Comments for adasonline.org

Comment on Community Reentry Proposal by Valerie Gaberseck

Valerie Gaberseck — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:40:46 +0000

Robin ~ Very well put. I wish more people in this community had your heart!

Comment on Community Reentry Proposal by Valerie Gaberseck

Valerie Gaberseck — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:32:32 +0000

How can you say that trying to help people recover is a shocking disrespect for the citizens? I find it shockingly disturbing that the citizens of Cameron County would turn their backs on people in need. Centrally locating the facility enables access to other communities. ATA travels daily to St. Mary’s; being located in Cameron County would enable those from McKean and Potter to seek employment in Elk County as well.
A three to nine month program assisting only nine individuals at any given time will not amount to a substantial amount of clients; and the possibility of the client finding employment out of the area remains. In-turn, the clients may very well relocate after completing the program. The existing drug problem in Cameron County is not secret; when are we going to step up and help people rather than kick them in the face when they are down? Where is the compassion of the people in this so-called caring community? I suppose that compassion is only extended to our immediate circle of friends and family. I do not believe anyone in this community is exempt from having a loved one who has mental issues or drug addictions; the only difference with the potential clients of this program is that they got caught. Maybe one should be more concerned with their neighbors with hidden drug problems than those who are admitting their downfall and looking for help to escape.
With all due respect Officer Martz, I must say that your comment about Cameron County re-evaluating their relationship with Dickenson lacks common sense. Dickenson is the only mental health facility willing to locally serve our community. Something (possibly funding) has led to the closing of the local facility; but Dickenson continues their dedication to the citizens of this community. Dickenson offers programs such as the school-based LIFE/Incredible Years (IY) Program. According to their website, the LIFE/IY Program is a preventative school-based mental health program that provides goal-oriented services to at-risk students and their families. Incredible Years is an evidence-based program endorsed by the PA Commission on Crime and Delinquency. To see more services offered by Dickenson, visit their website at http://www.dmhc.org/prevention.htm. Before you object to Cameron County’s relationship with Dickenson, you should consider evaluating some of the other programs they offer to our community.
Every elected official will be held accountable, whether in support of or opposing the program. This means that the elected officials will also be accountable for the loss or lack of services provided to our opposing community. Elected officials normally go with the popular vote; which is obvious considering they are elected through popular vote. As for me, I am just a mere citizen of this community who happens to have a different view and outlook on helping people than the “popular vote”; and despite my fear of speaking against the vote of those in positions of authority, I believe I have the right to voice my opinion. If more people were to rise above their fear of the repercussions of going against the popular vote, I believe you may be surprised at the number of people who are actually in support such a program.

Comment on Community Reentry Proposal by Valerie Gaberseck

Valerie Gaberseck — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 05:47:21 +0000

Maybe the supporters of this program have had a change of opinion based on politics rather than their initial common sense opinions to support. After all, if one goes against the popular vote, one may not earn the popular vote in the next election. If commissioners are not in support, why did they pledge money? Probation may be pledged for providing services as an added expense, but most inmates released from jail/prison are ordered to probation/parole supervision that is possibly longer than the three to nine month stay in the residential program. Therefore, probations participation in this program would be nothing more than their obligation to supervise the probationer.
We don’t want it in our community ~ we, meaning a group of citizens who have voices that are heard, leaving out those in the community who fear speaking up for what they want for fear of ticking the wrong person off. We do not want to pay for it ~ seriously, are we not already paying $50 per day to house inmates in county jails and nearly double that for state prison inmates from our community? Will we not be paying for those who return to prison/jail repeatedly because there is no one willing to help them get on the right track in the community?
There will be only nine inmates in this program at any given time; chances are, those nine inmates will return to the community and possibly be your neighbor even without the program. Would you feel more comfortable with that person in a structured environment, trying to improve their life or as a neighbor renting the unit a few doors down, unable to afford to live and resorting to illegal activity in your neighborhood to fund their needs. Seriously, these offenders can easily rent a unit at the Prospect Motel on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis and sell drugs or whatever; they do not need the CRAFT program to do so. Then we can arrest them again, maybe send them to state prison this time and they can be educated by the well seasoned, hardened criminal, learn survival techniques from the best, and then, return to our community with this new education in criminality. Therefore increasing the possibility of recidivism rather than lessening.
You can Google recidivism and find all sorts of sites that will confirm the recidivism rates are no different for those who participate in such programs and those who do not; the problem with this information is the fact that community based post-release reintegration programs are fairly new, controlled evaluations have not been conducted, and successful application of said programs remain to be identified and articulated. Griffiths, Dandurand, & Murdoch (2007), states that “Social isolation is a core experience of many ex-prisoners who may end up homeless or with unstable, unsuitable housing. Offenders who are reconvicted often point to lack of suitable housing as a key factor in their unsuccessful transition to life in the community. Offenders who experienced difficulties with respect to accommodation appear to be more likely to be reconvicted than offenders who did not have accommodation problems.” Social isolation? I wonder why they would get that feeling.
Who are we to JUDGE the abilities of someone who has made a bad choice to change their lives and want better than they came from??? I would welcome these offenders to my neighborhood and thank God that they are willing to put effort towards improving their lifestyle to become better people. It is unfortunate that people can so easily forget that absolutely none of us have lived spot free lives and if the world gave us a second chance, who are we to forbid others to be given a second chance?
Addictions and mental disorders do not discriminate by race, sex, religion, or even social class. Remember, the majority of the offenders that this program will service will be from the surrounding area and each one could be the son or daughter of someone just like you and me. I just pray that those of you with young children remain in your ideal fantasy world believing that you are exempt from the circumstances of reality and never have to experience what these offenders and their families have experienced; but, if by chance you find yourself in the shoes of one of these, I pray that someone has the heart to realize your loved one is a human being that deserves the opportunity to try to improve him or herself.
Educate yourself because your complaints are narrow and the topic is broad. Look outside the box, ostracizing the offender has proven to be a completely unsuccessful approach for decreasing recidivism. Instead of opposing the program, work with those who are putting effort towards decreasing crime rates and making your community a safer place. Do not push them away, work with them to find a solution to your issues and make this program work!

