www.cops.usdoj.gov

Panhandling

by

Michael S. Scott

Panhandling

Michael S. Scott

This project was supported by cooperative agreement #99-CK-WXK004 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S.

Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the

author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the

U.S. Department of Justice.

www.cops.usdoj.gov

d dfwg

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 problemoriented policing project. They are designed to help police

decide how best to analyze and address a problem they have

already identified. (An assessment guide has been produced

as a companion to this series and the COPS Office has also

published an introductory guide to problem analysis. For

those who want to learn more about the principles and

methods of problem-oriented policing, the assessment and

analysis guides, along with other recommended readings, are

listed at the back of this guide.)

• Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the

complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to

spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and

responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before

responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is

most likely to work in your community. You should not

blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must

decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation.

What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what

works in one place may not work everywhere.
p

While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your

particular problem, they should help give a broader view of

the kinds of things you could do. You may think you

cannot implement some of these responses in your

jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when

police have discovered a more effective response, they have

succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving

the response to the problem.

• Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge.

For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is

available to the police; for other problems, little is available.

Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing

research whereas other guides illustrate the need for more

research on that particular problem. Regardless, research

has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you

might have about the problem. The research may help get

you started in designing your own responses, but it cannot

tell you exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the

particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of

keeping the guides readable, not every piece of relevant

research has been cited, nor has every point been attributed

to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed

and distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of

each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they are not a

complete bibliography of research on the subject.

• Are willing to work with other community agencies to find

effective solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot

implement many of the responses discussed in the guides.

They must frequently implement them in partnership with

other responsible private and public entities. An effective

problem-solver must know how to forge genuine
These guides have drawn on research findings and police

practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,

Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia.

Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from

country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere

experience common problems. In a world that is becoming

increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be

aware of research and successful practices beyond the borders

of their own countries.

The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide

feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency's

experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may

have effectively addressed a problem using responses not

considered in these guides and your experiences and

knowledge could benefit others. This information will be used

to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback and

share your experiences it should be sent via e-mail to

cops_pubs@usdoj.gov.

The ProblemOriented Guides for Police series is very much a

collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary author,

other project team members, COPS Office staff and

anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by

proposing text, recommending research and offering

suggestions on matters of format and style.

The principal project team developing the guide series

comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, University

of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, professor of

criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. Eck, associate

professor of criminal justice, University of Cincinnati;

Michael S. Scott, police consultant, Savannah, Ga.; Rana

Sampson, police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm

Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State

University.

Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw the

project for the COPS Office. Megan Tate Murphy

coordinated the peer reviews for the COPS Office. Suzanne

Fregly edited the guides. Research for the guides was

conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers

University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze by Gisela

Bichler-Robertson, Rob Guerette and Laura Wyckoff.

The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members of

the San Diego, National City and Savannah police

departments who provided feedback on the guides' format

and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the line

police officers, police executives and researchers who peer

reviewed each guide.

About the Guide Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

The Problem of Panhandling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Related Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Factors Contributing to Panhandling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Whether Panhandling Intimidates Passersby . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Who the Panhandlers Are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Who Gets Panhandled and Who Gives Money to Panhandlers . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Where and When Panhandling Commonly Occurs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Economics of Panhandling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Economic, Social and Legal Factors That Influence Panhandling Levels . . . 11

Understanding Your Local Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Asking the Right Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Complainants and Donors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Panhandlers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Location/Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Current Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Measuring Your Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Responses to the Problem of Panhandling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Enforcement Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Public Education Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Situational Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Social Services/Treatment Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Response With Limited Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Appendix B: Selected Court Cases on Panhandling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

About the Author . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Recommended Readings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Other Guides in This Series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
gppg

covers nearly equivalent conduct in which, in exchange for

donations, people perform nominal labor such as squeegeeing

(cleaning) the windshields of cars stopped in traffic, holding

car doors open, saving parking spaces, guarding parked cars,

buying subway tokens, and carrying luggage or groceries.

The guide begins by describing the panhandling problem and

reviewing factors that contribute to it. It then identifies a

series of questions that might help you in analyzing your local

problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem, and

what is known about those responses from evaluative research

and police practice.

Generally, there are two types of panhandling: passive and

aggressive. Passive panhandling is soliciting without threat or

menace, often without any words exchanged at all–just a cup

or a hand held out. Aggressive panhandling is soliciting

coercively, with actual or implied threats, or menacing actions.

If a panhandler uses physical force or extremely aggressive

actions, the panhandling may constitute robbery.

Isolated incidents of passive panhandling are usually a low

police priority.1 In many jurisdictions, panhandling is not even

illegal. Even where it is illegal, police usually tolerate passive

panhandling, for both legal and practical reasons.2 Courts in

some jurisdictions have ruled that passive panhandling is

constitutionally protected activity. Police can reasonably

conclude that, absent citizen complaints, their time is better

spent addressing more serious problems. Whether

panhandling and other forms of street disorder cause or

contribute to more serious crime–the broken windows

† "Panhandling," a common term in

the United States, is more often

referred to as "begging" elsewhere, or

occasionally, as "cadging."

"Panhandlers" are variously referred

to as "beggars," "vagrants,"

"vagabonds," "mendicants," or

"cadgers." The term "panhandling"

derives either from the impression

created by someone holding out his

or her hand (as a pan's handle sticks

out from the pan) or from the image

of someone using a pan to collect

money (as gold miners in the

American West used pans to sift for

gold).
ggp

even when done passively, is to make passersby apprehensive.4

Panhandling is of greater concern to merchants who worry

that their customers will be discouraged from patronizing

their business. Merchants are most likely to call police when

panhandling disrupts their commerce.5,†

Police must also be concerned with the welfare of

panhandlers who are vulnerable to physical and verbal assault

by other panhandlers, street robbers†† or passersby who react

violently to being panhandled.6 Panhandlers often claim

certain spots as their own territory, and disputes and fights

over territory are not uncommon.7

Broadly speaking, public policy perspectives on panhandling

are of two types–the sympathetic view and the unsympathetic

view. The sympathetic view, commonly but not unanimously

held by civil libertarians and homeless advocates, is that

panhandling is essential to destitute people's survival, and

should not be regulated by police.8 Some even view

panhandling as a poignant expression of the plight of the

needy, and an opportunity for the more fortunate to help.9

The unsympathetic view is that panhandling is a blight that

contributes to further community disorder and crime, as well

as to panhandlers' degradation and deterioration as their

underlying problems go unaddressed.10 Those holding this

view believe panhandling should be heavily regulated by

police.

People's opinions about panhandling are rooted in deeply held

beliefs about individual liberty, public order and social

† Business owners who work on site

are most likely to call police.

Employees, especially younger

employees, are less likely to do so

because they have less at stake if

panhandling disrupts business

(Goldstein 1993).

