<< Open Forum
4 • BAY AREA REPORTER • January 12-18, 2012
Volume 42, Number 02 January 12-18, 2011 www.ebar.com PUBLISHER Thomas E. Horn Bob Ross (Founder, 1971 – 2003) NEWS EDITOR Cynthia Laird ARTS EDITOR Roberto Friedman ASSISTANT EDITORS Matthew S. Bajko Seth Hemmelgarn Jim Provenzano CONTRIBUTING WRITERS Dan Aiello • Tavo Amador • Erin Blackwell Roger Brigham • Scott Brogan Victoria A. Brownworth • Philip Campbell Heather Cassell • Chuck Colbert Richard Dodds • David Duran Raymond Flournoy • David Guarino Liz Highleyman • Brandon Judell John F. Karr • Lisa Keen • Matthew Kennedy David Lamble • Tony K. LeTigre Michael McDonagh • Paul Parish Lois Pearlman • Tim Pfaff • Jim Piechota Bob Roehr • Donna Sachet • Adam Sandel Jason Serinus • Gregg Shapiro Gwendolyn Smith • Ed Walsh • Sura Wood
ART DIRECTION Kurt Thomas PRODUCTION MANAGER T. Scott King PHOTOGRAPHERS Jane Philomen Cleland Marc Geller Rick Gerharter Lydia Gonzales Rudy K. Lawidjaja Steven Underhill Bill Wilson ILLUSTRATORS & CARTOONISTS Paul Berge Christine Smith
GENERAL MANAGER Michael M. Yamashita DISPLAY ADVERTISING Colleen Small Scott Wazlowski CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING David McBrayer NATIONAL ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVE Rivendell Media – 212.242.6863
LEGAL COUNSEL Paul H. Melbostad
Best Bay Area Community Newspaper 2006 San Francisco Bay Area Publicity Club
BAY AREA REPORTER 395 Ninth Street, San Francisco, CA 94103 415.861.5019 www.ebar.com
News Editor • news@ebar.com Arts Editor • arts@ebar.com Out & About listings • events@ebar.com Advertising • advertising@ebar.com Letters • letters@ebar.com A division of Benro Enterprises, Inc. © 2011 Published weekly. Bay Area Reporter reserves the right to edit or reject any advertisement which the publisher believes is in poor taste or which advertises illegal items which might result in legal action against Bay Area Reporter. Ads will not be rejected solely on the basis of politics, philosophy, religion, race, age, or sexual orientation. Advertising rates available upon request. Our list of subscribers and advertisers is confidential and is not sold. The sexual orientation of advertisers, photographers, and writers published herein is neither inferred nor implied. We are not responsible for unsolicited manuscripts or artwork.
▼
Nonprofit madness I
t was just a year ago that the board of LyonMartin Health Services suddenly announced that it would close the clinic – without a plan in place to transition its roughly 2,500 clients to other agencies and without notifying public health officials. Thankfully, the community came to the financial rescue, helping raise hundreds of thousands of dollars, and LyonMartin remains open today as its board and staff works to regroup and stabilize. Now, Tenderloin Health will be closing, at least according to the agency last week when it issued a press release, “Tenderloin Health Closing Doors Due to Budget Cuts.” We’ve been reporting on the financial troubles of the agency for the last several months so it wasn’t surprising. Just like Lyon-Martin’s initial reaction, Tenderloin Health has made little effort to communicate with the public and, more importantly, its 3,000 clients. When a reporter stopped by the agency’s offices last Thursday, the day the statement was issued, clients did not seem to know what was going on. A week later, the news release is still not posted either on the agency’s new or old websites. That’s inexcusable. It’s also unprofessional that Executive Director David Fernandez, who has hung up on a Bay Area Reporter assistant editor twice in recent weeks, continues to dodge answering basic, pertinent questions. Like, what is the plan to transition clients, many of whom have serious health issues, when there is really no other agency quite like Tenderloin Health? Fernandez told us this week that he still hopes to save the agency. Then why did he put out a news release saying it would be closing? The absence of clear answers and communication is confusing people, and the agency and its staff should not be doing that. The Department of Public Health, which oversees the bulk of Tenderloin Health’s contracts, hasn’t been forthcoming either. Director Barbara Garcia must have known for months that the agency was in financial crisis. After all, her main job for years was DPH deputy director overseeing the more than 150 local nonprofits and community groups providing health care services funded by the city before assuming the DPH directorship in late 2010. Yet Garcia has been unavailable to answer our questions other than to say that we would get
the news release first. Thanks, but what about answers due clients, staff, donors, and taxpayers? This situation has become more stressful for everyone involved than it needs to be. Health officials and agency staff should have been upfront with the public all along. The agency receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in public funding, yet it cannot keep its doors open because it lost $500,000 in federal funding. It has about a dozen different contracts with the city, the sheer number of which makes it a complicated project to transfer them to other organizations. It’s clear that the agency was unable to fundraise enough private donations to cover that $500,000 loss, and yet that’s what an executive director and board are supposed to do: bring in the money. Government funding should not be the sole source of support for any agency. Republicans in Congress would like nothing better than to cut most federal funding for social programs – they’ve already cut Ryan White money – and that may become a reality after this year’s elections so agencies must offset the loss with private donations.
