 Photo via Flickr By Breana Clark Achieving greater recognition of the needs of our homeless population has become an undeterred focus of mine. Professionally, I am connected to the residents who call B’nai B’rith sponsored, low-income senior housing home, and through volunteering with a local United Methodist Church, I help address local homelessness in the District of Columbia. Through these organizations, I have witnessed a devastating national trend: the apparent aging of our nation’s homeless population. On the surface, the current proportion of homeless individuals who are seniors represents a failure of our society to take care of our oldest citizens. Though, it is also an expensive problem to ignore. An older person who has not yet reached “retirement age” (those ages 50-64) represents a group which frequently falls between safety nets that are age based. Programs that are meant to intercept the part of our population that, generally speaking, are cycling off the workforce are generally reserved for those who have reached the magical age of 65 (or 62 for subsidized senior housing). Thus, many folks who have lost jobs, lost income or who do not have enough savings, find themselves stuck between the gap, and enter their “senior years” having expensive untreated conditions and deteriorating health. It should come at no surprise that navigating the conditions of living on the street or experiencing insecure housing (this includes nighttime shelters, a couch at a friend or relative’s home, or frequent relocation because of unreliable conditions) exacerbates physical and/or mental health conditions, poor nutrition and untreated chronic illness. It’s imperative to point this out, as we see that health care needs by those aged 50-64 who lack housing are awfully similar to housed individuals 65 and older. Premature aging and shortened life expectancies are inevitable when one lacks the basic of human necessities in order to survive. Simply put, seniors have the steepest housing challenge. This should come at no surprise if we look at increasing poverty amongst retirees as well as the decreasing availability of affordable housing. In fact, more than four million people above the age of 65 live in poverty, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Of those individuals, only 1.6 million receive rental subsidies from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). About 10,000 people turn 65 every day in U.S. Based on demographics alone, Justice in Aging, a national nonprofit legal advocacy organization that fights senior poverty, estimates that this will result in nearly 93,000 homeless seniors, doubling the 44,000 in 2010. This number becomes even more significant when economic factors are taken into consideration. While many may hold a stereotyped version of who is included among our homeless and home insecure, it’s important to remember a myriad of economic occurrences that have proven to be especially burdensome in the last decade: the Great Recession, mortgage debt accumulation following the housing crisis, wage stagnation, skyrocketing underemployment, the rising cost of medication and goods and the increasing lack of affordable housing. Furthermore, in light of recent natural disasters having required evacuation, hunkering down and taking shelter, we have witnessed how quickly circumstances can change for someone depending on their very meager earnings or assets to survive. The recent tragedy of several seniors dying at a Florida nursing home that found itself in the wake of Hurricane Irma illustrates a true reminder that we need to be able to provide safe, quality care and housing for seniors regardless of whether they can live independently or not. In my capacity as a volunteer, with a mission to serve our homeless in Washington, D.C., I’ve learned a lot about the unique needs of those in our community who lack housing. What has become obvious is the need to address the significant number of folks who have reached their older years but lack housing, health care and an income that can support their basic needs. We are living in a time where our lack of commitment to seniors’ well being, as they age, is not just appalling; the circumstances are dire. Every day, seniors die from a lack of resources in a country that saw economic, social and political progress as a result of their contributions. If Congress and the current administration want a society that is great, it has to start simple: we must prioritize health and housing for ourselves and our neighbors as we age. We must strive for a society that does not allow housing insecurity and plummeting health to be inevitable part of aging into poverty. We must commit to taking care of the oldest among us.
 By Evan Carmen We were very pleased to welcome Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) recently to B’nai B’rith Apartments in Allentown, Pa. Dent has been an influential member of Congress since January 2005, and presently serves on the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development. This committee is responsible for appropriating money for the Section 202 Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) housing program. B’nai B’rith is a proud sponsor of Section 202 HUD housing, was excited to show Dent all the great residents, staff and amenities in the building. B’nai B’rith’s long history with Section 202 housing started in 1971 when we formed a partnership with HUD to sponsor housing for low-income seniors. The B’nai B’rith Senior Housing Network in the United States comprises 38 buildings and serves more than 8,000 people. B’nai B’rith International is the largest national Jewish sponsor of low-income housing for seniors in the country. When Dent arrived he was treated to a tour of the building which featured an apartment unit, patio, common area, computer room and arts and crafts room. The tour allowed the representative to see all the building’s wonderful amenities and how Section 202 properties provide a community and family atmosphere for seniors. After the tour Dent spoke with about 90 B’nai B’rith residents regarding Section 202 rental subsidies, social security and health care. This Q-and-A allowed residents to directly tell the congressman how these federal programs affect their daily lives and for the congressman to share his perspective on important issues that impact seniors. After the event Dent said, "I truly appreciate the great work B'nai B'rith has been doing here in Allentown, Pa. for decades. B'nai B'rith provides affordable housing options to many seniors they very much like it here so we are blessed to have this organization in the community. And we want to continue to support organizations like B'nai B'rith and other who providing affordable housing in 202 for so many seniors and elders across the country." In attendance from the B’nai B’rith Housing community were B’nai B’rith International Associate Director of the Center for Senior Services Janel Doughten; B’nai B’rith Assistant Director for Aging Policy Evan Carmen; B’nai B’rith Senior Program Associate Breana Clark; as well as B’nai B’rith Apartments staff including Board President Barbra Butz; Project Administrator Bob Sipos; Property Management Assistant Kathy Andreas Heath; Service Coordinator Jennifer Leffler; Rental Assistant Jessica Yaich and Recertification Specialist Beth Gonzalez. During the past few months we are happy to report that Reps. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) and Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) have visited B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings in their districts. These congressional visits have given representatives firsthand exposure to the critical importance Section 202 buildings play in the lives of low-income seniors. Hopefully members of Congress leave Section 202 buildings with the understanding that they are not just a pile of bricks sitting on concrete—they are buildings that provide a safe and secure community for seniors, and more importantly a place for older Americans to call home.
By Rachel Knopp
On the 13th anniversary of B’nai B’rith’s Resident Leadership Retreat, 28 seniors joined together at Perlman Camp in Lake Como, Pa. with the intent to bring a greater sense of community back to their homes. These representatives came from the 38 low-income senior housing facilities from across the country that B’nai B’rith proudly supports. As the largest national Jewish sponsor of federally subsidized housing for the elderly in the United States, B’nai B’rith has become a key advocate for low-income seniors on Capitol Hill. However, experiences like the Resident Leadership Retreat remind us that our residents are their own best advocates for their communities. Janel Doughten, associate director of the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services, reminds us of the importance of our resident leaders. “Unlike staff and the board of directors who go home at the end of the day, our residents call these facilities home at the beginning and end of each day. The goal is to help create a sense of community among the residents.” The safety, security, and peace of mind that B’nai B’rith buildings have brought to residents lives were frequent topics of discussion between attendees. One resident from the B’nai B’rith building in Tucson, Ariz. said that finding his current building brought him out of homelessness. Many others shared in the sentiment including Bobbie Rudolph, from B’nai B’rith Apartments in Allentown, Pa., “I no longer have to worry about being evicted, due to not being able to pay my rent. The B’nai B’rith and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Supporting Housing for the Elderly Program allows seniors to retire and live with dignity. With this in mind, it becomes clear why the resident leaders are so invested in strengthening their communities. Some representatives are long-standing officers of their building’s Resident Council, while others are self-proclaimed activists who demonstrated leadership by starting a recycling bin, like Liam Flanagan who lives in Covenant House, which is located in Brighton, Mass. Despite the range of displays in leadership, each representative arrived to Camp Perlman with an open mind to learn from one another. 
Diane Daria, also from Covenant House, regards her building as providing a “built-in community.” Many of the seniors in B’nai B’rith housing facilities have lived alone for many years, like Daria. Before moving into her building, she lived by herself in a little bungalow located in the suburbs of Massachusetts. Now, Daria has the opportunity to connect with the over 250 residents that also call Covenant House home.