†† In one study, 50 percent of

panhandlers claimed to have been

mugged within the past year

(Goldstein 1993).
ypy p

begging is discouraged on most philosophical grounds and by

most major religions, many people feel torn about whether to

give money to panhandlers.12 Some people tolerate all sorts of

street disorder, while others are genuinely frightened by it.

This tension between opposing viewpoints will undoubtedly

always exist. This guide takes a more neutral stance: without

passing judgment on the degree of sympathy owed to

panhandlers, it recognizes that police will always be under

some pressure to control panhandling, and that there are

effective and fair ways to do so.

Related Problems

Panhandling and its variants are only one form of disorderly

street conduct and street crime about which police are

concerned. Other forms–not directly addressed in this

guide–include:

• disorderly conduct of day laborers;

• disorderly conduct of public inebriates (e.g., public

intoxication, public drinking, public urination and

defecation, harassment, intimidation, and passing out in

public places);

• disorderly conduct of transients/homeless (e.g., public

camping, public urination and defecation, and sleeping on

sidewalks and benches, and in public libraries);

• disorderly youth in public places;

• harassment (usually sexual) of female pedestrians;

• pickpocketing;

• purse snatching;

• robbery at automated teller machines (ATMs);

• trash picking (for food or to salvage aluminum cans and

bottles);
Some of these other forms of disorderly street conduct may

also be attributable to panhandlers, but this is not necessarily

so. These problems overlap in various ways, and a local

analysis of them will be necessary to understand how they do.

Factors Contributing to Panhandling

Understanding the factors that contribute to your panhandling

problem will help you frame your own local analysis

questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize

key intervention points, and select appropriate responses.

Whether Panhandling Intimidates Passersby

Panhandling intimidates some people, even causing some to

avoid areas where they believe they will be panhandled.13 Onethird of San Franciscans surveyed said they gave money to

panhandlers because they felt pressured, and avoided certain

areas because of panhandling; nearly 40 percent expressed

concern for their safety around panhandlers.14 But most

studies conclude that intentional aggressive panhandling is

rare, largely because panhandlers realize that using aggression

reduces their income, and is more likely to get them arrested

or otherwise draw police attention to them.15

Whether panhandling intimidates passersby depends, of

course, on how aggressive or menacing the panhandler is, but

it also depends on the context in which panhandling occurs.

In other words, an act of panhandling in one context might

† In some instances, there is a fine

distinction between panhandlers who

use brief entertainment as part of

their solicitation and moreaccomplished street musicians,

jugglers, mimes, and other skilled

entertainers.
g pg 

• the time of day (nighttime panhandling is usually more

intimidating than daytime panhandling);

• the ease with which people can avoid panhandlers

(panhandling is more likely to intimidate motorists stuck in

traffic than it is those who can drive away);

• the degree to which people feel especially vulnerable (for

example, being panhandled near an ATM makes some

people feel more vulnerable to being robbed);

• the presence of other passersby (most people feel safer

when there are other people around);

• the physical appearance of the panhandler (panhandlers who

appear to be mentally ill, intoxicated or otherwise

disoriented are most likely to frighten passersby because

their conduct seems particularly unpredictable); 17

• the reputation of the panhandler (panhandlers known to be

aggressive or erratic are more intimidating than those not

known to be so);

• the characteristics of the person being solicited (the elderly

tend to be more intimidated by panhandlers because they

are less sure of their ability to defend themselves from

attack);

• the number of panhandlers (multiple panhandlers working

together are more intimidating than a lone panhandler); and

• the volume of panhandling (the more panhandlers present

in an area, the more intimidating and bothersome

panhandling will seem).

Who the Panhandlers Are

Typically, relatively few panhandlers account for most

complaints to police about panhandling.18 The typical profile

of a panhandler that emerges from a number of studies is

that of an unemployed, unmarried male in his 30s or 40s,

with substance abuse problems, few family ties, a high school
g pg

g

percentage of panhandlers in U.S. urban areas are AfricanAmerican.21 Some panhandlers suffer from mental illness, but

most do not.22 Many panhandlers have criminal records, but

panhandlers are nearly as likely to have been crime victims as

offenders.23 Some are transient, but most have been in their

community for a long time.24

Contrary to common belief, panhandlers and homeless people

are not necessarily one and the same. Many studies have

found that only a small percentage of homeless people

panhandle, and only a small percentage of panhandlers are

homeless.26,†† 

Most studies conclude that panhandlers make rational

economic choices–that is, they look to make money in the

most efficient way possible.27 Panhandlers develop their "sales

pitches," and sometimes compete with one another for the

rights to a particular sales pitch.28 Their sales pitches are

usually, though not always, fraudulent in some respect. Some

panhandlers will admit to passersby that they want money to

buy alcohol (hoping candor will win them favor), though few

will admit they intend to buy illegal drugs.29 Many panhandlers

make it a habit to always be polite and appreciative, even

when they are refused. Given the frequent hostility they

experience, maintaining their composure can be a remarkable

psychological feat.30 Panhandlers usually give some

consideration to their physical appearance: they must balance

looking needy against looking too offensive or threatening.31

† In many less-developed countries,

children commonly beg to support

themselves and their families, a

phenomenon less common in the

United States and other more highly

developed countries.

†† Definitions of homelessness vary,

but at a minimum, most studies have

found that few panhandlers routinely

sleep outdoors at night. See,

however, Burke (1998) for evidence

that a high percentage of the

panhandlers in Leicester, England,

have been homeless.
Most panhandlers are not interested in regular employment,

particularly not minimum-wage labor, which many believe

would scarcely be more profitable than panhandling.32 Some

panhandlers' refusal to look for regular employment is better

explained by their unwillingness or inability to commit to

regular work hours, often because of substance abuse

problems. Some panhandlers buy food with the money they

receive, because they dislike the food served in shelters and

soup kitchens.33

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

† Ninety percent of San Franciscans

surveyed reported having been

panhandled within the past year

(Kelling and Coles 1996).

Some panhandlers hope that candor

will increase donations. Here, a

panhandler's donation box reveals

that the money will be spent on beer

as well as on food.
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.36 Panhandlers more commonly target

women than men,37 but some find that lone women are not

suitable targets because they are more likely to fear having

their purses snatched should they open them to get change.38

Conventioneers and tourists are good targets for panhandlers

because they are already psychologically prepared to spend

money.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 communities and specific locations

where the opportunities to collect money are best–where

there are a lot of pedestrians or motorists, especially those

who are most likely to have money and to give it.40

Panhandling is more common in communities that provide a

high level of social services to the needy, because the same

citizens who support social services are also likely to give

money directly to panhandlers; panhandlers are drawn to

communities where both free social services and generous

passersby are plentiful.41 With respect to specific locations,

panhandlers prefer to panhandle where passersby cannot
Among the more common, specific panhandling locations are

the following:

• near ATMs, parking meters and telephone booths (because

ATM users, motorists and callers are less likely to say they

do not have any money to give);

• near building entrances/exits and public restrooms with a

lot of pedestrian traffic;

