Is it pointless to do these kinds of campaigns?

Photo taken by Melody Simmons and provided on Weekend America’s site. From the blog entry "Graphic Design as Conceptual Art," on Be a Design Group.

-------------
Thanks to DC1074 for sending me something about this "a long time ago."
-------------

I can't say how many times I've seen campaigns to discourage giving to panhandlers. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer discusses an upcoming campaign there, in the article "Downtown group launches effort to stop panhandling." Certainly, I've seen a couple iterations of this on Capitol Hill and in other parts of the city. (My sense is that these campaigns don't work, and therefore are pointless.)

Then there are the parking meter campaigns, such as this one in Baltimore as discussed in the Baltimore Business Journal, "Downtown Partnership to use parking meters for city homeless donations." (And I know I read of one such program where the donation via the meter was paltry, less than $60. According to this article, Nashville gets $200/month in donations from such a program.)

Part of the reason that such campaigns get me down is they miss the point. Most of the people who are chronically homeless have other far more serious health and socialization issues. (See "Million-Dollar Murray" by Malcolm Gladwell for a discussion of the issues.)

Myself, I couldn't ask for money on the street because I couldn't handle all the rejection.

But something else this brings up is a book I read about recently:

In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.

(from "Charity's Political Divide" in the Chronicle of Philanthropy).

Now I haven't read the book yet, so I can only speculate. I know for myself, I am more focused upon systems and structures than individuals. So I am less likely to donate to people and more likely to organizations and causes. (And since I am poor, I give time far more than money. And I do things like pick litter up off the streets, and provide knowledge-based consulting assistance to people all over, etc.

I wonder if the people that Arthur Brooks is writing about are more interested in helping people rather than improving systems?
-----------
Update: For an alternative approach, see "Work is way to recovery: Adults with mental illness find independence through a state program that helps them take on mainstream jobs," from the Baltimore Sun.

Index Keywords: quality-of-life-advocacy; civic-engagement