Worcester Non-Profits Support Anti-Panhandling Campaign : IMC Worcester

Do No Harm

There’s a recent resurgence of anti-panhandling tough talk and initiatives across the country, and
Worcester’s no different in that respect. What is different though is that Worcester seemingly
stands alone as a community where the social service system has joined in as part of the
legitimization of the effort.

While in other cities it has been downtown business associations (Columbus, Atlanta), hotel
associations (Cincinnati, Philadelphia) and the Chambers of Commerce (Beverley Hills, Dallas)
that have initiated or pushed anti-panhandling efforts, we see a sadly much different mix of
players around the table in Worcester. What a difference to other cities where homeless rights
advocates have pursued legal action against cities and police departments!

Worcester’s panhandling crackdown has been a long developing City Council based phenomenon.
The genesis of Worcester’s effort has been politically based, with the City Manger’s Office and
Worcester Police Department admirably resisting the effort to push and drag them into this pit
hole. It is a shame that our social service agencies couldn’t muster the same level of resistance.

The whole panhandling scenario highlights the problematic relationship that exists in Worcester
given the significant leverage that many agencies perceive City Hall to hold. Although the actual
dollars may be small, many of our much trusted social service agencies feel they ‘depend’ on
federal Community Development Block Grant funding (CDBG), which is carefully handed out
each year. And most believe rocking the boat can be equally as dangerous.

Noticeably absent from the “Panhandling isn’t the Solution” table are organizations such as
Abby’s House, the Mustard Seed, Sts. Francis and Therese Catholic Worker and others that stress
personalism and that have also eschewed the corrupting influences of governmental dollars.
We all owe them a thank you.

On a cursory level, a media campaign to encourage greater giving presents itself as helpful and
beneficial. It is framed as a caring effort, and one with supposed long-term benefits. The City’s
web page declares panhandling a “complex issue”, and we are all encouraged to believe that
giving to charity is the solution. The City feels it has done something, agencies and passerby’s
feel they have done something. Everyone should be happy.

Others will argue that the active participation of agencies has prevented a harsher City response,
keeping the police uninvolved and preventing Draconian ordinances from being passed. While
perhaps this could be true, I have not heard any agencies arguing this perspective, and I would
assert that organizations could still have played this role without adding their names.

The failure of this campaign though begins with the hours of time and resources that have been
dedicated to meetings, honing the message, developing artwork, securing the permission of
corporate media outlets, banks and supermarkets chains. It continues with the dollars, time and
resources harnessed simply in pursuit of public relations and perception. We are wrong to support
this misdirection.

Worcester’s social service agencies are wrong for supporting this effort for a much larger reason.
As organizations whose mission statements trumpet the desire to aid, assist and help, they should
also recognize Hippocrates challenge that we “Do no Harm”. And in fact, in the current anti-poor,
anti-immigrant, anti-PIP resident, anti-kid in baggy clothes in front of city hall climate we are
terribly off track when we support an effort that buttresses and adds to this war.

That’s the crux of the problem as I see it. As someone that has only worked for Worcester non-
profits I would argue that we need to find the courage to be able to say ‘No’. In the climate that
presently exists we should be divorcing ourselves from the present war on the poor, rather than
lending our names to one of the battles. By joining the game we are only perpetuating the anti-
PIP, NIMBY and other issues that will be coming our way.

Supporters & Sponsors

Ads are not the solution

I wonder how much money the city is coughing up for this ad campaign...

money that could go directly to the panhandlers, or to charity.

Stupid fucking idiots.

Duh!

As bah said, if they really want to help the poor, then they should stop throwing all our tax money into senseless ads, and actually invest that money into helping those people.
I often wonder where city hall gets these stupid ideas.

glass half full?

As a person who also works for a non-profit in the city, I feel that this current initiative could help the services we provide. The enitre time that I have been involved in non-profit work (about 19 years now), no matter where I have worked there are three things we never had enough of...money, community involvement, and an educated public. Using this initiave correctly could have a positive effect on those three critical pieces to the work we do. Yes, to be sure, the climate right now is one of NIMBY...in fact it has always seemed to be that way. But campaigns like "panhandling is not the solution" may strengthen our role as service providers in the community. Maybe as a result of the campaign someone will learn a new fact or two about homelessness or mental illness and be moved to find out more. Wouldnt that be a good thing? I dont know....call me too optimistic if you'd like...but I'm hoping that since the political and financial outlook of social service agencies is only looking bleaker by the hour, putting a very public face on some of the issues we struggle with and have struggled with for years may actually be a good thing

No money for ads

I asked the City Manager how much the city spent on this campaign, and he said nothing except staff time. The ads are donated. (In the case of the billboard, by ClearChannel.) A lot of the legwork of getting businesses to post anti-panhandling signs was done by Chamber of Commerce people.

So we can be glad that although this campaign is condescending to taxpayers, it doesn't waste their money.

Response to "glass half-full"

Joe: Thanks for your comments on this issue. It's good to hear another point of view.

Before publishing my "Panhandling Comb Over" article, I showed it to a professional social worker whose domain includes the guys who stand on corners with cardboard signs.

I figured this person would disagree with my characterizing this as a bad program, and was surprised when this person's feedback was: "Right on! More money donated to social service agencies is not going to help my clients."

It was also pointed out that my jargon is wrong: a "panhandler" is anyone asking passersby for money, while guys holding signs are known as "signers." I ignored this in my article, as the city's "anti-panhandling" plan seems to be pretty much an "anti-signer" plan.

Anyhow, I'd love to read some more ideas on how to help those who, like chronic panhandlers, don't really want to be helped. I guess I'm in the mood for some positivity.

3 things I hate about this

Three things social services in Worcester need.
1. Money
2. Community Involvment
3. Educated Public

Three things this 'campaign' might provide.
1. Spare change if I can find out who to give it to or how since neither of these things are mentioned on the signs.
2. Community involvement in getting people harrassed/arrested for panhandling with the help of not one, but two new call centers for reporting aggressive/annoying panhandlers.
3. Public that have learned that panhandlers are bad.