just wondering
Yes.
Yes, they might use it for drugs or alcohol, that’s fine, it’s as important as food sometimes.
Non profits and charities are great in theory, but most redirect less than 10% of what they receive towards the homeless look at LA’s projects as the most glaring example, it “takes” 10 million+ per single housing unit for temporary housing. Not due to cost, but simply corruption at every level. From the non profits involved to the government itself.
Giving directly to the homeless skips all that.
Or to put it another way, you can’t fix the problem or treat symptoms by continuing to give money to the cause of the problem. Giving directly at least treats the symptom.
most redirect less than 10% of what they receive towards the homeless
this is a very very bad way to think about charitable giving. if your aim is to get as much money to solving homelessness as possible, you want advertising and marketing campaigns, you want efficiency (but people working on a problem is “overhead” whilst their solutions to make things cheaper mean less money that “makes it to” solving the problem at hand)
this video does an excellent job at describing the problem
That’s nice, but there is no excuse for higher overhead than the amount of money actually spent on the problem, when the problem objectively can be solved by direct expenditure.
We know how to eliminate homelessness and the causes behind it even in a capitalist society. It doesn’t cost a billion per 100 transitional housing units.
and that all requires organisation, and organisation isn’t free - in fact the structures required to organise things like that are more expensive than the cost actually spent on the problem … you don’t just up and build houses - that’s not how any of this works… ask anyone that’s built a house, and they’re not even doing it on a large scale where complexity goes up significantly, or dealing with distributing money in a manner that they have to makes sure their expenditures are justified rather than just being able to make decisions for themselves
The government should take care of it’s people
If you want to. It might help.
Yes, if you have the means.
I work with a mutual aid group that engages in street outreach. I experience a lot of different cases and pretty much all of them would be benefitted by having more money.
Some people have a job, but not a home, and are trying to get housed
Some people have a home, but not a job and are trying to stay housed
Some people have neither and are trying to stay alive
Some people have both, but are so underpaid for the area they are in and are trying to stay housed
Some people are migrants and it is 100% illegal for them to work in the US and their only source of aid is through asking the community
Not one of them enjoys the situation they are in nor has made an explicit choice to be or stay homeless.
A lot of people who panhandle stay in encampments. These provide a small community with a lot of support structures for those there. There’s often someone who knows how to cook anything with any source of heat, someone who knows how to treat wounds, someone who knows what each person in the camp needs, and someone who’s plugged into the broader community and can get things for those who can’t (not all food pantries or lines are accommodating for wheelchair users and those with mobility issues can have trouble waiting for hours for food or even getting there). My point being that even if your contribution doesn’t help the person asking directly, it likely helps someone they know.
And if you’re worried about the whole “they’ll just spend it on drugs” thing, I honestly wouldn’t. Among the people I work with maybe 1/3 of them use drugs and very very few use anything other than weed. Employed and housed people use weed to unwind, why is it so much more evil if you don’t have a house? And if you’re working with the 2/3 of people that don’t use drugs than it’s not really a concern. I do realize that those numbers might be vastly different in areas that were more harshly hit by opioid issues.
I personally do not, but I think it’s a personal decision. I have a background in working for homeless non-profits. If you have a desire to really help and be part of moving towards a solution, find a local group and donate and/or volunteer with them.
The reality of handing money to someone is at best it’s a band-aid, and more often you’re just buying that night’s substance of choice. No judgement there, if I was homeless and likely not receiving needed medical and mental health treatment, I’d be high and drunk as often as I could too. Hell, I’m high as often as I can be now. Nevertheless though, I feel comfortable choosing not to participate by handing money when asked and I don’t begrudge anyone who does.
exactly how i do it, and i make sure 50% of my professional life i’m sacrificing income to work for not for profits. i want my donation to be the most effective it can be, and making sure that people have roofs over their head isn’t going to happen with my spare change
I never give money to the homeless. They’ll just buy drugs and alcohol.
I keep it for myself. So I can buy drugs and alcohol.
—
For real though, I try to give $5 if I can. Some people will waste it, some will make good use of it, and it’s impossible to tell from the outside looking in. So I might as well swing at every ball. Giving to charities is good too, but they don’t reach everyone (for all sorts of reasons).
I think the debate on this issue is blown out of proportion.
First, giving a small amount of money to someone in need is a very direct and human act of compassion which makes it worthwhile, if you gift someone money it is their prerogative what they do with it and the idea that it is harmful is blown out of proportion.
Second, giving money to a local charity is also worthwhile, if you don’t feel comfortable for whatever reason.
