The Senate unanimously passed a $3 billion expansion to the G.I. Bill on Wednesday, paving the way for veterans to pursue STEM careers while bolstering existing benefits. President Donald Trump is expected to sign the measure, which the House passed last week, also in a unanimous vote. The original G.I. Bill was created after World War II, allowing returning veterans to receive an education in return for their service.

Named after Harry Walter Colmery, a veteran who drafted the original 1944 bill, the expanded benefits “will further invest in the proven educational success of our veterans and help propel them toward becoming the civic, business and public leaders of our country,” according to the text.

The measure expands financial assistance and other benefits for Purple Heart recipients, families of soldiers killed on the battlefield, and veterans who pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics, also known as STEM fields. It also repeals the 15-year benefits limit.

“When new industries emerge and we rely on American workers to fill those jobs, it shouldn’t matter if a veteran is five, 15, or 30 years out of the service,” Representatives Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and Phil Roe (R-TN) wrote in an op-ed after the House passed the measure. “If you haven’t used your benefits yet, you should be able to get an education at any point in your life,” McCarthy and Roe, chairman of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, wrote.

After a brief disagreement on how the expanded benefits would be funded, Congress settled on a solution: reduce the increase in housing benefits for new beneficiaries. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure, which will cost $3 billion over a decade, will ultimately be cost neutral.

Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA), chairman of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, called the bill a “great victory for out veterans and their future.” He added: “When our veterans return home, they should have every opportunity available to them to pursue their desired profession and career.”

Senator Jon Tester (D-MT), the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the measure “will help our nation’s service members transition back to civilian life by opening doors for their future success.”

Veterans Affairs Secretary David Shulkin also expressed support for the measure, also known as the Forever G.I. Bill:

The #ForeverGIBill strengthens an important #Veterans benefit. I thank the House and Senate for making this bill a priority.

— Dr. David J. Shulkin (@SecShulkin) August 2, 2017

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New G.I. Bill Benefits Focus on STEM Careers appeared first on Law Street.

In 1948, H. Edward Spires was discharged as “undesirable” from the military because he was gay. On Friday, his discharge was finally updated to “honorable,” after almost 70 years. “My first thought was, ‘it’s about time,” Spires said on Monday. “I can lift my head again.” One of the law students who worked on the case, Erin Baldwin, doesn’t know why the Air Force changed its mind, since Spires has requested the change several times. “I’m not sure we can say with certainty but it was helpful that he had support from a lot of different places,” she said.

When the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, which banned openly homosexual soldiers from serving in the military, was repealed in 2011, Spires became qualified to ask to upgrade his discharge. But the Air Force claimed that a 1973 fire had destroyed his military records, and denied his application. In November, a group of law students from the Yale Veterans Legal Services Clinic helped Spires and his husband David Rosenberg, who is also a veteran, file a federal lawsuit. Spires is currently recovering from pneumonia, which made the issue even more pressing.

Finally, the military granted his request. In a letter signed last Thursday, the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records acknowledges Spires’ request and writes, “Sufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of an injustice.”

Gay Air Force veteran honorably discharged 68 years later https://t.co/0EWoeTjF5K pic.twitter.com/KxriaCM5rX

— Hartford Courant (@hartfordcourant) January 9, 2017

Spires enlisted in the military when he was 20 years old, in 1946. He was assigned the role of a chaplain’s assistant at the Air Force Base in San Antonio and was soon promoted to the rank of sergeant. He told NBC in November that he lived a closeted life whenever he was at the base. Spires loved San Antonio and was part of a small community of other closeted gay men. But all of that changed when he went to a Halloween party dressed as the soap Oxydol, which was advertised at the time as very sparkly. So Spires dressed “very sparkly and that was taken as being in drag,” he said. “Someone at the party recognized me and said, ‘Ah-ha! He must be gay.’”

After that, the military treated him differently; officers interrogated him for weeks, asked personal questions about his life, and sent him to meet a board of inquiry every day for a week. Spires was too ashamed to tell his mother what was going on, even though she came to visit him at the same time as the trial. He said:

I had to be my own attorney. They did not furnish me an attorney because I was thought of as nothing. They were already convinced I was gay and that I was guilty. […] I can’t tell you how terrible it was. I couldn’t tell her, I can’t spend days with you because I’m on trial.

He collapsed under the pressure, and was discharged because of “undesirable habits and traits of character,” in June of 1948. He never came out to his parents, but met his husband in 1956 and married him in 2009. Rosenberg said that there was a big difference in how the military treated the two men; his husband was honorably discharged despite being gay. “It is an injustice that the military has treated Ed and me so differently, despite our equal honorable service,” he said at a press conference in November.

But finally, Spires’ will has been granted and he can relax. The couple said that they will celebrate in Florida next month. Spires said, “I’m still recovering from pneumonia but every day seems a little brighter. This is one thing less on my mind…I can smile again.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yale Law Students Help Gay Veteran Gain New Recognition appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

So…I Guess Nike’s Stock is Up?

Executives from Boston-based sportswear company New Balance told the Wall Street Journal that they believe Donald Trump will get things moving in the right direction. Consumers reacted with fury and by setting their shoes on fire.

@SoleCollector @newbalance good to know. I made a little bonfire tonight pic.twitter.com/yOdCTbQgac

— skreetware (@milftears) November 10, 2016

Hundreds of people posted pictures of their burning shoes or of throwing them in the garbage. Some others said they would keep buying stuff from NB because the company opposes the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement. But the ones who dropped their support of the brand were more visual.

@SoleCollector @newbalance pic.twitter.com/i8IdsxzMu4

— gay boots (@omaha_trash) November 10, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: November 11, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Bernie Sanders Wants to Break Up the AT&T-Time Warner Merger

When we heard that AT&T was in talks to buy media company Time Warner for a whopping $85 million, we immediately thought of the game “Monopoly.” I mean seriously, Time Warner is a HUGE asset. The media company owns HBO, CNN, Cartoon Network, TBS, AND Warner Bros. Some people are salivating, waiting for the deal to go through, while others, like Bernie Sanders, are calling for legislators to BREAK IT UP!

The administration should kill the Time Warner/AT&T merger. This deal would mean higher prices and fewer choices for the American people. https://t.co/S8c4ldDqhi

— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) October 23, 2016

A deal this big certainly raises concerns, but what some people are really worried about is how it will affect the “independence” of CNN. Media buffs, particularly those on the far right who are critical of the “mainstream media,” are calling foul:

Sure. https://t.co/vYLNENisd6

— Breitbart News (@BreitbartNews) October 24, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 24, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s Democratic National Convention was a star-studded parade of the party’s top figures. President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama, President Bill Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and an array of Hollywood celebrities delivered speeches. And of course, Hillary Clinton officially accepted the Democratic nomination for president, which gave the media much to talk about. While those speeches produced many notable moments, it appears that the speech that has reverberated the most in the days following the convention is that of Khizr Khan, the father of a fallen American Muslim soldier.