• on or near college campuses (because students tend to be

more sympathetic toward panhandlers);

• near subway, train and bus station entrances/exits (because

of high pedestrian traffic, and because public transportation

users are likely to be carrying cash to buy tickets or tokens);

• on buses and subway trains (because riders are a "captive

audience");

• near places that provide panhandlers with shade and shelter

from bad weather (such as doorways, alcoves and alleys in

commercial districts);

• in front of convenience stores, restaurants and grocery

stores (because panhandlers' claims to be buying food or

necessities for them or their children seem more plausible,

and because shoppers and diners often feel especially

fortunate and generous);

• at gas stations (because panhandlers' claims that they need

money for gas or to repair their vehicle seem more

plausible);

• at freeway exits/entrances (because motorists will be

stopped or traveling slowly enough to be able to give

money);

• on crowded sidewalks (because it is easier for panhandlers to

blend in with the crowd should the police appear);

• at intersections with traffic signals (because motorists will be

stopped); and

• near liquor stores and drug markets (so the panhandlers do

not have to travel far to buy alcohol or drugs).43
to community. For example, panhandling may increase during

winter months in warm-climate communities as transients

migrate there from cold-weather regions. Panhandling levels

often drop around the dates government benefits are

distributed, because those panhandlers who receive benefits

have the money they need. Once that money runs out, they

resume panhandling.44 Panhandling on or near college

campuses often follows the cycles of students' going to and

coming from classes.45 There are usually daily lulls in

panhandling when those panhandlers who are chronic

inebriates or drug addicts go off to drink or take drugs.

Regular panhandlers keep fairly routine schedules, typically

panhandling for four to six hours a day.46

Economics of Panhandling

Most evidence confirms that panhandling is not lucrative,

although some panhandlers clearly are able to subsist on a

combination of panhandling money, government benefits,

private charity, and money from odd jobs such as selling

scavenged materials or plasma.47 How much money a

panhandler can make varies depending on his or her skill and

personal appeal, as well as on the area in which he or she

solicits. Estimates vary from a couple of dollars (U.S.) a day

on the low end, to $20 to $50 a day in the mid-range, to about

$300 a day on the high end.48 Women–especially those who

have children with them–and panhandlers who appear to be

disabled tend to receive more money.49 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.50
p

y y

money, partly because they risk having it stolen, and partly

because their primary purpose is to immediately buy alcohol

or drugs.52

Economic, Social and Legal Factors That Influence

Panhandling Levels

Broad economic, social and legal factors influence the overall

level of panhandling, as well as community tolerance of it.53

Tolerance levels appear to have declined significantly during

the 1990s, at least in the United States, leading to increased

pressure on police to control panhandling.

The state of the economy, at the local, regional and even

national level, affects how much panhandling occurs. As the

economy declines, panhandling increases. As government

benefit programs become more restrictive, panhandling

increases.54 At least as important as economic factors, if not

more so, are social factors. The stronger the social bonds and

social network on which indigent people can rely for

emotional and financial support, the less likely they are to

panhandle.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 their panhandling is less tolerated.

As people with mental illnesses are increasingly released into

the community, often without adequate follow-up care,

panhandling also increases. Where there are inadequate

detoxification and substance-abuse treatment facilities,

panhandling is high.56 As courts strike down laws that
y pg

levels: convicted offenders often have difficulty getting jobs

after release, and some inevitably turn to panhandling.58
py g

description of panhandling. You must combine the basic facts

with a more specific understanding of your local problem.

Analyzing the local problem carefully will 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 panhandling bother or intimidate

others? How many complaints do police receive?† Do a few

people account for many complaints, or do many people

complain? Are complaints filed with other organizations

(business/neighborhood associations)? 

• Who are the complainants? Merchants? Shoppers? Workers?

Students?

• Does panhandling alter people's behavior and routines (e.g.,

do people avoid certain areas or stores)?

• What are the particular complaints? That panhandlers act

aggressively, or that all panhandling is bothersome?

• What do complainants suggest should be done to control

panhandling?

† Analyzing calls for service related

to panhandling is important, but it

can be time-consuming because, in

many police agencies, such calls are

classified under broad categories such

as "disturbance" or "suspicious

person," categories that encompass a

wide range of behavior. It might be

worthwhile to develop more-specific

call categories, so future problem

analysis will be easier.
Panhandlers

(Surveys of suspected panhandlers, data from agencies that

serve the needy, and discussions with beat police officers can

help you answer the following questions. This information

can help you determine whether there are clusters of

panhandlers with similar characteristics. Different responses

might be warranted for different types of panhandlers.)

• How many panhandlers are in the area? How many are

regulars? How many are occasional?

• What is known about the regular panhandlers? What is their

age, race, gender, family status, employment status, and

employment history? Are they substance abusers? Do they

suffer from mental illness? Do they have criminal records or

a history of criminal victimization? Where do they live (in

shelters, private homes, on the streets)?

• How many of the panhandlers are transient? How many are

new to the area? How many are longtime residents?

• Do the panhandlers know about and use social services in

the area (e.g., shelters, soup kitchens, job training, substance

abuse treatment)? 

Location/Time

• Where does panhandling commonly occur? In parks, plazas

and squares? On sidewalks? Near ATMs? Near public

transportation stops and stations?

• What, specifically, makes certain locations especially

attractive or unattractive to panhandlers?

• When is panhandling most prevalent? Are there daily,

weekly, monthly, or seasonal cycles to it?
in your jurisdiction? How is it currently handled? Is the

current response adequate and appropriate?

• What laws currently regulate panhandling? Are those laws

adequate and/or constitutional?

• Do the police arrest panhandlers? If so, on what charges?

How are the charges processed? Are panhandlers

prosecuted? If so, what is the typical sentence?

• How do other criminal justice officials (prosecutors, judges,

probation officers) view the panhandling problem?

Measuring Your Effectiveness

Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your

efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify

your responses if they are not producing the intended results.

You should take measures of your problem before you

implement responses, to determine how serious the problem

is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they

have been effective. All measures should be taken in both the

target area and the surrounding area. (For more detailed

guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion guide

to this series, Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory

Guide for Police Problem-Solvers.) 

The following are potentially useful measures of the

effectiveness of responses to panhandling:

• number of complaints filed with police about panhandling;

• number of complaints filed with other organizations or

people (e.g., neighborhood/business associations, elected

officials) about panhandling;

• levels of concern expressed about panhandling (from

surveys);
• evidence that panhandling has been displaced to other areas,

or is resulting in an increase in other forms of nuisance

behavior or crime (e.g., trash scavenging, shoplifting, theft

from autos, purse snatching, prostitution, drug dealing);†

and

• indicators of the economic health of the area beset with

panhandling (e.g., property vacancy rates, shoppers'

presence, commerce levels, tax receipts, private-security

expenditures).

