When the Straphangers Campaign asked riders at 15 of New York’s busiest subway stops what they thought of their stations, the answers from almost 4,000 riders surprised the advocacy group.
Grading the stations on cleanliness, security, announcements, crowding and ease of getting around, the riders gave their top score to the Yankee Stadium/161st Street station in the traditionally underserved Bronx – despite renovation problems and complaints about rats. The 51st Street and Lexington Station came in dead last in the 2000 survey, even though in many respects it looked better than its Bronx counterpart. A possible conclusion: When it comes to rating stations, many riders would prefer vermin to overcrowding.
Citizens often have different criteria for rating services than experts or officials. Health administrators may evaluate a hospital based on the number of prestigious doctors or the amount of cutting edge equipment. Patients, though, tend to look at whether the triage nurse in the emergency room treated them with courtesy and respect. In San Jose, the heart of the high-technology Silicon Valley, city officials expected residents would prefer to get key information on public services via their computers. No, residents said in a survey: They wanted to speak to a “real” person on the phone.
As governments, including New York City’s, find new ways to assess their performance (for more, see Gotham Gazette’s section Measuring Up), some experts say that all too often officials ignore a key piece -- what the people who are supposed to benefit from government services think of those services. In response, academics, officials and others are striving to come up with ways to take the pulse of the people -- and use that data to improve government performance. The issue has attracted enough interest lately that last month, dozens of policy experts, academics and Bloomberg administration officials turned out early on a Monday morning for a forum at Baruch College on “giving New Yorkers a voice.”
Since the 1970s, New York City has produced a welter of data to evaluate performance. Key to this is the Mayor’s Management Report, a document brimming with data on lots cleared of rodents, students graduating from high school, fire department response times and so on.
Beyond 311: Listening to New Yorkers |
Most of this data focuses on what experts call inputs -- money, staff, resources -- and outputs –- usually statistics on services produced by government, such as tons of trash collected, number of potholes filled, the average length of a hospital stay, the number of bathrooms in city parks. But the data may not cover the outcome -- the quality of the service delivered.
It’s the difference between reporting on the number of potholes filled and the number of streets in excellent condition. So a sanitation department may report how much trash it collects but not whether, in the process, it dropped garbage or if it picked up trash from some buildings and not others.
To get that kind of information one often has to ask citizens.
So far, New York City has no comprehensive way to do this. Private groups (Straphangers and the Fund for the City of New York, to name two) have tried to gauge citizen satisfaction -- or dissatisfaction -- with government. Baruch College conducted two surveys for City Council in 2000 and 2001. And some city agencies try to get their own information. According to Jeffrey Kay, director of the Mayors Office of Operations, the Human Resources Administration, for example, asks people who go into their walk-in centers to evaluate the services they received, while the buildings department holds focus groups. (See The Web Site, 311, Surveys and Focus Groups.) And in the coming school year, the Department of Education plans to ask parents and older students to rate certain aspects of their schools. (See Parents Grading Schools.)
The city also culls some data from its 311 non-emergency helpline. But, however useful this might be, it does not provide an accurate picture of citizen satisfaction. “It is representative of who picks up the phone – not necessarily of the broader population,” Diana Fortuna, president of the Citizens Budget Commission, said. (See Beyond 311: Listening to New Yorkers.)
And most people dial 311 only to report a problem. “Do people call 311 to pay the city compliments? Probably not, said Douglas Muzzio, a public policy professor at Baruch College. (What Residents Can Tell Government)
Private companies, of course, frequently get satisfaction information from their customers. Sales figures give businesses a quick indication of whether people like their product. But companies also survey their customers. Customers of online business such as eBay or Amazon are asked for “feedback” and many hotels provide a customer response form.
“How strange that we don’t do this and in the private sector, they do it all the time, “ said Barbara Cohn Berman, director of the Center on Municipal Government Performance at the Fund for the City of New York. “They’re not going to make a purple car if no one’s going to buy it.”
