A new campaign: Killing with Kindness

In 2003, Jeremy Swain, (the Chief Executive of London-based homelessness charity Thames Reach), launched a campaign called Killing with Kindness. Posters on London's tube network tried to deter people from giving to beggars in the street, instead urging them to give to charities and organisations working with threatened groups. I think the campaign is a worthwhile one, but question whether the beggar's loss may actually decrease donations to the charitable sector working with the homeless.

The campaign resurfaced in October, when Jeremy posted an article entitled 'Do The Right Thing' on Inside Housing's website, after discussing it in a radio interview. He pondered the 'psychology of giving' when we drop money into used Starbucks cups on the streets, asking who exactly we are helping by giving money to beggars. Whilst we may be easing our own consciences, he writes that there is 'incontrovertible evidence that the vast majority of people begging on the streets are doing so in order to purchase hard drugs, like heroin and crack cocaine'. As a result, our 'compassionate' giving may in fact be trapping people in a lifestyle of instability and substance misuse rather than helping them to move on. Swain instead proposes that people should give their money to organisations working with individuals affected by homelessness and substance misuse as this is a more sustainable and effective way to help people.

Jeremy told the story of Cheryl, a habitual beggar working outside Charing Cross station to support her heroin addiction. Cheryl felt people often knew of her habit but chose to ignore it  out of ignorance or pity. This careless attitude of givers enrages Jeremy, as he points out that often such addicts will die from their addiction, and such acts of giving in fact undermine the hard work of frontline support workers. Cheryl escaped her situation when she enrolled on a treatment programme, and the argument seems to be that if we thought a little more about which hands our pound coins fall into, we could dramatically reduce the numbers of beggars on our streets. This is, after all, the ultimate aim. 

Many agree with Jeremy. Dave Hill recently wrote an article for the Guardian 'Don't give money to beggars - help them instead.' With a similar logic to the Killing With Kindness campaign, he wrote that 'most rough sleepers don't beg and most beggars aren't rough sleepers' and instead urged us to give our money to a 'relevant charity'. I can say that from my experience with The Pavement Perspective I agree with this statement - most rough sleepers I have met are either managing on minimal weekly benefits or otherwise doing casual work to keep themselves afloat.

Urban Dictionary illustrates common stereotypes

However, whilst I am confident the campaign will be able to stop people giving money to beggars, I am not so sure it will have such a positive effect for charitable organisations. Whilst it is unclear whether the money not dropped in beggar's cups will translate to charitable gain, I see a risk that donations overall may decrease. This concern stems from the risk that the campaign will reinforce negative stereotypes about rough sleepers, and also give people one more way to justify their dismissal of vulnerable people on the streets.

Many people already think of rough sleepers and beggars as synonymous, and assume they are 'all drug addicts' or 'drunks' and this campaign might 'confirm' their suspicions. People might feel they do not want to give their hard-earned wages to help individuals they perceive to have brought their problems upon themselves, and this may actually reduce the amount of money homelessness charities receive. Furthermore, I think most people probably give to beggars due to spare-of-the-minute guilt and the rest of the time give very little thought to those on the streets, be they homeless or not. If they are given a campaign which actually justifies their dismissal of people on the street, it gives them one less reason to take any action at all.

Although the campaign may do good work in stopping the counterproductive task of giving to beggars funding drug habits, I am not sure that the public en mass will necessarily understand the background context of such a nuanced campaign. My concern is that it may be used as an excuse to disregard issues surrounding people on the streets altogether. Nonetheless, as Jeremy has pointed out to me, cutting the supply of money to dealers is the main primary aim of the campaign, which is a necessary and important task. Any other side affects are merely speculative on my part, and judging by the ongoing success of organisations such as Thames Link, despite the release of the campaign in 2003, I may well be wrong that donations to charities will reduce!

In reality, the issues surrounding homelessness and addiction are complicated, and as a result raising awareness is a difficult task. The issues are complicated because they are people's lives, each story is slightly different and there is no homogenous groups of 'homeless' or 'beggars' who can be captured and matched to a single solution. It is debatable whether there is ever one 'right' thing to do - you have to use your own discretion in each situation. In the meantime, I think Swain's campaign gives us all food for thought, but lets hope it is interpreted correctly.