Post on 24-Feb-2016
description
Panhandling and information acquisition:Implications for policy and services
Tiffanie Stewart, MScFlorida International University
ISA Conference, Buenos AiresAugust 1st, 2012
This is a panhandler…
Background• Unemployment rates have fluctuated between 10-12% since 2008
• Panhandling is associated with homelessness higher rates of unemployment
• Recently, Miami-Dade County has expanded no-panhandling zones•Adrienne Arscht Center, American Airlines Arena, Bicentennial Part, and Miami Dade College’s Wolfson Campus
• “Aggressive” panhandling fines ($100) and jail time
• To date, no information about how panhandlers acquire information about policy and services
Lee, BA et al. Urban Affairs Review (2003)http://www.miamidade.gov/miamisao/offenses/offensedatamart.pdf
http://www.scribd.com/doc/78946926/The-Criminalization-of-Homelessness-in-U-S-Cities-Advocacy-Manual-November-2011
Locations
Research PurposeThe Purpose of the Proposed Study is to answer the following
questions:
1. How to panhandlers acquire information about policy and services?
2. Are agencies effectively disseminating information about policies, laws, and social services?
3. Do social hierarchies exist among panhandlers?
4. Are there themes that affect self-efficacy in the population?
Pilot StudyEthnographic Observations
Naturalistic observations at panhandling friendly and no-panhandling zones
Interviews Interviews (~45 minutes) at panhandling locationsOpen-ended questionnaireProbing
Pilot Study con’t1. Social Hierarchy
a) Sellers vs. beggarsb) Drug usec) Mental health
2. Knowledgea) Information about laws tended to differ from the true laws against panhandling.b) All were arrested before they were aware of lawsc) Panhandler who was highest in the social hierarchy had greater access to
information (link between information and hierarchy)
3. Lack of Support MISTRUSTa) Sense of betrayal by prominent organizations (HAC)b) All but one panhandler could identify >1 source of help (highest in hierarchy)
4. Shamea) Terms like “feeling degraded” and “I don’t like this” and “I’d rather work” were
common among panhandlersb) Panhandler higher in hierarchy had a lesser degree of shame
Ten in-depth interviews were conducted using grounded theory
Dissemination of Information
Laws, social services,
rights
Policy/Urban Planning
Panhandler/
Panhandling
activities
Social structure
Higher level
Lower level
Self-efficacy
Lifestyle
change+-Resources
Conceptual Framework
Knowledge
Mistrust of
agencies
Research Design and Methods Grounded Theory
Gathering Data, classification, analysis 2 Phases
Ethnographic observations, interviews, Analysis
Qualitative Quantitative
Mixed-methods approach Strengthening relationships
Phase 1: Ethnographic Observations
Identify panhandling hotspots Local agencies (police officials, community outreach programs)
Five locations chosen through theoretical sampling Naturalistic ethnographic observations
1 hour during “rush hours” Longitudinal study over 3 month period
Observes success rates of panhandler for 10 consecutive traffic stops # of donations/traffic stop
Coding and memoing Build on conceptual model Modify questionnaire for interviews
Phase 2: Interviews Investigator interviews on-the-spot of observational sites In-depth interview:
Information acquisition Knowledge of laws against panhandling Social hierarchy Homeless status Drug use Mental illness
Validated Questionnaires Quality of Life* Self-efficacy
*This questionnaire is too long for most interviewees and may be reconsidered in future data collection
Questionnaire for Interview
1. Background Information:a) How long have you been (panhandling, asking for money)?b) What brought you to this point?c) How long do you think you’ll be doing this?
2. Knowledgea) Do you know about any laws against what you’re doing?b) Have you ever been in trouble with the law?c) How to you get your information about:
- New laws?- Job opportunities?- Help from the community?
3. Trust1. Tell me about the people who try to help you.2. Who do you trust the most for help and to get information?
4. How do you feel about:a) What you’re doing?b) Other types of panhandlers? (include an example)
5. Social hierarchya) Do you feel like some people have more power or control over you? Is there a social
hierarchy that you notice?
Quality of Life Scale
Corporation Course of Homelessness Study Quality of Life
Survey
http://www.rand.org/health/surveys_tools/homelessness.html
Self-Efficacy Scale
Phase 3: AnalysisQualitative Aspect
Analytic inductionDevelop categories for classification of
panhandlersNarrative analysis
Explore the function of story elements in overall pattern of the story of panhandling
ATLAS.ti version 7 (Berlin, Scientific Software Development)
Phase 3: AnalysisBiserial Correlations
Information acquisition Accuracy of knowledge Homelessness Type of panhandler Drug use Mental illness
With the success rates (# of
donations/traffic stop) Quality of life score Self-efficacy score Income (if available)
Regression Model Include all significant
correlations with outcome variable of self-efficacy score
●SPSS version 18 (Chicago, An IBM Company)
Preliminary Results 1. Social Hierarchy
a) Sellers vs. beggarsb) Drug usec) Mental health
2. Knowledgea) Information about laws tended to differ from the true laws against panhandling.b) All were arrested before they were aware of lawsc) Panhandler who was highest in the social hierarchy had greater access to
information (link between information and hierarchy)
3. Lack of Support MISTRUSTa) Sense of betrayal by prominent organizations (HAC)b) All but one panhandler could identify >1 source of help (highest in hierarchy)
4. Shamea) Terms like “feeling degraded” and “I don’t like this” and “I’d rather work” were
common among panhandlersb) Panhandler higher in hierarchy had a lesser degree of shame
Ten in-depth interviews were conducted using grounded theory
Future directionsCollect greater sample size (n>20) from more
locationsCollaborations with involved student organizations at
Florida International University Share information with local agencies that target this
populationProject funding
ConclusionLittle is known about information acquisition among panhandlers
Information may affect quality of life and self-efficacy, which may lead to lifestyle change
This study will increase understanding of methods to acquire information and its relationship with self-efficacy
Questions?Comments?
Ideas?Visit miamipanhandlingproject.com
Thank you for your time!