I heard his statement (which is also reported accurately here) and he did not have time to explain his point fully. I would guess that he is referring to the outcome-based metrics that are increasingly being used to judge social service non-profits. Rather than simply awarding an agency a sum of money to continue their work, they are obligated to say how many were served or saved, or whatever. Here, for example, is the report from the County OCED on entitlement funding (thanks to the Chronicle’s excellent archives). [link]

“In 2013, human service nonprofits supported by the Washtenaw Coordinated Funders served thousands of individuals across six priority areas: 3,968 individuals in Aging priority area programs; 447 individuals in Early Childhood priority area programs, 6,268
individuals in Housing & Homelessness priority area programs, 28,544 individuals in Hunger Relief priority area programs, 10,773 individuals in Safety Net Health & Nutrition priority area programs, and 2,580 individuals in School-Aged Youth priority area programs.”

To the point: since nonprofit agencies providing a variety of services (not just human services) are held to a strict standard of accountability, it is reasonable to expect that SPARK should be similarly accountable, not just say “trust us to do a lot of good stuff”. This is especially true given the high compensation levels of the staff.

I was heartened that Council chose to table the item. Good things can happen!

Using social services as an example of accountability is not meant (in my case at least) as a call for increased funding for such, or even as an endorsement of such. It simply represents one of the many categories of spending- outside of what I consider a city’s core service mission- that Ann Arbor has gotten itself into. Mr. Davarti’s suggestion that all recipients of city funds be treated equally is the right one- the accountability bar should be set the same height for all external organizations that ask for and receive taxpayer dollars.

Of course my observation is anecdotal, and no more dispositive than any other anecdotal observation. I simply offer an alternate perspective that doesn’t seem to be well represented here. Given the Council vote and the comments by Hiefte et al. reported here, I am not the only person who sees this as a sort of self-righteous kerfuffle.

One theme that does seem to run through all these comments is that people would prefer more social service agencies and less support for tech companies. My preference is precisely the opposite, I would like to see Ann Arbor do less to provide social services and do more to provide support for entrepreneurs — though I hasten to add, the more micro the better. Perhaps we can find common ground on that point.

On the face of it, Parks & Rec is a more equitable, though not necessarily “the best use” (whatever that metric is) of taxpayer money, as everyone can enjoy a park who chooses to go there, but not everyone can enjoy SPARKs assistance with their business, only tech and bio-tech companies who pay to play. Where is the economic assistance for small business outside of the tech sector that is the focus of SPARK? If it exists, you can bet their executive directors are not pulling down $250K+ /year. Check out GuideStar to see some comparative non-profit salaries.

I liked Mr. Davarti’s suggestion that SPARK and LDFA be held merely to the same standards of accountability that social service agencies are held to, since they are both non-profits receiving taxpayer dollars, they should be held to similar levels of accountability, which they currently are not. No one is asking for “infinite proof”- just the standard yearly reports. SPARK has been held to a much lower standard of accountability than social service agencies until recently; furthurmore, they have ignored repeted requests for standard tax forms to be made public. That is why I considered sending in a complaint form to the IRS, failure to provide 990′s upon request is an offense which qualifies a non-profit for IRS investigation. As for enriching CEO’s, I guess that depends on one’s perspective. Two salaries in excess of $250,000/ year for a non-profit seems excessive to this taxpayer.