>> funding for NJ Spotlight News provided by members of the New Jersey Education Association.

And RWJBarnabas Health.

Learn more at rmkbh.org.

-- at rwjbh.org.

♪ From NJPBS Studios, this is NJ Spotlight News with Briana Vannozzi.

Joanna: Thanks for joining us, I'm Joanna Gagis.

We take a look at a range of issues impacting residents in our state and nation.

Governor Sherrill delivered her budget address outlining fiscal priorities for the year, a speech that often highlights the divide between political parties.

One area that received bipartisan applause, her efforts to eliminate homelessness for veterans in New Jersey through a program called bringing veterans home, an effort that would be bolstered by an $11 million allocation.

Our next guest is entrenched in that work every day, Richard.

Great to have you.

Your organization is the service provider of bringing veterans home in Essex and Union County.

Can you describe what that initiative is?

Richard: This breaks the state into six regions.

It's not tackling homelessness along the coc County lines it is usually dealt with.

In each region there is a 10 person dedicated team.

Street outreach, case management, housing navigation, and leadership that collaborates with all providers serving veterans throughout the state.

They leverage data, develop a by name list, engage in case collaboration, and they have made it very easy for veterans to get referred to these BVH programs, and they keep going down the list.

Working on how we resolve this situation, that situation.

It drives accountability and speed, engaging with a veteran, making sure -- the way we represent it is if a veteran is at a VFW, having a drink at the bar, and asks, is it OK if I sleep in my car when this place closes?

Then the bartender knows who to call and we can get you at least into a hotel tonight.

Joanna: DBH, bringing veterans home.

There is clearly an epidemic of homelessness in New Jersey, not even looking at the veteran population.

I know we do the point in time count every year to get a handle on it.

Big picture, homelessness, and do we understand how many are homeless in New Jersey?

Richard: I'm glad you brought up the point in time count.

In 2025 it yielded 13,000 people experiencing homelessness.

The data we have in the state system yielded more than 45,000 people in New Jersey who experienced homelessness in 2025.

Veterans represent almost one in 10.

So we are seeing an increase and far more than what the point in time count is going to be able to capture during a week in the coldest part of the year in late January.

Since January 1, we have had 505 veterans get newly referred to the bringing veterans home program.

This is continuing with the inflow.

We continue to see eviction for veterans.

The number one cause of homelessness in New Jersey is eviction.

Joanna: What are the driving factors behind eviction?

Richard: Largely the rising cost of everything else and the number three cause, loss of job or reduction in income, that leads to eviction.

It ends up going together.

As we are paying more at the pump, as we see job loss through the country, as we see increased prices in everything.

We were just talking about how expensive it is to live in New Jersey.

That makes it so far out of reach for a lot of people, one in 10 of whom are veterans.

Joanna: How do you tailor a program for veterans?

You talked about connecting with a bartender so they can refer for services.

That level and degree of outreach feels intangible in some respects.

How do you get your team of 10 out in that region to make sure you are meeting the needs of the people that have the need?

Richard: The most important thing is making sure there is no wrong door, that we have a pathway to be referred into this program, whatever region, everywhere.

From libraries to hospitals to VFW's and American Legion's, it has to be very easy.

And in each region we have a dedicated Street outreach team as well as a dedicated case management team.

Street outreach teams collaborate with every other veteran service provider in the state.

They have to respond within 24 hours to engage with this veteran, get them a safe place to stay tonight, even if that's a hotel room, something very temporary.

And then into permanent housing as fast as possible.

Joanna: What you are talking about costs money.

Talk about the allocation the governor has said she wants to put behind this initiative, $11 million for this program.

What are the numbers she has proposed?

Richard: We are very grateful that this is a policy and budget priority for the governor.

The reality unfortunately is $11 million is not a sustainable number.

Joanna: What does it need to be?

Richard: Last year was $26 million plus another $14 million.

For vouchers that's where we are still looking for clarity in terms of what the $11 million represents.

Is it $11 million instead of $40 million?

Or is there additional voucher support coming from somewhere, so it's $11 million instead of $26 million?

That still only 42%, less than half.

As a provider that's not an ssvf provider, we have to stand up a dedicated team that's not already in the field to do this, and it makes it unsustainable for providers like us and makes us think long and hard about what resources are available and how we approach this.

Joanna: Vouchers, what do you mean there?

Richard: Housing vouchers.

