A Bad Alternative to Panhandling
Published June 23, 2009 @ 07:34AM PT
Don't let bright colors or the chipper language on the meter fool you. This donation meter, a panhandling alternative rising in popularity, doesn't necessarily mean that the city is taking strides to house its homeless population. In reality, they're more about ridding streets of panhandlers rather than helping them.
And you know what they say... out of sight, out of mind.
If you live in Denver, Baltimore, Cleveland, Atlanta, San Francisco, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Montreal, or Miami, you may have seen these before. Cities remove parking meters in panhandling hotspots and replace with donation meters. The cheerful language on the meters usually says something about how the funds raised will support homeless service organizations in the community. (To be clear, this part doesn't bother me. If it was only about funding for human services, I'd advocate putting one at every parking spot in a city.)
The real problem lies in the ulterior political motives for these meters. They look good, they make people feel good when they put money in them, but all they're really doing is forcing those who are living on the streets to move somewhere else.
On the flip side, there's a good argument to be made for encouraging the chronically homeless to seek services. And in each of these communities, there are organizations willing to provide housing and supportive services to help those who panhandle get back on their feet. If panhandling becomes more difficult, perhaps they'd be more likely to accept this outreach.
So even if these meters were created with the best of intentions, they seem to have evolved into something much different. Even if they are put in place as a way to encourage people to seek services, no donation meter can ever replace boosting a person's self-worth through outreach and human contact.
If you ask me, these meters are just another way of controlling an already vulnerable population.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
Comments (28)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Shannon has worked in homeless shelters and service organizations in San Francisco, the Triangle region of North Carolina, and currently in the greater Boston area. She is a graduate student studying housing and urban policy at Tufts University.
Featured Homelessness Actions
-
-
Tell Seattle Officials to Stop the Sweeps!
354 People
-
Tell Seattle Officials to Stop the Sweeps!
-
In a responsible world, I would be more ok with, and trusting of, something like this.
But it's not, and I don't.
It definitely sounds like another way to turn people's eyes blindly from the situation.
Posted by Anthony Trott on 06/23/2009 @ 12:02PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I didn´t understand.. What exactly is wrong with that?
I´m from Brazil, and ther we don´t have these meters, so I don´t know how they work or how they´re ruining the situation of panhandlers... can someone explain?
Posted by Wolfgang Zilektu on 06/23/2009 @ 01:19PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I lived 'downtown' long enough that I recognized the cons, the regular musicians/artist who want to sell/entertain, the regular street people (who collect cans & bottles to earn money) and the homeless who need special care. If these meters would rid the streets of the cons, I'd be all for them.
The don't and I'm not!
Posted by Julie Greenspan on 06/23/2009 @ 03:47PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm not sure if this really identifies the real problem. In some cases panhandling is employement to the homeless person asking for money. It gives them the false sense of putting in a days work. As long as these machines are here in these key spots there will be some amount of controversy.
Posted by Aaron Shaw on 06/23/2009 @ 10:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
A band-aid solution if you ask me. However, I'm on board with Shannon regarding the idea that replacing panhandeling in certain areas with these donation meters might provide an incentive for the homeless to seek out help. In that case, I'm all for it--but if they can't panhandle in those cities, they will certainly move on and find another place where they can. I'm not convinced that forcing them off the streets solves the problem. It is a start, I guess.
Posted by Samantha Charleston on 06/24/2009 @ 06:47AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thank you for bringing attention to this. Yes, these things are trojan horses and another of the nigh Orwellian doublespeak type of campaigns, as I've seen them actually implemented.
People should more carefully watch their own thinking and reactions when subjected to these kinds of "messages". Just so, a couple of moments' thought on this shows:
One more restriction on the people's (everyone's) freedom. Usually these "panhandle robots" are part of just outlawing people asking one another for money in public.
The ever euphemistic "services" word ought to be examined very closely. Where I am, that also means hiring special staff for the express purpose of walking certain streets and being sure to call the police on homeless people so that they will get in more messy trouble, incur expensive fines, etc. and to get them away from "business districts". That's funded directly from civic "help the homeless" budgets and programs and is characterized as such in official references.
If "services" genuinely DO represent anything attractice, people do not have to be essentially forced into availing these... with the exception of, say, the more dysfunctionally mentally ill, addicted, etc. But it's far easier and simpler to just do "outreach" programs (i.e. have staff go out and encounter these, offering help) than it is in some effort to so situationally "force" them in.
Or why don't we all just get it over with, instead? Open up concentration camps for all the homeless people, herding them all into these, and outlaw that kind of poverty altogether. It IS kind of annoying and unpleasant to have to run across these people right out on the street, isn't it?