Still, Daria recognizes her responsibility to foster community. In addition to taking Russian and cultural classes to connect with her neighbors, she is an impassioned member of the newly-formed Residents Council. Throughout the retreat, Daria connected with other resident leaders to brainstorm ways to engage more residents. During the day that focused on diversity, the group suggested ways to have more inclusive programming so that they can cultivate a community of acceptance within their buildings. While many buildings offer English as a second language classes, the group felt native-English speakers would benefit from Spanish or Russian as a second language classes as well. One resident, Jerry Fiman, of Covenant Place in St. Louis, shared his initiative to have a representative from each of the distinct cultural groups of his building acting as active members of the Residents Council. The spirit of open-mindedness was exemplified that same night during a Havdalah ceremony to conclude the celebration of Shabbat. Most of the resident leaders are not Jewish, yet they approached the HaMotzi blessing that preceded each meal with respect and curiosity. Each resident leader placed their hands around the flame of the Havdalah candle, following a considerate discussion of interfaith values that morning. The culture of acceptance that was felt throughout the retreat is undoubtedly an integral part of their communities back home. When the Resident Leadership Retreat concluded its week of living and learning, many expressed the instilled sense of confidence that the retreat provided. Helen Jordan from Pasadena, Texas expressed how the retreat not only fortified the beliefs she already had, but the curriculum gave her a means to implement them. A key component of the retreat was to harness this feeling of empowerment so that residents can serve as advocates once they return. The retreat included an advocacy session led by Evan Carmen, B’nai B’rith assistant director for Aging Policy: “The goal of the advocacy session is to educate B'nai B'rith Housing Network residents on the best ways they can engage with their elected representatives; this way their members of Congress are aware of the issues which are important to them.” One of the attendees, Martha Boyle, has confirmed a meeting with Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) Boyle plans to discuss with him about rental subsidies as it relates to affordable housing for seniors. For many of the resident leaders, a week at a sleep away camp tucked away in the Poconos Mountains provided an escape from their regular routine. For most low-income residents, a week of vacation has been an unavailable luxury to them for years. For others, the space to learn in a classroom environment was a reminiscent change, found to be invigorating. From my perspective as a member of a younger generation, I am inspired by the commitment to learn and make a difference that I see in the generation before me. The leaders who I grew to regard as friends are the same leaders who pushed forward for the social changes I enjoy today. Since then, they have not quit moving and shaking. I regard the B’nai B’rith facilities across the country as a new ground for these leaders to make their mark. Video
|
|
Rachel Knopp is a student at The George Washington University studying International Affairs and Conflict Resolution. She is an Intern at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Human Rights and Public Policy in Washington, D.C. In the spring of 2017, she studied Anthropology and Spanish in Cusco, Perú. Prior to interning at B’nai B’rith, she interned at The Israeli Embassy to the United States and the Israeli Mission to the United Nations
|
By Evan Carmen
The Coolidge at Sudbury Apartments near Boston, Mass.,used the Low Income Housing Tax Credit to
finance the construction of 64 units.
Our country’s public housing program was first created in 1937 during the Great Depression with a goal of providing affordable housing to low-income individuals and families. The federal government continued to pass major legislation through the 1970s that increased the number of buildings created expressly for affordable housing. For example, in the 1960s and 1970s the federal government increased the number of buildings available for low-income seniors primarily through the Section 236 and Section 202 programs. Because the Section 202 program was created specifically for seniors, amenities and services came with the building that addressed the specific needs of the elderly. Unfortunately, since the 1980s affordable housing has exhibited a steady decline. Consequently, because of the political environment, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) which was originally created with bipartisan support under the Tax Reform Act of 1986, has emerged as the best way to create and preserve affordable housing.
The LIHTC is administered by the Internal Review Service (IRS), which awards federal tax credits to the private sector to encourage investments in affordable housing. Ideally the federal government would reinstitute policies like the Section 202 capital advance program for the creation of affordable housing; however the LIHTC has been able to pick up some of the slack by creating additional low-income buildings. To further the point, the LIHTC helps finance about 90 percent of all affordable housing in the United States, and has helped fund the creation of about 3 million apartments since its inception.
The B’nai B’rith Housing Network is beginning to greatly benefit from the LIHTC by using this government program to benefit low-income senior residents. In St. Louis, Covenant Place Apartments used the LIHTC as a financing mechanism behind the rehabilitation of the property. Initial projections had the project costing about $84 million, with the LIHTC funding about $29 million or 35 percent of the initial cost estimate. When the project is completed it will offer 355 affordable apartments and a host of amenities. Joan Denison, executive director of Covenant Place said, “The LIHTC program made it possible for Covenant Place to embark on the redevelopment of its three aging and functionally obsolete buildings. Without the LIHTC funds, the cost of development would have been out of reach. Today, we have the new Covenant Place I, Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Building, providing 101 energy efficient, accessible one bedroom apartments, in which the residents say they feel healthier and happier. With a rapidly growing senior population that continues to live longer, there is a critical need for affordable, supportive and accessible housing. The LIHTC program is essential to the future of affordable housing.”
In Massachusetts, The Coolidge at Sudbury Apartments used the LIHTC to finance the construction of 64 units. Like Covenant Place in St. Louis, Sudbury Apartments used the LIHTC as a major financial driver to fund the cost of the project. For example, the total development cost of the project was about $16 million and the LIHTC contributed about $10 million of the financing.
Given the importance of the LIHTC in the affordable housing community, what is the outlook for the continued success of the program? Recently, the Trump administration released its initial tax reform policy. While the initial proposal does not address the LIHTC, the mere threat of tax reform has caused these tax credits to lose their value because they are tied to the corporate tax rate. Under President Trump’s proposal, the corporate tax rate would be reduced from 35 percent to 15 percent, causing potential LIHTC investors to have less tax liability. A decrease in investor’s tax liability lessens their desire to purchase the LIHTC. According to Todd Crow of The Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition (TAHTCC), the value of the tax credit has dropped from $1.00 per credit to as low as $0.85 per credit. While the fate of Trump’s tax reform proposal remains unclear, anxiety about the future of tax policy has caused the private sector to re-evaluate future construction projects.
Fortunately, all is not lost for the LIHTC! The good news is that The Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act has been introduced in both houses of Congress to strengthen the LIHTC, and has received bi-partisan support. While both versions of legislation are similar, the biggest difference between the two bills is that only the Senate’s version expands the housing credit. The Senate’s legislation expands the housing credit by 50 percent, for the purpose of creating or preserving about 1.3 million affordable homes. However, both bills have provisions to make recapitalization of properties easier and establish a 4 percent minimum Housing Credit rate for finance acquisitions and Housing Bond-financed developments. If this legislation becomes law, it would inject a much needed jolt in the arm of the affordable housing community, which needed assistance even before the prospects of Trump’s tax reform proposals. The United States has a housing crises and the LIHTC is one tool to improve the issue.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said, “The affordable housing crisis is exploding all across the country. We are facing pressures from all sides: demand for rental housing has increased by 21 percent, but we are building units at the lower rate since the 1970s. If we do not act to increase the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit—our best way to build affordable homes—by 2025 over 15 million Americans could be spending half their income on rent. This is unacceptable.”
Based on the current environment, the United States federal government is still best suited to offer solutions to our country’s housing crises. According to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, without the LIHTC, “construction costs would have to be reduced by 72 percent of the current construction cost average” to see the development of new housing. Without the LIHTC, how is the private sector supposed to absorb the additional construction costs, and still provide affordable low-income housing?
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and Cantwell deserve credit for being original cosponsors of the Senate’s version of the legislation, and more members of Congress should come out in support of a policy that looks to increase affordable housing. Members of Congress need to act now, because according to The Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition 5.1 million senior households now use more than half their income on housing, and in 2030 the number of seniors is predicted to double.
