RE: Case Management and Client Relationship
Dear Housing Specialist, Mental Health Professional and Politicians,
The following is taken from a compliant to HUD regarding, the neglect of case workers, FMM and GJJ of South West Behavioral Health Services, in Phoenix, Arizona–3450 N 3rd St, Phoenix, AZ 85012 (602)257-9339. Client #1 is me, Paul Dewitt Goree and Client #2 roommate (mis-placed roommate). The intent of this letter and blog documentation is to bring attention to Case Management and Client relationship. I believe that interaction between the two is vital to a successful candidate and am seeking to bring light on a situation I encounter regarding the result of bad case management. Please note that additional information regarding the incidences are also available on-line at:
4# video of assault from roommate: http://youtu.be/-O–G-fAnAA
I moved into HOPWA housing program July 2012. The following are the HUD codes violated by case managers FMM and GJJ:
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:
I was terminated from the housing program based on two false premises. First, I let another client who was terminated the day before me, wait in my apartment: while Mr. GJJ came to unlock the door of his apartment, so that he could retrieve his property. At no time did I know that this prior client was trespassing. Mr. GJJ was informed by the Phoenix Police department, that he could not inform me of my guest trespassing status without a property manager or the police department. Mr. GJJ preluded the officers, by handing me a termination letter, then proceeding to call the police: after the fact, violating my civil liberties.
The second request on Mr. GJJ’s termination report, stated that I failed to enroll in a drug treatment program. No prior written documentation from Mr. GJJ suggest that I needed to attend a drug treatment program and information from my former roommate and his addiction were assumed upon me. As it turns out my case manager and I decided to enroll in a program just to satisfy Mr. GJJ’s request, but my Ryan White Insurance did not cover the cost of drug test, which Mr. GJJ made mandatory. All of this information regarding drug usage is based on Mr. GJJ’s assumption and not once was a drug test requested of me.
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, safety: Mr. GJJ’s screening of client# 2 roomate did not presume a future hostile environment for both clients, due to client #2’s mental diagnoses (which was voluntarily conveyed to me, by Mr. Thurman and was also conveyed to me by Mr. Garcia (violating confidentiality). Mr. GJJ neglected to screen client for possible mental disabilities, which resulted in a stressful environment for me (see Youtube Video : http://youtu.be/-O–G-fAnAA ) I had to call for emergency assistance several times for client #2 roommate’s extreme anxiety attacks. The EMT and Phoenix Police department both times, stated that they would contact Mr. GJJ and request a separation intervention, stating that this living arrangement was hostile. Mr. GJJ failed to comply with the EMT and Police departments’ request, leaving me and client #2 roommate in a hostile arrangement.
24 CFR 574.440 states, the grantee shall agree, and shall ensure that each project sponsor agrees, to ensure the confidentiality of the name of any individual assisted under this part and any other information regarding individuals receiving assistance. Before client #2 roommate moved in, Mr. GJJ visited me and requested that I should assist client #2 roommate with his PTSD regarding his prior sexual assault, sexual identity and HIV status. This is confidential information upon which I think should not have been stated to me, and the assumption of assisting violates NASW and NAMI code of ethics.