The Blah-Colored House That Habitat Built

Habitat for Humanity has been pledged $100 million for its international and American programs. Largest gift ever! Expected to help 60,000 families! 

Cha-ching!

I once took a tour of a local Habitat for Humanity office. On one long wall, they showed us all the paint colors the new home owners could choose from -- neutral tans and grays and beiges. 

"And below the paint colors," our tour guide pointed, smiling, "you'll see the matching trim colors." More tans and grays and beiges. 

I couldn't help but ask: what if a new homeowner wanted to trim their new tan house with the trim that was supposed to go with the gray? 

"They can't do that," said the tour guide. 

And if the homeowner wanted a vibrant blue or orange or purple paint? 

"Just not allowed." 

Probably, Habitat's intention is to avoid eyesores, but their stance is absurdly paternalistic. When I was a new homeowner, I was grateful for advice on plantings and painting and all the rest. But when adults who've worked hard to get into a home don't get to decide on their own what colors to paint it, something's deeply wrong. 

The irony -- Habitat gives people literal ownership. But what about the more broad idea ownership that comes when you get to decide what makes your house a home? 

No Soup for You?

$50 million for nonprofits! That's what I like to hear. Well, until we get to the details.  The Washington Post had this to say, from the First Lady we Love to Love, Michelle Obama: 

"The idea is simple: Find the most effective programs out there and then provide the capital needed to replicate their success in communities around the country," she said.

Mrs. Obama added, "By focusing on high-impact, results-oriented nonprofits, we will ensure that government dollars are spent in a way that is effective, accountable and worthy of the public trust."

The rah-rah in my throat died halfway through reading that. Who will decide what programs are effective? What does success mean? It's not the devil that's in these details; it's the possibility that some good nonprofits won't get federal cash because their parachute's a different color than the government's Air Force 1.  

Case in point: A soup kitchen close to home feeds more than 500 homeless men and women each week, using primarily donations. The mostly-volunteer staff call the homeless clients by name, and the space is free of violence, drugs, and prostitution. People who come in hungry leave full, and regulars feel enough ownership they enforce policies on their own, occasionally breaking up fights between new clients. "Man, they shouldn't have disrespected the kitchen," they'll say afterward to anyone who will listen. 

Success at the soup kitchen is feeding and respecting people who are often hungry and disrespected. But clients leave the soup kitchen as mentally ill, addicted, and jobless as when they came in.

We could take bets on whether the soup kitchen will get some of the Obama money. But its work is only results-oriented if having a full stomach counts as results. Somehow I don't think that's the worthy effectiveness the government's looking for.