Mr. Khan, with wife Ghazala Khan at his side, criticized Trump for his Islamophobic and xenophobic rhetoric, and drew special attention for the moment he pulled out his copy of the Constitution and directly challenged Trump, saying, “Let me ask you: have you even read the United States Constitution? I will gladly lend you my copy.”

He followed up by declaring, “You have sacrificed nothing, and no one.”

These criticisms have proven to have had a powerful impact, one that the Trump campaign has been unable to effectively combat. When asked about his reaction to the speech by ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, Trump said that Khan “probably looked like a nice guy” but followed by saying, “If you look at his wife, she was standing there. She had nothing to say. She probably–maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say. You tell me.”

I was viciously attacked by Mr. Khan at the Democratic Convention. Am I not allowed to respond? Hillary voted for the Iraq war, not me!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 31, 2016

The backlash against Trump’s comments was immediate. In an MSNBC interview, Mrs. Khan explained that she chose not to speak because she would not be able to keep her composure, due to her immense grief. In that same interview, Mr. Khan called his wife his “coach,” and said that he was “strengthened by her presence.” Mrs. Khan then went on to publish an op-ed in The Washington Post, where she refuted Trump’s claims and discussed her son’s sacrifices for his country.

The Khans’ son, Capt. Humayun Khan, was killed in 2004 at age 27 in Iraq after stepping into the line of fire to save his colleagues from a suicide bomb. His sacrifice reportedly saved over 100 of his fellow soldiers from death.

The speech has provoked a large public response. Major figures in the Republican Party, such as Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and John McCain, have strongly condemned Trump’s comments. The presidential candidate has also drawn ire from veterans’ groups and other Gold Star families.

On Twitter, #TrumpSacrifices hashtag used Khan’s comment to mock Trump’s (lack of) sacrifices for his country. Another hashtag, #CanYouHearUsNow, attacked Trump’s insinuation that Muslim women were not allowed to speak.

.@realDonaldTrump This is me, giving a talk at @Georgetown. Do I look oppressed to you? #CanYouHearUsNow pic.twitter.com/NVVMJDbnlJ

— Rim-Sarah Alouane (@RimSarah) August 1, 2016

Today we raise our voices for Muslim women around the world who empower their community #LLSP2016 #CanYouHearUsNow pic.twitter.com/n6bId5Usjj

— KaramahDC (@KaramahDC) August 1, 2016

Khizr Khan’s DNC speech, and the response that has followed it, has been able to do what no one has seemingly been able to do: make Trump seem vulnerable. Last December, Trump made the comment that he could “stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and not lose any voters.” And so far, it has seemed to be true, as he has gotten away with attacking nearly every group–Muslims, African-Americans, immigrants, Mexicans, women–and yet has still been able to maintain his base of support. This unwavering support has allowed him to make flat-out false statements and be blatantly hypocritical and offensive, without fear of repercussions.

This time, however, Trump’s insensitive remarks toward a Gold Star family, and inability to take any criticism aimed against him, have brought him into a battle he cannot win. By directly challenging Trump, a Muslim immigrant man might be Trump’s most forceful opponent so far.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Are the Parents of a Fallen Muslim Soldier Trump’s Biggest Threat? appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump has many talents: amassing large sums of money, ostensibly writing checks to charities, and provoking confrontations with the media. On Tuesday, at Trump Tower in New York, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee managed to show off all three of those skills in a 40-minute televised speech.

Trump said that he raised $5.6 million during a fundraiser for veterans held in January. He also rattled off the names of the charities that were presented donations from that chunk of change, after he received pressure from the media to reveal where the money raised ended up going. And he also responded to that pressure, spending a bulk of the speech deriding the media as being “unbelievably dishonest” and singling out ABC News’s Tom Llamas as a “sleaze.”

“But what I don’t want is when I raise millions of dollars, have people say, like this sleazy guy right over here from ABC,” Trump said, skirting eye contact with Llamas, but aggressively pointing at him while squinting into the cameras. “He’s a sleaze in my book. You’re a sleaze because you know the facts and you know the facts well.”

The speech was a response to mounting pressure from the press about the particulars of the veterans’ fundraiser, which Trump held in lieu of attending a Fox News debate. The reporters’ questions were simple: how much money was raised, and to whom was it donated?

The confusion about the amount of money that was raised stemmed from contradictory statements by Trump and his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski. Trump initially announced the event’s haul as being $6 million; Lewandowski told The Washington Post it was $4.5 million. On Tuesday, the real estate mogul cleared up the foggy figure, pinpointing the amount raised as $5.6 million and rising.

He explained the lengthy donation process as a result of making sure the charities poised to receive donations were properly vetted. All of the checks have been sent, he said, save for one to the Project for Patriots, a veteran housing group based in Sioux City, Iowa.

The largest of Trump’s contributions was made to the Marine Corps Law Enforcement Foundation for a purported amount of $1.1 million. A representative told Law Street: “Mr. Trump sent us a check last week for a million dollars.”

Whether that check was signed and sent amid the increased media attention thrust on the issue or after a drawn out vetting process is unclear. But Trump prefers his donations to fly under the radar, a shockingly different philosophy than how he has run his presidential campaign thus far: “I could have asked all these groups to come here and I didn’t want to do that. I’m not looking for credit.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Attacks Media, Calls Journalist a “Sleaze” During Tuesday Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Two years ago, Congress created a new program, the Veteran’s Choice Program, to fix the well-publicized problems facing health services at the Veterans Affairs Administration, known as the VA. These problems ranged from poor care to wait times to see a doctor that were so long a person was likely to end up dead before they could be told why they were dying. Two years later, the program meant to put an end to these issues is experiencing the same problems and may be even worse than it originally was.

How did the VA healthcare system get to this point? Read more to find out how the VA system was originally crafted, and the issues it faced and continues to face as those in charge search for answers.

The VA System

Since the beginning of war, disease–not actual conflict itself–has been the number one killer of soldiers. With that consideration in place, the United States has offered benefits of some kind to veterans going all the way back to the Revolutionary War. While the system is still serving veterans of wars long over, it became more codified in 1930 when President Hoover created the Veterans Administration. At the time of its inception, the system had 54 hospitals, served 4.7 million veterans, and employed 31,600 people. Over the following years, a number of other agencies were created, including the Board of Veterans Appeals in 1933, the Department of Medicine and Surgery in 1946, and the Department of Veterans Benefits in 1953. All of these departments were eventually organized under the singular umbrella of the VA, which was also made a cabinet level department in 1989.

Over the years, the system has grown in size to become a massive department today. Now, the Veterans Health Administration operates with an annual budget of $59 billion. This budget covers a lot; according to the VA, it funds “150 medical centers, nearly 1,400 community-based outpatient clinics, community living centers, Vet Centers and Domiciliaries.” The system also employs over 305,000 health care professionals. On top of this, the VA is the largest Medical training system in the United States, serving the most graduate-level students and contributing greatly to continued medical research and discovery. This includes 76,000 volunteers, 118,000 trainees, and 25,000 faculty.

