Building off our momentum from 2017, the Center for Senior Services (CSS) team hit the ground running last year.  We are pleased to report that CSS established new connections on Capitol Hill and at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In addition, we enjoyed learning from each other at the Managers and Service Coordinators and B’nai B’rith Housing Conferences.

Last spring brought welcome news for the Section 202 capital advance funds, because the federal budget allocated $105 million towards the program. This was the first time since 2011 that meaningful money was appropriated to build new properties for low-income seniors. For years, B’nai B’rith has felt the Section 202 capital advance funds had been woefully neglected, and we believe this is an important first step towards creating badly needed additional affordable housing for seniors.  

Unfortunately, it wasn’t all good news this year for the Section 202 program. HUD released proposed legislation that called for an increase in Section 202 residents’ monthly rental contributions.  B’nai B’rith spoke out against these damaging reforms and took our message directly to Congress. Fortunately, there was little appetite on Capitol Hill to raise rents on low-income seniors, and HUD’s rental reforms were not enacted into law.

As always, our visits to Capitol Hill were in conjunction with the American Association of Service Coordinators, an organization that naturally fits with B’nai B’rith’s housing mantra of “aging in place.”

In addition, meetings with lawmakers’ offices always included an open invitation to visit our beautiful B’nai B’rith-sponsored properties. Representatives Cheri Bustos (D-Illinois), Gene Green (D-Texas), Ted Deutch (D-Florida) and Donald Payne (D-New Jersey) all enjoyed their time touring Section 202 buildings and speaking with their constituents about seniors’ issues.  Always looking to build on our successes, we expanded our congressional outreach this year to include candidates running for Congress. Republican congressional candidate Marty Nothstein and Democratic congressional candidate Susan Wild toured B’nai B’rith Apartments in Allentown, Pennsylvania, to meet with residents and discuss the critical importance of housing for adults with limited means. This opportunity allowed whichever candidate won the race to take back to Congress the conversations they had with residents about how critical affordable housing, income security and healthcare matters are for seniors.

Our work certainly did not stop on Capitol Hill.  The B’nai B’rith Housing Conference and the Managers and Service Coordinators meetings were both fantastic. The B’nai B’rith housing community was able to directly hear from HUD, B’nai B’rith staff and other experts who work with seniors. Topics included elder fraud prevention from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; working with Adult Protective Services (APS); avoiding staff burnout; dealing with difficult residents and residents’ mental health issues; fire safety for seniors; resident empowerment; program models to help residents access nutritious food; HUD updates; eliminating barriers to housing access and providing support for formerly homeless residents; fair housing; and congressional updates. It’s always fun learning about our buildings’ success stories and seeing what works throughout our community.

CSS staff work travel certainly did not stop at the B’nai B’rith conferences. In May Janel Doughten, associate director, Center for Senior Services, and Evan Carmen, assistant director for aging policy, were hosted by the Jewish Community Housing Corporation (JCHC) management company at the South Orange B'nai B'rith Federation House in New Jersey. The two put on a fair housing training for residents as well as a session entitled “How to Be Your Own Best Advocate.”

Janel and Breana Clark, senior program associate, attended the 2018 National Service Coordinator Conference in August. The conference was hosted by the American Association of Service Coordinators in Austin, Texas. The following month, Janel presented at the SPM Property Management 2018 Managers Workshop in Sandestin, Florida.  The presentation focused on how to de-escalate tense situations with a resident, how to recognize and deal with adult bullying in senior housing and how to become more empathetic towards residents.

The B’nai B’rith 2018 Annual Leadership Forum took place in New York from Oct. 14-16. As a part of the agenda, Evan and Breana sat on a staff panel devoted to domestic policy issues. The two highlighted the HUD Section 202 program and other federal programs that seniors in the B’nai B’rith network rely on, such as Medicare, Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Social Security.

Most recently, Janel visited Mollie & Max Barnett Apartments & Tarrant County B’nai B’rith Apartments in Fort Worth, Texas, to put on programming for residents regarding adult bullying, empathy and compassion.

