Source: Joe Hermer, Professor of Sociology, University of Toronto, in the Windsor Star, May 20 (abbreviated)
Windsor City Council was wise to put off deciding to install “care meters” to deal with panhandling in the downtown core. Council is expected to report sometime in June on installing refitted parking meters which the public could feed their coins to instead of giving money to those panhandling, with the assumed result being that begging would decline.
While council is likely to look at a handful of North American examples that are underway, the real evidence is in England, where such diverted or alternative giving schemes have been adopted by at least 23 councils, and promoted at the highest levels of government….
What we do know generally about the relationship between begging and homelessness is that the majority of those begging are often the most desperate individuals in the homeless population, and are in dire need of assistance. This is particularly true of young people.
Care meters have no proven benefits to those living on the street, there is no evidence that they change giving patterns to those begging, they present a deceptive message to the public, and they are an economically irrational way to raise funds for social services.
Eric Koch’s new book, New Beginnings, was launched on September 20. The book is available from 
People begging on the street are selling us a direct opportunity to exercise compassion. Please buy from the source, not from a corporate machine.
Yes, of course, but how can one explain 23 councils in the U.K. that prefer an impersonal way of giving? Do they want to protect their citizens from the embarrassment of direct contact with the poor to reinforce the pretense that the poor don’t really exist and to spare them the feeling of guilt for tolerating poverty?
Of course.
What is in the water in Windsor and certain locations in the UK? Daft!
presumably some of the argument in favour of the meters is that the money will go to some kind of welfare system, spent efficiently and effectively to supply food, housing, supplies etc - rather than giving it directly to the beggar who will spend it on drink or drugs. It’s a collateral advantage (perhaps) to reduce the amount of begging by reducing the rewards for it.
One wonders if all the premises are true, both as to the effective use of the meter money and the wasteful (if not disagreeable) use of the direct donation.
Also, would meters reduce the demand or increase the supply of begging, i.e. could beggars have to try harder, accost more people, in order to fund whatever it is they were trying to fund?