Panhandling and information acquisition:Implications for policy and services

Tiffanie Stewart, MScFlorida International University

ISA Conference, Buenos AiresAugust 1st, 2012

This is a panhandler…

Background• Unemployment rates have fluctuated between 10-12% since 2008

• Panhandling is associated with homelessness higher rates of unemployment

• Recently, Miami-Dade County has expanded no-panhandling zones•Adrienne Arscht Center, American Airlines Arena, Bicentennial Part, and Miami Dade College’s Wolfson Campus

• “Aggressive” panhandling fines ($100) and jail time

• To date, no information about how panhandlers acquire information about policy and services

Lee, BA et al. Urban Affairs Review (2003)http://www.miamidade.gov/miamisao/offenses/offensedatamart.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/78946926/The-Criminalization-of-Homelessness-in-U-S-Cities-Advocacy-Manual-November-2011

Locations

Research PurposeThe Purpose of the Proposed Study is to answer the following

questions:

1. How to panhandlers acquire information about policy and services?

2. Are agencies effectively disseminating information about policies, laws, and social services?

3. Do social hierarchies exist among panhandlers?

4. Are there themes that affect self-efficacy in the population?

Pilot StudyEthnographic Observations

Naturalistic observations at panhandling friendly and no-panhandling zones

Interviews Interviews (~45 minutes) at panhandling locationsOpen-ended questionnaireProbing

Pilot Study con’t1. Social Hierarchy

a) Sellers vs. beggarsb) Drug usec) Mental health

2. Knowledgea) Information about laws tended to differ from the true laws against panhandling.b) All were arrested before they were aware of lawsc) Panhandler who was highest in the social hierarchy had greater access to

information (link between information and hierarchy)

3. Lack of Support MISTRUSTa) Sense of betrayal by prominent organizations (HAC)b) All but one panhandler could identify >1 source of help (highest in hierarchy)

4. Shamea) Terms like “feeling degraded” and “I don’t like this” and “I’d rather work” were

common among panhandlersb) Panhandler higher in hierarchy had a lesser degree of shame

Ten in-depth interviews were conducted using grounded theory

Dissemination of Information

Laws, social services,

rights

Policy/Urban Planning

Panhandler/

Panhandling

activities

Social structure

Higher level

Lower level

Self-efficacy

Lifestyle

change+-Resources

Conceptual Framework

Knowledge

Mistrust of

agencies

Research Design and Methods Grounded Theory

Gathering Data, classification, analysis 2 Phases

Ethnographic observations, interviews, Analysis

Qualitative Quantitative

Mixed-methods approach Strengthening relationships

Phase 1: Ethnographic Observations

Identify panhandling hotspots Local agencies (police officials, community outreach programs)

Five locations chosen through theoretical sampling Naturalistic ethnographic observations

1 hour during “rush hours” Longitudinal study over 3 month period

Observes success rates of panhandler for 10 consecutive traffic stops # of donations/traffic stop

Coding and memoing Build on conceptual model Modify questionnaire for interviews

Phase 2: Interviews Investigator interviews on-the-spot of observational sites In-depth interview:

Information acquisition Knowledge of laws against panhandling Social hierarchy Homeless status Drug use Mental illness

Validated Questionnaires Quality of Life* Self-efficacy

*This questionnaire is too long for most interviewees and may be reconsidered in future data collection

Questionnaire for Interview

1. Background Information:a) How long have you been (panhandling, asking for money)?b) What brought you to this point?c) How long do you think you’ll be doing this?

2. Knowledgea) Do you know about any laws against what you’re doing?b) Have you ever been in trouble with the law?c) How to you get your information about:

- New laws?- Job opportunities?- Help from the community?

3. Trust1. Tell me about the people who try to help you.2. Who do you trust the most for help and to get information?

4. How do you feel about:a) What you’re doing?b) Other types of panhandlers? (include an example)

5. Social hierarchya) Do you feel like some people have more power or control over you? Is there a social

hierarchy that you notice?

Quality of Life Scale

Corporation Course of Homelessness Study Quality of Life

Survey

http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/homelessness.html

Self-Efficacy Scale

Phase 3: AnalysisQualitative Aspect

Analytic inductionDevelop categories for classification of

panhandlersNarrative analysis

Explore the function of story elements in overall pattern of the story of panhandling

ATLAS.ti version 7 (Berlin, Scientific Software Development)

Phase 3: AnalysisBiserial Correlations

Information acquisition Accuracy of knowledge Homelessness Type of panhandler Drug use Mental illness

With the success rates (# of

donations/traffic stop) Quality of life score Self-efficacy score Income (if available)

Regression Model Include all significant

correlations with outcome variable of self-efficacy score

●SPSS version 18 (Chicago, An IBM Company)

Preliminary Results 1. Social Hierarchy

a) Sellers vs. beggarsb) Drug usec) Mental health

2. Knowledgea) Information about laws tended to differ from the true laws against panhandling.b) All were arrested before they were aware of lawsc) Panhandler who was highest in the social hierarchy had greater access to

information (link between information and hierarchy)

3. Lack of Support MISTRUSTa) Sense of betrayal by prominent organizations (HAC)b) All but one panhandler could identify >1 source of help (highest in hierarchy)

4. Shamea) Terms like “feeling degraded” and “I don’t like this” and “I’d rather work” were

common among panhandlersb) Panhandler higher in hierarchy had a lesser degree of shame

Ten in-depth interviews were conducted using grounded theory

Future directionsCollect greater sample size (n>20) from more

locationsCollaborations with involved student organizations at

Florida International University Share information with local agencies that target this

populationProject funding

ConclusionLittle is known about information acquisition among panhandlers

Information may affect quality of life and self-efficacy, which may lead to lifestyle change

This study will increase understanding of methods to acquire information and its relationship with self-efficacy

Questions?Comments?

Ideas?Visit miamipanhandlingproject.com

Thank you for your time!