We need folks to be self-sustaining at a certain point.

We do get a fair number of veterans who have a disabling condition and may not be able to work.

They need a housing voucher to make sure they are not paying more than 30% of their income, which may be limited to Social Security disability or other benefits.

Joanna: Often you encounter folks who have a need that runs the gamut.

How do you work to get them connected to services that could include food support, transportation, job support?

Richard: It's all of it.

We leverage a housing stabilization matrix that looks at all the key areas.

We want to make sure their household finances are straight.

We look at their food insecurity.

We will do everything from call bloope -- call Ubers, to rely on other systems to make sure they get transportation, or take them ourselves.

We have a wide range of partners to aim for reduced friction in those important connections.

If somebody needs health care, whether from the V.A.

or not, if someone needs behavioral health care or substance use treatment, which sometimes occurs.

These are not primary drivers into homelessness.

Even for folks who are not veterans, these are not causal for homelessness in New Jersey, even when they are present and even prevalent in some populations.

We have to make sure there is a tight connection for anything they need.

Joanna: This requires coordination between departments within the governor's office.

The Department of community affairs and Veterans Affairs.

Just a few seconds, but how do you see those partners working together?

Where could they improve?

Richard: They are doing a great job.

The Commissioner is doing a great job hitting the whole state, making sure everyone is tightly connected.

I think what they need is more financial support.

Joanna: That's what everyone is asking for.

Not everyone is going to get it in this tight budget season.

Thank you for your time.

More than 11,000 wheelchairs or scooters get damaged, delayed, or lost each year during air travel, according to the U.S.

Department of Transportation.

Behind that statistic are the real-life impacts on people who depend on them, people like Emily, who experienced her wheelchair getting damaged on multiple occasions, including earlier this month.

Emily is the author of the book "demystifying disability: What to know, what to say, and how to be an ally."

She joins us now.

Earlier this month you experienced this, unfortunately not for the first time.

What happened to your wheelchair?

Emily: Thank you for having me, I wish it was under better circumstances.

But I am glad to be raising awareness.

I flew from LaGuardia Airport to Minneapolis-St.

Paul airport on Delta Airlines.

When I arrived, I was informed my wheelchair had taken a fall while they were removing it from the airplane.

It is a 450 pound device, so a fall is quite dangerous for something that heavy.

It turned out the wheelchair was totaled, completely destroyed.

Joanna: A lot of questions.

The cost of that wheelchair?

Emily: A little over $75,000, because it is a custom wheelchair.

It's not just standard issue.

There are multiple features, including elevation, because it helps me reach things.

It has a tilt and recline function, which is for my safety so I can relieve pressure and avoid pressure sores.

It is custom measured to my specifications.

It really is a very expensive, durable medical equipment.

Joanna: So you are landing in Minneapolis about to do a speech where you are a disability rights advocate.

What happens next?

How do you get around?

What is your mobility at that point?

Emily: I was at first in quite a panic because without my wheelchair, I have no way of getting around.

I am unable to walk, so my wheelchair is akin to legs.

It is my freedom of movement and mobility.

So what happened is that the complaint resolution team at the Minneapolis-St.

Paul airport immediately got in touch with the company they contract with called scoot around.

It is scoot around's job to source a loaner wheelchair.

This was a challenge because, as I was mentioning, my wheelchair is custom.

It's not as though you can pull one off the shelf and it's not as though they are always in immediate supply.

But miraculously, within about four and a half hours, they were able to source a wheelchair.

It was not the right dimensions, it was much too large.

It was hard for me to sit in.

But it did have an elevation feature, which was essential for me to transfer in and out.

At the end of the day, I consider myself lucky they were able to find a functional solution for me to get out of the airport.

Joanna: Sadly, this is not the first time this has happened to you.

You posted on social media just before this trip because you shared concerns about this.

What is the impact on you and thousands of others who depend on their wheelchairs and scooters for mobility when it comes to deciding whether you can travel, whether you can go on a honeymoon, in your example?

Emily: I am glad you mentioned, it's not just me.

The implications are far-reaching and I am appreciative I have the opportunity to talk about this issue.

There are so many times when stories like this go completely under the radar.

The implications are very far-reaching.

I was traveling because it was a business trip.

I was going to the University of Wisconsin lacrosse for a speaking engagement.

Not being able to travel puts my life at risk.

My husband and I were supposed to go on our honeymoon to London next month.

