, 804 (1988).
Thus, when looking at a licensing scheme that involves protected speech, the relevant
question is whether it constitutes "prior restraint ". Prior restraints are "official restrictions
imposed upon speech or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication...." JJR,
126 Wash. 2d at 6, quoting Seattle v. Bittner, 81 Wash. 2d 747, 756 (1973). Because the
licensing scheme cannot effectively ban the speech, the restrictions (such as requiring the
permit, or only allowing licensed panhandlers to operate in certain locations) must be based
on valid time, place, and manner restrictions. See RCA dated May 22, 2007 regarding
requirements for valid time, place and manner restrictions. Additionally, purely subjective
criteria, such as considering character, may only be considered in granting an application
where there is a rational basis for doing so. Most likely there is no rational basis for
considering character when looking at panhandlers. Additionally, the licensing scheme must
have provisions that specifically require licenses to be considered — and thus granted or
denied — without "undue delay" in a "reasonable time ". City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts, 541
U.S. 774, 781 (2004).
J
Finally, the commercial exploitation of material protected by the First Amendment may
properly be subject to a licensing fee. However, the fee must be a regulatory measure
reasonably related to costs of administration and enforcement of the statute, and must not act
as a bar to allowing the speech. See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943). As
those, costs of regulation must be prescribed in advance, they must of necessity be based upon
estimates which it is the right and duty of the licensing authorities to make. See Seattle v.
Barto, 31 Wash. 141 (1903). Because of the nature of panhandling, licensing fees would
most likely have to be very small or even free ((Durham, North Carolina, and Cincinnati,
Ohio, have free license or charge $20 for licenses). Post license revocation/suspension
cannot act as a restriction on speech and if it is used as punishment or prohibits the activity
completely then it will be prior restraint.
Finally, as noted above, staff could not find a Washington city with a licensing scheme for
panhandling. Several cities in other states (which have different laws and constitutional
limitations) have enacted panhandling licensing schemes. Durham, North Carolina, has a
licensing statute that restricts solicitation in certain areas (due to safety concerns). See
Attachments to RCA dated January 15, 2008. Under the Durham code, people wanting to
solicit must get a license that acts more as an ID than anything else. It appears that
approximately 100+ people register each year, though that number includes any charitable
group trying to solicit as well (which would include the Fire Department's "fill the boot"
campaign). Durham's code has not been challenged in court. Cincinnati, Ohio, has a similar
provision, though their code was recently challenged on constitutional grounds. A federal
district court found that the plaintiffs might prevail at trial and thus summary judgment was
not appropriate. Henry v. City of Cincinnati, 2005 WL 1198814 (S.D. Ohio 2005).
However, the parties have entered into settlement negotiations and the court may not reach
the issue of whether that law is constitutional.
While a licensing scheme is possible, there are strict requirements. The scheme must not
prohibit the protected speech, and restrictions must still be based on reasonable time, place
and manner requirements. Additionally, it appears that it would be difficult to administer
from a city standpoint.
Please let us know if you would like additional information.
Req. #11299
ORDINANCE NO. 27600
?�
BY REQUEST OF COUNCIL MEMBERS ANDERSON, LADENBURG,
LONERGAN, AND TALBERT
AN ORDINANCE relating to public safety and morals; amending the definition of
pedestrian and vehicle interference, placing reasonable time, place, and
manner restrictions on solicitation of funds in certain locations, defining
offenses and penalties; amending Section 8.13.030, "Vehicular or Pedestrian
Interference," of the Tacoma Municipal Code; and amending Title 8 of the
Tacoma Municipal Code by enacting two new chapters, Chapter 8.13A,
"Regulation of Solicitation," and Chapter 8.13B, "Solicitations to Occupants of
Vehicles on Public Roadways Prohibited."
WHEREAS the City Council ( "Council ") has received numerous
-- :co'mmunications from citizens, businesses, community organizations, and others
regarding serious .public harms caused by panhandlers, and
WHEREAS the Council's Public Safety and Human Services Committee has
studied the matter for several months, and
WHEREAS the Council held a public hearing on September 19, 2006,
during which extensive testimony was taken, and
WHEREAS, based on the testimony received and the information provided
to it, the Council believes that it is important to protect citizens from the fear and
intimidation accompanying certain kinds of solicitation, to promote tourism and
business, and to preserve the quality of urban life while providing safe and
appropriate venues for this constitutionally protected activity; Now, Therefore,
BE -IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF TACOMA:
Section 1. Based on the testimony provided to the City
Council's ( "Council ") Public Safety and Human Services Committee and the
-1-
Ord 11299.doc -S LG /lad
information and research provided to the Council and on file in the office of the
City Clerk, the Council makes the following findings of fact:
A. Persons using automated teller machines often do so in isolated
locations with cash conspicuously in their possession;
B. Persons using exterior public pay phones often do so in isolated
locations with their attention distracted from their surroundings;
C. Persons using self - service car washes and gas stations often do so in
isolated locations with cash conspicuously in their possession and are usually a
captive audience, with their attention distracted from their surroundings while
their vehicles are in various stages of cleaning or fueling;
D. Persons using public transportation and waiting at public transportation
stops are usually a captive audience, often in isolated locations, with their
attention distracted from their surroundings as they wait and watch for necessary
transportation;
E. Persons entering or exiting vehicles are usually a captive audience,
often in isolated locations, with their attention distracted from their surroundings
as they load groceries or other purchases, look for keys, or watch for traffic;
F. Persons entering and exiting buildings are usually a captive audience,
with limited means of ingress and egress to those buildings;
G. Persons conducting normal activities at night do so under conditions in
which their visibility is reduced, and they often do these activities in isolated
locations;
-2-
Ord ] 1299_doc -SLG /lad
H. Persons who are subjected to coercive solicitations are often solicited
in circumstances where they are a captive audience or are in isolated locations;
I. Motor vehicle drivers approached by pedestrians may become
distracted, may stop suddenly, or may linger at traffic control devices thereby
posing a significant risk of physical injury to themselves, other motorists, and
pedestrians;
J. "Public places," as defined in Chapter 8.13, serve the primary purpose
of enabling pedestrian and vehicular traffic to safely and efficiently move about
from place to place; and
K. Solicitation on public property without permission of the property owner
affects the rights of the property owner to control the use of his or her property.
Section 2. Based on the findings above and the testimony and record
provided, the Council concludes as follows:
A. Solicitation of persons using automated teller machines, exterior public
pay phones, self - service car washes, and gas stations makes those persons
especially vulnerable to crime because of the isolated locations, limited options to
protect themselves by leaving the area, and exposure as persons who may be
carrying cash;
B. Solicitation of persons using or waiting for public transportation makes
those persons more vulnerable to crime because of the isolated location of public
transportation stops and because persons using or waiting for public
transportation often cannot leave the area. This vulnerability may cause persons
to avoid using public transportation;
-3-
Ord 11299.doc -SLG /lad
C. Solicitation of persons entering or exiting vehicles makes those
persons more vulnerable to crime because those persons may be distracted from
their surroundings or because they may be in an isolated location with limited
options to avoid an attacker or thief;
D. Solicitation of persons at night or of persons entering or exiting
buildings makes those persons more vulnerable to crime because of the limited
visibility and limited options to avoid an attacker or thief;
E. Solicitation of persons operating motor vehicles may result in
car /pedestrian collisions, as well as vehicle collisions caused when vehicles
behind the one being solicited move forward without realizing the solicited driver
has not moved;
F. Because public places in the urban core have become increasingly
congested, solicitation in those public places contributes to the loss of access to
and enjoyment of public places and to a sense of fear, intimidation, and disorder.
This fear adversely and unreasonably affects businesses and contributes to the
loss of access to and enjoyment of public places;
G. Coercive solicitation is disturbing and disruptive to residents and
businesses and contributes to the loss of access to and enjoyment of public
places and to a sense of fear, intimidation, and disorder;
H. Solicitations conducted on private property absent consent of the
owner or occupant is akin to trespass and unreasonably interferes with the
private enjoyment of property;
-4-
Ord 11299.doc -SLG /lad
4
I. Maintaining a distance of 15 feet between the solicitor and the person
being solicited will help protect persons from such intimidating solicitations set
forth above and will provide a uniform distance to guide law enforcement and
citizens alike.
Section 3. Section 8.13.030 of the Tacoma Municipal Code, entitled
"Vehicular or Pedestrian Interference," is hereby amended to read as shown in
Exhibit "A," which is attached hereto and incorporated herewith.
Section 4. Title 8 of the Tacoma Municipal Code is hereby amended by the
addition thereto of a new chapter, to be known and designated as Chapter 8.13A,
entitled "Regulation of Solicitation," as shown in Exhibit "B," which is attached hereto
and incorporated herewith.
Section 5. Title 8 of the Tacoma Municipal Code is hereby amended by the
addition thereto of a new chapter, to be known and designated as Chapter 8.1313;
entitled "Solicitations to Occupants of Vehicles on Public Roadways Prohibited," as
shown in Exhibit "C," which is attached hereto and incorporated herewith.
Ord 11299.dogr$LGAad
-5-
Section 6. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance, or its
application to any person or circumstances, is held invalid, the remainder of the
ordinance or application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall
be unaffected.
Passed
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Assistant City Attorney
-6-
Ord11299.doc-SIGAad
EXHIBIT "A"
8.13.030 Vehicular or pedestrian interference.
A. The following definitions apply in this section:
VIA .... L. L,,....11
2. "Beg"
f signs,
31. "Obstruct 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 a
driver of a vehicle or to cause another person or a driver of a vehicle to take
evasive action to avoid physical contact. Acts authorized by a permit issued
pursuant to the Tacoma Municipal Code, such as under Titles 9 and 10, shall not
constitute obstruction of pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
4 2. "Public place" means an area generally visible to public view and includes
alleys, bridges, buildings, driveways, parking lots, parks, plazas, sidewalks- and
streets open to the general public, including those that serve food or drink or
provide entertainment, and the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings
and the grounds enclosing them.
B. A person is guilty of pedestrian interference if, in a public place, he or she
intentionally=
4-.-9- obstructs pedestrian or vehicular traffic.; er
2 Aggressively begs.
C. Pedestrian interference may be punished by a fine not to exceed
$1,000509.00 or by imprisonment in jail for a term not to exceed 90 days, or by
both such fine and imprisonment.
-7-
Ord11299.doc- SLQAad
EXHIBIT "B"
CHAPTER 8.13A
REGULATION OF SOLICITATION
8.13A.010
Purpose.
8.13A.020
Definitions.
8.13A.030
Place of solicitation.
8.13A.040
Solicitation by Coercion.
8.13A.050
Evidence.
8.13A.060
Penalties.
8.13A.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect citizens
from the fear and intimidation accompanying certain kinds of solicitation, to
promote tourism and business, and to preserve the quality of urban life while
providing safe and appropriate venues for constitutionally protected activity.
8.13A.020 Definitions. In this chapter:
A. "Automated teller machine" means a machine, other than a telephone:
institution;
1. that is capable of being operated by a customer of a financial
2. by which the customer may communicate to the financial institution
a request to withdraw, deposit, transfer funds, make payment, or otherwise conduct
financial business for the customer or for another person directly from the
customer's account or from the customer's account under a line of credit previously
authorized by the financial institution for the customer; and
3. the use of which may or may not involve personnel of a financial
institution.
0
Ord 11299.d oc -SLG /lad
If
B. "Coercion" means:
1. to approach or speak to a person in such a manner as would cause
a reasonable person to believe that the person is being threatened with either
imminent bodily injury or the commission of a criminal act upon the person or
another person or upon property in the person's immediate possession;
2 to persist in a solicitation after the person solicited has given a
negative response;
3. to block, either individually or as part of a group of persons, the
passage of a solicited person;
4. to engage in conduct that would reasonably be construed as
intended to compel or force a solicited person to accede to demands;
5. to use violent or threatening gestures toward a person;
6. willfully providing or delivering, or attempting to provide or deliver,
unrequested or unsolicited services or products with a demand or exertion of
pressure for payment in return; or
7. to use profane, offensive, or abusive language, which is inherently
likely to provoke an immediate violent reaction.
C. "Exterior public pay telephone" means any coin or credit card reader
telephone that is:
1. installed or located anywhere on a premises except exclusively in
the interior of a building located on the premises; and
2. accessible and available for use by members of the general public.
Ord 11299.doc- SLG/lad
M
D. "Public transportation facility" means a facility or designated location that
is owned, operated, or maintained by a city, county, county transportation authority,
public transportation benefit area, regional transit authority, or metropolitan
municipal corporation within the state.
E. "Public transportation stop" means an area officially marked and
designated as a place to wait for a bus, a light rail vehicle, or any other public
transportation vehicle that is operated on a scheduled route with passengers paying
fares on an individual basis.
F. "Public transportation vehicle" has the meaning given that term in
RCW 46.04.355, as currently adopted or as it may be amended in the future.
G. "Self- service car wash" means a structure:
1. at which a vehicle may be manually washed by its owner or
operator with equipment that is activated by the deposit of money in a coin - operated
machine; and
public.
2. that is accessible and available for use by members of the general
H. "Self- service fuel pump" means a fuel pump:
1. from which a vehicle may be manually filled with gasoline or other
fuel directly by its owner or operator, with or without the aid of an employee or
attendant of the premises at which the fuel pump is located; and
2. that is accessible and available for use by members of the general
public.
-10-
Ord11299.doc- SLGAad
4
I. "Solicit" and all derivative forms of "solicit" means to ask, beg, solicit, or
plead, whether orally or in a written or printed manner, for the purpose of
immediately receiving contributions, alms, charity, or gifts of items of value for
oneself or another person.
8.13.030 Place of solicitation.
of:
A. Solicitation near designated locations and facilities.
1. It is unlawful for any person to solicit another person within 15 feet
a. an automated teller machine;
b. the entrance of a building, unless the solicitor has
permission from the owner or occupant;
c. an exterior public pay telephone;
such vehicle.
d. a self - service car wash;
e. a self - service fuel pump;
f. a public transportation stop; or
g. any parked vehicle as occupants of such vehicle enter or exit
2. It is unlawful for a person to solicit another person:
a. on private property, unless the solicitor has permission from
the owner or occupant;
Ord11299.doc- SLGAad
b. after sunset or before sunrise;
c. in any public transportation facility or vehicle.
-11-
b
B. For purposes of subsection A, measurement will be made in a straight
line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the nearest point at
which a solicitation is being conducted to whichever is applicable of the following:
1. the nearest entrance or exit of a facility in which an automated teller
machine is enclosed or, if the machine is not enclosed in a facility, to the nearest
part of the automated teller machine;
2. the nearest entrance or exit of a building;
3. the nearest part of an exterior public pay telephone;
4. the nearest part of the structure of a self - service car wash;
5. the nearest part of a self - service fuel pump;
6. the nearest point of any sign or marking designating an area as a
public transportation stop; or
7. any door of a parked vehicle that is being used by an occupant of
such vehicle to enter or exit such vehicle.
8.13A.040 Solicitation by Coercion. It is unlawful for a person to solicit by
Coercion.
8.13A.050 Evidence. Evidence to support a conviction for a violation of this
chapter may include, but is not limited to, testimony of witnesses, videotape
evidence of the violation, and other admissible evidence.
8.13A.060 Penalties. Violation of Section 8.13A.030 shall be a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, a person is subject to a penalty of
$1,000, incarceration for up to 90 days, or both a fine and a penalty. Violation of
-12-
Ord 11299.doc -SLG /1ad
Section 8.13A.040 shall be a gross misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, a
person is subject to a penalty of $5,000, incarceration for up to one year, or both a
fine and a penalty.
-13-
Ord11299.doc -SLG /lad
3
EXHIBIT "C"
CHAPTER 8.138
SOLICITATIONS TO OCCUPANTS OF. VEHICLES
ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS: "PROHIBITED
8.1313.010
Purpose.
8.136.020
Definitions.
8.1313.030
Prohibited conduct.
8.1313.040
Evidence.
8.1313.050
Penalty.
8.1313.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect citizens
from the fear and intimidation accompanying certain kinds of solicitation and to
provide for vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety.
8.1313.020 Definitions. In this chapter:
A. "Goods" means real property, as well as tangible and intangible personal
property.
B. "Public property" means:
1. any property open or devoted to public use or owned by the City;
and
2. any area dedicated to the public use for sidewalk, street, highway,
or other transportation purposes, including, but not limited to, any curb, median,
parkway, shoulder, sidewalk, alley, drive, or public right -of -way.
C. "Roadway" has the meaning given that term in RCW 46.04.500, as
currently adopted or as it may be amended in the future.
D. "Services" means any work done for the benefit of another person.
E. "Solicit" and all derivative forms of "solicit" means any conduct or act
whereby a person:
-14-
O rd 11299.doc -S LG/lad
1. either orally or in writing, asks for an immediate ride, employment,
goods, services, financial aid, monetary gifts, or any article representing monetary
value, for any purpose;
2. either:orally or in writing, sells or offers for immediate sale goods,
services, or publications;
3. distributes without remuneration goods, services, or publications; or
4. solicits signatures on a petition or opinions for a survey.
F. "Vehicle" has the meaning given that term in RCW 46.04.670, as currently
adopted or as it may be amended in the future.
8.1313.030 Prohibited conduct.
A. It is unlawful for any person, while occupying any public property adjacent
to any public roadway in the City, to knowingly conduct a solicitation directed to, or
intended to attract the attention of, the occupant of any vehicle stopped or traveling
on the roadway, unless said vehicle is legally parked. An offense occurs when the
solicitation is made, whether or not an actual employment relationship is created, a
transaction is completed, or an exchange of money, goods, or services takes place.
PROVIDED, that nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit activity authorized
pursuant to Tacoma Municipal Code Chapter 11.15, Special Events Permitting
Code.
B. It is a defense to prosecution under Section 8.13B.030 that the person
was:
1. summoning aid or requesting assistance in an emergency situation;
or
-15-
Ord 11299.doc -S LG /lad
rr
2. a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties.
8.1313.040 Evidence. Evidence to support a conviction for a violation of this
chapter may include, but is not limited to, testimony of witnesses, videotape
evidence of the violation, and other admissible evidence.
8.1313.050 Penalty. Violation of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor and,
upon conviction thereof, a person is subject to a penalty of $1,000, incarceration for
up to 90 days, or both a fine and a penalty.
Ord 11299.doc -SLG /lad
-16-
Suggested Agenda
Spokane Valley Panhandling Committee, May 28, 2008
Spokane Valley City Hall, Opportunity Room
I. Introductions
a. Committee Members:
Bill Gothmann Rose Dempsey
Ian Robertson Joe Shutz
Maggie Crabtree Cathy Neet
Connie Nelson
b. Todd Babcock, Spokane
c. Deputy City Attorney Cary Driskell
d. Mayor Rich Munson
II. Purpose of Committee
a. Mayor's Charge
i. Investigate matters related to panhandling and advise Council on
those findings
ii. Identify other programs throughout the Country that address this
issue
iii. Research what other cities are doing
iv. Explore the potential of cooperation in applying programs
v. Determine what programs to implement in order to advise the
general public of choices to assist panhandlers
b. Charity Campaigns are not part of our charge
III. Presentation by Mr. Driskell concerning the law
a. Questions
IV. What are the components of the problem?
a. Who are the panhandlers?
b. What are their needs?
i. Are their agencies to fill these needs?
ii. Are they and the community aware of these resources?
c. What are other communities doing?
V. Where to go from here
VI. Next Meeting
Chapter 8.25 OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE
TOC <
Chapter 8.25
OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE
Sections:
8.25.010
Anticipatory offenses.
8.25.020
Aggressive begging.
8.25.030
Disorderly conduct.
8.25.040
Public disturbance.
8.25.050
Public nuisances.
8.25.060
Noise disturbance.
8.25.010 Anticipatory offenses.
The following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington as presently
constituted or hereinafter amended are adopted by reference:
RCW:
9A.28.020 Criminal attempt.
9A.28.030 Criminal solicitation.
9A.28.040 Criminal conspiracy.
(Ord. 46 § 11, 2003).
Page 1 of 4
8.25.020 Aggressive begging.
A. Any person who engages in aggressive begging in any public place in the City
as those terms are defined by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
B. As used in this section:
1. "Aggressive begging" means to beg with intent to intimidate another person
into giving money or goods.
2. 'Begging" means to ask for money or goods as a charity, whether by words,
bodily gestures, signs or other means.
3. "Intimidate" means to coerce or frighten into submission or obedience.
4. "Public place," for purposes of this section, means any road, alley, lane,
parking area, sidewalk or any place, private or otherwise, adopted to and fitted for
vehicular or pedestrian travel that is in common use by the public with the consent,
expressed or implied, of the owner or owners; and any public playground, school
grounds, recreation grounds, parks, parkways, park drives, park paths and rights -of-
way open to the use of the public. (Ord. 46 § 14, 2003).
8.25.030 Disorderly conduct.
Any person who engages in disorderly conduct is guilty of a misdemeanor. A
person engages in disorderly conduct when that person:
A. Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault;
B. Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without
authori
C. Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic wit_ hout lawful authority:
D. Fights by agreement, except as part of an organized athletic event; or
http:// www. codepublishing. com/ WA/ SpokaneValley /spva108 /spva10825.html 4/14/2008
Chapter 8.25 OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE
Page 2 of 4
E. Enters or remains in any school building, classroom or upon any school ground,
or street, sidewalk or public way adjacent thereto, and intentionally causes disruption
of the activities of the school.
F. As used in this section, "school' has its ordinary meaning and also includes
universities, colleges, community colleges and institutions of higher learning. (Ord. 46
§ 25, 2003).
8.25.040 Public disturbance.
The following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington as presently
constituted or hereinafter amended are adopted by reference:
RCW:
9.27.015 Interference, obstruction of any court building or residence — Violations.
9A.84.010 Riot.
9A.84.020 Failure to disperse.
9A.84.040 False reporting.
(Ord. 46 § 45, 2003).
8.25.050 Public nuisances.
The following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington as presently
constituted or hereinafter amended are adopted by reference:
RCW:
9.66.010
Public nuisance.
9.66.020
Unequal damage.
9.66.030
Maintaining or permitting nuisance.
9.66.040
Abatement of nuisance.
9.66.050
Deposit of unwholesome substance.
(Ord. 46 §
46, 2003).
8.25.060 Noise disturbance.
A. It is unlawful for any person to make, continue, cause to be made, or to allow to
originate from real property in the possession of said person, in private rights -of -way,
or in public rights -of -way, any sound which creates a noise disturbance.
B. For the purposes of this section, the following sounds are declared to be noise
disturbances:
1. Sounds created by use of a radio, television set, musical instrument, sound
amplifier or any other device capable of producing or reproducing sound, which
emanate frequently, repetitively or continuously from any building, structure or
property located within a residential area, and which annoy or disturb the peace,
comfort or repose of a reasonable person of normal sensitivity;
2. Any other sound occurring frequently, repetitively or continuously which
annoys or disturbs the peace, comfort or repose of a reasonable person of normal
sensitivity. This-section shall not apply to noncommercial public speaking and public
assembly activities conducted on any public space or public.right -of -way for which a
permit has been obtained. Additionally, this section shall not apply to noises produced
by dogs, which is addressed in SVMC 6.05.070(K)(4).
C. Exemptions.
1. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
a. Sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated by Chapter 173 -62
WAC;
h":// www. codeDublishinR. com/ WA/ ST)okaneValley /spva108 /si)va10825.html 4/14/2008
Last Updated: 6 -13 -08
BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES
AFFORDABLE HOUSING TASK FORCE
Bill Gothmann – appointed 6 -3 -08 (to replace Steve Taylor)
AWC Resolutions Committee
Contact: AWC; 1- 800 -562 -8981
S4' Delegates: (elected position)
2003: Rich Munson
2004: Rich Munson
2005: Rich Munson
2006: Rich Munson
2007: Rich Munson
AWC .Legislative Committee
Contact: AWC: I- 800 -562 -8981
Term Period:
SV Delegates: 2003: Steve Taylor
Cable Advisory Board ( "Spokane Regional Cable Advisory Board ")
Authority: Spokane Co. Resolution 3 -0763; entitles City of Spokane Valley to 3 members
Meetings: Monthly, 4"' Tuesday at 5:30 p.m.
Contact: Morgan Koudelka, Staff Liaison [to stagger terms, appointees fill unexpired terms if necessary]
Term Period: 3 -year term
SV Delegates
2004: Alan Gilson, 3521 S Woodward; term expires 12 -31 -06
John Horstketter, 11105 E Boone, term expires 12 -31 -05 (resigned June 2005)
RJ Demers, 12001 E 26th Ave; term expires 12 -31 -04 (resigned April 2004)
2005: Richard E. Young (appt'd 2 -8 -05) expires 12 -31 -07
Bradley Griffith (appt'd 7- 28 -05) expires 12 -31 -06 resigned May 2006
2006: Daryl Langford, appt'd 8 -22 -06 through 12 -31 -08
Douglas Wollan, appt'd 11 -07 -07 through 12 -31 -09
2007: Dad, €erd, apT' -a-8 22 06 12 31 8 (not attending mtgs – removed 2- 12 -08)
Chfistian J s appt'd i
Trujillo resigned April 21, 2008 – moving out of state
Douglas Wollan, -11 =07 -07 fhru 12 -31 -09
2008: Jennie Willardson, appt'd 2 -12 -08 through 12- 3140:
Chamber of Commerce Board
Contact: Eldonna Shaw (formerly Gossett), CEO
Term Period: Annually
SV Delegates:
2003: Diana Wilhite – effective September 1, 2003
2004: Steve Taylor
2005: Steve Taylor
2006: Bill Gothmann (to 8- 31 -07)
2007: Bill Gothmann
2008: Steve Taylef— replaced by Rich Munson 6 -3 -08
Page 1 of 7
Last Updated: 6 -13 -08
Convention Ctr & Visitor's Bureau (Spo Regional Convention & Visitor Bureau Bd of Directors)
Authority:
Contact: Harry Sladich, President & CEO, 509- 742 -9370; Louise Barnett, Admin Mgr
Term Period: One year term subject to reappointment
SV Delegates:
2003: Dick Denenny — delegate; Diana Wilhite alternative
2004: Steve Taylor, Dick Denenny alt
2005: Steve Taylor, Dick Denenny alt
2006: Steve Taylor, Dick Denenny alt
2007: Steve Taylor, Dick Denenny alt
2008: Rose Dempsey
Greater Spokane Incorporated (formerly Economic Development Council (EDC)•
Authority:
Contact: Jim Huttenmaier, 742 -9358; or general # 509- 624 -1393
Term Period: One year appointment subject to reappointment
SV Delegates:
2003 -2005: Diana Wilhite Delegate; Steven Taylor alt
2006: Diana Wilhite, Steve Taylor alt
2007: Diana Wilhite, Steve Taylor alt
2008: Rich Munson
Emergencv Communications Board 911
Authority: Re- appointment not necessary; term runs in perpetuity as long as individual retains
prerequisite for position; or until their appt body designates a new representative.
Contact: Lorlee Mizell
Term Period:
SV Delegates:
2005: Mike DeVleming
2006: Mike DeVleming
2007: Mike DeVleming
2008: Rich Munson
Finance Committee, Spokane Valley
2003, 2004 and 2005: Diana Wilhite, Rich Munson, Steve Taylor
2006: Diana Wilhite, Rich Munson, Steve Taylor
2007: Mike DeVleming, Rich Munson, Steve Taylor
2008: Rich Munson, Steve Taylef (replaced by Dick Denenny 6 -3 -08) , Diana Wilhite
Friends of the Centennial Trail (no longer active)
Authority:
Contact:
Tenn Period:
SV Delegates: 2003 -2005: Mike DeVleming, delegate
2006: Mike DeVleming
Page 2 of 7
Last Updated: 6 -13 -08
Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials
Authority:
Contact: Paul Jensen 477 -7213; Terri Bidowski 477 -7227
Term Period: One year term, subject to reappointment
SV Delegates:
2003 -2005: Steve Taylor and Rich Munson; all other councilmembers alternates
2006: Mike DeVleming and Rich Munson, all other councilmembers alternates
2007: Mike DeVleming and Rich Munson, all other councilmembers alternates
2008: Rich Munson and Diana Wilhite, all other councilmembers alternates
Health District Board (Spokane Regional Health District Board)
Authority: Spo Co Resolution 03 -0687 & 03 -0737: City of Spokane Valley allotted 2 voting members
Contact:
Term period: not to exceed 3 years. Serves at discretion of appointing Mayor but not to exceed 3 years.
To appoint or re- appoint, Mayor write letter to BoCC requesting consideration of Board approval
SV Delegates:
2003 -2005: Dick Denenny; Mike Flanigan
2006: Dick Denenny, Bill Gothmann
2007: Dick Denenny, Bill Gothmann
2008: Dick Denenny, Bill Gothmann
Spokane Co. )Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC
Authority: Sp Co Housing & Comm Development Advisory Committee By -Laws
Contact: Kasey Kramer, Director 477 -7561. Debi Pfimmer
Term Period: 3 years
Appointment Process: Mayor write Itr to BoCC requesting approval of the appointment
SV Delegate (1):
2003 -2004: Rich Munson
2005: Steve Taylor
............_. ....._ ..................
