Pets for Patriots – Mission: FAIL
I’ve been in a dog envy state for a while. I had been waiting until I felt my schedule and traveling had settled to a predictable level that I could responsibly adopt one, and finally that day arrived. Therefore, I’ve been on the hunt for the right hound.
I’ve run into a lot of oddly problematic policies which seem intent on creating barriers rather than facilitating homes. For example, I am currently the facilities and program manager for a space, and I own two residential properties in Detroit. Yet, in spite of having deeds to the properties and a clear online verification of my status at the facility, the Michigan Anti-Cruelty rescue wouldn’t let me adopt a dog because they were concerned I didn’t have “permission” and required some type of letter from someone verifying permission: since I am the Decider in all cases, I was confounded from whom this letter should come and what purpose it would serve. So, the cute Papillon mix didn’t come home with me; I will never go back to them; and I will give a negative opinion of their policies to anyone I know. Not a particularly good outcome for their mission, and as a result of inexplicable rationale on their part.
A few days ago, I found a doggie at the Michigan Humane Society and my friend piped in, Are there any discounts for vets? I never think of asking, but this is now his roll and he asks everywhere he goes. As it happens, there is a significant discount for adoptions through an external partner NPO, Pets for Patriots, which reduces the fee from $290 to $100 and has some other veterinarian benefits and such, too. It sounded great, so I deferred adopting until I had signed up.
I filled out the short online form and sent my DD-214 (discharge record). My signature was prominently displayed as Marlena Hanlon, and thus I referenced the fact that my last name had changed to Hanlon from my nee name. All seemed well and good. Bring on the puppy!
I received a response which had the first mistake of addressing me by my first name, which I do not use – which I very clearly do not use. The request was for documentation for the change of my last name. Okay, no problem. I responded with a soft correction about using Marlena, and I included an old license with my nee name and social security number (SSN) as the license number; my social security card with my current last name; and my US Passport with my current last name.
With all of that, is there any question of my identity? Because I think that’s the reason for their requirement: for whatever history, the organization is very concerned that the veteran him/herself apply and that s/he is a veteran. Okay, whatever: I am me and I do qualify, so it doesn’t matter.
But, no. The former marine handling this matter kept insisting on a “legal name change” document, which he defined as a court order, marriage license or divorce decree. And while still presuming to address me with my first name, which I had now corrected a couple of times – I mean, look, if you don’t want to use my middle name, for whatever reason, then address me by Ms. Hanlon…but you don’t get to throw around my first name like you’re my grandmother or the IRS. With regard to my last name, however, the change resulted from none of the processes assumed by Mr. Marine. In the state of California, where I lived when I changed my name, none of those were required for a legal change. It was, in fact, a simple process of announcing the change on your license. Same with your SSN; I guess the Social Security Administration figured it had your literal number, and didn’t really care what you call yourself. Passport, too – I think I had to fill out a form when I renewed my passport in order to change it, but given as how all of this happened 20 years ago, I don’t think it really matters how it went down. Now, keep in mind that the 90s were a gentler time, and the post-9/11 paranoia which we have to navigate in the system now wasn’t in play. I’m sure now there’s a DNA swab required and perhaps tribute.
What’s even crazier about this exchange is that Mr. Marine stated he’s just following the rules, per their web site. Hey, lady, he seems to say, my hands are tied, your food-possessive Yorkie in waiting be damned. But the “rules” actually state:
If married, divorced or for other reason you have changed your name: Proof of legal name change(s), e.g., marriage certificate, divorce decree, other legal document detailing name change
So, in fact, I had provided ample evidence of my “legal name change,” including documents which had been approved by every level of government. Let’s be clear: the original DD-214 shows my nee name, birth date and social. My old drivers license also showed those items. My social security card showed the name change under the same SSN, and the passport showed that all of this had been vetted and verified by the US State Department – the highest level of civilian identification available in this country. The University of Michigan provided an in-state tuition benefit on their basis. I have had multiple FBI background checks under my current name and, yes, even the USCG and IRS send correspondence to me as Hanlon. Heck, my VA ID card – a document which would seem wholly salient in this matter – shows Hanlon. Yet somehow, the line of documentation showing continuous identity with a clear name change is not adequate for adopting a stray dog. I failed Pets for Patriots’ “requirement” to submit documents which the law never required and therefore simply do not exist.
I wonder if Mr. Marine understands that “eg” means for example, and not precisely these and nothing else, because that’s clearly how he’s interpreting the rules, and not what they state.
And therein lies the problem. Many organizations suffer with staff who know something about the rules, but not the most critical fact: that is, what is their purpose in supporting the mission? If this rule is to ensure that the discount is not abused, God forbid, by random people impersonating a veteran in order to adopt a death-row doggy, but instead is used for-sure, definitely, no-doubt by the actual qualifying vet, then there is no question in this case that the purpose has been met.
But without knowing the purpose of the rule, many staff improperly apply them, because, fundamentally, they don’t understand why they are using them. In this case, it manifests as a demand for specific paperwork which, although it meets the criteria, is not the only documentation which meets that criteria. The staff at Pets for Patriots are not thinking about the purpose, or critically thinking about how purpose would be extrapolated. This rule is being applied in such a way that the mission has been effectively changed to ensuring absolute identity, rather than facilitating pets for vets. And, worse, ensuring identity in the most lazy and incompetent way possible: the Executive Director and founder, Beth Zimmerman, wrote to me to say that they “do not as a matter of course compare social security or other such personal information, but do require legal proof of name change.” So, not only is critical engagement set aside, the effort of comparing SSN and DOB stretches the capacity of staff to a breaking point. In retrospect, I should have just signed it with my nee name and left it at that; given the rote processing, not giving them anything to think about would have saved us all a lot of conflict. But wherever we look in this case, the organization is engaging examples as a fixed check-list, thus creating a barrier in a mission which was founded to create a bridge.
It’s a useful case study. Where in your organization do the rules undermine your strategic mission, and where should you change your culture as a result?