Overall, this massive system serves over 9 million veterans in the United States. Based on VA guidelines, once enrollment is initiated veterans undergo a means test to see if they are a priority and if they are able to afford the co-pays. Once these steps are completed, veterans then go to see a doctor within 14 days if they are new patients and between 14 and 30 if they are existing members.

Problems with the VA

The issues plaguing the VA primarily center on wait times. This concerns one of the three branches covered by VA system, namely the Veterans Health Administration. The other two primary branches deal with benefits and burials for veterans. The VA scandal involved a variety of issues, but wait times and the difficulty that many veterans have merely accessing medical care garnered most of the public’s attention.

Some veterans have had to wait for longer than 125 days to see a doctor, a stark contrast to the 30 days required by the system. In facilities across the country, there have been allegations that administrators falsified records to make it appear as though patient wait times were not longer than required. It had gotten so bad that some may have even died while waiting; however, due to record keeping issues, we don’t know exactly how many veterans with pending records were actually waiting for care when they died.

These complaints were not isolated to just one or a few places either, locations in Phoenix; Fort Collins, Colorado; Miami; Columbia, South Carolina; and Pittsburgh, to name a few, all reported problems. There were also issues with claims, especially as more Vietnam veterans were included in disability coverage. Claims have no time limit and can be filed at any point. The primary backlog that most are concerned with is not for decisions on claim appeals, but for the initial claim decisions themselves. These issues were severe enough that the head of the VA resigned in 2014 after the extent of the scandal became known.

Two years after the initial reports broke, results are still not much better for the VA system. This year there have again been reports from states about inaccurate wait times, cost overruns, poor care, and refusal to discipline employees despite poor care.

The following video looks at the scandal with the VA system:

The New System and Lingering Issues

In an attempt to solve the problem Congress created the Veteran’s Choice program. At a cost of $10 billion, this program was supposed to put an end to the problems facing the VA system, particularly long wait times to see a doctor. Under the program, eligible veterans are able to get healthcare from nearby medical centers rather than traveling to VA facilities if wait times or distance are an issue. However, instead of helping, the effort has by many measures made things worse. Wait times have actually increased under the new program, though, according to the VA that is in part because so many veterans are trying to use it. In some places, veterans were never referred to the program or the doctor they were designated to see was too far away.

Based on the system’s structure, the patient had to be the one to initiate appointments, not the provider. However, that wasn’t entirely clear for everyone involved and many veterans were left waiting for calls to schedule appointments. And even in cases where veterans are able to schedule an appointment and see a doctor, the Choice Program has a long backlog of payments that prevents doctors from being paid on time. Doctors have reportedly waited for 90 to 180 days after a long claims process to simply get paid for their services. The situation got so bad that thousands of veterans referred to the new program actually ended up going back to the traditional VA system because it was more efficient.

Why Isn’t it Working?

So how has the new system that was meant to address these problems only exacerbated them in many cases? The answer starts with how the program was set up in the first place. The program’s basic tenet was to give veterans care faster and closer to home, specifically, this meant that if patients had to wait more than a month to make an appointment or drive over 40 miles to the nearest VA facility, they would be eligible. But the system has largely failed to live up to those promises largely because of how quickly the program was created and implemented.

Namely, once Congress approved funding and the president signed the Choice Program into law, the VA was only given 90 days to implement it. This was a program that would affect millions of veterans, hundreds of thousands of medical care professionals, and the families of both. The deadline was so short, in fact, that the VA quickly excluded itself from the process because it knew it would be unable to meet the requirements. This forced the agency to look to the private industry. However, most companies in the private industry were also turned off by the 90-day timeline.  While the VA was ultimately able to settle on two organizations, they have been scrambling to build the requisite network of health care professionals and still rely on the VA for referrals leading to the delays. The system proved to be too complicated and difficult to use for everyone involved, from veterans to doctors and VA administrators.

The accompanying video looks at the problems with the Choice Program:

Conclusion

When the true reality of the VA scandal broke two years ago, everybody agreed that the system was broken and needed to be fixed, fast. However, this is not the type of system that can be repaired and streamlined in just a few months. Unsurprisingly, the quick fix has turned into a disaster in need of a fix of its own. So what is the appropriate action moving forward?

Some have called for a total dismantling of the VA healthcare system as it is known today. Instead of providing care directly to veterans, the new system would simply pay for their care. However, critics are quick to denounce a system that would leave veterans to their own devices. It does seem unlikely an organization as sprawling as the VA will be torn down completely. Consequently, more internal reforms are likely. While the situation is in dire need of a solution, new fixes should not be rushed. Lawmakers will need to create a system that works well and gives veterans the care they need when they need it.

Resources

NPR: How Congress and The VA Left Many Veterans Without A ‘Choice’

NPR: For The VA’s Broken Health System, The Fix Needs A Fix

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: 10 Things to Know About the Choice Program

House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs: History and Jurisdiction

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs: Veterans Health Administration

The Washington Post: Everything You Need to Know About the VA–and the Scandals Engulfing it

The Washington Times: VA Still Plagued by Problems Two Years After Scandal

The Military Advantage Blog: Care Commission Shocker: The Push to End VA Healthcare

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did the Program Meant to Rescue the VA Healthcare System Make it Worse? appeared first on Law Street.

Picture this: you wake up in the middle of the night with insane abdominal pain and call 911 to be rushed to the hospital immediately. Once you get there, the doctors decide you are suffering from acute appendicitis and you have to quickly be prepared for an emergency surgery to remove your appendix. Before you’re put under anesthesia, you notice the nurse prepping you is stumbling around, tripping over chords, and is seemingly having a hard time doing average tasks. Worried yet?

This exact scenario unfolded earlier this month at the Wilkes-Barre VA Medical Center, for which a nurse has been charged with reckless endangerment of a patient’s safety, driving under the influence, and public intoxication for showing up to work and then proceeding to work on an appendectomy while drunk.

The story, according to the drunk nurse, Richard Pieri, was that he had forgotten that he was on call at the hospital on February 4 until he received a call around midnight telling him to come into work on an emergency surgery. At that point, Pieri was already four or five beers deep at a local casino, but still decided it would be better to drive while intoxicated to the hospital and work on this surgery than it would be to acknowledge his mistake. In court documents, Pieri acknowledged that he just didn’t want someone else to have to come in while he was supposed to be on call. That is why he decided drunk surgery was a good plan–a great reminder to us all that alcohol can seriously inhibit good decision-making skills. Authorities later visited Piere and asked him if he knew why they were there to chat with him, Pieri nonchalantly responded, “I guess it has something to do with me being drunk on call.”

The Department of Veterans Affairs sent a statement to the Washington Post noting that it will not tolerate behavior like this, especially since it can put veterans who are coming in for care at serious risk. The VA is currently working on reinforcing its guidelines for staff and ensuring that an incident like this never happens again. Pieri’s affidavit notes that he was tasked with prep work that was legitimately important:

[He] was responsible for preparing the patient, retrieving the patient, preparing the materials inside the room, documenting the surgery, and monitoring the vitals of the patient throughout recovery.