The LIHTC is administered by the Internal Review Service (IRS), which awards federal tax credits to the private sector to encourage investments in affordable housing. Ideally the federal government would reinstitute policies like the Section 202 capital advance program for the creation of affordable housing; however the LIHTC has been able to pick up some of the slack by creating additional low-income buildings. To further the point, the LIHTC helps finance about 90 percent of all affordable housing in the United States, and has helped fund the creation of about 3 million apartments since its inception.
The B’nai B’rith Housing Network is beginning to greatly benefit from the LIHTC by using this government program to benefit low-income senior residents. In St. Louis, Covenant Place Apartments used the LIHTC as a financing mechanism behind the rehabilitation of the property. Initial projections had the project costing about $84 million, with the LIHTC funding about $29 million or 35 percent of the initial cost estimate. When the project is completed it will offer 355 affordable apartments and a host of amenities. Joan Denison, executive director of Covenant Place said, “The LIHTC program made it possible for Covenant Place to embark on the redevelopment of its three aging and functionally obsolete buildings. Without the LIHTC funds, the cost of development would have been out of reach. Today, we have the new Covenant Place I, Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Building, providing 101 energy efficient, accessible one bedroom apartments, in which the residents say they feel healthier and happier. With a rapidly growing senior population that continues to live longer, there is a critical need for affordable, supportive and accessible housing. The LIHTC program is essential to the future of affordable housing.”
In Massachusetts, The Coolidge at Sudbury Apartments used the LIHTC to finance the construction of 64 units. Like Covenant Place in St. Louis, Sudbury Apartments used the LIHTC as a major financial driver to fund the cost of the project. For example, the total development cost of the project was about $16 million and the LIHTC contributed about $10 million of the financing.
Given the importance of the LIHTC in the affordable housing community, what is the outlook for the continued success of the program? Recently, the Trump administration released its initial tax reform policy. While the initial proposal does not address the LIHTC, the mere threat of tax reform has caused these tax credits to lose their value because they are tied to the corporate tax rate. Under President Trump’s proposal, the corporate tax rate would be reduced from 35 percent to 15 percent, causing potential LIHTC investors to have less tax liability. A decrease in investor’s tax liability lessens their desire to purchase the LIHTC. According to Todd Crow of The Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition (TAHTCC), the value of the tax credit has dropped from $1.00 per credit to as low as $0.85 per credit. While the fate of Trump’s tax reform proposal remains unclear, anxiety about the future of tax policy has caused the private sector to re-evaluate future construction projects.
Fortunately, all is not lost for the LIHTC! The good news is that The Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act has been introduced in both houses of Congress to strengthen the LIHTC, and has received bi-partisan support. While both versions of legislation are similar, the biggest difference between the two bills is that only the Senate’s version expands the housing credit. The Senate’s legislation expands the housing credit by 50 percent, for the purpose of creating or preserving about 1.3 million affordable homes. However, both bills have provisions to make recapitalization of properties easier and establish a 4 percent minimum Housing Credit rate for finance acquisitions and Housing Bond-financed developments. If this legislation becomes law, it would inject a much needed jolt in the arm of the affordable housing community, which needed assistance even before the prospects of Trump’s tax reform proposals. The United States has a housing crises and the LIHTC is one tool to improve the issue.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) said, “The affordable housing crisis is exploding all across the country. We are facing pressures from all sides: demand for rental housing has increased by 21 percent, but we are building units at the lower rate since the 1970s. If we do not act to increase the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit—our best way to build affordable homes—by 2025 over 15 million Americans could be spending half their income on rent. This is unacceptable.”
Based on the current environment, the United States federal government is still best suited to offer solutions to our country’s housing crises. According to Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, without the LIHTC, “construction costs would have to be reduced by 72 percent of the current construction cost average” to see the development of new housing. Without the LIHTC, how is the private sector supposed to absorb the additional construction costs, and still provide affordable low-income housing?
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), Dean Heller (R-Nev.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Todd Young (R-Ind.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), and Cantwell deserve credit for being original cosponsors of the Senate’s version of the legislation, and more members of Congress should come out in support of a policy that looks to increase affordable housing. Members of Congress need to act now, because according to The Affordable Housing Tax Credit Coalition 5.1 million senior households now use more than half their income on housing, and in 2030 the number of seniors is predicted to double.
 | Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen. |
Hundreds turned out when B’nai B’rith International, LeadingAge and other organizations co-hosted the Save HUD 202 Rally on Capitol Hill.
The purpose of the rally was to demonstrate how important existing Section 202 buildings are for low-income seniors and to indicate the need for additional funding for affordable housing, specifically for older Americans. B’nai B’rith launched its senior housing program in 1968, and since 1971, in a cooperative partnership with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), we have made rental apartments available for senior citizens with limited incomes, primarily through the Section 202 programs.
In May, the Trump Administration released its full Fiscal Year 2018 Budget and for the first time, the residents of Section 202 buildings could see reductions in their rental subsidies.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is proposing to give the secretary of HUD the authority to increase rental contributions from 30 percent of adjusted income to 35 percent of gross income, and increase minimum rental payments to $50 a month. Increasing the minimum rental payments to $50 a month would impact people who make less than $2,000 a year. While the administration’s proposed budget has a hardship exemption, I am curious to hear from the Trump Administration as to which low-income seniors who make less than $2,000 don’t qualify for a hardship exemption.
I think all reasonable people can agree, seniors who make less than $2,000 a year don’t need the federal government increasing their rent!
With Congress ultimately responsible for writing the federal budget, having hundreds of people at the rally on Capitol Hill was a great way for the housing community to express its concern for low-income seniors.
Also, B’nai B’rith was extremely pleased to see Senators Bob Casey and Robert Menendez and Rep. Al Green at the rally expressing their support for the Section 202 program. These members of Congress represent residents in B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings across the country, and we certainly appreciate their commitment to seniors and affordable housing.
During the rally Sen. Menendez said, “I am proud to stand with you today and every day to fight to protect and expand affordable housing for seniors.” We certainly urge other members of Congress to support additional funding for senior affordable housing as the need will only increase.
The purpose of the rally was to demonstrate how important existing Section 202 buildings are for low-income seniors and to indicate the need for additional funding for affordable housing, specifically for older Americans. B’nai B’rith launched its senior housing program in 1968, and since 1971, in a cooperative partnership with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), we have made rental apartments available for senior citizens with limited incomes, primarily through the Section 202 programs.
In May, the Trump Administration released its full Fiscal Year 2018 Budget and for the first time, the residents of Section 202 buildings could see reductions in their rental subsidies.
Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is proposing to give the secretary of HUD the authority to increase rental contributions from 30 percent of adjusted income to 35 percent of gross income, and increase minimum rental payments to $50 a month. Increasing the minimum rental payments to $50 a month would impact people who make less than $2,000 a year. While the administration’s proposed budget has a hardship exemption, I am curious to hear from the Trump Administration as to which low-income seniors who make less than $2,000 don’t qualify for a hardship exemption.
I think all reasonable people can agree, seniors who make less than $2,000 a year don’t need the federal government increasing their rent!
With Congress ultimately responsible for writing the federal budget, having hundreds of people at the rally on Capitol Hill was a great way for the housing community to express its concern for low-income seniors.
Also, B’nai B’rith was extremely pleased to see Senators Bob Casey and Robert Menendez and Rep. Al Green at the rally expressing their support for the Section 202 program. These members of Congress represent residents in B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings across the country, and we certainly appreciate their commitment to seniors and affordable housing.
During the rally Sen. Menendez said, “I am proud to stand with you today and every day to fight to protect and expand affordable housing for seniors.” We certainly urge other members of Congress to support additional funding for senior affordable housing as the need will only increase.
