Latest news with #McCafferty
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Number of older homeless adults increased nearly 20% this year in Hampden County
SPRINGFIELD — More and more, Center for Human Development homeless outreach workers in the state's western four counties are seeing an uptick in older homeless adults. That's according to Will Dávila, CHD's vice president of diversion, shelter and housing. 'I can tell you we've been increasingly concerned over the last year or two,' he said. 'We've seen slowly the numbers creeping up.' Across all age groups, homelessness increased this year in Hampden County compared to 2024. For adults 55 and older, the annual percent increased by 18.4%, several points higher than the bump to the overall population, according to preliminary data from an annual point-in-time count conducted in January. The counts are coordinated at the local level but done across the country, and data is reported to the federal government. It was the second year in a row in which the older adult group's numbers increased more than the overall homeless population, said Gerry McCafferty, the city's housing director and the point person for the Springfield-Hampden County Continuum of Care. On the night the census was taken this past January, 34 people aged 55 and older were sleeping on the streets in the county, while 133 in that age group were sheltered, the preliminary data shows, according to McCafferty. Rising homelessness among older adults is a nationwide problem. One study in 2019 predicted the number of homeless people over the age of 65 would almost triple by 2030. Dennis P. Culhane, one of the researchers and a professor in the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice, told NPR earlier this year that the actual increase has been 'slightly higher than we predicted.' Some reasons for the increase: Baby boomers are aging, and there's a lack of affordable housing. 'I can speculate,' McCafferty said, speaking of the possible reasons for the uptick. 'Many older adults lived on fixed incomes. They are on Social Security or other retirement, and rents have gone up tremendously. I think that there likely is a greater challenge of affordability, as rents went up, and incomes did not go up. I think there is a good likelihood a lot of it has to do with housing affordability.' John Baker is a community health worker who does homeless outreach for Mercy Medical Center in partnership with the city. He is seeing some older adults on fixed incomes who have been pushed out onto the streets by rent increases. 'The math doesn't sustain itself,' he said. He also sees older people on the streets with co-occurring mental health or substance use problems. It's hard enough to be homeless in your 30s or 40s, Baker said. 'It's much more difficult when you're in your 60s or 70s.' Some older homeless adults have aged while experiencing chronic homelessness, service providers said. Anecdotally, McCafferty also is hearing about more older adults who are homeless for the first time. Baker and Dávila are seeing that in their work, too. 'It's concerning,' Dávila said. Dávila also worries about how possible cuts to social service programs could worsen the situation. 'On top of what we're already seeing, if benefits to these folks are eliminated, and rents go up, you're going to have a perfect storm for many more homeless individuals,' he said. 'It's all going to converge at a very unfortunate moment.' 'His mercy was never returned': Jordan Cabrera sentenced to 12-15 years for fatally shooting Jahvante Perez This is how much untreated wastewater went into the Connecticut River last year PVPC working on two-decade plan for bikers and pedestrians Big Y recalls made-to-order sandwiches for salmonella concerns Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Federal judge restricts Trump administration's efforts to withhold school funding based on DEI
April 24 (UPI) -- A federal judge on Thursday restricted the Trump administration from denying funds to public schools that participate in diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The ruling, issued by New Hampshire federal Judge Landya McCafferty, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama, is limited to schools that participate with the plaintiffs in the case, the National Education Association and the Center for Black Educator Development. McCafferty said Trump's action would "cripple the operations of many educational institutions," and would constitute a violation of executive branch power in overseeing local school districts. The NEA is the nation's largest teachers union with more than 3 million members. "The Department's attempt to punish schools for acknowledging diversity, equity and inclusion is not only unconstitutional, but it's also extremely dangerous -- and functions as a direct misalignment with what we know to be just and future forward," Sharif El-Mekki, Center for Black Educator Development CEO and founder, said in a statement. "Today's decision is a critical step toward protecting the freedom to teach and the freedom to learn." The suit was filed after the Trump administration demanded that public schools in all 50 states not participate in programs that violate its interpretation of what constitutes a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Education Department pushed back against the lawsuit, saying public schools in the United States have embraced "pervasive and repugnant race-based preferences," which "emanated throughout every facet of academia" and did so by holding the "false premise that the United States is built upon 'systemic and structural racism.'" The administration demanded that public schools comply with existing civil rights laws or risk losing potentially billions of dollars in federal aid earmarked for low-income students. In her ruling, McCafferty also said the Trump administration's definition of diversity, equity and inclusion is unlawful, and in "stark contrast to the dictionary definition of DEI." She added that the administration's stance is "inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the phrase." Trump signed a flurry of executive orders in January that took aim at eliminating DEI programs at various institutions and government departments across the country.