Posted by SlumJack Homeless on 06/24/2009 @ 08:02AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I think they should specify where exactly the funding is going in the least.
Posted by Michele Rodriguez on 06/24/2009 @ 12:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I live in Indianapolis and we have something like this, but not to get the homeless off the street. It is becuase most of the people who are out there are not really homeless, they are scam artist who take advantage of hard working people every single day. SO no I can not say that I don't think they are a bad idea.
Posted by Erica Ardali on 06/24/2009 @ 02:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
One of the severe problems about institution based charity is the rapidity in which logistics costs outrun product. In a typical institution less than ten percent of received donations actually make it to their intended recipients. The rest goes to fueling the engine in charge of such distribution.
But a panhandler typically does not choose to engage in panhandling as a career, but resorts to it when all other available methods of generating income are worse off. It is the abyssal plain of the principle of lesser elegibility. It is work, even if there is no outward product other than the continuing sustenance of the recipient, and the minor reduction in desperation-base3d crime.
But humans are generally prone to industry, and generally need only direction and fair compensation. Exceptions, of course, exist, but these are usually due to mental disfunction, i.e. depression, not a character flaw such as laziness or sloth.
Job markets in the US, however, suck. The process of getting a job is typically complicated and labor intensive in itself, typically requires superfluous qualification and entry-level jobs commonly earn a pittance in proportion to the effort required. It is no wonder that the homeless are not motivated to find work rather than vie for charity on the streets.
I agree with Moriarty that panhandle meters will function as a device to reduce the effectiveness of panhandling, regardless of its intent. Their presence is only going to worsen the lives of those already unfortunate.
Posted by Derek Boain on 06/24/2009 @ 02:25PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I don't have experience with these meters in my country. It strikes me as another pathway to "Your call has been placed in a cue, if you want this service - press 1, if you want that service - press 2, if you want to speak to an operator - press 3."
All designed to streamline and alienate, and put people out of jobs.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 06/24/2009 @ 05:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
What?! Put who out of a job? Begging for spare change is NOT a job. It's an excuse.
Posted by Erin Smith on 06/26/2009 @ 07:21AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Judge and you will be judged. Have you ever been homeless? Have your ever been a working poor person who needed 50 cents for bus fare to get to work? People arent homeless and panhandle to get out of work. Try it for a day and your pompous attitude will change!
Posted by Mary Ann Thompson on 06/29/2009 @ 07:37PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I disagree. I think it's a good place to start. Even if they are put there to force them out of the neighbor hood or city or wherever, it gives those people a clue that says, 'Hey, people don't like being begged for money' and maybe they will get the help they deserve. We should have some here in IL.
Posted by Erin Smith on 06/26/2009 @ 07:19AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm pretty surprised and disappointed at the responses here. Many people on the street are facing mental health or substance abuse issues. Giving money to them directly may support their livelihood, but does nothing to address institutional needs and case work that they need for real stability and counseling.
As Shannon (the blogger) suggests, this 'parking meter' policy sends money directly to homelessness agencies, but dismisses the extremely salient value this has for homeless populations. She writes "If it was only about funding for human services, I'd advocate putting one at every parking spot in a city," and then dramatizes a possible angle on its motivation without mention of how that balances with benefits to human services organizations.
As Derek suggests, we can have a conversation about the type of agencies this revenue should fund but, before speculating on behind-the-scenes bourgeois conspiracy, we need evidence on A) (approximately) how much money these meters raise in support of funding initiatives for the homeless versus how much is lost in direct contributions to homeless individuals; and B) the effectiveness of creating stable lives for the homeless for each type of contribution. Then we can talk about secondary issues.
Shannon, I appreciate the fact that you're working to raise the breadth of issues involved, but don't put editorializing before journalism.
Posted by Nicholas Mader on 06/26/2009 @ 08:39AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sorry, I have to disagree to a large extent. Within my own family, I've seen homeless programs abused and used as ecuses to not work and to instead spend any cash on alcohol and drugs, and any attempts at getting them into rehab brushed aside. No one is born with a problem. You CHOOSE to start.
My husband and I spent a great deal of money this past Christmas getting my mother a house (yes, a house), furniture, food, etc., losing our own car and several other things to try helping her. What did she do? She took all the money we gave her and sold all the things we bought her to buy alcohol, then complained we did nothing to help her. I have a soft sport for the homeless who are on the streets through no fault of their own, such as illness or job loss, but the frank truth is that many are there because drinking and drugs are preferable to a roof.