WATCH our Video Recap
|
Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen.
|
Recently the “The Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2017” was introduced in the Senate by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Maggie Hassan (New Hampshire) and Johnny Isakson (Georgia) with companion legislation introduced in the House by Reps. Joe Kennedy III (Massachusetts) and Marsha Blackburn (Tennessee). The purpose of this bill is to assist seniors with low-to-moderate hearing loss, access hearing aids by making them available over the counter. If seniors are allowed to get hearing aids over the counter, it would eliminate the onerous requirement that people get a medical examination or sign a waiver—bypassing the examination prior to receiving a hearing aid. In addition, the law would instruct the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to write regulations to ensure the hearing aid’s safety and proper labeling.
This legislation is badly needed because Medicare often does not cover the cost of hearing aids, and the third most widespread chronic health condition confronting seniors is hearing loss. This Medicare coverage hole has caused an unacceptable 70 percent of Americans with a hearing loss between the ages of 65 and 84, to forgo the benefits of these devices because they are too cost prohibitive. With the average cost of a hearing aid at $2,400, paying for this device out of pocket for older Americans, especially low-income seniors, is not a viable option on their limited budgets.
According to Consumer Reports, the average retail markup for hearing aids is 117 percent because the market is controlled by only a select group of companies. Proponents of the bill argue that this legislation would create more competition for hearings aids and therefore decrease the cost. Opponents of the bill are skeptical this would lead to additional people purchasing hearing aids, and believe this legislation could cause people to self-diagnose hearing loss, and consequently not seek the guidance of medical professionals. However, according to Sen. Hassan, “Allowing certain hearing aids to be sold over the counter, just like reading glasses are, is a common-sense step that bring real cost savings to older Americans.” In addition, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine states, “No evidence that the required medical evaluation or waiver of that evaluation provides any clinically meaningful benefit” and advocates “removing this regulation to serve consumers’ best interests.”
Increasing access to hearing aids will also improve seniors’ mental health. According to Dr. Frank Lin (assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University and an otologist and epidemiologist who focuses in the impact of hearing loss on older adults), hearing loss is a consequential part of aging. For example, he conducted studies that demonstrated hearing loss caused seniors to lose cognitive abilities and increased their chances of getting dementia. In addition, far too many seniors over time are losing one of their basic senses, the simple ability to hear. Can you imagine having a difficult time listening to music, watching TV or conducting a basic conversation? Until Congress expands Medicare to cover all costs associated with hearing aids, “The Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2017” could provide seniors with more financial security by driving down the cost of hearing aids, and improving their quality of life.
This legislation is badly needed because Medicare often does not cover the cost of hearing aids, and the third most widespread chronic health condition confronting seniors is hearing loss. This Medicare coverage hole has caused an unacceptable 70 percent of Americans with a hearing loss between the ages of 65 and 84, to forgo the benefits of these devices because they are too cost prohibitive. With the average cost of a hearing aid at $2,400, paying for this device out of pocket for older Americans, especially low-income seniors, is not a viable option on their limited budgets.
According to Consumer Reports, the average retail markup for hearing aids is 117 percent because the market is controlled by only a select group of companies. Proponents of the bill argue that this legislation would create more competition for hearings aids and therefore decrease the cost. Opponents of the bill are skeptical this would lead to additional people purchasing hearing aids, and believe this legislation could cause people to self-diagnose hearing loss, and consequently not seek the guidance of medical professionals. However, according to Sen. Hassan, “Allowing certain hearing aids to be sold over the counter, just like reading glasses are, is a common-sense step that bring real cost savings to older Americans.” In addition, the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine states, “No evidence that the required medical evaluation or waiver of that evaluation provides any clinically meaningful benefit” and advocates “removing this regulation to serve consumers’ best interests.”
Increasing access to hearing aids will also improve seniors’ mental health. According to Dr. Frank Lin (assistant professor at Johns Hopkins University and an otologist and epidemiologist who focuses in the impact of hearing loss on older adults), hearing loss is a consequential part of aging. For example, he conducted studies that demonstrated hearing loss caused seniors to lose cognitive abilities and increased their chances of getting dementia. In addition, far too many seniors over time are losing one of their basic senses, the simple ability to hear. Can you imagine having a difficult time listening to music, watching TV or conducting a basic conversation? Until Congress expands Medicare to cover all costs associated with hearing aids, “The Over-the-Counter Hearing Aid Act of 2017” could provide seniors with more financial security by driving down the cost of hearing aids, and improving their quality of life.
 | Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen. |
The Senate Aging Committee recently held a two part series of hearings highlighting the issue of social isolation experienced by many people as they age. It was made apparent that there are serious physical health consequences to prolonged isolation—some experts say its equivalent to smoking fifteen cigarettes a day. The reality is this growing epidemic of isolation will only increase in the coming years as the number of older adults continues to surge. Considering all the technological, infrastructural, social and cultural responses required to properly address this need, I’m left dwelling on the role young people, and particularly millennials like myself, can have preventing the social isolation of our older neighbors.
We know that a whole range of societal changes contribute to isolation in aging. Changes in our birth rates, family structures and our proximity to relatives are all shifts that have been well documented. Additionally, there are common occurrences late in life that can create isolating circumstances: a late career job change, retiring, moving into different housing or a change in cultural surroundings. But, I think there is much more to this. As a result of the pervasive ageism in America, isolation as one ages is exacerbated. Throughout our society, we either stereotype older people or exclude them from critical planning efforts—or both. By excluding, whether purposefully or inadvertently, the contributions and perspectives of older adults from spaces where major decisions are made, we create a society where it is increasingly more difficult for them to thrive.
Our communities, whether rural or urban, should be safe and age-friendly from walkability to bus routes to housing design. Our workplaces should allow people to work as long as they are able to perform the duties of their job and recognize that older adults have a lot to offer, especially to young people who are newer to the workforce. Housing should be both affordable and available to everyone, and especially those that reach retirement age. We should design and build housing that will work for any resident, whether they are old, young or disabled. Technology should be accessible to those who did not learn how to operate personal devices at a very young age.
However, in order for these things to exist in our society, we must address the underlying causes of systemic ageism. Without doing so, we will continue to exclude a great portion of our population. We, inevitably, will continue to tell our future, older selves, “At some point, your opinion and needs are no longer important to greater society.” We must recognize that the risk factors of isolation are only more pronounced as a person ages because of their inability to have a “seat at the table.” In every industry, and particularly in technology, it is imperative that we stop expecting older people to create their own solutions without ever giving them the tools to do so.
Millennials have a unique role in addressing the ageism that has fostered a culture of leaving seniors out of the equation. Now the largest generation in the workforce, millennials are represented in every industry. Instead of being yet another generation that expects older people to adapt and integrate themselves in a society built around the young and able-bodied, what if we strived for deliberate inclusion? And, what does taking responsibility look like?
First, the thoughts, solutions and perspectives of those experiencing isolation should be at the forefront of every initiative around social isolation and age-friendly communities. This can look as simple as reconciling the gap in communication used by different generations. It may also involve urban planning that includes realistic walk times at intersections, or smart phones that do not operate on intuition that only a young app developer may possess. Including all people in our society is not just an idealistic, fuzzy feeling, it’s good for business! Imagine having a community where transportation was not a barrier to carrying out daily errands, or relying on technology to purchase home goods was not a frustrating, humiliating experience.
What if, from the beginning, we were cognizant of the difficulties that can result from a society increasing its dependency upon technological advances? What if—by simply asking—we were to realize that seniors are more than capable of providing solutions to the barriers one experiences as they age?
Until we make the conscious, purposeful decision that older members of our community not only should, but have to be a part of planning the society we want to live in, we will find ourselves trying to fix the mistakes we’ve made or, worse, assume that the opinions and lives of seniors are not important. We must be aware that the built environment and social environment are interdependent. The culture shift necessary for such consideration would require the empathy to understand that most all of us, if we are so lucky, will experience the changes presented through aging. When we talk about the “special needs of seniors,” we should remember that these are considerations that we all deserve throughout our lifetime.