† Lankenau (1999) asserts that most

panhandlers will likely turn to other

illegitimate ways to make money,

rather than find regular employment

or enter treatment programs. Duneier

(1999) states that some panhandlers

see crime as one of the few viable

alternatives to 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.59 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.
, , py, 

workers, and police beat officers form an intricate social

network of mutual support and regulation. They all have

something to gain by cooperating with one another (and,

consequently, to lose by not cooperating with one another).

Panhandlers obviously gain money, food and some social

interaction from their activity; they risk losing them if they act

too disorderly. Merchants will usually tolerate some

panhandling, though seldom directly in front of their

businesses. Some merchants even give panhandlers food or

hire them to do odd jobs such as wash store windows.

Passersby gain freedom from the harassment and intimidation

of persistent and menacing panhandlers, along with the

positive feelings they experience from truly voluntary charity.

Social workers are more likely to be able to help those street

people who are not frequently arrested for panhandling.

Police beat officers can cultivate panhandlers as informants,

helping the officers stay current with what is happening on

the street.

Enforcement Responses

Whether or not you emphasize enforcement of laws that

regulate panhandling, it is important that the laws be able to

survive legal challenge. Police should have valid enforcement

authority to bolster other responses they use, including issuing

warnings to panhandlers.60 Laws that prohibit aggressive

panhandling or panhandling in specified areas are more likely

to survive legal challenge than those that prohibit all

panhandling. If enforcement of panhandling laws will be a

key component of your strategy, and if you think the

† Goldstein's (1993) study of

panhandling in New Haven, Conn.,

provides an excellent example of

how panhandling is controlled

through informal means. Duneier's

(1999) study of New York City street

vendors, scavengers and panhandlers

also provides an exceptional example

of informal social control on the

street.
gp ypp

legislation. There are a number of model panhandling

ordinances61 and legal commentaries on the constitutionality

of panhandling laws62 in the literature. See Appendix B for a

list and brief summary of some of the leading cases on the

constitutionality of panhandling and laws that regulate it.

Warning panhandlers and ordering them to "move along" are

perhaps the most common police responses to panhandling.63

Many police beat officers develop working relationships with

regular panhandlers; they use a mix of formal and informal

approaches to keeping panhandling under control.64 Most

officers do not view panhandling as a serious matter, and are

reluctant to devote the time necessary to arrest and book

offenders.65 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.66 Prosecutors are equally unlikely to prosecute

panhandling cases, typically viewing them as an unwise use of

scarce prosecutorial resources.67

Panhandler arrests are rare,68,† but when they occur, this is the

typical scenario: An officer issues a panhandler a summons or

citation that sets a court date or specifies a fine. The

panhandler fails to appear in court or fails to pay the fine. A

warrant is issued for the panhandler's arrest. The police later

arrest the panhandler after running a warrant check during a

subsequent encounter. The panhandler is incarcerated for no

more than a couple of days, sentenced to time already served

by the court, and released.69

† Goldstein (1993) estimated that

police made arrests for panhandling

in only about 1 percent of all policepanhandler encounters.
pg

panhandling's overall impact on the community. A problemimpact statement can help prosecutors and judges understand

the overall negative effect the seemingly minor offense of

panhandling is having on the community.70 In the United

Kingdom, police can apply to the courts for an "antisocial

behavior order" against individuals or groups as one means of

controlling their persistent low-level offending.71 Violations of

the orders can result in relatively severe jail sentences.† It is

unknown how effective the orders have been in controlling

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.72 A growing number of jurisdictions have

enacted aggressive-panhandling laws, most within the past 10

years.†† Enforcing aggressive-panhandling laws can be difficult,

partly because few panhandlers behave aggressively, and partly

because many victims of aggressive panhandling do not

report the offense to police or are unwilling to file a

complaint. Police can use proactive enforcement methods

such as having officers serve as decoys, giving panhandlers the

opportunity to panhandle them aggressively.73 Some agencies

have provided officers with special legal training before

enforcing aggressive-panhandling laws.74 Enforcing other laws

panhandlers commonly violate–those regarding drinking in

public, trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc.–can help control

some aspects of the panhandling problem.

† British antisocial behavior orders

are similar in some respects to

American restraining and nuisance

abatement orders.

†† Among the jurisdictions to have

enacted aggressive-panhandling laws

are the states of Hawaii and

California, and the cities of San

Francisco; Seattle; Minneapolis;

Albuquerque, N.M.; Atlanta;

Baltimore; Cincinnati; Dallas; Tulsa,

Okla.; and Washington, D.C.
pgggpg yy

Panhandlers exercise some influence over one another's

behavior, to minimize complaints and keep police from

intervening.76 Enforcing aggressive-panhandling laws can

serve to reinforce the informal norms because aggressive

panhandling by the few makes panhandling less profitable for

others.77

Aggressive-panhandling laws typically include the following

specific prohibitions:

• confronting someone in a way that would cause a reasonable

person to fear bodily harm;

• touching someone without his or her consent;

• continuing to panhandle or follow someone after he or she

has refused to give money;

• intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe passage of

a person or vehicle;

• using obscene or abusive language toward someone while

attempting to panhandle him or her; and

• acting with intent to intimidate someone into giving

money.78

2. Prohibiting panhandling in specified areas. Many

courts have held that laws can restrict where panhandling

occurs. Panhandlers are increasingly being prohibited from

panhandling:

• near ATMs;

• on public transportation vehicles and near stations and

stops;
One legal commentator has proposed a novel approach to

regulating panhandling: zoning laws that would strictly

prohibit panhandling in some areas, allow limited panhandling

in other areas, and allow almost all panhandling in yet other

areas.80 The literature does not report any jurisdiction that has

adopted this approach as a matter of law, though clearly,

police officers informally vary their enforcement depending

on community tolerance levels in different parts of their

jurisdiction.

3. Prohibiting interference with pedestrians or vehicles.

Some jurisdictions have enacted laws that specifically prohibit

impeding pedestrians' ability to walk either by standing or by

lying down in the way. Enforcement can be difficult where

such laws require police to establish the panhandler's intent to

Kip Kellogg

Some communities prohibit

panhandling in specified areas.
gg

pg , 

window-washing usually does, enforcing laws that prohibit

interfering with motor vehicle traffic can help control the

problem.82

4. Banning panhandlers from certain areas as a

condition of probation. Because panhandling's viability

depends so heavily on good locations, banning troublesome

panhandlers from those locations as a condition of probation,

at least temporarily, might serve to discourage them from

panhandling and, perhaps, compel them to consider legitimate

employment or substance abuse treatment.83 Convicted

panhandlers might also be temporarily banned from publicly

funded shelters.84 Alternatively, courts could use civil

injunctions and restraining orders to control chronic

panhandlers' conduct, although actual use of this approach

does not appear in the literature.85 Obviously, police will

require prosecutors' endorsements and judicial approval to

advance these sorts of responses.

