Panhandling and information acquisition: Implications for policy and services Tiffanie Stewart, MSc Florida International University ISA Conference, Buenos Aires August 1 st, 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)

Locations

Research Purpose The 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 Study Ethnographic Observations Naturalistic observations at panhandling friendly and no- panhandling zones Interviews Interviews (~45 minutes) at panhandling locations Open-ended questionnaire Probing

Pilot Study con’t 1. Social Hierarchy a) Sellers vs. beggars b) Drug use c) Mental health 2. Knowledge a) Information about laws tended to differ from the true laws against panhandling. b) All were arrested before they were aware of laws c) Panhandler who was highest in the social hierarchy had greater access to information (link between information and hierarchy) 3. Lack of Support  MISTRUST a) Sense of betrayal by prominent organizations (HAC) b) All but one panhandler could identify >1 source of help (highest in hierarchy) 4. Shame a) Terms like “feeling degraded” and “I don’t like this” and “I’d rather work” were common among panhandlers b) Panhandler higher in hierarchy had a lesser degree of shame Ten in-depth interviews were conducted using grounded theory

Panhandler/ Panhandling activities + - Conceptual Framework 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. Knowledge a) 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. Trust 1. 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 hierarchy a) 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 ools/homelessness.html

Self-Efficacy Scale

Phase 3: Analysis Qualitative Aspect Analytic induction Develop categories for classification of panhandlers Narrative 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: Analysis Biserial 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. beggars b) Drug use c) Mental health 2. Knowledge a) Information about laws tended to differ from the true laws against panhandling. b) All were arrested before they were aware of laws c) Panhandler who was highest in the social hierarchy had greater access to information (link between information and hierarchy) 3. Lack of Support  MISTRUST a) Sense of betrayal by prominent organizations (HAC) b) All but one panhandler could identify >1 source of help (highest in hierarchy) 4. Shame a) Terms like “feeling degraded” and “I don’t like this” and “I’d rather work” were common among panhandlers b) Panhandler higher in hierarchy had a lesser degree of shame Ten in-depth interviews were conducted using grounded theory

Future directions Collect greater sample size (n>20) from more locations Collaborations with involved student organizations at Florida International University Share information with local agencies that target this population Project funding

Conclusion Little 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 Thank you for your time!