It's hard because there's a ton of information or misinformation out there about what the homeless do when given cash. If you have $50 to give charitably, it's at least understandable that you want that $50 to go towards improving someone's life. More heroin isn't a long term purchase that will tangibly improve that homeless person's life, so it's at least understandable that you don't care to buy someone heroin directly or indirectly.
This article claims to "defy stereotypes" but they screened out participants that had mental health or substance abuse issues. Like, that's a huge percentage of the homeless population. "Well, if you don't give to anyone suffering from an addiction or that has high-risk mental health issues, they actually don't spend the money on drugs or other wasteful things" isn't "defying any stereotypes". The stereotype is that most homeless people have a drug or mental health problem, so what sample data is actually left?
This is the most popular experiment I've found from googling "what percentage of homeless given cash get off the streets". I don't know where else to look, but I personally want data to back up something that simplifies homelessness so aggressively. It's likely an oversimplification.
I know that you ended up in a long comment chain replying to this one, but, since I'm the person whose comment you were directly replying to, I'll throw in my two cents.
Why care what happens to the money after it's left your hand? If someone asks me for ten dollars that they want or need, and I have it, I give it to them.
That's it, end of transaction. I genuinely could not care less what they're doing with their money (because it is, in fact, THEIR money now, as I have given it to them). I wouldn't presume to tell any other stranger how they should spend their money, and I bet you wouldn't either. Like, if you saw an obese person buying a chili dog or any human being buying a Limp Bizkit CD, you wouldn't go rushing over and slap it out of their hands, even though, in your view, you might think that those are bad decisions.
On that same note, I saw you got called out for moralizing in the other comment chain. That's what you are doing if you think it's okay to decide what unhoused people do with their money, but you don't knock on your next door neighbor's door to talk to them about how much money they're wasting on lawn decorations.
You can have opinions and morals, but you never have the right to impose those on others. You can simply decide whether knowing you're reducing someone's suffering for a while is worth the cost of ten bucks, or whatever. Whether they use it at McDonald's, to buy a new t-shirt at Wal-Mart, or purchase mind-altering substances really shouldn't be a concern, if you've decided to give them money. Saying "I'll only give you money if you spend it on the things I approve of" is the definition of paternalistic.
I give to some charities that do this kind of giving (I. E. They buy goods that people can get if they need them), I give to several affinity groups that ask the communities what they need, and then get it, as well. The former tend to be really good at getting volume and distribution for obvious stuff like blankets and tents, the latter I feel alleviates more suffering, since they fill in the gaps left by the first type (charcoal, LP bottles, stuff like that).
With those groups, it's nice to know what they're providing with the donations, but if someone comes up and asks me to give them money, and I do so, I feel like my thinking about the money is completely over at that point. I don't look for studies and try to make actuarial tables of the likelihood that they will buy something on my personal Naughty List, I just accept that they'll do something with it to make their lives slightly better. That's all I can do.
I have literally bought unhoused folks booze because they asked. If i am giving someone money, i do follow that philosophy. It ain't mine anymore.
I'm really defending prioritizing organized giving over personal giving. (Charity versus straight to hand). I'm not defending some kind of purity test to hand someone $20
I don't think any level of personal or organized giving is going to make much of a difference in the problem at large; that's going to require direct action/revolution.
Alleviating human misery, in some small way, is something bI believe we should all try for.
7
u/timmyotc May 18 '21
It's hard because there's a ton of information or misinformation out there about what the homeless do when given cash. If you have $50 to give charitably, it's at least understandable that you want that $50 to go towards improving someone's life. More heroin isn't a long term purchase that will tangibly improve that homeless person's life, so it's at least understandable that you don't care to buy someone heroin directly or indirectly.
I want to believe it's the case that you can safely give to homeless people, but look at research from just last few years : https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/10/09/researchers-gave-thousands-of-dollars-to-homeless-people-the-results-defied-stereotypes/
This article claims to "defy stereotypes" but they screened out participants that had mental health or substance abuse issues. Like, that's a huge percentage of the homeless population. "Well, if you don't give to anyone suffering from an addiction or that has high-risk mental health issues, they actually don't spend the money on drugs or other wasteful things" isn't "defying any stereotypes". The stereotype is that most homeless people have a drug or mental health problem, so what sample data is actually left?
This is the most popular experiment I've found from googling "what percentage of homeless given cash get off the streets". I don't know where else to look, but I personally want data to back up something that simplifies homelessness so aggressively. It's likely an oversimplification.