To the editor:
It is an age-old reality that when tough times hit, the most vulnerable are hit the hardest. These days that axiom is ringing true at The Salem Mission, which provides housing and supportive services for hundreds of vulnerable men and women every week.
Among the recent state budget cuts was a 50-percent reduction of a $50,000 grant the mission had been awarded through the Department of Mental Health (DMH). These funds support two mental-health clinicians who work with homeless men and women suffering from some form of mental illness or difficulty. One outcome of the cut is that members of Salem's homeless community will once again be forced to forgo a level of support that we know from experience helps them to become stable and independent.
At a time when the economy is suffering and resources are already limited, any monetary reduction in the critically important supportive service dollars results in additional hardships for a segment of the community that is already overstressed and exhausted battling demons and obstacles many of us cannot fathom.
There are two methods of approaching budget difficulties: Increase revenue or cut spending. Clearly, given the state of the economy the governor had to take action in order to protect the taxpayers from experiencing a heavier burden. But why cut funding from those who need help the most?
The reality of homelessness and mental illness and the toll they take on the victim and the community, is immeasurable. A healthy society is one where every effort is made to protect its weakest and most vulnerable members. In the recent presidential election many issues were discussed and debated. Yet not once, in any debate, forum or press coverage of the election were these issues raised.
Although more attention has been paid to the tragedy of homelessness at the state level, from a policy perspective the bureaucratic disconnect that exits between discussion and implementation is all too real and systemic. This administration has been true to its word that funding would not be cut to the shelter system that provides support for homeless individuals and families in the commonwealth. In fact, all funding obligations that were outlined in the original budget earmarked for homeless services remain intact. The disconnect lies in the cuts to service providers.
The Department of Mental Health is one of those agencies that on first glance does not appear to have any relevance to the shelter network. The reality, however, is that DMH contracts with numerous homeless organizations across the state involved in daily advocacy for this fragile population.
Moving forward there needs to be a closer examination of the relationship between one program and another. A greater awareness of cause and effect will enable legislators to be true to their promises while carrying out the task of surgically removing waste from the budget in times of economic hardship.
In this great land of ours we can accomplish much if we are all diligent. We can settle our political disputes without gunfire; we can come together in times of crisis to work collaboratively; and I believe that we can combine our energy and our resources to find better ways of caring for those in need.
In fact, we must do this if we are ever to achieve our mutual goal of ending homelessness altogether.
Mark A. Cote
Executive Director
The Salem Mission Inc.
Salem