5. Sentencing convicted panhandlers to appropriate

community service. Some jurisdictions have made wide use

of community service sentences tailored to the particular

offender and offense.86 For example, officers in St. Louis

asked courts to sentence chronic panhandlers to community

service cleaning the streets, sidewalks and alleys in the area

where they panhandled.87

6. Requiring panhandlers to obtain solicitation permits.

Some cities, including Wilmington, Del., and New Orleans,

have at some time required panhandlers and window washers

to obtain solicitation permits, just as permits are required

from street vendors and others who solicit money in public.88,†

† Licensing schemes for beggars

reportedly have existed in England as

far back as 1530 (Teir 1993). The

Criminal Justice Legal Foundation

(1994) has published guidance on

drafting laws enabling permit

systems, though the language seems

designed to inhibit panhandling,

rather than allow it.
Public Education Responses

7. Discouraging people from giving money to

panhandlers, and encouraging them to give to charities

that serve the needy. In all likelihood, if people stopped

giving money to panhandlers, panhandling would cease.89

Public education campaigns are intended to discourage people

from giving money to panhandlers. They typically offer three

main arguments: 1) panhandlers usually use the money to buy

alcohol and drugs, rather than goods and services that will

improve their condition; 2) giving panhandlers small amounts

of money is insufficient to address the underlying

circumstances that cause them to panhandle; and 3) social

services are available to meet panhandlers' food, clothing,

shelter, health care, and employment needs. Some people do

not understand the relationship between panhandling and

substance abuse, or are unaware of available social services,

however obvious these factors may seem to police.90 Public

education messages have been conveyed via posters,

pamphlets, movie trailers, and charity collection points.91 A

poster campaign was an important element of the New York

City Transit Authority's effort to control subway

panhandling.92 In Nashville and Memphis, Tenn., special

parking meters were used as collection points for charities that

serve the needy.93 Some police officers have invested a lot of

their own time making personal appeals to discourage people

from giving money to panhandlers.94 Some cities, such as

Evanston, Ill., have hired trained civilians to make such

appeals.95 Not everyone will be persuaded by the appeals;

some will undoubtedly perceive them as uncaring.
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.96 Portland, Ore., developed a similar program,97 as did

Evanston.98

Signs and flyers, such as this one from Madison,

Wis., have been used effectively to discourage

people from giving money to panhandlers.
pgy ppy g

panhandlers vouchers redeemable for food, shelter,

transportation, or other necessities, but not for alcohol or

tobacco.† Typically, a private nonprofit organization prints and

sells the vouchers and serves as the broker between buyers

and merchants. Some vouchers are printed in a way that

makes them difficult to counterfeit. Vouchers are often

accompanied with printed information about where they can

be redeemed and what social services are available to the

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,99 or that few people will buy the vouchers, as

has been reported in some jurisdictions.100

Situational Responses

10. Modifying the physical environment to discourage

panhandlers from congregating in the area. Among the

environmental features conducive to or facilitating

panhandling are the following: access to water (for drinking,

bathing and filling buckets for window washing); restrooms;

unsecured garbage dumpsters (for scavenging food and

sellable materials); and places to sit or lie down, protected

from the elements. These physical features can be modified to

discourage panhandling.101 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.102 A number of police

efforts to address broader problems related to transient

encampments–problems that included panhandling–entailed

† The earliest reported program was

in Los Angeles. Other cities where

voucher programs have been

instituted include Berkeley, Santa Cruz

and San Francisco, Calif.; Nashville;

Memphis; New Haven; Portland, Ore.;

Chicago; Seattle; Boulder, Colo.; New

York; and Edmonton, Alberta

(Ellickson 1996; New York Times 1993;

Wall Street Journal 1993). Some

communities have considered and

rejected voucher programs (Evanston

Police Department 1995).
11. Regulating alcohol sales to chronic inebriates who

panhandle in the area. Because many panhandlers are

chronic inebriates, and because they spend so much of their

panhandling money on alcohol, enforcing laws that prohibit

alcohol sales to intoxicated people or chronic inebriates is one

means of discouraging panhandling in the area. Several police

agencies have reported using this approach in their efforts to

control panhandling and other problems related to chronic

inebriates.104 Alternatively, merchants might be persuaded to

change their sales practices to discourage panhandlers from

shopping at their stores (e.g., by eliminating such products as

fortified wine or not selling single containers of beer).

12. Controlling window-washing materials. Several police

agencies have reported on ways to control how squeegee

men/panhandlers acquire, store and use window-washing

materials. Santa Ana police asked nearby businesses to

remove an outdoor water fountain that squeegee men were

using to fill their buckets.105 Vancouver, British Columbia,

police discovered where squeegee men stored their buckets

and squeegees, and had property owners secure the storage

places. They also had gas station owners engrave their

squeegee equipment with identifying marks to deter theft by

panhandlers.106

13. Promoting legitimate uses of public places to

displace panhandlers. Police in Staffordshire, England,

encouraged the municipal authority to promote street

musicians in public places where panhandlers abounded, as

one means to discourage panhandlers from begging in the

area.107 The underlying logic was that passersby would likely

notice the distinction between those who solicit money in
gy p, y

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.108

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.109 Police can be and have long been instrumental in

advocating and coordinating social services for panhandlers,

and in referring people to those services.110 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.111 New York/New

Jersey Port Authority police did likewise in helping to control

panhandling and other forms of crime and disorder in the

Port Authority bus terminal in New York City.112

Short-term substance-abuse treatment programs, however, are

not likely to be effective for most panhandlers–their

addictions are too strong–and most who participate in short-
wg pv

most chronic offenders' being given priority for long-term

treatment programs, or the courts could mandate such

programs.114 Some social service outreach efforts target those

people identified as causing the most problems for the

community.115 In Madison, Wis., detoxification workers even

took to the streets to proactively monitor the conduct of their

most difficult clients. Some panhandlers will, of course, refuse

social service and treatment offers because they are unwilling

to make the lifestyle changes usually required to stay in the

programs.116

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.† About half of the states

and over a third of major cities in America have laws that

prohibit all or some forms of panhandling.117

† See Teir (1993) for a discussion of

the long history of laws prohibiting

and regulating begging.

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.

1.

2.

20

21

Prohibiting

aggressive

panhandling

Prohibiting

panhandling in

specified areas

Subjects the most

offensive

panhandlers to

criminal penalties;

reinforces

informal rules of

conduct among

panhandlers

Restricts

panhandling in

areas where it is

most likely to

disrupt commerce

and be

intimidating

...the law can

survive legal

challenge, and

panhandlers are

clearly informed

of what

constitutes legal

vs. illegal conduct

...the law can

survive legal

challenge,

panhandlers are

clearly informed

of where they

cannot

panhandle, and

enforcement is

consistent

Enforcement is

difficult because

few panhandlers

are intentionally

aggressive;

officers should be

properly trained

to make

aggressivepanhandling

charges

Costs associated

with properly

posting areas

where

panhandling is

prohibited

Response

No.