As a young, able-bodied person, accessibility and inclusion should be tenets I lift up out of empathy for others and, at the very least, out of self-interest! I know that a society in which there are barriers to participation and socialization for some of us will, inevitably, hurt us all.
(Photo via Flickr)
We know that a whole range of societal changes contribute to isolation in aging. Changes in our birth rates, family structures and our proximity to relatives are all shifts that have been well documented. Additionally, there are common occurrences late in life that can create isolating circumstances: a late career job change, retiring, moving into different housing or a change in cultural surroundings. But, I think there is much more to this. As a result of the pervasive ageism in America, isolation as one ages is exacerbated. Throughout our society, we either stereotype older people or exclude them from critical planning efforts—or both. By excluding, whether purposefully or inadvertently, the contributions and perspectives of older adults from spaces where major decisions are made, we create a society where it is increasingly more difficult for them to thrive.
Our communities, whether rural or urban, should be safe and age-friendly from walkability to bus routes to housing design. Our workplaces should allow people to work as long as they are able to perform the duties of their job and recognize that older adults have a lot to offer, especially to young people who are newer to the workforce. Housing should be both affordable and available to everyone, and especially those that reach retirement age. We should design and build housing that will work for any resident, whether they are old, young or disabled. Technology should be accessible to those who did not learn how to operate personal devices at a very young age.
However, in order for these things to exist in our society, we must address the underlying causes of systemic ageism. Without doing so, we will continue to exclude a great portion of our population. We, inevitably, will continue to tell our future, older selves, “At some point, your opinion and needs are no longer important to greater society.” We must recognize that the risk factors of isolation are only more pronounced as a person ages because of their inability to have a “seat at the table.” In every industry, and particularly in technology, it is imperative that we stop expecting older people to create their own solutions without ever giving them the tools to do so.
Millennials have a unique role in addressing the ageism that has fostered a culture of leaving seniors out of the equation. Now the largest generation in the workforce, millennials are represented in every industry. Instead of being yet another generation that expects older people to adapt and integrate themselves in a society built around the young and able-bodied, what if we strived for deliberate inclusion? And, what does taking responsibility look like?
First, the thoughts, solutions and perspectives of those experiencing isolation should be at the forefront of every initiative around social isolation and age-friendly communities. This can look as simple as reconciling the gap in communication used by different generations. It may also involve urban planning that includes realistic walk times at intersections, or smart phones that do not operate on intuition that only a young app developer may possess. Including all people in our society is not just an idealistic, fuzzy feeling, it’s good for business! Imagine having a community where transportation was not a barrier to carrying out daily errands, or relying on technology to purchase home goods was not a frustrating, humiliating experience.
What if, from the beginning, we were cognizant of the difficulties that can result from a society increasing its dependency upon technological advances? What if—by simply asking—we were to realize that seniors are more than capable of providing solutions to the barriers one experiences as they age?
Until we make the conscious, purposeful decision that older members of our community not only should, but have to be a part of planning the society we want to live in, we will find ourselves trying to fix the mistakes we’ve made or, worse, assume that the opinions and lives of seniors are not important. We must be aware that the built environment and social environment are interdependent. The culture shift necessary for such consideration would require the empathy to understand that most all of us, if we are so lucky, will experience the changes presented through aging. When we talk about the “special needs of seniors,” we should remember that these are considerations that we all deserve throughout our lifetime.
As a young, able-bodied person, accessibility and inclusion should be tenets I lift up out of empathy for others and, at the very least, out of self-interest! I know that a society in which there are barriers to participation and socialization for some of us will, inevitably, hurt us all.
(Photo via Flickr)
 | Breana Clark is a Program Associate for the B’nai B’rith Center for Senior Services. Click here to read more of her work. |
It is somewhat bittersweet that I have been asked to share my thoughts on our ongoing seniors’ program. While I’ve written for the magazine in the past, I’ve now been asked to focus on aging policy and offer insights from my perspective, as a baby boomer and a B’nai B’rith staff member for 33 years.
Rachel Goldberg, who served as our director of aging policy and authored this column for many years, has moved on to the AARP, or the “big” house, as we playfully refer to the country’s largest advocacy group for seniors. For more than 13 years, Rachel was my right hand in analyzing, reporting and generally trying to make sense of the myriad changing policies and programs that affect our aging population. We are grateful for the many years she spent with us. She will be missed.
But we’re not the only ones experiencing changes. As you are no doubt aware, the entire country is in the midst of a sea change, affecting the role of the federal government in our lives. For B’nai B’rith, this presents an enormous challenge, as a new administration with an announced intention of cutting back on federal programs takes office. Not the least of these is providing low-cost housing to seniors.
I began at B’nai B’rith as the director of our Senior Citizens Housing Program. Some years earlier, a group of dedicated B’nai B’rith volunteers, all experts in the building trades, petitioned the organization to allow them, under B’nai B’rith auspices, to sponsor affordable housing for low-income seniors in their communities.
Using a remarkable program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that made grants available to nonprofit sponsors, this group provided the “sweat equity” and opened the first B’nai B’rith-sponsored senior community in 1971 in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Since then, the B’nai B’rith Senior Housing Network has grown to be the largest national Jewish sponsor of HUD-assisted housing in the country. It is currently available in 28 communities nationwide, and we’re proud to say that nightly 8,000-10,000 seniors call a B’nai B’rith sponsored property home.
Obviously, we take this commitment to these communities and to our residents seriously. That’s why we work throughout the year to provide resources, training and information to the dedicated people who manage, lead and staff these properties.
Our program exists for the benefit of the residents and their extended families. That’s why we do what we do. But, we cannot do it alone. We need the government’s help because housing costs money. And we are committed to working with the federal, state and local governments to provide the resources to make affordable housing a reality.
For 30-some years, I have led the organization’s efforts to advocate for the federal housing finance program that has allowed us to build such excellent communities, and to continue to provide them to low-income residents at a fraction of market rate rents. As an advocate, I champion not only the current residents, but the tens of thousands of people currently on waiting lists for low-income housing like those we sponsor. I speak on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of boomers who will find themselves, very shortly, in retirement, and in similar need.
The “graying of America” is not something in the far-off future. It is here now and will only grow larger. Every day, more people turn 65. B’nai B’rith, along with other nonprofit groups, had been instrumental in shaping, expanding and improving HUD’s housing program for the elderly. But, the program is no longer being funded. This has put the future in jeopardy for residents, both present and future. And that is unacceptable.
The program is fiscally troubled. Affordable housing is scarce, and we need to build more for moderate and low-income people. Affordable housing appropriate for the needs of older adults, and where services can be brought to them in a more cost-efficient way, is essential. But building housing—something we absolutely must do if we want to address the long-term affordable housing crisis in this country—is more expensive than simply subsidizing rents in existing apartments.
On average, nationwide, there are more than 10 people waiting for every low-income rental unit available. In other words, we must build, but we don’t have sufficient federal resources to do it.
The key may be a combination of vigilant advocacy and a new strategy supported by recent housing research. One thing the government is very good at is counting things: From missiles bought, to meals served, to millions taxed, the government keeps a tally. But it is not as good at counting how spending in one area can save money in another.
We often say Washington works in silos: lots of communication (and counting) up and down a federal department but very little communication between them. This poses many problems, especially when people’s needs don’t fit into one of those silos. In the 1980s, the federal government established a task force across departments, including housing and health, to work on homelessness. It turned out that many of the homeless were mentally ill, had substance abuse problems, were veterans and, in some cases, all three. So, solving the problem of homelessness really meant tackling a variety of issues.
