I think all the approaches mentioned in this article, and the comments below it, are an important part of tackling homelessness. This is a complex problem that demands a varied, holistic response. Lobbying organisations that give voice to the concerns of homeless people. Volunteers, tackling the route causes as well as the day to day needs of homeless people. Hell, even soup kitchens. All of these things have an important part to play.

And, as IG mentioned in a very well-researched article a little while ago, one of the most important things everyone can do is to talk to homeless people, rather than avoiding eye contact or giving money.

As a PS, I'd just like to say that it warms the cockles of my heart to see LMC and Cameron Weaver getting on so well!

Agreeing with CW is becoming a habit.

In addition to 'wot he said' - GL's perception of an effective volunteer approach appears to be feeding homeless people soup. But only if you're a good woman of the parish of course. Which means that as a bad woman I am free to believe that it is better to work with people - perhaps some of them ("hidden homeless") before they get evicted from their insecure accommodation and end up on the streets - to address issues such as learning to manage accommodation (including budgeting), learning the skills necessary to obtain and keep a job (including 'soft skills' such personal hygiene, social, timekeeping, self-discipline, etc), addressing mental and physical health, supporting them to conquer drug/alcohol addiction(s), learning to read/write, etc - as applicable. I also have the astonishing belief that this approach is more likely to get someone off the streets and give them a better quality of life than a mug of tomato soup. Even if it is home-made by a good woman of the parish and not one of those nasty packet things.

Giving a homeless person soup - or cash directly - doesn't fix their problems for more than a few hours (and cash might even contribute to those problems - Thames Reach outreach workers reckon that 80% of homeless people are addicted to drugs or alcohol). A longer-term approach is needed, and surprise surprise, costs more and takes a little more thought and effort than setting up a soup kitchen. Hence the need for money to pay for staff, administration, focus on strategy and values, etc. Someone doesn't just wake up one day and decide "oooh, I'll go and live in that shop doorway". It takes a whole lot of things to bring them down to living on the streets. Which means that it will take a whole lot of things to bring them back up again.

(Yeah, I know I keep banging on about the soup kitchens. Perhaps I'm being over-sensitive, being a woman and all, but I thought this comment was outrageously sexist and patronising as well as ill-judged and ridiculously old-fashioned. As parishes are a Christian invention, I'm even going to claim an element of religious insensitivity in that comment, just in case anyone hasn't got the message yet that I didn't like it... )

-----------------------------------------------

... nearly Vlad the Impaler

Deptforder, you're being too kind to Lemos. If he wanted to say, 'the best way to help the homeless is to volunteer,' then he should have said that. But the fact remains that he didn't. Instead, he chose to make a fatuous 'argument' about how big charities are always bad, and how local groups of busy-bodies always know better than the professionals. I repeat: this is arrant nonsense.

It's also nice to think that Lemos is *really* making a point about government contracts when he writes off larger charities; and it would also put my mind at rest if I could believe that homelessness charities are frequently in the business of selfish self-perpetuation. But they're not, and nowhere does Lemos (or Deptforder) support this contention with evidence.

There is simply nothing - I repeat, nothing - good to say about this article.

I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Mr Lemos has a point about government contracts (is your money simply topping them up?) and about organisations keeping themselves going for the point of... keeping themselves going. We've all seen that. I'd take away from this article the idea that the best way to contribute, and to evaluate, is not to give money but to volunteer.

A particular corker here is 'if you can't see homeless people, then they don't exist.'

I think Gerry deserves a big, shiny gold star for this comment. It is so breathtakingly fatuous and astonishingly naive that I can't really understand how a person of intelligence (like Gerry L) could possibly bring themselves to write it.

I'm still recovering from that. 'I can't see it so it doesn't exist.' My goodness. I can't believe I just read that.

Finally, though, I'd love to know what the charities who employ this man as a consultant would have to say about this little column...

Good job in this instance CW.

As for - " ... soup kitchens run out of church crypts by the good women of the parish ..." It's 2007 not 1907. I would love to be a good woman of the parish and work for nothing. Unfortunately, I'm too horrible and, more relevantly, too poor. As are 90%+ of people who work for charities.

I can only come to the conclusion that the author was too lazy to support his opinions with any substantive evidence.

EDIT: due to cross-post with SimonK. I should point out that I thought this article was *so* ill-informed that I couldn't be bothered to tackle any of the other points. Excellent job, both you guys.

----------------------------------------------- ... nearly Vlad the Impaler

You're quite right Cameron. It is stunning in its naivety and lack of thought. I would hardly know where to begin in taclking it, but a few points spring to mind.

Overheads: hard to tackle this, as I don't know what Mr Lemos actually means by an "overhead". But as Intelligent Giving frequently points out, a charity with no admin costs may very well be badly-run and inefficient.

"The well-paid public sector worker with the final salary pension will always call the needs of the very worst-off in aid of their own survival" - well, what can one say about this? It's personally insulting to a lot of people, grossly unfair and patently untrue. I'm quite sure that the people who work for, for example, Shelter, would be delighted if homelessness were to be solved. But they know that it'll never get sorted out by the "good women of the parish" (are there no good men?) in their soup kitchens - it needs government action. Hence why they lobby.

Ever hear the tale of the crumbling clifftop where people kept falling off? Lemos's solution is to station a bunch of volunteers from St John Ambulance (the "good women of the parish") at the bottom to patch people up and treat their wounds. Many people would rather build a fence around the top - even if that means paying a salary (and even, god forbid, a pension) to the fencebuilders.

As to the suggestion that you should simply "believe the evidence of your own eyes" as to numbers of homeless - well, of course, homelessness is always and only about people sleeping rough, isn't it? Never mind the people living in hostels, B&Bs, sleeping on other people's floors. Mr Lemos doesn't have to step over them on the way to his nice Highgate offices - so obviously they don't exist.

I'm still gasping for breath after reading this article; it's hard to believe how ill-thought out it is.

Lemos (whoever he is) makes a lot of points, but fails to substantiate any of them. First, he moans about admin costs. But why are they a bad thing? He never says. Second, he rails against charities which 'vaunt their values' - but again he doesn't explain why this should be dangerous; we just have to believe him. Third, he complains that charities that lobby are a priori a bad thing - but (as before) offers no evidence to support this bizarre contention.

I could go on - and on. But I don't want to bore you (looks at LMC) with my droning. I think this article could put lot of people off bothering to give to homeless charities, which would be a crying shame. I think - personally - that giving to a big lobbying charity like Shelter can be the best use of your donation, since it can result in government money being channeled to the cause it (and you, indirectly) support.

Lemos, I humbly suggest, needs to go and so some research before coming up with such ill-researched and potentially destructive arguments.