Page No. Response How It

Works

Works

Best If...

Considerations

Enforcement Responses
3.

4.

5.

6.

22

23

23

23

Prohibiting

interference with

pedestrians or

vehicles

Banning

panhandlers from

certain areas as a

condition of

probation

Sentencing

convicted

panhandlers to

appropriate

community

service

Requiring

panhandlers to

obtain solicitation

permits

Restricts conduct

that commonly

disrupts

commerce and

intimidates

pedestrians; deals

directly with

window washing

by denying

window washers

access to

motorists

Denies

panhandlers

access to areas

where

panhandling is

profitable

Tailors the

punishment to

the offense;

makes the

offender consider

the impact

panhandling has

on the

community

Discourages

panhandling

through

procedural

requirements that

many panhandlers

are unlikely to

follow; allows for

easier

enforcement (no

witnesses are

required)

...the law can

survive legal

challenge, and

enforcement is

consistent

...panhandlers are

clearly informed

of where they

cannot go, and

police officers are

informed of

which

panhandlers are

banned from the

area

...the community

service is

meaningful and

properly

supervised

...police officers

are informed of

the permit

requirement and

consistently

enforce it

Proving intent to

interfere with

pedestrians can be

difficult

Requires the

cooperation of

prosecutors, judges

and probation

officials

Requires the

cooperation of

prosecutors, judges

and corrections

officials

May be viewed as

unfair by the public;

little is known

about how effective

this approach is
7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

24

25

26

26

27

Discouraging

people from

giving money to

panhandlers, and

encouraging them

to give to

charities that

serve the needy

Using civilian

patrols to

monitor and

discourage

panhandling

Encouraging

people to buy and

give panhandlers

vouchers, instead

of money

Modifying the

physical

environment to

discourage

panhandlers from

congregating in

the area

Regulating

alcohol sales to

chronic inebriates

who panhandle in

the area

Decreases the

supply of money

to panhandlers

and, consequently,

lowers the level

of panhandling 

Increases the level

of official

monitoring and

intervention

Restricts

panhandlers'

ability to buy

alcohol and drugs

Discourages

panhandlers from

soliciting in an

area by making it

less comfortable

to do so

Forces

panhandlers to

travel farther to

buy alcohol,

thereby

potentially

displacing them

from the area

...the message

that adequate

social services are

available is

credible, and the

message is heavily

promoted

...civilian

patrollers are

properly trained

and supported by

police

...supported by

merchants and

the community

...private (and

public) property

owners

understand how

the environment

can contribute to

panhandling

...liquor license

holders

understand the

rationale for

liquor law

enforcement, and

enforcement is

consistent

May require new

investments in

social services to

make the message

credible; advertising

and promoting the

message incurs

costs

Salary, training and

equipment costs

Start-up and

administrative costs

for the program; a

black market may

allow panhandlers

to convert vouchers

to cash,

undermining the

program; people

may not buy

vouchers

Requires property

owners'

cooperation; costs

of making

environmental

changes; some risk

that changes will

also make the area

less attractive for

legitimate users

Will not address

panhandlers who

are not chronic

inebriates, including

drug addicts

Public Education Responses

Situational Responses
12.

13.

14.

15.

27

27

28

29

Controlling

window-washing

materials 

Promoting

legitimate uses of

public places to

displace

panhandlers

Providing

adequate social

services and

substance abuse

treatment to

reduce

panhandlers' need

to panhandle

Enforcing laws

that prohibit all

panhandling

Makes window

washing

(squeegeeing)

more difficult

Discourages

people from

giving money to

panhandlers by

encouraging them

to give to

legitimate street

solicitors

Removes

panhandlers'

excuses for

panhandling;

undermines the

rationale for

giving money to

panhandlers;

addresses the

underlying

problems that

cause some

people to

panhandle

...property

owners cooperate

in efforts to

control the use of

the materials

...passersby

approve of and

support legitimate

street solicitors

...there are

outreach efforts

to identify and

serve panhandlers

who will benefit

from social

services, especially

the most chronic

offenders;

substance-abuse

treatment

programs are

sufficiently longterm to be

effective;

panhandling

enforcement is

consistent, to

motivate

panhandlers to

seek legitimate

aid; and social

services and

police efforts are

coordinated

Costs (usually

modest) of

modifying the

environment or

securing the

materials

May attract more

people to an area,

making it more

attractive to

panhandlers

May require

substantial new

investments in

social services if

the community is

lacking them

Unlikely to survive

legal challenge

Social Services/Treatment Response

Response With Limited Effectiveness
The following are some notable U.S. court cases addressing

the constitutionality of panhandling and laws that regulate it.

You should consult local legal counsel to determine the state

of the law in your jurisdiction.

Berkeley Community Health Project v. Berkeley, 902 F. Supp. 1084

(N.D. Cal. 1995) and 966 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 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Struck

down a ban on accosting people to beg. The decision was

subsequently vacated, 919 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1996).

C.C.B. v. State, 458 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984). Struck

down a total ban on begging in public.

Carreras v. City of Anaheim, 768 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 v. Fort Lauderdale, 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 (Wash. 1990), cert.

denied, 111 S. Ct. 1690 (1991). Upheld an ordinance

banning sidewalk obstruction.
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 F. 2d 699 (2d Cir.

1993). Struck down a ban on loitering for the purposes of

begging on city streets.

Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City 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. City Court of Tucson, 520 P. 2d 1166

(Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). Upheld a loitering-for-the-purposesof-begging ordinance.

Ulmer v. Municipal Court for Oakland-Piedmont Judicial District, 55

Cal. App. 3d 263, 127 Cal. Rpt. 445 (1976). Upheld a ban

on begging that was later struck down by the Blair court.

Young v. New York City Transit Authority, 903 F. 2d 146 (2d Cir.

1990). Upheld a ban on begging in the subway.
Cosgrove and Grant (1997).

2 Burke (2000).

3 Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Kozlowski (1999); Leoussis (1995); Harcourt (1998);

Skogan (1990).

4 Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Ellickson (1996); Vancouver Police Department (1999);

Fontana Police Department (1998).

5 Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Fontana Police

Department (1998); Manning (2000).

6 Burke (1998); Goldstein (1993); Teir (1993); Lankenau (1999); St. Petersburg Police

Department (1997); Manning (2000).

7 Goldstein (1993); Vancouver Police Department (1999).

8 See Ammann (2000); Barta (1999); Burns (1992); Hershkoff position in Hershkoff and

Conner (1993); Lankenau (1999); Munzer (1997); Harcourt (1998).

9 Munzer (1997).

10 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).

12 Ellickson (1996).

13 Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996).

14 Kelling and Coles (1996).

15 Burke (2000); Lankenau (1999).

16 Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Kelling (1999).

17 Goldstein (1993).

18 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).

19 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). 20 Burke (1998).

21 Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston Police

Department (1995); Duneier (1999).
(1994); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Chicago Tribune (1994); Evanston Police

Department (n.d.); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000).