2006: Bill Gothmann (2006 — end of 2008)
SV Citizen Representatives(2):
2003 -2004:
Karen Contardo — expires June 2004
Patricia Harriman — expires 4 -8 -06
2005 -2006:
Michael "Shane" Comer; expires 1 -17 -08
Patricia Harriman, expires 4 -8 -06
2007 -2008:
Richard L. Scott (Jan 2007 — 12- 31 -09) 3 year terms
International Trade Alliance
SV Delegate: 2003 -2005:
Rich Munson
2006:
Rich Munson
2007:
Rich Munson
2008:
Rose Dempsey
Li ht Rail Citizen Adviso Board Committee (no longer active)
Authority: STA, Sub - committee
Contact: Lesley Sutton, Executive Assistant 325 -6056; lsutton(a,spokanetransit.com
Term Period:
SV Delegates: 2003 -2005: Dick Denenny; Gary Schimmels Alt
2006: Dick Denenny, Gary Schimmels alt
Page 3 of 7
Last Updated: 6 -13 -08
NE HousinLy Solutions, formerly Spokane Housing Authority (SHA)
Contact: Dianne Quast. Spokane Valley Mayor included as one of the appointing authorities
Term Period:
SV Delegates: 2003: Janet Bastine; expires 3 -15 -08
2005: Judy Butler, expires 12 -31 -09
Julia Rahmann, expires 3 -15 -2011
Planning Commission (Spokane Vallev's) Authority: SVMC 2.55 TERM: 3 years
Contact: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director
SV Delegates: 2003 -2004: Mike DeVleming
2005 -2006: Gary Schimmels
Planning Commissioners:
2003: Bill Gothmann
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -06
Bill Gothmann Ian Robertson
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -06
Chair 03 -04 John Carroll
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -06
Fred Beaulac
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -05
Gail Kogle
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -05
David Crosby
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -04
Bob Blum
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -04
2005: Bill Gothmann
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -06 (elected to council Jan 06 thru 12- 31 -07)
Ian Robertson
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -06
Dave Crosby John Carroll
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -06
Chair 05 -06 Fred Beaulac
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -05
Gail Kogle
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -05
David Crosby
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -04
Bob Blum
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -04
2006: Fred Beaulac
Jan 06 thru 12 -31 -08
Gail Kogle
Jan 06 thru 12 -31 -08
Gail Kogle David Crosby
Jan 05 thru 12 -31 -07
Chair 06 -07 Bob Blum
Jan 05 thru 12 -31 -07
John Carroll
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -06
Ian Robertson
Jan 03 thru 12 -31 -06
Marcia Sands
Jan 06 thru 12 -31 -06 (fills Gothmann's unexpired term)
2007: Fred Beaulac
Jan 06 thru 12 -31 -08
Gail Kogle Gail Kogle
Jan 06 thru 12 -31 -08
Chair 07 -08 David Crosby
Jan 05 thru 12 -31 -07
Bob Blum
Jan 05 thru 12 -31 -07
John Carroll
Jan 07 thru 12 -31 -09
Ian Robertson
Jan 07 thru 12 -31 -09
Marcia Sands
Jan 07 thru 12 -31 -09
2008: Fred Beaulac
Jan 06thru 12 -31 -08
Gail Kogle
Jan 06 thru 12 -31 -08
2008 -2009: John Carroll
Jan 07 thru 12 -31 -09
Ian Robertson, Chair Ian Robertson
Jan 07 thru 12 -31 -09
Fred Beaulac Vice Chair Marcia Sands
Jan 07 thru 12 -31 -09
Craig Eggleston
Jan 08 thru 12 -31 -10 (appointed 12- 11 -07)
Art Sharpe
Jan 08 thru 12 -31 -10 (appointed 12 -11 -07
Page 5 of 7
Last Updated: 6 -13 -08
Spokane Regional Clean Air A2ency (formerly SCAPCA , Spo Co Air Pollution Control Authority)
West 1101 College Avenue, Suite 403
Spokane, WA 99201 (477 -4727)
William Dameworth, Executive Director
Delegates serve 4 years (or run with council term)
2006 — 2009: Mike DeVleming (appointed May 23, 2006)
2007-2010: Mike DeVleming
2008 — 2011: Steve T-ayle f (appointed N b 27 � ) replaced by Rose Dempsey 6 -3 -08
.7
SCRAPS: Spokane County Regional Animal Care & Protection Services (not active)
Contact: Nancy Hill, Director 477 -1967 2521 N Flora Road; Spokane 99216
SV Delegates:
2003 -2005: Gary Schimmels; Mike DeVleming, alt
2006: Gary Schimmels, Mike DeVleming alt
2007: Gary Schimmels, Mike DeVleming alt
2008: Gary Schimmels
SHORC: Spokane Homeownership Resource Center
2004: Diana Wilhite appointed; expires 5 -25 -05
2005:
2006 Committee no longer in effect
SNAP (unaffiliated, non - appointed)
2006: Bill Gothmann
2007: Bill Gothmann
Solid Waste Advisory Board
Authority: Interlocal Agreement of 1989
Contact:
Term Period:
SV Delegates: 2005: Marc Torre, appointed 2 -8 -05
2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007: Gary Schimmels, with Mike DeVleming alt
2008: Gary Schimmels, Rose Dempsey alt
Spokane County Affordable Housing Task''Force (pending confirmation)
Bill Gothmann (appointed 6 -3 -08)
Spokane Solid Waste Advisory Committee:
Replaced by Dick Denenny, 6 -3 -08 — term expiration _1 /16/2011 [pending BoCC confirmation]
Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC)
Authority:
Term Period: 3 years subject to re- appointment
SV Delegates:
2003: Gary Schimmels; Mike DeVleming as alt, expires 12 -31 -05
2004 -2005: Gary Schimmels; Mike DeVleming as alt; expires 12 -31 -05
2006: Gary Schimmels, Mike DeVleming alt
2007: Gary Schimmels, Diana Wilhite alt
2008: Diana Wilhite delegate, Gary Schimmels alternate
Page 6 of 7
Last Updated: 6 -13 -08
Spokane Transit Authority (STA)
Authority: STA Bylaws
Contact: Geralyn Garberg, Executive Assistant; Jan Watson Clerk of the Authority 509- 325 -6000
Term Period: one year subject to re- appointment. Two delegates, and an alternate if desired.
SV Delegates:
2003 -2005: Dick Denenny; expires 12 -31 -05 Diana Wilhite; withdrew 12 16 03
Rich Munson; expires 12 -31 -05
2006: Dick Denenny; Rich Munson
2007: Dick Denenny, Rich Munson
2008: Dick Denenny and Rich Munson
Sub committees of the STA:
Finance, Planning & Administration, 2003: Dick Denenny
Operations & Customer Service, 2003:
Light Rail Steering, 2003:
Board Task Force, 2003: Dick Denenny
TPA (Hotel Advisory Committee) Tourism Promotion Area
SV Council appoints 2 members and one ex- officio. All nominees must be operators or employees of
lodging business within Spokane County
After initial term, three -year terms (Terms start first of April)
2004: Liz Beck (appt'd 7- 13 -04); expires 3 -31 -07
Jeff Fox (appt'd 2 -2404: expires [unknown]
Harry Sladich (appt'd 2- 24 -04); expires 3 -31 -07 — RESIGNED
Steve Taylor, ex- officio (term 2 -24 -04 thru 3- 31 -07)
2005: Jody Sander (appt'd 7- 12 -05); expires 3 -31 -07
2006: Jody Sander, expires 3 -31 -07
Liz Beck, expires 3 -31 -07
Steve Taylor, ex- officio, expires 3 -31 -07
2008: Bill Gothmann, and re- appointed Liz Beck and Jody Sander
Weed & Seed — Bill Gothmann — appointed 2 -14 -06 [committee no longer in existence]
Page 7 of 7
RCW 9A.84.030: Disorderly conduct.
RCW 9A.84.030
Disorderly conduct.
(1) A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person:
(a) Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault;
(b) Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without lawful authority;
(c) Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; or
of:
Page 1 of 1
(d)(i) Intentionally engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct or makes unreasonable noise, within five hundred feet
(A) The location where a funeral or burial is being performed;
(B) A funeral home during the viewing of a deceased person;
(C) A funeral procession, if the person described in this subsection (1)(d) knows that the funeral procession is taking
place; or
(D) A building in which a funeral or memorial service is being conducted; and
(ii) Knows that the activity adversely affects the funeral, burial, viewing, funeral procession, or memorial service.
(2) Disorderly conduct is a misdemeanor.
[2007 c 2 § 1; 1975 1st ex.s. c 260 § 9A.84.030.1
Notes:
Effective date -- 2007 c 2: 'This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or
safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [February 2,
2007]." [2007 c 2 § 2.]
4/14/2008
Page 1 of 1
Chris Bainbridge
From: Mike Jackson
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 11:04 AM
To: City Council; Dave Mercier; Chris Bainbridge
Subject: FW: panhandler committee
I FYI. MJ
Mike Jackson
Deputy City Manager
City of Spokane Valley
11707 East Sprague Ave. Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
509 - 688 -0250
From: rogalskyron @juno.com [mailto:rogalskyron @juno.com]
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 9:21 AM
To: Mike Jackson
Subject: panhandler committee
I [ would have liked to be on the committee but i don't have the time.
[ realize the majority of folks applying to the committee will most likely be from middle to upper income families. People
who most likely don't have a clue what it is like to be destitute. That's why I hope this committee invites and have folks
that are panhandling, on the committee as well. If your uncomfortable with that maybe invite as many as possible to a
[uncheon or two and discuss what their concerns are, since it is these folks you are talking about.
Ron R.
lick to create your dream holiday trip now.
4/14/2008
Page 1 of 2
Chris Bainbridge
From: Richard Munson
Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 9:11 AM
To: potterbyran @yahoo.com
Cc: Bill Gothmann; Branch, Carolbelle; Cary Driskell; Chris Bainbridge; Dave Mercier; Dempsey, Rose; Diana Wilhite; Dick
Denenny; Gary Schimmels; Mike Connelly; Mike Jackson; Passmore Sue; Richard Munson; Steve Taylor
Subject: RE: panhandling
Dear Mr. Potter,
Thank you for your input. I will make sure our Panhandling Ad Hoc committee receives your email.
Best Regards,
RICH
Richard M. Munson
Mayor
'—ity of Spokane
509- 688 -0034
Valley
=rom: Sue Passmore
lent: Monday, April 07, 2008 8:26 AM
ro: Richard Munson
iubject: FW: panhandling
'rom: Chris Thompson On Behalf Of City Hall
lent: Monday, April 07, 2008 8:05 AM
ro: Sue Passmore
iubject: FW: panhandleing
Chris Thompson
;ity of Spokane Valley
11707 E. Sprague Ave., Ste. 106
>pokane Valley, 99206
)irect: (509) 688 -0171
=ax: (509) 921 -1008
:thompson spokanevalley.org
Neb: www.spokanevalley.org
:rom: BYRON POTTER [mailto:potterbyran @yahoo.com]
;ent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 2:39 PM
"o: City Hall
iubject: panhandleing
✓ Iayor Munson, I saw the story of that panhandler on KXLY -4, I do have an idea of how to help him. He needs to check
►ut U.G.M. on E. Trent. They have what he needs. That is the best advise I have for him. If his willing. Byron Potter
t/7/2008
- �y
Since I have seen your names involved with the "panhandlers" and looking
for a way to solve it.
Here are a few ideas I have.
1) You can always start out by giving citations or warnings,of
course this would have to follow up with other measures by police
or special area "watchdogs"
2) Since these people are looking mostly for money, why can't we
have special keys made and give them out to people standing on
the corner.
They would be different colors and each color represents a certain
fast food establishment or maybe even a grocery store. They
could also be made in different shapes. EXAMPLE
Mc Donalds Yellow ARBY'S Green
Taco Time Red Burger King Blue
We citizens could purchase these "keys" for $1.00 a piece and
give them out to these people so that they could go and purchase
food. Again, we don't know what they use money for when we
give it to them. This way, they could only go to a designated
store and only purchase something to eat.
Panhandle Committee Agenda
June 26, 2008
I. Introductions
II. Social Services available — Connie Nelson
a. Getting out the word of what's available
III. Law enforcement tools
a. Selection of tools
IV. Brainstorming on Public Education campaign
CORE PROGRAMS
Clothing Bank
♦ Provides new and gently used clothing and some personal hygiene items to individuals and
families.
♦ Additional programs furnish kitchen kits, towel and sheet sets to families transitioning from
homelessness.
♦ Car seat program offers a new car seat to families that cannot afford them.
Emergency Services
♦ Provides short-term emergency services for housing, utilities, transportation, and medical /dental
needs. Recently received a small grant for additional housing support.
♦ Emergency Services also provides community voicemail, a collaborative effort with the Spokane
Neighborhood Action Program (SNAP). The service allows homeless individuals and others
without phone service to have a phone number for making appointments, securing housing and
other life necessities.
Food Bank
♦ Provides food and non -food items to families in need.
♦ Families may access the food bank once a month. A typical food basket includes both perishable
and shelf - stable items, as available. Some non -food items, such as personal hygiene and cleaning
supplies, are also offered when available. Food baskets include both pre - packaged commodity
and client self - select items.
♦ Cooking classes, a collaborative partnership with WSU County Extension, are also offered on
Wednesdays, including one for the Russian community. The classes demonstrate simple,
inexpensive meals prepared from food bank items, which the participants can eat and take home
leftovers.
♦ Family members with a birthday are also given a cake and encouraged to select a gift from the
"birthday" table.
♦ The food bank is one of 4 sites in Spokane County providing the Community Supplemental Food
Program, a prescription -based food package to seniors (60 +) and 5 -year old children.
Protective Payee
♦ Provides budget counseling and assists in overcoming barriers to employment for public assistance
and social security recipients.
♦ The protective payee program assures clients financial commitments are made by paying their bills
from their income sources, i.e. public assistance or social security.
♦ Clients may be referred to other SVP services as appropriate or given referral to other community
resources.
SEASONAL PROGRAMS
Have A Heart
The Have A Heart program ensures children receive a box of Valentines for sharing in the
classroom. Families may pick up their Valentines during the first two weeks of February.
Boxed Valentines are also made available to area teachers for those students unable to access SVP.
Smart Start
♦ Appreciating the importance of grade appropriate "tools ", this program provides children with a
backpack of new school supplies for that first day of school.
♦ Backpacks include binders, paper, writing and coloring implements that are age appropriate.
♦ Families are required to attend one life skills class prior to receiving the backpacks. The 2007 class
topics included money management, parenting, helping kids with school, germ warfare and two
classes in Russian.
♦ Children pick out their own backpack and receive a pre - packaged kit of supplies to accompany it.
♦ Area teachers may also request supplies throughout the year as needed.
Rev. 6/25/08
Valley Social Services
Coats 4 Kids
♦ The Coats 4 Kids distribution, held the last week of October through the first week of November,
ensures that no one greets the winter without a warm coat.
♦ Clients may also receive hats, gloves, mufflers, boots and other cold- weather gear, as available.
♦ Coats are donated throughout the year, but the biggest push for donations comes in the first week
of September. Winter apparel received at other times through the clothing bank is stored offsite in
anticipation of this clothing drive.
♦ Each individual receives at minimum a single coat, although other winter gear may be available
depending on supply.
Season of Sharing
♦ The Season of Sharing (SOS) program provides gently used and new gifts to individuals and
families for gifting during the winter holiday season.
♦ Non - denominational, this event helps family celebrate their holidays with age and gender
appropriate gifts.
♦ Families are assisted by area students in selecting gifts specific to their needs from a variety of
tables.
♦ Beyond the gifts, additional food and non -food commodities are given out, as available. Typical
non -food items have included personal hygiene, towel sets, blankets and home / holiday
decorations.
PARTNER AGENCIES
In addition to SVP- sponsored events and programs, the center is home to other community resources
They provide additional services to our families, making the facility nearly a one -stop resource center.
Alight Counseling
♦ Located on SVP's lower floor, Alight provides counseling to individuals, groups, couples, families,
seminars and trainings.
♦ They specialize in addiction, abuse, anger, anxiety, communication, depression, grief /loss,
guilt /shame, relationships and stress.
ESD 101
♦ ESD 101 provides a fast -track program for students to re -enter high school.
♦ Center for School to Work operates The NET School: Alternatives to Education and Training, a
high school re -entry program for students at risk of not graduating from high school. The NET
School enrolls both high school dropouts and students deficient in credits and provides intensive
instruction so they may prepare to pass the WASL and earn a high school diploma.
♦ Through in -class education and one -on -one mentoring, students short on credits receive a credit
waiver that is their ticket back into high school.
♦ Students are referred into the program through self - referral and through school counselors.
♦ The Center for School to Work also manages programs to help youth successfully transition from
school into careers. Through School to Work Connections, 16 -21 year olds aiming to complete
their high school education and /or enter the workforce can receive job leads, career planning and
guidance, paid work experience, resume writing, dress for success, interviewing techniques and
access to internships.
LUTHERAN COMMUNITY SERVICES
♦ Provided on an outreach basis, LCS provides a social worker to assist with domestic violence issues
and access to legal services.
NICOTINE ANONYMOUS (NA)
♦ NA is a self -help group designed to help people quit nicotine.
♦ The philosophy follows the 12 -step process, successfully used in Alcoholics Anonymous.
Rev. 6/25/08 2 Valley Social Services
SPOKANE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTION PROGRAM (SNAP) SNAP provides energy assistance from
November through the following January.
♦ Assistance is need -based and subject to available funding, which fluctuates through the winter
season.
♦ Applicants are eligible once per year
SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DEPARTMENT
Public Health Nurses & In Steps Maternity programs
♦ General field public health nurses visit parents and children aged 0 -3 in their homes
♦ Provide information about health, growth and development, and community resources
Women, Infants & Children program (WIC)
♦ Eligible pregnant and breastfeeding women, infants, and children up to age 5 receive nutrition
services, including:
✓ Nutrition evaluation, education and counseling
✓ Breastfeeding tips and support
✓ Help finding health care and other social services
✓ Free food checks to purchase healthy foods, promoting health, growth and development
THEATER ARTS FOR CHILDREN (TAC)
♦ Theater Arts for Children promotes and strives to provide the greatest opportunity possible for all
ages to participate and enjoy the benefits of live theater through the hands -on experience in the
entire theater process.
♦ Participation is open to anyone, from children 3 -103, to be involved with acting, stage production
and lighting.
♦ No experience required, will work along those with more experience.
♦ The TAC theatre contains 150 seats.
VALLEYFEST
♦ A free community event where children and families come together to celebrate the Valley
community, ValleyFest will be held this year at Mirabeau Park, Sept 191h, 20th and 21".
♦ Valleyfest's day starts with a Fun Run followed by a Pancake Breakfast.
♦ The Valleyfest Parade is on Friday and includes community floats and local school bands.
♦ Valleyfest also includes entertainment specifically designed for and performed by children. All of
these activities are provided at no cost to Valleyfest participants.
Valleyfest also makes space available during the festival for non - profit organizations located in the
Spokane Valley to promote their operations and host booths with activities for children. In
addition, businesses serving the area promote their services and provide activities for children and
their families.
WSU NURSING
♦ Students from the WSU College of Nursing provide periodic screenings and educational instruction
on a walk -in basis. They also provide flu shots during the Fall season.
♦ Although the schedule and topics change, they generally are available on Wednesday afternoons
to mimic the food bank and clothing bank schedules.
♦ For the first quarter of 2008, they provided instruction /screenings on diabetic nutrition,
monitoring blood pressure and glucose, foot massage, adult immunization, exercise and
monitoring your medications.
♦ They also assist with Wednesday cooking classes to provide education for specific health concerns
such as obesity, high blood pressure and diabetes.
Rev. 6/25/08
Valley Social Services
CHILDREN'S
The mission of the Children's Home Society is to develop healthy children, create strong families, build
engaged communities, and speak and advocate for children. Services include:
Adoption Resource Center
♦ Promotes the health and well -being of those whose lives have been touched by adoption. The
ARC offers pre- and post- adoption counseling, specializing in adoptive or foster families with later -
placed children. The ARC also provides information, support, counseling, advocacy, search
assistance, and education for triad members (adopted persons, birth parents, adoptive parents) and
professionals working in the adoption field.
Child and Family Counseling
♦ CHSW professionals offer counseling services in multiple settings to children and families who face
a variety of challenges. Counseling can help families build on their strengths, address challenges
and improve family relationships. CHSW is a Licensed Community Mental Health Agency,
providing counseling, case management and supportive services to families in Spokane County.
Spokane Family Resource Center
♦ This community -based family support center offers a wide variety of activities and services for
families. By providing information, education and support, as well as links to other available
community resources, the Center seeks to promote the self - sufficiency and well -being of families.
Parents As Teachers
♦ PAT is a curriculum- focused birth to three - year -old program designed to develop school readiness
and family support. Parents receive information regarding their child's social, emotional,
intellectual, language and motor development. They learn ways and techniques to encourage the
positive growth and development of their child.
Relatives Raising Relatives
♦ Today many grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc., find themselves unexpectedly raising grandchildren,
nieces, nephews, etc. This program provides education, support and information for these families,
whose children have often experienced significant losses.
The Nurturing Program
♦ The Nurturing Program is an interactive family enrichment program. The goal of the program is to
provide caregivers and children the tools they need to create and sustain a nurturing home life
thereby reducing the risk of further out -of -home placement and increasing family management.
'HUTTON SETTLEMENT
♦ Provides residential care for children, ages 5 -18 but a child may remain through high school
graduation.
♦ The referral age is 5 -14 and family groups are welcome.
♦ Referrals may come from parents, grandparents, other family members, DSHS, case mangers
and /or custodial parents.
♦ Walsh and Associates is dedicated to assisting people with developmental disabilities to achieve the
highest practical fulfillment of lifelong ambitions and dreams. Services to clients include:
✓ Residential Services
Offer 24 -hour supervision and assistance to individuals who have significant cognitive,
medical or behavioral needs. Residential services emphasize positive supports and a belief
in helping individuals live as independently as possible.
✓ Day Program Services
The Community Access Program offers individuals the opportunity to integrate into the
various activities and events of their local community. This may include grocery shopping
and other daily tasks, or, it may include participation in recreational and social events such
as city council meetings, local sporting events, camping, or even personal vacations.
✓ Employment Services
The Employment Programs offer individuals unique opportunities to earn wages and gain
valuable on- the -job experiences. Services consist of job searches, interview preparation, as
well as job coaching.
Rev. 6/25/08 4 Valley Social Services
Information from Corporal Mark Nygren, June 26, 2008:
On 6/11/08 1 and other deputies responded to 15735 E Broadway on a Persons
Bothering call. Complaint was of transients behind the liquor store and Fashion
Bug digging in the garbage, drinking alcohol, and urinating in public.
Other deputies contacted 2 transient types behind the store. One was so
intoxicated that he had soiled himself and medics were called for a medical
evaluation. He was eventually transported to Detox.
I contacted 2 transient types out front of the business.
The first one was truly a transient. He was very intoxicated. I found out he has
felony arrest warrants out of Florida that were not extraditable. I eventually let
him go without any enforcement action as there was no law violation I was able
to determine had occurred that I could enforce.
The other subject was a transient type, but was not a transient. He is a white
male named "Charlie ". Charlie is a convicted felon with an extremely long arrest
record. Charlie had four outstanding warrants; a felony, 2 misdemeanors, and a
felony DOC Escape warrant. Charlie is a self- admitted life long alcoholic.
Charlie initially lied to me about his name to avoid being arrested. I confirmed his
identity using local and state law enforcement databases. Enroute to jail,
Charlie told me some interesting things about his life and his "profession ".
Charlie is NOT a transient. He lives in Spokane at the Red Lion Motor Inn.
Sometimes he lives with his wife, who has a house in the west central area.
Charlie is a professional panhandler. He has a solicitors license through
Spokane city, and calls his business "Cardboard Expressions ".
Charlie takes the STA bus out to the Spokane Valley to panhandle. Charlie said
he initially went to the valley knowing he has warrants, trying to "hide out ". He
figured the cops on the valley are less familiar with him than the Spokane cops
and he could lie about who he is.
But, Charlie says he likes the valley much better because:
1) No rules - There are too many rules in Spokane and the Spokane cops
enforce them.
2) More lucrative - People in the valley are more generous than people in
Spokane. Charlie said he averages 30 to 40 dollars an hour panhandling in
the valley. He said, "all the pretty women in their 30s and 40s give me 20 dollar
bills ". The most lucrative spots are by Wal -Mart and the Valley mall.
.-:06
While booking Charlie, I talked to a SPD Officer about transients. He told me the
Spokane Police Department administration is telling officers to crack down on
transients and to tell them to go "east of Havana" to panhandle.
(this was a single officer's off hand remark)
,rte
June 26, 2008, from Corporal Mark Nygren
Chief VanLeuven requested a list of possible tools for law enforcement to combat the
panhandling problem. Chief VanLeuven also gave me a packet of materials to look at.
wish to make a point regarding the first 2 articles regarding the "Criminalization of
Homelessness" and "Illegal to be Homeless ".
THE MAJORITY OF PANHANDLING CONTACTS WE MAKE IN THE SPOKANE
VALLEY ARE WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HOMELESS.
These panhandlers are intentionally misleading people to believe they are homeless,
stranded, etc. While they may be alcoholics, have mental or physical disabilities, or any
other number of problems and /or reasons they choose to panhandle, most are NOT
homeless.
I have spoken with a number of deputies and developed a list of potential tools for law
enforcement to use to deal with the panhandling issue.
Tools
1. Criminalize Panhandling
This would be an all out ban. It would probably be the most effective tool.
2. Regulate Panhandling
Similar to the city of Spokane, require a license to panhandle. With regulations,
certain activites could be prohibited, certain locations be prohibited, certain times be
prohibited.
3. Criminalize Public Intoxication
Currently there is not a statute against being drunk in a public place. The vast
majority of panhandlers we encounter are drunk. The drunk ones are also more likely to
be aggressive and cause other problems. While this would not address all panhandling
situations, it is a collateral attack on the problem.
4. Criminalize Open Container (of Alcohol)
Open container is currently an infraction. To make it a criminal offense would
give deputies a greater range of enforcement options.
(Open container used to be a misdemeanor under RCW. It was changed to an
infraction about 5 years ago or so. I think that originally open container was a
misdemeanor under SVMC, and at some point it was changed to an infraction to mirror
RCW.)
5. Make it Illegal (infraction) to give anything to a panhandler
This would address the supply side of the equation. A deputy would still be
required to observe the violation to act on it.
6. Make it illegal for convenience stores to.sell 24 oz. beers
This is the favored choice of transients, especially those in the Sullivan / 1 -90
area. Deputies on numerous occasions watch panhandlers get money at a freeway off
.-q
ramp, then walk to the nearest convenience store and buy a 24 oz. bottle of beer.
7. Strengthen the current Aggressive Begging statute SVMC 8.25.020
Many panhandling problems are caused by panhandlers violating traffic
ordinances, like stepping into the street, panhandling from the center median. The
definition of Aggressive Begging could be changed so that if the panhandler commits
any violation of the traffic laws or obstructs traffic in any way, or accepts anything of
value from anyone located in a vehicle, it is (by definition) Aggressive Begging.
8. Use the Public Nuisance Law (RCW 9.66 adopted as SVMC 8.25.050)
This was recommended by Joe Schultz at the last Panhandling Committee
meeting. I have never used this law in my 20 years of law enforcement but can't say
exactly why and am not sure of any case law issues. After taking a look at it, it does
have some interesting advantages.
a) by RCW, it "is a crime against the order and economy of the state ". This
makes the STATE, or in our case the CITY the victim, so a victim willing to press
charges would not be required.
b) Public Nuisance is a very broad statute which encompasses a number of
issues associated with panhandling and transients.
(see pertinent parts of the statue below)
To be effective, and to officially make the Spokane Valley the "victim ", I think a
resolution by the city council stating how certain activities under Public Nuisance
adversely affect the city would be needed or desired. Then, within the confines of that
resolution, deputies could enforce the Public Nuisance law against the activities the city
council has resolved.
9.66.010 - Public Nuisance
A public nuisance is a crime against the order and economy of the state. Every place
(1) Wherein any fighting between people or animals or birds shall be conducted, or,
(2) Wherein any intoxicating liquors are kept for unlawful use, sale or distribution; or,
(3) Where vagrants resort and
Every act unlawfully done and every omission to perform a duty, which act or omission
(1) Shall annoy, injure or endanger the safety, health, comfort, or repose of any considerable
number of persons; or,
(2) Shall offend public decency; or,
(3) Shall unlawfully interfere with, befoul, obstruct, or tend to obstruct, or render dangerous for
passage, a lake, navigable river, bay, stream, canal or basin, or a public park, square, street, alley,
highway, or municipal transit vehicle or station; or,
(4) Shall in any way render a considerable number of persons insecure in life or the use of
property,,
Shall be a public nuisance.
9.66.030 - Maintaining or permitting nuisance.
Every person who shall commit or maintain a public nuisance, for which no special punishment is
prescribed, or who shall willfully omit or refuse to perform any legal duty relating to the removal of such
nuisance; and every person who shall let, or permit to be used, any building or boat, or portion thereof,
knowing that it is intended to be, or is being used, for committing or maintaining any such nuisance, shall
be guilty of a misdemeanor.
I.
II.
Panhandling Committee
Agenda
June 12, 2008
Introductions:
Bill Gothmann
Ian Robertson
Maggie Crabtree
Connie Nelson
Odin Langford
Rose Dempsey
Joe Shutz
Cathy Neet
Todd Babcock
Law Enforcement -- Spokane Valley Police Chief Rick VanLeuven
III. Articles
a. Impressions on DOJ pamphlet, "Panhandling"
b. Articles on homeless
c. Article on fraud
d. Parking meter collections system
e. Others
IV. Discussion of Social Services Required
a. What are the needs?
b. Are the needs available?
c. Speakers?
V. Next Considerations?
VI. Next Meeting?
4�, G9
C .
A Guide to Regulating Panhandling
Part III
Page 1 of 6
TABLE OF CONTENTS HOME
4
A Guide to Regulatii3 g Panhandling
by Kent S Sche idegger
Part III - Suggested Ordinance
SUGGESTED ORDINANCE
In the preceding parts of this booklet, we have discussed the reasons for regulating panhandling, the
legal background, and the outcomes of some specific cases. For those cities that wish to move forward
in this area, this part suggests specific language which has been drafted to avoid the problems of earlier
enactments, while still providing the tools to deal with the problem.
The first five sections of the suggested ordinance prohibit aggressive panhandling and fraudulent
solicitation, without an outright ban on panhandling. A cautious strategy would be to stop at that point.
A more aggressive strategy would be to adopt a permit system. Section six suggests language for cities
willing to devote the necessary resources for this approach.
§ 1. Definitions. "Panhandling," for the purpose of this chapter, is any solicitation made in person
requesting an immediate donation of money. Purchase of an item for an amount far exceeding its value,
under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand that the purchase is in substance a
donation, is a donation for the purpose of this chapter. Panhandling does not include passively standing
or sitting with a sign or other indication that one is seeking donations, without addressing any
solicitation to any specific person other than in response to an inquiry by that person.
• CONMEEN'T: This section defines panhandling but does not prohibit it. For the reasons stated
earlierl71) the constitutionality of an outright ban is questionable. The definition treats individual
beggars and organized charities alike. The Salvation Army and similar solicitations are excluded
from the definition by the particularly nonthreatening manner in which they solicit and not by
their status as charities.
§ 2. Time of Panhandling. Any person who panhandles after sunset or before sunrise is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
http://Www.cjlforg/publctns/Panhandling/PIIE[.htm
6/10/2008
A Guide to Regulating Panhandling
Page 2 of 6
e
• COMMENT: Nighttime is inherently more dangerous and more frightening. Panhandling at night
is therefore inherently more coercive.
§ 3. Place of Panhandling. Any person who panhandles when the person solicited is in any of the
following places is guilty of a misdemeanor:
a) At any bus stop or train stop;
b) In any public transportation vehicle or facility;
c) In any vehicle on the street; or
d) On private property, unless the panhandler has permission from the owner or occupant.
• COMMENT: It is often said in defense of panhandling that the person solicited can simply say
"no" and walk away.(72) There are many instances where he cannot. Users of public transportation
are particularly vulnerable. Vehicles stuck in traffic or stopped at lights are also captive audiences.
In New York's Central Park, drivers must pay extortion money to aggressive panhandlers who
remember which cabs do not give and attack them.