Saving the best for last, Mark Olshan, associate executive vice president of B’nai B’rith International, was instrumental in the recapitalization of the Adelstein Family-Project H.O.P.E B’nai B’rith House in the Bronx, New York.  This project will allow residents to see a completely renovated building when the construction is finished. Upgrades include new bathrooms, kitchens, appliances, lighting and paint. Exterior and common area renovations will include new masonry, replacement of exterior doors, new elevators, safety windows, plumbing infrastructure, boilers and pumps. It will also see the addition of smoke detectors and sprinklers and electrical and security upgrades. All of this will allow the building to be preserved for the next generation.

In addition, the management team plans to provide the financial resources for supportive and social services for the residents. Through partnerships with local organizations, for the first time, residents will have access to community resources, supportive listening and casework services and a host of new classes, workshops, events and regular activities.

Lastly, in 2018, the CSS team was excited to start an educational webinar service that trained the B’nai B’rith community on affordable housing.  We did webinars entitled “Senior Housing 202” and “Fair Housing and Diversity Awareness.”  These webinars provided important information on the background of B’nai B’rith’s relationship with the Section 202 program, and how we can make our housing community more inclusive and welcoming.     
​
As we begin 2019, this year is shaping up to be even better.  We have our conferences tentatively scheduled for Fort Worth, Texas and San Juan, Puerto Rico, and we are already planning for the Resident Leadership retreat over the summer, which is always a blast! Lastly, rest assured that our advocacy on Capitol Hill will continue in earnest, as we hope to report additional congressional visits to our sponsored buildings throughout the year.   

​​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.​

​​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, I received a very strange voicemail from my grandfather indicating he had put together the money to bail me out of jail.  Obviously, this message caught my attention, because at that moment I was watching TV on the couch with my fiancé, a far cry from wearing an orange jumpsuit behind bars.  I immediately called back and learned that someone claiming to be a lawyer contacted him indicating I was currently in prison for getting into a car accident due to driving while texting. And of course, I would be released from jail if my grandfather sent the attorney $9,800 for my bail. I quickly informed him none of that story was true, and he should under no set of circumstances send this individual money.  Thankfully, no real harm was done to my grandfather, and this incident will only serve as a cautionary tale for when another con artist inevitably preys on him.   

Later that day, I was on the phone with my grandmother and relayed my grandfather’s story.  During the call, she told me of a different scam she experienced where someone called claiming to be her bank and said she owed them $3,000.  Fortunately, she called my mother to verify the caller’s claim, and my mom quickly realized it was a scam.  

While both of my grandparents were lucky, I know that countless seniors are not so fortunate.  After hearing my grandparents’ stories, I couldn’t help but wonder about other types of sophisticated scams that target seniors. After researching, I learned that con artists call seniors claiming to be from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) indicating that they owe the government money for taxes, and failure to pay will result in their arrest. Another scam occurs when people read the obituaries, then call the grieving family asking for money, fraudulently claiming the deceased was in their debt.    
Can you imagine the type of low-life who calls seniors, scaring them into thinking they are going to jail, or steals money from the elderly while they are grieving for a loved one?
​
Last March, the Senate Special Committee on Aging had a hearing called “Stopping Senior Scams,” where this was topic was addressed.  During the hearing, Chairman Susan Collins disclosed the IRS impersonation scam had been the most consistently reported to the Committees’ hotline over the past three years.  Furthermore, because of information obtained by the hotline, the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration was able to arrest 15 people associated with a scam that stole about $9 million.  However, efforts to fight this type of criminal behavior must continue in earnest, because according to the Department of Justice, about
$3  billion continues to be stolen from seniors each year.
 
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), seniors are unfortunately susceptible to scams for a variety of reasons. These include: Older Americans tend to own “nest eggs” and have outstanding credit; seniors often do not report fraud because they are embarrassed or unsure of who to contact; and  scam artists know that seniors make poor witnesses because they have a difficult time recalling facts.  A former conman awaiting sentencing in California for the “grandparent scam” explained, “You can make $10,000 sometimes in a day if you do it properly,” despite only generating a 2 percent success rate. Asked why scammers pick on seniors, he said, “We target people over the age of 65, mainly, because they're more gullible…They're at home. They're more accessible. Once you get them emotionally involved, then they'll do anything for you, basically.”
 
So, what can seniors do to avoid being taken advantage of? It’s simple: Never give personal financial information over the phone, unless you placed the call; set privacy settings on social media accounts to their highest levels; and, to ensure that a phone call is really coming from a loved one, ask questions over the phone that only a family member would know.
 
