Asklemmy

I do. I get the "but they're just gonna buy drugs!" thing, let's be honest: I was gonna spend it on that, anyways.

If a 40 is what they need, right now, to numb the pain of existence, in this moment, why not?

I will leave it at people can, if they have the means and want to. You're never obligated, even if someone is using aggressive panhandling tactics.

I play pinball, so I'm one of the disappearing folks that often has a little bit of pocket change left over. If I see someone panhandling and I am feeling generous, I'll share some. If I don't have any, am still feeling generous, and they're outside of somewhere serving food, I'll ask if they want something. Usually people say yes, sometimes they say no. Never buy something with the specific intent to give it to a panhandler without asking them first - it's rude to presume. If you legit have something extra that you didn't expect that is fair game to offer - in those circumstances I always add "If you don't want it, that's cool" to make it clear I'm not forcing it on them/I won't think they're rude for not taking it.

If I'm not feeling generous, I don't give anything.

Whatever anyone does with anything I gift them is their business. It's fucking rough out there.

It's better to buy them food or give them homeless care packs. There are good lists online of things you can give to homeless folks that will help them a lot, socks are a main staple.

I give all three depending on the scenario. I almost never have cash on me, so I don't hand out money very often just because of that.

It's important to show them compassion and care. Homeless people are often treated like trash by most people. Saying a kind word to them and giving them a small gift might be the only instance of kindness they experience for days, possibly weeks.

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.

A good charity would be able to get the most out of your money. At least you know the chances of your $20 turning into drugs, alcohol, or gambling is minimal that way. Making money takes time and effort, and you owe it to yourself to see it spent wisely.

I don't know which are real and which are part of some scam ring. In my area there are rings of women with children selling candy. When they reach the last stop they regroup and discuss with each other then shill candy on the next train. I never give money but I buy food if they ask. I offered to buy a sandwich from dunkin for a man and he screamed at me about how he needed muthafuckin money!!!! and ever since I don't offer anything anymore to anyone.

I really can't see a downside. If they seem to be obviously homeless or they're actively asking for help, they probably need it. Though it's extremely unlikely that your meager contribution will be the change that suddenly allows them to magically overcome poverty and become middle class home owners with well paying jobs, that doesn't really make them need it any less. Whatever they use the money on, it's going to be what they need in the immediate term, be it drugs or food or anything really and unlike others this is the only way they can really get that money so they do need people to occasionally part with it. You'd only give it to them because you had it spare anyway and it's not going to make them more homeless than they already were. If the concern is that it's not addressing the root personal problems that put them individually on the street or the root social problems that put many on the streets, that's completely true but if you're serious about doing that you're going to need more than the couple of bucks in your pocket anyway. That's going to be concerted massive political will and financial effort and several people's lifetimes worth of work all at the same time, besides you can always involve yourself in some way in such efforts and hand over spare change. The only times I can really think of where it makes sense not to give directly are: you can't afford to do it, the physical circumstances of handing it over are dangerous/impractical, you don't care about homeless people or other people in general or you subscribe to some nasty Malthusian ideas and think yourself somehow benevolent for condemning people to destitution as some kind of "cruel to be kind" doctrine in which case you're unlikely to have given this a lot of thought anyway and don't really face much of a dilemma.

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.

This is an empirical question that people are baselessly speculating about from the armchair, when we’ve know the answer for years. Even the neoliberals over at The Economist think it’s a good idea.

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”.

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.

Would I rather live in a world where sometimes people take advantage of kindness or a world where nobody helps anyone in need? I'll take the former.

Once I saw a homeless guy begging outside of a sandwich shop, I was going in to buy lunch, so I ordered two sandwiches instead of one. I came out and offered the extra to him. He scoffed at me and refused it. So, I had a sandwich for lunch and I had a sandwich for dinner, and both were delicious.

There's a lot about direct giving here, but consider donating to local shelters instead. Especially in the winter. The more they have for supporting bus fare in and out of town or food, being sheltered is a good thing. And the local shelter has very little overhead compared to charities.

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

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).

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.

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.

If you want to. It might help.

Your money will go further if you donate to a local charity or food bank. That being said, I'll give money occasionally. It's nice to let them know others do genuinely care about them and their plight. Usually I'll talk to them first. If they're not too pushy I'll slip them enough for a couple of meals. Subway gift cards are a good way to go. There's lots of them and you know your money will go towards food. Most importantly treat them with respect and dignity

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.

Depends where you live. I have given money to homeless people three times in my life, all while I was a child. All three times, my generosity was met with "don't you have any more". I've learned my lesson, at least.

Here, the social safety net is giving these people more than enough to pay for the homeless shelter and groceries. My change isn't going to buy them anything the government isn't allowing them to buy anyway. Sure, there are lots of things that can be improved about the safety net (and the housing, and everything else), but you don't need to go hungry here.

I'm no longer giving money to beggars. If you want to help, fund local charities. Donating stuff is often appreciated, but what charities really need to help is cold hard cash, so that's the best way to help the most people.

Also be wary of beggar gangs if they're active in your country. Some criminal organisations will send out children, women, and anyone looking sad and unfortunate enough in an attempt to get strangers to donate money to them. A well-placed beggar can earn way more than a day's wage, and criminals are eager to abuse that.

If your country doesn't have a good social safety net, I'd still donate to charities before I'd give any money to the homeless directly, but it does change the situation a lot. I guess it depends on how good the local charities are (i.e. are they money hogs, do they require people to join their religion for aid, are they corrupt).

Do you think the best way to help homeless people is to give them money directly, or donate it to organizations that help them? Not sure if there's a right answer.

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.

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.

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.

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.

No. People are strapped in finances as is. My money right now is needed for expenses, I don't have that much disposable income to be tossing it around to people. There's thousands of homeless people out there. They need more help than just a couple dollars.

I feel that I'm doing my part anyways by helping the needing, by donating to thrift stores, donating around my apartment and donating free things that I can. If there's anything someone can flip for money, feel free to, it'll probably be a lot more than what little I have to let go of from my finances.

In this world of digital payments, I don't have cash on me. When I do, I give a little here and there and its usually met with thanks.

I wish there was an easier way give 50p or something digitally by tapping my card against a reader of theirs, but the setup cost and the chance of misuse is high

Depends on your priorities and goals.

Do you want to feel good momentarily for doing something good? Get some interpersonal gratitude? Then yes.

Do you want to reduce homelessness in your community? There are probably local projects for that, where your money will be used more effectively.

Do you want to be altruistic, helping people in need and want your money to be used as effectively as possible? Look into reputable charities (like Helen Keller Intl, preventing child blindness and death with Vitamin A is hella cost effective) or funds. I looked into the same thing some time ago and stumbled upon givewell.org. They evaluate charities based on a number of ratings and choose the most effective ones for their funds. Been donating through them monthly for a year now. Also, it is tax deductible so i get almost half of it back.