This section also enables private property owners to keep panhandlers off their property. There are some
state court decisions which equate large shopping centers to public streets for the purpose of political
and religious advocacy,l73i but this line of cases has not yet been extended to panhandling.
§ 4. Manner of Panhandling. Any person who panhandles in any of the following manners is guilty of
a misdemeanor:
a) By coming within three feet of the person solicited, until that person has indicated that he does
wish to make a donation;
b) By blocking the path of the person solicited along a sidewalk or street,
c) By following a person who walks away from the panhandler;
d) By using profane or abusive language, either during the solicitation or following a refusal;
e) By Panhandling in a group of two or more persons; or
f) By any statement, gesture, or other communication which a reasonable person in the situation of
the person solicited would perceive to be a threat.
• COMMENT: Aggressive panhandling is by far the worst kind. Any person who gives out of fear
Of the panhandler rather than a genuine desire to donate has, in reality, been robbed. Professor
Kelling found that two- thirds of all riders of the New York subway have been intimidated into
giving.04i This is a staggering toll of victimization. It explains the great wave of public support
for Bernhardt Goetz, the "subway vigilante."
This section addresses some of the ways that a panhandler can impose subtle duress without using the
http://www-cjlforg/publctnsManlmdling/Plil.htm 6/10/2008
A Guide to Regulating Panhandling Page 3 of 6
kind of overt force or threat which would support a prosecution for robbery.
§ 5. False or Misleading Solicitation.
a) Any person who knowingly makes any false or misleading representation in the course of
soliciting a donation is guilty of a misdemeanor. False or misleading representations
include, but are not limited to, the following:
1) Stating that the donation is needed to meet a specific need, when the solicitor
already has sufficient funds to meet that need and does not disclose that fact;
2) Stating that the donation is needed to meet a need which does not exist;.
3) Stating that the solicitor is from out of town and stranded, when that is not true;
4) Wearing a military uniform or other indication of military service, when the
solicitor is neither a present nor former member of the service indicated;
5) Wearing or displaying an indication of physical disability, when the solicitor does
not suffer the disability indicated;
6) Use of any makeup or device to simulate any deformity; or
7) Stating that the solicitor is homeless, when he is not.
. CONB ENT: A person who solicits money by misleading representations is attempting
the crime of theft by false pretenses. Such conduct is indisputably within the power of the
state to prohibit An ordinance specifically tailored to fraudulent solicitation and listing
some of the more common ruses can simplify the task of police and prosecutors.
b) Any person who solicits a donation stating that the funds are needed for a specific
purpose and then spends the funds received for a different purpose is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
. COMMENT: This is probably the single most common fraud. This subdivision simplifies
prosecution by eliminating the requirement that the panhandler intends to spend the money
on something else at the time he receives it
c) This section establishes a single offense. Evidence which establishes beyond a
reasonable doubt that the defendant violated the section is sufficient for conviction
and need not establish which subdivision was violated.
. COMMENT: A panhandler who solicits money for food and promptly buys drugs instead
has violated either subdivision (a)(1), if he had the drug money before soliciting, or (more
likely) subdivision (b), if he spent the food money on drugs. This problem is very similar to
the annoying old question of whether a thief committed larceny, embezzlement, or theft by
false pretenses.(75) A unified statute is the answer. As long as the defendant is clearly guilty
of one, the distinctions between them are immaterial.06i
http://www.cjlforg/publctns anbandling/P-UI.htm 1 6/10/2008
A Guide to Regulating Panhandling
Page 4 of 6
c�
§ 6. Permit Requirement.
a) No person shall panhandle on five or more days in a single calendar year without a
permit issued by the police department. A person who has been issued a permit shall keep it
on his person at all times while panhandling and show it to any peace officer upon request.
No person whose permit has been revoked shall panhandle for a period of two years
following the revocation. Any person who violates this subdivision is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
b) The police department shall issue the permit, without fee, to any eligible person who
presents himself at the central police station, states his true name, presents a photo
identification or signs a declaration under penalty of perjury that he has no such
identification, and permits himself to be photographed and fingerprinted.
c) A person is ineligible for a permit if and only if within the past five years he (1) has been
convicted of two or more violations of this chapter, (2) has had a permit revoked pursuant to
subdivisions (e) or (f) of this section, or (3) has been convicted of two or more offenses
under the law of any jurisdiction which involve aggressive or intimidating behavior while
panhandling or false or misleading representations while panhandling.
d) If the police department is unable to determine eligibility within 24 hours of the
application, the department shall issue, a permit good for 30 days and determine eligibility
for a regular permit before the temporary permit expires. The regular permit shall expire
three years from the date of issuance. Along with the permit, the police department shall
give the applicant a copy of this chapter.
e) Any person who makes any false or misleading representation while applying for a
permit under this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction of violation of this
subdivision, the police department shall revoke any permit issued to the defendant under
this section.
f) If a permit is issued to a person under this section and that person subsequently commits and is
convicted of a violation of any provision of this chapter, the police department shall revoke the
permit.
. CONEViENT: A large portion of the panhandling in many areas is done by a small number of
"regulars" who panhandle as an occupation. Cities routinely require permits to engage in
occupations, and the Supreme Court has stated quite expressly that once a speaker "undertakes the
collection of funds ... he enters a realm where a reasonable registration or identification
requirement may be imposed." (77-)
This example limits the permit requirements to the "regulars," defined as panhandling on five different
days in a year, for two reasons. First, it reduces the administrative burden on the police, limiting the
permit requirement to the group for which it is most needed. Second, it exempts that exceedingly rare
beggar whose story about being from out of town and stranded is actually true.
Charging a fee for the permit would raise serious constitutional questions.(78) We recommend that no
fee be charged.
Without a permit requirement, enforcement of the law against aggressive and fraudulent panhandling
http://www.cjlforg/publctns/Panhandiing/PIH.htm 6/10/2008
A Guide to Regulating Panhandling
Page 5 of 6
would be difficult, if not impossible. After convicting a panhandler of a violation, he would be back on
the street after a light sentence, doing it again. With a permit system, a conviction of aggressive or
fraudulent panhandling leads to ineligibility or revocation of the permit. From that point, the police can
arrest that person for panhandling alone. Thus, the difficulty of proof to establish the substantive
violation need only be surmounted once or twice per panhandler.
The sample ordinance requires two violations to be ineligible for a permit. While the old axiom holds
that ignorance of the law is no excuse, it would be unduly harsh to apply that principle here. The first
violation provides fair warning. Once a permit is issued, however, the panhandler is given a copy of the
law and has actual notice. (A city should make some provision for illiterates and non - English speakers.)
From that point, one violation warrants a revocation.
The permitting process consists mainly of identification and a records check_ Provisions must be made
for people who have no identification.(79) A false statement of identity or of not having identification is
a violation and a ground for revocation.
The main problem in implementing the permit system is resources. Where a city has already adopted
community -based policing and where it has an active and aroused downtown merchant community,
identifying the "regulars" should present little problem. There will still, however, be the administrative
burden of issuing the permits and prosecuting the violations. If the city is really committed to restoring
the people's right to use the streets and transportation facilities without fear of aggressive panhandlers,
the permit system offers the best chance of achieving that goal.
TO TOP OF PAGE
Notes
71. Part I. D., above. [Go Back]
72. See Heffron, note 4,452 U. S., at 657, n. 1 (Brennan, J., dissenting in
part.) [Go Back]
73. Robins v. Pruneyard Shopping Center, 23 Cal. 3d 899, 592 P. 2d 341
(1979), affirmed in Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74
(1980). [Go Back]
74. Young, note 25, at 149. [Go_Back]
75. See LaFave, note 47, § 8.8(c). [Go Back]
76. See, e.g., People V. Nor Woods, 37 Cal. 2d 584, 586, 233 P. 2d 397
(1951). [Go-Back]
77. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 540 (1945). [Go _Back]
http://www.cjlforg/publc-tns/Panhandling/PlUlt,a
6/10/2008
A Guide to Regulating Panhandling
78. See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105 (1943); Forsyth County v.
Nationalist Movement, 120 L. Ed. 2d 101, 112 S. Ct. 2395 (1992). [Go Back.]
79. See Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352 (1983). [Go _Back]
http: / /www.cjlforg/publctr
Page 6 of 6
i
A DREAM DENIED:
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF HOMELESSNESS IN U.S. CITIES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The housing and homelessness crisis in the United States has worsened in 2005, with many cities reporting an
increase in demands for emergency shelter. In 2005, 71 percent of the 24 cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of
Mayors reported a 6 percent increase in requests for emergency shelter._ Even while the requests for emergency
shelter have increased, cities do not have adequate shelter space to meet the need. In the 24 cities surveyed in the
U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness Homelessness Survey for 2005, an average of 14 percent of
overall
emergency shelter requests went unmet, with 32 percent of shelter requests by homeless families unmet. The lack of
available shelter space — a situation made worse by the Gulf Coast hurricanes - leaves many homeless persons with
no choice but to struggle to survive on the streets of our cities.
Over the course of the year, 3.5 million Americans experience homelessness._ The number of people living on the
streets threatens to. grow as thousands of people are now homeless as a result of Hurricane Katrina. According to the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, as of late November, approximately 50,000 hurricane evacuees remained
in hotels and motels awaiting alternative housing options.
An unfortunate trend in cities around the country over the past 25 years has been to turn to the criminal justice
system to respond to people living in public spaces. This trend includes measures that target homeless persons by
making it illegal to perform life - sustaining activities in public. These measures prohibit activities such as
sleeping/camping, eating, sitting, and begging in public spaces, usually including criminal penalties for violation, of
these laws.
This report is the National Coalition for the Homeless' (NCH) fourth report on the criminalization of homelessness
and the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty's (NLCHP) eighth report on the topic._ The report
documents the top 20 worst offenders of 2005, as well as initiatives in some cities that are more constructive
approaches to the issue of people living in public spaces. The report includes the results of a survey of laws and
practices in 224 cities around the country, as well as a survey of lawsuits from various jurisdictions in which those
measures have been challenged.
Types of Criminalization Measures
The criminalization of homelessness takes many forms, including:
• Legislation that makes it illegal to sleep, sit, or store personal belongings in public spaces
in cities where people are forced to live in public spaces;
• Selective enforcement of more neutral laws, such as loitering or open container laws,
against homeless persons;
• Sweeps of city areas where homeless persons are living to drive them out of the area,
frequently resulting in the destruction of those persons' personal property, including
important personal documents and medication; and
• Laws that punish people for begging or panhandling to move poor or homeless persons
out of a city or downtown area.
Criminalization Measures Have Increased
City ordinances frequently serve as a prominent tool to criminalize homelessness. Of the 224
cities surveyed for our report:
• 28% prohibit "camping" in particular public places in the city and 16% had city -wide
prohibitions on "camping."
27% prohibit sitting/lying in certain public places.
• 39% prohibit loitering in particular public areas and 16% prohibit loitering city -wide.
• 43% prohibit begging in particular public places; 45% prohibit aggressive panhandling
and 21 % have city -wide prohibitions on begging.
The trend of criminalizing homelessness appears to be growing. Of the 67 cities surveyed in
both NCH and NLCHP's last joint report in 2002 and in this report:
• There is a 12% increase laws prohibiting begging in certain public places and an 18%
increase in laws that prohibit aggressive panhandling.
• There is a 14% increase in laws prohibiting sitting or lying in certain public spaces.
• There is a 3% increase in laws prohibiting loitering, loafing, or vagrancy laws.
Another trend documented in the report is increased city efforts to target homeless persons
indirectly by placing restrictions on providers serving food to poor and homeless persons in
public spaces.
While cities are cracking down on homeless persons living in public spaces, according to the
latest U.S. Conference of Mayors Hunger and Homelessness report, cities do not have adequate
shelter to meet the need:
• 71% of the 24 cities surveyed by the U.S. Conference of Mayors reported a 6% increase
in requests for emergency shelter.
16% of overall emergency shelter requests went unmet and 32% of emergency shelter
requests by homeless families went unmet in cities surveyed.
The Meanest Cities
Although some of the report's top 20 meanest cities have made some efforts to address
homelessness in their communities, the punitive practices highlighted in the report impede
progress in solving the problem. The top 20 meanest cities were chosen based on the number of
anti- homeless laws in the city, the enforcement of those laws and severities of penalties, the
general political climate toward homeless people in the city, local advocate support for the
meanest designation, the city's history of criminalization measures, and the existence of pending
or recently enacted criminalization legislation in the city. Over the past year, the practices in the
following top 5 meanest cities stand out as some of the worst examples of inhumane city
treatment of homeless and poor people:
#1 Sarasota, FL. After two successive Sarasota anti - lodging laws were overturned as
unconstitutional by state courts, Sarasota passed a third law banning lodging outdoors. This
latest version appears to be explicitly aimed at homeless persons. One of the elements necessary
for arrest under the law is that the person "has no other place to live."
#2 Lawrence, KS. After a group of downtown Lawrence business leaders urged the city to cut
social services and pass ordinances to target homeless persons, the city passed three "civility"
ordinances, including an aggressive panhandling law, a law prohibiting trespass on rooftops, and
a law limiting sleeping or sitting on city sidewalks.
#3 Little Rock, AR. Homeless persons have reported being kicked out of bus stations in Little
Rock, even when they had valid bus tickets. Two homeless men reported that officers of the
Little Rock Police Department, in separate incidents, had kicked them out of the Little Rock Bus
Station, even after showing the police their tickets. In other instances, homeless persons have
been told that they could not wait at the bus station "because you are homeless."
#4 Atlanta, GA. Amid waves of public protest and testimony opposing the Mayor's proposed
comprehensive ban on panhandling, the City Council passed the anti- panhandling ordinance in
August 2005. In the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Atlanta stood firm in its resolve
to criminalize panhandlers. A Katrina evacuee who was sleeping in his car with his family after
seeking refuge in Atlanta was arrested for panhandling at a mall in the affluent Buckhead
neighborhood, even after he showed the police his Louisiana driver's license, car tag, and
registration as proof that he was a Katrina evacuee. In addition, during the first week in
December, the Atlanta Zoning Review Board approved a ban on supportive housing inside the
city limits.
#5 Las Vegas, NV. Even as the city shelters are overcrowded and the city's Crisis Intervention
Center recently closed due to lack of funding, the city continues to target homeless persons living
outside. The police conduct habitual sweeps of encampments which lead to extended jail time
for repeat misdemeanor offenders. In order to keep homeless individuals out of future parks, the
city considered privatizing the parks, enabling owners to kick out unwanted people. Mayor
Oscar Goodman fervently supported the idea, saying, "I don't want them there. They're not
going to be there. I'm not going to let it happen. They think I'm mean now; wait until the
homeless try to go over there."
Criminalization Measures Are Bad Policy and Violate Constitutional Rights
These practices that criminalize homelessness do nothing to address the underlying causes of
homelessness. Instead, they exacerbate the problem. They frequently move people away from
services. When homeless persons are arrested and charged under these measures, they develop a
criminal record, making it more difficult to obtain employment or housing. Further,
criminalization measures are not cost efficient. In a nine -city survey of supportive housing and
jail costs, jail costs were on average two to three times the cost of supportive housing._
Criminalization measures also raise constitutional questions and many of them violate the civil
rights of homeless persons. Courts have found certain criminalization measures unconstitutional:
• For example, when a city passes a law that places too many restrictions on begging, free
speech concerns are raised as courts have found begging to be protected speech under the
First Amendment.
• When a city destroys homeless persons' belongings or conducts unreasonable searches or
seizures of homeless persons, courts have found such actions violate the Fourth
Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
• Courts have found that a law that is applied to criminally punish a homeless person for
necessary life activities in public, like sleeping, violates that person's Eighth Amendment
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment if the person has nowhere else to
perform the activity.
• Laws that do not give people sufficient notice of prohibited conduct or allow for arbitrary
enforcement by law enforcement officials can be unconstitutionally vague. Courts have
found loitering and vagrancy laws unconstitutionally vague.
In addition to violating U.S. law, criminalization measures can violate international human rights
law. The United States has signed international human rights agreements, many of which
prohibit actions that target homeless people living in public spaces.
Constructive Alternatives to Criminalization
While many cities engage in practices that exacerbate the problem of homelessness by pursuing
criminalization measures, more constructive approaches do exist in some cities around the
country. The following examples. can serve as more constructive approaches to homelessness:
Broward County, FL. The Taskforce for Ending Homelessness, Inc., a not - for - profit
agency that provides outreach, education, and advocacy services for the homeless
population in Broward County, has partnered with the Ft. Lauderdale police department
to create an outreach team made up of police officers and a civilian outreach worker who
is formerly homeless. In its five years of operation, the Homeless Outreach Team has
had over 23,000 contacts with homeless individuals and has placed 11,384 people in
shelters. Estimates suggest that there are at least 2,400 fewer arrests each year as a result
of the Homeless Outreach Team.
• Pasadena, CA. The Pasadena Police Department and the Los Angeles Department of
Health have partnered to form the Homeless Outreach Psychiatric Evaluation (HOPE)
Team. The program created three teams of mental health and law enforcement officials
to provide compassionate assistance to persons in need of mental health assessment and
services.
• Ohio. In Ohio, the three largest cities, Columbus, Cleveland, and Cincinnati, fund teams
of trained workers to go out under the bridges and visit the encampments near the rivers
to assist those outside the service system. The critical component to the success of these
programs is that they do not put a lot of restrictions on the assistance that they are
offering and offer help at non - traditional hours when other services are closed, providing
a vital link between mainstream services and a population that resists congregate living.
Washington, DC. The downtown business community in Washington, D.C., created a
day center for homeless people who may not have anywhere to go during the day when
shelters are closed. Through the Downtown D.C. Business Improvement District,
business owners fund this day center that can serve up to 260 people per day, with indoor
seating, laundry, showers, and a morning meal.
San Diego, CA. In 1989, a public defender from San Diego created the nation's first
Homeless Court Program, which is a special monthly Superior Court session held at local
shelters for homeless defendants to resolve outstanding misdemeanor criminal cases.
Homeless courts expand access to the judicial system and assist homeless defendants by
addressing outstanding warrants and criminal offenses to remove barriers to benefits,
treatment, housing, and employment.
Recommendations
Instead of criminalizing homelessness, city governments, business groups, and law enforcement
officials should work with homeless people, providers, and advocates for solutions to prevent
and end homelessness.
Cities should dedicate more resources to more affordable housing, shelters, and homeless
services. To address street homelessness, cities should adopt or dedicate more resources to
outreach programs, such as the ones highlighted in this report. Further, cities and states can set
up programs to help homeless individuals apply for federal benefits to which they are entitled but
may not be receiving, such as Supplemental Security Income benefits for disabled individuals,
food stamps, or the earned income tax credit.
Business groups can play a positive role in helping to address the issue of homelessness. Instead
of advocating for criminalization measures, business groups can put resources to solutions to
homelessness, such as the Downtown D.C. Business Improvement District's day center.
The federal government can also play a role in encouraging cities to pursue more constructive
approaches to homelessness. Federal funding for homeless and poverty programs should be
conditioned on local government agreement not to punish homeless persons for conduct related
to their status.
As criminalization measures move people away from services, make it more difficult for people
to move out of homelessness, and cost more due to incarceration and law enforcement costs than
more constructive approaches, cities would be wise to seek constructive alternatives to
criminalization. When cities work with homeless persons and advocates toward solutions to
homelessness, instead of punishing those who are homeless or poor, everyone can benefit.
U.S. Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America's Cities:
A 24 -City Survey 5 (Dec. 2005).
Id.
Martha Burt et al., Helping America's Homeless49 -50 (The Urban Institute Press, 2001).
Federal Emergency Management Agency, "FEMA Extends Deadline for Evacuees, " Nov. 22,
2005, athttp:// Www. fema. gov /newslnewrelease -Printfema ?id= 20818.
National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH) and National Law Center on Homelessness &
Poverty (NLCHP), Illegal to be Homeless: The Criminalization of Homelessness in the United
States (2002); NCH, Illegal to be Homeless: The Criminalization of Homelessness in the United
States. (2003); NCH, Illegal to be Homeless: The Criminalization of Homelessness in the United
States (2004).
NLCHP, Go Directly to Jail: A report analyzing local anti - homeless ordinances (1991) (nine
cities); The Right to Remain Nowhere: A report on anti - homeless laws and litigation in 16 U.S.
cities (1993); No Homeless People Allowed: A report on anti - homeless laws, litigation and
alternatives in 49 U.S cities (1994); Mean Sweeps: A report on anti - homeless laws, litigation
and alternatives in 50 US. cities (1996); Out of Sight, Out of Mind? A report on anti - homeless
laws, litigation and alternatives in 50 US Cities; NCH and NLCHP, Illegal to Be Homeless:
The criminalization of homelessness in the U.S. (2002); Punishing Poverty: The Criminalization
of Homelessness, Litigation, and Recommendations for Solutions (2003).
See Lewin Group, "Costs of Serving Homeless Individuals in Nine Cities: Chart Book, " (2004)
available at http •/ /documents. csh. org /documents /kelcsh lewin2004. PDF.
HOME I FULL REPORT (pdf) I Acknowledgements ( Executive Summary 11. Trends in the
Criminalization of Homelessness 111. Criminalization Measures Violate Constitutional Rights
III Criminalization Measures Violate Human Rights Norms I IV. Constructive Alternatives to
Criminalization I V. T op 20 Meanest Cities I VI. Meanest Cities' Narratives I VII. Other Cities'
Narratives I VIII. CASES: Challenges to Restrictions on Sleeping, Camping, Sitting or Storing
Property in Public Place [FEDERAL] S[ TATS] I Challenges to Anti - Begging, Anti - Soliciting
and Anti - Peddling Laws I Challenges to Vagrancy Loitering and Curfew Laws I Challenges to
Restrictions on Feedings I Miscellaneous I IX. Prohibited Conduct Chart I X. APPENDIX:Survey
Questions I Sample Know Your Rights Card I Sources for Cily Narratives
1
I. (A) Introduction
This report, "Illegal to Be Homeless: The Criminalization of Homelessness in the United States,"
is the third annual report since 2002. This study documents the widespread trend of violations of
the basic human rights of people experiencing homelessness in 179 communities in 48 states,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Through the passage of possibly unconstitutional
laws, the "selective enforcement" of existing laws, arbitrary police practices, and discriminatory
public regulations, people experiencing homelessness face overwhelming hardships in addition
to their daily struggle for survival. Instead of spending precious public resources and funding to
address the significant lack of affordable housing in this country, local governments in urban,
suburban, and rural areas divert these funds to local Business Improvement Districts (BIDS) and
to policing, which often penalize the very people this money could help. In addition to
continuing the documentation of this trend, this report emphasizes the connections between the
creation of a public environment of intolerance and the increasing danger of living on the streets
that results from this attitude.
This report is an annual summary of continuous investigation with evidence that criminalization
is not only a local issue that is duplicated nationwide, but is also a national concern that demands
a federal response. We have asserted and continue to assert that a pattern and practice of civil
rights violations and unconstitutional behaviors by local government authorities, including the
police and other city agencies, exists in many cities around the country. These practices exact
enormous economic, social, political and individual costs and do nothing to prevent and end
homelessness that plagues individuals nationwide.
With the unemployment rate still near its highest point in a decade, and with even deeper cuts in
funding for social services and housing supports than we anticipated, the immediate future for
the increasing number of people experiencing homelessness is desperate. For those people forced
to live in public spaces without access to shelter, public restrooms, and places to store their
belongings, life continues to be disastrous. Sympathy for homeless people depends in large
measure on understanding the economic causes of homelessness and the oppressive conditions of
living without a private space. Legislating against the behavior and circumstances of people who
have no place to go is a giant step backward in the effort to end homelessness.
It is important to note that a number of city governments continue to violate the civil rights of
homeless persons. A main goal of this report is to document these policies and show that, while
many of the laws criminalizing homelessness are new, and many of the cities are cited for the
first time, nevertheless a number of cities cited here have been among the worst cities for civil
rights violations since data began being collected. The spread of the pattern and practice of using
incarceration and harassment as an apparent attempt to "deter" people from being homeless must
be met by a combination of tactics and organized efforts.
(B) A Working Definition of Criminalization
Class discrimination is still legal and acceptable in the United States. There is no protected status
for those who are economically oppressed or excluded, much less those who are homeless,
although homeless people are very often the targets of discrimination. On the contrary, the
growing body of laws passed by local governments criminalizes activities necessary to survival
on the streets. Because people without homes often have no option but to perform necessary
functions in public, they are vulnerable to judgment, harassment and arrest for committing
"nuisance" violations in public. For these people, economic or housing status effectively
becomes the cause of their incarceration under "quality of life" ordinances. Instead of providing
affordable housing and livable wages, our communities choose to protect themselves from
visible homelessness under the guise of assumed threats to public safety.
Criminalization is the process of legislating penalties for the performance of life - sustaining
functions in public. It also refers to the selective enforcement of existing ordinances. Both
practices are intended to harass and arrest homeless people. Laws against obstruction of
sidewalks and public ways such as sitting or lying in public spaces are largely enforced against
homeless people. This report focuses on both kinds of criminalization.
Police in many cities commonly conduct "sweeps" in downtown areas before large political,
religious, athletic or entertainment events. Police routinely stop people they suspect are
homeless, ask for identification and run warrant checks. There have been many reports of police
urging homeless people to leave town or face arrest if they are stopped again.
The underlying assumption behind these actions is that homelessness is a "public safety" issue.
Therefore, cities attempt to eliminate visible homelessness through enforcing "quality of life"
ordinances, which seek to improve the "quality of life" of housed and higher- income individuals
by removing from sight those people who look poor and homeless. Arrest and incarceration has
become an expedited way of removing individuals from sight. Unfortunately, many people
justify criminalization as a "benevolent" means of coercing individuals into treatment and other
services that are not voluntarily available.
Desperately- needed voluntary services are diverted into the correction's system, which in some
communities have actually become part of the Continuum of Care; the explanation for the
diversion is to provide an "alternative" to hard time. The growing tendency to "track" homeless
people and their use of services is an insidious means of controlling the actual quantification of
need. This tracking system also classifies some people as "service resistant" or not really
homeless; the system excludes others as criminals.
(C) The Income/Employment Crisis
According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, there is no state or local jurisdiction
in this country where a person who works a minimum -wage job can afford housing at HUD's
Fair Market Rents. The continuing decline in real value of minimum wage income, as well as the
dramatic reduction of income supports like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
and Supplemental Security Income (SSI), without the subsequent availability of public housing
units, creates and increases homelessness.
Forty -two percent (42 %) of homeless people, nationwide, work. However, the income they earn
is not sufficient for accessing safe, affordable and appropriate housing. In many cities the
majority of available emergency housing or shelter costs at least $7 per night. Labor Pools
become the trap for homeless people who must pay for their shelter and take whatever income-
producing work is available. Making the transition from labor pool to living wage employment is
the only way into permanent, reliable housing.
For women and families who live on TANF benefits (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) and
must work for their monthly allowance, housing in the private market at 30% of income is
impossible to find.
(D) The Health Care Crisis
Access to health care for individuals experiencing homelessness is limited and difficult to obtain.
Homeless people with chronic illnesses often do not continue receiving treatment or medication
in jail. Incarceration also poses deeper health care dangers. With incarceration comes an
increased risk of contracting chronic illnesses or serious health problems such as tuberculosis
and hepatitis.
Because of the limited availability of mental health care facilities, many individuals with mental
health problems live on the streets or are incarcerated in jails where they are unlikely to receive
the treatment they need. Due to the lack of long -term residential care services and the number of
people with mental health problems living on the streets, police officers often assume the role of
determining the need for treatment. Following the model Memphis has developed, some cities
are training special units to specifically deal with people with mental health problems. These
programs seem to be successful, but not without sufficient housing and supportive services.
In many cities residential treatment and recovery for addictions are not readily available. As a
result, cities often jail substance abusers. The cost of jail time far ,exceeds the money spent for
residential treatment with supportive housing.
(E) The Lack of Emergency Housing and Services
Most communities in this country lack enough shelter beds for the number of homeless people.
Many shelters charge between $5.00 and $10.00 per night for a bed or even a mat on the floor.
An overwhelming majority of communities lack sufficient social services to meet the needs of all
their low,income/homeless individuals and families. And the recent economic recession has
caused major cutbacks in funding to non - profit and service organizations. Already shelters
operate above capacity and some have had to close for lack of funds. Thousands of people across
the country need shelter and cannot get it. According to the 2003 U.S. Conference of Mayors
Report, requests for emergency shelter increased by 13% over the previous year, with requests
from homeless families with children increasing by 15 %. Of the number of people requesting
emergency shelter, 30% of homeless people and 33% of homeless families were turned away.
Every year hundreds of people die from exposure or from illnesses associated with long -term
exposure.
(F) Political Rationale for Criminalization
Criminalizing the life - sustaining acts of people experiencing homelessness without offering legal
alternatives is supported by conservative think tanks like the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation
(CJLF), www.cjlf.org, and the Center for the Community Interest (CCI), formerly the American
Alliance for Rights and Responsibilities , www.communityinterest.org. These think tanks apply
the rules of private ownership to public space. These groups advocate anti- homeless policies
under the guise of preserving the "common good."
The CJLF has especially targeted "begging" under the justification that whatever is good for
private development is good for all urban residents. In addition, the CCI publishes anti -
panhandling guides and defines itself as "a leading advocate for urban quality -of -life and safe -
streets measures" that work "to get guns out of schools, gangs off of street corners, drug dealers
out of housing projects, porn shops out of neighborhoods, aggressive panhandlers out of ATM
lobbies and put mentally ill substance abusers into treatment and off the streets."
Bans on aggressive panhandling are viewed as a means of severely restricting panhandling
without violating a person's freedom of speech. Laws or ordinances that include the language
"aggressive" panhandling or solicitation are common. Most aggressive panhandling laws restrict
locations where panhandling is permitted and the way in which individuals ask for money or
goods.
Public spaces like streets, sidewalks, and parks are by definition "common property" and may be
used by anyone. Private property owners are often able to persuade city officials to limit the use
of public space and establish Business Improvement Districts, or BIDS. These areas exclude
people with no access to private property from public property. The CJLF and the CCI's
recommendations for regulating public space limit the use of common property and seek to
justify exclusion by calling homeless people criminals and threats to public safety.
1. Background
The National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH), established in 1982, is the oldest national
homelessness advocacy organization. NCH is comprised of local and statewide advocates,
representatives of homeless coalitions, service providers, faith -based organizations, grassroots
activists and people experiencing homelessness. This year's report continues documenting local
discriminatory practices which have frequently been challenged and modified, but continue to re-
emerge, often in more aggressive forms. When litigated, "quality of life" laws have sometimes
been determined unconstitutional in both state, and federal court. As these laws and practices
continue to be used as sources to reduce the visibility of homelessness, advocates must
consistently confront them.
