Feed The Meter, Not The Homeless? Really?

When you think about it, it’s not rocket science. If you create a particular set of structural conditions, you’re going to end up with a particular set of adaptive responses. For homeless street people, shared conditions in their physical environment invariably lead to distinct and shared patterns of behavior. Take, for example, a growing trend in the public response to homelessness – charity-dedicated parking meters coupled with aggressively enforced anti-panhandling laws.

The idea is a simple one: discourage direct contributions to the homeless and, instead, encourage people to put change in retooled and specifically dedicated parking meters. Memphis, Denver, and San Francisco are among a number of cities incorporating this approach into their response to homelessness.

In Baltimore, for example, the pointer on the meter moves from “Despair” to “Hope” as a contribution is made. The monies collected go to organizations tasked with helping the homeless. City governments believe they are responding to the problem. So is this a good idea? And for whom?

Well clearly, the public are encouraged to feel better about themselves for doing this. They make a contribution that may support a meal program or a job training facility. And they don’t even need to interact with a homeless person to do it. The maintenance of this social distance, however, means that the domiciled public have even less first-hand knowledge of the homeless (a group people regularly stigmatize and know little about to begin with). This makes it easier for them to depersonalize homeless street people, and to rely instead on media-generated stereotypes and perceptions.

Additionally, charity administrators and employees who collect a salary benefit from this approach. While they provide resources to the homeless they are also economically dependent on the ongoing existence of the problem. I’m reminded of the seminal piece by Herbert Gans on the positive functions of poverty. (Though such multiplier arguments should note the parable of the broken window as well.)

Regardless, the channeling of resources away from the homeless themselves and into the hands of middlemen can perpetuate a cycle of reliance on charities, or at the very least facilitate the continued infantilization of the homeless as irresponsible and dependent.*

To be fair, there are some benefits to the homeless that cannot be created through individual contributions. Shelters, food banks, and job training programs, for example, absolutely require the support of private and public benefactors. However, direct contributions to the homeless themselves can put money and resources into the hands of people who need it most and immediately. Additionally, the proportion of a contribution that goes directly to the homeless necessarily diminishes as it passes through a system of administrators.

It is not incidental that governments, especially at the local level, seem to prefer this and similar approaches to the issue of homelessness. On one hand, they are able to assert they are addressing the problem. On the other hand, they make actual conditions on the street less conducive for survival. As a consequence, the homeless are more often displaced than helped – and will continue to be so as long as economic conditions make it harder for this high-risk group to find full-time employment.

In the end, we come back to the adaptation argument. If you make it harder for the homeless to adapt to conditions on the street they’ll respond. Sometimes that response is a desired one, such as a move toward employment opportunities or off-street shelters (assuming they exist). But sometimes the response is increased aggressive panhandling as people become desperate or a move to some other location where they continue to do what they need to do to survive. Assuming the goal is, in fact, support for some of society’s most vulnerable members, a more constructive response would include the parking meters to facilitate easy charitable contribution combined with a permissive stance toward non-aggressive begging.

*It’s interesting to note that some of the most vocal supporters of this strategy tend to be those who favor less government taxation under the claim that they, themselves, best know how to spend their money. The idea that the homeless are less capable of making that determination for themselves is consistent with the perception that most homeless street people are simply irresponsible and that their condition reflects individual failures rather than structural deficiencies in the economy or other institutions. I would simply remind these people of the fundamental attribution error and recommend C Wright Mills’ Sociological Imagination. If they’re so smart, I’m sure they can put the two together.