This week’s “Daily Journal” guest columnist is Dr. Karen Palasek, Director of Educational and Academic Programs for the John Locke Foundation.
Much as I do not like people approaching me on the street to ask for money, I have to wonder about the message that the city of Denver, Colo., is sending to its private, non-destitute citizens when it comes to panhandlers: “Please help. Don’t Give.”
Private charities and private individuals have been known to be extraordinarily generous toward people of lesser means, including those unexpectedly caught in distress of all kinds. Whether their circumstances are due to disaster, poor personal choices, or others’ mistakes, Americans are personally forthcoming and generous in a pinch, despite the many government programs already in place to assist needy individuals.
Recently, though, municipalities and organized charities have begun to complain about and to discourage individual giving. And some non-profits and charities are joining municipalities in asking individuals, especially in metropolitan areas, to quit exercising personal compassion. Instead, they are being asked to give to local and national charitable non-profits, the charity experts. The reason? To “give a better way.”
Some towns and cities are adding the force of law to these requests, implementing changes that reduce the amount of person-to-person giving in several ways. Some ordinances attempt to ban panhandling by making it illegal; other proposed changes would require panhandlers to obtain a panhandling license or badge. Still others aim to restrict the hours and locations in which panhandlers can legally operate.
In many states and cities, homeless advocates have asserted a Constitutional right to panhandle and have litigated the dispute as a free speech issue. The American Civil Liberties Union has been active in this litigation. But controversy still surrounds the claim, and as ABC News correspondent John Stossel notes, defending panhandling as free speech has helped to keep pockets lined with cash—many of them, however, belonging to legal professionals.
For many people, accountability is an important part of their charitable decision-making. Donations to a collection box for a particular cause—funds collected by local merchants to pay for a neighbor’s kidney operation, or to replace a burned-out home, for example—are given by neighbors willingly, partly because they know exactly where their help is going. They may even know how much progress their contribution will make toward achieving the ultimate goal. Contributions to a general charitable fund seldom permit this type of personal connection or oversight. And it is no secret that some institutional charities are far more “giving” than others in terms of the ratio of aid to overhead in their budget.
Which is better? Is there a case to be made for cutting out individual handouts on the street, or even direct giving to individual projects, to church ministers, or to others who undertake a helping mission without the sanction and oversight of a formally established charitable organization? Charitable agencies in some cities are definitely claiming that they know best how to use charitable dollars, and want to assert their expertise as necessary middlemen in the handout process. The evidence of their effectiveness is mixed, which is why one should examine the record for any program.
Does government do a better job on accountability and effectiveness, then, where charity is concerned? Publicly-funded relief has as poor or poorer a record for accomplishing its broad goals as do the least effective private efforts. Since we are now at a point at which government, especially the Federal government, has stepped in to provide a safety net for nearly all situations, the opportunities for wasted resources have assumed a much grander scale than would otherwise be the case. In other words, even if I’m scammed by a panhandler with a disaster or sob story, I can’t possibly waste billions of dollars in the process. The size of my gift limits the size of my (private) risk. Not really true with government programs or relief efforts.
Clearly, the objective of all of these activities – public and private, organized and spontaneous – is to provide effectiveness and accountability in alleviating a problem. The catch is to offer aid without creating dependency or perpetual victim status.
So how should those of us who are relatively lucky, relatively responsible, relatively compassionate, behave? Giving to panhandlers might not be the answer, whether because it’s risky, or scary, or simply ineffective. Not giving at all doesn’t necessarily appeal, either, even if it is personal responsibility we are ultimately after. Neither disaster nor stupidity is alleviated by ignoring it entirely. As for licensing panhandlers—it sounds like something out of a sci-fi fantasy novel.
I don’t believe that charitable agencies staffed with “experts” on what the poor or homeless need is the only, or necessarily even the best, way for individuals to help other individuals. A couple of approaches I have (admittedly sparingly) tried are giving time or service, which can be done in a shelter or other setting, or selectively giving to someone who is evidently in need, even if they don’t ask. (You have to be very circumspect on this one.)
Is panhandling obnoxious? Yes. Should it be illegal? No. And some people wind up in terribly unfortunate circumstances. But the charity experts have yet to convince me that I should forego making “giving” decisions for myself. One needn’t have credentials to be compassionate. Though it’s wise to be cautious, evidence suggests that we don’t necessarily and always need paid charity experts to “do good” on our behalf.
Have a happy and prosperous New Year.