It’s important for government to follow business’ example, many argue. “This kind of research can be eye-opening because it helps government to see things in a different way,” Berman said. When the fund conducted focus groups of New Yorkers in 1995 and in 2001, she said, “no one complained about taxes.” But, overwhelming majorities of people thought the condition of the city’s roads was “critically important” and were very dissatisfied with it.
Taking surveys also allows government to view data in various ways, considering, for example how different racial groups view a city service. “In a city as diverse as New York, such differences in how people experience government services are significant,” said Muzzio.
Getting citizen opinion has a number of advantages, said Marc Holzer, executive director of the National Center for Public Productivity at Rutgers University. “Citizens may have good ideas about government,” he said. Further, “You want citizens to feel they are connected with government….and that government is a good use of their money.”
Despite this, Holzer said, many governments do not like to consult citizens. There is a tendency for this in New York City where, he said, “There’s a certain arrogance at City Hall.” As an example he cited the recent controversy over cell phones in public schools, where the city has persisted in enforcing a total ban, despite parents’ objections.
If one accepts that government should consider citizen ratings, the question then becomes how to get that information. It is far harder to do this in government than business, former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani said in 2001. “It requires a process of asking yourself not only why government exists but in the case of city government why certain agencies exist. What is their raison d’etre, what’s their purpose, and what is the reason the public wants those agencies,” he said.
To try to get answers to these questions, management experts, pollsters and statisticians have devised a number of methods. They include:
--Surveys of a random sampling of citizens: This has been used in a number of cities including San Jose. There the city contacted a statistically selected sample of residents -- not necessarily citizens -- and asked 100 questions about how they feel about the city, their concerns about the quality of life, safety and so on. (See The Way in San Jose.)
--Less random samples: Often these surveys are made available to a broad swath of citizens, any of whom can respond. In Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, a questionnaire on the police went out with the water bills, and in Sheboygan, Wisconsin, a response form was inserted in the local paper. While the results could prove useful, the self-selected sample could provide a skewed picture of citizen attitudes.
--User surveys: Residents who avail themselves of a certain city survey are then asked to evaluate. The Straphanger’s subway station survey is an example of this. Pranger said that, while that effort yielded useful results, it was very labor intensive. “It takes forever to hand out postcards,” she said. And the data has limitations, Pranger said. Responses to surveys, she said, may not be as reliable and standardized as data collected through observations and counts, such as the Straphangers reports on dirt in the subways.
Berman cautions that surveys, while they have value, can lead to erroneous conclusions. For example, she said many cities ask residents whether they feel safe. When people answer no, governments typically respond by increasing police presence. But, she said, the reason people feel vulnerable may have nothing to do with police presence: It could reflect press coverage of crime, poor street lighting or other factors. “You could be throwing good money after bad by putting more police there,” she said.
Focus groups: These are groups chosen from the population that are sampled through an open discussion – rather than yes or no questions – about a specific issue, product or, in this case, city services. The Fund for the City of New York has employed this approach, said Berman, because in a citizen survey “you can’t find out much about why people say what they do.”
Citizen driven government performance: In this approach, citizen groups collect data on a public service. Straphangers relies largely on this, sending out employees and others to gauge the cleanliness of subway cars or the operation of pay phones in subway stations. Other examples include New Yorkers for Parks, Inside Schools.
All of these methods, if use correctly, have their pluses and minuses. And then of course there’s the original citizen survey: The ballot box is open for public responses every November.
“How the City Can Improve Tracking of Service Delivery,” Independent Budget Office, February 2002
"Listening to the Public: Adding the Voices of the People to Government Performance Measurement and Reporting" Barbara Cohn Berman of the Fund for the City of New York's Center on Municipal Government Performance discusses performance measures that reflect the public's needs, concerns, and perspective.
Center on Municipal Government Performance at the Fund for the City of New York
Government Accounting Standards Board. Focuses on government finances and accountability.