Hopefully, through public awareness and education, seniors can be less vulnerable to these types of scams. However, in the meantime, I applaud my great-uncle, who has been frequently targeted by these types of scams.
 
He simply hangs up the phone, but beforehand, he asks the con artist, “Does your mother know what you do for a living?”  

​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.

Capitol Hill has been relatively quiet recently because members of Congress are back home pounding the pavement stumping for votes. With election day only a few weeks away, now is a great time for me to blog about the important role older Americans will play in the upcoming election. With a rapidly expanding senior population, politicians across the country will have to court seniors if they hope to be victorious. Consequently, older adults are in a great position to make elected officials take notice of the issues important to them, whether that’s Medicare, Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), Social Security or affordable housing.

First, seniors are in an advantageous position to be heard because they are one of the biggest voting blocks in the country. According to the United States Census Bureau, 70 percent of seniors (65+) turned out to vote in the 2016 presidential election, and in a recently conducted poll, 74 percent of seniors say they plan to vote in the upcoming midterm elections. As statistics demonstrate, seniors keep showing up at the polls in large percentages, and the number of older Americans keeps rising. This translates to one important point; our leaders running for political office should be paying attention to the issues important to a good percentage of the electorate: A demographic group which continuously grows!

So why are the 2018 midterm elections so important for seniors? During the past two years our elected representatives in Washington D.C. have debated legislation with major implications for older adults. For example, in 2017 Congress and the administration put forth serious proposals that would have negatively impacted older Americans. These include repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act, cutting affordable housing and the enactment of tax reform legislation. Fortunately, with the exception of the tax reform legislation, these bills never became law. On a positive note, the 2018 government funding bill included more than $100 million dollars for the creation of additional low-income seniors housing. These policies play a critical role in the daily lives of older Americans, and illustrate why seniors’ activism is so important.   

One state where seniors can definitely make their voices heard is in Florida, home to about 4 million seniors and the site of a hotly contested Senate race. A state whose population is 20 percent seniors is in a great position to demand that candidates running for public office protect the needs of older Americans. In the 2014 Florida midterm elections voters 50 and over accounted for a whopping 67 percent of ballots cast. Furthermore, a recently conducted poll of Florida residents ages 50 and over revealed that 82 percent of respondents reported Social Security as a very important issue, coupled with 74 percent for Medicare. Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer said, “Candidates who ignore the issues that matter to voters age 50 and up do so at their own peril,” and “Older voters were decisive in the last two elections, and they will likely be decisive this year as well.”

Older Americans should take the time to learn about the positions of candidates running for office.  Go to town hall meetings where candidates take questions from constituents. Ask the candidate if they are going to cut financial resources from important senior programs. Remind elected officials that your contributions to the Social Security Trust Fund were not intended to pay for other government programs.

When Congress returns from election day, lawmakers might feel more emboldened to make big policy changes to senior programs that impact healthcare, nutrition, housing and income security.  
​
Now is the time when every American should make their voice heard, especially seniors!

​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.

Since I started my job at B’nai B’rith International, I have written several blogs being critical of the Trump Administration and Congress’ proposals to cut funding from affordable housing. Over the past twenty months, there have not been many opportunities to applaud our elected representatives in Washington, D.C. for bi-partisan legislation that looks to tackle the severe shortage of reasonably priced homes in this country. Consequently, the recently introduced bipartisan Senate legislation, called the Task Force on the Impact of the Affordable Housing Crisis Act, should be positively recognized. The purpose of this task force is to study how affordable housing financially impacts other government programs (federal, state and local), different facets of people’s lives (i.e. health, nutrition, education, employment, etc.) and make policy recommendations to Congress on how affordable housing can strengthen additional federal programs.   
​
Working at B’nai B’rith offers me the unique opportunity to see how housing is intertwined with other areas of senior’s lives, especially health care. One of the goals of B’nai B’rith is to “age in place” which we accomplish through our sponsored Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Section 202 housing. Older Americans are able to “age in place” because service coordinators connect residents with community based services, which have demonstrated a greater likelihood of retaining residents in their existing buildings and therefore avoiding more pricey institutions like a nursing home.

