Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Open Government

Open Government

Blurring the Line Between Government and Charity


'Tis the season for eggnog overflowing in silver ladles, candle wax dripping onto menorahs and rich, sweet deserts - and lots of them. Beyond overindulgence, though, many New Yorkers see the holiday season as a time to give back.
Sending money to charities and nonprofits has become a holiday custom.

We give involuntarily to the government all the time - every paycheck, actually - so few of us would think of government agenices as likely beneficiaries of our year-end largesse. But along with our favorite private cause, another group of nonprofits - spin-offs of city agencies - would appreciate your help. (To find out how to evaluate charities, including the government funds, see related story.)

These quasi-government entities are, in fact, nonprofits aimed at closing the gap between government and private enterprise. Agency commissioners sit as members of their boards. The groups collect donations from the general public and foundations and then funnel the money back into specific citywide projects, most of which were left behind in the budget process or are seen as experimental enterprises, such as rewarding families financially for seeing a doctor. While such supplementary funding for government goes back to the 1980s, private fundraising has become more successful and more apparent during Mayor Michael Bloomberg's tenure - the city's major fund, for example, saw its donations increase by 50 percent from 2004 to 2006.

This type of philanthropy could be the latest installment of the blurring between the private sector and city government. It also represents another development in the increasingly complex relationship between the government and charity. Government already contracts with charities to perform work formerly done by government, such as managing social service programs, making charities more like government. Now, as it turns to private donors for voluntary contributions, government is becoming more like charity.

Leaders argue nonprofit funds allow the city to spend money on neglected or experimental programs, but others question whether giving to the government is the most effective charitable cause. Is it donating to the needy or fueling a slick budgetary practice?

A Trend to Fund Privately

Private funding of government service has been gaining momentum. The largest city agency spin-off, the Fund for Public Schools, brought in more than $39 million in direct public support last year - more than twice the amount raised by the mayor's fund and far more than the $3 million it boasted in 2000. The funding, officials said, has gone to a wide array of programming, from leadership training to libraries.

While private funding for public schools flourishes, the mayor's overall fund, or specifically the Mayor's Fund to Advance New York City established in 1994, has also seen an increase in contributions. Between 2004 and 2005 the Mayor's Fund, which disseminates funding to multiple city agencies, saw contributions increase from about $10.7 million to about $16 million, according to tax documents, and in 2006 it brought in another $16 million.

These contributions, according to the mayor's ofice, come in varying amounts, from $5 to the rare, but occasional, $5 million.

Using private funds to support public programming, though, is nothing new. For instance, American Express raised approximately $1.7 million for the preservation of the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in 1983. Many of these funds have been around since then, initially as fundraising subsidiaries of their respective agencies.

The purpose of the funds has shifted over the years. What first started as a subsidiary to the Department of Parks and Recreation in 1989, the City Parks Foundation has now become its own full-functioning nonprofit, said Executive Director David Rivel. While the department handles maintaining the physical spaces of parks, the foundation organizes how New Yorkers use parks. The entire project, he added, is a joint venture.

"It is exactly analogous to a kid who grows up in our house," said Rivel of the organization's evolution. "It doesn't mean that the kid and the parent never talk again."

Some of the city's funds are still very much at an adolescent stage, so to speak. The Fund for Public Health in New York was launched by the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in 2002, said Executive Director Rachael Pine.

So far they have funneled about $10 million to the department for experimental programming, including testing for sexually transmitted diseases in the city's public schools. Their goal for now is to solicit funding for innovative pilot projects that may find their way into the city budget later on, she added.

Risky Business?

Since many of these funds were kicked off in the early 1980s, they have been seen as a launching pad for experimental policy programs in city government. For example, Opportunity NYC, a pilot program launched in September, offers low-income families financial incentives for getting a job or an annual checkup and is funded from private donations made to the mayor's fund. Because the program could be considered controversial, using private funds instead of taxpayer dollars allows the city to test it out with far less political consequences, City Hall observers said.

"I think the original intention and the continued intention is that we develop new models and new programs and test them out," said Ali Hodin-Baier, executive director of the Aging in New York Fund, which was launched by the Department for the Aging. "We are a pilot testing ground."

The funds also provide a means for people who want to aid a certain public service. Officials at multiple funds said donors, foundations and even private citizens feel more comfortable donating to a nonprofit rather than to a city agency - where, some officials said, there is no guarantee your contribution will fund the necessary renovations to your neighborhood park or rather a new desktop computer for a press secretary.

