The Old & The New

By November 11, 2015Uncategorized

There are so many moving parts to a building project, especially one of this complexity as we blend the old with the new, and continue to add cutting edge technology to enhance our residents’ comforts. This week I found myself looking with pride at a staff who have fully embraced this project as their own. As a testament to their drive and commitment, it was announced that the National Institute of Health (NIH) awarded a $1.5 million grant for working with people with Alzheimer’s, and Noah Homes is a named partner in that grant which was awarded to the San Diego Alzheimer’s Association. We are thrilled and excited to be partnered with such a fine group, and look forward to sharing our growing knowledge with others!

4 Comments

  • Kristina Brisco says:

    November 21, 2015 – After reading your article titled, “The Old and New”, I find I have a question. When did Noah Homes, Inc. attempt transition from its primary commitment to foci upon Developmental Disabilities? Call me naive, but a bit of protective surges when reading about “research” transpiring at an about Noah Homes from an emphasis of care implement that was not Noah’s first Mission. The argument that there are new care needs transpiring at result of aging population of residents of Noah was already thought at Noah’s impetus – transition at age would be assisted as always from family and supporters of Noah – and not expected needing including current residents participation in research. Two gentle reminders: 1. Fiscal Plans from Public rely upon corporations like Noah buying into foci that are not of corporations original Mission. 2. Please continue to resist “new” research without careful consideration to the sorts of solutions provided firstly from supporters, staff, and the folks themselves. Thank you for your effort to Noah’s Mission.

    • Hi Kristina, thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts with us. The folks are and always have been #1. As our community deals with Alzheimer’s for the first time we are doing everything we can to make sure they receive the best care. As part of that effort, any research on aging that results in better outcomes for our residents will be evaluated and embraced by staff, family and of course the folks. As an example, we had the opportunity to try yoga classes for some of the folks showing signs of dementia, with some of the top doctors in the country monitoring their progress to see if yoga was helpful, and if it could be helpful for others. I’m always happy to see people looking out for the folks and would love to share more details with you. You can reach me at 619-660-6200.
      – Sandra, COO and Program Director

      • Kristina Brisco says:

        August 9, 2016 – Hi Jared. Please share this with the folks at Noah. -Kristina

        Where gentle spirits exist

        Hi Folks! Thought I’d pop in and send a happy wishes your way. And, share this thought with you:

        Last week I met a lovely woman who has a son with Down Syndrome. Currently she is separated from her son by work and is missing him very much. At our meet she shared that she has been trying to find a program and community that would meet her expectation of loving care for her son but she is one of many who consider most opportunities for persons with disabilities as institutional only. That is, she has not yet had the privilege of being introduced to a 21st century understanding of the many loving environments that are available to families with children with disabilities and is resistant, as is ordered, to placing her son in a full-time home environment having at this time started adjusting to her son’s occasional outing to a day-program. Too, she shared that she could not ever “place her son in a home” because her heart tells her that others could not ever understand her son’s gentle spirit.

        The reason I share that anecdote with you is because our encounter reminded that services provided to any person with disability would indeed be as-if institutional without the dedicated and loving commitment made by the care providers and supporters of programs and homes. It is because Noah’s staff and supporters understand the very real challenges that families with children with developmental disabilities experience, that many can become empowered.

        Thank you again for acknowledging the gifts provided you by share of your talents with others. Through your efforts the expectation of loving, kind, generous care becomes evident.

        Today, and throughout this week, know that you are appreciated and that your care of others matters. You may not always see the effect of your work, but it is noble and good.

        Warmest,
        Kristina Brisco

  • Kristina Brisco says:

    Hello Jared. Embrace this:

    May 19, 2016

    Dear Jared,

    Thank you for your reply at Noah Homes, Inc. blog. I see that I have been neglectful at staying on top of my replies as you were kind enough to reply several months ago and I am only just today getting back to you. Please forgive the delay but life has a way of getting a hold of one, doesn’t it. I hope this letter to blog assists your understand of my purpose in writing you.

    After reading your reply to my first reply upon the topic provided from Noah Homes, I thought I would take some time to wrestle again that topic which is of then and recent concern to me. Specifically, and from an non-active involve at Noah Homes these past month’s view, is the concern that many, including myself, are at risk of misunderstanding Noah Homes’ primary mission by the sorts of social and traditional-media discourses that transpire whenever Noah Homes’ Mission is posited as/to public rely only, including misinterpret of discourse transpiring at this blog, beginning with this: Without reiterate of Noah Homes’ mission at most any public share/discourse/inform of Noah Homes’ happenings, that omit can be forwarded as non-existent at current.