Forbes
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
How Did The Court Block The Trump Administration Anti-DEI Directive
STAMFORD, CONNECTICUT - JULY 17: Former Small Business Administrator Linda McMahon led all ... More presidential campaign donors from Connecticut, having given $813,000 to a joint fundraising committee affiliated with her former boss, Donald Trump. (Peter Casolino/New Haven Register via Getty Images) Thursday U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty blocked the Trump administration's anti-DEI directive to schools. The block applies only to public schools that work with the plaintiffs, the National Education Association, their New Hampshire affiliate, and the Center for Black Educator Development. Here's what went into the ruling. The administration policy opposing diversity, equity and inclusion policies was rolled out starting with a 'Dear Colleague' letter on February 14, the press release announcing their 'End DEI' portal on February 27, and an April 3rd message strongly suggesting that states and local school districts sign a pledge that they had a 'legal obligation' to follow the administration's interpretation of Title VI and linking that compliance to continue receiving federal funding. April 24 marked the due date for districts and states to sign. By that date, Matt Zalaznick reported for District Administration that many states, including Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland and New Hampshire had complied, while other states like Arizona were threatening individual districts that would not sign with a loss of funding. Education Week reported that 19 states said they would not sign. McCafferty's 82-page ruling opens with a pair of quotes from earlier cases to indicate the stakes of this case. Ours is a nation 'deeply committed to safeguarding academic freedom, which is of transcendent value to all of us and not merely to the teachers concerned.' Indeed, '[t]he Nation's future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to [a] robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.' McCafferty is quite clear on the chilling nature of the administration actions. For many schools, loss of federal funding would be crippling. It is predictable—if not obvious— that such schools will eliminate all vestiges of DEI to avoid even the possibility of funding termination. Although the 2025 Letter does not make clear what exactly it prohibits, it makes at least one thing clear: schools should not come close to anything that could be considered 'DEI,' lest they be deemed to have guessed wrong in violation of the 2025 Letter's vague and expansive prohibitions. She cites numerous examples of exactly that resultant chilling effect. The administration argues that the letter does not prohibit teachers from teaching certain books or the history of race, racism, gender, or other topics, but the court holds that assurance up against the language of the End DEI portal with its encouragement to parents to 'share the receipts of the betrayal that has happened in our public schools.' McCafferty rules that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their case, due to several factors. First, vagueness. The letter is clear on consequences ("face potential loss of federal funding") but not on the actual behaviors being prohibited. McCafferty finds the administration definition of 'diversity, equity, and inclusion' to be 'ocean-wide' and its examples are far removed from the dictionary or generally understood meanings of the words. She cites several teachers who talk about how the vagueness leaves them uncertain whether or not they may teach material such as historical imperialism or the themes in 'Heart of Darkness.' The administration argues that it is simply directing schools not to use DEI programs as cover to engage in racial harassment. Yet, McCafferty points out, they offer no explanation how DEI could be used in such a way. [T]he 2025 Letter does not define this term, but on its face it concerns a consciousness or awareness of one's race or others' races. How is it possible to engage in DEI programming that ignores race? The 2025 Letter is silent. Nor does the administration's website say it intends to end that 'cover' version of DEI, but aims to 'End DEI," not particular uses or versions of it. An FAQ doesn't help, 'clarifying' by the use of terms like 'veil discrimination policies' and 'social-emotional learning"-- terms that serve a special coded understanding for conservative anti-DEI activists, but not for those who read them in simple plain English. McCafferty rules that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on First Amendment grounds, noting that the letter 'targets speech based on viewpoint.' A professor runs afoul of the 2025 Letter if she expresses the view in her teaching that structural racism exists in America, but does not do so if she denies structural racism's existence. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination. McCafferty also sees that this is an attempt to coerce third parties to punish or suppress disfavored speech on their behalf by getting state and district officials to force teachers to stop delivering the disfavored lessons. But what is illegal directly is illegal indirectly. McCafferty further sees the plaintiffs winning on the grounds of overstepping authority by the Trump administration. By law, the Department of Education is expressly forbidden 'to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system.' By prohibiting teaching of certain concepts, the anti-DEI initiative oversteps the limits of department powers. Nor does McCafferty think the Department can hide behind calling its directive an interpretation of the law; the letter, she writes, is a legislative rule, and the obligations imposed are new. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure requires the plaintiff in a case like this to post a bond against damage that the defendants may suffer if they turn out to have been wrongfully enjoined. McCafferty orders a bond of $50. The Trump administration's anti-DEI initiative has depended on language that is plain enough on its face, but is meant to convey other layers of meaning, particularly to those involved in the culture wars. That has allowed the effect of the government simultaneously saying 'Don't teach about racial issues' and 'Of course you can teach about racial issues,' leaving educators to try to figure out where the lines are truly drawn in a game with very high professional stakes. For the moment, the court has told the Department of Education to take a step back. The Department has not yet responded to requests for comment.