Griffiths, Dandurand, & Murdoch, . (2007). The Social Reintegration of Offenders and Crime Prevention. Retrieved from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cp/res/soc-reint-eng.aspx#s4

Comment on Community Reentry Proposal by Bret Martz

Bret Martz — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:25:43 +0000

This proposed re-entry plan shows a shocking disrespect for the Citizens of Cameron Co. The concept of bringing mentally disturbed, drug addicted individuals into a small, economically distressed, isolated area is so poor that I seriously question the judgement of the “partners”. The basic concern is that a substantial number of clients will stay here after treatment and recidivate leaving the community with a worse drug and crime problem than we can imagine. Every Elected Official in support will be held accountable. C.C.’S relationship with Dickenson needs to be re-evaluated.

Comment on Community Reentry Proposal by Robin L. Kuleck

Robin L. Kuleck — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 01:23:34 +0000

Please take the time to read the entire contents of this message. My name is Robin Kuleck and I am one of the partners who own the Prospect Motel, My husband and I, along with my mother and her husband, John and Teresa Genaux have owned and operated the business for over 15 years. When we do sell the property, regardless of the new owners, we will basically be breaking even with that we paid initially for the property and the many improvements we’ve made over the years. Therefore I have no ulterior motive in supporting the proposed transitional housing unit.
Due to personal commitments I have not been able to attend the Shippen Township meeting, nor the planned meeting Tuesday July 13 at the Fire Hall so I’m taking this opportunity to share my thoughts and opinions. As of this writing I am one of just 25 people who have downloaded all of the grant documents and I have read them all. I have been a member of the LHOT Local Housing Opportunities Team for over four years and have been aware of the extreme needs of various types of housing in our rural communities. I have taught classes to inmates at FCI McKean for five years and for eight years I taught a 2-hour class monthly to clients at Maple Manor in Port Allegany. So I have a fair amount of experience working with the type of clients who will benefit from this project. These folks generally were either coming from prison or returning to prison once they completed their 21 to 28 day inpatient treatment for their drug and/or alcohol addictions. Upon serving their sentences and treatment some would now be homeless because landlords seem to like to get rents paid and mortgage companies foreclose if you don’t keep up with those payments. Surprisingly, some had very understanding employers who kept a job waiting for them, but most employers like employees to be well-rested, showered and shaved when they arrive at work…kinda hard to do when you are homeless or maybe lucky enough to be couch surfing.
During those eight years I encountered people from across the societal spectrum, people I used to work with, kids who went to school with my kids, well-respected people from their communities as well as folks who had multiple challenges. I quit asking for written program evaluations because a fair amount of them were functionally illiterate. Many were first time offenders who, with concentrated interventions on numerous fronts could reacclimatize into their communities.
The proposed facility provides a one-stop shop where offenders could receive multiple services and would be extremely closely monitored. If they were housed at the facility, they would be responsible for maintaining a schedule, their own apartments and the grounds. If they did not have their GED’s they would be enrolled in a program. Necessary job skills based on their talents and abilities will be taught. These folks are non-violent offenders – many committing crimes while under the influence. These guys are someone’s sons, brothers, uncle, fathers or grandfathers. But by the grace of God, they could be you or I, they made mistakes.
I’ve monitored comments on the adasonline.org website as well as the Cameron County Online website and there is a lot of misinformation about the type of “prisoners” it would house. These folks committed a crime, served their jail time and many would like to move on with their lives. In other words, they want to be successful, but need the skills and know how to do so. They are people you know, went to school with, worked with, shot pool or bowled with. Curiously, by my guestimation three or four state troopers live within a mile radius of the motel. If I were an offender, having that many officers living close to me would be one of many reasons to walk the straight and narrow.
I have lived in this county for 43 years and plan to for another 50 years. My son, who works for Children and Youth and his wife are expecting our first grandbaby that will be raised in this county. My mom and John have purchased a house on Woodland Avenue to retire to and where they will continue to care for my 93 year old granddad. We have been and plan to continue to be contributing members of the community.
While this is a small pilot project, it has the earmarks of being quite successful and possibly a model for the nation. None of us wants a drug or alcohol problem in our community and therefore a treatment facility is equally distasteful. Nonetheless, the problem exists and this proposed project appears to be a promising solution. Let’s not stop it in its tracks but let’s give it a go.
In closing I’d like to mention a statement that Elk County Children and Youth Services Director Pamela Cousins included in her letter of support of the project that succinctly captures my sentiments about the program. “While the benefits to society are obvious in terms of potential for long term cost savings, the benefits to a parent remaining outside of the criminal justice system following incarceration are priceless in the life of a child.” Maybe we can’t break the cycle, but at least we can try to put a good dent in it.
Sincerely,
Robin L. Kuleck