IIl. Methodology
This report is the product of the National Homeless Civil Rights Organizing Project (NHCROP)
of NCH, an ongoing effort to establish systematic data collection and coordination of efforts to
protect the rights of homeless people. As a result, this report is the most comprehensive and up-
to -date attempt to document the discrimination against and criminalization of people
experiencing homelessness.
The qualitative information from each city is reported in the form of descriptive narratives.
These narratives serve as a record of evidence testifying to the criminalization of people
experiencing homelessness in almost every city surveyed, as well as the status of struggles and
conflicts in those communities. Anecdotal evidence and experience, as well as available statistics
were collected, evaluated and form the basis for policy analysis and recommendations for
combating the erosion of civil and human rights in this country.
In addition, the city codes for the majority of the cities were examined and summarized in a chart
comparing patterns of criminalization across the nation. In most cases city code information was
available electronically, generally on databases. However, in those circumstances where it was
impossible to obtain an electronic document, copies were directed to city clerks' and attorneys'
offices, who then provided the information. Different classifications of various ordinances are
dependent upon the wording of the ordinance itself.
IV. Problem Statement /Consequences of Criminalization
(A) Economic Consequences
As the country fails to provide money for housing, and as essential funds are cut from social
services, the amount of money spent to jail people for "quality of life" crimes increases.
The legal challenges resulting from criminalizing homelessness have proven costly for both
homeless people and for those who prosecute them. Judgments against offending jurisdictions
are not sufficient payment for the loss of freedom, jobs while incarcerated, shelter spaces and for
the difficulty in fmding employment once you have a "record."
Although anti- homeless ordinances violate HUD's Consolidated Plan and should jeopardize any
offending jurisdiction's access to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME
Investment Partnership Program (HOME), and McKinney/Vento federal funds, few charges are
brought against those cities because non -profit organizations risk their own funding if they
complain. Moreover, local ordinances that discriminate against and criminalize the lives of
homeless people often violate local, state, and federal constitutions, thus exposing city
governments and police departments to civil liability. Ordinances that criminalize homeless
people simply perpetuate the problems of homelessness.
It is more expensive to detain a person in jail than to house and offer services. According to the
National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty 2003 report, Punishing Poverty: The
Criminalization of Homelessness, Litigation, and Recommendations for Solutions, the cost of
providing jail, excluding the cost of the police resources used in the arrest, exceeds $40 per day.
Some sources say the daily cost is as much as $140. In comparison, the average cost of providing
counseling, housing, food, and transportation for one day is approximately $30.
In most cities there is a desperate lack of emergency and permanent housing and support. Funds
that might be used to fund programs addressing the needs of homeless people are diverted to the
criminal justice system.
(B) Social Consequences
Criminalization masks the social exclusion of homeless people under the guise of public safety
concerns. When cities warn tourists and residents not to give money to panhandlers, they create
the fear of homeless individuals that leads to further discrimination. This criminalization then
helps to legitimize that fear.
Persons arrested or incarcerated for "quality of life" offenses may lose access to employment,
families and friends. This loss also impacts employers who lose faith in hiring homeless people
because "they don't show up," or because they have "records."
Once incarcerated, these homeless individuals face overcrowding, violence, abuse, or disease.
The conditions in turn contribute to additional social costs when the person is released and
interacts again with society.
Cities might be more successful developing programs intended to reduce homelessness if the
level of animosity among police, service providers, and homeless persons was reduced. With a
focus on training, police might deal more effectively and efficiently with conflicts that arise,
without violating the civil rights of homeless people.
(C) Political Consequences
Laws criminalizing the circumstances of poverty, as well as sanctioned or unsanctioned actions
committed by law enforcement officials, may violate both state constitutions and the U.S.
Constitution. For example, laws prohibiting or limiting panhandling and begging may violate the
First Amendment. The seizure or destruction of homeless peoples' property may violate the
Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable search and seizure. Laws prohibiting sleep
and other necessary activities in public spaces may violate the Eighth Amendment, which
prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In addition, discriminatory enforcement of such laws
may constitute a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, which assures equal protection under
the law.
(D) Individual Consequences
The criminalization of homelessness makes the struggle to survive on the streets even more
difficult, depressing, demoralizing, and frightening, especially as the criminal justice system can
itself act as a major barrier to individual efforts to escape homelessness. Regardless of the
number of ordinances passed, homeless people still must eat, sleep, and survive in public
because often no alternative is available to them.
Once homeless people have been arrested for "quality of life" violations, their criminal records
grow, and as a result they may be excluded from jobs and housing. Anyone incarcerated at least
30 days loses Social Security benefits during incarceration. Also, if an individual receiving
benefits is found to have an outstanding warrant, she or he can be denied benefits. The Social
Security Administration has gone so far as to grant agencies an "incentive" of $400 per person
found to be in violation. In addition, when homeless persons do not follow through with the
process of criminal justice, such as failing to pay traffic tickets or not appearing in court,
warrants are issued for their arrest and they may be subjected to further charges and/or jail time.
Money used to pay fines might otherwise be used for housing or other needs. Finally, it may be
difficult for homeless people to maintain the mandated relationship with parole officers or with
community service organizations.
Many homeless people lose all their possessions, even difficult -to- obtain IDs, when they are
arrested. In addition, police harassment causes homeless people to miss appointments and/or
interviews, reinforcing their status as second -class citizens. Homeless persons who are employed
at the time of arrest and who are held in jail may lose their current jobs. Even when people are
only given citations and are not arrested, the police may use the threat of arrest to intimidate
individuals without housing. Thus, there are many hidden effects of these policies.
Policies of criminalization defeat their own goals of removing homeless people from public
visibility because they simply create further barriers for survival and undermine individual
efforts to escape homelessness. Such policies keep more people on the streets and increase
problems related to homelessness. When individuals are released from jail, they are still
homeless, and they have even more barriers and obstacles to overcome than before.
(E) Security Guards and the Homeless Community
A few cities in the United States have reached legal agreements with their municipalities to put
an end to police harassment of homeless people. A growing problem in the United States is the
rise in private security forces that wear uniforms and mistreat homeless people. In a few cities,
including Cleveland, Ohio, these security guards are often off -duty Cleveland Police officers.
These privately -paid security officers are allowed to wear the uniform of the municipal police
force, and have close contact with the police. They have the ability to detain homeless people
and, subsequently, have them arrested. When they are off -duty, these officers do not always
abide by consent decrees, legal settlements, or even the law with regard to panhandlers or the
rights of homeless people. People who spend a large number of hours of the day on the streets
report frequent and systematic abuse by private security guards in the downtowns of our urban
environments.
There are a growing number of reports of increased tensions between homeless people and
security guards from around the United States, ranging from Business Improvement District
security in Atlanta, Georgia and Columbus, Ohio with their "Downtown Ambassadors." These
guards patrol the streets and intervene when they see infractions of Yquality of lifel laws. In
Reno, Nevada, conflicts arise between the downtown casinos and homeless people. Fort Worth,
Texas, has made a significant effort to curtail panhandling, and has drafted neighborhood
associations into the fight.
V
In many communities, security guards are indistinguishable from municipal police officers.
Often, they wear the same or similar uniforms, carry guns, and threaten arrest. It may be
impossible for homeless people to distinguish between an on -duty municipal police officer and
an off -duty security guard, and to negotiate the legal landscape enforced by these guards.
For example, in Cleveland, despite an agreement with the Police Department since 1999 not to
"arrest, or threaten to arrest or detain, any individuals, including homeless individuals for
performing innocent, harmless, inoffensive acts such as sleeping, eating, lying, or sitting in or on
public property," homeless people are still being harassed by security guards, who are, typically,
off -duty police. These individuals are known to keep their CPD uniforms on, while working as
security guards for private businesses. This is especially a problem in the urban core where
finding access to transportation, food, and a place where one can rest without being harassed
becomes a difficult task.
These security guards, who patrol private buildings in their uniforms, have been engaged in
harassment against homeless individuals that they encounter on public sidewalks and around the
private businesses they are to guard. Phoenix, Arizona, has combined police and security
outreach into one unit.
The security guards, especially since the events of 2001, play a greater role in both numbers and
visibility in most American cities. Despite efforts to focus funding and attention on those who
live on the streets, the number of homeless people has increased in most American cities. The
security guards are employed to secure buildings and businesses, but they often become much
more. Security guards provide the illusion of security to a fearful population. They are used to
assure cash registers do not stop ringing because of a perceived unsafe environment. Security
guards are highly visible, and many buildings pay a premium for the guards to look like law
enforcement officers. Unfortunately, they have a much different mandate that is essentially a
profit motive, with little responsibility to serve the public good, as well as less accountability
than on -duty officers.
Although security guards may be highly trained and respectful law enforcement officers during
the day, they are paid to keep a certain appearance within a building. Homeless people are
viewed as a threat to public safety. Media distortions, fear of the unknown, and misguided
information often turn homeless people into the scapegoats for problems downtown. People who
choose not to access the shelters, when shelters exist, are blamed for high crime rates, the flight
of wealthy pedestrians and residents from the city, and the closing of businesses. Security guards
are often told in no uncertain terms to move homeless people out of sight at all costs. They
ignore the freedom to ask for money or the freedom to be left alone. V. Model Programs
Cities have turned to the criminal justice system for housing, treatment, and even as a means of
"disappearing" homeless people.
This trend can only be reversed through the organizing of homeless people and concerned
advocates to hold policy makers and business owners accountable for their actions and policies.
Minneapolis, Philadelphia and Ft. Lauderdale are all spotlighted in this report for their positive
steps towards ending the criminalization of people experiencing homelessness.
(A) Minneapolis, Minnesota
The Public Safety -and Regulatory Services Committee of the Minneapolis City Council ordered
the Community Advisory Board on Homelessness (CASH) to address building code issues and
homelessness. The result was the creation of a Decriminalization Task Force to "review all laws,
policies, and practices that have the effect of criminalizing homelessness, and reporting back to
the City and County with recommendations."
The Task Force sets the foundation for an increase in social services and assistance as a pathway
to ending the criminalization of homelessness in Minneapolis. The following recommendations
have been presented to the City Council for discussion and approval.
1) Ordinance changes. These include the repealing of an anti- camping ordinance and the
rewording of other ordinances such as trespassing, panhandling, loitering, shelter restrictions,
interference with traffic, and public urination.
2) Police Protocols. Training police to link homeless people to services will meet the needs of
homeless people while insuring the protection of their civil rights. Changes include the
requirement of a complaint before police presence, a notice to campers before eviction, referrals
to providers, and improvements in the handling of property belonging to those experiencing
homelessness.
3) Vagrancy Charges. Vagrancy laws are remnants of a previous era of law enforcement.
Minnesota's vagrancy statute should be repealed.
4) Public Testimony. Time should be allotted whereby public testimony is scheduled to allow
advocates and people who have or are currently experiencing homelessness to come forward and
speak to the City Council and Mayor on the issues stated above.
These four items are part of a serious effort to address some of the immediate issues homeless
people encounter on a daily basis. At the same time, CABH began dialogue between the City
Attorney's office, the Police Department, and the Civil Rights Department to deal with long -term
issues and create constructive alternatives to the criminalization of homelessness. The
Decriminalization Task Force will also conduct ongoing discussions to address the following:
1) City Attorney Policies and Programs. Geographic restrictions resulting in banishment in
certain areas should be halted and a less punitive approach should be taken towards people
experiencing homelessness.
2) Civilian Review Authority. In its role as a police watchdog body, the Civilian Review
Authority should work with homeless providers to make it easier for people experiencing
homelessness to report police misconduct.
3) Police Protocols. Mental health workers should respond to calls involving those experiencing
mental illness while 911 dispatchers should review procedures to see if more calls can be
directed to mental health workers.
4) Police Training and Instructions. All officers should be instructed to treat every resident, even
those experiencing homelessness, with respect. In addition, officers should undergo training on
services that are available to people experiencing homelessness. Officers would also be issued
resource cards to guide people to appropriate services.
5) Police Positions /Services. A police officer should be assigned to help homeless people who
are perpetrators or victims of crime and a mental health specialist position should be created to
provide training and services.
The action taken by CABH is a model proposal that all cities should take to address and solve the
criminalization of homelessness in cities across the nation.
(B) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
In contrast to many other cities across the nation, the City of Philadelphia has reportedly found
ways to reduce the number of homeless people in the city without infringing on the civil rights of
people experiencing homelessness. Instead of pushing the problem around the city,
marginalizing people, or busing individuals to jail or out of town, the city requires police officers
to contact a social worker who will respond within 20 minutes. For instance, homeless people
sleeping outside are referred to local shelter and transitional housing services rather than being
fined or arrested for camping or trespassing.
Through a combination of permanent housing, counseling services, dedicated workers, and
multiple 24 -hour shelters, Philadelphia has found a way to help the chronically homeless people
of the city. Responsibility for this progress is credited to Sister Mary Scullion, a nun who lives
and works with the people she dedicates her life to help. Her constant pestering of local officials
resulting in the building of hundreds of housing units dedicated to help those with special needs.
While reports indicate Philadelphia has indeed removed nearly 75 percent of its chronically
homeless population from the streets, what this report intends to highlight is the City's method.
Although Philadelphia may have criminalized homeless people in the past, the City has decided
to solve the problem by providing homes instead of jail.
(C) Fort Lauderdale, Florida
An outreach program in cooperation with the police department and local services is comprised
of one formerly homeless individual and one police officer. After publicizing the pick -up point
through street contacts and service providers, the pair goes out each afternoon, where they assess
individuals one by one. Some individuals are sent to a shelter for the night, some are given bus
tickets to reunite with family, and others are enrolled in long -term programs. By helping
individuals get off the streets and into shelters, the impact of criminalization has been
significantly decreased. Other police officers in the community are also taking individuals to
shelters rather than jail. Police are currently conducting their own trainings, and educating
officers about homelessness.
VI. Conclusions and Recommendations
(A) Education and Communication
Monitoring and documenting arrests, citations, fines and harassment of homeless people allow
advocates to present evidence of violations of civil rights, costs of incarceration to the public,
and loss of opportunities for employment and housing for homeless people.
After being told by police officers, government officials, and business owners that they are
public nuisances, homeless people can only recognize their personal and collective power when
they see the impact of their efforts as a part of a national movement. Thus, the participation of
people experiencing homelessness in national and local struggles is vital.
In addition, local groups who have been tirelessly fighting the effects of criminalization must
communicate their struggles and victories with other groups, so all organizations can share
information with each other and with the public. Public information campaigns must be geared
toward:
1) alerting homeless and poor people that a new civil rights movement is building along with
informing them of new and subtle dangers that currently exist,
2) alerting service providers to the serious effects of these laws, especially before the process of
drafting law is in motion, and
3) alerting the general public that rights lost to any segment of our society are rights lost to all
members of our society.
(B) Organizing for Change
Those most affected by injustice must play a leading role in local monitoring projects and
collection of data, as well as collection of anecdotal evidence of activities to challenge local
abuses.
Organizing homeless people to take action begins with extensive outreach, in which the input
gathered directly from homeless people drives the working agenda. This outreach has four main
purposes:
1) to provide information to poor and homeless people about their rights;
2) to record civil rights abuses, including police interaction with homeless people, through
written and video documentation;
3) to provide information about opportunities for participation in the work force to affect change;
and
4) to gather ideas, insights and opinions about solutions to poverty and homelessness.
Combining outreach, advocacy, direct action, and litigation with policy and program design
produces permanent solutions to poverty and homelessness.
(C) Legal remedies
Homeless people and advocacy groups continue using the legal system to fight unconstitutional
ordinances that criminalize life - sustaining activities performed, necessarily, in public. It is
important to compile and share documentation of legal victories to strengthen our efforts.
The national maintenance of a database of ordinances and a cataloging of experiences is
necessary for sharing efforts and resources.
Broadening the campaign to request the U.S. Department of Justice investigate patterns and
practices of the civil rights violations of people experiencing homelessness, and including
homelessness as a protected class or status when monitoring violence, are imperative.
(D) Security Guards
1. Cities should make it illegal for their police officers to wear official police uniforms while
they are not on duty.
2. All security guards should be licensed by the local municipality with added scrutiny to those
carrying a firearm. Homeless people should be easily able to file a complaint with the municipal
government concerning the actions of guards. A guard or official system should be required to
address these complaints in order to renew the license.
3. All security guards should wear identifying information including their city issued license
number.
4. All complaints delivered to the City should be forwarded to the management or the entity
hiring that guard.
5. Security guards in places that come into frequent contact with homeless people should be
required to receive awareness training, as well training on the laws that apply to homeless
people. Crisis intervention 'training for dealing nonviolently with mental illness conflicts is also
recommended.
(E) Policy Remedies
1. Support the Bringing America Home Act, H.R. 2897 -108th Congress, sponsored by U.S.
Representatives Julia Carson and John Conyers. This bill includes provisions and funding that
will end homelessness through additional housing, universal health coverage, universal livable
income, treatment on demand, and civil rights assurances.
The Civil Rights Provisions of the Bringing America Home Act include:
A. A requirement under the selection criteria for HUD McKinney -Vento that communities
receiving homeless assistance dollars must guarantee through formal certification they are not
criminalizing homelessness through laws, ordinances or policies.
B. A requirement that cities receiving Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and
HOME Investment Partnership Program (HOME) funds shall not pass ordinances that have a
disparate impact on homeless people or that punish homeless persons for carrying out life -
sustaining activities in public spaces when no alternative public spaces are available; or relating
to curfews for adolescents and that result in homeless youths being adjudicated as delinquent.
C. A requirement that cities receiving CDBG and HOME funds shall not pass zoning ordinances
and/or make zoning decisions have the effect of preventing the siting of facilities designed to
serve people in homeless situations or low- income people.
2. All people should be assured access to affordable housing, health care, with treatment on
demand, livable income, education and access to public and private accommodations, spaces,
and services, regardless of race, ethnicity, national origin, immigration status, age, gender,
religion, familial status, sexual orientation or gender identity or expression, health status,
socioeconomic status, or housing status.
To assure those rights, we recommend acceptance and reiteration of the following values and
principles:
a. Protected class designation for socioeconomic status;
b. The right to register and vote for homeless people;
c. Passage of "hate crimes" legislation using protected class status;
d. Immediate relief from harassment and arrest in every American city;
e. Immediate access to treatment on demand outside the criminal justice system;
£ Immediate access to treatment without first being incarcerated;
g. Immediate access to housing for all homeless people.
{
z �=x
�y
��
Refworks Web Based Bibliographic Management Software
Q RefWorks
http: / /0 -www. rfworks. com. libsys .ewu.edu / Refworks /mainframe.asp
Welcome, Margaret Crabtree.
Log out
Eastern Washington University
References - Search - View - Folders - Bibliography Tools - Help - Search RefWorksf- 90
Periodical Lookup for "Los Angeles Times (pre -1997 Fulltext)
NextN Back to Reference
Reference 1 of 3
Last Imported V Check for Full Te
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder... - --
Ref ID: 219
Ref Type: Newspaper Article
Source Electronic
Type:
Authors: Avent.G.Jeanette
Article Lending a 'Helping Hand, Not a Handout' in Beverly Hills Homeless: The city has tentatively approved a policy of
Title: discouraging panhandlers while encouraging donations to private agencies serving them.
Newspaper Los Antreles Times (pre -1997 Fulltext)
Name:
Pub Year. 1993
Pub Date Mar 19
Free Form:
Start Page: 8
Abstract: The city has a deep concern about the homeless, Councilwoman Vicki Reynolds said. In April, a city study group with
representatives from churches, synagogues and social service agencies will examine programs established by other citif
with an eye to providing more direct help to the homeless in Beverly Hills. Berkeley, for example, has a voucher progn
that allows residents to buy vouchers to give to homeless people instead of money. The vouchers can then be redeemed
food. At the same time, the city has to keep its streets and parks for the use of all residents, Reynolds and Mayor Robert
Tanenbaum emphasized Tuesday. The city plans to make residents aware of the humanitarian program the city is
establishing but "we have to keep our streets secure," Tanenbaum said. "Life is bad enough," said [Connie], 35, who saii
he has lived in Beverly Hills on and off since 1987. He said the city is clean and quiet at night. He added that the danger
getting robbed or assaulted is far less than in other cities in the region. Beverly Hills police are "usually very courteous
he said, although they have rousted him at various times and told him to move on. He generally gets $10 to $75 a day fr,
panhandling on the streets, he said, adding, "Most people are nice and leave a buck." Santa Monica, which has about 2
times the population of Beverly Hills and a homeless contingent that is believed to average about 1,500, has a full -time
homeless program coordinator and allocates $2 million for homeless programs.
Links: htt //0 proauest umi com libsys ewu edu•80'Padweb° did= 6021»95 &Fmt= 7 &clientld =65345 &ROT = 309 &VName =Pi
Created: 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Last 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Modified:
ISSN/ISBN: 04583035
.Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder...
[ Last Imported V Check for Full Te:
Next)+ Back to Reference
Reference 1 of 3
5/29/08 7:54 AM
loft
Refworks Web Based Bibliographic Management Software http:// 0- www. rfworks .com.libsys.ewu.edu /Reffivorks /mainframe.asp
�^�t Welcome, Margaret Crabtree.
RefWork Need Help Using kefWorics? University
Free ihfah t'rainirtg CL ICK HERE Eastern Washington University
References - Search - View - Folders - Bibliography Tools - Help - Search RefWorksf— Go
Periodical Lookup for "Los Angeles Times (pre -1997 Fulltext)"
"Prev NextN Back to Reference
Reference 2 of 3
i�Last Imported V Check for Full Te
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder... -
Ref ID: 220
Ref Type: Newspaper Article
Source Electronic
Type:
Authors: Paul_F.E.L.D.M.A.N.
Article Begging Ruling Expected to Have Little Effect Laws: A judge struck down a statute prohibiting panhandling in public. E
Title: police and street people say it was rarely enforced.
Newspaper Loa Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fullte.xt) -1.997 Fullte.xt)
Name:
Pub Year: 1991
Pub Date Sep 29
Free Form:
Start Page: I 1
Abstract: "Looking at how many homeless there are and looking at 330 cases filed a year, you can draw your own conclusions," s-,
Deputy City Atty. Maureen Siegel, acting chief of the criminal division. "And as a practical matter, there are a lot of
different vehicles the police can use to address the problem of very aggressive panhandling ... obstructing pedestrian
traffic or battery." San Francisco city attorneys, who had argued that the state statute should be upheld as a justifiable
means of protecting the public from intimidation, say they will appeal [William H. Orrick]'s ruling to the U.S. 9th Circ
Court of Appeals. In Santa Monica, referred to as the "home of the homeless" on one national radio program, City Atty.
Robert M. Myers pointed out that the ruling backed up his policy against prosecuting non - aggressive panhandlers.
Links: htt ): / /0- proquest.um i.coin.]ibsys.ewu.edu:80/ dweb? did =61 .501096 &Fmt= 7 &clientld= 65345 &R T= 309 &V Name =Pi
Created: 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Last 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Modified:
ISSN /ISBN: 04583035
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder...
Reference 2 of 3
1 of I
;Last Imported lie Check for Full Te,
aPrev Next Back to Reference
5/29/08 7:55 AM
Refworks Web Based Bibliographic Management Software http://O-www.refAorks.com.libsys.ewu.edu/RefAorks/mainframe.asp
Welcome, Margaret Crabtree.
Ref Works ork `e out
Eastern Washington University
References - Search - View - Folders - Bibliography Tools - Help - Search RefWor4_ Go
Periodical Lookup for "Los Angeles Times (pre -1997 Fulltext)
Reference 3 of 3 �P_ev Back to Reference
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder... V1 01-astImported V Check for Full Tr,
Ref ID: 217
Ref Type: Newspaper Article
Source Electronic
Type:
Authors: Vivian,R.O.T.H.S.T.E.I.N.
Article For Their Own Sake and for Ours, the Homeless Must Follow the Rules Social services: California tightens environment
Title: laws while accepting unsanitary and unregulated street camps.
Newspaper Los Angeles Times (pre -1997 Fulltext)
Name: —
Pub Year: 1993
Pub Date Sep 28
Free Form:
Start Page: 7
Abstract: "Chester" is a personable, bright, 30ish, homeless man with sharp political insights about capitalism and the economi
causes of homelessness and poverty. He attends community college off and on. I was once a guest on his monthly
public- access television show, discussing the proposal to limit the size of outdoor -meals programs. He comes up with t
$35 charge for taping each show by panhandling at the local mall. We meet occasionally to discuss city politics and
police and local governments policies. Chester has been homeless for about eight years, although he recently moved in
with a friend. These Chesters are now called the "voluntarily homeless. I don't think they started out that way. Their
homelessness began, I'm sure, like anyone else's -due to a crisis in their lives brought on by a loss of job, of housing, of
significant relationship, problems with substance abuse, a health crisis. But as all people adapt to their conditions as a
matter of survival, they have made peace with their homelessness. The Chesters represent a small portion of the homele
population, but their existence challenges us to figure out what we really believe about their life choices and about our
social contract -as well as about our personal choices to survive economically and morally. I am not convinced that it is
either helpful for homeless people or "progressive" to support a permissive position regarding encampments, outdoor
services and large congregations of homeless people in public areas. In California in particular, we are moving toward a
bizarre regulatory climate in which controls on development and environmental standards are strongly supported by ma
of the same people who are urging acceptance of unsanitary, unregulated, unheated and unstructured outdoor living
environments.
Links: httD /0 Drociuest umi coin libsl5 ewu edu•80'p4dweb ?did= 60391741 &Fmt= 7 &clientld= 65345 &RQT = 309 &VName =Pl
Created: 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Last 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Modified:
ISSN /ISBN: 04583035
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder... j
L]Last Imported )e, check for Full Te:
Reference 3 of 3 4(Prev Back to Reference
5/29/08 7:55 AM
1 of 1
Refworks Web Based Bibliographic Management Software http:// 0- www. refworks .com.libsys.ewu.edu/Refworks /mainframe.asp
p /^ �� R Welcome, Margaret Crabtree. Log.
R�v �i��4J ;� � Tri�y �t�8 Release. �t�wr Fe�tut�s 14nw Avcattaki�l.:� out
Eastern Washington University
References - Search - View - Folders - Bibliography Tools - Help - Search RefWork4— — Go
Periodical Lookup for "The Augusta Chronicle"
R Back to Referent
Reference 1 of 1
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder..
d1ast Imported V Cheat for Full
Ref ID: 197
Ref Type: Newspaper Article
Source Electronic
Type:
Article panhandling Ban Considered
Title:
Newspaper The Au --usta Chronicle
Name:
Pub Year: 2005
Pub Date Jun 23
Free Form:
Start Page: B.08
Abstract: City council members seeking to put a shine on downtown to boost tourism and convention business are backing a
panhandling ban, but opponents say it echoes attempts from Atlanta's segregationist past to rid the streets of poor blac
"Atlanta has been involved for decades with trying to get black people out of the central business district It's very cleat
said the Rev. Murphy Davis, who runs Open Door Community to assist the homeless. She compared the proposed ban t(
the "Negro removal" policy pitched by white downtown business elites in the 1950s.
Links: httr) i/0 proquest umi com libsys eivu edu•80'Dgdweb °did= 860170571 &Fmt= 7 &clientld =65345 &ROT= 309 &VName =1
Created: 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Last 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Modified:
ISSN /ISBN: 07471343
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder... (Last Imported V Check for Full l
Reference 1 of i
IofI
Back to Referent
5/29/08 7:52 AM
Refworks Web Based Bibliographic Management Software http : / /0- www.refAlorks.com.libsys .ewu.edu /Refworks /mainframe.asp
vatla w-i Welcome, Margaret Crabtree.
Rei cars htay2Qt`n` _%e FeEtmnesNO »AYailabiei 1 L� °„t
CtfCR3iR! Eastern Washington University
References - Search - View - Folders - Bibliography Tools - Help - Search RefWorksr_ Go
Periodical Lookup for "Knight Ridder Tribune Business News"
R Back to Referent
Reference 1 of 1
O
ILast Imported deck for NO
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder... M -•*
Ref ID: 196
Ref Type: Journal Article
Source Electronic
Type:
Title: EDITORIAL: A spruced -up downtown is a worthy goal: Our views
Periodical, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News
Abbrev:
Pub Year: 2006
Pub Date Jun 28
Free Form:
Start Page: 1
Abstract: The 450 businesses in the 70 -block district were not unanimous in their support of the PBIA. Proponents collected
signatures from 249 businesses, while opponents generated a petition signed by 60 people who question the mandatory
assessment fee. Soon the PBIA leadership team will return to the City Council with a plan on how to spend the first year'
revenue. They are proposing the purchase of a biodiesel sidewalk sweeper and a full - time employee to run the machine, I
over graffiti, weed, pull posters off utility poles and generally keep downtown spruced up. Twenty garbage cans would be
added, although the city might pick up that tab. The PBIA board also is proposing to hang flower baskets and spend an
additional sum on promotional material and administration. All together, the 14- member board is proposing to spend
$60,000 of the $102,125 collected this year. The council has already allocated $31,000 in startup costs. They have a po
but what those critics don't seem to understand is that the PBIA board has no control over police assignments or other pu
policy matters. Stopping aggressive panhandling and improving downtown safety are the responsibility of the Olympia
Gity Council - not the PBIA.
Links: http //O proquest umi c.om libsys e%+u edu•80 /pgdi eb) did= 1068235781 &Fmt= 7 &clieiitld =65345 &ROT= 309 &VNanie =
Created: 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Last 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Modified:
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder...
Last Imported �e check Full 1
Back to Referent
Reference 1 of 1
5/29/08 7:51 AM
1ofI
Refworks Web Based Bibliographic Management Software
Q RefWorks
http: / /0 -www. rfworks. com.l i bsys. ewu. edu /Refworks /mainframe. asp
Welcome, Margaret Crabtree. Lol
out
Eastern Washington University
References - Search - View - Folders - Bibliography Tools - Help - Search RefWorksf— Go
Periodical Lookup for "Policing"
Back to Reference List
Reference I of I
js? Check for Full Text
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder... Rf -
Ref ID: 146
Ref Type: Journal Article
Source Type: Electronic
Authors: Areh.lgor; Dobovsek.Boian; Umek.Peter
Title: Citizens' opinions of police procedures
Periodical, Policing
Abbrev:
Pub Year: 2007
Volume: 30
Issue: 4
Start Page: 637
Descriptors: Law enforcement; Traffic control; Minority & ethnic groups; Interpersonal co
mmmiication; Complaints; Community relations;
Citizens; Police discretion
Abstract: Purpose - The purpose of this paper is to see how citizens' opinions of police work were investigated with the aim of monitoring and
evaluating the quality of police procedures conducted in traffic stop encounters and traffic accidents. Design /methodology /approach
- Characteristics of traffic stop encounters were analyzed with data obtained with structured questionnaires gathered from 319
citizens who were stopped for exceeding the speed limit. In the second study, police procedures in traffic accidents were analyzed
with data obtained from 285 participants. The methods of descriptive statistics and nonparametric test Chi- square were used. Findings
- The findings show that police procedures were performed well but not perfectly. In traffic stop encounters, citizens think that
officers were polite, fair and understandable, but that they failed to help drivers return to the flow of traffic and also did not inform
people of their rights. In the case of traffic accidents, citizens were satisfied with the officers' tidiness and willingness to help. Several
faults were found: citizens' satisfaction was lower with the officers' response time, officers frequently fail to inform drivers of their
rights and female respondents believed their opinions were not given enough consideration. Research limitations /implications - The
interpretation of the results is limited by a sample anomaly (the poor response of males). Practical implications - The results show
what needs to be changed or improved in future training of police officers. Originality /value - The paper should be interpreted as a
monitoring instrument that gives insight into feasible quality changes of police work, which should help to improve citizens' opinions
about the police.