Tenderloin Health was created as the result of a 2006 merger between the Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center and Continuum HIV Day Services. It provides syringe exchange, transgender services, social services, substance abuse and mental health treatment, HIV/ AIDS nursing case management, medical and oral health services, housing, and workforce development. All of these vital services must be continued. And the population it serves is among the most vulnerable in the city. Due to shrinking donations and grants, we’ve written before in favor of LGBT nonprofits exploring mergers in order to save on overhead and other expenses. But not all mergers are successful. New Leaf: Services for Our Community shut down in 2010. It was created by joining Operation Concern and 18th Street Services. Now, less than two years later, Tenderloin Health is poised to shutter its doors a little over five years after its merger. Nonprofits need to put their clients first, as Lyon-Martin did last year once the board retreated from its decision to close the clinic and started releasing financial information, resulting in public support. Tenderloin Health, at least from our experience with Fernandez, is not doing that.▼
It’s about time (to focus on LGBT seniors) by David Campos, Scott Wiener, and Christina Olague
A
ging. Let’s face it, as a community aging is not our favorite topic of conversation. But it’s time we had a discussion. There are about 25,000 LGBT people 60 years of age or older currently living in San Francisco. That number is projected to double to 50,000 by 2030 as the massive baby boomer generation ages. Nationally, there are approximately 1.5 million LGBT seniors (over age 65) in the U.S. now and the number is expected to reach 3 million by 2030. That’s a lot of people, so what else do experts know about LGBT seniors? Unfortunately, not much. Only a few studies have looked at LGBT senior issues like housing, architectural barriers, in-home care, social services, health and mental health, disparities in government benefits and legal rights, aging with HIV/AIDS, financial and elder abuse, and discrimination and harassment, among other issues. The few studies that are available raise serious questions that we should all be concerned about. A 2010 study by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force cited three significant and unique factors negatively affecting LGBT seniors: 1) effects of social stigma and prejudice – past and present; 2) lack of support from families defined by marriage or biology in care systems that don’t allow for flexible definitions; and 3) inequitable laws and programs. NGLTF also noted that LGBT seniors are more susceptible to poverty as a direct result of living with decades of
discrimination. LGBT seniors are also less likely to have a spouse or children to rely on as part of their support networks, and are more likely to live alone, relying on fewer financial resources than straight seniors. Another study of LGB aging adults (50-70) at UCLA in 2011 found numerous disparities including significantly higher rates of hypertension, diabetes, depression and other mental health problems. Perhaps most alarming, the studies noted that almost 90 percent of LGB seniors surveyed said they feared suffering discrimination or harassment in their senior facilities due to being out about their sexual orientation. This fear leads many LGBT seniors to conceal their orientation or gender identity in senior facilities, even if they had been out prior to moving in. You may not have given much thought to how you will spend your senior years, but your plans probably don’t include being forced back in the closet. It goes without saying that members of the LGBT community have just as much of a right to age with dignity as everyone else. So, how prepared are we – both as a city and as an LGBT community – to actively support a high quality of life for our seniors? San Francisco has a few programs that specifically address senior LGBT issues. Through the Department of Aging and Adult Services, the city provides LGBT-specific activities at the Castro Senior Center and other centers. DAAS also provides sensitivity training to private agencies that serve LGBT seniors to help create accepting and supportive environments at the places where LGBT seniors live or go seeking services since
most of the senior clients at those facilities are heterosexual. But, what else do LGBT seniors need to achieve and retain a high quality of life? There is a surprising lack of research or data to answer questions about LGBT seniors, either on the local level or nationally. That’s one of the reasons we are co-sponsoring a hearing at the Board of Supervisors about the issues affecting LGBT seniors. The hearing will occur on January 26 at 10 a.m. before the Government Audit and Oversight Committee. We hope the hearing will be the start of a conversation about LGBT seniors and what it is like growing older in San Francisco. We also want to empower LGBT seniors by creating opportunities for direct public input, so we would like to hear from you about your experiences and what more the city and community can do to help you maintain a high quality of life in San Francisco for as long as possible. San Francisco has developed models of care in the past that have been replicated in other parts of the country, such as the systems developed in response to the HIV/AIDS pandemic. San Francisco should put itself in a position to play a similar lead in developing model services and programs for LGBT seniors and aging adults. Let’s start the conversation. It’s about time.▼ David Campos, Scott Wiener, and Christina Olague represent, respectively, District 9 (Mission, Bernal Heights, Portola), District 8 (Castro/Upper Market, Noe Valley, Glen Park, Diamond Heights), and District 5 (Haight, Western Addition, Japantown, Inner Sunset) on the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. Each district contains a large LGBT population.