The idea that one approach is good and the other is actively bad is at best a distraction and at worst an excuse to do nothing at all
The fact is that even in Australia, which by world standards has a not bad safety net, it is not possible for most people to get crisis housing and waiting lists for public housing are rarely less than 6 months, welfare payments can be cut off for trivial reasons and public mental health services are overwhelmed. These are the problems that successive governments have refused to tackle.
If you can make someone’s day with a small gift then please do.
Yes of course. And if they go spend it on a pack of chips or coffee from the 7-11, that might be just what they needed to get through the next few hours.
Only they know what they need right then and there, and I hope we’re past the condescension of people refusing to give money but offering some food item they believe the person would benefit from (because “if I give money they’ll just waste it”).
Sometimes they might want to talk if you can spare some time too, to break the social exclusion they’re feeling.
And they might not be appreciative, or they may have a as bad attitude, that’s the way it goes. They’re dispossessed, they’re looked down on, and they could be sleeping on the side of the road on a rainy night wondering how long they’ve got left. They may have lost families. They may not have it in them to say “thanks mate”.
It’s not so much people being worried about wasting it, as much as they’re worried about paying someone to continue fueling spirals of addiction. People can be homeless due to any number of different factors, so I hate to assume someone’s circumstances, but it’s impossible to know when giving cash is helping or making things worse.
My place of work is a nonprofit that coordinates with a variety of local social services, so I donate to those causes each year instead and help others connect to the resources they offer when I can.
people refusing to give money but offering some food item
Dude doesn’t need to accept it.
the condescension of
Hmm. Don’t be a dick, okay?
Are you serious dude? Fuck me.
Yes, it’s better to give it directly to the people who need it, when they need it, instead of them having to rely on a third party for help. Donate to organizations that won’t pocket most of the money, but if you have a chance to give it directly to someone, I think that’s better.
Here is the reality:
The person is going to use money, whether it is yours or someone else’s, to buy whatever it is that they feel is the best use of that money.
Disconnect yourself from any ideas of what the money is going to be used for, and just understand that it will be used to reduce their suffering. If that is a satisfactory use of the money that you give them, then give them the money. Consider, at the same time, putting money aside to donate to local causes, some of whom may be helping the homeless.
Above all though, your money is somewhat valuable, but nowhere near as valuable as your time and effort. Volunteering at these same local causes is even more valuable than whatever spare pocket change.
Just don’t turn into a “but they’re going to buy drugs with it!” person
how is buying drugs reducing their suffering?
Why do we do drugs at all if it isn’t to reduce our suffering on this planet?
I never have used any, so I don’t know what the drugs would help with. I see it as just biding time and not reducing suffering long term. A person involved with homeless here in BC said drug use just prolongs the inevitable path to suicide. Oof.
If you want to, yes. When I see them I try and buy them some food. I also give to the local charities which support them.
I keep some cash in my pocket specifically in case I run across someone asking for money.
And then I live like a hermit, almost never going anywhere, so it’s rare that I actually have occasion to give in that way, but you know.
Also, in my experience, it’s not necessarily homeless people who need the money. I’ve seen people (claiming they’re) close to losing their housing who are hoping to raise enough money panhandling to make their rent this month.
Of course, if you are struggling financially, it’s definitely very reasonable to decline to give in that context. I suppose if anything feels “off” as well. (Though I wouldn’t want to bias folks in the direction of thinking that there may be any reason to be more suspicious of people in need than others.) But over all, I do think it’s something that can make a hugely, vitally positive change in someone’s basic wellbeing.
I don’t give money to panhandlers because I don’t like being solicited. (Also why I don’t buy things at my door, or via telemarketing) however I do support the idea of programs distributing funds directly to those in need.
The important act is giving. If you think a dude on the side of the road needs $20 and you’ve got it to spare, there’s no downside to doing that. They may not use it how you like them to, but they will use it how they best can. Sometimes that’s food, sometimes that’s drugs, to keep them from actively offing themselves.
If you think a charity has a decent track record and can better use those funds to serve more people, donate it there. They’ll use it how they beat see fit, whether that’s food, shelter or enforcement of policies. It may not be how you want it used, but that’s okay.
Ultimately, give what you can, however you can. Once you’ve given the money, you can’t determine how it’s used, so be okay with your act of charity simply existing by itself, not in comparison to another hypothetical “best” act of charity.
deleted by creator
the biggest failure that happens when we give resources directly to homeless people is not also providing the support systems that prevent the relapse in the first place. we dont provide for social services that give them regular human contact that has been proven to lower drug and alcohol addiction issues.
‘non-profits’… charities… are just not enough to provide these services, it needs to be a systemic, over-arching process and not the one-off solutions those ‘non profit’ agencies provide.
