RESPONSES TO CONCERNS AND PERCEPTIONS

of The Open Door 
 

1. CONCERN:  

The Open Door is enabling dysfunction and helping to keep people dependent, rather than becoming self-sufficient. 
 

      IDEAS/RESPONSES: 

• • The Open Door is responding to the needs within the established system (Federal, State, and County). If the dynamics of the system (including state and federal mandates) were to be adjusted or change entirely, The Open Door would work within THAT system.
  • The goal of The Open Door is to reach out to those who are in need and, by helping to meet their present needs, give them a vision of a more functional life and help them connect with people and agencies who can help them accomplish their positive goals, and thus break the paradigm of dependence.
  • Although we MAY, to some extent, enable some people, others are becoming more functional and less dependent.  The entire picture is one of promoting healthy lifestyles and perspectives, and there are more people responding than those who refuse to respond.
  • We are chipping away at cumulative years and sometimes generations of dysfunctional behavior and experience in “using” the system, and success must be measured in increments rather than whole life changes.
  • The Open Door does not provide “something for nothing.”  We require that our regular clients participate regularly in basic chores (ie—sweeping floors, washing floors, washing dishes, wiping down tables).

1. CONCERN:  

There is a prevalent perception that The Open Door is a magnet for undesirables to congregate in Glens Falls and on South Street. 

      IDEAS/RESPONSES:

• • Before The Open Door existed, people were hanging out in front of The Madden, the bars, and OTB.
  • The current population at The Open Door is almost entirely indigent.
  • We do NOT have the goal of bringing in or supporting people from outside the area.
  • The county puts people up in hotels and motels, which draws people to the area (as opposed to a simple, no-frills shelter.
• • There are many guests of the soup kitchen who are NOT on public assistance, but rather are seasonally employed, partially employed, or fully employed at a low pay rater, or on fixed incomes.  These people are often more in need of a free meal than those receiving public assistance.
  • Lower SES individuals congregate within walking or bussing distance of their housing.  This includes the library, Civic Center, Crandall Park, etc….  The Open Door is only “open” 2x/day (on average) for meals, so therefore does not “encourage” people to congregate outside of its doors. 
  • Whether or not The Open Door continues to exist, poverty will still exist in the area.

1. CONCERN:  

“One Stop Shopping” will enable people to keep using the system rather than helping them to become self-sufficient. 
 

      IDEAS/RESPONSES:

•  
  • The services offered must actively work to avoid that pitfall.
  • Strong communication and collaborative efforts with social service agencies would defuse that possibility, reducing likelihood of overlapping benefits (and therefore peoples’ ability to abuse the system).
  • Transit buses do not schedule sufficient runs to help people meet with all services on a given day.

1. CONCERN:  

Housing people who have been at risk from predatory behavior near a soup kitchen is ill-advised. 
 

      IDEAS/RESPONSES:

• • This is an important concern.
  • We are currently looking at various options, including housing people on a separate property with separate access to food or food services.

1. CONCERN:  

The proposal has some merit, but The Open Door has a perception among many that it is a magnet for troubled people.  The “name” and some of the “reputation” are not strong enough to inspire support for such a project. 

   IDEAS/RESPONSES: 

•  
  • We are looking into the possibility of drawing up a Memorandum of Understanding with existing agencies for a collaborative effort, keeping the autonomy of The Open Door (or Servants of the Word), but delegating various aspects of the function (like the Social Services aspect, the recovery programs, etc.).
  • We are also considering the option of keeping the name “The Open Door” for the soup kitchen part of the ministry, and creating a new name for the expanded programs.

•  The Open Door is actually a dba of Servants of the Word, Inc. (the holder of the 501(c)3 ), and additional dba’s may be utilized if in keeping with the paradigm of the parent organization.

•  
  • The Open Door has given out much “gleaned” food (sharing most of our non-food grant food with other organizations and agencies).
  • The Open Door is not “just” a soup kitchen, but has started many other programs (including several food pantries, summer lunch feeding program for children, forums for healthcare, job fairs, general needs forum, gang training, etc….)
  • The Open Door is much more fiscally efficient than government-run programs, with a $140,000 annual budget (only 2008 grants received were $10,000 GF City grant for operations expenses and OSP from HPNAP of about $2,000 toward part of rental expenses).

•  We do this by utilizing volunteers for much of the “labor force” and employing 3 people who make personal sacrifices financially in order to work for The Open Door because of their belief in its goals and methodology. 
   
  

1. CONCERN:  

The needs of the “working poor” should be addressed, possibly even more than those who rely completely on Social Services.  They are actually contributing to the community and are the ones who are truly in need. 

   IDEAS/RESPONSES:

•  
  • There are such individuals currently served by The Open Door at the soup kitchen.
  • The Open Door already provides bagged lunches to Labor Ready, Tri-County Cabs, and Community Action on a daily basis.
  • We are working on developing programs that would specifically target the needs of these people.

1. CONCERN:  

The people who have a good work ethic and track record of working consistently but have lost their income due to downsizing are in great need.  What is The Open Door doing to help them? 

IDEAS/RESPONSES:

•  
  • We are in the process of contacting key individuals for their help in ways to identify and help these workers.
  • The Open Door cooperates with other food pantries to provide food on an emergency “as-needed” basis

1. CONCERN:  

The proposal does not inspire public support. 
 

IDEAS/RESPONSES:

•  
  • We are trying to publicize what we "truly" are about, and have been: 
•  
  • Featuring success stories
  • Demonstrating in hard data that The Open Door is more efficient than government programs
  • Presenting our goal of and success at re-training people with new skills and with new thinking
  • Plugging the idea of “Hometown USA.”  Glens Falls has a history of taking care of its own.  Even though the poor will always be around, we need to discover what can be done to help those people and help to break the cycle of dependency.
  • Stating realistic goals, specifying short-term and long-term aspects
  • Developing a track record, compiled from data from Labor Ready of how many of our “people” have worked days, etc., and from our own knowledge of our “alums”.
  • Parsing out aspects of our proposed program to agencies like the Salvation Army or 820 River Street, maximizing their areas of strength and not “re-inventing the wheel” in those areas.
  • Focusing on serving Warren County – perhaps our success would inspire a similar venture in Washington and Saratoga Counties.
  • We are planning on providing housing primarily for those who want the opportunity of participating in our long-term and shorter-term life skills programs.  We would in no way be in competition with DSS and regular county shelter and housing.

1. CONCERN:  

This program will house sex offenders, just like the soup kitchen currently feeds them. 

      IDEAS/RESPONSES 

•  
  • There are NO plans at all to offer housing to sex offenders.  The Open Door always works within the guidelines of the laws of NYS and Warren County, and including offenders in such a program would violate the laws of public safety.
  • Current practices of admission to the soup kitchen are simple:  respect to people and property, no weapons, no drugs, no alcohol, no PDA. 
  • Meals are open to all, regardless of gender, race, creed, sexual preference; however, if individuals have legal restrictions (like Orders of Protection, Sex Offender limitations, etc.), then they are personally responsible to abide by those restrictions.