City Council Member Vacca (photo: @JamesVacca13)
The New York City Council’s Committee on Technology held an oversight hearing Tuesday to evaluate the progress being made by the city in tracking compliance by government agencies with the city’s open data law.
The Mayor’s Office of Data Analytics (MODA) has been conducting what is essentially an audit, the “Examination and Verification Plan,” to gauge each agency’s status regarding its publication of required data sets on the Open Data Portal, an online access point meant to open government to the public.
This means public information on everything from motor vehicle collisions to wifi hotspot locations to leading causes of death, which, in theory, allows regular New Yorkers to better evaluate city services, gives civic technologists more to work with in acting as an outside of government check, and encourages problem-solving using data.
Tuesday’s hearing, chaired by City Council Member James Vacca, was the first on the examination and verification plan, which was adopted early in 2016. It showed that progress is underway in ensuring the quality of data and availability of the appropriate data sets, but raised questions about levels of agency participation, public engagement, and even what constitutes a public data set.
While the portal is not lacking in data -- over 1,500 data sets from 60 different government agencies are currently accessible -- Local Law 11 of 2012, the city’s first open data law, mandates that all agencies publish their respective public data sets in entirety by 2019.
MODA is employing the Examination and Verification Plan to ensure that each agency is on pace to meet that deadline. The plan calls for evaluation of three agencies per year. In 2016, the first year of the plan, the Department of Corrections, Department of Sanitation, and Department Housing Preservation and Development were selected for evaluation.
In his opening statement at Tuesday’s hearing, MODA Director and Chief Analytics Officer Dr. Amen Ra Mashariki spoke to the importance of examination and verification. “Its purpose is to improve citywide compliance by creating a more systematic way to locate data sets that may have inadvertently or purposefully been excluded from agencies’ self reported data,” Mashariki said, adding that all three agencies evaluated this year are “in good standing.”
As Mashariki alluded to in his statement, part of the impetus behind the open data law is to increase government transparency. The preamble to Local Law 11 states: “Making city data available online using open standards will make the operation of city government more transparent, effective and accountable to the public.”
The aggregation of agency data also benefits those within government. Representatives from MODA explained at Tuesday’s hearing that when government agencies are required to share data, they often have had to go through a manual process, uploading files onto a hard drive or disk. However, now that agencies are posting their data in the portal, other departments are able to access it without going through the antiquated data exchange process.
This could allow, for example, the Department of Transportation and the NYPD to access each other’s data more easily, which could aid the implementation of Vision Zero. As Mashariki put it, “There’s not only intra- but also inter-agency usage of data.”
While the hearing touched on a number of benefits of the open data initiative, Council Member Vacca, a Bronx Democrat who chairs the technology committee, did raise several concerns.
First, Vacca wanted to know when the examination and verification of the Police Department would be conducted. Crime statistics are frequently sought and police records remain among the most hotly debated in the city. Mashariki explained that while the NYPD is not scheduled for the examination and verification plan, MODA has been working with the department to publish and improve its data sets, some of which can be found in the portal. Mashariki added that while the NYPD is not currently on the books for evaluation, MODA “can begin looking into ramping up other agencies.”
Vacca was also generally curious about non-mayoral agencies, such as the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and the Health + Hospitals Corporation, and their involvement in the examination and verification process. Mashariki explained that though those agencies are not held to the same data-release requirements as other agencies, MODA has been working to get their data on the portal, pointing out that Health + Hospitals has several data sets on the portal.
Vacca was particularly interested in traffic to the Open Data Portal, stressing that it is crucial to know how many people are making use of the newly available data. “Once we get actual numbers, we can decide whether or not we have to do more outreach and more engagement of community groups.”
While MODA could not provide definitive numbers, Craig Campbell, a Senior Advisor at MODA, did say that the most-viewed data set on the portal has received over five million hits (though he would not name the data set). Still, Dr. Mashariki firmly agreed that raising public awareness around the availability and advantages of open data must be a core objective. “We need aggressive engagement no matter what the number says,” he said.
