[citation needed] [citation needed] [citation needed] You know what? They might be right. But if you're going to pass laws making it illegal to literally feed the hungry, we need to see comprehensive, peer-reviewed, double blind studies. Not anecdotes from some random guy who pretended to be homeless. As well as commensurate laws to provide the acclaimed long-term help to the same number of people. Otherwise, you're just another Randian monster.“Street feeding programs without comprehensive services actually increase and promote homelessness”
“If you give cash out on the street, generally about 93 percent of it goes to alcohol, drugs and prostitution.
We’ve done a lot of research
I think the author of this piece agrees with you. Aside from whether or not it ultimately helps homeless people in a statistical sense, it seems ridiculous to me that the government should get involved in my decision to give someone spare change, or a bite to eat. Homelessness is a problem, but my interaction with a homeless person must transcend statistics because I am human and so are they.I believe the real reason cities want homeless services to move indoors is to hide the problem so they will face less pressure to fund solutions.
I think so too. I just felt like ranting. I'm not sure I agree. Hypothetically, what if it were possible to statistically end 99% of homelessness, by passing laws forbidding individual help (presumably along with laws for institutional help)? Of course, it's the classic question of Deontology vs Teleology, and people have been arguing about it for hundreds of years.I think the author of this piece agrees with you.
Homelessness is a problem, but my interaction with a homeless person must transcend statistics because I am human and so are they.
IMO the easy answer is that we don't need to worry too much about such scenarios because they don't exist, and in those cases where efficiency of mass behavior is determined to be good, the cost of enforcement needs to be weighed against it. Enforcing teeth brushing might have measurable benefit, but enforcing teeth brushing will also have measurable downsides, if only the re-conceptualization of the purpose of government.Hypothetically, what if it were possible to statistically end 99% of homelessness, by passing laws forbidding individual help (presumably along with laws for institutional help)?
[citation needed] I almost feel like the assertion that you can make enough income panhandling to be able to spend 13 times as much on recreation as you do on food debunks itself. But someone did look into it. After finding no published evidence to support Marbut's figures, I interviewed Marbut himself. He acknowledged that his 93% figure was not based on anything he had read. Instead, he said, he came up with that figure through his own research....“If you give cash out on the street, generally about 93 percent of it goes to alcohol, drugs and prostitution.”
I consulted with 6 of America's foremost institutions and experts in the field of homelessness. None of them knew of any data that would substantiate that 93% claim. I could only find one survey, conducted recently in San Francisco. It asked 146 panhandlers what they spent their money on. 94% said they used some of the money for food, while only 44% said they used some of the money for alcohol or drugs (undoubtedly a much smaller figure than among housed people). That's 44% who spent even a nickel on alcohol or drugs, not 93% of their money.