In addition, the affidavit pointed out that the operating room, in general, can be dangerous if someone is intoxicated:

[The operating room] is filled with complicated equipment that Pieri needs to operate and has several loose wires and cords that can be tripped on or disconnected by somebody with an inability to properly ambulate themselves.

While details about the patient have not yet been released, reports indicate that he or she was readmitted to the hospital after the surgery for complaints of stomach pains. There is no evidence to suggest that this readmission has anything to do with Pieri’s drunkenness–thank goodness–but he was promptly removed from patient care responsibilities after this incident.

While this story turned out alright (for the most part), it’s a sobering reminder to us all that alcohol can have serious consequences in certain situations. Just because you think you’re alright to drive home, make a large purchase, or even perform a serious medical procedure, doesn’t mean you are. So, think carefully about when and where you drink and make responsible decisions everyone, because no one wants to be that guy who was jokingly asked, “Rick, are you drunk?” after he stumbled into work.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Drunk Nurse Arrested for Reckless Endangerment appeared first on Law Street.

For a while, it seemed like for-profit colleges were the newest, hottest frontier in higher education. But with current student debt problems, and many revelations about some of the predatory practices of for-profit colleges, the trend appears to have officially passed. Arguably the most well-known for-profit institution of higher learning–The University of Phoenix–may be the latest to find itself in hot water.

Late last week the parent company of the University of Phoenix, Apollo Education Group, released information that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) was investigating the company. The investigation is attempting to determine if the University of Phoenix ran deceptive or unfair business practices. The investigation is particularly focused on its recruitment of veterans. The accusations claim that the company has left veterans with high levels of debt after collecting hundreds of millions in GI Bill money. It’s not just the GI Bill money that the University of Phoenix has collected, however, according to financial records the company has collected over $488 million in fees and tuition from veterans’ own money for its online programs, and additional sums at various physical locations.

The University of Phoenix has been declining slowly for a little while now. Five years ago, the school reported almost half a million students. That number has been essentially halved since then. In 2012, the University of Phoenix was forced to close 115 of its campuses. In addition, revenue has been declining, and there have been many accusations levied against the company in regards to the way that it treats its students and potential recruits.

The controversy over the University of Phoenix is borne out of concerns that the school required participants to take out expensive loans, which could have been fine had those participants had the ability to pay back those loans after they graduated. However, the education provided at the University of Phoenix doesn’t necessarily lead to employment, the credits usually don’t transfer to other schools, and the degrees aren’t always recognized by employers.

In order to cooperate with the investigation, as Apollo Education Group promised in its statement, the company will have to provide the federal investigators with documents such as financial information, marketing, billing, debt collection, accreditation, and military recruitment practices.

This investigation into the University of Phoenix is consistent with a theme of increased scrutiny on for-profit schools, many of which are struggling in the now seemingly turbulent educational environment. Last month, the Obama Administration began cracking down on for-profit schools. A new rule that took effect in July from the Department of Education is the “gainful employment rule” which “requires colleges to track their graduates’ performance in the workforce and eventually will cut off funding for career training programs that fall short.”

Equal opportunities for education are essential, but not if they hurt students more than they help. There’s now significant suspicion that many for-profit institutions fall into the latter camp–University of Phoenix may just be the latest to get in trouble as a result.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Phoenix Under FTC Investigation appeared first on Law Street.

Two veterans have been denied the Medal of Honor for nearly a century for their life-saving actions on account of their race and religion. Both Pvt. Henry Johnson and Sgt. William Shemin committed tremendous acts of bravery while serving in World War I, but because Johnson was African American and Shemin was Jewish, they did not receive the military’s highest honor. On June 2, 2015, Johnson and Shemin received their Medals of Honor, nearly 97 years after their courageous acts.

These recent Medal of Honor presentations come amid an effort by the Obama Administration to correct past injustice in the military. A provision of the 2002 defense authorization bill prompted the Pentagon to look for potential cases of discrimination in Medal of Honor decisions, and now several of these injustices are finally being righted. Last March, President Obama awarded the Medal of Honor to 19 Hispanic, Jewish, and African-American veterans who were overlooked because of their racial and ethnic backgrounds.

In May 1918 near Sainte Menehould, France, Johnson and another member of his regiment fought off at least 12 German soldiers after a surprise attack. While a fellow soldier suffered serious injuries, Johnson moved forward to engage the attacking Germans in hand-to-hand combat forcing them to retreat. Although he suffered severe wounds, Johnson managed to the protect his companion from capture with only his hands and a knife.

A few months later in August 1918, Shemin repeatedly ran across a battlefield to save injured members of his platoon. He risked his life, exposing himself to machine gun and rifle fire. In the process, Shemin was hit by shrapnel and had a bullet lodged in his left ear after it pierced his helmet. He also took leadership of his platoon temporarily after all senior officers died on the battlefield.

Shemin was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his service, but was never given an explanation for why his first Medal of Honor request was denied. Shemin died in 1973 without receiving the Medal of Honor, but earlier this month his daughter, Elsie Shemin-Roth, received the award on his behalf.

Johnson served with the “Harlem Hellfighters,” an all-black regiment put under French command because African-American soldiers could not serve in the same combat units as white Americans. His race was likely the reason he did not receive the Medal of Honor following the war. Johnson died in 1929 and is currently buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Command Sgt. Major Louis Wilson, a commander in the New York National Guard, accepted the award from President Obama on his behalf.

President Teddy Roosevelt wrote that Johnson was one of the “bravest American soldiers in the war,” and in the 1950s Langston Hughes began pushing for him to receive the Medal of Honor. After his service, Johnson was one of the first Americans to receive the Croix de Guerre avec Palme, France’s highest award for valor. He also earned the Wound Chevron–an award that recognized soldiers who were wounded in combat–the  Purple Heart from President Bill Clinton, and the Distinguished Service Cross in 2003.

Senator Chuck Schumerwas one of Johnson’s strongest advocates. Without the determination of Schumer and his staff, Johnson may never have received the Medal of Honor so many years after the fact. The senator’s office managed to find a letter written by Gen. John J. Pershing commending Johnson’s bravery, including excerpts from his peers. Johnson’s Medal of Honor application was resubmitted and the new evidence and eventually approved. After the announcement that Johnson would receive the Medal of Honor, Schumer told The New York Times,

The great thing about America is that we undo our injustices more than any other country… his act and heroism was amazing.

In 2011 Senators Wyden and Merkley wrote a letter to Leon Panetta, the Defense Secretary at the time, stating,

These awards do not properly recognize Private Johnson’s heroism and with new evidence it is now possible for the nation to give Private Johnson the recognition he deserves, the Medal of Honor.

These senators, joined with several other members of Congress, called for an exception to the Medal of Honor rule, which states that heroic actions must have taken place within the last five years to be considered.

Shemin-Roth worked for years to get her father’s heroism properly documented. In an interview last year, she claimed that her father was not given the Medal of Honor because he was Jewish. Senator Claire McCaskill and several Jewish organizations took up his cause and pushed to award the Medal of Honor to Shemin.

