7/24/2013 (First)
09/09/13 (Second)
Paul D. Goree
232 South 12th
Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85007
(602) 330- 6758
SUB: SOUTHWEST BEHAVIORAL VIOLATIONS, REGARDING PAUL DEWITT GOREE
In
response to HOWPA/HUD complaint sent on 03/15/2013, the following is
the requested detailed information. The following is to also document
neglect of
case workers, Margret Finn and Johnny Garcia
of South West Behavioral Service, in Phoenix, Arizona. SWBS is a HOWPA Grantees and project sponsors for the HOWPA housing program. SWB is located at 3450
N 3rd St, Phoenix, AZ 85012.
First
I would like to express. That is my understanding that a caseworker
primary responsibility
is to attend to their client and follow through with intervention is
required. 6 telephone calls to the Phoenix Police Department, regarding
events detailed in this complaint, were neglected by the caseworks
stated above. Of the 6 officer assisted visits, 3
stated that they would request an intervention/separation. Margret Finn
and Johnny Garcia stated to me that they never received any of the
police report, regarding the events occurring at 4902 N. 19th
Ave Phoenix, AZ 85015. On Dec 23, 2012, caseworker Johnny Garcia left a
voice message on my phone. He was in a frustrated state of mind and
angrily yelled the message, that he would be coming over that day, to
end the roommate dilemma. Yet no intervention followed
through.
MY RESPONSES:
1. Describe the events in which you were injured by being denied housing rights.
2. When did these events occur? When were you denied housing rights?
3. Who discriminated against you? What is their relationship to the subject property?
4. What did they do to control the transaction? What is their contact information?
5. What events indicate the basis of discrimination is race, color, national origin
religion, gender, familial status, or disability?
Please provide dates for each event.
6. Identify all the members of your household
1.) As described in 24 CFR 574.310(e), HOPWA regulations
require agencies to create a formal process for handling the termination
of participants from HOPWA assistance. Termination procedures should
include the following elements:
Written notice to the participant containing a clear
statement of the reasons
for termination;
Opportunity for a participant to a review of the decision, allowing them to
confront opposing witnesses, present written objections, and be represented
by their own counsel or representative, before a person other than the per
son (or a subordinate of that person) who made or approved
the termination
No
prior violations or issues regarding drug usage were applied.
Requirement that client enroll in
drug rehab, has no prior written violation stated. Yet
This was listed as one of the two
reasons.
Second,
client was not informed of other tenants living arrangements and thus
Was unaware that former tenant actions
warrant trespassing. Client was informed
April 2013 and was informed by Police
department on the day termination was issued.
The caseworker Johnny Garica, violated
my civil rights, by regulating who enters the
The apartment. The police officer
explained this to him, stating that only the Police
Officer or the property management
can release trespassing information.
2) According to 24 CFR 83.306(d),
Information
related to covered disabilities or handicaps during their housing
program’s screening or participant selection process. Though it limits
what information a provider can gather about a person’s
disabilities, the Act does allow a provider or property owner to ask
other questions for the following purposes:
Case
workers screening of client# 2 did not presume a future hostile
environment for both clients, due to client #2’s mental diagnoses (but
voluntarily conveyed
to client #1 by client #2).
Case
worker neglected to screen client for possible mental disabilities,
which might have an effect on the other client. Client #1 had to call
for emergency
assistance several times for client #2’s extreme anxiety attacks.
Client #2 made several calls to casework Johnny Garica requesting intervention based on
his assumptions of me during his anxiety attacks.
Clients #2 threaten me several
times, comparing me to his father. I suggested that he seek
Professional
assistance. I suggested he talk to Johnny Garica. Client #2 stated that
he was a Client of South West Behavioral Service.
Whereas I am not a client of South West Behavioral Service.
Thus caseworker wrongfully place client #2.
For determining generally whether they would represent a threat to the
health or safety of other tenants or residents.
(see YOUTUBE video ::
For determining if someone will be able to meet the terms of their tenancy or
participation;
For determining if they are currently using illegal substances, if they have
been convicted of the manufacture or distribution of a controlled substance;
and
3) HUD has three primary objectives that it seeks to achieve through the HOPWA program:
a.) Increased stability for participants in
housing that is safe, decent, and sanitary
(Case Worker neglect resulted in an unsafe environment, were duress obligations
were
I was expected to be attended to the mental factors of client #2. Both
Magret Finn and Johnny Garica, clarified that although they
wanted me to talk with client #2 about his 1.) Post HIV status concern
(violating client#2 confidentiality) that I should not consider this
request to be a job.) It is not my responsibility to attend to the needs
of a client. Under NASW guidelines.
b.) Reduced risk of homelessness
(case worker failed to meet these objectives, client #1
was
terminated and currently resides in homeless shelter.)
c.)Increased access to care and support
4) The HOPWA regulation that implements this requirement, 24
CFR 574.440, states:
The grantee shall agree, and shall ensure that each project sponsor agrees.
(Due
to the proper screening
of client #2, confidentially was compromised as client #2 falsely
disclosed HIV/AID status of client #1 (as AIDS) to police officers,
neighbors and client #1 guest.)
I
am still very disturbed by the events that occurred from November 2012
till June 2013, by which total neglect, disrespect and unethical
standards were
used by case managers in dealing with both I and Angel Thurman. I am
especially angry seeming that a suitable housing plan was made by Mr.
Garcia and I, which would have resulted in an successful separation of
me, from HOWPA. Instead
I had to revert back to homelessness at CASS (1214 W Madison St Phoenix,
AZ 85007. http://cass-az.org
)
and come to terms of failure which I feel is equally disbursed among
all participants. For the first 5 months of this arrangement, everything
was going smoothly. Then
with the neglect of case workers, regarding HOWPA statue 24 CFR 574.440, 24 CFR 83.306(d)
and 24 CFR 574.310(e) resulted in homelessness.
Thank You
Paul Goree