After the, frankly, trauma of having my wheelchair broken, we could not fathom getting back on an airplane.

Not to mention, we didn't yet know if I would have a replacement wheelchair.

So this is a matter of impacting livelihood, leisure.

Yonder that, it's a matter of impacting people's freedom of choice to go where they want to go when they want to go there.

Joanna: You are calling on the FAA to make a change that allows folks who depend on a wheelchair to stay in that wheelchair on their flights.

Where is the FAA, as you understand, in considering that rule?

Emily: Under the previous administration, there was a lot of work being done to hold airlines accountable and hopefully either prevent damage to wheelchairs or at least eliminate the hoops people have to jump through if their wheelchairs or mobility equipment are damaged in flight.

I am, at the very least, calling on the Federal Aviation Administration to not rollback the work that was done on implementing those heavier protections for the disability community, in the hopes that they really will hold the feet of the airlines to the fire.

Beyond that, there is an organization called all wheels up that's been working with the FAA to crash test the technology needed to allow wheelchair users to roll their mobility equipment right onto the airplane and stay in their mobility equipment and have it tied down and secured the same way you might if you were rolling onto a public bus.

Joanna: Would that require more open rose on airplanes, to accommodate folks who need wheelchairs?

Emily: Emily: Emily: Emily: It's a great question and I know there is a financial concern.

The technology being developed is such that the airline would not have to lose money because the seats would be replaceable if they were not filled by a wheelchair user.

Right now we have the testing, the technology.

What we need is the airline industry and FAA to work together to implement it.

It will be time and effort but will not be at a significant loss, because it will open more travel opportunities for people with disabilities and people who use mobility devices.

They won't have to pay for the damaged equipment.

And they are not going to lose the seats on the airplanes.

It's a win-win for everybody.

Joanna: Emily Ladau, author and disability rights advocate.

I want to thank you for sharing your perspective and advocating for those who don't have a voice like you do.

A landmark verdict last week found meta and YouTube are liable for harming kids with their social media platforms.

Meta is the company that owns Facebook and Instagram.

The case was brought by a young woman named Kaylee who accused the companies of intentionally addicting young people.

A jury agreed and awarded Kaylee $6 million in damages for the mental health harms.

A separate case in New Mexico also found Meta liable for harming kids' mental health and safety.

These decisions are likely to have massive impact on future cases.

I'm joined by a podcaster who's been covering it all and highlighting the risks these sites pose to children.

She is the founder of scrolling to death.

Great to have you.

There is a lot of emotion tied to this verdict.

What were you feeling?

>> I was in the courtroom as they went through all those yeses.

We did not expect to win on every count.

This was a test case, the first to be tried of thousands.

Usually the plaintiff does not win these test cases.

We were not expecting it.

There was a lot of emotion.

Many parents were in the courtroom who have lost children to social media harms.

The physicality of receiving that news and the emotion behind that was a lot to process.

It is still settling in.

Joanna: Can you go through some of the accounts that came in as guilty?

Nicki: Meta and YouTube both negligent in the design or operation of their platforms.

This negligence was a substantial factor in causing harm to the plaintiff.

Meta and YouTube were both found to have reasonably known the design of their platform was dangerous when used by a minor.

And they did not warn users, there was a failed to adequately warn of the danger.

Failure to warn was a substantial factor in causing harm to Kaylee.

Further, there was punitive damages decided on.

What was found was that YouTube and meta were negligent in the design of their platform.

These companies were shown through clear and convincing evidence to be acting with malice, oppression, or fraud in the conduct of their business practice.

They were found to be a danger to society and were punished through additional damages.

Joanna: Through your podcast and coverage on social media, you interact with countless parents.

Can you bring to life a couple examples of how young people have been harmed by these algorithms, by these policies?

Nicki: Nicki: Nicki: So many ways.

Nicki:Most importantly, the addiction to the platform.

These companies' internal documents showed they were developing different functionality to addict young people.

They were studying the teenage brain, pointing to areas of the brain and labeling them as opportunities in order to addict young people.

That has been shocking to see the internal documents.

But then we have actual families in the courtroom whose children were so damaged by these platforms and so addicted to them, in addition to being served content that glorified suicide, eating disorders, that connected them with predators, with drug dealers who sold them a pill made with Fentanyl.

There are so many ways these platforms are harming children, and parents who have lost children are rising up and celebrating this verdict, but also hoping for more change.