After the award ceremony, McCaskill said,

I couldn’t be prouder that we were able to correct these past injustices, and that William Shemin and other Jewish heroes will get the recognition they deserve, and the national gratitude they earned.

While these recent awards show progress in correcting past wrongdoing, we must continue to ensure that all veterans are properly commended for their service. It is a shame that it took our nation almost a century to overlook racial and religious prejudice in the cases of Private Johnson and Sergeant Shemin. If we prevented these injustices in the first place, we would never have to undo them.

Jennie Burger

Jennie Burger is a member of the University of Oklahoma Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Jennie at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Correcting Past Prejudices: Honoring Our Veterans appeared first on Law Street.

For the majority of my life, war has been the norm in the United States. We entered Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003. War is the new normal–and between 2004-2011 war was, as expected, mostly the leading cause of death for troops in the U.S. military. But for the last two years, that trend did not hold true. Suicide has surpassed war as the number one killer of American troops.

Suicide is also incredibly prevalent among veterans. According to a report released by the Department of Veterans Affairs, 22 veterans take their own lives every day. Given the way the VA collects that information it’s speculated that that number could be even higher. To put this in context, roughly 20 percent of suicides in the United States are committed by veterans, even though they make up just 10 percent of the population. That’s a startling and terrifying figure; as News21 put it:

Suicide rates within the veteran population often were double and sometimes triple the civilian suicide rate in several states. Arizona’s 2011 veteran suicide rate was 43.9 per 100,000 people, nearly tripling the civilian suicide rate of 14.4, according to the latest numbers from the state health department.

Now, the civilian suicide rate has also been rising. According to the New Yorker:

In the United States, suicide rates have risen, particularly among middle-aged people: between 1999 and 2010, the number of Americans between the ages of thirty-five and sixty-four who took their own lives rose by almost thirty percent.

Suicide is a gigantic issue among both our troops and our veterans. The ways in which we understand Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and the effects of war continue to evolve, but clearly we haven’t done enough. See the infographic below for just some of the ways in which veterans’ and active service peoples’ duties can affect them.

Courtesy of Blackwater Law.

PTSD is tricky because it can show up suddenly or gradually, sometimes a long time after the traumatic event. In addition, medical care for veterans hasn’t always been as top notch as it could be–we all remember the VA hospital scandals earlier this year. PTSD can fuel depression, alcoholism, and various other problems. There are other reasons that veterans and service members are at particular risk. For some, reacclimating to civilian life can be very difficult. While there’s no dispositive list of risk factors, it’s clear from statistics alone that this is a significant problem.

The argument that the suicide rate will go down once we’re fully out of Afghanistan and Iraq seems like it should make sense, but it’s not that simple. Even while those wars have been slowly de-escalated, suicide rates have remained pretty constant. That ties back to the fact that PTSD can develop over time along with those struggles that veterans face when they return. A troubling portion of our nation’s veterans become homeless, which makes getting them access to health care and help even more difficult. After all, since 2010, there has been a thirty-three percent increase in homeless veterans.

The fact is that anyone who is a member of our military forces–or former member–deserves the utmost respect, help, and care. But that simply isn’t happening–and until I started looking up these statistics today I didn’t quite realize how much we are failing them. Something has to change–and it starts with awareness.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post With 22 Veteran Suicides Each Day, Where Are Our Priorities? appeared first on Law Street.

The Texas Access to Justice Foundation, also known as TAJF, has awarded Baylor Law School a $22,000 grant for the purpose of providing civil legal aid to Texas veterans. According to Dr. Bridget Fuselier, who is a professor at Baylor Law School, this grant funds monthly clinics for Waco-area veterans who need legal assistance but are unable to receive it due to their low income levels. For the third year in a row, thousands of local veterans will receive monthly pro bono help at Baylor’s innovative veterans assistance clinics. Dr. Fuselier, expressing her gratitude to the foundation, has stated:

We’re very appreciative and honored that the Texas Access to Justice Foundation continues to support our program, the fact that they’re renewing their commitment to us is proof that we’re being successful in our efforts with the money.

Dr. Fuselier has stated that in order to receive aid from the clinic, the veterans must be at the 200 percent or lower poverty level. According to the Texas Access to Justice Foundation website, the annual income of a veteran can be no more than $14,588 a year in order to be eligible for aid. Over 80 percent of the veterans who receive legal aid from the clinics come from McLennan County, Texas.

The aid that these veterans receive during the monthly clinics is provided by law school faculty, students, and volunteer local attorneys. At these monthly clinics, veterans can receive civil legal advice for problems such as family law matters, denial of benefits or disability, or any other issues that have arisen as a result of the veteran’s deployment. According to Baylor Law School’s website:

Each monthly clinic begins with a 30-minute educational topic ranging from landlord/tenant relationship issues to veterans’ benefits to the importance of having a will. Following the 30-minute session, veterans who have current legal problems can meet with a law student and volunteer attorney for a brief advice and counsel session.

According to Dr. Fuselier, “The veterans are able to at least get some immediate advice, and then sometimes we send their cases to volunteer attorneys in Waco that can do some more work pro bono.”

According to Betty Balli Torres, the executive director for the Texas Access to Justice Foundation, the work that Baylor Law School is doing with the grant is unlike anything that has been done with one of their grants before. According to Torres, it is the only veterans clinic through a law school which the foundation funds. She stated: “the fact that Baylor was starting a program to benefit veterans in this specific model was very appealing to us,” which is why it was chosen for the grant.

The foundation only has a small number of grants that they can give out, so the continued funding of these veteran’s clinics is something new for the foundation. According to Torres, the foundation has “had diminishing resources,” so difficult choices had to have been made about where to put the foundation’s money. She is confident in the decision to give Baylor the $22,000 for the third year in a row.

Not only is this grant beneficial to the veterans who receive the free legal advice, but it is also beneficial to the law school students who are giving it. These clinics allow them to gain valuable legal experience that will overall make them more prepared for their post-law school careers. According to Torres, this is why law schools make the perfect places to award these grants. She said:

Law school is where you start educating young professionals about the services they can provide, give them opportunities to serve and have them help out in programs like the one at Baylor, it’s a perfect place to provide funding.

Hopefully we will see Baylor continue to run veterans assistance clinics for years to come, thanks to the generosity of the Texas Access to Justice Foundation.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [DVIDSHUB]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baylor Law Receives Grant to Provide Free Veterans Clinics appeared first on Law Street.

Trying to get by without a reliable place to stay is difficult. But it becomes nearly impossible when trying to live in a city where it is illegal to sleep in parks, to store belongings, or to stand outside buildings. This is exactly what homeless people are up against in many cities across America. Cities are increasingly turning to laws that criminalize homeless populations by outlawing fundamental human behaviors. With laws banning sleeping and camping in public, where should the homeless turn?

What are the statistics on homelessness?

