H.U.D. Complaint about South West Behavioral Service and Response E-mails: CLAUDIA LOPEZ HUD -HUD

Paper Trail of Housing Complaint Neglected



Lopez, Claudia L <Claudia.Lopez@hud.gov>

Mon 9/9/2013, 2:47 PM

I am temporarily assigned to another office.  If you need assistance regarding your complaint or have a fair housing matter, please contact 1-800-347-3739, extension 6524 Monday - Friday 8:15am to 4:45pm and someone will assist you.  Thanks.

Paul Goree

Mon 9/9/2013, 2:47 PM

7/24/2013 (First)

09/09/13 (Second)

Paul D. Goree

232 South 12^th Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85007

(602) 330- 6758

To: Claudia.L.Lopez@hud.gov, SIU@MagellanHealth.com, complaint@jointcommission.org, andersro@azdhs.gov, lahd_webmaster@lacity.org, pihirc@firstpic.org, LGBTFairhousing@hud.gov

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. 19^th 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 ::

http://youtu.be/-O--G-fAnAA )

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