    Too, as at any information provide done about Noah Homes from Noah Homes, included at information provides should be reminder that Noah Homes was established with a clear, long-term, forward thinking vision and development plan. At each new development phase within that plan, Noah Home’s growth relies upon the continued effort of each of its members, including the folks. When new and old meets new development, as transpires when staff and professional continue professional development, beside increased aware of the talents and gifts each bring to that mission, and while Noah Homes continues to flourish, there is opportunity for include of that first reiterate: Noah is founded on Catholic values.

    Further challenge for Noah Homes is information provide to supporters such that it is understood that Noah Homes’ primary mission existed before and exists still beside the practical day-to-days transpiring at Noah Homes. That is, while many are busy sustaining Noah Homes’ mission others must continue thinking and doing upon Noah Homes’ vision.

    Noah Homes’ vision is needed sustained from many’s effort and it is at vision sustain where most misunderstands transpire including risk to primacy of mission. One reason risk to mission is found at vision sustain activity is because it is at the activities of any vision sustain where monies are planned. That is, all businesses, including non-profits, function from within a different rubric than mission sustain in order to meet the fiscal long and short term goals of their respective missions. Where ever there are differences, misunderstand can emerge. But here’s where it gets a bit more complicated. Long and short term fiscal goals are hugely reliant, but Mission is not. Vision sustain is reliant upon market, upon investors, upon public perceive, upon the quality of services available to each member of the Noah Homes’ community, and upon each individual whom is involved at sustaining Noah Homes’ mission and vision. Each of these reliances are not static. That is, markets change, investors sell, public perceive shifts, service providers become educated, or not, and individual supporters are left to determine their own roles at mission and/or vision. A remind of the differences between mission and vision matters in this discussion, because each new development at Noah Homes brings new supports in the form of human, old and new. From those new supports it can become apparent that Noah Homes’ mission is not being adhered. There are many possible sources of non-adhere, ironically often described from visions’ supports, but too from any of those who are misinformed that Noah Homes is reliant upon public firstly, as is common from medical and education and others whom are attempting support provide from their own disciplinary and from their own understand of what is meant by responsibility. Said another way? Supports to Noah Homes’ mission and vision cannot be forwarded at information provides as-if from compliance. Samely as individual accountability then, even if of the best motivations, but if not from rely upon mission firstly, Noah Homes’ places itself at risk of compromising long-term responsibility from non-developed vision. Said another way? Noah Homes cannot sustain when changes, shifts, sells, and even education, where new supports to Noah are relied, is done without mission; and is further compromised when information provide from vision is forward incomplete.

    That being reminded, there is sometimes a need to acknowledge again those who attempt to explain the difference and sameness between mission and vision, simply. If really comprehended? Who could not blurt, I love you or I forgive?

    Thusly, we arrive again to individual.

    From my own personal understand, just as Noah continues to flourish from its mission and vision, each individual is expected developed too. That is, from and through support of Noah, individuals can grow and develop similarly. At risk of anthromorphizing an authentic anthropologic? One can compare Noah’s journey beside one’s own development such that awareness of one’s own rights and responsibilities result to “of purpose”. For some, “of purpose” is found at direct-care. For others, “of purpose” is found at encourage of mission. Still others discover “of purpose” at vision sustain. Each encounter, at each of those purposeful, provides opportunity for personal development. Where I find myself? is at micro-view of one Macro that cannot ever be forwarded as if belonging to public. But I am at a loss to explain that excepting by this seemingly non-purposeful effort of letter write; and, perhaps by share of my first write-attempt upon this same topic : resist to any misunderstand of Noah Homes’ Mission by the sorts of social and traditional-media discourses that transpire whenever Noah’s mission is posited as/to/if “of public rely only” :

    As for further personal bias? I have recently completed a rather intensive study program that has positioned me at personal risk of loss of my own foundation. That loss was got when I learned all that was stated at the start of this letter, and more. But too from discover that others from that same foundation can experience similar whenever they remain open. Openness is a virtue at Education. At resist to that phenom of foundation-loss at openness, which many have described in much better ways than I but which can still be summed best by knowing what one does not know, I have chosen non-participation at several overcoming opportunities until my own foundation is restored. Non-participation can assist discern processes, but is intended finite. Too, it does not take too long to discern that new learning has transformed such that once foundation is reveled again new responsibility is expected. Authentic responsibility is the effect of Love. Love is described by relationship. Whenever one engages intensive study, relationship and relationships are balanced differently than when not at study. Thusly, that “at a loss” descriptor shared at previous sentences might be qualified by at least one disposition I have rediscovered about myself: -ing at participation. To date, confidence in the value of my own purpose has most often been got from guide of other’s development, however at result of intensive? I still think those might be the better at guide most times.