The benefits of the Section 202 program go to the very heart of what this potential task force is hoping to accomplish, that is, to find ways affordable housing can help other federal programs. For example, the financial cost of three seniors in a Section 202 building with home and community-based services is about the same as one person in a nursing home. Keep in mind that Medicaid is a key subsidizer of nursing homes. According to HUD, 38 percent of Section 202 tenants are frail or near-frail, and consequently need help with daily activities, making them potential candidates for long-term institutional care. Therefore, the more Section 202 buildings that can be developed for frail or near-frail seniors, the less financial resources Medicaid will require for nursing homes.
​
In addition, bi-partisan policy solutions generally have a better chance of becoming law, especially in the Senate. This legislation was introduced by U.S. Sens. Todd Young (R-Ind.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and Angus King (I-Maine), along with cosponsors from both political parties. Furthermore, the people who serve on the Task Force will be appointed by both Democrats and Republicans. These Senators should be commended for taking an important “first step” toward discovering how integral affordable housing is to other federal programs. 
 
Obviously, the introduction of this legislation is a far cry away from being sent to the president’s desk for his signature, and even further away from any policy recommendations from the task force to Congress. However, you have to walk before you can run. Hopefully, this legislation becomes a reality, and the policy proposals are Congress’ full sprint towards creating additional affordable housing in the country. 

Currently the Affordable Care Act (ACA) protects people with pre-existing conditions by outlawing health insurance companies from refusing to sell plans to individuals because of existing health issues. These protections are particularly important for older Americans who obviously are more likely to have a pre-existing condition. Unfortunately, these protections could be compromised by Department of Justice’s (DOJ) decision not to defend the ACA’s in a lawsuit brought by Texas and 19 other states. The basic premise behind the litigation is that because of last year’s tax reform legislation, the individual mandate has been effectively eliminated because people will no longer be taxed for not carrying health insurance. Taken one step further, these 20 states argue that because the individual mandate is so integral to the ACA, that the rest of the legislation should be found unconstitutional (it should be noted the administration is only arguing pre-existing protections and community ratings should be found invalid). Currently around 25 million older Americans (50 to 64) could be denied insurance in the individual market if the protections for people with pre-existing health conditions are eliminated.   

First the DOJ’s  decision is concerning because it runs contrary to its own long standing tradition of generally defending federal law in litigation, even if the current administration is ideologically opposed to the policy. Law professor Nicholas Bagley from the University of Michigan who used to work at the DOJ said, “I am at a loss for words to explain how big of a deal this is. The Justice Department has a durable, long-standing, bipartisan commitment to defending the law when non-frivolous arguments can be made in its defense. This brief torches that commitment.”
In addition, in a letter from Attorney General Jeff Sessions to House Speaker Paul Ryan regarding this litigation, Sessions argues that without the individual mandate, “individuals could wait until they become sick to purchase insurance, thus driving up premiums for everyone else.” Meaning people could go without insurance until they become sick, and because of pre-existing conditions protections insurance companies would be forced to sell sick people policies, thus driving up the costs for everyone else. If I understand this correctly, Congress and the White House repeal the individual mandate, which will likely drive up health insurance premiums, and their solution to this problem is to deny protections for people with pre-existing conditions. 

While a final resolution regarding this litigation is a ways off, currently the ACA has been instrumental in providing improved health care protection and coverage for older Americans. For example, according to the Commonwealth Fund in 2010, 43 percent of individuals between the ages of 50 to 64 who attempted to purchase health care coverage where either rejected, charged higher premiums or had certain health conditions omitted from policies. The ACA combats these problems by not allowing people to be denied for pre-existing conditions, limiting what insurance companies can charge older Americans compared to younger people and regulating individual’s insurance premiums through tax credits. The Commonwealth Fund reports between 2012 to 2016 older Americans between 50 and 64 saw the uninsured rate drop from 13 to 8 percent. Clearly older Americans have seen substantial improvements in health insurance access since the ACA was enacted; eliminating protections for pre-existing conditions will inevitably cause older adults health care costs to increase.

Furthermore, as I have reported in my previous blog, Repealing and Replacing The Affordable Care Act And Its Impact on Medicare, older Americans who don’t have health insurance prior to turning 65 are more likely to require more expensive health care once they enroll in Medicare.  The Justice Department’s decision not to defend pre-existing conditions in litigation will only make older adults less healthy before they enroll in Medicare by potentially limiting access to health insurance.  