With elderly housing, we know there is a similar crossover because supportive housing for older adults, with appropriate services, is an alternative to unnecessary nursing home placements and other pricier options. Many of our residents are able to live independently with support, but without those services, many would be unable to do so; and, with no financial resources, a nursing home placement through Medicaid would be their only alternative. A month in a nursing home costs Medicaid about $8,000. A year in a nursing home costs just under $100,000. For one person! So yes, housing is expensive, but so is health care. Combining the two, taking advantage of economies of scale, work to the long-term benefit of the resident and, at the same time, saves money on health care. So, if new research on the health care savings generated by affordable housing is taken into account, building new housing doesn’t seem so expensive. And, that’s just one way in which subsidized housing can reduce health care spending.
Housing is necessary and more affordable than other options, and it meets the needs and wants of older adults. People do not want to be in a nursing home if they have more independence with some regular service support. The bottom line is that spending money on bricks and mortar can save money by reducing the amount spent on health care. Hopefully, this will help the number crunchers in Washington to see the light.
Over the years, I haven’t had many opportunities to be on the front lines of these policy debates, but I guess it’s time to get back into the game and step up to the plate.
Rachel Goldberg, who served as our director of aging policy and authored this column for many years, has moved on to the AARP, or the “big” house, as we playfully refer to the country’s largest advocacy group for seniors. For more than 13 years, Rachel was my right hand in analyzing, reporting and generally trying to make sense of the myriad changing policies and programs that affect our aging population. We are grateful for the many years she spent with us. She will be missed.
But we’re not the only ones experiencing changes. As you are no doubt aware, the entire country is in the midst of a sea change, affecting the role of the federal government in our lives. For B’nai B’rith, this presents an enormous challenge, as a new administration with an announced intention of cutting back on federal programs takes office. Not the least of these is providing low-cost housing to seniors.
I began at B’nai B’rith as the director of our Senior Citizens Housing Program. Some years earlier, a group of dedicated B’nai B’rith volunteers, all experts in the building trades, petitioned the organization to allow them, under B’nai B’rith auspices, to sponsor affordable housing for low-income seniors in their communities.
Using a remarkable program from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) that made grants available to nonprofit sponsors, this group provided the “sweat equity” and opened the first B’nai B’rith-sponsored senior community in 1971 in Wilkes-Barre, Pa. Since then, the B’nai B’rith Senior Housing Network has grown to be the largest national Jewish sponsor of HUD-assisted housing in the country. It is currently available in 28 communities nationwide, and we’re proud to say that nightly 8,000-10,000 seniors call a B’nai B’rith sponsored property home.
Obviously, we take this commitment to these communities and to our residents seriously. That’s why we work throughout the year to provide resources, training and information to the dedicated people who manage, lead and staff these properties.
Our program exists for the benefit of the residents and their extended families. That’s why we do what we do. But, we cannot do it alone. We need the government’s help because housing costs money. And we are committed to working with the federal, state and local governments to provide the resources to make affordable housing a reality.
For 30-some years, I have led the organization’s efforts to advocate for the federal housing finance program that has allowed us to build such excellent communities, and to continue to provide them to low-income residents at a fraction of market rate rents. As an advocate, I champion not only the current residents, but the tens of thousands of people currently on waiting lists for low-income housing like those we sponsor. I speak on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of boomers who will find themselves, very shortly, in retirement, and in similar need.
The “graying of America” is not something in the far-off future. It is here now and will only grow larger. Every day, more people turn 65. B’nai B’rith, along with other nonprofit groups, had been instrumental in shaping, expanding and improving HUD’s housing program for the elderly. But, the program is no longer being funded. This has put the future in jeopardy for residents, both present and future. And that is unacceptable.
The program is fiscally troubled. Affordable housing is scarce, and we need to build more for moderate and low-income people. Affordable housing appropriate for the needs of older adults, and where services can be brought to them in a more cost-efficient way, is essential. But building housing—something we absolutely must do if we want to address the long-term affordable housing crisis in this country—is more expensive than simply subsidizing rents in existing apartments.
On average, nationwide, there are more than 10 people waiting for every low-income rental unit available. In other words, we must build, but we don’t have sufficient federal resources to do it.
The key may be a combination of vigilant advocacy and a new strategy supported by recent housing research. One thing the government is very good at is counting things: From missiles bought, to meals served, to millions taxed, the government keeps a tally. But it is not as good at counting how spending in one area can save money in another.
We often say Washington works in silos: lots of communication (and counting) up and down a federal department but very little communication between them. This poses many problems, especially when people’s needs don’t fit into one of those silos. In the 1980s, the federal government established a task force across departments, including housing and health, to work on homelessness. It turned out that many of the homeless were mentally ill, had substance abuse problems, were veterans and, in some cases, all three. So, solving the problem of homelessness really meant tackling a variety of issues.
With elderly housing, we know there is a similar crossover because supportive housing for older adults, with appropriate services, is an alternative to unnecessary nursing home placements and other pricier options. Many of our residents are able to live independently with support, but without those services, many would be unable to do so; and, with no financial resources, a nursing home placement through Medicaid would be their only alternative. A month in a nursing home costs Medicaid about $8,000. A year in a nursing home costs just under $100,000. For one person! So yes, housing is expensive, but so is health care. Combining the two, taking advantage of economies of scale, work to the long-term benefit of the resident and, at the same time, saves money on health care. So, if new research on the health care savings generated by affordable housing is taken into account, building new housing doesn’t seem so expensive. And, that’s just one way in which subsidized housing can reduce health care spending.
Housing is necessary and more affordable than other options, and it meets the needs and wants of older adults. People do not want to be in a nursing home if they have more independence with some regular service support. The bottom line is that spending money on bricks and mortar can save money by reducing the amount spent on health care. Hopefully, this will help the number crunchers in Washington to see the light.
Over the years, I haven’t had many opportunities to be on the front lines of these policy debates, but I guess it’s time to get back into the game and step up to the plate.
 | Mark D. Olshan, Ph.D. began his career with B’nai B’rith in 1983 when he was hired as its Director of Senior Housing. He currently serves as Director of the Center for Senior Services and Associate Executive Vice President of B’nai B’rith International. He was awarded the Julius Bisno Professional Excellence Award in 2000. To view some of his additional content, Click Here |
 |  |
| Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) recently took a tour of the B’nai B’rith Homecrest House, in Silver Spring, Md. In addition, the congressman answered questions from the residents of the buildings in a town hall-style format. B’nai B’rith’s long history with Section 202 housing started in 1971 when we formed a partnership with HUD to sponsor housing for low-income seniors. The B’nai B’rith Senior Housing Network in the United States comprises 38 buildings and serves more than 8,000 people. B’nai B’rith International is the largest national Jewish sponsor of low-income housing for seniors in the country. When the congressman arrived at Homecrest House, he was greeted by Homecrest House Board President Bruce Menditch; Vice President Michael Goldman and; Executive Director Joe Podson. Welcoming him from B’nai B’rith were B’nai B’rith International Associate Director of the Center for Senior Services Janel Doughten; Assistant Director for Aging Policy Evan Carmen; and Senior Program Associate Breana Clark. The parties talked with the congressman about the amenities and services that Homecrest House provides to its residents, B’nai B’rith’s history with affordable housing and federal government funding for the rest of the 2017 fiscal year. | |
By touring the property, Congressman Raskin received a firsthand look at how important Section 202 affordable housing is for low-income seniors. He was introduced to members of the staff, and shown a resident’s apartment and the various amenities in the building such as the dinning and arts and crafts rooms. Walking through the property showed Congressman Raskin that Homecrest House is more than bricks and mortar; but a senior community that allows older Americans to “age in place.”
After the tour, the congressman dazzled everyone in attendance by sitting behind the piano and demonstrating his musical talent. Then, during the town hall, Congressman Raskin took questions from the residents on a variety of topics ranging from basic senior issues to affordable housing to foreign policy. After the Q and A, he took time to meet personally with all those in attendance.
In the months ahead, we will be working hard to encourage additional representatives and senators to visit B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings across the country. As demonstrated by the congressman’s onsite visit, inviting your member of Congress to visit affordable housing properties is a great way to advertise how integral these buildings are to low-income seniors being able to “age in place.”