Homelessness has been a problem for decades, but the root causes of the issue are complex. Homelessness is incredibly difficult to measure, especially since many people are forced into homelessness for only a temporary period of time. According to a one-night head count by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, more than 610,000 Americans were homeless in January 2013. Sixty-five percent of the nation’s homeless were staying in shelters that night. This means more than one-third were living in unsheltered locations — under bridges, in cars, parks, or abandoned buildings. Nearly a quarter of the homeless were children under the age of 18.

What have cities been doing?

Cities are increasingly passing laws that essentially make it illegal to be homeless. Most of these laws are designed for safety reasons rather than to put more homeless people in jail, but the effects can still be harmful. Numerous U.S. cities have public designs hostile to the homeless, such as benches with a mysterious third bar in the middle to prevent lying down and sleeping. Most cities have unevenly enforced loitering laws as well as laws prohibiting begging.

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty released a report on July 16, 2014, tracking the laws of 187 American. Some of its findings:

• 57 percent of cities prohibit camping in particular public places — “camping” encompasses a wide array of living arrangements
• 27 percent of cities prohibit sleeping in particular public places and 18 percent of cities impose a city-wide ban on sleeping in public
• 76 percent of cities prohibit begging in particular public places
• 65 percent of cities prohibit loitering in specific public places
• 9 percent of cities prohibit sharing food with homeless people
• 74 percent of homeless people do not know a place where it is safe and legal for them to sleep

The problem is that these laws have increased in recent years. Since 2011,

• Citywide bans on camping in public have increased by 60 percent.
• Citywide bans on loitering, loafing, and vagrancy have increased by 35 percent.
• Citywide bans on sitting or lying down in particular public places have increased by 43 percent.
• Bans on sleeping in vehicles have increased by 119 percent.

Watch the video below for more information on the measures taken against the homeless in Clearwater, Florida:

Are these laws constitutional?

City bans targeting the homeless population raise a number of legal questions. While the laws are often ruled unconstitutional, they still thrive in most U.S. cities. Most people take issue with the fact that these laws are discriminatory in targeting the homeless population. Some argue that an activity like begging should be protected as free speech. A similar argument is made that the homeless should be afforded freedom from cruel and unusual punishment and should have the right to due process of law. The U.N. Human Rights Committee found criminalization of homelessness violated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Other significant rulings:

• In April 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that criminalizing behaviors and acts integral to being homeless was a violation of the 8th and 14th Amendments; however, the opinion was vacated when the two parties settled out of court.
• In August 2012, a federal judge in Philadelphia ruled that laws that prohibited serving food outside to the homeless were unconstitutional.
• On June 19, 2014, a federal appeals court cited issues of discrimination in striking down a Los Angeles law that banned people from living out of their cars.

What are the effects of these laws?

Typically the homeless are encouraged to stay in shelters until they can find affordable housing of their own, but oftentimes it is not that easy. Consider a city like Santa Cruz, California, where 83 percent of homeless people are without housing and shelter options, yet the homeless cannot lie down in public or sleep in vehicles. Or consider El Cajon, California, where 52 percent of homeless people have no access to a shelter, but sleeping in public, camping in public, and begging are criminalized.

Watch the video below to learn more about a law banning homelessness in Columbia, North Carolina:

Incarceration

Violators of these rules face fines or incarceration. As many homeless people cannot afford fines, they end up spending time in jail. With no permanent address, no regular transportation access, no place to store personal records, and few to no financial resources, the homeless targeted for criminal behavior have difficulty paying fines. If they can’t pay fines they often cannot get probation. This means they are incarcerated more often and for longer periods of time. For the homeless, getting into shelters and finding affordable housing is already difficult. But doing so after a previous arrest becomes nearly impossible.

Suspended Benefits

The homeless are typically eligible for a variety of beneficial federal programs, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD), and SNAP (food stamps). Many homeless people are unaware of these programs. Since most of the homeless lack an address and application documentation, they have difficulty applying. SNAP has special procedures that give greater assistance to the homeless, such as providing the, with a representative and mailing benefits to homeless shelters. Most cities recognize the obstacles the homeless face in applying for federal benefits and employ outreach teams to connect homeless people to benefits and services. For example, Denver’s “Road Home” plan began in 2005 with the goal of helping homeless people with disabilities. Denver organized all the existing outreach programs in the city and added 20 more outreach workers as well as a program coordinator. In the first 3 years, the program helped 2,000 people in Denver access public benefits and services. Another program in Portland set up training to teach all homeless case workers what major benefit programs are available and how the homeless can apply.

One big problem is that having a criminal record makes people ineligible for certain benefits, such as federal housing subsidies. When disabled individuals are incarcerated, their SSI is suspended. If they are incarcerated for more than a year, SSI benefits are terminated and the person must then submit a new application. The process could take months or even years, meaning an increased chance for homelessness in the meantime.

High Cost

Recent studies show that laws targeting the homeless are not always cost-effective. The Utah Housing and Community Development Division reported that the annual cost of emergency room visits and jail stays for the average homeless person was $16,670. Providing someone an apartment and social worker would only cost $11,000.

A 2013 analysis by the University of New Mexico’s Institute for Social Research examined the costs of providing immediate, permanent, supportive housing to the homeless rather than the more typical transitional housing. Albuquerque’s “Heading Home” Initiative made extensive use of community partnerships to coordinate housing and services. Overall, the study found that housing the homeless is 31 percent cheaper than keeping them homeless, mainly because housed individuals use emergency services less frequently. Their research showed that simply by providing permanent housing, Albuquerque reduced spending on homeless-related jail costs by 64 percent. The costs of emergency room visits also declined 13 percent, while spending on mental health visits increased 34 percent.

Do these laws help protect the homeless?

Very rarely are cities explicitly aiming to make the lives of the homeless even harder by instituting these laws. Many cities see these laws as a way to ensure public safety as well as the safety of the homeless. For instance, laws prohibiting sharing food with the homeless are aimed at protecting the homeless from bad food. Food given illegally could be made with questionable food safety practices or could come from someone with more nefarious intent like poisoning the food. Other cities worry about the effects of public feedings. For instance, a church group may set up in a park next to a school, which would leave many parents upset over the safety of their children. Watch for rationale behind feeding laws below:

Laws outlawing public camping are often a way for the city to push the homeless to stay in safer shelters, especially in dangerously cold weather. Staying in a shelter generally keeps the homeless safe from people who may otherwise harm them on the streets. Shelters can also help cities connect the homeless to other beneficial social service programs. Officials also say these laws help to encourage better pubic hygiene and safety. Other laws target panhandling. Police object to panhandling since it is often done in high-volume, potentially dangerous areas, such as a highway median.

So why can’t the homeless find a place to stay?

More than 12.8 percent of the nation’s supply of low income housing has been permanently lost since 2001. This is largely due to a steady decrease in funding for federal subsidies for standardized housing since the 1970s. There are fewer emergency shelter beds than there are homeless people. The number of shelters in the United States rises each year, but the increased supply of beds does not always correspond to the areas of highest demand. In certain areas where there is a lack of affordable housing, the shelters still do not provide enough beds. Further, waiting lists for subsidized housing in most areas are incredibly long. The city of Los Angeles has only 11,933 shelter beds for a homeless population of 53,798. If cities cannot provide adequate shelter beds, there is no place for the homeless to go but the streets.