Lastly, this litigation flies in the face of public opinion. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation poll, support for pre-existing protections is solid across the political spectrum with support amongst 84 percent of Democrats, 68 percent of Independents and 59 percent of Republicans.

Thankfully, the ACA is still standing and our elected officials in Washington, D.C. have been unable to repeal and replace the ACA. Realizing that a legislative repeal of the ACA might be unworkable, everything has been done to weaken this legislation. The administration has drastically reduced the ACA’s advertising budget, eliminated the cost-sharing subsidies and expanded short-term health plans which don’t offer key ACA protections.

Sadly, the current lawsuit’s end result could potentially strip away basic health care protections for older Americans. What happens if the court sides with the plaintiffs and gets rid of pre-existing conditions protections? Are older Americans expected to go back to a health care system where their plans are more expensive and protections are less stringent? Let’s hope for the sake of all Americans our court system protects safeguards put in place by the ACA for people with pre-existing protections.

As most Americans are aware, our country is fighting an opioid epidemic that claims thousands of people’s lives a year.  What may surprise you is that sometimes, grandma and grandpa are the ones selling drugs in your neighborhood. I imagine some readers are saying, it’s not possible that “grandparents” are the drug dealers on the streets of America!  Unfortunately, due to a variety of unfortunate circumstances relating to economics and vulnerability, some seniors, have resorted to selling drugs.  

Maybe more than any other population group, seniors have relatively easy access to prescription drugs. Obviously, older Americans more so than younger people, because of their physical condition, are more regular candidates for potent prescription medication.  For example, according to the American College of Preventive Medicine, elderly people make up 13 percent of the American population but receive one-third of all prescribed medications. Considering how accessible prescriptions drugs are for seniors, older persons are in a unique position to turn around and sell their medication. However, according to Sharon Walsh, director of the University of Kentucky Center for Drug and Alcohol Research, seniors are not dealing drugs in the traditional sense, but rather selling these pills to a network of family and friends.

So, what’s going on with seniors that make them more likely to sell their drugs?  First countless seniors live on a fixed-income in addition to being riddled by poverty. Keep in mind this money has to be stretched every month for basic expenses like housing, health care, nutrition and transportation. Imagine only having $1,000 a month to live on. Unfortunately this helps to explain why seniors supplement their income through illegal streams.  Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, County Drug and Alcohol Director Steve Ross issued a report stating, “Our seniors are in a very volatile state right now because what we’re learning is that there are a number of seniors out there who are selling the prescription painkiller to pay for their other medications and/or for food.”

Furthermore, seniors have fallen prey to younger, more sophisticated drug dealers who purposefully target the elderly. Because of their easy access to prescriptions, drug dealers promise seniors money in exchange for their medication, which the drug dealers will later sell for large profits. According to a report by the Ohio Substance Abuse Monitoring Network, “Reportedly, dealers stand outside of drugstores and approach seniors about selling their prescriptions, or dealers will convince a senior to go to the doctor and fake pain to get a prescription.” The report goes on to state, “If the senior agrees, the dealer will drive the senior to the doctor and to the pharmacy to fill the prescription and will then pay them.” “That's the only way they (seniors) can make ends meet.” 

With seniors turning to selling drugs to pay for their basic necessities, are grandma and grandpa going to jail? While, elderly Americans are being arrested for their unfortunate role in the opioid crisis, prosecutions are uncommon, and when prosecuted sentencing is light. Captain Jeff Orr, president of the Ohio Task Force Commanders Association said in reference to older drug dealers, “If we get information about sellers, we are following up on it.  Are they going to prison for it? No. They are being diverted to probation at that age.”

While it’s comforting to learn that our grandparents aren’t doing hard time, the mere thought of them being arrested and thrown in the back of a police car should make people pause.

So what is being done to combat the opioid epidemic in our country? While the White House and Congress have taken steps to combat the opioid crisis, I think our elected leaders in Washington, D.C. would be better served if they more thoroughly investigated the root causes of why people sell drugs. Specifically, as it relates to this issue, why seniors need to sell drugs to earn enough money for their basic necessities. Clearly many older Americans are financially strapped.  Consequently, the policies which the administration and some members of Congress have endorsed, such as cutting financial resources for health care and affordable housing programs that benefit seniors, could make elderly people more impoverished and more susceptible to selling medications.
​
Common sense dictates if we want to get seniors to stop selling their medications then we should enact laws that  provide them with the financial security they need, so they are not tempted to sell drugs to pay for their rent, health care or food. 

