Asklemmy

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.

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.

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”.

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 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.

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

I don't because I'm concerned that they would use my generous gift to just go out and buy drugs. And that may be cruel of me. But I would rather donate to a charity that feeds the homeless, such as a soup kitchen. Or if I see somebody that would look hungry, I would rather buy them a meal directly than give them the money for it.

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).

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).

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.

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.

If you want to. It might help.

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.

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.

My opinion is no. They can then use it to buy drugs or alcohol, which is unfortunately likely.

Maybe you could donate to some homeless shelter?
Or maybe, you could try asking if you could buy them some food instead.

donate to local nonprofits