One way in which MODA is striving to improve accessibility and engagement is through a new data portal website launching in March. The website, according to Mashariki, “makes it easier than ever to request new data sets on the open data portal.” Users will be able track the status of their requests and “get in touch with the open data team on anything from technical inquiries to partnership opportunities.” The website will also ensure that data dictionaries and geospatial fields (interactive maps) accompany all data sets.
Also testifying at the hearing was a representative from Reinvent Albany, a good government group focused on open data. The Reinvent representative, Dominic Mauro, largely commended MODA's work, but did raise concerns about whether an agency can be deemed compliant if it possesses data sets that are listed as public but which are not present in the portal, as is the case with the Department of Sanitation.
This concern prompted Mashariki to delve into the evolving nature of the open data effort, in particular the working definitions of what should be labeled as public data and would should remain confidential. “This process has helped us think a little smarter about what should or shouldn’t be a public data set,” he said. “The way we saw it is that the process is working if it’s forcing us to begin to think about what’s public, what’s private, and, to be very honest...I think that’s a conversation that should consistently be had.”
As it turned out, the status of the data sets in question was pending -- they had not been classified as either public or not -- which is why they had not made it onto the portal at the time of the hearing.
The public versus private determination that Mashariki referenced speaks to the conceptual as well as practical considerations involved in an undertaking like the open data initiative. Not only must MODA coordinate with agencies’ open data coordinators to aggregate data and ensure quality, they must also consider the spectrum of ramifications that come with publicizing certain information.
Local Law 11’s agency compliance plan does include the following criteria for public classification:
“For purposes of prioritizing public data sets, agencies shall consider whether information embodied in the public data set: (1) can be used to increase agency accountability and responsiveness; (2) improves public knowledge of the agency and its operations; (3) furthers the mission of the agency; (4) creates economic opportunity; or (5) responds to a need or demand identified by public consultation.”
But questions remain: Could some data sets be exploited to the detriment of New York and its residents? Does the potential for positive opportunity outweigh the potential for exploitation? What about privacy? For example, the Department of Corrections data contains a lot of Personally Identifiable Information on inmates which could potentially compromise an individual.
This question of definitions was echoed in the “2016 Examination and Verification Findings Report” issued by MODA on December 1. “Creating a list of eligible datasets is not a cut and dried process, and raised questions regarding the definitions of ‘public,’ ‘data,’ and ‘dataset,’” the report states. It also says that MODA will be working with the Department of Investigations to more clearly define these terms and develop a strategy for classification moving forward.
***
by Luke Foley, Gotham Gazette
@GothamGazette
Mayor de Blasio (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)
Acknowledging that there is significant “uncertainty” emanating from the new federal administration, Mayor Bill de Blasio on Tuesday unveiled an $84.67 billion preliminary budget for Fiscal Year 2018 that focuses on increasing the city’s savings while building on accomplishments from the last three years and addressing persistent challenges.
“I want to say at the outset that this budget was written with the assumption of profound challenges from Washington,” de Blasio said during a briefing at City Hall, “but without the details we need to be able to project what they will be, what shape they will take, in what areas and what dollar figures will be attached. It’s just too soon to be able to make decisions although we have some real indicators that worry us.”
“There’s no Trump-specific adjustment in the budget,” de Blasio said, in one version or another, repeatedly during a lengthy presentation and Q-and-A with gathered reporters.
The new spending plan is roughly $1 billion more than the $83.5 billion budget for the current fiscal year, which runs through June. The fiscal 2017 budget was modified in November, and is $2.5 billion more than the mayor’s last preliminary budget of $82.1 billion. (The current adopted budget remained the same as the preliminary proposal, at about $82.1 billion, though new spending was added that was offset by increased savings from preliminary outline to adopted budget.)
The mayor’s preliminary budget for fiscal 2018 will now be dissected by a variety of parties and the subject of weeks of City Council hearings, leading to a formal Council response, negotiations, and the mayor’s Executive Budget plan in April. That plan will then be the subject of still more hearings and negotiations before an agreement is reached between de Blasio and the Council.
