A man walking through a Vancouver tent city in March. According to CNN, “Researchers in a new study found that homeless people who received direct cash transfers were able to find stable housing faster.”
Some years ago I asked a woman who headed an excellent Rhode Island nonprofit for housing whether she gave money to panhandlers. She said she did not, and I thought I shouldn’t either. But Mother Teresa had said to smile at people in need. I found I could manage that.
The belief that giving money leads panhandlers to buy drugs has long been the common wisdom. But a new study from Canada suggests it’s wrong.
Francesca Giuliani-Hoffman reports at CNN, “You’ve heard this refrain before — giving money to homeless people is not the best way to help them because it might be squandered, or spent on harmful habits.
“But a new Canadian study makes a powerful case to the contrary. The study, dubbed ‘The New Leaf Project,’ is an initiative of Foundations for Social Change, a charitable organization based in Vancouver, in partnership with the University of British Columbia.
“Researchers gave 50 recently homeless people a lump sum of 7,500 Canadian dollars (nearly $5,700). They followed the cash recipients’ life over 12-18 months and compared their outcomes to that of a control group who didn’t receive the payment. The preliminary findings, which will be peer-reviewed next year, show that those who received cash were able to find stable housing faster, on average. By comparison, those who didn’t receive cash lagged about 12 months behind in securing more permanent housing.
“People who received cash were able to access the food they needed to live faster. Nearly 70% [maintained] greater food security throughout the year.
The recipients spent more on food, clothing and rent, while there was a 39% decrease in spending on goods like alcohol, cigarettes or drugs. …
“Said Claire Williams, the CEO and co-founder of Foundations for Social Change, ‘We really think it’s important to start testing meaningful risk-taking in the name of social change.’ …
“The 115 participants in the randomized controlled trial were between the ages of 19 and 64, and they had been homeless for an average of 6 months. Participants were screened for a low risk of mental health challenges and substance abuse. Funding for the initiative came from a grant from the Canadian federal government, and from donors and foundations in the country.
” ‘One of the things that was most striking is that most people who received the cash knew immediately what they wanted to do with that money, and that just flies in the face of stereotypes,’ Williams told CNN.
“For example, she explained some cash recipients knew they wanted to use the money to move into housing, or invest in transportation — getting a bike, or taking their cars to the repair shop to be able to keep their jobs. Others wanted to purchase computers. A number of them wanted to start their own small businesses. …
“Direct cash transfers are not ‘a silver bullet for homelessness in general,’ and the program focused on ‘a higher functioning subset of the homeless population,’ Williams said, but she believes the research shows that providing meaningful support to folks who have recently become homeless decreases the likelihood they will become entrenched. …
“The study shows there are advantages for the taxpayer, too. According to the research, reducing the number of nights spent in shelters by the 50 study participants who received cash saved approximately 8,100 Canadian dollars per person per year, or about 405,000 Canadian dollars over one year for all 50 participants.”
More details at CNN, here.
Suzanne's Mom's Blog 
This is interesting. A cash infusion can help them get a stable place to live etc. I’m not sure if that affects whether or not I give a dollar. It’s not going to get them off the street. But perhaps we need to look at our policies as a society.
Definitely need to look at our policies and our priorities. You know we could house everyone if we really wanted to.
Giving a small amount to someone on the street is a very different animal than offering several thousand dollars, and to recipients who were screened for low mental health and addiction risks. I don’t give money on the street, though I will sometimes purchase a meal or a treat for the homeless that I know and consider my friends. I don’t give, or offer, to the ones I know have addiction difficulties. Yes, my friend Roy will sometimes score some sort of drug and everyone knows about it, but he’s not an addict and I don’t begrudge him some release from the life in which he survives. He has mental health issues, but they are usually under control. He has developed a good support network on my block and at my church, where he occasionally came to Morning Prayer in the Before Times. Now that it’s all online he misses that, but has taken to preaching on Sunday mornings–a bit too loud and too early for my taste, but I don’t begrudge him that either.
What a lovely affirmation of human connection, Hannah! Thank you!
This gives a lot of food for thought. Perhaps ironically it helps more to give more so the people can secure a place to live. Thanks for sharing this study with us.
I was interested in Laurie’s practice of giving a set amount to panhandlers whenever she goes from her rural Maine home to the city. But what if you live or work in the city?
I live in a city. I rarely carry cash because cards are so convenient. When I do though, I often give it away.
For years I heeded the experts and did not give money to panhandlers, instead I made donations to shelters and food distribution charities. Perhaps 5 years ago, I decided that I would again give money from time to time to panhandlers. I still give donations to the organizations that serve them but I feel that acts of kindness on the individual level are also important. I don’t care what someone spends the money on. The one-to-one connection tells them that they have value and that I care.
I’m so interested to see the number of people who have been thoughtful about this and who have decided for themselves what to do. Thank you!
Here is what I do when I go to the city. I put a certain amount of change in my pocket, and I give until it is gone. I don’t have to fumble through my purse and wallet to get the money, which seems safer to me when I am in the city. Truthfully, I don’t care what they spend the money on. They have so few comforts as it is. However, as the article indicated, individual charity can never make up for steady assistance that comes from the government.
Very interesting. Meanwhile, the story adds to the increasing data suggesting that sizeable direct cash payments aren’t such a crazy idea for moving people out of poverty.
Not crazy at all.
Several thoughts…
1. the study gave a large-ish amount to specific people and followed up to see what happened. I assume that they prescreened the recipients as well to assure that they were in fact homeless.
2.I have noticed the “homeless” panhandlers in my city arrive at their designated spots in a nice car, which then leaves them for the day and collects them after. Is this really a homeless person or someone scamming the system? Taking money from people who wished it to go to help a truly homeless person. I have heard that they make more panhandling than they would working.
3. I prefer to offer food, meal. Seeing them on my way into a restaurant, I just duplicate my mean and leave it with them. If the person is hungry they like that.
4. The government should not be taking care of these people. That is not the job of government. That is the job for NGOs, churches and the like. The government is not for social welfare, but rather to maintain an orderly/safe society, and to safely protect our borders from foreign attack.
5. For best results, my donations go to NGOs. In my city is a place called Mel Trotter Missions. They specifically work to get homeless people off the street and back into useful society. NGOs can screen the individuals and then best use the resources to get those most promising back into a fruitful life.
6. Yes there are some with mental issues who will never be a fruitful member of society. It is not for me to decide who is or is not worth of recuperative assistance or subsistence assistance. The NGOs with their first hand, daily, personal interaction with them can make that decision, and much better than government. Government is always the worst-run most-inefficient organization. Your donations or taxes will go farther with a hungry NGO than with a fat government.
7. This is not my main topic to comment on. Usually it is Climate Change.
Thank you for your observations and for giving people a meal. I didn’t include the videos you sent as I don’t have time to screen them.