Julian Center reopening counseling facility

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Julian Center is reopening the counseling facility it closed last year in the wake of a budget shortfall, ultimately concluding that it’s a valuable extension of services for victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

Now dubbed the Sara and Albert Reuben Empowerment and Counseling Center— “empowerment” was added during the downtime—the facility at 2011 N. Meridian St. will allow the state’s largest domestic violence shelter to offer clients more individualized attention, said CEO Catherine O’Connor.

“These services are available, but they’re scattered around,” said O’Connor, who was hired in February. “Hopefully it will all get us to the end game: stopping the cycle of violence.”

The Reuben Center will provide a single location for clients to access case managers, counselors, legal services—including a protective order clinic beginning next month—plus assorted self-sufficiency programs. They’ll be guided through the options by their own personal advocates.

O’Connor also is hoping the center serves as a collaboration hub, drawing other service providers. Sharing resources could result in efficiencies, she said, and might help make the business case for such mission-based programs.

Officials expect the Reuben Center to cost about $1.1 million per year to operate—about a quarter of the organization’s annual budget. Julian Center has applied for grants to cover almost 60 percent of the expense, but O’Connor said public support will be crucial.

“This is a recommitment to that work, a realization of how important it is,” she said. “But it’s very important for folks to know this doesn’t operate on goodwill. It will continue to be critical for the community to buy into our work.”

The demand is clear: Julian Center’s emergency shelter has been operating at or above capacity since last July. More than 6,150 women and children received services last year.

The counseling center had about 179 clients on the books before its October closure; only about 20 were also receiving emergency shelter or transitional housing assistance. Last month, Julian Center provided counseling services to 98 individuals in its housing programs.

An annual audit is still in the works, but preliminary results show Julian Center’s revenue fell short of expenses by about $100,000 in 2013. O’Connor acknowledged the counseling center closure likely did not help fundraising efforts.

“Our budget is very lean,” she said.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. You are correct that Obamacare requires health insurance policies to include richer benefits and protects patients who get sick. That's what I was getting at when I wrote above, "That’s because Obamacare required insurers to take all customers, regardless of their health status, and also established a floor on how skimpy the benefits paid for by health plans could be." I think it's vital to know exactly how much the essential health benefits are costing over previous policies. Unless we know the cost of the law, we can't do a cost-benefit analysis. Taxes were raised in order to offset a 31% rise in health insurance premiums, an increase that paid for richer benefits. Are those richer benefits worth that much or not? That's the question we need to answer. This study at least gets us started on doing so.

  2. *5 employees per floor. Either way its ridiculous.

  3. Jim, thanks for always ready my stuff and providing thoughtful comments. I am sure that someone more familiar with research design and methods could take issue with Kowalski's study. I thought it was of considerable value, however, because so far we have been crediting Obamacare for all the gains in coverage and all price increases, neither of which is entirely fair. This is at least a rigorous attempt to sort things out. Maybe a quixotic attempt, but it's one of the first ones I've seen try to do it in a sophisticated way.

  4. In addition to rewriting history, the paper (or at least your summary of it) ignores that Obamacare policies now must provide "essential health benefits". Maybe Mr Wall has always been insured in a group plan but even group plans had holes you could drive a truck through, like the Colts defensive line last night. Individual plans were even worse. So, when you come up with a study that factors that in, let me know, otherwise the numbers are garbage.

  5. You guys are absolutely right: Cummins should build a massive 80-story high rise, and give each employee 5 floors. Or, I suppose they could always rent out the top floors if they wanted, since downtown office space is bursting at the seams (http://www.ibj.com/article?articleId=49481).