    So why do you suppose I am still prompted? Still convinced? Still believing? Despite my current thinking that it is those very sorts of descriptors that too frequently categorize one’s disposition away from Authentic and the actions of love? I do not know. But what I think I do know? Is that whenever and wherever I encounter un or non? I respond. Such are the biases carried by me when I first attempted a write-draft of my reply to yours at Noah’s blog – and throughout this letter write.

    And so relying again upon that notion of “openness”, I can share this letter and my first-write-draft response beside this letter-write activity with conscience and thought and as intended, from a clarified foundation, beside acknowledge of personal bias, and the conviction that effort at authentic sustain is, itself, of value. As market and creative director at Noah Homes, Inc. 2016? You will have to assess value too. To assist your effort?

    My first response to your reply was prompted from my perceive that justifiable anger is merited when one encounters non-object (second syllable emphasis) of other’s share of simple from simplistic view. Specifically, and admittedly sounding a bit harsh in retro-read, my initial react to your comment upon “research” function of human, implied as-if of Noah’s mission at your own blog reply to mine, was the catalyst of my ire and subsequent first-write response as follows:

    At Mission, “The Old and The New” cannot ever change: a reflect activity upon the contrarian non, not, and un
    by Kristina Brisco

    pre-note: The included reply attributed to myself and included now at this blog was firstly and only intended made at social-media; and there, within a contextual discussion upon Title IV affective to Noah’s primary mission and within a specific area of that social-media.

    At discovering that same comment at Noah’s blog reply portion of their website, beside another’s reply with which I do not agree, but which both were likely not provided instruct of blog or explain opportunity as is at least normative at social-media, I am prompted to reply again as follows:

    Social-media is a somewhat less-than format for positing one’s opinion, including those from common good because any comment-make can too easily be plopped as-if not thought or thought, underdeveloped or developed, and because participation is from diverse such that most any participation is done from diverging assumption. However, the accessible and timely characteristics of some social-media formats are of benefit at think processes where immediate thinking activity can be shared to others. Further, social-media is way to communicate one’s immediate thoughts to people with whom relationship is already established and/or is more current and/or if needing just to bounce around developing. Thus the motivation for a first share of my less-than opinion at social-media was got from that one understanding of one purpose of one social-media: timeliness. On the other hand, blogging is both a same and a different discussion format than social or other media for those same reasons and more – even if lacking in timeliness, as demonstrated by your own delay in reply to my comment and mine to yours.

    At blogging, a different format appropriateness determine needs doing. That is, different than some other social-media formats, one is expected to think differently before participation because each blog topic is threaded such that subsequent contributory is expected relevant to that first enframement made at each initial Blog publish. Those expectations “of thought” and at “publish” is the primary difference between social-media and blog, but is not always clearly defined or even provided. Online users learn after-the-fact-of-share that they have shared. This is not acceptable but is why many do not think themselves responsible while at blogging. While those who are responsible, by nature and habit, do not participate for whatever reasons, when perhaps they should, also for whatever reasons. What that means for contributors and opinion sharers at Blog-comments and/or reply portions of Blogs is that a decision of contribute at blog format needs to be done while engaged in write activity. From as minimum a motivation as saving face to own of responsibility that comes from publish capability there are least two disposition that one’s blog contribute decision can be made. Once made, however, content “of thought” and at “publishable” should be thought differently than those provided at discussion within social-media or other media formats. Frankly? And for example? The prompt content provided for further discussion and first posited to this blog is a bit of a stretch for any blog environments. An “The Old and the New” update would’ve been better posited at social-media and/or at an announcements portion at Noah’s website rather than at Noah Homes’ blog because that topic is of an announcement sort of informational not an invite/start for subsequent discussion. Aside from replies of kudos or congrats or ahas, “The Old and The New” is a close-ended contribute.

    As for further bias? I am disappointed that someone might have thought it a good thing to include my contextualed, social-media discussion comment, made at social-media, to Noah’s blog format without letting me know firstly. Disappointed again that blog expectation is not instructed adequately still. Further disappointed that Noah would not think it wise to contact persons whom show up in replys of their blog in a more timely manner. At that more immediate-direct contact, a way to see if publish of reply was intended as-is, or even if intended at all, might’ve been clarified. Or, if as in this example and proofed somewhat by Jared’s non-understand of the value of clarify, whether or not a blog-reply that is plopped intentioned or non-intentioned might be misconstrued. Most errors, if existent, are easily clarified by correct of content in/exclude, grammatical in/exclude, and/or qualify, but too by completing an entire communication cycle at each interact. But since already done? …?!