Government as Charity

While the funds provide government with some clear benefits -- money, for one -- they also raise questions. For one, is government a legitimate charity? Certainly many would argue that the causes they support are in fact charitable. The mayor's fund, for example, aids a program within the Department of Cultural Affairs called Materials for the Arts, which collects unwanted supplies from companies and individuals and then gives them to community organizations and public schools that need them. The Fund for Public Schools administers scholarship programs and also awards grants to schools that show a commitment to the arts, among other initiatives.

Some, however, see these fundraising entities as entirely offshoots of city agencies. "They are kind of special purpose funds," said Howard Husock, vice president of programs and the director of the Manhattan Institute's Social Entrepreneurship Initiative. "They are not charitable institutions."

One way of looking at it is as a "voluntary tax payment," said Husock of those that choose to individually contribute to these experimental programs.

The privately financed programs require no budget appropriations and thus no approval from the City Council. Because they are privately funded, the experimental initiatives may bypass a certain level of scrutiny other city services are subject to. If a nonprofit, quasi-government agency is collecting your donations, is a political leader held accountable if something goes awry?

When Government Goes Prviate

Ultimately, these funds point to the shifting and transitory relationship between a nonprofit, charity and government.

"We are taking a lot of what has traditionally been within the public purview and pushing it out to private organizations," said David Birdsell, the dean of the School of Public Affairs at Baruch College. "What it does raise is a number of important questions for public administration."

Though some programs have been successful and subsequently absorbed into the city's budget allocations, many of them have had their critics.

One of the largest initiatives within the Fund for Public Schools is the Leadership Academy - a controversial and expensive institution meant to train principals. Since its inception in 2003, critics have claimed the academy was not worth the cost - which was nearly $75 million for the first three years - even though it was funded by private donors.

Elsewhere, some have questioned whether private funding will inevitably cause inequality. A citizen who has not contributed could have less say over how privately funded programs are run than another citizen who has written a check. When private donors direct funds to their neighborhood park for instance, other areas of the city may be left out.

"The criticism that some would make is that it would allow higher quality services that benefit themselves," said Husock.

A Philanthropist Behind the Wheel

Private fundraising and government may have met their perfect match with the current mayor. Some estimate that Bloomberg himself has donated hundreds of millions of dollars to local causes throughout the city. Beyond his own wealth, Bloomberg also has connections and a knowledge of private fundraising.

"It's different perhaps in scale in this administration, but not in kind," said Birdsell. "It speaks to the ability of this mayor, given his unparalleled personal resources, to sustain his activities without the armature of government."

Beyond where this funding is headed - whether a New Yorker agrees with the experimental project or not - many argue innovative and possibly successful programs are being tested across the city to New Yorkers' benefit. Since its not coming out of the pocket of taxpayers, the work, officials said, merely supplements city services and doesn't replace them.

"Bloomberg came to town with the mission that private fundraising was a good way to augment what government can do," said Rivel. "A nonprofit could actually be more responsive over a long period of time and make sure certain services were delivered even when administrations change."

 

 

 

Stated Meeting: Capping Carbon


Watch out exhaust-spilling sports utility vehicles. Move over inefficient light bulbs. The New York City Council wants to replace you with more energy efficient technology.

At its Stated Meeting Wednesday, the council approved legislation that would reduce New York City's greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030. The measure echoes a call by Mayor Michael Bloomberg earlier this year in his PlaNYC 2030.

The council also passed a bill to make block-by-block parking regulations available online as well as a measure creating "greener" design standards for the city's parking lots.

Clogging Smokestacks

New York City produces approximately 1 percent of greenhouse gas emissions - the pollutants that cause global warming - in the United States and about as much as Ireland or Switzerland, according to PlaNYC. Nearly 80 percent of the emissions in New York City are attributed to pollution from buildings, while about 20 percent come from transportation.

The bill, titled the Climate Protection Act (Intro 20), would first take aim at emissions spilling from government buildings, cutting that by 30 percent by 2017. It then mandates citywide emissions be slashed by 30 percent by 2030, including toxic fumes from private institutions and corporations. The bill was approved by a vote of 48 to 0.

James Gennaro, chairman of the council's Environmental Protection Committee, initially introduced the bill in early 2006 calling for a 30 percent reduction of emissions from government buildings by 2020. He said the council worked with the administration to include non-governmental organizations and businesses in the emission reduction plan. A private business or organization will not be fined if they do not comply with the new regulations. It will be up to the city to reduce emissions, said Gennaro.

Corporations, businesses and residents, though, will have a financial benefit from using green technology and reducing their carbon footprint, said Gennaro. By using green technology, they will be less reliant on fossil fuels, and their energy cost will decrease.