​​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.

On February 14 the gun debate in the United States was forever changed because of the terrible shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. Since the shooting, teenagers from that high school and thousands of other students from across the country have strongly advocated for common sense gun reforms. Student activism should be strongly encouraged and applauded, as these young people are making their voices heard on a topic that has unfortunately touched the lives of countless people.  

Fortunately for these students they are not marching alone; grandmothers across the country have joined the fight for reasonable gun control measures. During the massive March for Our Lives protest, that saw hundreds of thousands of people take to the streets of Washington, D.C. and across the globe to protest gun violence; senior citizens were marching right alongside everyone else. In Washington, D.C. a group of grandmothers banded together to show their support. These grandmothers protested for two and half hours to condemn the National Rifle Association (NRA), support universal background checks and labeled themselves “grannies for gun control.” 

“We want to get people’s attention. So we made sure to include some signs that people might find upsetting. You know, things like ‘’bury guns, not kids.’ If that makes you uncomfortable, good,” Tina Hobson, one of the protesters, told the Washington Post.

Senior activism regarding gun control is nothing new. Grandmothers Against Gun Violence (GAGV), a group from Seattle, has been fighting since 2013 for gun reform.  Inspired by the tragic shooting in Newtown, Connecticut, Margaret Heldering, president of GAGV, and three of her friends (all grandmothers of kids 6 and 7 at the time) started GAGV in order to contribute to our national dialogue about gun control. Today,  GAGV has grown from four members to more than 700.  

GAGV’s work embodies the following principles: 1) Closing the gun sale loophole and requiring universal background checks on gun sales; 2) banning the sale of high capacity ammunition magazines; 3) banning the sale of military style assault weapons; and 4) safe storage of guns. Their accomplishments and passion for trying to bring about positive change is laudable. For instance, they have organized a mayoral debate in Seattle regarding gun violence, donated $10,000 to firearm research and have visited with law makers.

Gun violence impacts more than just our countries’ grandchildren, but also senior citizens. B’nai B’rith International serving as the largest national Jewish sponsor of subsidized housing in the United States, with 38 buildings in 28 communities, unfortunately has to train staff members of our buildings on active shooter drills. We have worked with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and outside experts to teach our building’s staff members on best practices in the event of an active shooter. Staff members who attended, were able to create an emergency preparedness plan for potential active shooters in the building. “In the United States shootings don’t happen in a vacuum. Staff members who work for senior communities need to be trained on the proper procedures in case they are confronted with a potential active shooter. And training should not stop for when the shooter has been neutralized, buildings need to be aware of how traumatized residents will be and how best to respond with counseling,” B’nai B’rith International Center for Senior Services Associate Director Janel Doughten said.

Given the horrible impact that occurs in the United States from gun violence, I still can’t understand why groups like the National Rifle Association (NRA) take such a militant approach towards reasonable gun reform. These types of organizations like to point to the second amendment, and how gun control measures for military style assault weapons are an encroachment on people’s freedom. Let’s say for the sake of argument we accept the NRA’s position that the second amendment does allow someone to own a firearm. Okay, having said that, why can’t we have reasonable restrictions for weapons whose only purpose is for war? As noted above, GAGV has some pretty fair and reasonable restrictions on gun sales. Does anyone really need to own a military style weapon? Does it really violate the second amendment and impinge on people’s freedom to close the gun show loophole?
​
While certain members of Congress’ response to gun violence over the years have been woefully inadequate, hopefully our elected representatives can learn from the oldest and youngest members of our society. It’s great that Americans are coming together like never before to make their voices heard regarding gun violence. Seniors and students have done a great job of pushing the gun reform movement, which has unfortunately been stagnant in Congress for far too long.   

​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.

More than 25 years ago President George H.W. Bush signed into law, with bi-partisan support, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which is legislation that provides civil rights protection for people with disabilities. Amongst the many protections the bill affords the disabled community is the ability to access places of public accommodation. Because of the ADA, disabled persons have an easier time entering doctor’s offices, shopping centers, grocery stores, restaurants and other public places. 