Typically shelters are run by non-profit organizations associated with church groups or the federal or state government. Numerous national organizations, such as Salvation Army, United Way, and the National Alliance to End Homelessness, aid in the upkeep of homeless shelters. Most shelters require residents to exit in the morning and go somewhere else for the day before returning at night for a meal and to sleep. Shelters try to offer a variety of services, including job training and rehabilitation programs, but some are criticized for being nothing more than holding facilities. One shelter in Washington, D.C. in particular has dealt with corrupt workers preying on the homeless residents as well as a decaying building, contagious infections, and hazardous bug infestations.

Another significant obstacle is how to find housing for vulnerable populations like the previously incarcerated, the recently hospitalized, and veterans. Once released from jail or prison, many have no place to turn and no money to pay for housing. Those released from hospitals are also more likely to suffer from homelessness and even mental illness.

Housing First models have grown in popularity in recent years as part of the movement to find new ways to help the homeless. One of the first Housing First models was launched in Los Angeles in 1998 by the non-profit PATH Beyond Shelter. The success of the policy led to its spread to a number of U.S. cities. Rather than moving the homeless through different levels of housing, Housing First models move the homeless immediately from the streets or a shelter into their own apartment. The idea is that once housing is obtained, other issues like mental health or addiction can more effectively be addressed. By using a Housing First model, Phoenix became the first city to successfully house all of its chronically homeless veterans.

Watch the video below for more information on the Housing First program:

Libraries and the Homeless

With the homeless finding it increasingly difficult to find someplace to sit outside, libraries are a prime spot to spend their days. As social safety nets shrink, libraries have become more vital than ever to homeless populations. Libraries are free, centrally located, provide numerous books and computers, and allow the homeless to escape from snow or scorching temperatures. Increasingly, libraries have added homeless outreach to their array of programs.

Being a de facto gathering place for homeless populations can often deter use by other patrons. Striking the balance between making the homeless feel welcome and making other visitors feel comfortable is tricky. Naturally libraries deal with complaints regarding homeless people being loud, unclean, mentally ill, monopolizing computer time, and bathing in restrooms. Some libraries institute their own rules to mitigate these problems. For example, rules in Washington, D.C. prohibit alcohol, bare feet, carrying more than two bags, sleeping, or an odor that can be detected six feet away.

Watch the video below to see how a library in Burlington, Vermont, deals with the homeless:

Libraries have not turned a blind eye to the needs of the homeless. In response to problems with the homeless population, the city of San Francisco hired a social worker for its main library. The social worker is aided by five peer counselors, all of whom are formerly homeless. The library even implemented a 12-week “vocational rehabilitation” program. Graduates of the program are then hired to work in the system. Other libraries in Washington, D.C. and Philadelphia have since followed suit to hire social workers.

In Greensboro, North Carolina, libraries offer meals, haircuts, blood pressure screening, and job counseling. Libraries in San Jose, California bring library programs, such as computer classes, to homeless shelters. The central library in Philadelphia even features a cafe staffed by the homeless, who then use the job skills gained to secure other employment. The American Library Association calls for even more programming targeting the homeless, recognizing that libraries should provide training to staff and coordinate programs and activities to benefit that population.

Cities need more affordable housing to help the homeless. Ideally they should seek to confront problems of homelessness and provide solutions rather than criminalize homeless behavior. Naturally many communities do not want to have to deal with the homeless in public areas, but criminalization of homeless behavior is costly, unconstitutional, and hinders a person’s future ability to secure a permanent place to stay.

Resources

Primary

HUD: 2013 Annual Homelessness Assessment Report to Congress

 Additional

No Safe Place: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities

Reuters: U.S. Libraries Become Front Line in Fight Against Homelessness

Huffington Post: More Cities are Basically Making it Illegal to be Homeless

The New York Times: Shunting the Homeless from Sight

USA Today: More Cities Pass Laws that Hurt the Homeless

Wall Street Journal: A Crowdfunding App for the Homeless

Blaze: Top 10 Anti-Homeless Measures Used in the United States

American Library Association: Reducing Homelessness Through Library Engagement

NPR: Urban Libraries Become De Facto Homeless Shelters

MSN: Court Overturns Los Angeles Ban on Living in Cars

ALA Library: Services for the Poor

Arizona Central: Success in Housing for Homeless Veterans in Phoenix

Harvard Civil Rights/Civil Liberties Law Review: Jones v. City of Los Angeles: A Moral Response

NPR: With A Series of Small Bans, Cities Turn Homelessness into a Crime

Alexandra Stembaugh

Alexandra Stembaugh graduated from the University of Notre Dame studying Economics and English. She plans to go on to law school in the future. Her interests include economic policy, criminal justice, and political dramas. Contact Alexandra at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Costs of Criminalizing Homelessness appeared first on Law Street.

Suicide is one of the ten most common causes of death in the United States. In fact, suicide is such a common  incident that locations to commit the act actually begin to trend. The New York Times reports that, “an estimated 1,600 people have committed suicide by jumping off the Golden Gate Bridge.” Are the many deaths a coincidence, or does that bridge serve as some sort of morbid invitation that pulls people to their deaths below? In a less publicized issue, a man recently shot himself at Arlington Cemetery–a well known final resting place for veterans. We all know that suicide is caused by untreated depression and mental illness, yet it is unclear why people choose similar or symbolic places to end their lives. Most importantly, how can this epidemic be stopped?

How Local Government Can Help  

Despite San Francisco’s typically moderate temperatures and sunny skies, the Golden Gate Bridge can be a dark and ominous site. It is the number one spot for suicides in the United States, with 46 suicides reported last year alone.

Recently, the directors of the Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District voted to erect a “suicide barrier,” in hopes of minimizing attempts and deaths. The “suicide barrier,” would be a 20 foot wide net, made from stainless steel, and located 20 feet below the bridge. The Empire State Building, the Eiffel Tower, and the Sydney Harbour Bridge all have barriers, so placing one in the top location for suicide in the U.S. is a comprehensible idea. In 2012, President Barack Obama signed a bill which allowed funds to be designated to the project. According to the Times-Herald, “under the funding plan Caltrans would contribute $22 million, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission $27 million and the state $7 million.”

There are several controversies that surround this innovation. Many people who are friends and family members of Golden Gate Bridge suicide victims support this effort, and would like to see the city take action to prevent more individuals from jumping to their deaths. Yet others feel that funds toward this development would be a waste. Their argument is that a person who has a suicide plan will commit the act one way or another, so why waste government funds on the safety net? But according to helpguide.org, “most suicidal people are deeply conflicted about ending their own lives.” Therefore if the impulse is caught, the victim may decide to abandon their plan.

A sign for the Suicide Hotline on the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Yellow Line.

Many popular places to commit suicide have taken initiative to place Suicide Hotline signs up, yet it has been proven that physical barriers are the most effective intervention technique, because suicide is impulsive in nature.