International City Council Management Association. It has a center for performance management
National center for Public Productivity. A research and public service organization devoted to improving productivity in the public sector. Â
Every two weeks the New York City Council meets for its Stated Meeting to introduce and pass legislation. As a regular feature, Gotham Gazette covers these meetings and posts a summary of the bills passed.
By a vote of 44 to 5, the New York City Council approved Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to change the way the city handles its garbage in its stated meeting on July 19, 2006 -- a decision council members referred to as "historic" and "monumental." Under the plan, the city will move its trash to out-of-state landfills by barge and rail, rather than by trucks, as it does today. The version of the plan that the council approved was altered to lessen the environmental impact on neighborhoods that will have to play host to garbage facilities and to further encourage recycling.
The city's current system of garbage management has been criticized mainly because of its negative environmental impact. Over the next twenty years, the lifespan of the new plan, truck traffic is expected to be reduced by 3 million miles.
"By removing garbage from the city through barge and rail transport we will dramatically reduce the negative effects of truck traffic on our neighborhoods," said Council Speaker Christine Quinn.
New York City has been in a particularly difficult situation with regards to trash since 2001, when Mayor Rudolph Giuliani closed Staten Island's Fresh Kills landfill without a clear idea of how the city would function without it. Since then, city trucks have dumped garbage at facilities located mainly in low-income neighborhoods in the Bronx and Brooklyn. There, larger trucks pick it up and haul it out of state. Residents in such areas suffer from high rates of asthma and other health problems widely linked to the air pollution associated with such facilities.
Environmental advocates and representatives of the low-income neighborhoods praised the council's decision to address the current situation.
"Today is the single most important day for solid waste issues -- including air quality, and environmental justice impacts -- in the last decade since Mayor Giuliani announced the closure of Fresh Kills landfill," said Ramon Cruz of Environmental Defense, an advocacy group that has been involved in negotiations.
The current situation has also been derided as being financially inefficient. The city expects the immediate financial impact of the new plan to actually raise the cost of handling garbage from about $77 a ton to about $107, but supporters of the plan believe it will be financially beneficial in the long term.
But garbage has always been a controversial issue in New York City, and negotiations between the council and the administration were "long and hard," according to Councilmember Michael McMahon, the chair of the council's committee of sanitation and solid waste management. The vote, originally scheduled for 1:30 p.m., was delayed for five hours as council members and representatives from the mayor's office hammered away at the final details.
"Up until about 3 o'clock this afternoon I thought there would be no agreement," said McMahon.
The stickiest issues all dealt with how to reduce the environmental burden on specific neighborhoods.
For residential waste, the city is planning to open four "marine transfer stations" where trucks will dump garbage onto barges. Two are in Brooklyn, one in Manhattan, and one in Queens. The council strengthened language guaranteeing that these neighborhoods will see a reduction in the amount of waste handled at privately-run truck-based garbage facilities already operating there. The South Bronx is also guaranteed such a reduction, since it has been overburdened for years. A transfer station for commercial waste is also being planned at 59th Street and the Hudson River in Manhattan. The council added a commitment to look for alternative sites in Manhattan as well.
Another contentious issue concerned a facility in McMahon's district in Staten Island where garbage from the four marine transfer stations will be transfered from barges into containers. At the last minute, a cap was inserted limiting the amount of garbage that would move through that facility and the amount of time garbage could stay there.
The proposed reopening of a marine transfer station at East 91st Street will go forward. That site has been the focus of bitter fight last summer. Councilmember Jessica Lappin, who represents the district, voiced her strong displeasure as she voted against the plan.
"I find the reopening of that facility outrageous and unacceptable," she said, noting that it is located in a dense residential area. "I just don't see how you mitigate the impacts on this community."
Also voting no were Councilmembers Dan Garodnick, Gale Brewer, Oliver Koppell, and Domenic Recchia. The plan must still be approved by the state.
