Why Egger’s Volunteer Bill of Rights is, um, not quite right enough. Yet.

Robert Egger, the engaging founder of DC Central Kitchen, is instituting a “Bill of Rights” for everyone who volunteers at this “$5-million annual operation, which hauls in close to two tons of food per day, converts it into 4,500 meals, which we deliver to partner agencies that serve seniors, kids, people in shelters, and folks in recovery/addiction programs throughout the DC metro area”.

So what’s it say?

ALL volunteers have the right to:

  • Work in a safe environment.
  • Be treated with respect by all staff members.
  • Be engaged in meaningful work and be actively included regardless of any physical limitations.
  • Be told what impact your work made in the community.
  • Ask any staff member questions about our work.
  • Provide feedback about your experience.
  • Receive a copy of our financial information or annual report upon request.

Egger admits that most of these rights are, in his words, “pretty obvious”, but he contends that by publicly committing to these standards, something will be set into motion not unlike what he witnessed when he was a restauranteur in his days before DC Central Kitchen:

Back in the day, when I was running nightclubs, there were really only a handful of “great” restaurants in America, and they were all French, period. Now, just about EVERY city in America boasts a bevy of great dining establishments. How did that happen?

I’ll tell you. Restaurant critics (often women writers who, in the 1960’s and 70’s, were relegated to the “women’s page” of the local paper) began to explore a new way of reviewing restaurants. This generation of writers began with a simple concept—diners had rights—and they crafted a whole new set of metrics that used “diner’s dollars” as the sharp point of their critical pens. They championed a new generation of American chefs by telling an escalating number of diners that they did not have to take what was served and like it—they could send it back. They could demand better. And demand they did. Soon, restaurant managers were training staff to be more accommodating and to talk to customers about the ingredients of the food. Open kitchens began to appear. Soon chefs began to come out of the kitchen to greet increasingly sophisticated diners and sit with them to talk about food theory, locally sourced products, green practices and giving back to community. And now, with the advent of the internet, comes technology that allows ANY customer to review a restaurant. And, it is because of that customer driven system that just about EVERY community in America now boasts numerous great restaurants that continue to push the boundries.

There’s a lot to like in what Egger says. It’s a fascinating line of thinking and sure beats the status quo. But here’s the question:

Is restaurant/patron the most fruitful analogy for the relationship between nonprofit and volunteer?

Transformational Giving (TG) principle #6 contends:

The champion, not the organization, is called to be the primary means of advancing the cause within the champion’s sphere of influence.

That suggests that a more productive–and provocative–framework for a Volunteer Bill of Rights might go something like this:

TG Central Kitchen starts with the idea that it’s your responsibility, not ours, to care for the homeless people within your sphere of influence.

To the degree that we can be a helpful platform to equip you and enable you to carry out that work, we’re going to get along great.

We’re willing to pour our time and energy into training you to become not only a tireless advocate for the homeless, but an even more effective one than we are. Greater things than we have done will you do.

To that end, ALL volunteers have the right to:

  • Utilize TG Central Kitchen as a gymnasium to “bulk up” on their ability to impact the cause in their everyday lives–you know, when they’re not at our “gym” and they encounter a real live homeless person.
  • Enter into mutual accountability relationships with staff where they hold each other accountable for growth in relation to the cause.
  • Be the actor, not the audience or the assistant to the actor. Understudy roles are OK, provided they’re not permanent.
  • Learn how to assess for themselves whether what they’re doing is making any difference whatsoever.
  • Ask staff members questions that enable them to imitate and then ultimately surpass their work.
  • Receive feedback about their work designed to enable them to move on to greater levels of responsibility the longer they volunteer.
  • Give in ways that primarily impact the cause and only secondarily, if at all, benefit our organization.

Sadly, this Bill of Rights is not nearly so obvious. We’ve spent so long convincing people that their role is to support us to achieve our cause that the idea of us supporting them to surpass us in the cause we share is considered downright radical.

But as Katya Andresen noted last week, unless we start to recognize and act on this, we may have volunteers rolling their eyes over the “rights” we’re “willing” to grant them at “our” nonprofits.

Thanks to Sean Stannard-Stockton for the tip on Eggers’ post.

About Pastor Foley

The Reverend Dr. Eric Foley is CEO and Co-Founder, with his wife Dr. Hyun Sook Foley, of Voice of the Martyrs Korea, supporting the work of persecuted Christians in North Korea and around the world and spreading their discipleship practices worldwide. He is the former International Ambassador for the International Christian Association, the global fellowship of Voice of the Martyrs sister ministries. Pastor Foley is a much sought after speaker, analyst, and project consultant on the North Korean underground church, North Korean defectors, and underground church discipleship. He and Dr. Foley oversee a far-flung staff across Asia that is working to help North Koreans and Christians everywhere grow to fullness in Christ. He earned the Doctor of Management at Case Western Reserve University's Weatherhead School of Management in Cleveland, Ohio.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Why Egger’s Volunteer Bill of Rights is, um, not quite right enough. Yet.

  1. robert egger says:

    Thanks for the push….I really like the way you’ve taken this. Our goals are truly the same–how do we find a way to push, or be pushed into a larger conversation about what comes next. As I say all the time, programs like DCCK are great, but NOT the solution. We are not sustainable, we can’t meet the need now (let alone what’s coming) and, in the end, it just isn’t right to feed working people leftover food from restaurants, no matter how cool we make the process.

    I’ll pass on your thoughts to the team. Maybe we’ll post your Bill next to ours and see if we can’t move things even faster.


    • EFoley says:

      Robert, thanks for dropping in and posting. You’ve always been a personal favorite of mine due to my own background in working with homeless men and women as President of the LA Mission, and your Bill only makes me like you more. You’ve always been ahead of the rest of us!

  2. Matt Bates says:

    The other problem with the restaurant/patron analogy is that the patron picks and chooses to find the best restaurant. If things don’t go smoothly, they move on to the restaurant down the street. The system Egger describes depends on this. But engagement in and ownership of most causes– perhaps all causes– will lead the volunteer to difficulties, challenges, rough times, even suffering, when it’s working right under the best of circumstances.

    So I’d add a second premise to yours about serving the homeless being the volunteer’s responsibility: serving the homeless is a difficult and complicated task, one which will require suffering to one degree or another. And not just an existential “isn’t this sad” type of suffering, but real physical, personal trauma. So from this premise, a volunteer has a “right” to be sneezed on, spat upon, berated, sworn at, physically threatened, discouraged, disillusioned, scared, confused and saddened deeply.

    Finally, a volunteer can also count on being let down by the nonprofit, filled as it is with fallible people. So I’d suggest an additional bullet about how the nonprofit will seek to resolve conflicts and restore relationships when this occurs.

  3. Jos Myers says:

    An excellent article. I can’t stress enough how important I think #4 and #7 are the first bullet list. There is nothing to alienate the people who are doing work for you than to leave them out of updates and not show them the monetary value of their work. No one wants to do free labor and find out through some other outlet that the company has plenty of money and isn’t allocating it correctly. Being open and honest with contributors about the financial need of the organization and of their individual contribution is paramount.

Leave a Reply to EFoley Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s