At the end of September, Centrepoint's chief executive told London's Evening Standard, "We are not saying never give to beggars because that is a personal choice, but we are saying think about it because it doesn't always help."
This opened the floodgates of speculation, and last weekend the government's proposed "positive giving campaign" hit the headlines. "Foul" called the leader writers, "shame" said the columnists, and "Scrooge" thundered the Express.
Some charities pointed out that no-one was saying "don't give to beggars full stop", and the Rough Sleepers Unit hit back - "If being a scrooge means spending £200 million on reducing the numbers of people sleeping rough . . . then this government is guilty as charged."
But amongst all this invective, we have rather lost sight of the most important aspect of the begging debate - it's not so much about why people give, but about why people beg.
Only if we can answer that question can we ever begin to solve the problem. And one of the ways to answer that question is to ask the people begging themselves.
This is what Crisis did this summer. In eight areas all round Britain, over 200 people who were either begging or drinking on the streets were interviewed by researchers from Vision 21.
Over three-quarters of those questioned beg at least once a week, and over two-thirds every day. More than half of all those surveyed had slept rough the previous night - and the vast majority of these were people who begged. Given this situation, there is little suggestion that beggars are "professionals", in the sense that they do not really need to beg because they have permanent accommodation. Only one in ten beggars fall into this category.
As for what begging actually brings in, tales of wide-boys with five-bedroom houses and flash cars remain just that - tales. Our interviewees were bringing in much more prosaic sums of between £10 and £30 a day.
Of all those who'd had permanent accommodation in the past, a third had been evicted from their last home and a quarter left because of the breakdown of a relationship. The fact that very few people said they left their last home because of drink or drug problems is highly significant, because many do have long-standing dependencies - nearly half our sample said that they had an addiction problem.
What can be read into the answers is that though the "trigger" for leaving their last permanent home was a relationship failure, eviction and so on, there is a loud and sustained background noise of addiction against which these life events are played. It is also clear that addiction is one of the primary brakes on them returning to a "normal life".
It is hardly surprising, then, to find that when asked why they started begging, over two in five beggars said to get money for drink or drugs. A third said simply for money, but only six per cent said for food. Homelessness was not seen as a justification for begging. Only six per cent began to beg because they were homeless and only a handful continued begging because of it.
The re-opened begging debate is founded upon the clash between two opposing principles - you either clamp down on these unsightly criminals or you carry on pretty much as before. Crisis believes that the time is now ripe to seek out new ways to help people off the streets which don't just rely on Black Marias or sticking plaster.
And again, we turned to those on the streets for the answers.
Some "solutions", such as drinking by-laws and exclusion orders are not highly valued by those to whom they would apply - they simply don't tackle the root causes. Others, like codes of conduct do have more support, although they are hardly solutions to life on the street as they simply "manage" it more efficiently.
As for local diverted giving and voucher schemes, both would appear to come up against the major fact of life for beggars and drinkers - that they want cash to spend on alcohol or drugs. To work successfully, therefore, such schemes need to ensure the provision of drug and alcohol services. The issue of whether, on the local level, they can deliver the economies of scale which they promise also needs to be addressed. We can only wait to see how a national campaign fairs.
Three alternatives, however, do receive substantial support from beggars and street drinkers - namely, The Big Issue, low threshold employment programmes and arrest referral schemes. What all three have in common, uniquely among the alternatives to zero tolerance, is that they can act as gateways into other support systems.
It is also clear that the jury is out on many of the services which are currently provided to beggars and drinkers. Soup runs, for instance, are universally used but fail to make the most of their contact. The police are in a similar (though qualitatively different) position - the "friendly chat" features heavily, but police contact is often unproductive. Outreach work tends to get the thumbs-up, but with half of beggars and drinkers never approached by an outreach worker, there is obviously a major hurdle to be overcome in terms of coverage.
Opinions may differ, the emphasis may change, but the conclusion is reasonably clear - if people are to be helped off the streets, a lone agency or single sector response is not the way to do so. We should no longer rely on the police to act in isolation. The concept of "community safety" and the partnerships which are its most obvious manifestation give us the opportunity to move away from a purely criminal justice response to begging - and could well allow us all, finally, never to be placed in the dilemma again of "To give, or not to give?"
Source
Housing Today
Postscript
Shaks Ghosh is chief executive of Crisis.
Walk on By and is available priced £7.50 from Crisis on 020 7655 8337.
No comments yet