ISSN/ISBN: 1363951X
Links: http i/0 pioquest umi com libgvS ewu edu 80 /pgdweb? did= 1344732161 &Fmt =7 &clientld =65345 &ROT= 309 &VNai
Created: 2/24/2008 10:45:09 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Last Modified: 2/24/2008 10:45:09 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Check for Frill Text;
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder...
Back to Reference List
Reference I of I
5/29/08 7:54 AM
I of 1
Refworks Web Based Bibliographic Management Software hnp://O-www.refworks.com.libsys.ewu.edu/RefNNorks/mainframe.asp
Welcome, Margaret Crabtree.
+ Log out
ReMorks
Eastern Washington University
References - Search - View - Folders - Bibliography Tools - Help - Search RefWorkF -- Go
Author Lookup for "Amster,Randall Jay"
R Back to Referenc
Reference 1 Of 1
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder...
Imported�t Cher _ Full
Ref ID: 205
Ref Type: Dissertation /Thesis
Source Electronic
Type:
Authors: Amster,Pandalllav
Title: Spatial anomalies: Street people, sidewalk sitting, and the constested realms of public space
Pub Year. 2002
Descriptors: Criminology; Geograohv; Law
Abstract: Scholars, commentators, and activists alike have at times lamented the steady erosion of public space, charting its dec]
along with the concomitant rise of forces of development, commercialization, and privatization. An important and
pervasive implication of these processes can be seen in the ongoing trend toward the criminalization of homelessness,
evidenced by the more than 50 cities and municipalities in the United States that have enacted anti - homeless laws in thi
last decade, including ordinances prohibiting "urban camping," "aggressive panhandling," and sitting or lying on pub:
sidewalks, often adopted at the behest of commercial interests. The official records, media reports, and personal
experiences connected with the enactment of and subsequent challenge to a sidewalk sitting ordinance in Tempe, Arizoi
in December 1998 provide a documentary foundation for this interdisciplinary study. In addition, participant observati
informal conversations, and in -depth interviews with street people, city officials, and social service providers help to
locate the issues within the context of everyday life on the streets and the unique perspectives of homeless people,
comprising a nascent ethnography of the lived experiences of globalization. Indeed, this work is intended to be useful
amplifying a generalized critique of the processes of globalization and urban development and in promoting action um
the same; as well as encouraging the homeless and their advocates to contest policies of spatial exclusion. Situated am-
the spheres of legal geography, critical criminology, and socio -legal studies, this qualitative work seeks to discern
patterns and discover interconnections among: (i) the impetus of development and gentrification; (ii) the enactment of
anti - homeless ordinances and regulations; (iii) the material and ideological erosion of public space; (iv) emerging fore
resistance to these trends; and (v) the continuing viability of anti- systemic movements, alternative forms of living, ar
utopian imaginaries. Drawing upon events in Tempe for an intensive case study exploring these issues, the work will
describe and document how economic changes in the city have contributed to processes of exclusion and containment,
materially in terms of spatial control and homeless bodies, as well as ideologically in terms of theming and elitism. A]
the way, we will encounter "young urban professionals," BIDS (business improvement districts), and the
panopticon -- skinning merrily toward that magical kingdom where none need confront the horrors of poverty while out
consuming conspicuously, on Tempe's Mill Avenue and city streets the world over.
Degree Ph.D. -^ — -
Type:
Institution: Arizona State University
Place of United States -- Arizona
Publication:
Accession 3042547
Number:
Links: htt /'0 pioguest a mi com libsys ewu eduBO /ngd�Neb' ?did = - /26382381 &Fmt= 7 &clientld =65345 &ROT = 309 &VName =
Created: 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Last 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Modified:
(]Last Imported V Check for Fun
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder...
Reference 1 of i
1 oft
Back to Referenc
5/29/08 7:53 AM
Refworks Web Based Bibliographic Management Software
Q RefWorks
http : / /0- www.refworks.com.libsys. ewu.edu/Refworks /mainframe.asp
Welcome, Margaret Crabtree.
Log out
Eastern Washington University
References - Search - View - Folders - Bibliography Tools - Help - Search RefWorki Go
Periodical Lookup for "The Commercial Appeal"
Back to Reference
Reference 1 of 1
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder... L lLast Imported V Check for Full Te,
Ref ID: 209
Ref Type: Newspaper Article
Source Electronic
Type:
Article
Title: Homelessness - Policy must Balance Enforcement, Compassion
Newspaper The Commercial Appeal
Name:
Pub Year. 2000
Pub Date Apr 9
Free Form.
Start Page: 13.4
Abstract: A PROPOSAL to make downtown Memphis more tourist friendly by dispersing street people would require, at the least,
uniform standards and enforcement. More important a truly comprehensive policy will require the cooperation of he
criminal justice system, churches and social service agencies to do more than shuttle homeless people to fail, or scatter
them ih��aiSOTit e cI y. n emp is, as in most other major cities, street people gather downtown like urban squatter
ome s — ee on-p b -i s'benches and eat from garbage bins. Some are violent, and end up in a revolving door between the
county jail and the streets. The Center City Commission (CCC) has proposed a "street order maintenance" campaign in
which the city would step up its enforcement of regulations governing panhandling, noise and sanitation, and enact nev
measures regulating the use of public spaces. Open alcohol containers would be allowed only in certain areas of
downtown, and soup kitchens would be more closely monitored.
Links: httL) //0 ploguest umi com libsys eNNu edu:80%pgdweb '?did =52558344&Fmt= 7 &clientld= 65345 &RQT = 309 &V Name =PI
Created: 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Last 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Modified:
ISSN /ISBN: 07454856
Edit Duplicate Delete In Folder...
OLast Imported 3e Check for Full Te
Reference 1 of 1 Back to Reference
5/29/08 7:52 AM
I of I
Refworks Web Based Bibliographic Management Software http: / /0- www.refw orks .com.libsys.ewu.edu /Refworks /mainframe.asp
Q /("'"}�`�'�t Welcome, Margaret Crabtree. Loa
RefWo 1 k {� geed Hetp Usi CFe Wo±ks? out
Free ktiteb Training Available - Q.iCI{ HERE Eastern Washington University
References - Search - View - Folders - Bibliography Tools - Help - Search RefWork4 Go
Periodical Lookup for "New York Times"
R Back to Referent
Reference i of 1
..# (]Last Imported Check tor Full
Edit Duplicate Delete in Folder... _i
Ref ID: 215
Ref Type: Newspaper Article
Source Electronic
Type:
Article
Begging and Giving
Title:
Newspaper New York Times
Name:
Pub Year: 1994
Pub Date Jan 12
Free Form:
Start Page: A.20
Descriptors: TRANSIT SYSTEMS; BEGGARS; SUBWAYS; EDITORIALS
Abstract: Transit Authority officials have asked that question and they have offered up an answer: a crackdown. Don't give to beg
they're telling straphangers; arrest panhandlers caught begging repeatedly, they're telling transit police. As most New
Yorkers are about begging, we are conflicted about this latest T.A. policy. Subway panhandling is indeed an intrusion.
Subway riders are temporary captives. There's nowhere for them to escape until they get to their stop -- other than into
next car. They have a right to breathing space and peace. So yes, the Transit Authority police should discourage beggin
the subways, even to the point of arrest.
Links: http ;/0 nioguest umi com libsys ewu edu•80'pgdweb`'did= 966979081 &Fmt= 7 &clientld =65345 &ROT = 309 &VName =
Created: 4/23/2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Last 4/23 /2008 2:48:48 PM Local Timezone (GMT - 7hr)
Modified:
ISSN/ISBN: 03624331
FE—dit-1 In Folder...
(Last Imported V Ch eck for Full
Reference 1 of i Back to Referent
1 of 1 5/29/08 7:53 AM
New Ordinances to Regulate Solicitation
Current Chapter 8.13 is revised to remove references to "aggressive begging" and update the penalty
to maximum $1000 or 90 days in jail.
• See attached
• Reason: 10/04/05 Ct of Appeals case [City of Spokane v. Marrl underscored that to enforce
"aggressive begging" —City must prove specific intent to interfere with pedestrian or vehicular
traffic —even if incidental effect DOES interfere "unintentionally ", subject cannot be arrested.
New Chapter 8.1313 will prohibit:
All soliciting for an immediate contribution directed at passing motorists:
• See attached
o Courts have found public safety interests & interference with traffic justify prohibiting
solicitation directed at vehicle occupants.
■ Denver Publishing Co v. City of Aurora, 896 P.2d 306 (CO 1995) upholds an
ordinance similar to ours. Similarly, People v. Barton, 12 Misc. 3d 322, 327, 816
N.Y.S.2d 853 (Monroe County 2006) upheld as content - neutral the City of
Rochester ordinance which prohibited solicitation -- including solicitation from
sidewalks -- directed at traffic, finding that public and traffic safety were
compelling governmental interests.
New Chapter 8.13A will prohibit:
• "coercive" solicitation [8.13A.040];
• solicitation at times & places where citizens are particularly isolated and vulnerable:
Soliciting is prohibited for an immediate contribution within 15 feet [8.13A.030 (A) (1)] of:
• ATMS /banks;
• the entrance of a building, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or
occupant;
• an exterior public pay telephone;
o a self - service car wash; a self - service fuel pump;
• a public transportation stop, vehicle or facility; or
• any parked vehicle as occupants of such vehicle enter or exit such vehicle.
Soliciting is prohibited for an immediate contribution without regard to distance [8.13A.030 (A) (2)]:
• on private property, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or occupant;
• after sunset or before sunrise; or
• in any public transportation facility or vehicle
See attached
Officers are encouraged to educate of the change in the law and give citizens an opportunity for
voluntary compliance. See 4-5 -07 IDM.
Officers should observe for at least a few minutes to ensure that the solicitor is violating the
law. Reports need to be carefully written to detail the essence of the violation. For example: "I
observed X facing directly at passing motorists. He was standing facing on- coming traffic on the curbside of the
sidewalk at 48`" and Tacoma Mall Blvd., at a point that there is no curbside parking. He was holding a cardboard
sign which said "Homeless Vet. Please help." The sign was held directed at passing motorists. I observed him
make eye contact and wave at occupants of vehicles stopped for the light. I observed him approach the
passenger side of [vehicle license /description. Better yet, list as witness] as the window was rolled down and the
passenger Y handed X a dollar bill. I observed the light change to green while this transpired and traffic backed
up. I recognized X as the same person I contacted within the past month and informed him of the new law."
8.13.030 Vehicular or pedestrian interference.
A. The following definitions apply in this section:
1. "Aggressively beg" FneaRS to beg with iRteRt t9 intimidate aRGtheF PAFSOR iRtO 96V*Rg
Frioney Fgoods.
1. "Obstruct 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 a driver of a vehicle,
or to cause another person or a driver of a vehicle to take evasive action to avoid
physical contact. Acts authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the Tacoma Municipal
Code, such as under Titles 9 and 10, shall not constitute obstruction of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic.
4 2. "Public place" means an area generally visible to public view and includes alleys,
bridges, buildings, driveways, parking lots, parks, plazas, sidewalks and streets open to
the general public, including those that serve food or drink or provide entertainment, and
the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing them.
B. A person is guilty of pedestrian interference if, in a public place, he or she
intentionally:
a-- obstructs pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
2 e essN*, �-
C. Pedestrian interference may be punished by a fine not to exceed $1.000 -5( : or by
imprisonment in jail for a term not to exceed 90 days, or by both such fine and
imprisonment. t _ _
- Formatted: Foofiote Reference
CHAPTER 8.13A
REGULATION OF SOLICITATION
8.13A.010 Purpose.
8.13A.020 Definitions.
8.13A.030 Place of solicitation.
8.13A.040 Solicitation by Coercion.
8.13A.050 Evidence.
8.13A.060 Penalties.
8.13A.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect citizens from the fear and
intimidation accompanying certain kinds of solicitation, to promote tourism and business,
and to preserve the quality of urban life while providing safe and appropriate venues for
constitutionally protected activity.
8.13A.020 Definitions. In this chapter:
A. "Automated teller machine" means a machine, other than a telephone:
1. that is capable of being operated by a customer of a financial institution;
2. by which the customer may communicate to the financial institution a request to
withdraw, deposit, transfer funds, make payment, or otherwise conduct financial
business for the customer or for another person directly from the customer's account or
from the customer's account under a line of credit previously authorized by the financial
institution for the customer; and
3. the use of which may or may not involve personnel of a financial institution.
B. "Coercion" means:
1. to approach or speak to a person in such a manner as would cause a
reasonable person to believe that the person is being threatened with either
imminent bodily injury or the commission of a criminal act upon the person or
another person or upon property in the person's immediate possession;
2 to persist in a solicitation after the person solicited has given a negative
response;
3. to block, either individually or as part of a group of persons, the passage of a
solicited person;
4. to engage in conduct that would reasonably be construed as intended to
compel or force a solicited person to accede to demands;
5. to use violent or threatening gestures toward a person;
6. willfully providing or delivering, or attempting to provide or deliver,
unrequested or unsolicited services or products with a demand or exertion of
pressure for payment in return; or
7. to use profane, offensive, or abusive language, which is inherently likely to
provoke an immediate violent reaction.
C. "Exterior public pay telephone" means any coin or credit card reader telephone that
is:
1. installed or located anywhere on a premises except exclusively in the interior
of a building located on the premises; and
2. accessible and available for use by members of the general public.
D. "Public transportation facility" means a facility or designated location that is owned,
operated, or maintained by a city, county, county transportation authority, public
transportation benefit area, regional transit authority, or metropolitan municipal
corporation within the state.
E. "Public transportation stop" means an area officially marked and designated as a
place to wait for a bus, a light rail vehicle, or any other public transportation vehicle that
is operated on a scheduled route with passengers paying fares on an individual basis.
F. "Public transportation vehicle" has the meaning given that term in RCW 46.04.355, as
currently adopted or as it may be amended in the future.
G. "Self- service car wash" means a structure:
1. at which a vehicle may be manually washed by its owner or operator with
equipment that is activated by the deposit of money in a coin - operated machine;
and
2. that is accessible and available for use by members of the general public.
H. "Self- service fuel pump' means a fuel pump:
1. from which a vehicle may be manually filled with gasoline or other fuel directly
by its owner or operator, with or without the aid of an employee or attendant of
the premises at which the fuel pump is located; and
2. that is accessible and available for use by members of the general public.
I. "Solicit" and all derivative forms of "solicit' means to ask, beg, solicit, or plead,
whether orally or in a written or printed manner, for the purpose of immediately receiving
contributions, alms, charity, or gifts of items of value for oneself or another person.
8.13A.030 Place of solicitation.
A. Solicitation near designated locations and facilities.
1. It is unlawful for any person to solicit another person within 15 feet of:
a. an automated teller machine;
b. the entrance of a building, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner
or occupant;
c. an exterior public pay telephone;
d. a self - service car wash;
e. a self - service fuel pump;
f. a public transportation stop; or
g. any parked vehicle as occupants of such vehicle enter or exit such vehicle.
2. It is unlawful for a person to solicit another person:
a. on private property, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or
occupant;
b. after sunset or before sunrise;
c. in any public transportation facility or vehicle.
B. For purposes of subsection A, measurement will be made in a straight line, without
regard to intervening structures or objects, from the nearest point at which a solicitation
is being conducted to whichever is applicable of the following:
1. the nearest entrance or exit of a facility in which an automated teller machine
is enclosed or, if the machine is not enclosed in a facility, to the nearest part of
the automated teller machine;
2. the nearest entrance or exit of a building;
3. the nearest part of an exterior public pay telephone;
4. the nearest part of the structure of a self - service car wash;
5. the nearest part of a self - service fuel pump;
6. the nearest point of any sign or marking designating an area as a public
transportation stop; or
7. any door of a parked vehicle that is being used by an occupant of such vehicle
to enter or exit such vehicle.
8.13A.040 Solicitation by Coercion. It is unlawful for a person to solicit by Coercion.
8.13A.050 Evidence. Evidence to support a conviction for a violation of this chapter
may include, but is not limited to, testimony of witnesses, videotape evidence of the
violation, and other admissible evidence.
8.13A.060 Penalties. Violation of Section 8.13A.030 shall be a misdemeanor and,
upon conviction thereof, a person is subject to a penalty of $1,000, incarceration for up
to 90 days, or both a fine and a penalty. Violation of
Section 8.13A.040 shall be a gross misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, a person
is subject to a penalty of $5,000, incarceration for up to one year, or both a fine and a
penalty.
CHAPTER 8.13B
SOLICITATIONS TO OCCUPANTS OF VEHICLES
ON PUBLIC ROADWAYS PROHIBITED
8.1313.010 Purpose.
8.1313.020 Definitions.
8.1313.030 Prohibited conduct.
8.1313.040 Evidence.
8.1313.050 Penalty.
8.1313.010 Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to protect citizens from the fear and
intimidation accompanying certain kinds of solicitation and to provide for vehicular and
pedestrian traffic safety.
8.1313.020 Definitions. In this chapter:
A. "Goods" means real property, as well as tangible and intangible personal property.
B. "Public property" means:
1. any property open or devoted to public use or owned by the City; and
2. any area dedicated to the public use for sidewalk, street, highway, or other
transportation purposes, including, but not limited to, any curb, median, parkway,
shoulder, sidewalk, alley, drive, or public right -of -way.
C. "Roadway" has the meaning given that term in RCW 46.04.500, as currently adopted
or as it may be amended in the future.
D. "Services" means any work done for the benefit of another person.
E. "Solicit' and all derivative forms of "solicit" means any conduct or act whereby a
person:
1. either orally or in writing, asks for an immediate ride, employment, goods, services,
financial aid, monetary gifts, or any article representing monetary value, for any purpose;
2. either orally or in writing, sells or offers for immediate sale goods, services, or
publications;
3. distributes without remuneration goods, services, or publications; or
4. solicits signatures on a petition or opinions for a survey.
F. "Vehicle" has the meaning given that term in RCW 46.04.670, as currently adopted or
as it may be amended in the future.
8.1313.030 Prohibited conduct.
A. It is unlawful for any person, while occupying any public property adjacent to any
public roadway in the City, to knowingly conduct a solicitation directed to, or intended to
attract the attention of, the occupant of any vehicle stopped or traveling on the roadway,
unless said vehicle is legally parked. An offense occurs when the solicitation is made,
whether or not an actual employment relationship is created, a transaction is completed,
or an exchange of money, goods, or services takes place. PROVIDED, that nothing
herein shall be construed to prohibit activity authorized pursuant to Tacoma Municipal
Code Chapter 11.15, Special Events Permitting Code.
B. It is a defense to prosecution under Section 8.1313.030 that the person was:
1. summoning aid or requesting assistance in an emergency situation; or
2. a law enforcement officer in the performance of official duties.
8.1313.040 Evidence. Evidence to support a conviction for a violation of this chapter
may include, but is not limited to, testimony of witnesses, videotape evidence of the
violation, and other admissible evidence.
8.136.050 Penalty. Violation of this chapter shall be a misdemeanor and, upon
conviction thereof, a person is subject to a penalty of $1,000, incarceration for up to
90 days, or both a fine and a penalty.
3/4/08
Contacts with the DOT and the State Patrol re panhandling
In February 2008, Amy Pagano contacted the DOT and the State Patrol regarding their
policies for panhandlers on state highways.
The PIO for DOT, Al Gilson, said no such policy existed and referred me to the WSP.
The regional WSP PIO said he was unaware that his agency had any such policy, but did refer
me to Trooper Robert Nowak who keeps tabs on Panhandlers.
Trooper Nowak will be coming into our office on 3/7/08 so that we can make copies of his
files.
Outline — Panhandling Presentation
I. Intro —
e Currently — COSV has an aggressive begging provision in 8.25.020 that makes
it a misdemeanor to "ask for money (beg) with the intent to frighten or coerce
another person into giving money"
e Recently a proliferation of complaints and so Legal has revisited the issue of
regulating panhandling to determine the legality of several options
e Main Consideration — At the heart of any panhandling regulation is the law that
panhandling is a protected form of expression. Thus, it is offered strong
protection against government regulations. However, not guaranteed total
protection -
e Two main categories of options
*First are options where the legal issues are small and would not require
any additional factual basis for the City to either enact or pursue
e Second categories are options for reasonable time, place, and manner
restrictions — these directly regulate speech and so require a very strong
factual basis to support such provisions
II. Minimal Legal Issues:
e Three main options:
1. A public awareness type campaign — can be very effective because it eliminates
the source
e Smallest and least legal implications
e utilize multiple means including signs, pamphlets, and other devices
e communication and contribution
e Benefits — Gets the community involved, potentially most effective in
the long run
e Drawbacks — need strong community support, no
2. Add regulations for non protected forms of speech (essentially expand
aggressive begging — see Federal Way)
e Fraud or misrepresentation
e Exploitation of Children
e Obstruction?
e Difficult to enforce — does not really add much to our current provision
3. Do nothing — continue enforcing aggressive begging provision
III. Major Legal Issues — these options are reasonable time, place and manner
restrictions
They require at least a significant government interest and some cases in
Washington suggest that governments may actually need to provide a compelling
interest.
In order to get this — need actual factual record to demonstrate the government
interest — cannot be for mere aesthetics, but must be for public safety and health.
At this time, staff was not aware of any research that had been done.
1. Regulate solicitations at certain locations and certain times — depending on
what research shows:
• could include various business establishments or locations
• ATM's, Banks, Gas Stations, Bus Stops /Zones
• could include intersections /on -ramps
• trouble areas
• could include certain times when problem is most prevalent
• if strong enough research, could ban all solicitation from sidewalk to
passing motorists
• Tacoma just passed a provision like this — they spent over a year
and half conducting public meetings to build their record
*Additionally, worked with Public Works regarding traffic
delays and Police Department regarding number and types
of complaints.
• NOTE — this is a ban on all solicitation — not just panhandling, so
firemen out collecting in boots would be banned under this as well — could
be special permit exemptions, but no exemptions based on type of charity
• Benefits — strong regulations
• Drawbacks — still only issuing citations OR put in jail, but there is a cost
element and you're putting panhandlers in jail
2. Regulate drivers to make it illegal to give donations f om their cars
• Same requirement of factual record to demonstrate traffic safety and
obstruction.
• could not find any other municipality that has such a provision
• Benefit — cut off source
• Drawbacks — difficult to enforce, regulating drivers rather than solicitors
IV. Conclusion
• Presented the legal issues surrounding several options regarding panhandling.
Please advise as to the next move you wish staff to take.
S �i�
P
,,;,O*Va1.1ey 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatt@spokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To: Dave Mercier, City Manager; City Council
From: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
CC: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager; Stan Schwartz, City Attorney
Date: July 7, 2004
Re: Panhandling issues
Various members of the public have registered complaints with the City about
panhandlers that stand or sit at various intersections in the City and request, in one form
or another, financial assistance. Such requests are generally in the form of a hand - printed
sign on cardboard, which is held up to cars passing by, or stopped at traffic signals.
The general question posed by citizens in their complaints to the City is whether the City
can "do something about getting rid of the beggers." To the best of my knowledge, the
current scope of the issue is that there are about 8 -10 intersections in the City at which
this occurs. The most visible intersections are at Pines and Sprague; Thierman and
Appleway; and Sullivan and the eastbound I -90 offramp.
In researching this issue, it would appear that the range of options is limited. In
Washington, there are only a few types of ordinances cities have adopted to address
panhandling. Panhandling has been declared by our state Supreme Court to be a form of
expression subject to protection under our state and federal constitutions. As such, any
attempt at regulating the conduct will be subject to strict scrutiny to ensure that
restrictions on the activity are not violative of the constitutional requirements. Certain
time, place and manner restrictions are allowed, such as prohibiting aggressive begging,
which Spokane Valley has already adopted.
In looking at what is allowed for a time, place or manner restriction, a reviewing court
would look to whether the city was trying to address an adverse secondary impact of the
conduct. For instance, an ordinance has been upheld prohibiting people from sitting on a
sidewalk in the city core because the city provided studies showing that having a number
of people sitting on the sidewalk seriously impeded traffic flow. That demonstrated a
community interest in need of fixing that was not aimed at eliminating begging.
Similarly, if Spokane Valley were to look at implementing a time, place or manner
restriction, it would have to identify an adverse secondary impact (serves a significant
government interest) that results from panhandling activity.
One option that has been upheld in support of maintaining traffic flow is to prohibit
panhandling within a given distance of a bus stop, for instance 50 or 100 feet. The
rationale is that panhandlers inhibit foot traffic flow of those trying to get onto and off the
bus by their activity. There may be some question of whether that would stand up given
the lower ridership levels we have in our area, and that solicitations are primarily aimed
at the passing vehicle traffic. Instead, the city might look to prohibit panhandling at any
intersection where there is a traffic signal or stop sign because of the traffic now issues.
Another option used by other jurisdictions is to work with private restaurants to develop a
food voucher program wherein people in the community can obtain low -to -no -cost
vouchers for a meal at participating restaurants. If members of the community truly want
to help the needy, this provides them an opportunity to do so. If the panhandler truly
wants food, as may be indicated by his/her sign, then it accomplishes the intent for both.
This approach requires participation by local restaurant owners and members of the
public, but it appears to be quite successful in some other jurisdictions.
Another option could be to place signs around those intersections where the activity is
most common that state if people wish to donate money to the needy, they can contact the
Spokane Regional Health District to find out where a donation can be made that
maximizes the benefit for the size of the donation. This approach would ensure that the
City is not advocating certain charitable organizations over others by stating, for instance,
that donations could be made to "Ralph's House of Charity ".
In summary, there is no direct approach to prohibiting panhandling. If the City was to
look at implementing some form of regulation above its current prohibition against
aggressive panhandling, it would have to be narrowly tailored. Most cities in
Washington have shied away from trying to ban panhandling due to the close scrutiny
such regulations get from the Courts.
Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Josha Leonard, Legal Intern
"31
,;oOValley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhaL[@spokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To: City Council
From: Erik Lamb, Legal Intern; Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
CC: Dave Mercier, City Manager, Mike Connelly, City Attorney; Mike
Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Date: January 15, 2008
Re: Panhandling — public awareness campaign
Attorney - Client Communication
This Memorandum is submitted under the attorney - client privilege existing between the City
Attorney, City Manager and City Council. The privilege is held by the City Council and
applies to communications and advice by the attorney, which includes documents that
contain a privileged communication. This Memorandum is such a communication and need
not be made available for public inspection.
At the request of the City Council, our office has drafted the following memorandum in
relation to potential approaches the City may take toward panhandling. Specifically, the
Council requested more information on the efficacy of a public awareness campaign.
1. Effectiveness of Public Awareness Campaign
Due to the many factors that influence the level of panhandling and the lack of long -term
data on panhandling, it is difficult to accurately gauge the effectiveness of public awareness
campaigns. Additionally, most problems and the associated education campaigns deal with
centralized panhandling in downtown areas. Thus, data on city -wide campaigns is very
limited. In Washington, staff could find no City that had engaged in a large scale public
awareness campaign. However, there were other business districts and non - Washington
cities with public awareness campaigns. Below is a list of cities with different types of
campaigns and discussion about their effectiveness.
• Spokane — Downtown Spokane Partnership maintained a program downtown asking
for donations in drop boxes located at various businesses. However, this program was
modified and has become the "Give Real Change, Not Spare Change" program. This is a
"prototypical" program in that it is based on brochures handed out in the downtown area in
an attempt to combat downtown shoppers from giving money to panhandlers. This program
is combined with the Downtown Spokane Security Ambassadors program, a service that
provides non - police assistance to downtown customers for a wide range of problems,
including encounters with aggressive panhandlers. Statistics have not been kept, though in
talking with Todd Babcock, a City Council assistant who is working on the panhandling
issue, it appears that Spokane is attempting to adopt an ordinance similar to the recently
enacted Tacoma provision that prevents solicitation in certain areas and in certain forms. See
RCA dated May 22, 2007 for an analysis of time, place and manner restrictions. Spokane is
waiting to see how the Tacoma statute works, and whether it will withstand legal challenge
before adopting such a provision.
• Seattle — Downtown Seattle Association and Metro Improvement District (MID) in the
City of Seattle started a poster and sign campaign in January of 2007. The campaign, entitled
"Have a heart, Give Smart," was directed at the downtown businesses, the public, and
panhandlers to educate them on panhandling. The program involves use of posters and
handouts placed in downtown businesses. "Give Smart" is supposed to encourage persons to
give to local social organizations rather than individuals. As part of the campaign, MID
began keeping detailed records regarding panhandling solicitations. While statistics for the
first quarter of 2007 showed a 38% increase in panhandling solicitations from the previous
year, the number steadily declined and showed a 32% decline for the month of September
2007 as to September 2006, and a total decline of 14% for the third quarter of 2007. The
police enforce an aggressive panhandling provision for threatening begging that is almost
identical to the City of Spokane Valley provision.
• Portland, Oregon — Portland Business Alliance started a "Real Change, Not Spare
Change" program a little over a year ago. This program involved placing ten "change
meters" throughout Portland that also contain brochures and information regarding
panhandling. It is concentrated in areas with high foot traffic and perceived panhandling
problems. Additionally, the program encourages people to give to the meters as the money
received is matched by the Portland Business Alliance and distributed to local social
organizations. Statistics are sparse, especially since the program involves a large area.
However, the Business Association does have plans to increase the number of meters and are
also looking at alternatives to increase the matching money in order to provide more social
programs. A link to this program is www.portlandalliance.con-i/downtown services /real-
change.html
• Nashville, Tennessee — Again, started within the last year, the Downtown business
administration started a poster and brochure educational program. There is no hard evidence
about the effectiveness of the program, though at least some downtown business owners feel
there are fewer panhandlers downtown. Nashville was going to adopt a time, place, and
manner restriction provision, but after large pressure from various social groups, has decided
to wait and see how the education campaign works.
