I was just reading the gawker article Extreme Makeover: Home Foreclosure Edition and I started to think about Corporate Social Responsibility and the phrase “The Road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” Yes, people who believe they are doing good can end up doing harm but, more to the point of this post, There is no value in simply planning to do good if you don’t actually do it. Or rather, for some advocates of families who were helped, if we are measuring good done against harm, what is acceptable?

Story after story tells the tale of families who had houses foreclosed because they took out Home Equity loans they could not repay or, in some cases, because they simply could not keep up with the higher utilities and tax assessments for their new “BIGGER & BETTER” used-to-be homes. (Wall Street Journal)

In one case (MSNBC 2005) a family of 5 orphans were the reason why ABC built a 9-bedroom home for a family. Within 5 months a lawsuit was brought against ABC because the 5 orphans were no longer welcome by the host family (who, because of the contract, had FULL ownership rights to the new home). Details of the case and circumstances are not clear, but it got thrown out of court because of the contract. Because of the contract? What about the motivation driving the show to begin with?

It seems like ABC gave a man a fish but did not TEACH anything. Reasonable single-family homes and follow-up counseling don’t require us to “MOVE THAT BUS!” Or at least, not a comically large bus.

I am a huge advocate for social equality but education must be a priority.

What are the next two steps of outreach? Three steps? Maybe four? Corporate efforts can no longer simply stop when it becomes inconvenient. Especially when our means to research and distribute dissent are more powerful than ever. How do Sears and other Extreme Makeover sponsors feel about all the press yesterday about the show “Downsizing” the McMansion development? What about all the tweets and Facebook links? I just read about the 2005 court case, 5 years later, and I got angry enough to write about it.

We can all agree that corporate alignment with a program that helps people like the Marshall Family can be an incredible marketing opportunity and good PR, But did they need this house? Or did the sponsors feel like THEY needed that house because WE needed that house, to justify watching the show?

Are there other shows or programs that jumped the charity shark? What does that mean? You know, Outreach that seems to help but doesn’t really complete the cycle of support. I know that budgets and time are always a factor but how can we ALL make sure that follow up is not just an after thought?

Also, I hate the lottery. Scratch tickets are the DEVIL /rant