|
AN 'A' FOR EFFORT I was a "street kid" ["Tough Love or Tough Luck, WW, March 18, 1998]. I know that if it hadn't been for the care and kindheartedness of the staff, volunteers and counselors at Outside In, Salvation Army Greenhouse and Janus Youth, I would not be where I am today. I have them to thank for my life. As a youth on the street, I had decided that enough was enough. OI provided me with job leads. Greenhouse provided me with clean, decent clothes that had been donated to them, they let me use their number as a message phone for prospective employers, and they put me on the priority list for use of the washer and dryer. Street Light provided me with a bed to sleep in at night and a place to shower in the morning so I would be clean while out job hunting. Once I secured a job, OI was once again there to get me into transitional housing. My case manager even taught me about the importance of learning to budget my money and being responsible for myself. Now, six years later, I know that without the love and support that these people showed me, I would still be out there. I couldn't have done it without them. Every now and again I go to downtown Portland. I still see some of the people I used to run with doing the same old things. Trying to make a quick buck here or looking for drugs there. Ironically, these are the same people that told me I was a "sellout" for going straight. These people are not out here hustling for a buck because of what Greenhouse, Janus and OI didn't do. They are out there because they want to be. Now you tell me...how can the social services available at the time be blamed for not helping people who were unwilling to help themselves? They can't be. The blame is unjustified. The people who work for these agencies try like hell to get through to all the kids. A lot of the time the words fall on deaf ears. Sometimes, like in my case, someone actually stops to listen. Making a difference in one person's life is a grand triumph most of us will never achieve. These agencies should be rewarded, if for nothing else, then for the effort they put forth. Chrystal Green, Vancouver, Wash.
THE CHOICE IS NOT TO CHOOSE We are responding to Willamette Week's article "Tough Love or Tough Luck" [March 18, 1998] regarding homeless youth and approaches to services. The article was correct in its assessment of the vast discrepancies between need and service capacity. It is a serious problem that Outside In sees 1,000 youth annually, can provide only 150 with case management, 25 with job readiness and job placement services, and has just 17 transitional housing units. Just as serious, Portland has only 30 year-round shelter beds for youth. One approach will not fit all homeless youth. For example, a "tough love" approach may be very responsive to the needs of a high-functioning but rebellious adolescent. However, a treatment-based approach will be more effective with a youth who has been traumatized by abuse. These youth need an approach that does not screen them out on the front end, but works to get them into programs, with higher expectations as they make progress. Not all kids have the same needs. For instance, return home is not a viable option for those kids who left home to avoid abuse. We operate a transitional housing program that does meet the needs of such kids. Our long-term statistics show that 80 percent of the kids who graduate from this program are still in permanent housing six months later. The choice, therefore, is not to choose between "tough love" and another approach. The challenge for all agencies is to employ a variety of treatment-oriented approaches that are effective with as many different youth as possible. Outside In is thus committed to a strategy of cooperation with other programs to best meet the individual needs of all of Portland's homeless youth. Kathy J. Oliver, Executive Director
Andy Raubeson, Development Director, Outside In
SHE'S NO BRODY TOADY I am outraged at the recklessness and unprofessional conduct of one of your writers. Christina Melander wrote a strongly negative review of a show she had not seen, and you published it today [Nightlife listings, WW, March 18, 1998]. I repeat--she slammed a show she had not seen. Let me make clear what she did see, and under what circumstances. Because for two issues your paper had run listings that were clearly written by someone--Ms. Melander--who had no idea what our theater is or does (she admitted as much herself to our PR director before this review, and to me after), she was invited to a performance to see for herself. We would have preferred to have our listings run in the theater section, where Steffen Silvis does know what we are about, but since for some reason our listings had stopped appearing there we thought it would be nice if the person who was writing them had some firsthand knowledge. She arrived well after the starting time, did not pick up the media kit we had prepared for her, and left after 10 or 15 minutes without speaking to anyone. Based on this experience she wrote the review/listing that appeared in today's issue. Here's what she didn't know, or bother to find out. The performance had been canceled. When she arrived we were in the midst of a very informal rehearsal/demonstration for three people, friends of one of the cast members. Now we are faced with a damaging notice, unfairly and inaccurately representing our production in a very bad light. Even had Ms. Melander been writing about a regular performance, I believe she would be on shaky ground ethically and professionally--10 or 15 minutes of a 100-minute show is not sufficient time to judge fairly and intelligently. Someone sitting in critical judgment of a performance should witness the performance, whether she likes it or not, not drop in late, sit for a few minutes, then sneak away to reject it publicly. To recommend publicly against our work after seeing a tiny sample is mean-spirited, premature and unprofessional. To do so based upon a tiny sample of rehearsal material is unconscionable. I think a prominently placed retraction is in order. Let me be as clear as I can. I can handle negative criticism, bad reviews. Mr. Silvis has written about two of our shows, and we have welcomed his remarks, positive and negative. He has in fact aimed his remarks directly at me in the past--both blame and praise. That's part of the business. This is different. We do appreciate being included in the listings in Willamette Week, and we appreciate the opportunity to be reviewed. As a small theater trying to build audience, listings are important to us. We would like to continue to be listed, and I would like to be able to continue advertising in your paper. Is it possible that our listings could henceforth appear in the Performance section, and that Mr. Silvis or anyone else but Ms. Melander handle them? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Tom Johnson, Artistic Director, The Brody Theater Christina Melander responds: I did arrive late for the March 6 performance at the Brody Theater, after the box office had closed. Therefore I didn't realize that poor attendance had prompted the cast to cancel the scheduled performance and use the time instead for a rehearsal before friends. I stayed not for 15 but for about 45 minutes of the rehearsal, which was ample time to gauge the Brody Theater's work for a brief calendar write-up. I returned to the Brody Theater for a full-length performance on March 21. Improvisational theater dictates that no two shows are the same. But, although the material in the performance was different from what I saw during the rehearsal, the caliber of acting was similar (see review in Nightlife). |