Comment on Community Reentry Proposal by Sue Fuenffinger

Sue Fuenffinger — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 02:54:27 +0000

Amen Kara! Take it outside of Cameron County. Maybe put it in your backyard, where your children and grandchildren play. I sure don’t want it in mine!

Comment on ABOUT by Maria Cramer

Maria Cramer — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 20:24:33 +0000

I love the new website. I worked at ADAS, Inc. from 1989 to 2001 as a Drug and Alcohol Treatment Specialist and can tell that the agency has made a tremendous amount of progress in it’s mission to serve the community since 2001. Keep up the good work!

Maria Cramer, L.C.S.W.
Pueblo West, CO

Comment on Community Reentry Proposal by admin

admin — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 17:21:52 +0000

Just a few notes on Kara’s posting:
The “in kind” contributions mentioned have a monetary value assigned to them but do not represent any new costs. Rather, they are an acknowledgment of the existing resources that will be used to support the project- most of which are already being utilized for the same population, but in a different way perhaps.

The Health Choices money represents a portion of those dollars that were saved through managed care practices. Under managed care, the managed care company is awarded a fixed set of money (based on actuarial studies that take into account past service use, treatment trends, client demographics etc…)and must provide the full range of services within that capped amount. If they manage, through increased efficiency and sound management controls, to spend less than that capped amount they can keep a portion of it as profit, and a portion is set aside to enhance mental health and substance services in the communities in which they operate. These reinvestment dollars are only available for a year (because you can’t predict availability in coming years) and are to be spent on service enhancements which will either address unmet needs or can be reasonably expected to decrease costs.

The concerns raised about the impact on the community are certainly valid – they would hold true for most communities. Regardless of where services are placed, it will be a challenge for the community, law enforcement, and the human service agencies to establish appropriate safeguards and mechanisms for minimizing any potential threats. It will definitely take more than wishful thinking – it will require the collaboration and input of all stakeholders.

Thank you for your comments.

Comment on Community Reentry Proposal by Kara Martz

Kara Martz — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 00:03:06 +0000

It was sad that Cindy Zembryki was unable to answer the questions of the concerned citizens of Cameron County. Her inability to give a direct answer to some fairly simple questions has many people asking why. When will the “partners” she so often refered to be holding a public meeting to answer the questions she could not? For example who exactly is in charge?
Cindy also stated in the meeting as well as in the news paper that it would be no cost to our community but $31,720 was pledged “in-kind” by our CC Commissioners, not to mention 50% of our probation departments time and salary? Even grant $ comes from the tax payer, and frankly we don’t want it in our county nor do we want to pay for it. When asked who is paying for the building she said it was “left over money” from Health Choices. Um……… is there such a thing as left over money? Last I knew the entire country was in debt.
Bringing offenders to a fairly isolated county, which has easy access to drugs, with the highest unemployment rate in the state, where they would have to commute to find a job and have services brought into them is not practical for any one! Espically when, as pointed out by a few folks who work with probation and Dickinson Mental Health, made it very clear that they are doing a very poor job meeting the needs of the community already. You are setting them up to fail!
Placing this facility in a residencial area is a recless and irresponsible decision made by people who do not live in the same neighborhood as the facility. Regardless of how offenders return to their community the statictics are the same, about 50% will be repeat offenders. Cindy’s ideal utopia of organizations working together to help the offenders not repeat crimes is just that an idea with no proof to back it up. Her intentions are admirable but the folks who live here want more than wishfull thinking. Common sense to the average joe says that this is a bad idea and average joe is going to band together and fight to keep this program out of our community. Please take it some place outside of Cameron County.

By the way- the comment I left is just a tiny portion of concerns I as well as many others have.