I've been homeless. Twice. Both times were due to severe illness. There were no programs to help me because I didn't have a drug or alcohol program, and I'm white. The programs I found helped minoriries or those who use drugs and alcohol. I had to pull my own damned self off the streets with no help at all.
So tell me why we should put out money to "help" those who CHOSE to start using drugs and alcohol and ended up homeless due to THEIR OWN ACTIONS.
Posted by Molly W on 06/26/2009 @ 01:26PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As is all too common, you just equated "homeless" with "mentally ill" and "addict". Yes, your qualifier of "many" was included, but the overall equating is seriously unfortunate. And wrong.
Worse, it can be so hard and taxing to BE homeless, that the experience can cause mental illnesses and drive people to addictions.
But then they can get "help" huh?
Posted by SlumJack Homeless on 06/30/2009 @ 05:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Nicholas Mader, the reason why we should help those who start using drugs and alcohol and ended up homeless due to their own actions is twofold.
First off, chronoic drug use begins as a method of self medication for conditions that are untreated or unrecognized by the medical community. We accept those who do so who can remain highly functional, even though the purpose of inhebriants remains the same; in either case the user is seeking a device to help him or her cope, the consequences of which are not always predictable.
Secondly, homelessness isn't universally due to drug or alcohol problems but is often due to a string of misfortune that is not recognized by those who have not been there (or, as in your case, those who found opportunities by which to recover).
Your story regarding mother is unfortunate but smacks of mental dysfunction on her behalf. Surely you cannot imagine that she was rational or was guided by common sense when she liquidated your charity to maintain her addiction. That's a sign she was no longer capable of being responsible, hence was in more need of help. Addiction, physical or psychological, can be a compelling demon; she likely required hospitalization, and continued monitoring until she could achieve sobriety and distance from the creature she had become.
Posted by Derek Boain on 06/30/2009 @ 05:43PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm not sure I see the problem. Agencies that help the homeless (or do any other good deed) are chronically underfunded. Someone seeing a meter on the street might be prompted to drop in some change. It's not like this program would generate enormous amounts of money, but if it results in a couple of hundred bucks over a week's time, that's a couple of hundred bucks the shelter, kitchen or whatever didn't have before.
This sort of program also has the advantage of appealing to people who won't put money into the hand of a panhandler. That means there's some amount of money going to help someone that would have gone to Starbuck's instead.
But even if every dime that goes into a meter comes from somebody who normally gives money to panhandlers, that's still a good thing, because a facility can do more with a dollar than an individual can. First of all, it won't go to support a substance abuse habit. Second of all, a facility will add that dollar to other dollars and buy food in bulk, or buy someone clean clothes for a job interview, or . . . . whatever. They'll leverage it. A panhandler, at best, will be able to buy a hot dog to take the edge off the hunger pangs.
Finally, I question why you would regard this - in your first paragraph - as a means of ridding the streets of panhandlers. It might, as you state in a later paragraph cause them to move to a different block, but only if the meters are so successful that they effectively "outcompete" the panhandler. If that's the case, good. Refer to my earlier point of how money does more good when given to an agency than to an individual. But I doubt the presence of a meter will divert enough money to drive panhandlers away from a particular street.
Posted by Terry Baum on 06/26/2009 @ 09:54AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
It's a trade-off, no?
Lack of transparency, possible use of the funds in ways that hurt the homeless, less money to those homeless people who actually use it for food and a safe bed. And the act of donating is safe for the donor.
On the other hand, giving to random homeless people also lacks transparency, some use the funds in ways that are self destructive or destructive to others, and some of them will not use the funds for food, a safe bed, etc. The act of giving directly is more rewarding, sure. When I give $5 to little Casey, I stop to talk about politics and cops and the weather. He's a sweet human being...not employably stable, but a good person. But too often, the huge, loud, stinking, bruised, blood-crusted, belligerent creep on the other corner rushes me to demand "his" $5, or threaten Casey for "taking more than his share," and that's not a good experience. Yes, the jerk clearly needs intervention and services, but they darn well better be professional services, because I want nothing to do with him.
Nothing stops you from giving to individuals whom you recognize, and also sticking some funds in the meters. I'd suggest first talking to people from non-profits that you have actually seen on the streets, doing real work. If they're getting meter money, that's cool.
Posted by Joy Sabl on 06/26/2009 @ 09:58AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
In Denver, the donation meters are part of Denver's Road Home (Denver's Ten-Year-Plan to End Homelessness).