    See the problem? Kathryn, Mary, and Molly would have heart attacks if they thought a publish could transpire at real-time, for reals.

    So to begin again?

    Subsequent to social-media share, at contextual, of my first thoughts upon “The Old and the New”, this blog-reply is also shared upon “The Old and the New”, at Noah’s blog, but still assumes read of the article titled, the “The Old and New”, first published in Noah’s e-Newsletter, 2015. Further, I would clarify my first reply-comment by add that read of my reply assumes that direct-care is superior to indirect. Further still? My first and second reply-comments were/are from non-partial but are constructed from Noah’s Mission which is secondary only to Primary’s allow of direct-care and of direct-care’s opinion upon any medical topic.

    So to Mr. Pardini? Bite me. Then seeing as you have taken it upon yourself to bait Sandra? You might re-prepare your reply at this Blog firstly by a fishing lesson. Hint: Attend those weights of lures else you might pull up more than you anticipated at troll-about. Because? what you have reeled, Mr. Pardini, is privacy issue of “folk”. And with that? A further risk/“solve”/rely for Noah’s Folks that is not solve at all but slip about compliance deck again.

    To clarify? With questions again and wide open?

    Did you suppose this and future generation Noah supporters would remain uneducated?
    Or, that at 21st Century supporters would need to still ask mother-may-I before learning of Noah’s Mission and subsequent care values? Or even that Noah’s supporters would comply firstly even if actions requested were not of Noah’s Primary Mission?

    If, no and no and no? Then what are you going to do about your little slip-up at describing your own comprehend of the “monitoring” benefit of “professional” direct-care at and about Noah to/from outside of Noah to/from afar – without qualify? That seems a specific question to me.

    From “professional” again?

    Bad idea.

    Hint 2: Conversations at any direct-care are not of your privilege. Nor are activities of non-direct-care to be commented, placed or viewed out of context, or even described beside the term “research” as-if that is possibly occurring under another’s indirect-care. As you did with your Yoga example and possible “research”-enframe at indirect primary. From direct professional care, your reply example implies that Primary direct-care is less-than simply by your infer that Primary is reliant upon professional assess, indirectly– which is an error on so many levels I hardly know where to narrow excepting by sum:

    Physicians still rely upon direct-care themselves, directly, to treat their own patients. Noah will not yield to any other than that truth, and even then by qualify from Mission.

    If it is your perceive that your current role at Noah is as soothe toward some afar benefit being done by your own role? And at include of the Folks’ experiences or activities within that? Wrong again, most especially if your own direct-care view is guided from compliance, which seems apparent to me in so far as you misinterpret what is meant by one’s personal motivation as compared to comprehend of what is meant by professional’s or Primary’s. What you have done by thinking suchly, and subsequently by include of a statement that props professional and Primary to a you-show-me-yours I’ll-show-you-mine mentality, and others have done too so please do not feel singled out, is contributed to undermine of Noah’s Primary foundation, moral, by that convey, and further compromised Noah’s Mission and Vision because reply is made at mention that Noah relies upon Title IV really and motivationally from that same infer. Noah does not rely upon Title IV from either and never has. Further, Noah does not need to adhere compliance samely as any institution including Medical’s. Please do not forward either condition as belonging to Noah at your future replies within Noah’s Blog.

    To overcoming that last point, please re-read Molly’s article. There you will note that Noah has been benefited from local but benefactor’s motivation was got from that greatest virtue.

    As to that blog-learning point mentioned at start of this reply? Comments/replies made at blogs are of more-than value than social-media comment-value insofar as blog comment/replies are the result of the activity of thinking that occurs when one is learning about something, someone, or some event, and shared within a complete communication cycle. Of slightly more-value too because blog comments are often posited at a specific person’s own and are about a specific developed topic. Specificity is sustained when with-thought-comments, within and upon a specific topic, are shared, to a specific format, that belongs to a specific intended recipient. At specificity, and where converge is minimized by a completed communication cycle, blog-reply/comments then, are of greater-value than social-media comments. That greater-value of blog comment/reply can be sustained if those characteristics are understood, if remaining open, if purposeful, and if including a means for future comment from the activity of thinking that results to the current specific first topic’s comment. This explanation is why I think that Molly’s first was incorrectly plopped to blog. Aside from kudos and congrats? Molly’s article is not open.

    Thusly, and now continuing to become informed? The next reasonable expected action of either of the two of us currently commenting at this specific blog comment-area is likely found at agree to a next best learning about something, someone, or some event transpiring at and about Noah. That last, learn of some event, is Molly’s realm, which leaves something or someone for you and I, Jared.

