On a day-to-day basis I struggle with the adage, "Beggars can't be choosers."Occasionally I field a call from a client with feelings of entitlement, and sometimes I get a client whose volunteer means well but doesn't clean to their standard. Whatever the reason, it is difficult to say, "Sorry, there isn't anybody else. But I can put you on the waiting list..." Usually they've already waited for a volunteer for several weeks, so they have to decide if it's worth the help they are currently getting.

This saying is appropriate when compromising with a surly child, but offensive if we're actually talking about low-income groups. 

It's a harsher way to say that you should take help where you can find it. But even this statement lacks compassion. It's asking people to settle for something below what they desire because it is within their means. Not a big deal if we're talking about buying a Phantom Rolls Royce on a school teacher's income. But what if we're talking about health care for homeless children? Or deli meat from a food bank?

 The question is, should people be content to settle for sub-standard, necessary resources just because they do not have the ability to work, or comply with the American way of 'Pulling your self up by your bootstraps'?

 I say, absolutely not. But it's a reality for many people, and I was faced with such a situation this week while helping a client.

The client in question is actually a family coping with a series of tragedies. Out of work, failing health, stretched resources while caring for grandchildren...all problems that compounded to make an overwhelming situation. They called my program, asking for help with home repairs to make their place safer for the grandchildren. It requires a group, so I called the local reservation government. I was referred to the court system, in which a parole officer offered to arrange a group of people to help as part of their court-ordered community service.

Typically with Chore, we do a background check to screen people for a long list of crimes. This is because of the nature of who volunteers work with- the elderly, many of whom are vulnerable.

This is not to say that people with a criminal record are sub-par help. I am NOT suggesting that whatsoever. Whether it is court-appointed or of your own will, any volunteer help is appreciated and valuable to the community. What I am examining is the morality of forgoing policy because a family desperately needs help. Is it asking them to settle for treatment below what regular clients receive? Or, is it a blessing in this case to accept the help where we find it?

And that is the moral musing I will leave you with for today! I've already made my decision (with the help of my executive director!), but maybe this is food for thought for the rest of you.