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. 

With this kinda help...

With everything going so crappily  for, well, everyone, it's time to give another look to ... volunteers?

Apparently so. The New York Times ran this article recently. Here's a quick summary: with so many upper-management sorts out of work (and out of sorts), why not get them helping out with nonprofits, those organizations sometimes known for their lack of organization. Out-of-work execs get to feel productive, and nonprofits get free management expertise. Everyone wins! What could go wrong? 

Of course, anyone who's ever worked with volunteers is chuckling nervously right now, counting the ways volunteers make their work lives more difficult. My favorite is how there's inevitably that one sketchy guy volunteer -- one who shows too much chest hair, or makes too much eye contact, or won't make your gaze at all. He's probably not a perp like he's typecast on Law and Order, but he's just awkward enough for you not to want him around. At all.

But my main problem is that the New York Times made an ass out of you and me by assuming nonprofit managers want the sort of bona fide expertise the laid off for-profit world can offer. Sure it can be hard to find people who consistently want to spend the night in a homeless shelter with people who are often mentally ill, not to mention stinky. But I'm not convinced it's ever been hard to find for-profit execs excited to yap their pie holes at you about what could be done better. 

Rather, I think we non-profit folks sometimes just don't want to hear. We don't believe for-profit management offers any usable lessons for us. After all, we have heart and aren't evil and OF COURSE Mr. Corporate Sold-His-Soul won't ever understand our idiosyncratic filing system, much less our crappy accounting. We take pride in our lack of professionalism because somehow it shows we're homespun and care about the work more than the job.

Silly NY Times for thinking you could change us. Joke's on you! Right?