My Nonprofit Reviews

I emailed the review above that I posted yesterday, March 28, 2016 (Easter Monday) to all of the Next Door/Episcopal Community Service of San Francisco staff who were listed as of yesterday, March 28, 2016 (Easter Monday) on the organization's official website. I received a few bounce-back emails that indicate that neither Next Door, nor Episcopal Community Service of San Francisco have updated their respective directories since staff have left. I also received a pro forma 'vacation response' email from a staff member on medical leave directing people trying to get in touch with her--the staff member on medical leave-- to call people associated with the San Francisco Winter Shelter program, which program stopped about two weeks ago on March 15, 2016. That is not just further indicia that things are not kept up to date, but also an indicia of public funding and responsibility for any failings of the San Francisco Winter Shelter program.

Most significantly, although the email that I note above went out around ten a.m. Pacific Time yesterday, March 28, 2016 (Easter Monday), by 4:25 p.m. Pacific Time, I had heard nothing back in the way of a return email from any shelter or Episcopal Community Service of San Francisco staff. And as of this morning, Tuesday, March 29, 2016, I have still not received any responses.

Last night at the shelter, in fact, no staff said anything to me. However, the woman in bed 51 who has psychotic tendencies came back well after shelter curfew of 7:00 p.m. Pacific Time around 10:20 p.m. and came over to my cot and shoved me. In other words, I was battered at the Next Door shelter at 1001 Polk Street on the same day that my negative review appeared.

Is the shelter and is Episcopal Community Service encouraging this sort of behavior? Are they responsible, then, for my being battered and for nothing being done about what I reported by email to both Next Door shelter and to Episcopal Community Service of San Francisco? The police were at the door of the shelter when I came back around 4:40p.m. Pacific Time yesterday, March 28, 2016 (Easter Monday). However, they did not ask to speak to me and they certainly did not curtail the battery that occurred hours later. What is going on in San Francisco in shelters to allow all of this?
--------
This is an edited review of that posted circa 9:15 a.m. Pacific Time, Wednesday, April 13, 2016:

Does Episcopal Community Service/s of San Francisco have any real guidelines for who stays at its homeless shelters and how long they stay there?

Apparently not.

At Next Door homeless shelter at 1001 Polk St., which is run by Episcopal Community Service/s of San Francisco, clients are apparently allowed to miss four nights in either a ninety day period or per month, i.e. a thirty day period, and still have a bed. This is not at all explained to new clients during the mandatory one p.m. Thursday new client orientation sessions.

Moreover, most clients who miss coming back to the Next Door shelter for four nights in a row know that they are forsaking their bed. However, the rules and protocols are so lax at Next Door homeless shelter, that certain clients get away with being away for four nights in a row and still get their assigned beds.

Other clients at Next Door homeless shelter--even, as was recently the case, one who had missed only one night and who had missed curfew on another night--each of which owing to a hospitalization--will be booted from the shelter at 1001 Polk St. Right after a hospitalization? Yes.

The current 'inhabitant' of bed 51 on the fourth floor was not only allowed to threaten numerous times the inhabitant of bed 50 and to batter the occupant of bed 50, but also was allowed to come back after missing four consecutive nights and to retain her bed. She did this even though the Next Door shelter staff installed a one night occupant in her bed during one of these nights.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, guess what? The occupant of bed 38 on the same floor and right in the vicinity of bed 51 was kicked out right after she only had only the above two mentioned 'infractions'--missing one night and being late on another because of a hospitalization.

She was literally made to appeal the decision for her immediate removal from the Next Door homeless shelter with a hospital identification wrist band still on her wrist from re recent hospitalization; and was also made to do the instant appeal after five p.m. Pacific Time, i.e. after any arguably responsible staff were present who had made the decision to terminate her stay.

How is it that a batterer who continually harasses those on the fourth floor like the current occupant of bed 51 is allowed to stay even when she misses four consecutive nights and comes back after curfew routinely, but a recently hospitalized occupant gets booted out even though she demonstrably only had minor 'infractions' owing to her hospitalization?

You will have to ask Episcopal Community Service/s of San Francisco and the taxpayers who pay into the San Francisco shelter program, as well as the Episcopal Diocese of San Francisco and any of Episcopal Community Service's donors and board members. There appears to be no good reason, except for being sloppy and the continual toleration of things that are illegal.

Jeanne Tanner

More Feedback