Joanna: That's my next question.

While we have this verdict and there were damages provided, does this get to the root of changing practices moving forward?

Nicki: Nicki: Nicki: Nicki: Nicki: Nicki: Unfortunately when one family brings a case Nicki:, there is damages awarded.

But what we want is these companies to change their harmful platforms.

That's not something that one single family can enforce.

What we are going to see with the larger lawsuits coming from state attorneys general's and also thousands of school districts have sued these same companies.

We are going to see injunctive relief awarded.

That means these companies will be forced to make their platforms safer, remove addictive functionality.

We will see changes on that level, in addition to lawmakers all over the country drafting bills to get those past to force companies to make those changes.

Joanna: You are talking about cases that have been filed.

There are thousands of cases out there right now.

Does this legal precedent set up a greater potential for a win in those cases?

Nicki: Each case has to be tried individually with a jury based on the evidence in that case.

But that's not to say that societally, knowledge about these harms and what we are seeing in internal documents isn't reaching the feeds of everyday people, and they will take that information as they look at these cases.

We do think this will be a snowball effect of wins and we are excited about that.

Because what we all want are the companies to be protecting children instead of exposing them to harm.

Joanna: We are talking about meta and YouTube, the two that the case found guilty.

But also snap and TikTok settled with the plaintiff prior to this going to trial.

Let me ask it this way.

Are they exempt from any liability?

Nicki: That is a great question, because no, they are still defendants on thousands of other cases.

They just settled this one case.

What I heard from the plaintiff attorney is not in this case with Kaylee, TikTok and Snapchat were amplification defendants.

Meeting she started using those platforms much later and a lot of the harm occurred once she started using YouTube and meta's platforms.

It was more direct to focus on the platforms that harmed her more.

But Snapchat and TikTok are still defendants that will be looked into on the next case and the thousands following.

Joanna: So much of your coverage is focused on what's happening in these legal cases.

Is there any signal there could be congressional oversight, any legislative response to what these companies have now been proven to be doing?

Nicki: Absolutely, advocacy groups all over the country have been sending internal documents directly to lawmakers.

We have been in contact with many who are drafting bills right now.

But there is also pressure from Big Tech companies.

They are spending over $50 million a year lobbying against online safety bills that would protect children.

We are fighting a big fight there and I am hopeful lawmakers will do the right thing.

Joanna: I want to talk about your podcast, scrolling to death.

How did you get involved in this work?

Nicki: I used to have my own social media management company, so I was on the other side managing social media.

Back in 2020 three, there was a Surgeon General's warning stating when young people spend more than three hours on social media, it doubles their risk of anxiety and depression.

I thought that was really important to know.

I also started reading about parents alleging their children died because of social media.

I thought this was so important, given that kids are asking for access younger and younger, that we need to have all the information as parents for we make those choices, so we can protect them.

My goal was to make a safe space to share information in a productive way to educate parents.

Joanna: You talk about kids who are dying.

You posted recently about the blackout challenge that's been around for years.

What were you highlighting there in terms of these types of videos?

Nicki: Another child had passed away from the blackout challenge, or the Joakim challenge.

This was a nine-year-old who saw it on social media.

Kids are going to post things, people are going to post things, and companies, due to a 30-year-old law, can't be held liable for what gets posted.

But these companies are pushing harmful content to young children.

So this nine-year-old, a girl named Jaclyn, I believe, in Texas, was pushed through the algorithm to a choking challenge video.

That led her to try it and she unfortunately passed away.

I've been interviewing parents of survivors for many years, so the companies are aware that this type of dangerous deadly challenge is so prevalent on their platforms, and they have the technological ability to remove it.

And they obviously are not given we are still losing children to this.

Joanna: Something you continue to highlight.

Thank you for this insight.

Really appreciate you coming on to talk about it.

That's going to do it for us.

I'm Joanna Gagis.

For the entire team, thanks for being with us.

We will see you next time.

>> NJM Insurance Group.

Serving the insurance needs of residents and businesses for more than 100 years.

>> our students face challenges we never did.

So across New Jersey, parents and educators show up for our kids every single day.

Together, we build the best public schools in the nation through innovation and inclusion , hard work, cooperation, and mutual respect.

Working together for every child's future.

Because we have the same goal -- giving our students the support, opportunity, and education they need to succeed in school and in life.

♪