Nonprofit-Government Partnership vs. the Whistleblower

Nonprofit-Government Partnership vs. the Whistleblower

HomeFirst hopes to end homelessness, but homelessness is a difficult problem to define.  People move in and out of homelessness; deciding exactly who is homeless is subject to debate; and causes of homelessness are many, including mental health issues, addictions, insufficient affordable housing, income inequality, and simple bad luck.  Evidence of success in dealing with the problem has been modest despite the significant resources applied.  The estimated number of homeless, using HUD’s strict definition, decreased by 16% from 2007 to 2015, but changes varied by region: the Santa Clara County count decreased by 9%, and San Francisco increased by 5%.

The federal government spends about $4.5 billion annually on the 565,000 who are homeless and others who are at risk of becoming homeless.  Billions more are spent at local levels on services like HomeFirst’s and on extra costs for things like emergency rooms and jails that are used disproportionately by the homeless.  Over the years, spending has shifted away from temporary shelters to service-rich programs, such as mental health and supportive housing programs, that address better the various causes of homelessness.  To that end, advocates preach the need for community-wide solutions involving the collaboration of nonprofit, public health, safety, and other organizations.

The County of Santa Clara, the City of San Jose and United Way formed Destination: Home (D:H) in 2010 to facilitate the coordination of homeless services.  Soon afterward, the former CEO of HomeFirst was named its Executive Director.  Its budget grew as D:H made grants to local nonprofits, including HomeFirst.  The organization also coordinated homeless counts, led the Continuum of Care, which recommended HUD grants for HomeFirst and other nonprofits, and co-led with HomeFirst the Housing 1000 program, which sought to house chronically homeless individuals. 

D: H received money from the County, the City of San Jose and various private foundations; it connected with some nonprofits through grant agreements and with many more as a result of its coordinating, facilitating and advocacy activities.  Less obviously, it connects to other organizations through the interlocking responsibilities of community leaders.  When its Executive Director worked for HomeFirst, our Chief Program Officer (later at the County) and our Development Director (later at one of D:H’s funding foundations and then at the City) had reported to her. 

D:H’s board of directors included representatives of the City, the County, two leading foundations, and two nonprofits, including a competitor of HomeFirst whose grant applications appeared before the D:H-led Continuum of Care.  The organization also had an honorary council that included more City, County and foundation representatives.  Finally, its parent company, The Health Trust, operated a for-profit financial services subsidiary that performed accounting work for local nonprofits, including HomeFirst after my termination.

HomeFirst was well plugged into the network that D:H enjoyed.  Its former employees held positions at the City, the County, a funding foundation, and D:H; and they were on the Continuum of Care.  It shared several funding sources with D:H, including one foundation whose CEO consulted with HomeFirst for several years and advised our CEO Jenny on firing me.  It both paid money to and received money from D:H and a second foundation.  HomeFirst’s advisory council included elected officials from the City (including Mayor Liccardo, whose senior policy advisor was formerly Development Director at HomeFirst) and the County.

Nearly all of our local competitors were connected with each other and with representatives of the City, the County, and foundations through business groups like Rotary, Chambers of Commerce, Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits, and American Leadership Forum (ALF).  Connections extended to social friendships, get-togethers, and birthday parties, as might be expected among individuals who share a passion for serving a very needy population.

Jenny remained in network after she left HomeFirst to work for ALF, whose then-CEO had previously been CEO of an affiliate of Catholic Charities (a HomeFirst competitor) and was on the board of D:H.  Jenny, our Chief Development Officer, and I had worked at Catholic Charities in the past.  In 2016 the Chair of HomeFirst’s Board would replace him as CEO of ALF.  One of ALF’s key values was the primacy of relationships, and Jenny’s new title was Vice President of Innovation Networks.

One ALF graduate, Jacky, when she was Interim Director of the City of San Jose Housing Department, discussed with HomeFirst my complaints to the City despite the City’s assurances of confidentiality.  Layton – HomeFirst’s attorney who had beaten back my attorney Jaffe – sent me a cease-and-desist letter.  Layton claimed that my actions bordered on harassment.  I was crossing the line into defamation and intentional interference with HomeFirst’s business.  She believed that I had violated the privacy of HomeFirst’s Board members and employees by reading their emails.  My frequent phone calls to the City of San Jose apparently intended to damage HomeFirst’s reputation and relationship with the City.  My almost obsessive need to damage HomeFirst nine months after I was fired was bizarre and disconcerting.  It must stop or legal action would be taken against me.

The letter was frightening and infuriating.  It was unfair because I had only followed through on my legal right to file the complaints.  But fighting a lawsuit would cost more money.  A friend advised me to give it up.  Instead, I complained to the California Bar a couple of days later.  The Bar replied that Layton had the right to threaten to sue if she thought HomeFirst deserved legal recourse.  Or, I suppose, even if she did not think so.

A few months later Jacky was made Director of the Housing Department.

Lesson for the whistleblower: the connection between the accused wrongdoer and those who receive the whistleblower’s complaint may be deep and long-lived; by comparison the whistleblower has little lasting significance to either wrongdoer or adjudicator.