Recently, the House of Representatives passed the ADA Education and Reform Act of 2017 (H.R. 620), which despite its name, does severe harm to disabled persons. The bill creates additional and unnecessary roadblocks for the disabled community to file civil actions for violations of the ADA regarding places of public accommodation. Under current law an aggrieved individual who can’t access a business can file a complaint with United States Department of Justice, bring litigation or talk with the business owner. It should be noted under federal law that people who file lawsuits and are victorious are only entitled to injunctive relief (removal of the barrier) and attorney’s fees. They are not entitled to damage awards.

Under H.R. 620 the burden would be unfairly shifted to disabled persons to make sure the business community is complying with the ADA. For example, this legislation would force the aggrieved party to file written technical notice, often needing a lawyer, give the offending party 60 days to respond, then force the victim to wait another 120 days to see if “substantial progress” is made to fix the problem, before the matter can legally enter the court system. Is the United States Congress reasonably expecting people with a non-legal background to understand the technical intricacies of the ADA to file notice?

In addition, if businesses are not legally required to make their accommodations accessible under the ADA, what incentive do they have to comply before a complaint is filed in court? Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) who uses a wheelchair said on the House floor, “The idea that places of public accommodation should receive a free pass for six months before correctly implementing a law that has been a part of our legal framework for nearly three decades creates an obvious disincentive for ADA compliance.”
 
Presently, 16 million seniors have one or more disabilities, with mobility issues being the most common. Are proponents of the bill going to argue the elderly community should have to wait six months or more to visit a hospital or doctor’s office because it’s not accessible? Not to mention being barred from everyday activities like going shopping or the movies.   

The ADA has been the law of the land for the past 28 years. Are members of Congress going to argue that businesses have not had enough time to comply with the ADA’s requirements? The ADA National Network, funded by the federal government, offers no cost technical assistance to businesses about how to comply under the law. Furthermore, this assistance is offered at 10 regional centers around the country, and there are tax credits available to businesses that remove barriers for the disabled community. Having almost 30 years of notice, tax credits and the ADA National Network, it’s hard to cry foul that the ADA is too onerous. 
 
Lastly, proponents of the bill believe it’s a necessity because of unethical attorneys who are bringing frivolous lawsuits. People on both sides of this debate can agree that unwarranted litigation is a problem in this country. However, this bill does nothing to fix that problem! First, as referenced above, federal law does not permit plaintiffs to collect damages for cases filed under Title III of the ADA. While it’s true some states permit monetary damages for violations, the current proposal does nothing to change state law. Most importantly, what other member of a federally protected class must wait months to exercise their civil rights against discrimination?   
​
When Bush signed the ADA he said, “Let the shameful wall of exclusion finally come tumbling down.” Sadly this legislation recreates exclusionary walls for disabled Americans that the ADA fought so hard to knock down. Presently, the United States Senate has shown better judgment than the House of Representatives, with 42 Senators promising to block any vote on this shameful legislation. While that is good news for the disabled community, let’s hope these senators’ commitment does not waiver. 

​​​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.

Working at B’nai B’rith International during the past year has afforded me the opportunity to visit our sponsored Section 202 buildings across the country.  B’nai B’rith in partnership with Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) sponsors Section 202 housing for low-income seniors throughout the United States comprising 38 buildings that serve more than 4,500 people. While touring the properties, I have gotten to talk with residents and see exactly how seniors benefit from living there. Learning about affordable housing is always a humbling experience, never more so than visiting the food pantries in the buildings. Staff members in multiple buildings explained to me how residents, unfortunately, at the end of the month, often don’t have enough money for food. Consequently, these food banks provide vital nutrition for low-income seniors who now don’t have to choose between food and healthcare.
 
According to HUD, the average annual income for a Section 202 household is around $13,300 or $1,108 or a month. Clearly Section 202 residents are not a group of people from great wealth. Given the type of resident these buildings attract, I am saddened a proposal introduced by HUD may RAISE residents’ rental contributions. 

For people reading this blog, you have read correctly! The policy recently proposed by HUD could raise the rent on low-income seniors!   

First the proposal changes how HUD calculates Section 202 rental contributions from 30% of adjusted income to 30% of gross income. Simply put this change will subject more of low-income seniors very limited financial resources to rental contributions. Secondly, the bill is requesting $50 a month minimum for rental contributions. To put this in perspective, this impacts people who make less than $2,000 a year, the exact type of person who the government should be looking to shield from further financial hardship.    