" If you don’t get on board, you'll be paying higher fuel costs and left outside the mainstream," said Gennaro.

The 30 percent reduction will be based on 2005 figures. To comply with the legislation, businesses and residents could consider using energy efficient light bulbs, furnaces and boilers, city officials said. Council Speaker Christine Quinn could not estimate the cost to an individual business, but other officials said a initial investment in green technology can pay off far more in the long term.

When asked what incentive businesses would have to reduce emissions and whether the city could meet its goal without penalties for noncompliance, Quinn said, "We believe the track record of business today as it relates to environmental issues will get us to that goal."

To ensure the city is meeting its goal, annual reports will be submitted to the administration, other agencies and posted on the web that measure emissions from both public and private entities.

Green Parking Standards

The council also unanimously approved new design standards (Res 1179) for parking lots, which include the addition of trees and vegetation for lots with more than 18 spaces.

If a lot has more than 18 spaces a tree will be required every 25 feet. According to Land Use Committee Chairwoman Melinda Katz, parking lots with more than 36 spaces would also need to include interior landscaping.

The vegetation will not only improve the aesthetics of the lots, but also will prevent storm water runoff, officials said.

The regulation will apply only to new lots and those that have expanded by more than 20 percent.

Parking Regulations

For New Yorkers who are perplexed by the contradictory street signs strewn throughout their block, a so-called solution is here. The council approved a bill (Intro 537-A) requiring the Department of Transportation to create a searchable Web site that details parking regulations for every block in the city.

Transportation Committee Chairman John Liu said the regulation would not burden the city with an additional cost. The Department of Transportation already collects the information, and the bill merely requires that that information be accessible and readily available to the public.

" Almost every single block in the city of New York has some sort of parking restriction," said Liu. "There are not only confusing parking signs on these blocks, but in fact contradictory signs."

The bill takes effect in September 2009.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Will Technology Kill Privacy?


Privacy advocates —“ really, anyone who uses a phone or the Internet in the United States —“ won an important victory before Thanksgiving when the Senate Judiciary Committee approved national intelligence legislation that did not provide retroactive immunity for the telephone companies that aided the Bush administration's illegal spying efforts. But the debate in the committee represented only one skirmish in the ongoing war over privacy in the digital age.

There is growing public awareness of the amount of data private corporations collect using tools like interactive Web sites, mobile wireless connections and global positioning systems, as well as remote computing through services like Google Docs and .Mac. Everywhere you look, the privacy issue rears its head: Some object to Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan because it would allow the government to track who drives where and when.

At the heart of the issue is the question of whether our constitutional right to privacy will persist in an age of email and voicemail, or if it will fade along with personal letters and answering machines. Along with Congress, the courts are grappling with this question, deciding what standards the government must meet to gather information through different technologies. Their decisions have the potential to transform longstanding assumptions about privacy and limits on government.

The Legislative Battle

The legislation approved by the Judiciary Committee amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to permit U.S. government wiretapping of all communications that cross or occur outside U.S. borders -- without a warrant. But President George W. Bush has threatened a veto unless the bill also grants immunity for the illegal wiretapping he already ordered of domestic communications. Any version of the bill, the president said, "must grant liability protection to companies who are facing multibillion-dollar lawsuits only because they are believed to have assisted in the efforts to defend our nation following the 9/11 attacks."

The Senate Intelligence Committee passed a version of the legislation that includes the immunity along with many other concessions to the Executive Branch. The House of Representative, though, already passed legislation without the immunity provision.

The Senate returns to the Capitol in early December to take up the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has to choose which version of the bill to send to the Senate floor. Some observers say he is likely to choose the Intelligence Committee version, since it has bipartisan support. Opponents of immunity will try to make amendments to the bill on the floor or, failing that, promote the House version in the conference committee to reconcile the different versions. If that fails, some senators have vowed to try to block the legislation.

With or without immunity, the resulting bill will allow for spying without warrants on people in the United States in some circumstances, eroding the privacy of our electronic communications.

The Legal Contest

The privacy issue is also being fought over in the courts. In a case currently before the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Warshak v. USA, the government asserts that anyone who stores their e-mail with a company like Yahoo! or Verizon -- which means the vast majority of us -- has given up any expectation that those e-mails will be private. The very fact that the host company can see the emails, the administration's reasoning goes, means the government should be able to search the messages without a warrant.

The case tests the constitutionality of the Stored Communications Act. Originally passed in 1986, it allows law enforcement to obtain e-mails, voicemails, and other information stored with a third party using a much weaker standard than the one protecting our paper letters and phone calls. Warshak is the first case asserting that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using e-mail.