• Evanston, Illinois — Evanston has a comprehensive program which was specifically
developed as a reaction to a perceived panhandling problem in the downtown area. The
program involves city personnel, police, EvMark, which is a downtown marketing
association, and the Evanston Chamber of Commerce to educate downtown businesses,
customers, and local college students about the negative effects of giving to panhandlers.
The program utilizes downtown posters and handouts to promote donations to local social
service groups rather than to individual panhandlers. In his five year experience with the
program, Sergeant Dennis Preedle feels that there "seems" to be a reduction of the number of
regular panhandlers. However, he is not sure that there has been a major impact in the
overall number of panhandlers. Sergeant Preedle feels that at least part of the reason for this,
however, is due to the yearly crop of new incoming Northwestern University students who
have not been educated by the program.
• Cincinnati, Ohio — While Cincinnati does not have a significant public education
program, they do have a licensing statute and social outreach program that are notable.
Though the statistics regarding the effectiveness of licensing are largely anecdotal, it is clear
that there are typically upwards of 100 registrations yearly. However, some of these are from
people registering as part of a protest group. Additionally, there are normally 100+ arrests
made for violating the panhandling law (though not all for lack of a license). However,
without hard data, the anecdotal evidence suggests that registration has only shifted where
the panhandlers operate and has not significantly impacted the problem. Not surprisingly,
the social outreach program, which was funded by the Downtown Partnership at around the
cost of $50,000, has been the most effective program because the workers get panhandlers
help for any addictions, help them find transitional housing, education, and job opportunities.
Thus, as one police officer noted, the outreach is really a "cure" as opposed to a part-time
band -aid that the law and arrests provide.
2. Legality of Licensing/Permitting Scheme for Panhandlers
Council has also asked about the legality of a licensing /permitting scheme for
panhandling. Staff has not found any city in Washington that has a panhandling
licensing /permitting scheme. However, maintaining such a program would be difficult
unless the scheme did not place an excessive financial burden on applicants, did not allow
unfettered government discretion or delay in granting /denying permits, and allowed
expedited judicial review of denials of permits. Additionally, any measures that punish
panhandlers for not having a license cannot act as a form of restriction or prohibition of the
speech. Additional practical considerations are that such schemes may not effectively reduce
panhandling, could by costly (through administration of issuing permits and enforcement),
and may be difficult to enforce.
In Washington, free speech is afforded greater protection than under the U.S.
Constitution. Ino Ino, Inc. v. City of Bellevue, 132 Wash. 2d 103, 117 (1997). Panhandling is
a form of protected speech, and as such, receives strong protection. City of Seattle v.
McConahy, 86 Wash. App. 557, 568 (1997). Prior restraints, or restricting /prohibiting the
speech in advance of publication, are per se unconstitutional when imposed on protected
constitutional speech (of which panhandling /solicitation is a class). JJR, Inc. v. City of
Seattle, 126 Wash. 2d 1, 6 (1995); O'Day v. King County, 109 Wash. 2d 796, 804 (1988).
Thus, when looking at a licensing scheme that involves protected speech, the relevant
question is whether it constitutes "prior restraint ". Prior restraints are "official restrictions
imposed upon speech or other forms of expression in advance of actual publication...." JJR,
126 Wash. 2d at 6, quoting Seattle v. Bittner, 81 Wash. 2d 747, 756 (1973). Because the
licensing scheme cannot effectively ban the speech, the restrictions (such as requiring the
permit, or only allowing licensed panhandlers to operate in certain locations) must be based
on valid time, place, and manner restrictions. See RCA dated May 22, 2007 regarding
requirements for valid time, place and manner restrictions. Additionally, purely subjective
criteria, such as considering character, may only be considered in granting an application
where there is a rational basis for doing so. Most likely there is no rational basis for
considering character when looking at panhandlers. Additionally, the licensing scheme must
have provisions that specifically require licenses to be considered — and thus granted or
denied — without "undue delay" in a "reasonable time ". City of Littleton v. Z.J. Gifts, 541
U.S. 774, 781 (2004).
Finally, the commercial exploitation of material protected by the First Amendment may
properly be subject to a licensing fee. However, the fee must be a regulatory measure
reasonably related to costs of administration and enforcement of the statute, and must not act
as a bar to allowing the speech. See Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943). As
those costs of regulation must be prescribed in advance, they must of necessity be based upon
estimates which it is the right and duty of the licensing authorities to make. See Seattle v.
Barto, 31 Wash. 141 (1903). Because of the nature of panhandling, licensing fees would
most likely have to be very small or even free ((Durham, North Carolina, and Cincinnati,
Ohio, have free license or charge $20 for licenses). Post license revocation/suspension
cannot act as a restriction on speech and if it is used as punishment or prohibits the activity
completely then it will be prior restraint.
Finally, as noted above, staff could not find a Washington city with a licensing scheme for
panhandling. Several cities in other states (which have different laws and constitutional
limitations) have enacted panhandling licensing schemes. Durham, North Carolina, has a
licensing statute that restricts solicitation in certain areas (due to safety concerns). See
Attachments to RCA dated January 15, 2008. Under the Durham code, people wanting to
solicit must get a license that acts more as an ID than anything else. It appears that
approximately 100+ people register each year, though that number includes any charitable
group trying to solicit as well (which would include the Fire Department's "fill the boot"
campaign). Durham's code has not been challenged in court. Cincinnati, Ohio, has a similar
provision, though their code was recently challenged on constitutional grounds. A federal
district court found that the plaintiffs might prevail at trial and thus summary judgment was
not appropriate. Henry v. City of Cincinnati, 2005 WL 1198814 (S.D. Ohio 2005).
However, the parties have entered into settlement negotiations and the court may not reach
the issue of whether that law is constitutional.
While a licensing scheme is possible, there are strict requirements. The scheme must not
prohibit the protected speech, and restrictions must still be based on reasonable time, place
and manner requirements. Additionally, it appears that it would be difficult to administer
from a city standpoint.
Please let us know if you would like additional information.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: May 22, 2007 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report — Panhandling regulation updates
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Wash. Const. art. I, sec. 5; Wash. Const. art. IX, sec. 11; SVMC
8.25.020.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: Upon incorporation, the City considered possibilities for regulating
panhandling within the City. Staff determined that panhandling is a form of constitutionally
protected expression, and as such is granted strong protection from government regulations.
However, Staff determined that the City could regulate aggressive and threatening panhandling
in order to protect its citizens, and accordingly the City adopted Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) section 8.25.020, entitled "Aggressive Begging." This section prohibits begging that
threatens or intimidates pedestrians or motorists.
Due to recent complaints by citizens about the proliferation of panhandlers, Staff has revisited
the issue to determine whether there are alternative means to regulate panhandling.
There are three options that likely meet constitutional requirements:
1. Promote a public awareness campaign to encourage other means of charitable
contributions and discourage donating to individual panhandlers; or
2. Expand the definition of "aggressive begging" to include other behaviors such as
fraud, exploitation of children, or obstruction of traffic with intent to intimidate; or
3. Continue enforcement of SVMC 8.25.020.
1. The first option is not a control on panhandling, but rather a public awareness campaign to
encourage other means of charitable contributions and discourage donating to individual
panhandlers. This method would be the most effective in the long term because it seeks to
eliminate the problem at its source rather than simply make panhandling illegal. There are
several possibilities for disseminating information that could include large signs, pamphlets, and
other media responses, but all would contain the same message indicating how people might
help by donating to established charities rather than panhandlers. Additionally, this campaign
could be combined with various other methods for working with local businesses to promote the
use of vouchers and contribution collection areas. This type of campaign has been effective
when combined with increased patrols to enforce panhandling regulations. Additionally, this type
of campaign minimizes City liability because there would be no restriction of any protected
activity. A public awareness campaign would also alleviate some citizen concerns by informing
the public about the truth behind panhandling, as well as make sure that those who are truly
needy receive the money.
2. The second option expands the definition of "aggressive begging ". Expansions could include
obstructing pedestrian or vehicular movement, the use of fraud, or the exploitation of children.
Several cities have had obstruction provisions, but a recent court case indicated that unless the
obstruction occurred with the intent to intimidate, such a provision would not be enforceable.
Thus, the City could include obstruction with the intent to intimidate under "Aggressive Begging."
Cities have also included the use of fraudulent or misleading information and the exploitation of
children in their definitions of "aggressive begging." However, all three of these possibilities
suffer from the same problem as the current aggressive begging provision in that they are very
difficult to enforce. Proving fraud, exploitation of children, and intent to intimidate is very difficult
and would not add much to the current provision.
3. The third option allows the City to continue enforcement of the aggressive begging statute.
Additionally, there are two options that would require a strong factual basis to provide a
significant government interest in order to meet constitutional muster. At this time, the City has
not done the necessary fact finding to support either option. These options are:
1. Adopt regulations restricting soliciting funds in designated areas and designated
times; or
2. Adopt regulations to prevent drivers from donating to panhandlers while driving.
1. Although panhandling is a protected expression, the City may still place reasonable time,
place, and manner restrictions on speech when there is a significant government interest at
stake. The City may adopt a provision that restricts all solicitations in designated locations at
designated times. However, this type of law must be narrowly tailored to meet a significant
government interest and must be content neutral. In order to be content neutral, the law must
restrict all solicitations regardless of their source (ie, both charitable organizations and
panhandling). The City must provide actual support demonstrating that traffic and pedestrian
safety and flow is being adversely impacted by solicitations, and cannot rely on mere aesthetic
impact. Depending on what the factual support shows, this law may be narrowly drawn to only
prevent solicitations to occupants of vehicles or only in certain locations, such as specific
intersections or near bus zones. Because of this requirement, most cities have not attempted
such regulation. Staff found only one city in Washington that had passed such a law. Tacoma
recently passed an ordinance that prohibits persons from soliciting money from occupants in
vehicles (stopped or traveling) unless the vehicles are legally parked. Staff has contacted
Tacoma to determine the intricacies of the Tacoma law. While this law is much stronger than
the current "aggressive begging" provision, there are several drawbacks. First, because of the
nature of panhandling, issuing citations will not have a major impact on preventing panhandling.
Additionally, putting panhandler's in jail may be expensive and will only provide a limited cure to
the problem. Finally, because of the nature of the complaints to the City that focus on the
aesthetics, research may show that there simply is not the significant interest in traffic and
pedestrian safety to allow such a law.
2. The fourth option does not control panhandling, but regulates drivers from obstructing traffic
by donating from their cars. Staff could not find any other cities attempting this type of
regulation. The regulation would make it illegal to donate from a car that is traveling (whether
stopped at a light or otherwise) on the right of way. However, because of the expressive nature
of panhandling recognized by the courts, presumptively the same logic would apply to the act of
donating. Thus, this regulation would have to be narrowly tailored and serve a significant
government interest. The City would need to demonstrate strong facts demonstrating actual
safety concerns for pedestrian and vehicular traffic, as well as demonstrable flow obstruction.
As an additional concern, this regulation intrudes upon the very citizens who want panhandling
stopped.
OPTIONS: 1. Promote a public awareness campaign to encourage other means of
charitable contributions and discourage donating to individual
panhandlers; or
2. Expand the definition of "aggressive begging" to include other
behaviors such as fraud, exploitation of children, or obstruction of traffic
with intent to intimidate; or
3. Continue enforcement of SVMC 8.25.020.
Conduct the necessary fact finding to determine whether solicitations from right -
of -ways have an actual effect on traffic and pedestrian safety and flow. After this
research, the City may:
1. Adopt regulations restricting soliciting funds in designated areas and
designated times; or
2. Adopt regulations to prevent drivers from donating to panhandlers
while driving.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Please advise Staff which option(s) Council desires
to pursue so that Staff may compile detailed information regarding those options.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Cannot be determined at this time.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Erik Lamb, Legal Intern
ATTACHMENTS:
INTERSECTING SOLUTIONS
HOW CONSISTENT POLICE ENFORCEMENT,
PARTNERSHIPS WITH THE COMMUNITY AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE RESTORED ORDER AND
CIVILITY TO AN URBAN INTERSECTION
VANCOUVER POLICE DEPARTMENT, CANADA, 1999
THE PROBLEM: In mid 1997, the Grandview Woodland Community Policing Centre
( GWCPC) conducted a survey to determine the opinions of people in the
Commercial Drive area about activities and conditions in the
neighbourhood. The goal of the survey was to establish what community
standards and levels of tolerance existed on issues that related to
community policing and municipal governance. This survey provided the
GWCPC with base line data which combined with other reporting
sources (911, reports to the GWCPC and the Neighbourhood Integrated
Services Team), allowed for proper identification of community
problems.
ANALYSIS: Nuisance behaviour (aggressive panhandling, public drunkenness and
squeegee activity) and standards of maintenance issues (litter and graffiti
on public property) turned the intersection at 1 st Avenue and
Commercial Drive into a focal point for complaints to 911, the GWCPC
and the NIST. The Community Survey established that these
behaviours and conditions were unacceptable to area residents. A
concerted initiative was developed to address the multitude of problems
affecting this intersection. Because of the varied root causes of the
problems and their impact on the environment, the GWCPC utilized
several resources in the problem identification phase and in the solution
implementation phase.
RESPONSE: The GWCPC combined a consistent enforcement approach with
significant changes to the environment. Environmental changes
included:
Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design review of
surrounding buildings.
Identification and removal of structures and vegetation that
facilitated problematic behaviours.
Removal of graffiti on surrounding buildings which was replaced
with murals.
Installation of new garbage receptacles, combined with increased
litter pick -up.
NInvolvement of local businesses in upgrading building and street
maintenance.
ASSESSMENT: Once the initiative was completed, the results were thoroughly
measured. This evaluation included analysis of'calls for service'to
911, assessment of cost reduction in emergency services, analysis of
calls to the GWCPC and visual assessment of the intersection. Results
indicate that the initiative was:
NEffective in reducing call load to 911 and the GWCPC.
NEfficient in reducing the need for emergency resources, eliminating
graffiti and reducing litter.
NEquitable to the community by re- establishing the quality of life to
the intersection.
The improved quality of life the community enjoys as a result
demonstrates the success of this Intersection Project. The associated
reduction in costs and use of emergency service allows resources to be
re- allocated to higher priority calls. This comprehensive approach
targeting multiple repetitive problems at a major intersection is
transferable throughout any city.
INTRODUCTION
The Grandview Woodland Community Policing
Centre (GWCPC) is dedicated to identifying and
resolving community problems through various
problem - solving tactics. During the summer
months of 1997 and 1998, the intersection at 1'
Avenue and Commercial Drive became a focal
point for complaints to the GWCPC. The
problems manifested at this intersection were
multi - faceted and impacted other areas within
the neighbourhood.
The Community Survey conducted in 1997,
combined with studies by Simon Fraser
University (SFU) criminology students, helped
the GWCPC during the scanning phase of the
Intersection Project. In order to properly
determine the extent of the problem, reports to
the GWCPC and calls for service to 911 were
analyzed.
Once the problem was identified, extensive
analysis was conducted. Certain behaviours
(squeegee activity, aggressive panhandling and
public drunkenness) were determined to be
problematic. The GWCPC identified the various
consequences of these behaviours on the area
surrounding the intersection and on other
locations in the community. Proper analysis of
the problem enabled the GWCPC to develop a
comprehensive project that targeted these
behaviours and their effects on the environment.
Consistent police enforcement combined with
environmental changes were the basis of the
Intersection Project. This project was
implemented during the months of June, July
and August 1998.
The success of the Intersection Project was
assessed and evaluated in August 1998. For this
purpose, researchers analyzed 911 calls for
service, associated police service costs, reports
to the GWCPC and visual assessment of the
intersection. Results indicated the project
successfully reduced the occurrence of
problematic behaviours and eliminated their
effect on the environment. Follow -up
assessment will be conducted for the
corresponding months of 1999.
The Intersection Project is the response from the
GWCPC to address concerns from the
community. Complaints were from residents,
local businesses and their employees. The
GWCPC concluded that the quality of life in the
neighbourhood was significantly impacted by
the activities at 1" Avenue and Commercial
Drive. The goal of the project was to involve the
community to re- establish a sense of order and
to elevate the acceptable standards for street
behaviour.
Description of the Grandview -
Woodland Community Policing
Centre
The Grandview Woodland Community Policing
Centre (GWCPC) opened in April 1995 inside
the Britannia Community Centre located near
Commercial Drive. The office is volunteer
managed and operated in partnership with the
Vancouver Police Department (VPD). It acts as
a resource for both the community and the
police department. The Board of Directors of the
GWCPC consists of local residents, business
owners and people who work in the area. A paid
civilian co- ordinator staffs the office and runs a
variety of programs. A constable is assigned to
the GWCPC as a liaison between the VPD and
the community. The p rimary function of the
constable is to collaborate with various
community and government agencies and the
GWCPC Board of Directors and staff to develop
and implement problem- oriented projects that
target issues or concerns identified by the
community.
The GWCPC is a unique community police
office model in that the impetus for opening the
office came directly from the community. A
group of residents decided there was a need for
this type of police service then approached the
police department with an implementation plan.
This has allowed the GWCPC to enter into an
equal partnership with the police department.
The active collaboration between the community
and the police is implicit in every project
undertaken by the GWCPC.
Problems are mainly identified through reports
to the GWCPC from concerned citizens
regarding situations occurring in the
neighbourhood (e.g.: drug dealing, loitering,
problem businesses, noise complaints,
prostitution and disorder issues). Most
complaints involve ongoing, repetitive problems
which cannot be solved through traditional,
reactive policing. This reporting mechanism
identifies specific problems. Supporting
information is gathered (e.g.: crime analysis,
information from various VPD squads, or
information from City Departments) and a
comprehensive solution is proposed, reviewed,
implemented and assessed.
This pro- active approach to community
identified issues and concerns have proven
effective in dealing with a variety of problems.
Since the office opened, the GWCPC's area of
responsibility has seen a reduction in 911 calls
for service. This success is dependent on an
active collaboration between the assigned
constable, the GWCPC volunteers and staff, the
community, and various government agencies.
The Intersection Project is an excellent example
of how this type of collaboration can result in
viable solutions for a problematic area located at
the centre of the community.
PRELIMINARY STEPS
Previous projects had been undertaken to
identify the specific problems occurring at the
intersection of 1 "Avenue and Commercial
Drive. An extensive Community Survey allowed
for proper analysis of community opinions and
limits of tolerance on nuisance behaviours and
standards of maintenance issues. A Poster
Project informed the community of the
existence of the GWCPC and provided high
visibility for the office. Several Crime
Prevention Through Environmental Design
(CPTED) studies by Simon Fraser University
(SFU) criminology students identified various
structures and vegetation which facilitated
criminal activities.
1. Community Survey
During the summer of 1997, the GWCPC
conducted an extensive Community Survey to
determine the opinions of people in the
Commercial Drive area. Three survey questions
dealt with street level nuisance behaviour
occurring at the intersection (squeegee activity,
public drunkenness and aggressive panhandling)
and two questions addressed standards of
maintenance issues (litter and graffiti on public
property). The Community Survey also
contained questions on positive aspects of the
community such as murals. Survey researchers
endeavoured to be inclusive of all sections of the
community during the survey interviewing
phase. Results are representative of a cross -
section of the Commercial Drive area. 720 out of
1000 surveys were completed and returned to
the GWCPC. Results indicated that:
39% of respondents found squeegee activity
unacceptable
54% of respondents found public
drunkenness unacceptable
82% of respondents found aggressive
panhandling unacceptable
M 91 % of respondents found litter unacceptable
62% of respondents found graffiti on public
property unacceptable
92% of respondents found murals acceptable
These results were applied during the scan,
analysis and response phase of the Intersection
Project and will be further explored.
2. Poster Project
In September 1997, the GWCPC initiated the
Poster Project in the Grandview Woodland
Neighbourhood. The GWCPC based this project
on the New York model. The poster indicated
the types of complaints that could be reported to
the office. The GWCPC's assigned constable
and telephone number were listed on the poster.
This poster was delivered to all the businesses
along Commercial Drive. Business owners were
Poster Project
THIS BUILDING IS LOCATED IN VANCOUVER
POLICE DISTRICT 2
GRANDVIEW - WOODLAND COMMUNITY
POLICING BEAT
Actual size: 8.5" x 14"
IF THERE ARE PROBLEMS OR CONDITIONS
THAT NEED ATTENTION OR ASSISTANCE
PLEASE SEE YOUR BEAT OFFICER:
Cst.JeanPrince
OR CALL THE GRANDVIEW WOODLAND
COMMUNITY POLICE OFFICE
717 -2932
AND HELP US TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY
WE ARE LOCATED AT THE BRITANNIA ICE
RINK'1Z BLOCK WEST OF COMMERCIAL
DR. AT PARKER
(IN EMERGENCIES CALL 9 -1 -1)
asked to display the poster in a visible location
either inside the store or in a street window.
The high visibility of this project resulted in a
150% increase of calls to the GWCPC.
Complaints dealing with street level nuisance
behaviour increased significantly. This can be
explained by the nature of the targeted area of
the Poster Project: Commercial Drive is a busy
area of small shops and coffee bars where street
life is very active (please see page 9).
3. Simon Fraser University Student
Studies
During the summer and fall semesters of 1997,
SFU criminology students studied the blocks in
the surrounding area. The students applied
CPTED principles to the surrounding buildings,
structures and vegetation. They identified
elements in the environment which, facilitated
certain types of criminal behaviour (e.g.: bushes
in which squeegee people could hide their
equipment, alcoves in buildings where
panhandlers could sit away from, the rain, and
structures used by intoxicated people).
The students provided suggestions for
environmental modifications. These suggestions
were implemented during the response phase of
the Intersection Project. The students
observations were also taken into consideration
during both the sc an and analyze phase.
SCANNING
During the scan phase of the Intersection
Project, several sources were utilized to
determine the amplitude and cause of the
problem. Sources included reports to the
GWCPC, 911 calls, Community Survey results
and observations made by the students. Reports
to the GWCPC indicated that a multitude of
disorder issues at this central intersection were
affecting the quality of life of residents and local
business owners and their employees. Citizens
were fearful of using bank machines, shopping
at businesses, and walking or driving through
the intersection. Local businesses were
complaining of reduced business and employees
expressed concerns for their safety when
arriving or leaving for work.
911 calls showed that patrol was frequently
attending the intersection to deal with aggressive
panhandlers, squeegee activity and public
drunkenness. These activities sometimes
resulted in theft, mischief and assault. During
May 1998, prior to the implementation of the
Intersection Project, 18 of the 32 calls were the
result of the above mentioned behaviours. From
May to August 1997, 44 of the 193 calls to the
intersection were the result of the above
mentioned behaviours. These statistics showed
the extent of the problem.
The Community Survey conducted during the
summer of 1997, determined that nuisance
behaviour (squeegee activity, aggressive
panhandling and public drunkenness) was
problematic for the majority of respondents.
Standards of maintenance issues (litter and
graffiti on public property) were found to be
completely unacceptable to most respondents.
The SFU students spent two semesters (summer
and fall 1997) studying the Commercial Drive
area. Of these students only two lived in the
neighbourhood. The observations of these
students provided the GWCPC with a valuable
objective perspective. GWCPC Board members,
volunteers and staff are for the most part local
residents. Conditions in the neighbourhood such
as graffiti, litter, panhandling, squeegee activity
or public drunkenness can easily become
unnoticed elements of the environment and
residents can develop defence mechanisms. The
students' observations, comments and
suggestions brought to light the cumulative
effect of these conditions. Students observed
incidents and situations which they determined
were problematic whereas GWCPC Board
members, volunteers and staff saw these as
common, unremarkable occurrences.
Through these various sources, reports to the
office, 911 calls, Community Survey results and
SFU students' observations, the GWCPC
determined that the intersection at P Avenue
and Commercial Drive was a focal point for the
community. Problems occurring at this
intersection were cumulative and their combined
effect was directly impacting the quality of life
of the community. The goal of the Intersection
Project was to reclaim this intersection and
instill a sense of civility, community pride and
ownership.
ANALYSIS
During the analytical phase of the Intersection
Project, the GWCPC mobilized several
resources to properly determine the extent and
various sources of the problem. The Community
Survey provided information on the opinions of
the community regarding conditions manifested
at the intersection. Reports to the GWCPC
helped further determine the nature of the
problem. Once the problem was properly
identified, legislation to deal with the street level
behaviour was consolidated,.CPTED principles
were researched, and community resources were
identified. This process was conducted by the
assigned constable and the GWCPC Board of
Directors an d staff.
Results from the Community Survey indicated
that several behaviours and conditions present at
this intersection were problematic for the
majority of respondents. Survey researchers
conducted street interviews at this intersection
with squeegee people, panhandlers, intoxicated
people, local business owners, employees,
residents and visitors to the area. Researchers
found that respondents were generally accepting
and tolerant of a variety of street level
behaviours. However, when the combined effect
of various conditions breached the level of
tolerance, citizens turned to city bylaws and
police enforcement for solutions.
In May 1998, a territorial conflict began to occur
between street people and other users of this
intersection (e.g.: business owners, employees,
residents, moto ri sts and visitors). The problem
manifested itself in street level behaviour. The
resulting effects of these behaviours included:
0 Territorial graffiti.
Occupation of public property such as
benches by inebriated people.
Claiming of street space by squeegee people
and aggressive panhandlers.
0 Improper disposal of litter and used syringes.
This increase of street people using the
intersection also resulted in complaints about
other areas in the community. Street people were
sleeping in building alcoves within a one block
radius and using the facilities at local businesses.
Squeegee people claimed Grandview Park
(which is located 4 blocks away) and were
drinking, sleeping, making excessive noise at
night, and visibly using drugs in the park. When
approached by community workers, the
squeegee people stated that Gr andview Park was
their park. Tension between this street group
and local residents increased. The territori al
nature of this street group caused conce ms to the
community which was expressed through an
increase in calls to the GWCPC.
The GWCPC was able to determine that this
problem was creating increased fear in the
community and compromising the quality of
life. The repercussions were multi- faceted:
Increased fear at the intersection.
Disputes over territory.
Graffiti, litter, discarded needles and public
urination.
Thefts, mischief and assaults.
Traffic problems.
Problems in the local park.
Street people sleeping in building alcoves and
using business facilities.
Most important was the heightened perception
held by the community of the inability of the
police to deal with any one of the problems.
Resources used to analyze the problem included
SFU students, GWCPC volunteers, local
residents, businesses, area patrol cars,
community agencies, and City Enforcement
agencies through the NIST (Neighbourhood
Integrated Services Team). These resources
helped the GWCPC look at the problem from a
variety of angles. The problematic behaviours
had a variety of repercussions which also needed
to be addressed (e.g.: territorial graffiti, litter,
local park ownership and sleeping in building
alcoves). The environment needed to be
modified to facilitate consistent police
enforcement and to prevent reoccurrence of
street level nuisance behaviour. This was done
by making the environment uncomfortable for
the problematic intersection users and
comfortable for the other intersection users -
residents, business owners, visitors, motorists
and people who work in the area.
RESPONSE
The response to the various problems required a
consolidated effort of consistent police
enforcement with significant changes to the
environment. The goal of the Intersection
Project was to:
Restore the quality of life.
Decrease the public perception of fear.
Increase public confidence in the police.
Reduce 911 calls.
Lessen criminal activity.
Eliminate the repercussions to other areas in
the neighbourhood.
Encourage community pride and ownership.
Police action at the intersection included
enforcement of Motor Vehicle Act regulations,
City by -laws, and Criminal Code offences. Cst.
Prince developed a list of repeat squeegee
offenders and a list of Motor Vehicle Act and
by -law charging sections which were distributed
to patrol. These lists were designed to facilitate
patrol response and ensure proper identification
of the offenders. Aggressive panh andlers were
asked to move on. Public drunkenness was not
tolerated and offenders were taken to a detox
centre. A consistent method of approach by
patrol was encouraged in order to eliminate the
argument that street people view the police as
condoning the act when just driving by. Patrol
was asked to respond to problems at this
intersection by taking the initiative every time
they saw street nuisance behaviour rather than
only responding to 911 calls.
Police action also included pursuing Criminal
Code charges when appropri ate. Gas stations in
the area were involved in the project through the
engraving of their windshield washing
squeegees equipment. Charges of Possession of
Stolen Property were pursued when squeegee
people stole engraved squeegees from local gas
stations. Cst. Pri nce developed aSqueegee
Impact Statement which was submitted
with reports to Crown Counsel. The impact
statement outlined the costs incurred by the gas
stations and the effects on the community.
Changes to the environment were crucial in
order to prevent repetitive calls. The first
modification occurred in September of 1997.
SFU students established that the bench on the
northeast side of 1 ' Avenue and Commercial
Drive was the site of dispute between vari ous
groups of drinkers. The bench, adjacent to a
bank machine, was almost always occupied by
intoxicated people. Patrol was repeatedly
dispatched to arrest people for public
drunkenness.
The intoxicated persons seated on the bench
made it undesirable for public use. Newspaper
boxes were used by intoxicated persons to hide
their bottles, by squeegee people to hide their
squeegees and by panhandlers to rest up against.
The newspaper boxes were obstructed and could
not be used by the general public.
Two changes were necessary to eliminate these
activities. The bench was removed and results
indicate that public drunkenness calls were
reduced from 24 over four months in 1997 to 5
in 1998. The next change to the environment
was removing the newspaper boxes on the
northeast corner of 1 st Avenue and Commercial
Drive.
The Royal Bank on the southwest corner of I
Avenue and Commercial Drive was a trouble
spot for squeegee activity and panhandling near
the ATM (bank machine). Several CPTED
modifications were implemented. Next to the
entrance of the bank, there were two alcoves
which provided panhandlers with cover and
shelter. A slanted structure was installed in both
alcoves which made it impossible for
panhandlers to sit down. A ledge near the
entrance of the bank provided squeegee people
with a location to hide squeegees. Installation of
a glass window eliminated this hiding space.
The final modification was to the landscaping on
the street corner. An area planted with a large
bush provided both squeegee people and
panhandlers with a hiding place and cover. The
Royal Bank cut down this bush and paved the
area.
The Vancity Credit Union on the northwest
corner of 151 Avenue and Commercial Drive also
implemented environmental changes. The design
of the structure contains several large alcoves.
The alcove closest to the corner and the ATM
was a problematic area. At any given time there
would be 2 to 5 people in this alcove. This
provided squeegee people with a good hiding
place while they waited for the next red light.
Intoxicated people found shelter from the rain.
Vancity gated this alcove thus eliminating these
activities. Ina recent conversation, a'regular'
squeegee person stated that he now felt
uncomfortable squeegeeing at 151 Avenue and
Commercial Drive because he was "out in the
open ". Without these changes, consistent
police enforcement would have been much
more difficult. Once the changes were
implemented visual assessment was sufficient
to determine the success.
The last component of the Intersection Project
was the beautification of the area. The CIBC
bank was actively involved in graffiti
elimination. The Goodbye Graffiti company
was hired to remove graffiti from the CIBC
within 24 hours of its application. Vancity
already had a graffiti removal program.