The Administration and some members of Congress argue that government spending is out of control with our country’s debt reaching around $20 trillion dollars. There is no argument that our country’s debt needs to be tackled.  However, addressing our debt on the back of elderly Americans is not acceptable.  How is a better way of governing, one that leaves seniors without a roof over their head?          
                 
The proposed legislation slashes assistance for our most needy seniors by reducing their assistance for affordable housing.  If taking away basic necessities for low-income seniors is required to return our country to greatness, I think the Administration’s definition of greatness is in my humble opinion morally bankrupt! 

​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.

​In December, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted (3 to 2) to repeal net neutrality. Net neutrality is the concept that internet service providers (ISPs) like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T should treat all internet content equally. For example, net neutrality ensures that ISPs cannot charge more money or vary internet speeds based on the type of content you are trying to access. That could be news, social media, streaming video or the website of a business or friend. 
 
Unfortunately, the FCC’s recent decision to repeal net neutrality could completely undue basic fairness for consumers by allowing ISPs to charge higher rates or vary internet speeds based upon the content users are trying to access. This means ISPs will be able to charge for content you currently receive for free or lower speeds for competitors’ products. 
 
Furthermore, the FCC’s decision flies in the face of the public’s support for net neutrality which has surprising bi-partisan approval. A recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland indicated that 83 percent of respondents favored net neutrality. Breaking down the numbers even further, support for net neutrality was discovered amongst 89 percent of Democrats, 75 percent of Republicans and 86 percent of Independents. 
 
While many associate this problem with younger individuals, older Americans will also feel the negative impact from the FCC’s decision. Research demonstrates that seniors actively use the web, with 67 percent of Americans 65 or older using the internet regularly. Taken one step further, 76 percent of seniors who use the internet do so at least once a day. Given how vital the internet is for so many seniors, it’s clear that the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality will have an impact on their daily lives.
           
Most importantly, older Americans have started to use the internet to gain better access to health care. Telemedicine and telehealth allows for patient monitoring, video chatting with doctors and an easier ability for physicians and their patients to transfer medical information. People are able to get the medical attention they need without having to travel long distances, which can too often be a daunting challenge for seniors in rural communities. According to the 2015 American Hospital Association report, 20 percent of Americans are from rural areas “where many do not have access to primary care or specialist services.” Older Americans in rural areas with chronic health conditions might find it challenging to travel to physician’s offices because of transportation or mobility issues. The internet has allowed people the ability to get medical attention without the hassle of long travel. However, the FCC’s decision regarding net neutrality could permit ISPs to play favorites between websites; resulting in web based health care services with slower internet times, or leave their customers with costlier bills. 
           
According to Leslie Lenert, chief research information officer at the Medical University of South Carolina, the benefits to telehealth such as direct consultations, medical education and the transfer of medical information from patients personal devices (i.e. heart rate monitors) to physicians, “could be constricted if they were treated differently than preferred traffic .”  Consequently, older Americans might have to spend more money on internet fees to get the identical medical care they received before the FCC’s decision. 
 
The internet has also helped seniors deal with social isolation by giving them an inexpensive way to stay in touch with family and friends. Tragically, eight million individuals over the age of 50 are impacted by isolation. Services like Facebook, FaceTime and Skype allow seniors to stay connected through the internet instead of traditional telephones. Seniors can video chat with grandchildren through FaceTime and Skype, and view pictures of family on Facebook. The FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality will allow ISPs to potentially charge consumers additional money to use this content which could place an unnecessary financial strain on older Americans for that valuable connection.
 
Too often, low-income seniors have to save pennies just to pay for health care, rent and food.  Seniors living on a limited income should not be forced to absorb another unnecessary hike in their monthly expenditures stemming from more costly internet access. Whether it’s receiving vital medical care or simply staying in touch with family, the internet has made life easier and more enjoyable.
 
However, all is not lost for seniors! Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) recently introduced a bill that would overturn the FCC’s decision to repeal net neutrality. The legislation has bi-partisan support in the Senate, and should be endorsed by the White House and members of the House. 
 
Sadly, the FCC’s decision regarding net neutrality may place roadblocks on older Americans ability to access the content they often need and use on the internet. Hopefully Congress and the Trump administration can build on Markey’s legislation and work together to ensure elderly Americans affordable access to the internet.