As is always the case, the city budget must account for state and federal budgetary and policy dynamics. The election of President Donald Trump has thrown a major unknown into the equation. Governor Andrew Cuomo recently outlined his Executive Budget in Albany, which is now the subject of legislative hearings -- Mayor de Blasio will testify at one on Monday, which will provide a better sense of how the city is interpreting Cuomo’s proposed budget.
Budget watchdogs and fiscal monitors have generally praised de Blasio’s administration for its fiscal management over the past three years, but have warned that spending increases should be limited considering a number of challenges the city faces in the year ahead. As with last year, the city economy is strong, showing record growth in jobs, and the city has strong revenues, even with some slowdown of tax receipts.
But, at the same time, along with somewhat slower revenue, the city’s employee pension obligations have ballooned and the number of current city employees is at an all-time high. De Blasio specifically cited “slowing” real estate activity as a cause for concern, especially given the city’s heavy reliance on related revenue. All that, combined with the threat of federal budget cuts under Trump, has led the administration to tread fairly carefully in its budgeting this year.
Echoing prior presentations, the mayor said his budget focuses on “targeted strategic investments” in education, public safety, and infrastructure while creating historically high savings and reserves. De Blasio reiterated his first-term achievements and their budget corollaries: record-low crime rates through investing in public safety, including the addition of 2,000 new NYPD officers; financing about 62,000 units of new and preserved affordable housing; and funding universal pre-kindergarten for 70,000 children. These initiatives, de Blasio emphasized, have bolstered the city’s economic strength.
Although the preliminary budget projects tax revenue growth to slow down to 2.4 percent in the current fiscal year which ends June 30, that growth is expected to pick up again next year to 3.9 percent, the mayor’s presentation says.
De Blasio recognizes that the federal budget could significantly alter the city’s plans as early as before the executive budget is released, typically in April or May. Federal funds account for about $7 billion in the total preliminary budget and in five key areas, de Blasio pointed out, either President Trump or Republicans in Congress have proposed action that could impact the city. These include federal anti-terror funding, which would affect the NYPD; a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, which would shift heavy costs to the city’s already-beleaguered public hospital system; federal education aid and city school funding; deregulation of environmental policies and the city’s own environmental protection efforts; and federal housing funds that impact NYCHA developments and affordable housing overall in the city.
“We could not write dollar figures into a budget based on this level of uncertainty,” said de Blasio, who explained that he will continue to be firm with the president because Trump “respects strength.”
To stave off possible repercussions, the mayor has put aside significant rainy day funds for the next few years. The preliminary budget shows about $1.1 billion in identified savings, and the mayor directed the Office of Management and Budget to find another $500 million in agency efficiencies for the executive budget. (The city also says it has achieved $3.4 billion in healthcare savings through the 2018 fiscal year. The administration projects about $1.3 billion saved annually after that.)
The city has about $5.2 billion in total reserves, in three main buckets. The preliminary budget shows about $1 billion in the general reserve. The Capital Stabilization Reserve stands to save $250 million each year for four years, totally $1 billion, and the Retiree Health Benefits Fund holds about $4 billion.
Despite the historically high levels of savings and reserves, there are some who are wary of the mayor’s spending increases. The Citizens Budget Commission, a nonpartisan budget watchdog, pointed out in a statement that “a substantial portion of the expenditure growth derives from challenges managing serious problems, notably an inability to stem the growth in homelessness and in the reliance on overtime among city agencies.”
CBC added, “More should be done to better manage a range of municipal services. The Mayor’s plan builds upon his earlier effort to achieve savings from efficiencies, but the scale is still relatively small.”
City Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito and Council Finance Committee Chair Julissa Ferreras-Copeland similarly called on the mayor to find additional savings, as they have in previous years. “During these uncertain times, when federal funding levels remain unclear, it is critical that the City adopts a budget that is fair, balanced and forward looking,” they said in a joint statement on Tuesday. “While we are pleased that the Preliminary Budget put forward by Mayor de Blasio today includes some of the programmatic savings and increase in reserves the Council has long called for, more must be done to find additional, lasting savings across all City agencies.”