The council also passed four bills aiming to curb gun violence. Two bills were passed unanimously. One, Intro 362., calls for those convicted of criminal possession of a weapon to enter a registry, the first of its kind in the country. The other, Intro 365, outlaws the possession of firearms that have been painted to look like toy guns.
The other two bills were approved by votes of 47 to 2. Republicans Dennis Gallagher and Andrew Lanza voted "no" on Intro 363, which requires gun dealers to physically inspect their inventory twice a year, and Intro 364, which would keep people from buying more than four handguns in a calendar year.
The Council also approved Intro 296, , which says that gas stations must keep their prices the same for a 24-hour period before they can change them again. The Department of Consumer Affairs that sends investigators out to monitor prices across the city would enforce the regulation. The measure was approved by a 43 to 6 vote, with Councilmembers Simcha Felder, Daniel Garodnick, Helen Sears, Dennis Gallagher, Andrew Lanza, and James Oddo, voting no.
The next Stated Meeting is scheduled for August 16, 2006.
Each summer, State Assemblymember and Brooklyn Democratic party boss Vito Lopez throws a massive summer picnic, busing 4,000 senior citizens from Bushwick to Sunken Meadow State Park in Long Island for live music, dancing, and a steak and chicken dinner.
It is also one of the most important political gatherings of the year; elected officials from across the city and state come to shake hands, campaign, and have their photo taken with Lopez, who wears an apron while tending the barbeque.
Many members of the City Council, including Speaker Christine Quinn, owe their jobs at least in part to Lopez, so it was not surprising that when the City Council recently approved the city's $53 billion budget, they made sure to allocate $100,000 for the picnic.
Each year, in addition to the major initiatives in the budget, the City Council also hands out tens of millions of dollars in grants for various programs - senior centers, Little League teams, volunteer firefighter squads, religious groups, and community organizations. Most of the funding goes to worthy organizations doing important work in the city, but there are also items that many would see as "pork." (See the full list online - pdf format.)
This year, Speaker Christine Quinn promised to reform the way the council allocates such money, but critics still question how funding decisions are made and how they serve the personal interests of local politicians.
"Does the public have any idea of the amount of money being distributed, and how?" asked Rachel Leon of Common Cause.
The State Legislature and governor also dole out $200 million of these grants each year, and the process in Albany is even more secretive. This year, the Albany Times Union sued Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno because they refused to make the information public.
Does New York's budget pork need to be trimmed?
The 51 City Council members, who each represent about 157,000 people, obtain money for their constituents and neighborhoods in several ways.
Each individual member can request grants - often called "member items" - ranging from about $1,000 to $100,000 for tenant associations, senior citizen programs, cultural groups, and youth and community organizations.
This year, member items included grants such as $5,000 for the Point Breezy Volunteer Fire Department, $8,500 for the Roosevelt Island Day Nursery, $4,000 for the Yorkville Common Food Pantry, $3,000 for the Contello Men's Club, $10,000 for the Doll and Toy Museum of New York City, $10,000 for the Guardian Angels, and $5,000 for a youth program at the Maranatha Baptist Church.
In total, more than one thousand organizations received some kind of municipal funding.
In addition, all 51 City Council members receive a sum of money - often called "discretionary funds" - to spend in their districts.
This year, each member received a total of $340,464, of which $151,714 must be spent on programs for youth and $108,750 must be spent on programs for the elderly. Members can allocate the remaining $80,000 as they wish.
The argument for giving City Council members a substantial role in allocating money in their districts is that they know the community's needs. (For an explanation of how the council has been allocated money in the past, see the article Community Development or Political Pork?)
But the City Council is often criticized - even by some of its own members - for loading down the budget with too many pet projects.
"There is so much pork you can almost hear it oink," said former Bronx Councilmember Madeline Provenzano in response to last year's budget.
The process has also been criticized.
In the past, council members had to submit their specific budget requests to the speaker and make the argument that their projects were worthy. The speaker would then decide which items to include in negotiations with the mayor. Politics often came into play, with the speaker rewarding members who were loyal and punishing those who were not.
