Memorandum

City of Lawrence

Legal Services

TO:	Toni Ramirez Wheeler, Director of Legal Services
FROM:	Scott J. Miller, Staff Attorney
Date:	February 25, 2009
RE:	Panhandling Update

On December 9, 2008 the City Commission discussed the issues related to panhandling in the City of Lawrence and more specifically its downtown area.  Staff was directed to provide an update to the Commission in February.  The purpose of this memorandum is to provide that update.

As has been pointed out previously in our discussions of this issue, obtaining a clear statistical picture of problem behavior related to panhandling is difficult.  The Police Department’s records system does not flag panhandling-related activity.  Further, many times the police will be dispatched to a call involving a person harassing people on the street but without more information there is no way to know whether that harassment is related to panhandling or some other activity.  This means that the numbers provided by the Police Department are likely to be conservative estimates – there were at least that many incidents but there were likely more. 

The numbers were generated by a hand review of the call narratives of certain types of calls for service (nuisance complaints, solicitors, disturbances and criminal trespassing).  Further, the analysis is limited to the downtown area, as that was the focus of the initial report on this subject.  Between September 1, 2008 and February 15, 2009 there were 12 calls for service that were clearly identifiable as panhandling-related in the downtown area.  75% of these calls happened between 2 P.M. and 8 P.M.  These 12 calls produced one citation for aggressive panhandling.

The primary challenge to the effectiveness of the current panhandling ordinance is a lack of participation in the enforcement effort by the victim of the crime.  This participation is lacking in two ways.  First, some people who are aggressively panhandled don’t call the police at all.  This decision is likely made for a variety of different reasons.  I am personally aware of several circumstances where individuals have reported to me that they have been aggressively panhandled but have taken no action to report the incident to police.  Second, even if the incident is reported the victim may not be in a position to follow through with prosecution.  Sometimes, to avoid escalated confrontation the victims leave the area before the police arrive. Other times, the victims do not want to be involved in the judicial process and do not want to press charges once the police get there.  Finally, the person calling the police is not always the victim of the aggressive panhandling.  Sometimes it is a store employee who is calling on behalf of a victim who is not identified and who has left the area before the police arrive.

It was noted to me by the crime analyst who prepared the Police Department data that another panhandling hotspot is the area of 31^st and Iowa Streets.  This is likely due to the number of patrons at many of the large retail stores in the area.

A look at municipal court information confirms the relatively low number of aggressive panhandling cases filed in 2008 and to date in 2009.  According to the Municipal Court, in 2008 there were eight aggressive panhandling charges filed.  In 2009, so far there has only been one person charged with aggressive panhandling.  It is interesting to note that of the eight charges filed in 2008, three of them were against the same person. 

I believe that it would be reasonable to expect that the incidence of panhandling will increase as the weather gets warmer and more people linger outside in the downtown area.  The number of reported incidents makes it difficult to judge whether the increased number of Police Department foot patrols during the month of December helped deter aggressive panhandling during the holiday season.  In short, at this point the panhandling situation appears, based upon enforcement numbers, to be relatively static.

If you require additional information, please let me know.