After the tour, the congressman dazzled everyone in attendance by sitting behind the piano and demonstrating his musical talent. Then, during the town hall, Congressman Raskin took questions from the residents on a variety of topics ranging from basic senior issues to affordable housing to foreign policy. After the Q and A, he took time to meet personally with all those in attendance.
In the months ahead, we will be working hard to encourage additional representatives and senators to visit B’nai B’rith sponsored buildings across the country. As demonstrated by the congressman’s onsite visit, inviting your member of Congress to visit affordable housing properties is a great way to advertise how integral these buildings are to low-income seniors being able to “age in place.”
 | Evan Carmen, Esq. is the Assistant Director for Aging Policy at the B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services. He holds a B.A. from American University in political science and a J.D. from New York Law School. Prior to joining B’nai B’rith International he worked in the Office of Presidential Correspondence for the Obama White House, practiced as an attorney at Covington and Burling, LLP, worked as an aide for New York City Council Member Tony Avella and interned for Congressman Gary Ackerman’s office. Click here to read more from Evan Carmen. |
| Dear Secretary Carson, On behalf of B’nai B’rith International, its members, supporters and more than 8,000 residents of B'nai B'rith sponsored HUD assisted rental units; I want to welcome you as the newest secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). I hope that it brings you pride to oversee a department whose responsibility to the greater population is shaped by extending opportunity to low-income Americans. |  |
I’m sure you are beginning to become familiar with the ways in which HUD assistance houses over 10 million individuals. This, of course, is carried out via public housing (rental housing for over 1 million low-income families, the elderly, and those with disabilities), multifamily subsidized housing (which includes Section 202 Supportive Housing for the Elderly, the Congregate Housing Services Program, and Section 811 Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities Program) and housing vouchers (Section 8 project-based or tenant-based rent vouchers for low-income individuals, families, the elderly and the disabled). In addition, properties are often financed or assisted financially through the FHA insurance loan programs and low-income housing tax credits.
Five HUD programs provide affordable rental housing that is designated for low-income senior households. Section 202 provides housing exclusively for older adults and people with disabilities, while four other HUD programs provide housing for all age groups but have devoted the property to housing senior residents. These include Section 236 and Section 221 (d)(3) programs, public housing and project-based Section 8 programs dedicated primarily for use by senior households. After the Section 202 program, project-based Section 8 housing provides the most housing dedicated specifically to elderly households.
As you become more familiar with how HUD works to combat poverty for individuals and families all over our country using a modest portion of the federal budget, I want to bring your attention to the estimated 2 million seniors, most often low-income single women in their mid-70s to early-80s, who are housed through HUD subsidies or call HUD-assisted facilities home. HUD, a department that long ago began prioritizing the well-being of our most vulnerable seniors, has wavered in recent years on its commitment to take care of the oldest among our nation’s poor. I have the privilege of working directly with residents and staff of our 38 low-income supportive senior housing facilities, housing about 8,000 seniors across the country. Working with these buildings has transformed my understanding of what HUD-supportive housing is, and of who lives there. One thing has become particularly clear: We must include seniors in all of our conversations about publicly-funded housing.
I was disappointed that your remarks to the Senate Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs Committee did not include comments about affordable housing for seniors. However, I was pleased to read you indicated in your written responses to Sen. Sherrod Brown that the Section 202 program is “an important tool” for senior housing and that you will lobby President Trump for the inclusion of this vital program as part of a comprehensive infrastructure package. Across the spectrum of publicly-assisted housing, seniors are everywhere. Not only are they served by senior-specific programs, but they are a significant part of the population in every other category of HUD’s portfolio. Frankly, I am worried that within your focus on eliminating “government dependence,” you do not account that many people who benefit from HUD are retirees and disabled people whose incomes will never really improve, and whose need for housing assistance cannot be dismissed. Many of your statements spoke to the desire to get people off of public assistance and to move them towards gainful employment through a “development of innate talent” and “work requirements.” While economic success and independence are laudable goals to facilitate for the working poor, they are not realistic for fixed income older adults.
Many seniors living now in HUD assisted housing—who are in your terms “dependent” on it—have worked their entire lives and are still only able to afford housing by combining meager Social Security benefits with assistance from your department. While many of these individuals live in senior-specific facilities, about a third of households that make up public housing are senior-led homes or include a family member who is a senior. I believe it is important to remember that work should not be the sole focus when we discuss assisting those experiencing poverty. If we forget about the special needs required by millions of seniors who are now unable to work, we have committed a great injustice. I, and many senior housing advocates, believe the focus should instead be placed upon addressing the root causes of the shortage in affordable housing. We believe that accessing affordable housing is prevented by systematic issues including, but not limited to, predatory mortgage lending, a stagnant and unrepresentative COLA used for Social Security and astronomical price surges in many areas where seniors hoped to “age in place” due to gentrifying neighborhoods.
I am encouraged to know that you will be able to apply a health perspective on housing, because good health outcomes are incompatible with unstable or inappropriate housing. Further, housing can be a platform for prevention and early health intervention services. I look forward to the integration of your medical knowledge into your approach to HUD programs and hope that you will ensure “aging in place” and preventative care are tenets of your leading this department. Research tells us that ensuring the well-being of an aging person while they are healthy or maintaining a chronic condition prevents hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent at the end of that individual’s life. We know that these end-of-life prices surges can occur through Medicaid funded nursing home care or through receiving emergency medical services. We also know that this can be prevented when folks are able to “age in place” with comfort and dignity. More so, those in the supportive housing industry know that co-location of services and housing is crucial to maintaining one’s health as they age. Affordable, supportive housing not only allows people access to “healthy” aging, but helps people avoid injuries and unnecessary nursing home placements.
I think it’s only fair that a society be judged on the way it takes care of its oldest members. While we experience a growing population of seniors who are currently 75 years of age and older, the senior population, those aged 65 and over, is projected to double by the year 2030, from 35 million to 71.5 million. In 2010, more than 44,000 people aged 65 and over were homeless. In many ways, I am saddened our country has not done a better job of creating and preserving housing for older adults. However, I hope that I can appeal to you, as a man of faith, that we lift up and support our older neighbors who face significant financial barriers, and deserve a warm place to call home!
While I hope you will take my concerns to heart, I would love nothing more than for you to visit any of the 38 senior housing facilities my organization, B’nai B’rith International, sponsors across the United States from Maryland to California. We hope that a visit from you to any of our thriving communities would serve as a fact-gathering mission and support the good work that you will be leading!
Sincerely,
Breana Clark, MSW
Five HUD programs provide affordable rental housing that is designated for low-income senior households. Section 202 provides housing exclusively for older adults and people with disabilities, while four other HUD programs provide housing for all age groups but have devoted the property to housing senior residents. These include Section 236 and Section 221 (d)(3) programs, public housing and project-based Section 8 programs dedicated primarily for use by senior households. After the Section 202 program, project-based Section 8 housing provides the most housing dedicated specifically to elderly households.
As you become more familiar with how HUD works to combat poverty for individuals and families all over our country using a modest portion of the federal budget, I want to bring your attention to the estimated 2 million seniors, most often low-income single women in their mid-70s to early-80s, who are housed through HUD subsidies or call HUD-assisted facilities home. HUD, a department that long ago began prioritizing the well-being of our most vulnerable seniors, has wavered in recent years on its commitment to take care of the oldest among our nation’s poor. I have the privilege of working directly with residents and staff of our 38 low-income supportive senior housing facilities, housing about 8,000 seniors across the country. Working with these buildings has transformed my understanding of what HUD-supportive housing is, and of who lives there. One thing has become particularly clear: We must include seniors in all of our conversations about publicly-funded housing.