Maintenance staff removed graffiti
immediately and conducted regular cleaning
of the exterior area. The Royal Bank did not
have a consistent policy to deal with graffiti
until it was approached by the GWCPC.
A collaborative effort resulted in the Royal
Bank engaging in a pro- active antigraffiti
program and the implementation of a
"Welcome to Commercial Drive" mural on
their retaining wall. It is interesting to note
that to date this mural has only been'tagged'
once and the 'tag' was quickly painted over.
Lastly, the GWCPC approached the owner of
the building on the southeast (fourth) corner
with a mural proposal. Community volunteers
painted a mural using a local artist's original
design. The mural is covered with an anti -
graffiti coating and is maintained by a
GWCPC volunteer. It is interesting to note
that this mural has only been tagged three
times in one year. Both murals were inspired
by information from the Community Survey
where the majority of respondents found
murals to be a positive aspect of the
Commercial Drive ambience.
The GWCPC then approached City Hall for
more garbage receptacles and increased litter
pick -up. The intersection received two new
receptacles.
The Intersection Project combined consistent
police beat patrol tactics for order maintenance
with targeted changes to the environment. This
project requires beat patrol to move away from
strictly reactive policing to addressing the
underlying problems which may not necessarily
be considered a beat officer's mandate; "beat
patrol with a twist ". Changes in the environment
were crucial to drastically reduce the
problematic behaviours. Police enforcement
would have escalated and remained reactive had
these environmental changes not been
implemented. The present situation requires
intermittent assessment and minimal
enforcement by the assigned constable.
(Please note: terri torial behaviour by squeegee
people in Grandview Park was addressed
through a different project which focused on
problems specific to the park. Street people
sleeping in building alcoves within the block
radius of the intersection was also addressed
through a collaborative effort between police
and City enforcement agencies. Building owners
were contacted and CPTED solutions were
proposed and implemented.)
ASSESSMENT
Through various means the GWCPC was able
to determine that the Intersection Project was
successful. Sources include: 911 call load
analysis, police resources cost analysis,
reports to the GWCPC and visual assessment.
Because the project addressed a variety of
behaviours and their effects on the
environment, these sources were necessary in
the assessment phase.
Calls to E. V Av. and Commercial and
associated police wages, 1997
Month
ay
une
July
ugust
Total calls '97
39
3
3
8
Squeegee calls'97
5
1
1
Squeegee. cost'97
$51.00
97.50
$26:00
$23.00
Panhandler calls '07
0
1
1
l
Panhandler cost'97
$o
22.40
$104.00
$98.00
Drunk calls '97
1
l
10
8
Drunk cost'97
$0
137.30
$259.00
$274.00
Total Cost for
�$1Jin
X57 nn
X3$9 nn
..3gawnn
�isarall "97.
911 call load analysis showed that the three
identified behaviours (squeegee activity,
public drunkenness and aggressive
panhandling) drastically decreased after the
project was initiated. Calls for these three
behaviours went from 18 of 32 in May 1998 to
4 of 22 in August 1998, which represents a
38% drop in calls. Comparing total calls to the
intersection from June to
August 1997 and June to August 1998 shows a
drop from 153 to 83 calls, which represents a
54% reduction.
From these 911 calls, police time costs were
determined. It is important to note that these
costs are based only on police wages and do not
include other associated costs such as police
equipment, dispatching, Emergency Hospital
Services (ambulance), volunteer detox
transportion, or associated costs to businesses
(e.g.: graffiti on buildings, theft of squeegees,
lost of business due to fear, etc.). Cost analysis
indicated that an initial investment of time
during the month of June 1998 when the project
was first implemented resulted in a significant
cost reduction (please see comparison charts
below).
Calls to E. I " Av. and Commercial and
associated police wages, 1998
Monti
ay ,'
Y
total calls 98,
2,
2
9
Squeegee c�l1Sg98,
SgaeeSc post "98
1633
338 �0
$2d {1>3
20
Panllandier,rall5198'1
l
1
l
Panhandier'eost'98
6� 4flF
2240
$13 1
o tan'
Oink calls198
l
Dunk cost,981.
13 Oil;
7 8i3
$83 24
Total Cost for
1
010b:,,
r
?!"iR
disoider calls '9l3`
�: 60
'i 50
940
a.
30
20.
S:10
z 0
1998 and'1997 CAi foir Service .
Comparison
May: June . July August.
p 1997 lE 1998`
1998 and 1997 Galls for Service
Comparison
c Soo
Q .� 400
a,.
300-
as 2110
c�oi a 100 r -
0 0
a
May June July August
51997 ■1998
9
1996 and 1997.Cadls :far Oi.#0 re
Ca�paris+on
(Please note: August 1998 drunk calls and May
1997 panhandler calls were 0.)
It is important to note that the majority of
incidents recorded in June 1998 were generated
by Cst. Prince, the GWCPC's assigned
constable, who targeted squeegee activity,
aggressive panhandling and public
drunkenness.
Authors are of the opinion that call analysis for
May to August 1999 will show the project's
incremental success in reducing nuisance
behaviour. Initial project time investment
during the month of June 1998 will not have to
be repeated. It is anticipated that enforcement
for these behaviours will be minimal during the
summer months of 1999. The environment is
no longer conductive to these activities and
changes have created an added sense of
community ownership. The GWCPC will
endeavour to encourage a pro- active approach
by area sergeants and patrol.
Researchers found 911 calls for service
analysis tedious in that the identified
behaviours fell under a variety of 911 sub-
headings (e.g: suspicious person, suspicious
circumstances, annoying person, mischief,
assault, theft, and detox). Researchers had to
read each call to the intersection in order to
determine whether or not the call pertained to
the identified behaviours. The limitation of 911
to record such behaviours is being addressed by
VPD through education and the creation of
new'call types'.
This limitation is discussed by Herman
Goldstein in Problem Oriented Policing:
"Overly broad categorizations of incidents
impede efforts to gain insight into a discrete
substantive problem" (p.39, Problem Oriented
Policing). Reports to the GWCPC were taken in
a manner which captured the nuances of a
variety of behaviours and therefore helped to
properly determine specific behaviours and
identify their root cause.
Visual assessment of the intersection allows for
proper monitoring of the problems. Regular
patrols by the assigned constable allows for
ongoing evaluation. Calls to the GWCPC
corroborate these observations and helps
determine the extent of the problem and its
effect on the community. Since the
implementation to the project, the GWCPC has
not received any calls about this intersection.
The problems are under control and the
tolerance level of the community is not
breached.
Before and after photographs provided the
GWCPC with a visual perspective of the impact
of the project. 1 S t Avenue and Commercial
Drive was overloaded with problems and
repercussions which visibly impacted the
environment. When citizens have to walk or
drive by a specific area daily, the environment
becomes so familiar that it either goes unnoticed
or, as was the case with this particular
intersection, citizens develop defence
mechanisms or avoid the location. This
intersection was appropriated by street people
causing other citizens of the community to use
the intersection with extreme caution. The
project aimed to re- establish a sense of order and
balance. Street behaviours have not been
completely eliminated, but they are presently at
a level which does not threaten other citizens in
the community.
The photographic record of how problems can
evolve to a point where an entire area is
significantly impacted is clear. Based on
Kellinb s Broken Windows theory, it is possible
10
to speculate that this intersection, left
unattended, would have deteriorated even more
CONCLUSION
The effects of public nuisance behaviour on
various communities is dependant on the amount
of street level activity and the level of tolerance
present in each neighbourhood. Once the level
of tolerance of a community is breached, street
level activity and its impact on the environment
becomes problematic, and repetitive calls to 911
are the result. Reactive police enforcement does
not solve the problem. Repeat calls to 911
indicate that street level behaviour has increased
to the point where citizens have become
overwhelmed.
A pro- active approach must be adopted to
properly address such a problem. The approach
must include consistent police enforcement and
significant changes to the environment.
Combined efforts will result in a significant
decrease of calls for service to 911. The
perception of fear by the community will also be
reduced and the confidence in the police will be
restored.
The GWCPC includes the community in the
problem - solving process. Police alone cannot
solve the multitude of issues affecting a
neighbourhood. The Intersection Project
included the community during the mural
implementation phase. Businesses were
encouraged to take ownership of the intersection
through anti - graffiti programs. Once the project
was completed, businesses continued to
maintain the intersection and community
members paint out graffiti on the murals. The
community has verbally complemented the
assigned constable on the improvement to the
area.
Police and community agencies will often
become complacent when faced with street level
behaviours. The SFU students provided a very
valuable outside, objective perspective and
assisted in outlining the extent of the problems
at IS Avenue and Commercial Drive. The
GWCPC determined that when combined, the
various behaviours were seriously affecting the
community. The goal of the Intersection Project
was to change the perception about acceptable
and unacceptable street level behaviours and
standards of maintenance issues. Through
targeted environmental change, the GWCPC
succeeded in modifying the types of behaviour
that can comfortably occur at this intersection.
Squeegee people can no longer hide, aggressive
panhandlers have to sit out in the open, and
inebriated people have to sit on the ground. The
result is that people engaged in these activities
have to seek out a'friendlier' environment that
will allow them to conduct their business
discreetly.
The Intersection Project is easily expandable
within Vancouver or any city which is impacted
by public nuisance behaviour. A city -wide
initiative would reduce nuisance behaviour,
associated problems, criminal behaviour and
calls to 911. By co- ordinating efforts throughout
the city, nuisance behaviour can be significantly
decreased through consistent enforcement,
sharing of information and modifications to the
environment.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Name: Cst. J. Prince 1676 or Cst. V. Spicer
1905; Address: 1661 Napier St. Vancouver,
B.C., V5L 4X4, Canada Phone: (604) 717 -2932
or Cst. Prince cell phone (604) 728 -2227 Fax:
(604) 718 -5824; E -mail Cst.Prince:
Jan i2 city vancouver.bc.ca: E -mail
Cst.Spicer: valerie Spicer city vancouver.bc.ca
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Coles, Catherine M. and George L. Kelling.
(1996). Fix ingBroken Windows R estoring
Order and Reducing Crime in Our
Communities.New York: Martin Kessler Books.
Goldstein, Herman (1990). Problem Oriented
Policing. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Newman, Oscar (1972). Defensible Space. New
York: The Macmillan Company.
W
Rosenbaum, Dennis (Ed.) (1994). The Challenge
of Cornrnun& Policing Testing the Promise.
Thousand Oaks, London and New Dheli: Sage
Publications.
Skogan, Wesley G. (1990). Disorder and
Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in
Arnerican Neighbourhoods. New York: Free
press.
12
P
ORDINANCE NO. 2513
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ISSAQUAH,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A NEW CHAPTER 9.45 OF THE
ISSAQUAH MUNICIPAL CODE, REGULATING TIME,
PLACE AND MANNER FOR SOLICITATION ON PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY, PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND
ESTABLISHING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, coercive solicitation causes fear and intimidation upon citizens, and
harms tourism and businesses;
WHEREAS, solicitation on certain locations poses traffic and public safety risks;
WHEREAS, the City of Council believes that it is important to protect the citizens
of Issaquah from fear and intimidation accompanying coercive solicitation, to promote tourism
and business and to preserve the quality of urban life while providing safe and appropriate
venues for constitutionally protected activities; NOW, THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ISSAQUAH, WASHINGTON, DO
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Regulation of Solicitation. A new Chapter 9.45 of the Issaquah
Municipal Code entitled "Regulation of Solicitation" is hereby adopted to read as follows:
Chapter 9.45
REGULATION OF SOLICITATION
Sections:
9.45.010
Purpose.
9.45.020
Definitions.
9.45.030
Coercive Solicitation - Prohibited.
9.45.040
Time of Solicitation.
9.45.050
Place of Solicitation.
9.45.060
Penalties.
- 1 -
it
9.45.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to regulate and punish acts of
coercive and aggressive begging, and acts of begging that occur at
locations or under circumstances specified herein which create an
enhanced sense of fear or intimidation in the person being
solicited, or pose risk to traffic and public safety.
9.45.020 Definitions.
A. "Coercive" means to do the following with intent:
1. to approach, speak or gesture to a person in such a
manner as would cause a reasonable person to believe that the
person is being threatened with a commission of a criminal act
upon the person, another person or property in the person's
possession.
2. to approach within 1 foot of a person for the
purpose of making a solicitation without obtaining said person's
initial consent.
3. to persist in a solicitation after the person solicited
has given a negative response.
4. to block the passage of a person, pedestrian traffic,
a vehicle or vehicular traffic while making a solicitation.
5. to engage in conduct that would reasonably be
construed as intended to compel or force a person being solicited
to accede to demands;
6. to make any false or misleading representation in
the course of making a solicitation.
B. "Solicitation" for the purposes of this chapter is any
means of asking, begging, requesting, or pleading made in person,
orally or in a written or printed manner, directed to another person,
requesting an immediate donation of money, contribution, alms,
financial aid, charity, gifts of items or service of value, or the
purchase of an item or service for an amount far exceeding its
value, under circumstances where a reasonable person would
understand that the purchase is in substance a donation.
9.45.030 Coercive Solicitation - Prohibited.
It shall be unlawful for a person to make coercive
solicitation.
-2-
9.45.040 Time of Solicitation.
A. It shall be unlawful to make solicitation to
pedestrians on public property after sunset or before sunrise.
9.45.050 Place of Solicitation.
A. It shall be unlawful to solicit at the following
places:
1. on -ramp or off -ramp to state route or interstate
highway;
2. within 300 feet of the following intersections and
identified in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by
reference:
a. SR
i.
ii.
iv.
V.
vi.
900 and
NW Sammamish Road
12th Avenue NW
NW Gilman Boulevard
NW Mall Street
NW Maple Street
NW Newport Way
b. E. Lake Sammamish Parkway SE and
i. SE Issaquah Fall City Road
ii. SE 64th Place
iii. 229th Avenue SE
C. NW Gilman Boulevard and
i. Front Street North
ii. 1 st Avenue NW
d. Rainier Boulevard North and
i. NW Juniper Street
ii. NW Holly Street
B. It shall be unlawful for a person to sell, or offer for
immediate sale, goods, services or publications, or to distribute
items without remuneration, to a person in a vehicle, at the
following:
1. on -ramp or off -ramp to state route or interstate
highway;
2. within 300 feet of the street intersections set forth in
A(2) above.
-3-
9.45.060 Penalties.
Violation of any section of this chapter shall be a
misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 and/or
imprisonment for up to 90 days.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other
section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This ordinance or a summary thereof consisting of the
title shall be published in the official newspaper of the City, and shall take effect and be in full
force five (5) days after publication.
2008.
Passed by the City Council of the City of Issaquah, the 22nd day of January,
Approved by the Mayor of the City of Issaquah the 22nd day of January, 2008.
ATTEST /AUTHENTICATED:
CITY CLERK, CHRISTINE EGGERS
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY:
M.
PUBLISHED: January 30, 2008
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 4, 2008
ORDINANCE NO: 2513/AB 5707
APPROVED:
AVA FRISINGER, MAYOR
► no solicitation within 15 feet of a variety of locations
► no solicitation directed at passing motorists
► no solicitation under any circumstances :
on private property without the permission of the property owner
• after sunset or before sunrise
in any public transportation vehicle or facility
► no coercive solicitation
Copies of Chapters 8.13A and 8.1313 of the Tacoma Municipal Code are attached.
1115 foot" rule: TMC 8.13A.030
Locations included in the "15 foot" rule
It is unlawful for any person to solicit another person within 15 feet of:
► an automated teller machine;
► the entrance of a building, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or occupant;
► an exterior public pay telephone;
► a self - service car wash;
► a self - service fuel pump;
► a public transportation stop; or
► any parked vehicle as occupants of such vehicle enter or exit such vehicle.
How is the 15 feet measured?
The measurement will be made in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects,
Initiated By: Jon Walker Approved By: Assistant Chief Sheehan
rage i of ,+
from the nearest point at which a solicitation is being conducted to whichever is applicable of the
following:
► the nearest entrance or exit of a facility in which an ATM is enclosed or, if
► the machine is not enclosed in a facility, to the nearest part of the ATM;
► the nearest entrance or exit of a building;
► the nearest part of an exterior public pay telephone;
► the nearest part of the structure of a self - service car wash;
► the nearest part of a self - service fuel pump;
► the nearest point of any sign or marking designating an area as a public transportation stop; or
► any door of a parked vehicle that is being used by an occupant of such vehicle to enter or exit
such vehicle.
Solicitation directed at passing motorists
A person may not use words, actions, or signs to solicit passing motorists. The solicitation must be
made from public property, which includes sidewalks and rights -of -way, and must be directed to or
intended to attract the attention of occupant of any vehicle.
There are two exceptions:
► solicitor is authorized by a special events permit issued by the City of Tacoma
► solicitation is directed at a legally parked vehicle
However, a person may not solicit within 15 feet of a vehicle as the occupant enters or exits the
vehicle. Thus, this exception will apply only if the occupant of a legally parked vehicle is making no
attempt to exit the vehicle. The most likely application of the exemption would be where a motorist
pulls off and legally parks and gestures the beggar over to the vehicle to obtain a donation. If a vehicle
is otherwise parked, the solicitor must allow sufficient time for the occupants to exit the vehicle, he
should be advised to remain at least 15 feet away. Blocking the door of a vehicle may also be coercive
solicitation if the solicitor is blocking the exit from the vehicle.
Is it a violation of the ordinance for an individual sits at the side of the road if he does not have a
sign and does not ask for money, but motorists stop and voluntarily - ?
give him mone
No. The individual must "knowingly conduct a solicitation," that is the person must either orally or in
writing ask for money, goods, etc. If a passing motorist passes a dollar out the window without being
asked for it, a violation of the panhandling/solicitation ordinance has not occurred.
However, under certain and limited circumstances the "recipient" or motorist or both may be guilty of
obstructing vehicular traffic under TMC 8.13.030:
The following definitions apply in this section:
Initiated By: Jon Walker II Approved By: Assistant Chief Sheehan
Page 2 of 4
1. "Obstruct 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 a driver of a vehicle,
or to cause another person or a driver of a vehicle to take evasive action to avoid
physical contact. Acts authorized by a permit issued pursuant to the Tacoma Municipal
Code, such as under Titles 9 and 10, shall not constitute obstruction of pedestrian or
vehicular traffic.
2. "Public place" means an area generally visible to public view and includes alleys,
bridges, buildings, driveways, parking lots, parks, plazas, sidewalks and streets open to
the general. public, including those that serve food or drink or provide entertainment,
and the doorways and entrances to buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing
them.
B. A person is guilty of pedestrian interference if, in a public place, he or she
intentionally obstructs pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
The motorist also may be committing a traffic infraction (e.g. wheels off roadway). Discretion should
be utilized in such situations.
Total ban on soliciting under certain circumstances
► private property, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or occupant;
► after sunset or before sunrise; or
► in any public transportation facility or vehicle;
► coercive solicitation.
What is a public transportation vehicle?
A bus, light rail car, Sounder train, Pierce Transit shuttle, or other vehicle operated by the city, county,
or a local or regional transportation authority. Soliciting is prohibited at all times in a public
transportation vehicle.
What is a public transportation facility?
A facility or designated location that is owned, operated, or maintained by the city, county, or a local or
regional transportation authority. This includes light rail stops, transit centers, and bus stop structures.
Soliciting is prohibited at all times in a public transportation facility.
What is a public transportation stop?
Bus stops that are marked by a sign. Soliciting is prohibited within 15 feet of the nearest point of any
sign or marking designating an area as a public transportation stop.
Can a person solicit at the door of a bus or light rail car?
No, in virtually all circumstances, because the person alighting from the bus or light rail car will either
Initiated By: Jon Walker Approved By: Assistant Chief Sheehan
be stepping into a "public transportation facility" or be within 15 feet of a bus stop sign. There may be
rare situations where a person exits a bus at a location that does not qualify as a "public transportation
stop."
What is "coercive" solicitation?
"Coercion" means:
1. to approach or speak to a person in such a manner as would cause a reasonable person
to believe that the person is being threatened with either imminent bodily injury or the
commission of a criminal act upon the person or another person or upon property in the
person's immediate possession;
2. to persist in a solicitation after the person solicited has given a negative response;
3. to block, either individually or as part of a group of persons, the passage of a solicited
person;
4. to engage in conduct that would reasonably be construed as intended to compel or
force a solicited person to accede to demands;
5. to use violent or threatening gestures toward a person;
6. willfully providing or delivering, or attempting to provide or deliver, unrequested or
unsolicited services or products with a demand or exertion of pressure for payment in
return; or
7. to use profane, offensive, or abusive language, which is inherently likely to provoke
an immediate violent reaction.
Please refer any questions regarding this legal bulletin to your chain of command.
Initiated By: Jon Walker Approved By: Assistant Chief Sheehan
_r n
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policin, Services
_ _ ,� Problem - Oriented guides for Police
www.PopCenter.org
Center for Problem- Oriented Policing
Got a Problem? We've got answers!
Log onto the Center for Problem- Oriented Policing website
at ww-wpopcenter.org for a wealth of information to help
you deal more effectively with crime and disorder in your
community, including:
• : eb- enhan ced versbns of a0- urrentC9 avaIQb@ Guldes
• 'nteractTve tralning exercises
• On -ae access to research and po(Re practles
a esigned for police and those who work with them to
address community problems, www12ol2center.org is a great
resource in problem - oriented policing.
Pupported by the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Pervices, r P. a epartment of gustice.
Problem - Oriented Guides for Police
Problem - Specific Guides Series
Guide Ho. 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.
wv,wcotis.usdoj.gov
ISBN: 1- 932582 -12 -6
About the Problem- Specific Guides Series I i
About the Problem- specific Guides Series
The Problem - Specific Guides 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 Cl n-P 1 ffice has also published an
introductory guide to problem analysis. c or 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. a epending 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
ii I Panhandling
situation. What is true in one place may not be true
elsewhere; what works in one place may not work
everywhere.
• 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.
About the Problem- Specific Guides Series I iii
• 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 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 coin-'try, 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 cogs mubs usdo'.gov.
iv I Panhandling
For more information about problem- oriented policing,
visit die Center for Problem- Oriented Policing online at
u-•wu�popcenter.org or via the COPS website at
wwwcops.usdoj.g . This website offers free online access to:
• the P9 oblem- Specific Guides series,
• the pp Sanion Response Guides and Problem- Sol7)ing Tools
series,
• instruFpionaChiforp anon about Srob@p - oriented SoG?Iiug
and related topics,
• an urteraFtive training exerFise, and
• onae aFFess to ip Sortant SoG�e researFh and SraFtiFes.
Acknowledgments I v
Acknowledgments
The Problem - Oriented Guides for Police are 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, assistant clinical professor,
University of Wisconsin Law School; 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 Problem- Specific Guides 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 ..................... 1. ..... .
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'LOCaI'Problem .......... ............... • • • • • 13
Asking the Right Questions ........... .............................13
13
Complainants and Donors ....... ...............................
Panhandlers .........................14
....:..................
Location/Time .................. .............................14
Current Response ......:........ .............................15
15
Measuring Your Effectiveness ....... .I I ..............................
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 Problem- Oriented Guides for Police ......... ............................... 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,
bulling 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
p enaFe, olten without any wore exFhangeGat all —just a FLIP
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. t hether
panhandling and other forms of street disorder cause or
FontriEute to p ore serious Flip e —the Eroken winG>ws
The Problem of Panhandling I 1
t "Panhandling," a comm<n term in
the United States, is more often
referred to as "begging' ols —h-c, 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 fr(nn the pan) or from the image
Of someone udng a Pan to collect
money (as gold miners in the
American West used parus to sift for
gold).
2 I Panhandling
1 Business owners Who Work VII site
are most likely to call police.
Eanployccs, especially younger
=Tloyces, are less libcly to do so
because they have less at stake if
panhandling disrupts business
(Goleistin 1990.
it In one study, 50 percent of
panhandlers claimed to have been
mugged Within the past year
(Goldstein 199-3).
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 merdiants who worry
that their customers will be discouraged from patronizing
their business. Mercliants are most likely to call police when
Panhandling disrupts their commerce.Slt
Police must also be concerned v,iti 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 syp pathetic view and the unsyp pathetic
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.' Pome 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.70 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." t He
begging is discouraged on most philosophical grounds and by
most major religions, many people feel torn about whether to
give money to panhandlers." pome 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
manhandling 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
• unlicensed street entertainments and
• unlicensed street vending (also referred to as illegal
peddling).
t In some instances, there is a fine
distinction beta >cen panhandlers who Some of these other forms of disorderly street conduct may
use brie:£ entcxtainment as part of also be attributable to panhandlers, but this is not necessarily
their solicitation and morc-
accomplished street musicians, so. These problems overlap in various ways, and a local
jw;trrs, mimes and onc�Y skilled analysis of theirs will be necessary to understand how they do.
cntcrtaincrs.
Factors Contributing to Panhandling
r nderstanding 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
"Inhandling intimidates some people, even causing some to
avoid areas where they believe they will be panhandled." 1 ne-
third of San cranciscans 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
t hether 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.
fn other words, an act of panhandling in one context might
The Problem of Panhandling 1 5
not be intimidating, but the same behavior in a different
context might.16 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); "
• the reputation of the panhandler (panhandlers known to be
aggressive or erratic are more intimidating than those not
known to be so);
• the cliaracteristics of the person being solicited (tlie 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." 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 1 Panhandling
Most studies conclude that panhandlers snake rational
economic choices —that is, they look to snake money its the
most efficient way possible.27 %nhandlers develop their "sales
pitches," and sometimes compete with one another for the
rights to a particular sales pitch .2' Their sales pitches are
usually, though not always, fraudulent in some respect Some
panhandlers mill 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. d iven the frequent hostility they
experience, maintaining their composure can be a remarkable
psychological feat.3D nknhandlers usually give some
consideration to their physical appearance: they must balance
looking needy against looking too offensive or threatening.37
education, and laborer's skills.' Some observers have noted
that younger SeoSle —many of whom are runaways or
otherwise transient—are turning to Sanhandling.'',t A high
t In many less- devLloped countries,
percentage of panhandlers in r .S. urban areas are African-
children eornmonly beg to support
themselves and their families, a
American." Some panhandlers suffer from mental illness, but
phenomenon less common in the
most do not.' Many panhandlers have criminal records, but
United States and other more highly
developed countries.
panhandlers are nearly as likely to have been crime victims as
offenders.73 Some are transient, but most have been in their
tt Definitions of homelessness varC
community for a long time. "
but at a ruini um, most studies have
found that few panhandlers routinely
slcLI-) outdoors at night See,
Contrary to common belief, panhandlers and homeless people
however, Burke (1999) for cvidcocc
are not necessarily one and the same. Many studies have
that a high percentage of the
panhandlers in Leicester, England,
found that only a small percentage of homeless people
have been homeless.
panhandle, and only a small percentage of panhandlers are
homeless.'6°it
Most studies conclude that panhandlers snake rational
economic choices —that is, they look to snake money its the
most efficient way possible.27 %nhandlers develop their "sales
pitches," and sometimes compete with one another for the
rights to a particular sales pitch .2' Their sales pitches are
usually, though not always, fraudulent in some respect Some
panhandlers mill 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. d iven the frequent hostility they
experience, maintaining their composure can be a remarkable
psychological feat.3D nknhandlers usually give some
consideration to their physical appearance: they must balance
looking needy against looking too offensive or threatening.37
Some panhandlers hope that candor
will increase donations. Here, a
panhandler's donation bog 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." Some
panhandlers' refusal to look for regular employment is better
explained by their unwillingness or usability to com nit to
regular work hours, often because of substance abuse
problems. Some panhandlers buy food ,nith 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.' 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 Ffmciseans
surveyed reported having ban
pan}aandled within the past year
(Kclling and Coles 1996).
8 I Panhandling
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.35
Male- female couples are attractive targets for panhandlers
because the male is likely to want to appear compassionate in
front of the female. 16 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.39 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 commmunities and specific locations
where the gppRrtunities tRcRllect p Rney De Fist- -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 bodi free social services and generous
passersby are plentiful." t ith 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
ATI\l 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 aTeather (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 vnth traffic signals (because motorists will be
stopped); and
• near li7uor 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 commmunity. 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 tie money they need. Once that money runs out, they
resume panhandling." Panhandling on or near college
campuses often follows tie 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 t-iat 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. " 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 tie mid -range, to about
$300 a day on the high end. "e NVRp laP —FgS Haaq thRsHwhR
havHFhi(@L1T with thhp —and SanhandgV whRaSSHL1tRFl
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 1 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, party because they risk having it stolen, and party
because Heir primary purpose is to immediately buy alcohol
or drugs.F2
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 itS3
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 die local, regional and even
national level, affects how much panhandling occurs. As die
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.55 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 heir 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 I Panhandling
authorize police to regulate public disorder, and as police are
less inclined to enforce such laws, panhandling flourishes.57
Arrest and incarceration rates may also affect panhandling
levels: convicted offenders often have difficulty getting jobs
after release, and some inevitably turn to panhandling."
Understanding Your Local Problem I 13
Understanding Your local Problem
The information provided above is only a generalized
description of panhandling. You must combine the basic facts
with a more specific understanding of your local problem.
Analyzing the local problem carefully all help you design a
more effective response strategy.
Asking the Right Questions
The following are some critical questions you should ask in
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 Sanhandling bother or intimidate
others? e ow many complaints do police receive?t a o 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? Shossers? Workers?
Students?
• Does Sanhandling alter SeoSle's beha-lior and routines (e.g.,
do people avoid certain areas or stores)?
• What are the Sarticular complaints? That Sanhandlers act
aggressively, or that all panhandling is bothersome?
• What do complainants suggest should be done to control
panhandling?
t Analyzing calls for service related
to panhandling is important, but it
can be tirnc- consuming because, in
many police agencies, sudz calls are
classified under broad categories such
as "disturbance" or "suspicious
person," categories that uieornpass a
vndc range of beh -i(- It might be
worthwhile to develop moro-spceifre
call categories, so future problem
analysis will be easier.
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
(purveys 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 dusters of
panhandlers with similar characteristics. a ifferent responses
might be warranted for different types of panhandlers.)
• How many panhandlers are in the area? How many are
regulars? e ow 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? a o they
suffer from mental illness? a o they have criminal records or
a history of criminal victimization? t here do they live (in
shelters, private homes, on the streets)?
• How many of the panhandlers are transient? How many are
new to the area? e ow many are longtime residents?
• Do the panhandlers know about and use social services in
the area (e.g., shelters, soup kitdiens, job training, substance
abuse treatment)?
LocationlTime
• Where does panhandling commonly occur? 'n parks, plazas
and squares? 1 n sidewalks? k ear ATMs? k ear 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 115
Current Response
• How has the panhandling problem previously been handled
in your jurisdiction? e ow 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? 11 so, on what charges?
e ow are the charges processed? Are panhandlers
prosecuted? If so what is the typical sentence?