Malay Mail
25-04-2025
- Politics
- Malay Mail
Three judges, 90 minutes, one message: Trump's executive orders go too far
WASHINGTON, April 25 — Three US federal judges issued rulings within 90 minutes on 24 April, blocking major parts of President Donald Trump's recent executive orders. The decisions halted attempts to penalise sanctuary cities, restrict diversity and inclusion in education, and impose strict voter registration rules, according to The Independent. 'Here we are again,' wrote California District Judge William H. Orrick, noting that fears of enforcement are 'even stronger than in 2017.' Orrick, appointed by Barack Obama, ruled against freezing funds to 16 sanctuary jurisdictions, citing constitutional violations of the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. The orders, he wrote, improperly sought to 'commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices and law.' Another ruling came from New Hampshire District Judge Landya B. McCafferty, who blocked part of an anti-DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusivity) directive threatening schools with funding cuts. She said the policy amounted to 'textbook viewpoint discrimination' for punishing educators who acknowledge structural racism. Her decision stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the National Education Association and the ACLU, focusing on free speech and due process protections. Judge McCafferty's ruling does not apply nationwide but protects schools employing members of the suing organisations. In Washington, DC, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly blocked key portions of an executive order requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote. She said Trump overstepped legal limits, writing that the Constitution gives Congress and the states — not the president — the authority over federal elections. Trump's policies, nearly all of which he has instituted via executive orders, are facing a wave of lawsuits challenging their constitutionality.
Yahoo
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
NH judge temporarily blocks Trump push to withhold school funds over DEI
A federal judge in Concord issued a ruling Thursday temporarily blocking the Trump administration from acting on threats to withhold funds from K-12 public schools that defy his orders forbidding diversity, equity and inclusion policies. The 82-page ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty granting a preliminary injunction is the latest development in a lawsuit filed March 5 by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of New Hampshire, the ACLU of Massachusetts, the National Education Association, and the National Education Association–New Hampshire. Also joining the case is the Center for Black Educator Development. DEI ruling The lawsuit challenges the U.S. Department of Education's Feb. 14 'Dear Colleague' letter, which threatened federal funding cuts for schools nationwide if they engage in DEI efforts and imposed a 14-day window before 'appropriate measures' would be taken. The suit argues the Education Department overstepped its legal authority by imposing 'unfounded and vague legal restrictions' that violate due process and the First Amendment, limit academic freedom, and dictate what educators can teach and what students are allowed to learn. In her ruling, McCafferty wrote the ban on DEI embodied in the 'Dear Colleague' letter leaves teachers with a 'Hobson's choice,' defined as an apparently free choice when there is no real alternative. 'If they fail to abide by the ill-defined standards set forth in the letter, they leave themselves open to their school's decision to terminate their employment or curb their work in order to preserve essential federal funding, public ostracization based on one person's view of what 'DEI' is, or potential disciplinary proceedings that put their license at risk,' McCafferty wrote. 'But even if they endeavor to abide by the 2025 Letter's requirements, they risk failing to comply with certification requirements necessary for retention of their professional credentials. All while not being afforded a reasonable opportunity to know what the 2025 letter even requires of them. The Constitution requires more.' The lawsuit argues the Education Department has no authority to dictate curriculum or educational programs, and that federal law protects educational institutions' ability to shape their own curriculum, including programs that reflect and celebrate diversity. The preliminary injunction issued Thursday prevents the the department from enforcing the directive while litigation continues. Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, called Thursday's ruling a victory for academic freedom, the free speech rights of educators, and for New Hampshire students who have 'a right to an inclusive education free from censorship.' 'Every student, both in the Granite State and across the country, deserves to feel seen, heard, and connected in school — and that can't happen when classroom censorship laws and policies are allowed to stand." National Education Association President Becky Pringle said the ruling allows educators and schools to 'continue to be guided by what's best for students, not by the threat of illegal restrictions and punishment.' In her ruling, McCafferty mentioned a middle school social studies teacher in New Hampshire whose classes include lessons on the American Civil War, the Reconstruction Era, and their aftermath — including discussions of race and how race and perceptions toward different racial groups has shaped American history. 'But given the 2025 letter's prohibition on teaching students that America is 'built upon' racism, this teacher now fears being accused of engaging in discrimination for doing no more than teaching historical facts,' McCafferty writes. The case will now continue as the court considers whether to permanently block the Education Department's directive. pfeely@