"There was no rhyme or reason to what got on the list," said Councilmember David Weprin, who also chairs the finance committee.
This year, Speaker Christine Quinn, who in her first term has looked to overhaul some of the council practices, tried to reign in the council's budget process.
Under a new policy, each major council spending request had to have the support of at least 10 council members from at least three boroughs. This forced individual members to build a certain amount of consensus for their projects.
"The fact that a member had an idea and put it forward does not mean that it will get carried as a priority nor does it mean it will get into the budget," Quinn said in June.
Councilmember Weprin said that compared to the past council initiatives were more thoroughly vetted by members and by the council's finance staff.
After some initial complaints, most of the council members say they now prefer the new procedure.
"It made council members say 'yes' to some and 'no' to others," said Bronx Councilmember James Vacca, who was not in office last year, but as the head of a community board was familiar with the past process. "I'm not saying that I got all the money I asked for... but on the whole it was significant progress."
And for the first time, the City Council put the list of all of the organizations or programs that receive city funding - known as "Schedule C" - online for the public to read.
Still even with the reforms, the end result is not radically different.
Overall, the effort did not reduce the amount of spending in the budget. This year's $52.9 billion budget is the largest in city history, and the council added about $233 million to what the mayor proposed, which is about similar to previous years.
It is impossible to compare how many "member items" were doled out in total compared with the past, since the budget documents do not add up the initiatives.
And the process is still far from transparent.
All of the budget decisions still happen behind closed doors. Records do not say which member requested the funding. And there is little information on how the grant will be spent.
In an effort to create a more transparent budget process, Councilmember Hiram Monserrate recently said he would introduce a bill that will require future budgets to include the name and district of council members requesting funds as well as the amount contributed to each organization.
"[We must] ensure a new transparency law is in place before we find ourselves in yet another flawed budget process,” said Monserrate.
And this year, council members did not even know exactly what they were voting on until they were handed the budget documents at nearly 1 o'clock in the morning, just minutes before the vote.
"We still have a long way to go to make it a more open process," said Queens Councilmember Tony Avella.
As is often the case when comparing city and state government, Albany makes City Hall look good. The State Legislature has an even more secretive and dysfunctional way of dealing with member items.
Each year, Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon hand out $170 million in member items. The governor also gets a $30 million pot of money to pass out as he sees fit. But unlike the City Council, the State Legislature does not provide a list of how the money is spent. Even the State Comptroller, who has the power to audit state contracts and other finances, does not have the authority see the list.
In an effort to learn how this $200 million in taxpayer money is spent each year, the Times Union of Albany has spent months trying to get the records using the New York's Freedom of Information Law. When both Bruno and Silver refused, the newspaper filed a lawsuit to force them to produce the information. The Albany District Attorney David Soares even began an investigation into the matter.
After many months, the Times Union did get a hold of some member item records from the past - including some that raised suspicions.
In 2004 and 2005, records showed that Assemblymember Vito Lopez funneled $700,000 in member items to the same senior center that sponsors his annual picnic, with no explanation of how the money would be spent.
During the same time period, one of the largest recipients of member item funds was the North Bronx Westchester Neighborhood Restoration Association, which received $1.4 million even though its founder, State Senator Guy Velella was found guilty of accepting bribes and sentenced to a year in prison.
"It's a total waste of money," State Senator Jeff Klein, who now holds the seat, told the Times Union.
In response to the scrutiny, the State Senate has posted some information about member items on its Web site, but many of the grants are for unspecific organizations at undisclosed locations. E.J. McMahon, a budget watchdog for the Manhattan Institute, called the list of member items "almost worse than nothing."
"Were they ever to become completely public, the files would surely yield many more conflicts of interest and cases in which state funds are being quietly funneled to friends, families, and contributors," the New York Times editorial board recently wrote. "That is to be expected when so much money is handed out in the dark."
Alexander Perkins and Shoshana Schwartz also contributed to this article.
Â