The U.S. Department of Justice has issued a guide to help train police officers to deal with panhandlers. This guide, titled Panhandling by Michael Scott, is helpful for understanding the nature of panhandling and the way in which the executors of the law look at panhandling.
The first task in the guide is to define ‘panhandling.’ Scott defines panhandling as begging for money, or a donation, sometimes in exchange for nominal services like window washing, helping park, or carrying groceries. Scott writes that there are two types of panhandling:
Passive Panhandling – “Soliciting without threat or menace, often without any words exchanged at all.” (1)
Aggressive Panhandling – whereby one “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.” (1)
By dividing panhandling into two categories – passive and active, police can then determine what sorts of panhandling activities they will let slide, and what sorts of panhandling activities they will prosecute. If you’ll recall from our discussions of panhandling laws and the First Amendment, passive sorts of panhandling are constitutionally protected. So, police may allow someone sitting in a doorway holding a cup remain, but arrest someone who is badgering passersby for money. According to Scott’s report, panhandlers tend to be territorial, and they exhibit disputes over territory.
Just as there are two types of panhandlers, there are two types of social perspectives towards panhandlers. These are:
The Sympathetic View – where the view is that panhandling is an essential component for survival of the destitute and, not surprisingly TheUnsympathetic View – the idea that panhandling contributes to crime and civil disorder without addressing the underlying problems experienced by the homeless. (2)
Scott also takes care to distinguish panhandling from other street activities. These activities include public intoxication, disorderly conduct, harassment, pickpocketing, ATM robberies, street entertainment and vending without a license, and rummaging through trash. (3)
Different factors contribute to panhandling. Because panhandlers can intimidate passersby, the time of day, vulnerability level, level of street traffic, and appearance of the panhandler all go into how successful and how intimidating an individual panhandler might be. (3-4) Most panhandlers are single males, in their 30s-40s, unemployed, have substance abuse issues, and a high school education. Most panhandlers do not have mental illness, and they are equally likely to be victims of crime as they are to be criminal offenders. (5-6)
As we have already mentioned in this blog, “only a small percentage of homeless panhandle, and only a small percentage of panhandlers are homeless.” (6) Panhandlers tend to be strategic about their pitch for money and they opt for panhandling over minimum wage employment.
Panhandling is most common in communities that have a high level of services geared towards those in need. (8)
What do you think about all of this? Is the distinction between passive panhandling and aggressive panhandling useful? Does the distinction matter? Should we be more lenient towards panhandlers who are passive in their approach? Why do you think that panhandling is more common in communities with social services present? Is panhandling just as profitable as a minimum wage job?
Chicago Panhandler Project 