Here is a link giving a little more information about the meter program in Denver: http://bit.ly/yTV7B
Posted by Mercy Housing on 06/26/2009 @ 10:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
In Sacramento they have one right by one of the hottest panhandling spots downtown. A huge sign above it encourages you to never donate to the homeless and if you feel the urge to you should come back to that parking meter and donate instead.
Posted by Helen Chaffins on 06/26/2009 @ 12:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I haven't read every word on this page, but after 10 minutes of skimming, I am definitely not persuaded that these meters are a bad idea. Maybe they're not, or maybe the attempts at persuasion are too speculative or unfocused. ...
Posted by Christopher Schroeder on 06/26/2009 @ 12:54PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I'm a little confused as to how the meters are forcing panhandlers to move somewhere else. Panhandling is illegal in many places, Atlanta being one of them (http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/crimreport/meanestcities.html), so it would seem to me that these meters are acknowledging that the laws haven't worked.
What I'm not clear about is, if they have removed the parking meters, are you still required to feed the meter? And if so, who is that hurting? If you have to pay anyway, wouldn't you rather give money to homeless organizations than to the parking division of your local PD?
Ultimately, the panhandlers may move because of an decrease in income, but that is going to be the result of people not wanting to give them money. And that speaks to individual behavior, not city planning. I would imagine that the people who want to help the person on the street are still going to help, even with the meter; and the people who wouldn't give them money usually, are now required, indirectly, by law.
Posted by SoPhoebe X on 06/26/2009 @ 01:00PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
They should put one in and outside of every church, they are panhandlers. Oh yea don't forget the police stations for their policeman ball.
Posted by Michael Greiner on 06/26/2009 @ 01:29PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
When I originally saw the subject of the email that went out about this, "Homeless Parking Meters," my immediate thought was that the city was employing the homeless to collect parking funds, or allowing homeless people to collect money for parking. Now what if they put these meters by each parking spot, and gave a key to the meter to a homeless person. In exchange for the key, the person would have to register for services, or something like that.
Posted by Kischka Bluspir on 06/26/2009 @ 01:32PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I personally think what is being said about the meters is misleading. Yes, the meters take funds away from panhandlers and discourage them, but it certainly does not stop them.
Giving people an alternative to panhandling is not bad, in fact it is good. There are many good programs that need funding and this is one way of helping them.
The truth is that we in most cases don't know whether the money given to panhandlers is spent responsibly. A good number of those who panhandler are aggressive and rude which make it even more difficult to support giving money to them directly. All the more reason why an alternative way of giving should be encouraged.
By the way, since the person who posted this blog post didn't bother to post any links about the programs the cities set up here are a few of them:
http://www.denvergov.org/InnovativeWaytoContributetoDenversRoadHome/tabid/425978/Default.aspx
http://www.godowntownbaltimore.com/publications/press_releases/make_a_change_meters_release.pdf
http://www.cleveland.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/new_downtown_parking_meters_ar.html
Posted by David English on 06/26/2009 @ 10:50PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
These meters aren't really solving any problems. The city needs to help the panhandlers find a better way of life not just get rid of them. I went to France recently and it was sad to see young gypsy girls go telling the same sad story about how they need food for their family to earn money for their hustlers. In America, the situation is similar. The city needs to help homeless people find better alternatives to working for hustlers.
Posted by Casey Williams on 06/28/2009 @ 10:17PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I do give credit for the organizations that are attempting to those who would not normally give money at all. Donations that go towards non-profits and charities addressing similar issues are in large quantities from the same contributors. Usually people would not give any money at all, much less to someone random on the street. The idea is to gain some cents from those who would normally buy a donut and cup of coffee and, instead, contribute to this cause.
Contrary to the author's claims, this is not "another way of controlling an already vulnerable population." Unless, she would like to make claims to all social services that look to control those in poverty. Requirements are strict and often seemingly overbearing to those who must sacrifice a greater proportion than the rest of us for a smaller amount - especially in government aid, among others. They can be argued as "controlling."
Is it that these are replacing funds or efforts to work towards "encouraging the chronically homeless to seek services?" Absolutely. However, are we not trying to control the actions taken by the homeless over their own welfare? These are services you must seek to improve yourselves. Posting information and informing about choices, after asking them if they wish to seek services, is a better way. However, this is already being addressed by those individuals in caring, generous non-profits.
The meters are to gain money from individuals that may not give any, and actually, may be more willing to fill these devices for a good cause than to fill up the city budget that supports who-knows-what. That is, if we do know the path of the meter money.
Posted by William Cosgrove on 06/30/2009 @ 04:35PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.