24 Goldstein (1993); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); University of WisconsinMadison Department of Police and Security (1997).

25 Ellickson (1996); Stark (1992); Goldstein (1993).

26 Ellickson (1996); Teir (1998); Goldstein (1993); Fontana Police Department (1998);

Chicago Tribune (1994); Manning (2000).

27 Stark (1992).

28 Burke (1998); Lankenau (1999).

29 Stark (1992).

30 Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993).

31 Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993).

32 Goldstein (1993); Ellickson (1996).

33 Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993).

34 Ellickson (1996); Kelling and Coles (1996); Butterfield (1988).

35 Burns (1992).

36 Stark (1992).

37 Wilson (1991).

38 Stark (1992).

39 Stark (1992); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997).

40 Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Stark (1992); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Duneier

(1999).

41 Ellickson (1996); Fontana Police Department (1998); University of Wisconsin-Madison

Department of Police and Security (1997); Santa Ana Police Department (1993).

42 Leoussis (1995).

43 Stark (1992); Seattle Police Department (2000); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce

case study). 44 Goldstein (1993).

45 University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Police and Security (1997).

46 Goldstein (1993).

47 Goldstein (1993); Burke (1998); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston Police

Department (n.d.); Ellickson (1996); Stark (1992); Duneier (1999).

48 Ellickson (1996); Mabry (1994); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993);

Manning (2000); Duneier (1999).
(); (); (); 

Acosta (1993).

52 Stark (1992); Goldstein (1993).

53 Burke (1998); Ellickson (1996).

54 Burke (1998).

55 Ellickson (1996).

56 Stark (1992).

57 Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Teir (1993).

58 Ellickson (1996).

59 Goldstein (1993); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996);

Evanston Police Department (1995).

60 Ellickson (1996); Goldstein (1993).

61 Teir (1993); Center for the Community Interest (1996); Criminal

Justice Legal Foundation (1994).

62 Kelling and Coles (1996); Barta (1999); Ellickson (1996);

Delmonico (1996); Kozlowski (1999); Leoussis (1995); Mabry

(1994); Mitchell (1994); Nichols (1997); Teir (1998, 1993); Walston

(1999); Hershkoff and Conner (1993); Munzer (1997).

63 Leoussis (1995).

64 Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996).

65 Goldstein (1993).

66 Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Little (1992).

67 Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Goldstein (1993).

68 New York City Police Department (1994); Cosgrove and Grant

(1997); Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Leoussis (1995); Teir

(1993); Goldstein (1993).

69 Ammann (2000).

70 St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Vancouver Police

Department (1999); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project);

Savannah Police Department (1995).

71 Bland and Read (2000).

72 Kelling and Coles (1996); Kelling (1999).

73 Savannah Police Department (1995).
75 Ellickson (1996); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993).

76 Goldstein (1993).

77 Burke (2000); Delmonico (1996).

78 Kelling and Coles (1996).

79 Kelling and Coles (1996); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson

(1996); Mabry (1994); Teir (1998); Kozlowski (1999) (citing a Fort

Lauderdale law).

80 Ellickson (1996); see Munzer (1997) for a critique of Ellickson's

zoning proposal.

81 Kelling and Coles (1996) (citing a Seattle law).

82 Vancouver Police Department (1999); New York City Police

Department (1994).

83 University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Police and

Security (1997).

84 Teir (1993).

85 Ellickson (1996).

86 Ammann (2000); Harcourt (1998).

87 Heimberger (1992).

88 Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Mabry (1994);

Ybarra (1996); Santa Ana Police Department (1993).

89 Ellickson (1996).

90 Manning (2000).

91 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).

92 Barta (1999); Harcourt (1998).

93 Ellickson (1996).

94 University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Police and

Security (1997); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case

study).

95 Evanston Police Department (1995).

96 Kelling and Coles (1996).

97 Nkrumah (1998); Egan (1993).
g()

101 Burns (1992); Green Bay Police Department (1999); Vancouver

Police Department (1999); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce

case study); Felson et al. (1996); Duneier (1999).

102 Santa Ana Police Department (1993). 103 Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce and San Diego case

studies); Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Kelling and Coles

(1996) (discussion of San Francisco's Operation Matrix).

104 Seattle Police Department (2000); Alexandria Police Department

(1995); Green Bay Police Department (1999); Higdon and Huber

(1987) (Dundalk project).

105 Santa Ana Police Department (1993). 106 Vancouver Police Department (1999). 107 Manning (2000). 108 Felson et al. (1996). 109 Stark (1992). 110 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). 112 Felson et al. (1996). 113 Goldstein (1993). 114 Manning (2000). 115 University of Wisconsin-Madison Department of Police and

Security (1997); Manning (2000).

116 Manning (2000); Goldstein (1993); Stark (1992); Kelling and

Coles (1994); Evanston Police Department (1995).

117 Leoussis (1995); Teir (1998, 1993).

() p()

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 Behaviour.

Police Research Series, Paper 123. London: Home Office.

Burke, R. (2000). "The Regulation of Begging and Vagrancy:

A Critical Discussion." Crime Prevention and Community Safety

2(2):43–52.

(1998). "Begging, Vagrancy and Disorder." In R.H.

Burke (ed.), Zero Tolerance Policing. Leicester, England:

Perpetuity Press.

Burns, M. (1992). "Fearing the Mirror: Responding to Beggars

In a 'Kinder and Gentler' 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. A1.
www.communityinterest.org/backgrounders

/panhandling.htm.

Chicago Tribune (1994). "Evanston Fights Panhandlers–With a

Smile." May 27, p. 1.

Cosgrove, C., and A. Grant (1997). National Survey of Municipal

Police Departments on Urban Quality-of-Life Initiatives.

Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.

Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994). A Guide To

Regulating Panhandling. Sacramento, Calif.: Criminal Justice

Legal Foundation.

Delmonico, D. (1996). "Aggressive Panhandling Legislation

and the Constitution: Evisceration of Fundamental

Rights–Or Valid Restrictions Upon Offensive Conduct?"

Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 23:557–590.

Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus and

Giroux.

Egan, T. (1993). "In 3 Progressive Cities, It's Law vs. Street

People." New York Times, Dec. 12.

Ellickson, R. (1996). "Controlling Chronic Misconduct in City

Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Skid Rows and Public-Space

Zoning." Yale Law Journal 105(5):1165–1248.
g

R., and M. 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 Mulholland,

J., J. Sowa and E. Steinhoff (1997). "Evanston Reduces

Aggressive Panhandling by Influencing the Behavior of

Givers." Problem-Solving Quarterly 10(1):9–12.

(n.d.). "Panhandling in Evanston: Preliminary

Report." Evanston, Ill.: Evanston Police Department.

Felson, M., M. Belanger, G. Bichler, C. Bruzinski, G.

Campbell, C. Fried, K. Grofik, I. Mazur, A. O'Regan, P.

