The Request for Applications
In the month of December 2005, the Community Partnership for the Prevention of Homelessness issued a Request for Applications to the providers of homeless services in the District of Columbia for the purpose of assuming control of the Federal City Shelter. Noticeably, the Community Partnership omitted the Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV) from the list of providers to whom the RFA was issued. The omission could hardly have been unintentional, as CCNV is the largest entity residing in the Federal City Shelter building. What message was the Community Partnership trying to convey in such an act?
A closer look at the Request for Applications reveals that it is based heavily on the Mayor’s Homeless No More plan, which calls for a closure of the Federal City Shelter altogether. It, therefore, creates a sort of doublethink to suggest that providers should be engaged to come in to manage the Federal City Shelter if the building is to be vacated and sold, as the Homeless No More plan suggests. Apparently somewhere along the line, ideas were mutated as the RFA was born, but that was not the only idea that seems to be struggling to survive. When the providers learned the budget being offered for the operation of a case management structure within the Federal City Shelter, their reaction was anything but positive, as the amount was insufficient to operate realistically a case management system. Suddenly dawn began to break; the criticism that had been leveled against CCNV for not having case management started to seem not so justified because CCNV had been asked to manage without even the shoestring budget offered the providers responding to the RFA.
The comment that CCNV does not offer case management to its residents is not totally justified, as CCNV does offer a skeletal case management to the residents with the minimal resources that it has. However, as the saying goes, it’s impossible to get blood from a turnip. A real case management system requires a budget, and CCNV has not been given that budget for years already. The criticism that is leveled might be justified if the money were streaming in and not being used for the intended purpose, but that is not the case.
Insofar as having an outside agency working to provide the necessary case management within CCNV, that idea is not new and would be welcomed by CCNV, provided that the budget is there to support it. Again, the argument reverts back to the question of whether the budget will be available to sustain the effort. If the budget is available, then CCNV will have its case management system as required and the problem will be resolved.
What is more of a problem is the basic assumption made by the Community Partnership that the management of CCNV is incapable of managing its own affairs on any level, which was the reason for the RFA. Nobody can dispute that. The fact that all the providers, including all the other providers residing in the Federal City Shelter building, with the sole exception of CCNV, were issued the RFA was a clear statement to that effect. CCNV is tendering its own application for a good reason: no matter what size the “pot of gold” that sits at the end of the rainbow, CCNV cares enough about the future of CCNV to assume responsibility for its own. That clearly cannot be said about the other providers, who have already indicated their disdain because the money was not to their liking.
In the end, it boils down to caring. For the other providers, it’s an enterprise. For CCNV, it’s a home for the homeless. There seems to be little room for further discussion.
A closer look at the Request for Applications reveals that it is based heavily on the Mayor’s Homeless No More plan, which calls for a closure of the Federal City Shelter altogether. It, therefore, creates a sort of doublethink to suggest that providers should be engaged to come in to manage the Federal City Shelter if the building is to be vacated and sold, as the Homeless No More plan suggests. Apparently somewhere along the line, ideas were mutated as the RFA was born, but that was not the only idea that seems to be struggling to survive. When the providers learned the budget being offered for the operation of a case management structure within the Federal City Shelter, their reaction was anything but positive, as the amount was insufficient to operate realistically a case management system. Suddenly dawn began to break; the criticism that had been leveled against CCNV for not having case management started to seem not so justified because CCNV had been asked to manage without even the shoestring budget offered the providers responding to the RFA.
The comment that CCNV does not offer case management to its residents is not totally justified, as CCNV does offer a skeletal case management to the residents with the minimal resources that it has. However, as the saying goes, it’s impossible to get blood from a turnip. A real case management system requires a budget, and CCNV has not been given that budget for years already. The criticism that is leveled might be justified if the money were streaming in and not being used for the intended purpose, but that is not the case.
Insofar as having an outside agency working to provide the necessary case management within CCNV, that idea is not new and would be welcomed by CCNV, provided that the budget is there to support it. Again, the argument reverts back to the question of whether the budget will be available to sustain the effort. If the budget is available, then CCNV will have its case management system as required and the problem will be resolved.
What is more of a problem is the basic assumption made by the Community Partnership that the management of CCNV is incapable of managing its own affairs on any level, which was the reason for the RFA. Nobody can dispute that. The fact that all the providers, including all the other providers residing in the Federal City Shelter building, with the sole exception of CCNV, were issued the RFA was a clear statement to that effect. CCNV is tendering its own application for a good reason: no matter what size the “pot of gold” that sits at the end of the rainbow, CCNV cares enough about the future of CCNV to assume responsibility for its own. That clearly cannot be said about the other providers, who have already indicated their disdain because the money was not to their liking.
In the end, it boils down to caring. For the other providers, it’s an enterprise. For CCNV, it’s a home for the homeless. There seems to be little room for further discussion.
posted by MasterWriter at 2:57 p.m.
0 comments