Suicide is a tough issue that affects roughly 38,364 people a year. A question that prevails is whether or not the government should interfere. In the case of the Golden Gate Bridge, the government stepped in and chose to use funds for preventative action toward the suicide epidemic in San Francisco. Little can be done to prevent a person from taking their own life, other than funding mental health facilities and programs, yet victims families, and mental health advocates remain hopeful.

How the Federal Government Can Help  

In a more recent case, the media chose to tread on the topic lightly to prevent a domino-effect from occurring. On Friday, June 20, a man was found in Arlington Cemetery, near the Pentagon Memorial–a memorial to honor the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks. His method of suicide was a gunshot to the head. In an effort to discourage a trend from developing, newspapers have steered clear of heavily covering the June 20 occurrence; little has been reported on the motives for the suicide or the victim’s personal information other than he was a 92-year-old retired Air Force colonel.

Veteran suicides are on the rise–an average of 22 veterans commit suicide each day.

In order to address this issue, legislation requiring soldiers be examined before discharge was introduced in April of this year. According to the National Journal, this examination would include testing for, “nightmares, flashbacks, changes in personality, sleeping disorders, and suicidal thoughts.” Another provision to the bill allows for soldiers to be eligible for health care up to fifteen years after their service in the military has ended.

It’s a sad truth that suicide is becoming increasingly popular among Americans. Suicide is usually a result of depression and mental illness, yet there are steps that can be taken to increase the services offered to individuals suffering. Campaigns to increase awareness can be organized, services for individuals suffering can be improved and made more easily available to lower income families, and the availability of lethal medications and weapons can be more heavily monitored and withheld from precarious individuals. There’s still a lot of work to be done.

[The New York Times]

—

Madeleine Stern (@M3estern) is a student at George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [rafael-castillo via Flickr]

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Suicide Prevention: New Policies Hope to Slow Trends appeared first on Law Street.

There are serious, systemic problems in the Department of Veterans Affairs. Top officials have been subpoenaed after a series of whistleblowers alleged neglect and a coverup of inadequate medical services by VA doctors.

The story started in Phoenix, Arizona. Dr. Samuel Foote, a now-retired doctor at the VA hospital in Phoenix, was the first to claim that in order to deal with complaints about long wait times and make it look like they did not have as much backup as they actually did, hospital officials kept a secret, unofficial list of veterans waiting for appointments. The list was never reported, and if a patient on the list died, they were just permanently erased. The allegations state that these lists have since been destroyed. Since Dr. Foote came out with this claim, several other hospital employees have told similar stories.

Individuals have also come forward with their frustrating experiences with the VA hospital in Phoenix. One woman claims that her father-in-law, Thomas Breen, went in for emergency care related to cancer, but the staff told him he needed to make an appointment with a VA doctor. He never got that appointment because he was placed on a wait list and died in the meantime.

Breen isn’t the only patient who may have died because of this secret list system — up to 40 veterans’ deaths may be a result of negligence and mismanagement at the VA hospital.

These allegations have made a wave in the VA community and among officials in Washington. Originally, the VA claimed that the so-called unofficial list was just a set of transitory reminder notes for the doctors between themselves, nothing legitimate or official. The VA claims that those notes were just used while the hospital was switching computer systems, and then were destroyed. So far, many top officials have been subpoenaed by the House Veterans Affairs Committee, including the head of the VA, Eric Shinseki. He has been ordered to turn over any information, including emails and documents, that could relate to what happened in Phoenix. The subpoena specifically seeks information about the “unofficial list.” Shineski has until 9:00am Monday, May 19 to comply with the order.

Shinseki is receiving a mountain of pressure after the whole incident. Some special-interest veterans groups want him to resign while others are standing behind the chief. The largest veterans group in the U.S., the American Legion, has come out in favor of Shinseki’s resignation. American Legion Commander Daniel Dellinger stated, “It’s a story of poor oversight and failed leadership. This is the most difficult thing I’ve ever had to do.” Other major veterans groups haven’t called for Shinseki’s resignation, but have condemned the actions of the VA hospital in Phoenix. 

On the other hand, the Obama Administration and Speaker Boehner have stood behind Shinseki and the VA.

There is the chance that this was a select incident that occurred at the Phoenix VA hospital. But somehow, I doubt that. This isn’t the first issue the VA has had in its hospitals in recent years — they’ve already acknowledged that approximately 23 patients have died because of delayed care in the past couple of years. There have also been allegations that workers in the Fort Collins, Colo. hospital were taught how to falsify records, and there have been problems in multiple other cities.

There’s clearly an issue here that warrants attention. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have added a new pool of veterans into our communities, and those who fought in Vietnam and Korea are getting older and developing more health problems. Costs are just getting worse for the VA — in 2012 it spent $57 billion on disability benefits alone, after spending just $15 billion in 2000. The Department of Veterans Affairs is clearly struggling to keep up with demand, and this may be one of the heartbreaking side effects.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [DVIDSHUB via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Department of Veterans Affairs in Hot Water appeared first on Law Street.

In a letter to a congressional subcommittee on Nov. 21, American Bar Association President (ABA) James Silkenat voiced his support for the Restore Honor to Service Members Act, a bill that would upgrade the statuses of gay and lesbian veterans discharged under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT.)

Addressing chairman Joe Wilson and ranking member Susan Davis of the Armed Services Committee, Silkenat characterized the bill as comprising “the final steps necessary to bring about an end to the unfortunate remnants of [DADT],” adding, “this legislation is crucial for the thousands of our veterans who are still experiencing the consequences of that policy and its even more oppressive predecessors.

The bill would create new panels to hear cases from veterans who, because of the discriminatory nature of previous laws, were kicked out of the armed forces. It aims not only to honor due federal benefits for those veterans, but also to remove the blemish of their discharge, and the unfair consequences incurred as a result. However, it falls short of providing monetary recompensation for lost wages and other damages.

The ABA has had a long history of supporting gay rights: first, by opposing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in 1993 when it was enacted, and later in 2010, when the organization came out in support of gay marriage. Silkenat says that, in this case, because of the “sensitive special status of the armed forces” and ABA’s relationship with the Department of Defense, he was compelled to make his stance known.

Despite its 138 cosponsors, the bill has a very slim chance of making it out of the notoriously rigid Armed Services Committee. Compounding its grim odds is the fact that, of those 138 cosponsors, only one is Republican. In the Republican-controlled House, that alone is a death sentence.

It need not be said that blatant injustices like the ones targeted in the new bill should stoke a rallying cry in the legal community. If the politicians on the Hill can’t scrub the ugly anachronism of homophobia from our society then, in the spirit of Thurgood Marshall, it seems the only thing left to do is to go “through the courts.” So, channeling my inner Stephen Colbert, I give a tip of the hat to you Mr. Silkenat, and a wag of the finger to you, House Republicans.

[ABA Journal]

—

Featured image courtesy of [DVIDSHUB/Sgt. Randall Clinton via Flickr]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ABA Lends Support to House Bill Honoring Gay Vets appeared first on Law Street.