I was disappointed that your remarks to the Senate Banking, Housing, & Urban Affairs Committee did not include comments about affordable housing for seniors. However, I was pleased to read you indicated in your written responses to Sen. Sherrod Brown that the Section 202 program is “an important tool” for senior housing and that you will lobby President Trump for the inclusion of this vital program as part of a comprehensive infrastructure package. Across the spectrum of publicly-assisted housing, seniors are everywhere. Not only are they served by senior-specific programs, but they are a significant part of the population in every other category of HUD’s portfolio. Frankly, I am worried that within your focus on eliminating “government dependence,” you do not account that many people who benefit from HUD are retirees and disabled people whose incomes will never really improve, and whose need for housing assistance cannot be dismissed. Many of your statements spoke to the desire to get people off of public assistance and to move them towards gainful employment through a “development of innate talent” and “work requirements.” While economic success and independence are laudable goals to facilitate for the working poor, they are not realistic for fixed income older adults.
Many seniors living now in HUD assisted housing—who are in your terms “dependent” on it—have worked their entire lives and are still only able to afford housing by combining meager Social Security benefits with assistance from your department. While many of these individuals live in senior-specific facilities, about a third of households that make up public housing are senior-led homes or include a family member who is a senior. I believe it is important to remember that work should not be the sole focus when we discuss assisting those experiencing poverty. If we forget about the special needs required by millions of seniors who are now unable to work, we have committed a great injustice. I, and many senior housing advocates, believe the focus should instead be placed upon addressing the root causes of the shortage in affordable housing. We believe that accessing affordable housing is prevented by systematic issues including, but not limited to, predatory mortgage lending, a stagnant and unrepresentative COLA used for Social Security and astronomical price surges in many areas where seniors hoped to “age in place” due to gentrifying neighborhoods.
I am encouraged to know that you will be able to apply a health perspective on housing, because good health outcomes are incompatible with unstable or inappropriate housing. Further, housing can be a platform for prevention and early health intervention services. I look forward to the integration of your medical knowledge into your approach to HUD programs and hope that you will ensure “aging in place” and preventative care are tenets of your leading this department. Research tells us that ensuring the well-being of an aging person while they are healthy or maintaining a chronic condition prevents hundreds of thousands of dollars being spent at the end of that individual’s life. We know that these end-of-life prices surges can occur through Medicaid funded nursing home care or through receiving emergency medical services. We also know that this can be prevented when folks are able to “age in place” with comfort and dignity. More so, those in the supportive housing industry know that co-location of services and housing is crucial to maintaining one’s health as they age. Affordable, supportive housing not only allows people access to “healthy” aging, but helps people avoid injuries and unnecessary nursing home placements.
I think it’s only fair that a society be judged on the way it takes care of its oldest members. While we experience a growing population of seniors who are currently 75 years of age and older, the senior population, those aged 65 and over, is projected to double by the year 2030, from 35 million to 71.5 million. In 2010, more than 44,000 people aged 65 and over were homeless. In many ways, I am saddened our country has not done a better job of creating and preserving housing for older adults. However, I hope that I can appeal to you, as a man of faith, that we lift up and support our older neighbors who face significant financial barriers, and deserve a warm place to call home!
While I hope you will take my concerns to heart, I would love nothing more than for you to visit any of the 38 senior housing facilities my organization, B’nai B’rith International, sponsors across the United States from Maryland to California. We hope that a visit from you to any of our thriving communities would serve as a fact-gathering mission and support the good work that you will be leading!
Sincerely,
Breana Clark, MSW
 | Breana Clark is a Program Associate for the B’nai B’rith Center for Senior Services. |
- Global Advocacy
- Supporting & Defending Israel
- Senior Housing & Advocacy
- Humanitarian Aid
Analysis From Our Experts
B'nai B'rith International has widely respected experts in the fields of:
Archives
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
Categories
All
2020
2020 Census
ADA
Adriana Camisar
Affordable Housing
Afro Semitic
Aging
Alan Schneider
Alberto Nisman
Alt-right
American History
Americans With Disabilities Act
AMIA
Anti-Defamation Commission
Anti Semitism
Anti-Semitism
Argentina
Art & Music
Australia
Australian Jewish News
Azerbaijan
Balfour Declaration
Bambi Sheleg
Ban Ki-moon
BDS
Benefits
Benjamin Naegele
B'nai B'rith
B'nai B'rith Anti-defamation Commission
B'nai B'rith Housing
B'nai B'rith International
Bolivia
Brazil
Breana Clark
Caregiver Credits
Caregivers
Catholic Church
CEIRPP
Census
Center For Senior Services
Cheryl Kempler
Commission On The Status Of Women
Congress
Cristina Fernández De Kirchner
CSS
Csw
Cuba
Cuban Jewish Relief Project
Cyprus
Daniel Mariaschin
Dava Sobel
David Michaels
Dept. Of Housing And Urban Development
Dilma Rousseff
Disabilities
Disabled Americans
Disaster Relief
Discrimination
Dr. Howard Weiner
Dvir Abramovich
Ecuador
Eduardo Kohn
Eighth Summit Of The Americas
Embassy
Entebbe
Eric Fusfield
Europe
European Union
Evan Carmen
Expert Analysis
Fatah
Fiduciary
Film
Gaza
Georgia
Germany
Greece
Guatemala
Gun Reform
Gun Violence
Hamas
Harvard University
Health Care
Helping Communities
Hezbollah
Holocaust
Homecrest House
Honduras
HUD
Human Rights
Human Rights Public Policy
IACHR
Ibrahim Yassin
ICHRPP
IDF
Immigration
India
Inter-American Commission On Human Rights (IACHR)
Iran
Iran Deal
Irina Bokova
Israel
Israel Nation-state Law
Item 7
Janel Doughten
Japan
Jerusalem
Jewish
Jewish-catholic Relations
Jewish Culture
Jewish Film Festival
Jewish Heritage
Jewish History
Jewish Identity
Jewish Museum
Jewish Refugees
Jewish Rescuers Citation
Jews
JRJ
Judaica
Kakehashi Project
Knesset
Kristallnacht
Kyoto
Latin America
Laura Hemlock
Leadership Forum
Lebanon
LIHTC
Lima
Low-income
Low Income Seniors
Low-income Seniors
Luis Almagro
Mahmoud Abbas
Mark Olshan
Mauricio Macri
Medicaid
Medicare
Memorandum Of Understanding
Mexico
Middle East Affairs
Mohammed El Halabi
Music
Nicolas Maduro
NRA
OAS
Older Americans Act
Olympics
Op Ed
Op-ed
Opioid Crisis
Oren Drori
OSCE
Palestinian
Palestinians
Panama
Paraguay
Pat Wolfson Endowment
Perlman Camp
Peru
Poland
Pope Francis
Poverty
Programming
Programs
Project H.O.P.E.
Public Policy
Rachel Goldberg
Rachel Knopp
Rep. Cheri Bustos
Rep. Jamie Raskin
Rhonda Love
Richard Spencer
Roberta Jacobson
Romania
Section 202
Senior Housing
Senior Housing Advocacy
Seniors
Seniors Issues
Shimon Peres
Sienna Girgenti
Social Security
South America
Spain
Summit Of The Americas
Sup
Supporting Defending Israel
Sweden
Syria
Syrian Refugees
Tareck El Aissami
Temple Mount
Terror
Terrorism
Theater
Times Of Israel
Tokyo
Trump
UN
U.N.
Un Affairs
UNESCO
UNGA
UNHRC
United
United Nations
UNRWA
UN Security Council
Unto Every Person
Uruguay
U.S. Congress
U.S. House Of Representatives
Vatican
Venezuela
Volunteering
Voter ID Laws
We Walk To Remember
White House
WHO
William Kentridge
Winter Olympics
World Center
World Heritage Committee
World Jewish Congress
World Vision
Wuppertal
YLN
Yom Hashoah
Young Leadership Network
Zionism
RSS Feed