• How do other cri i inal justice officials (prosecutors, judges,
probation officers) view the panhandling problem?
Measuring Your Effectiveness
j easurement 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.
v ou 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. (c or more detailed
guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide
to this series IAssessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory
Guide far Police Problem - Solvers.)
The following are potentially useful measures of the
effectiveness of responses to panhandlingW
• number oI complaints Tiled with police about panhandling;
• number of complaints filed with other organizations or
people (e.g.Ineighborhood/business associations, elected
officials) about panhandling;
• levels oI concern expressed about panhandling (Irom
surveys);
16 1 Panhandling
• number of known chronic panhandlers (based on
complaints, contacts and arrests);
• costs of police response to panhandling complaints;
t Lankcnau (1999) asserts that most • evidence that panhandling has been displaced to other areas,
panhandlers wM likely nun to other or is resulting in an increase in other forms of nuisance
illeptimatc ways to make money, behavior or crime (e.g., trash scavenging, shoplifting, theft
rather than find rctnilar arrployment t
or enter treatment programs. Duncact from autos, purse snatching, prostitution, drug dealing);
(1999) states that some panhandles and
sec 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 Goldstcin's (1993) study of
panhandling in New Haven, Conn.,
provides an excLUmt example of
how panhandling is controlled
through informal means. Duncirr's
(1999) study of New York City street
vendors, scavenges and panhandles
also provides an execpti<nal 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 gaol money, food and some social
interaction from their activity; they risk losing theirs 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 mash 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.`0 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 I 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 their to "move along" are
perhaps the most common police responses to panhandling."
Many police beat officers develop working relationships with
regular panhandlers; they use a mix of formal and informal
approaches to keeping panhandling under control.G4 Most
officers do not view panhandling as a serious matter, and are
reluctant to devote the time necessary to arrest and book
offenders.GS 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 panhandlers arrest The police later
arrest the panhandler after running a warrant clieck 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."
I Cioldstcjn (1993) estimated that
police made arrests for Panhandling
in curly 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." Enforcing other laws
SanKmdleT_Vcop p only violate —tKof LegaLgUng dL14k1ag In
suBIa, tu- ,8a)TTxg, dhpLdeLIy conduct, etc —can Kels con"I
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. A problem -
arc similar in some respects to
impact statement can help prosecutors and judges understand
American restraining and nuisance
abatement orders.
the overall negative effect the seemingly minor offense of
panhandling is having on the community.' In the United
tl Among the jurisdictions to have
��
Kingdom, police can apply to the courts for an antisocial
acted aggressive - panhandling lam s
arc the states of HAwaii and
behavior order" against individuals or groups as one means of
California, and the tides 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." Enforcing other laws
SanKmdleT_Vcop p only violate —tKof LegaLgUng dL14k1ag In
suBIa, tu- ,8a)TTxg, dhpLdeLIy conduct, etc —can Kels con"I
some aspects of the panhandling problem.
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 121
Police need not heavily enforce aggressive- panhandling laws
in order to control panhandling; the informal norms among
most panhandlers discourage aggressive panhandling anyway."
Panhandlers exercise some influence over one another s
behavior, to minimize complaints and keep police from
intervening." Enforcing aggressive - panhandling laws can
sere 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 sop eone in a way that would cause a reasonaBe
person to fear bodily harm;
• touching sop eone without his or her consent;
• continuing to panhandle or follow sop eone after he or she
has refused to give money;
• intentionally Bocking or interfering with the safe passage of
a person or vehicle;
• using oFscene or aFusive language toward sop eone while
attempting to panhandle him or her; and
• acting with intent to intip idate sop eone into giving
money."
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 puBic 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.79
1 ne legal commentator has proposed a novel approach to
regulating panhandling. zoning laws that mould strictly
prohibit panhandling in some areas, allow limited panhandling
in other areas, and allow almost all panhandling in yet other
areas."" 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
Some communities prohibit
panhandling in specified areas.
3. Prohibiting interference with pedestrians or vehicles.
Pome jurisdictions have enacted laws that specifically prohibit
impeding pedestrians' ability to walk either by standing or by
lying down in the way b nforcement can be difficult where
such laws require police to establish the panhandler's intent to
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 123
obstruct others. The city of Seattle drafted a law that
eliminated the need to establish intent, and that law survived a
legal cliallenge.R' 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.6' Convicted
panhandlers might also be temporarily banned from publicly
funded shelters.R4 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." 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." For example, officers in St Louis
asked courts to sentence chronic panhandlers to community
service cleaning the streets, sidewalks and alleys in the area
uThere they panhandled."
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.gs•t
f Licensing schemes for beggars
reportedly have existed in England as
far back as 1530 (fear 1993). The
criminal Justice Legal Foundaticm
(l 994) has published gwidanee on
drafting laws enabling p—t
systems, thouL& dzc language semis
designed to inhibit panhandling,
rather than allow it
24 ( 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.69
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.9' 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." 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." Some cities, such as
Evanston, Ill., have hired trained civilians to make such
appeals.95 Not everyone will be persuaded by the appeals;
some anll undoubtedly perceive them as uncaring.
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling I 25
STIDP PA HA DLIKU.,
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 sicahelc
and dasstructlVe Itfastyte.
Basic needs are avallable through support agencies for
those who wish to utilize them and you need not feel guilty
when saying no to panhandlers YOU artt also encouraged to
contact the Madison Police dispatcher, 2864275, 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 by. Greater State 'Street Baslrtoss Association
and the Madison Polce Depanment
Signs and flyers, such as this one from Madisi
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.'"
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 followirg: 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.1D1 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
encap Sp enWSSroblep 0- \*cluded Sanhandling— ensiled
9. Encouraging people to buy and give panhandlers
vouchers, instead of money. Some communities have
I The earliest reported program was
instituted programs whereby people can buy and give
in Los Angeles. Other cities inhere
panhandlers vouchers redeemable for food, shelter,
voucher programs have been
transportation, or other necessities, but not for alcohol or
instituted include Berkeley, Santa Caw
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
(Fllickson 1996; New cork Times 1993;
makes them difficult to counterfeit. Vouchers are often
If'all3'lreeI jovrwI1993). Some
accompanied with printed information about where they can
communities have considered and
rejected voucher programs (F.vanston
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 followirg: 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.1D1 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
encap Sp enWSSroblep 0- \*cluded Sanhandling— ensiled
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 1 27
removing the transients from the encampments and referring
them to social service agencies. "'
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.1 ' 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 - mashing
materials. Santa Ana police asked nearby businesses to
remove an outdoor water fountain that squeegee men were
using to fill their buckets.10' 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. "'
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.707 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.1 '
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. "' 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 Autliority bus terminal in New York City. 1'
Short -term substance -abuse treatment programs, however, are
not lil�ly to be effepi)�e for p ost Sanhandlers —their
addiptions are too stronJ —and p ost who SartiFRSate in short-
Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 1 29
term programs quickly revert to their old habits. 113
Unfortunately, long -term programs cost more than most
communities are willing to spend. Police could advocate tie
most chronic offenders' being given priority for long -term
treatment programs, or the courts could mandate such
programs.1' 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 snake the lifestyle changes usually required to stay in the
programs.' G
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 Tcir (1993) for a discussion of
the long history of laws prohibiting
and regulating begging.
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling 131
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
How Yt
Works Considerations
Pa g Page No.
F;I
No.
prohibiting
Works
Subjects the most
BHL
...the law can Enforcement is
survive legal difficult because
Enforcement Responses
2p
aggressive
panhandling
offensive
panhandlers to
challenge, and few panhandlers
intentionally
criminal penalties;
panhandlers arc are
reinforces
informal rules of
clearly informed aggressive;
of what officers should be
conduct among
constitutes legal properly trained
panhandlers
vs. ille}al conduct to make
aggressive -
panhandling
charges
21
Prohibiting
panhandling in
Restricts
panhandling in
...the law can Costs associated
survive legal with properly
2.
specified areas
areas -where it is
most likely to
challenge, posting areas
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
BI-I%L..
3.
22
Prohibiting
Restricts conduct
...the 1py cpp
Proving intent to
interference a*ith
that commonly
survive legal
interfere with
pedestrians or
disrupts
challenge, and
pedestrians can be
vehicles
commerce and
en forcemen t is
difficult
intimidates
consistent
pedestrians; deals
directly with
window washing
by denying
window mashers
access to
motorists
4.
23
Banning
Denies
..., iDhDdlers De
Requires the
panhandlers from
panhandlers
dearly 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 cRp p unity
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
...SRicc Rffcers
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 arc
required)
Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling I 33
Response
Page No.
Response
How It
Works TO-
iderations
No.
Works
BHWL •.
_�
Public Education Re bon ter
7
24
Discourag ng
Decreases the
the mess e
May require new
people from
supply of money
that adequate
investments in
giving money to
panhandlers, and
to panhandlers
and, consequently,
social services arc
available is
social services to
make the message
encouraging them
to
lowers the level
of
credible, and the
message is heavily
credible; advertising
and promoting the
to give
charities that
panhandling
promoted
message incurs
serve the needy
costs
g
25
Using civilian
Increases the level
...Fivilio
Nary, training and
Patrols to
of official
patrollcrs arc
equipment costs
monitor and
monitoring and
properly trained
discourage
intervention
and supported by
panhandling
police
9.
26
Encouraging
people to buy and
Restricts
panhandlers'
...suppled 1'�
merchants and
Ptart -up and
administrative costs
give panhandlers
ability to buy
the community
for the program; a
vouchers, instead
alcohol and drugs
black market may
allow panhandlers
of money
to convert vouchers
to cash,
undermining the
program; people
may not buy
vouchers
Situational Roonces
10.
26
Modifying the
Discourages
...pjyvDe (Dd
Requires property
physical
panhandlers from
public) property
owner..,'
environment to
discourage
soliciting in an
area by making it
owners
understand how
cooperation; costs
of making
panhandlers from
less comfortable
the environment
to
environmental
changes; some risk
congregating in
the area
to do so
can contribute
panhandling
that changes will
also make the area
less attractive for
legitimate users
11.
27
Regulating
alcohol sales to
Forces
panhandlers to
...liquRU1ircnse
holders
t ill not address
panhandlers who
chronic inebriates
in
travel farther to
buy alcohol,
understand the
rationale for
arc not chronic
inebriates, including
who panhandle
the area
thereby
liquor law
drug addicts
potentially
enforcement, and
displacing them
enforcement is
from the area
consistent
34 1 Panhandling
Response
Page No.
Response
How It
Works
Considerations
No.
Works
BH %L..
12.
27
Controlling
Makes window
...prwcrty
Costs (usually
,aindow- crashing
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
...pj5sersI-�,
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
sohators
Social Services / Treatment Respome
14.
28
Providing
Removes
...there ]3e
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 arc
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 lVzth Limited Effectiveness
15.
29
Enforcing laws
r nlikcly to survive
that prohibit all
legal challenge
panhandling
Appendix B: Selected Court Cases on Panhandling 135
Appendix B: Selected Cart Cases ®n
Panhandling
The following are some notable U.S. court cases addressing
the constitutionality of panhandling and lams that regulate it
You should consult local legal counsel to determine the state
of the law in your jurisdiction.
Berkeley Community Health Pr ject v. Berkelg, 902 F. Supp. 1084
(N.D. Cal. 1995) and 966 F. 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 E 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. a State, 458 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Dist Ct App. 1984). Struck
down a total ban on begging in public.
Cayresas v. City of Asaaheim, 768 F. 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 n ForrLaudedale, 861 F Supp. 1057 (S.D. Fla. 1994).
Upheld a ban on begging on the beach and boardwalk.
City of Seattle v. Webster, 802 P. 2d 1333 (gash. 1990), Bert
denied, 111 S. Ct. 1690 (1991). Upheld an ordinance
banning sidewalk obstruction.
36 I Panhandling
Doucette v. Santa Monica, 995 E Supp. 1192 (C.D. Cal. 1996).
Upheld time, place and manner restrictions on begging.
Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless v. City of Cincinnati, 56
F. 3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 1995). Cites evidence that the
enforcement of an anti - begging ordinance reduced the
incidence of begging.
Loper v. New York City Police Department, 999 E 2d 699 (2d Cir.
1993). Struck doom a ban on loitering for the purposes of
begging on city streets.
Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. Ci y of Los Angeles, 157 F. 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. Williams v. Ciy Court of Tucson, 520 R 2d 1166
(Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). Upheld a loitering- fox - 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
I'oaang a New York City Transit Autholfy, 903 F. 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).
G Burke (1998); Goldstein (1993); Teir (1993); Lankenau (1999); St. Petersburg Police
Department (1997); Manning (2000).
' Goldstein (1993); Vancouver Police Department (1999).
" See Arnrnann (2000); Barta (1999); Bums (1992); Hershkoff position in Hershkoff and
Conner (1993); Lankenau (1999); Nfunzer (1997); Harcourt (1998).
Munzer (1997).
11 See Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996); Burke (2000); Teir (1998,1993); Conner
position in Hershkoff and Conner (1993); Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994).
11 Wilson (1991).
Ellickson (1996).
" Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996).
is Kelling and Coles (1996).
is Burke (2000); Lankenau (1999).
16 Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Kelling (1999).
17 Goldstein (1993).
r" 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, Fla., case study); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000).
r' 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).
" 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).
'-i Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); New York City Police Department
(1994); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Chicago Tribune (1994); Evanston Police
Department (n.d.); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000).
Goldstein (1993); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); University of Wisconsin -
I\- 4adison Department of Police and Security (1997).
`5 Ellickson (1996); Stark (1992); Goldstein (1993).
' Ellickson (1996); Teir (1998); Goldstein (1993); Fontana Police Department (1998);
Chicago Tribune (1994); Ibianning (2000).
-' Stark (1992).
" Burke (1998); Lankenau (1999).
'-' Stark (1992).
" Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993).
" Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993).
;'- Goldstein (1993); Ellickson (1996).
" Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993).
a" Ellickson (1996); Kelling and Coles (1996); Butterfield (1988).
i5 Burns (1992).
Stark (1992).
37 Wilson (1991).
sR Stark (1992).
Stark (1992); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997).
Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Stark (1992); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Duneier
(1999).
Ellickson (1996); Fontana Police Department (1998); University of Wisconsin - Madison
Department of Police and Security (1997); Santa Ana Police Department (1993).
"z Leoussis (1995).
"s Stark (1992); Seattle Police Department (2000); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce
case study).
Goldstein (1993).
as University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Police and Security (1997).
Goldstein (1993).
y' Goldstein (1993); Burke (1998); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston Police
Department (n.d.); Ellickson (1996); Stark (1992); Duneier (1999).
"s Ellickson (1996); Mabry (1994); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993);
I\Ianning (2000); Duneier (1999)_
Endnotes1 39
4' Burns (1992).
51 Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993).
s' Burke (1998); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and
Acosta (1993).
sz Stark (1992); Goldstein (1993).
53 Burke (1998); Ellickson (1996).
'Burke (1998).
" Ellickson (1996).
" Stark (1992).
' Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Teir (1993).
" Ellickson (1996).
;' Goldstein (1993); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996);
Evanston Police Department (1995).
Ellickson (1996); Goldstein (1993).
Teis (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); Herslikoff and Conner (1993); Munzer (1997).
Leoussis (1995).
Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996).
f5 Goldstein (1993).
Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Little (1992).
Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Goldstein (1993).
6' New York City Police Department (1994); Cosgrove and Grant
(1997); Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Leoussis (1995); Teir
(1993); Goldstein (1993).
Ammann (2000).
St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Vancouver Police
Department (1999); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project);
Savannah Police Department (1995).
" Bland and Read (2000).
7z Kelling and Coles (1996); Kelling (1999).
" Savannah Police Department (1995).
40 1 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).
16 Goldstein (1993).
' Burke (2000); Delmonico (1996).
Kelling and Coles (1996).
" Kelling and Coles (1996); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson
(1996); Xiabry (1994); Teir (1998); Kozlowski (1999) (citing a Fort
Lauderdale law).
Ellickson (1996); see Munzer (1997) for a critique of Ellickson's
zoning proposal.
Kelling and Coles (1996) (citing a Seattle law).
"Z Vancouver Police Department (1999); New York City Police
Department (1994).
83 University of Wisconsin- Madison Department of Police and
Security (1997).
Teir (1993).
q'
Ellickson (1996).
R6 Amnann (2000); Harcourt (1998).
Heimberger (1992).
Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Mabry (1994);
— barra (1996); Santa Ana Police Department (1993).
"9 Ellickson (1996).
9" 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).
9' Barta (1999); Harcourt (1998).
93 Ellickson (1996).
University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Police and
Security (1997); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case
study).
J5 Evanston Police Department (1995).
Kelling and Coles (1996).
Nkrumah (1998); Egan (1993).
Endnotes1 41
W Evanston Police Department (1995).
" Goldstein (1993).
""'Egan (1993).
1 "1 Bums (1992); Green Bay Police Department (1999); Vancouver
Police Department (1999); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce
case study); Felson et al. (1996); Duneier (1999).
Ina Santa Ana Police Department (1993).
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 Afatrir.).
11� Seattle Police Department (2000); Alexandria Police Department
(1995); Green Bay Police Department (1999); Higdon and Huber
(1987) (Dundalk project).
115 Santa Ana Police Department (1993).
116 Vancouver Police Department (1999).
107 Manning (2000).
11R Felson et al. (1996).
109 Stark (1992).
uo Bittner (1967); Kelling 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).
111 Fontana Police Department (1998).
11z Felson et al. (1996).
113 Goldstein (1993).
1'4 Manning (2000).
u5 University of Wisconsin- Madison Department of Police and
Security (1997); Manning (2000).
ur, M-2nning (2000); Goldstein (1993); Stark (1992); Kelhng 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 Law Journal
44:811 -820.
Barta, P. (1999). Giuliani, Broken Windows and the Right To
Beg." Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law & Policy 6:165 -194.
Bittner, E. (1967). "The Police on Skid Row A Study of
Peace Keeping." American Sociological Review 32(5):699 -715.
Bland, N., and T. Read (2000). Policing Anti Social Beharriozar:
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 Policing. Leicester, England-
Perpetuity Press.
Burns, AFL (1992). Fearing the Mirror: Responding to Beggars
In a 'Kinder and Gender' America." Hastings Constitutional
Law Quarterly 19(3):783 -844.
Butterfield, F. (1988). "New Yorkers Growing Angry Over
Aggressive Panhandlers." New 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.
wwv.�com-tnunityinterest.org/back-grounders
/panhandling.htm.
Chicago Tribune (1994). "( vl�swn ) ighWP0hjt d@rs� i D
Smile." May 27, p. 1.
Cosgrove, C., and A. d rant (1997). National Su9vcy of Municipal
Police Departments on Urban Quality -of- -Life Initiatives
Washington, D.C.: Police Executive o esearch Forum.
Criminal gustice i egal Foundation (1994). A Guide To
Regulating Panhandling. Sacramento, Calif.: Criminal gustice
i egal Foundation.
Dehnonico, D. (1996). "Aggressive Panhandling i egislation
and the Constitution: Evisceration of Fundamental
RighWL2 r 9 jJH Res%j*ns US on 2 Hensive ConduFIV
Hastings Constitutional LaruQuarterly 23:557 -590.
Duneie4 M. (1999). Sidemalk. New vork: Farrar, Straus and
d iroux.
Egan, T. (1991). "In P Progressive Cities, It's i aw vs. Street
People." New York Times, Dec. 12.
E1lickson, 0. (1996). "Controlling Chronic Misconduct in City
Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Skid o ows and Public -Space
Zoning." Yale L.aw journal 105(5):1165 -1248.
References 1 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 I\i Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public- Safety
Problems. Case Studies in Problem- Solving. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice. Also published as Mulliolland,
J., J. Sowa and E. Steinhoff (1997). "Evanston Reduces
Aggressive Panhandling by Influencing the Behavior of
Givers." Problem- SolvingQuarteryl 10(1):9 -12.
(n.d.). "Panhandling in Evanston: Preliminary
Report." Evanston, Ill.: Evanston Police Department
Felson, M., M. Belanger, G. Bid -der, C. Bruzinski, G.
Campbell, C. Fried, K. Grofik, I. Mazur, A. O'Regan, P.
Sweeney, A. Ullinan, and L. Williams (1996). "Redesigning
He1L• Preventing Crime and Disorder at the Port Authority
Bus Terminal." In R Clarke (ed.), Preventing Mass Transit
Clime. Clime Prevention Studies, Vol. 6. Monsey, 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 Law Review 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 1999 Herman Goldstein _Award Winners. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice.
46 1 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." Micbigan Laiv Reviey 97:291 -389.
Heimberger, B. (1992). "Working the Nightslvft." Problem-
Solving Quai *rly
Hershkoff, H., and R. Conner (1993). "Aggressive
Panhandling Laws." ABA journal 79 (unl:40 -41.
Higdon, R. and P. Huber (1987). How To Fight Fear. The COPE
Program Package. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive
Research Forum.
Kelling, G. (1999). 'Broken Windo;vs' and Police Discretion.
Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Kelling, G, and C. Coles (1996). Fiazng Broken Vindo;vs.
Restoring Order and Reducing G' e in Our Communities. New
York: Free Press.
(1994). "Disorder and the Court." Public Interest 116
(6uP P 14):57 -74.
Kozlowski, J. (1999). "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?
Panhandling in Public Parks and Places." NRPA Lane Review
34 PIFIP Ft:34-41.
Lankenau, S. (1999). "Stronger Than Dirt: Public Humiliation
and Status Enhancement Among Panhandlers." journal of
Contemponaiy Ethnography 28(3):288 -318.
LHussIs, ). (1995). 7 I<H1 FF CRnsftNTRnS"I`V' RBfj—'s
Begging Really Protected Speech ?" Saint Louis Universit i
Public Law Review 14(2):529 -550.
References 1 47
Little, J. (1992). "Moral Dilemma." St. Louis Post - Dispatch, June
7, p. Cl.
Luckenbach, R., and P. Acosta (1993). "The Street Beggar:
Victim or Con Artist ?" The Police Chief (October): 126-128.
Mabry, C. (1994). "Brother, Can You Spare Some
Cho J e"—An d YRur 3 rRBy, 7 gj�' : ASjIdIn J D) nj§)
Collision Between Public Interests and Beggars' cirst
Amendment Rights." University of San Francisco Lain Review
28(2):310 -341.
Manning, N. (2000). "The 1\121-e -It -Count Scheme: A
Partnership Response to Begging in Stoke -on -Trent City
Centre." Problem- SolvingQaarterDfi 13(3):5 -8.
Mitchell, C. (1994). "Aggressive Panhandling Legislation and
tree Speech Claims: Begging for Trouble." New York Law
School Law Review 39(4):697 -717.
Munzer, S. (1997). "Ellickson on 'Chronic Misconduct' in
r rban Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Benda Squatters and Day
Laborers." HjUgj CL�F- RJ&bts — C4EL&L4 r Lly Re)ew
32:1 -48.
New York City Police Department (1994). Police Strategy No. R
Reclaiming the Public Spaces of New York. New York: New
York City Police Department.
New York Times (1993). "Plan e elps Panhandlers t ith
Vouchers, Not n 112rters." Current Events Edition. Sept. 26,
p. I42.
Nichols, P. (1997). "The Panhandler's cirst Amendment Right:
A Critique of Loper v New York City Police Department
and Related Academic Commentary" South Carolina Law
Review 48:267 -291.
48 1 Panhandling
Nkrumah, W. (1998). "Shoppers Can Get Vouchers To Offer
Panhandlers." The Orcgonian, Nov 25. wwworegonnve.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). Tackling Crime and Other
Public Safe Problems: Case Studies in Problem- Salving.
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 Crime and Other Public- Safeol
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 Ouarierly
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. Crime 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."
New England journal of Public Policy 8(1):341 -352.
References 1 49
Teir, R. (1998). "Restoring Order in Urban Public Spaces."
Texas Review of Law & Politics 2:256 -291.
(1993). "Maintaining Safety and Civility in Public
Spaces: A Constitutional Approach to Panhandling"
Louisiana Law Rmriew 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.
lUall Street Journal (1993). "Voudzers for Panhandlers." Aug. 26,
p. Al.
Walston, G. (1999). "Examining flee Constitutional
Implications of Begging Prohibitions in California." irIhittier
Law Review 20:547 -575.
Wilson, G. (1991). "Exposure to Panhandling and Beliefs
About Poverty Causation." Sociology and Social Research
76(l):14-19.
Ybarra, M (1996). "Don't Ask, Don't Beg, Don't Sit." New
York Times, May 19.
About the Author 1 51
About the Author
Michael S. Scott
Michael S. Scott is the director of the Center for Problem -
Oriented Policing, Inc. and clinical assistant professor at the
University of Wisconsin- Madison Law School. 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 was the 1996
recipient of the Gary P. Hayes Award for innovation and
leadership in policing. Scott holds a law degree from Harvard
Law Scbool and a bachelor's degree from the University of
Wisconsin- Madison.
Recommended Readings I 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- Oriented Guides for Police 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 Cornrnunity
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. in usdoi.gov /bis.
• 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 diapters 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
v7,ywojj2.usdoj.gov/nib.
• 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 gales.
• 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 patter theory have
practical implications for the police in their efforts to
prevent crime.
• Problem Analysis in Policing, by Rachel Boba (Police
Foundation, 2003). Introduces and defines problem analysis
and provides guidance on how problem analysis can be
integrated and institutionalized into modern policing
practices.
Recommended Readings I 55
• 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.
• Problem - Oriented Policing and Crime Prevention,
by Anthony A. Braga (Criminal Justice Press, 2003).
Provides a through review of significant policing research
about problem places, high- activity offenders, and repeat
victims, with a focus on the applicability of those findings
to problem- oriented policing. Explains how police
departments can facilitate problem- oriented policing by
improving crime analysis, measuring performance, and
securing productive partnerships.
• 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 wv,-wcobs.usdoi.gov.
• Problem - Solving: Problem- Oriented Policing in
Newport News, by John E. Eck and \!illiam Spelman
(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the
rationale belhind problem- oriented policing and the
problem - solving process, and provides examples of
effective problem- solving in one agency.
56 I Panhandling
• Problem - Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime
and Disorder Through Problem - Solving
Partnerships by Karin Sclunerler, 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.usdo� .00v). 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.
Tackling 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 v- wwcops.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 Forurn, 1994). Explains
many of the basics of research as it applies to police
management and problem- solving.
Other Problem- Oriented Guides for Police 1 57
Other Problem- Oriented Guides for Police
Problem- Specific Guides series:
1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-00-2
2. Street Prostitution. Midzael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-01-0
3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Ivfichael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-02-9
4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.
Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-03-7
5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-04-5
6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott 2001.
ISBN: 1-932582-05-3
7. Loud Car Stereos. I\fichael S. Scott. 2001. ISBN: 1-932582-06-1
8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Midiael S. Scott. 2001.
ISBN: 1- 932582 -07 -X
9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-08-8
10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V.
Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-09-6
11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-10-X
12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-11-8
13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-12-6
14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. ISBN: 1-932582-13-4
15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.
ISBN: 1- 932582 -14-2
16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-15-0
17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.
ISBN: 1- 932582 -16 -9
18. Burglary of Single - Family Douses. Deborah Lamm Weisel.
2002. ISBN: 1-932582-17-7
19. Misuse and Abuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.
ISBN: 1-932582-18-5
20. Financial Crimes Against the Elderly.
"
Kelly Dedel Johnson. 2003. ISBN: 1 -93 °' 01)
58 I Panhandling
Problem - Solving Tools series:
• Assessing Responses to Problep s: An Introductory Guide for
Police Problem- Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. ISBN: 1- 932582 -19 -3
r Pcoming Problem -1 riented d aides for Police (200P)
Problem - Specific Guides
Check and Card Fraud
Crimes Against Tourists
Disorder at Budget Motels
Domestic Violence
Gun Violence Among Serious Youthful Offenders
Mentally Ill Persons
Prescription Fraud
Robbery of Taxi Drivers
Stalling
Student Party Disturbances on College Campuses
Problem - Solving Tools
Repeat Victimization
Using Offender Interviews to Inform Police Problem - Solving
Response Guides
The Benefits and Consequences of Police Crackdowns
Street Closures
Other Problem- Oriented Guides for Police 1 59
]Future Guide Topics (2004)
Identity Theft
School Break -Ins
Street Racing
Bomb Threats
Binge Drinking on College Campuses
Open -air Drug Markets
Sexual Activity in Public Places
Drunk Driving
Cruising
Bank Robbery
Other Related COPS Office Publications
• Using Ana(?sis fRr PrRbop - SROing: A GuiGebpRk
for i aw b nforcement. Timothy S. Bynum.
• PrRbQdp -2 rienteG PROfing- RefQ FdRns Rn the ) irst
20 years. Michael S. Scott. 2001.
• Tagk4hg Crip a anG2 ther Pub0f Safety PrRbQp s:
Case Studies in Problem - Solving. Rana Sampson and
Michael S. Scott. 2000.
CBp p unity PRQtilfang, CRp p unity - ustipe, anG
Restorative gustice: b xploring the i inks for the
a elivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety.
Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999.
• TIUMI% fRr IP SOP eating RestRrative - ustipe anG
Advancing Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl.
2000.
• PrRbGlp - SROing Tips: A Gui& tRReGu]Eing
Crime and a isorder Through Problem - Solving
Partnerships. Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott
Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. 1998.
60 I Panhandling
• Bringing Victims into Community Policing. The
National Center for Victims of Crime and the Police
Foundation. 2002.
• Call Management and Community Policing. Tom
McEwen, Deborah Spence, Russell Wolff, Julie Wartell,
Barbara Webster. 2003
• Crime Analysis in America. Keith Nicholls, PhD.,
Tip RW' C. 2 'SKeD 310. 2003
• Problem Analysis in Policing. Rachel Boba, PliD.
2003
• Reducing Theft at Construction Sites: Lessons
c rom a r foblem -1 riented n1toject. Ronald V.
Clarke, e erman Goldstein. 2003
• The COPS Collaboration Toolkit: How to Build,
c ix, and Sustain productive martnerships. Gwen O.
Briscoe, Ph.D., Anna T. i aszlo, Tammy A. Rinehart.
2001.
• The Law Enforcement Tech Guide: How to Slan,
purchase and manage technology 7 'successfully!).
Kelly J. e arris, William e . Romesburg. 2002.
• Theft ) rom Cars in Center City Parking
c acilities - A Case Study. Ronald V Clarke, e erman
Goldstein. 2003.
For more information about the Problem - Oriented Gzddes for
Police series and other COPS Office publications, please call
the Department of Justice Response Center at 500.421.STI0
or visit COPS Online at www.cops.usdo�.ov.
Appendix) 61
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
To obtain details on COPS programs, call the
U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 800.421.6770
Visit COPS Online at the address listed below.
c08032028 C:rc:atcd Datc: Scptcmbcr 08, 2003
ISBN: 1- 932582 -12 -6