On the one hand, it seems obvious that e-mails are private. As a group of Internet professors wrote in a friend of the court brief, a simple survey of the contents of e-mail communication shows that "we rely on the privacy of the medium. Society does not make us rely at our peril but rather accepts as reasonable our expectations of privacy in e-mail." And yet the widely reported government monitoring of e-mails itself erodes that expectation.

The court is getting set to hear the government’s appeal of the lower court ruling that the Stored Communications Act violates the 4th Amendment. While the debate in Congress could tell us whether anyone will be held accountable for past unwarranted invasions of our private communications, Warshak v. USA could set the bar for privacy on the Internet going forward.

Patriotism or Profit?

The phone companies and their supporters argue that they should have immunity for the illegal wiretapping because company executives are patriots who acted in good faith to help law enforcement respond to the traumatic September 11 attacks. But recent revelations suggest the businesses were responding to the more base motivation of profit.

Joseph Nacchio, the former head of Qwest Communications, has asserted that the National Security Agency requested customer data as far back as February 27, 2001, almost nine months before September 11. When the agency admitted it had no legal order for the request, he refused to comply. He claims the National Security Agency then retaliated by reneging on lucrative contracts. Nacchio was convicted of insider trading in April 2007; the loss of NSA revenue was part of his defense – he claims they were the basis for the rosy forecasts he made while selling off some of his shares – and he is appealing the conviction.

Comcast offers its employees a handbook to describe how to cooperate with requests from law enforcement. It includes a specific menu of fees to charge government: $1,000 to start an intercept, then $750 a month to maintain it. Call records are $150 for one batch per week, plus $50 for each additional delivery.

Many telephone companies have gone further, taking funding from the federal government to collect, store and analyze data on their customers, even sorting them into "communities of interest" profiles. The government could not collect such information without a subpoena, but the FBI argues that it is fine to outsource this surveillance to private companies to do it in anticipation of a subpoena.

The companies can feed any information or queries from law enforcement back into the system, mapping the social networks of anyone the government has under suspicion. They have regularly supplied information to law enforcement, not just in response to legitimate subpoenas but even to letters falsely claiming that subpoenas were on the way.

This is perhaps the biggest danger with data mining: Far from being a tool to collect information on known suspects, the collected information itself creates the suspects. So, if people create certain kinds of information about themselves – legal, constitutionally protected information about who they associate with or where they travel – that alone can make them suspicious in the eyes of their Internet service provider, their phone company and law enforcement.

An International Issue and a Local Issue

This debate is not limited to the United States. It is taking place wherever the Internet has taken root. The most well-known controversy might be the one involving Yahoo in China, where the Internet giant has helped the government track down dissident bloggers.

In England, law enforcement is trying for the first time to apply a section of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which forces people to participate in their own prosecution by handing over passwords to encrypted files on their own computer. The Crown Protective Service is apparently trying to use the act's mere existence to intimidate an animal rights activist into handing over her encryption key. In this scenario, simply possessing private, encrypted files becomes a crime or a cause for suspicion from law enforcement. (For more on the European Union's new data collection measures and the uproar they have caused, especially in Germany, see this previous column).

In London, Bloomberg's inspiration for his congestion pricing plan, the system tracks the license plates of all cars entering and exiting the congestion zone. This has provided a foundation for a proposed "24-7 vehicle movement database" that would enable police to track all vehicle movement throughout the country – 50 million trip a day, reportedly – and store the records for two years. In response to these concerns, some have suggested ways to charge congestion pricing fees without tracking specific movements.

The recent strike by some New York City taxi drivers was over a related issue. The Taxi and Limousine Commission wants all cabs to install tracking devices in cabs that would tell the commission where the cars are at all times, regardless of whether the driver has a fare or is on personal time.

Whether it's the city government checking to see where a taxi driver is or the federal government reading your e-mail, the debate in both cases highlights the importance of preserving basic rights and protections in the face of potentially invasive technology. As we take advantage of new technologies and move more of our private documents and communications online, we need to strengthen our privacy protections, not weaken them.

Joshua Breitbart is policy director for People's Production House.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


Gotham Gazette: New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
New York Voters Approve $4.2 Billion Environmental Bond Act
Gotham Gazette: 
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
New York City Voters Approve Racial Justice Ballot Measures
Gotham Gazette: 
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Housing Development in New York City Slows to a Crawl as Officials Debate Tax Incentives
Gotham Gazette: 
City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years City Council Examines Low Voter Turnout, Moving Local Elections to Even Years