    So here’s a start again.

    This Blog is a something; the new fountains on Noah’s grounds are somethings; the activity room is a something; and so are all those new construction projects going on at Noah somethings. Each of those things belongs to Noah, not you, or I, or the state, or the city, or even the Church. Similarly, The Folks at Noah are Someones. With exception. The Folks at Noah do belong, but the Folks at Noah do not belong to Noah. The Folks at Noah do not belong to you or to I. The Folks at Noah do not belong to the State. The Folks at Noah do not belong to the City. The Folks at Noah do not belong to Medical. The Folks at Noah do not even belong to the church. But primarily and as should be reminded more frequently and without pause from any replier at Noah’s Blog – The Folks at Noah do not belong to the future benefit of others. The Folks at Noah belong to God.

    From that view then? Is it any wonder that at least one would become ruffled at insinuate of newest Titling effort being prop’s as-if of Noah’s Primary but which is more likely direct-to-indirect person-to-person call making and scheduling sorts of activity?

    Thusly?

    Another appreciate of Noah seems needing done, doesn’t it? From both you and I.

    Beside that appreciate?

    A thanks again for allow of a Blog environment where all can learn, and grow in comprehend and understanding – from the activities of thought and love .

    As for me?

    I have learned that some things do not change; else I might’ve become be a bit more soft-hearted when hear of titling being prop’d as-if of Noah Homes’ motivation and actual at and about Noah.

    So what do you propose as next topic, Jared?

    The Alzheimer’s card you mention has already been played by the way; if that’s a help to you at your own narrowing. But keep your notes anyhow, after another 10, 20, 30, or 40 year’s? observations of human, from human assess, of one another, will be new again. Statistically? Even at Noah Homes. If insisted including compliance at that new, should you decide to tackle that resist, you’ll have to get off the 101 and loop around a bit to find some other resisters to that human observation notion, but I can tell you, too : that any class done at sea-level, with subsequent share of resulting affective compiled of participants whom are developmentally disabled, is not of any Primary’s benefit, to anyone, from any ethic : .

    But not to fret – I give good directions and take better notes. Let me know how I can assist.

    Grrrr!

    [End first-react write].

    So there you have it. From Mission to Vision to action and act, it turns out again that we are all in this together. But if push comes to shove? I would still suggest you attend your own re-write and/or qualify of that “research” statement included at this topic-thread within Noah Homes’ blog.

    Meanwhile? I have to start looking for a new job. Mine has been let go at end of grant. While I’m about the web at that activity? You may send your re-write attempt to me via the contact information provided at the signature portion of this letter to blog letter. If you would like to continue this or another discussion at Noah’s blog? Then you and I and Noah should probably come up with a few specific topics to discuss firstly before blog-plopping. Fair enough?

    Sincerely,
    Kristina J. Brisco, M.f.A., interdisciplinary liberal arts, B.A,
    3548 N. Valorie Drive
    Prescott Valley, AZ. 86314
    Email: kristinabrisco4@gmail.com
    Phone: (928) 642-0765

    That said, the purpose of this email is to correct to Blog expectation a comment made firstly at social-media then plopped to BLOG format.

    Noah Homes, Inc. is firstly, primarily, and only founded from Catholic. Recent effort from non-Catholic philosophical and methodological and value-make impress upon Noah’s Mission, revealed a possible subsequent risk to Noah’s foundational practices, policies, and procedures, and now current. That risk was discovered by myself and subsequently commented upon at social-media. The discussion frame of my initial comment at social-media was formed from resist to Title IV rely at Noah. The specific topics at that social-media discussion were concern that staff and volunteers and many others have adhered Title IV’s least only. Noah is not an Institution, but is a Home.

    got from mosts, including Noah’s, rely upon Compliance, specifically current volunteer, staff, and stakeholder adhere of Title IV guideline over Noah’s primary foundation when carrying/living out Noah’s Mission.

    By define discussion is co-participatory at minimum. That is, to more-than social as publication.

    But somewhat view too since most do not develop their input to fruitioned sorts of finite by first attempt. That is, BLOGGING is an immediate that requires that author’s think through their plops from beginning to end – further by provide at purpose that of

    Here

    I suppose it might matter if one’s preference for paint brushes at Art creation was got from being far or near-sighted, wouldn’t it? Shakespeare likely thought samely as I about that preference for paintbrush when suffering either-sighted. How else would one explain poetic tend to contrive from palette, but suffice by plume of that which is frequently trod under foot?
    – KJB, May 13, 2016.

Leave a Reply

Details
Next Post