The other day a friend of mine rhetorically asked, “Why is it that you find so many people in the people-helping professions the most cynical and bitter toward the people they are supposed to be helping?”
I don’t know, but he got me to thinking.
In my own experience, I have known a teacher who disliked children, a businesswoman who disliked customers, a welfare worker who resents the poor, a pastor who had no patience with people who had spiritual problems, and, now most certainly, a homeless shelter director who treats homeless veterans and non-veterans as though she despises them for their need.
By comparison, she makes Cinderella’s step-mother seem like Jesus.
By contrast, I know Jesus to be one who will peel away the rotten and base things within us to find in us his image, and dignify us with his love and care. Even laying aside one’s religious views, we have a certain onus upon us to take care of the people who edge into our line of sight. This is the very essence of compassion – strangely absent in a place where compassion would be the most healing, the most helpful, the most human response to individuals suffering from many losses, including a certain perceived disenfranchisement from the norms of society.
I am very disappointed to report that compassion is discouraged at the Volunteers of American Sheridan Homeless Shelter, and that people are routinely questioned, accused, brow-beaten, scolded and kicked out for no reason – all from the director’s office
If there really is such a thing as client resentment disease, the CDC would have a heyday here.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Investigation Complete: VA OKS VOA
I am disappointed, but not surprised, that the Veterans Health Administration has reported back that the Volunteers of America Sheridan Community Homeless Shelter is considered “in compliance” with the VA Per Diem Grant Program.
On May 30, I received a letter from U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, in which he forwarded to me a copy of the report he received from the VA.
The gist of the report is that the shelter is fine, and that I am more than likely unstable. They discovered that I am not a veteran, which, apparently makes me much easier to dismiss.
Of course, there is no department of quality of care to go to in the system, otherwise many of the abused veterans in the Sheridan shelter would have contacted these. If there is such a place, it is a well-guarded secret.
If you will recall, I made the following list of issues of non-compliance to the VA:
1. The “reasonable assurance” that not more than 25 percent of participants at any one time will be non-veterans was not attempted in the calendar year of 2007. The per diem “assurances” were consciously ignored.
2. There is certainly nothing being done to establish transitional housing outside of the walls of the shelter. If the per diem grant assumes progress in the area of transitional living, no such progress exists.
3. There is no follow-up on the part of the shelter with veterans who have acquired permanent housing. Once they leave the threshold of the shelter, they are left out of contact, unless they have to return to the shelter because their living situation failed somehow.
4. Programming and goals for are dictated to the veteran by the shelter director. Most of these vulnerable individuals simply accept their fate at the shelter, because they need a place to live. Also, veterans are routinely kicked out of the shelter and placed on a “not-welcome-back” list, which certainly stops the flow of care, while the grant monies continue.
The report to Enzi did not address any of these issues.
My letter to the VA included this question: “I am writing you to find out whether the items above, which I consider improprieties with regard to conditions expected from the per diem grant award, are in fact improprieties. If so, how will your office address these? If not, please assist me where I am misunderstanding this.”
Obviously, the “reasonable assurances” included in the grant program are not “serious reasonable assurances,” as the VA disregarded the fairly substantial items 1-4 above, and spent more time figuring out ways to discredit me as the person asking the questions, to whit: “Mr. Cummings was not a veteran and had acted repeatedly in a hostile manner toward VOA and VA staff involved in the project. As a result Mr. Cummings was asked not to return.” The VOA is ticked that I won’t be quiet, so they are adding a dash of vilification. I expected as much.
True, it may be too optimistic to expect the VA to take upon itself a quality control issue in a tiny shelter that has a contract for 16 veteran beds. Fortunately, this is only one of the many trees I intend to bark up.
On May 30, I received a letter from U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi, in which he forwarded to me a copy of the report he received from the VA.
The gist of the report is that the shelter is fine, and that I am more than likely unstable. They discovered that I am not a veteran, which, apparently makes me much easier to dismiss.
Of course, there is no department of quality of care to go to in the system, otherwise many of the abused veterans in the Sheridan shelter would have contacted these. If there is such a place, it is a well-guarded secret.
If you will recall, I made the following list of issues of non-compliance to the VA:
1. The “reasonable assurance” that not more than 25 percent of participants at any one time will be non-veterans was not attempted in the calendar year of 2007. The per diem “assurances” were consciously ignored.
2. There is certainly nothing being done to establish transitional housing outside of the walls of the shelter. If the per diem grant assumes progress in the area of transitional living, no such progress exists.
3. There is no follow-up on the part of the shelter with veterans who have acquired permanent housing. Once they leave the threshold of the shelter, they are left out of contact, unless they have to return to the shelter because their living situation failed somehow.
4. Programming and goals for are dictated to the veteran by the shelter director. Most of these vulnerable individuals simply accept their fate at the shelter, because they need a place to live. Also, veterans are routinely kicked out of the shelter and placed on a “not-welcome-back” list, which certainly stops the flow of care, while the grant monies continue.
The report to Enzi did not address any of these issues.
My letter to the VA included this question: “I am writing you to find out whether the items above, which I consider improprieties with regard to conditions expected from the per diem grant award, are in fact improprieties. If so, how will your office address these? If not, please assist me where I am misunderstanding this.”
Obviously, the “reasonable assurances” included in the grant program are not “serious reasonable assurances,” as the VA disregarded the fairly substantial items 1-4 above, and spent more time figuring out ways to discredit me as the person asking the questions, to whit: “Mr. Cummings was not a veteran and had acted repeatedly in a hostile manner toward VOA and VA staff involved in the project. As a result Mr. Cummings was asked not to return.” The VOA is ticked that I won’t be quiet, so they are adding a dash of vilification. I expected as much.
True, it may be too optimistic to expect the VA to take upon itself a quality control issue in a tiny shelter that has a contract for 16 veteran beds. Fortunately, this is only one of the many trees I intend to bark up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