Sweeney, A. Ullman, and L. Williams (1996). "Redesigning

Hell: Preventing Crime and Disorder at the Port Authority

Bus Terminal." In R. Clarke (ed.), Preventing Mass Transit

Crime. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 6. 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.
g

York Style." Michigan Law Review 97:291–389.

Heimberger, B. (1992). "Working the Nightshift." ProblemSolving Quarterly 5(4):1–2.

Hershkoff, H., and R. Conner (1993). "Aggressive

Panhandling Laws." ABA Journal 79 (June):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 Windows' and Police Discretion.

Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.

Kelling, G., and C. Coles (1996). Fixing Broken Windows:

Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New

York: Free Press.

(1994). "Disorder and the Court." Public Interest 116

(Summer):57–74.

Kozlowski, J. (1999). "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?

Panhandling in Public Parks and Places." NRPA Law Review

34 (December):34–41.

Lankenau, S. (1999). "Stronger Than Dirt: Public Humiliation

and Status Enhancement Among Panhandlers." Journal of

Contemporary Ethnography 28(3):288–318.

Leoussis, F. (1995). "The New Constitutional Right To Beg–Is

Begging Really Protected Speech?" Saint Louis University

Public Law Review 14(2):529–550.
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

Change?–And Your Privacy, Too?: Avoiding a Fatal

Collision Between Public Interests and Beggars' First

Amendment Rights." University of San Francisco Law Review

28(2):310–341.

Manning, N. (2000). "The Make-It-Count Scheme: A

Partnership Response to Begging in Stoke-on-Trent City

Centre." Problem-Solving Quarterly 13(3):5–8.

Mitchell, C. (1994). "Aggressive Panhandling Legislation and

Free Speech Claims: Begging for Trouble." New York Law

School Law Review 39(4):697–717.

Munzer, S. (1997). "Ellickson on 'Chronic Misconduct' in

Urban Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Bench Squatters and Day

Laborers." Harvard Civil Rights – Civil Liberties Law Review

32:1–48.

New York City Police Department (1994). Police Strategy No. 5:

Reclaiming the Public Spaces of New York. New York: New

York City Police Department.

New York Times (1993). "Plan Helps Panhandlers With

Vouchers, Not Quarters." Current Events Edition. Sept. 26,

p. I42.

Nichols, P. (1997). "The Panhandler's First Amendment Right:

A Critique of Loper v. New York City Police Department

and Related Academic Commentary." South Carolina Law

Review 48:267–291.
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-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.

Santa Ana Police Department (1993). "Harbor Plaza/Riverbed

Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for

Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. Cited in Sampson,

R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety

Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Justice. Also published as Tegeler, B.

(1993). "Shopping Center Blues." Problem-Solving Quarterly

6(4):4–5.

Savannah (Ga.) Police Department (1995). "Crime

Suppression Unit P.O.P. Project." Submission for the

Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in ProblemOriented 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.
(1993). "Maintaining Safety and Civility in Public

Spaces: A Constitutional Approach to Panhandling."

Louisiana Law Review 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.

Wall Street Journal (1993). "Vouchers for Panhandlers." Aug. 26,

p. A1.

Walston, G. (1999). "Examining the Constitutional

Implications of Begging Prohibitions in California." Whittier

Law Review 20:547-575.

Wilson, G. (1991). "Exposure to Panhandling and Beliefs

About Poverty Causation." Sociology and Social Research

76(1):14–19.

Ybarra, M. (1996). "Don't Ask, Don't Beg, Don't Sit." New

York Times, May 19.

Michael S. Scott

Michael S. Scott is an independent police consultant based in

Savannah, Ga. He was formerly chief of police in Lauderhill,

Fla.; served in various civilian administrative positions in the

St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce, Fla., and New York City

police departments; and was a police officer in the Madison,

Wis., Police Department. Scott developed training programs

in problem-oriented policing at the Police Executive Research

Forum (PERF), and is a judge for PERF's Herman Goldstein

Award for Excellence in Problem-Oriented Policing. He is the

author of Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20

Years, and coauthor (with Rana Sampson) of Tackling Crime

and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem-Solving.

Scott holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a

bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

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 costeffective 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 Community

Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with

accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic

pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The

document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs.

• Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of

volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing

opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of

initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems.
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 problemoriented responses to various community problems. A

similar publication is available for the award winners from

subsequent years. The documents are also available at

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.

• Not Rocket Science? Problem-Solving and Crime

Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office

Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and

describes the factors that make problem-solving effective or

ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in

England and Wales.

• Opportunity Makes the Thief: Practical Theory for

Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V.

Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98,

1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity

theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have

practical implications for the police in their efforts to

prevent crime.

• Problem-Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein

(McGraw-Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990).

Explains the principles and methods of problem-oriented

policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses

how a police agency can implement the concept.
Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services,

2000). Describes how the most critical elements of

Herman Goldstein's problem-oriented policing model have

developed in practice over its 20-year history, and proposes

future directions for problem-oriented policing. The report

is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov.

• Problem-Solving: Problem-Oriented Policing in

Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman

(Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the

rationale behind problem-oriented policing and the

problem-solving process, and provides examples of

effective problem-solving in one agency.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime

and Disorder Through Problem-Solving

Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott

Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 1998) (also available at

www.cops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief introduction to

problem-solving, basic information on the SARA model

and detailed suggestions about the problem-solving process.

• Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case

Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke

(Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and

methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over

20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives.
and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available

at www.cops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective

police problem-solving on 18 types of crime and disorder

problems.

• Using Analysis for Problem-Solving: A Guidebook

for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S.

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for

police to analyzing problems within the context of

problem-oriented policing.

• Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement

Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G.

LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains

many of the basics of research as it applies to police

management and problem-solving.
1. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

2. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

3. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

4. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes.

Rana Sampson. 2001.

5. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001.

6. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

7. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

8. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001.

9. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002.

10. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V.

Clarke. 2002.

11. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

12. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002.

13. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

14. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

15. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002.

16. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002.

17. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002.

18. Burglary of Single-Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel.

2002.

19. Misuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002.

Companion guide to the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series:

• Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for

Police Problem-Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002.
g yg

Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum. 2001.

• Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years.

Michael S. Scott. 2001.

• Tackling Crime and Other Public-Safety Problems: Case

Studies in Problem-Solving. Rana Sampson and Michael S.

Scott. 2000.

• Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative

Justice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced

Approach to Public Safety. Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999.

• Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing

Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 2000.

• Problem-Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and

Disorder Through Problem-Solving Partnerships. Karin

Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg

Townsend. 1998.

For more information about the Problem-Oriented Guides for Police series

and other COPS Office publications, please call the Department of

Justice Response Center at 1-800-421-6770 or check our website at

www.cops.usdoj.gov.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

1100 Vermont Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20530

To obtain details on COPS programs, call the

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770

Visit the COPS internet web site at the address listed below.

e012011407 Created Date: January 29, 2002

www.cops.usdoj.gov