The City Council tends to both call for added savings from the mayor and additional spending on their chosen initiatives. Those discussions will again play out over the coming months, over agency savings and added spending on things like youth jobs and summer programs for young people.
The mayor also outlined on Tuesday an updated 10-year capital strategy, which is due every other year. Itself an $89.6 billion plan, the capital program includes forward-looking infrastructure investments expected to create jobs in the short-term and have long-term impacts on the city’s economy. About $3.5 billion would come from the federal government, barring any cuts. This spending includes new roofs at NYCHA developments, more school seats, and thousands of repaved road miles.
De Blasio explained both positives and causes for concern in Gov. Cuomo’s executive budget proposal, promising to say even more on Monday in Albany. He praised Cuomo’s call for free public college tuition for many more New York students and the governor’s support for the DREAM Act. The governor also proposed an election reform agenda that parallels de Blasio’s own, proposed an extension of the millionaire’s tax and committed to funding its traditional portion of the city's Medicaid costs.
As the mayor approaches state and federal budget negotiations, as well as City Council hearings, he is highlights several new or added investments in his preliminary budget proposal:
$495 million to fund 38,487 new school seats
$147 million to repave 1300 miles of roads and highways in Fiscal Years 2018 and 2019.
$1 billion in capital funding for roof repairs at 729 NYCHA buildings over the next ten years. This is in addition to a $300 million investment over three years announced in 2015. It brings the total to $1.3 billion for 950 buildings.
$303 million in capital funding, part of the 10-year capital plan, to complete work on New York City’s third water tunnel
$122 million for infrastructure and security improvements on the Staten Island Ferry
$275 million to upgrade the Rodman’s Neck NYPD training facility over the next five to seven years.
$10.4 million to install bulletproof glass in all NYPD patrol cars
$4.5 million for a community-based gun violence prevention system
$6.3 million to hire 100 school crossing guard supervisors and 200 school crossing guards
$330 million to boost Vision Zero efforts, including street safety reconstruction, bike lane safety improvements and pavement safety markings.
$16.4 million for improved internet service in schools
$162 million for Southeast Queens flooding mitigation efforts
$571 million for bridge repairs across the city
Wage adjustments for 90,000 employees at human service contractors by Fiscal Year 2020
$14.9 million to fund 22,800 slots in the School’s Out NYC after-school program
$9 million to expand the Summer Youth Employment Program from 60,000 to 65,000 slots.
$150 million for a life sciences research and development facility
***
by Samar Khurshid, senior reporter, Gotham Gazette
@samarkhurshid @GothamGazette
City Council Member Rory Lancman (photo: Micah Institute)
In 2016, 159 people were exonerated in the United States after being wrongfully convicted for a crime they did not commit, according to the National Registry of Exonerations. Fourteen of those wrongful convictions took place in New York, the third-highest number of wrongful convictions by state in 2016, including several in New York City: five in Brooklyn, two in Manhattan, and one in the Bronx. Those who were exonerated in New York spent more than 17 years in prison on average, with one wrongfully convicted individual serving 52 years behind bars.
When the wrong person is convicted, the actual perpetrator remains free to commit more crimes, while an innocent person is robbed of years, often decades, of their life. Wrongful convictions can undermine public confidence in the justice system, and cost New York tens of millions of dollars in settlements. Upon taking office in 2014 as Brooklyn District Attorney, the late Ken Thompson made creation of a conviction review unit a top priority, and he quickly overturned several wrongful convictions from his predecessor’s era.
False confessions are one of the leading causes of wrongful convictions. Of the 149 exonerations that occurred in 2015, 18 percent were based on false confessions. Evidence-based policy solutions to minimize the occurrence of false confessions exist, and in 2012 the New York State Justice Task Force recommended reforms.
The task force, established by then Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and comprised of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, police chiefs, and other criminal justice experts, recommended that police departments record interrogations in their entirety, rather than just confessions. This helps to protect from false accusations not only the individual being questioned, but also the officers involved.
Videotaping full interrogations makes it easier for prosecutors, judges, and juries to weigh evidence by providing an account of the circumstances that led to a confession. There is widespread support for the practice: in 2013, the New York State Municipal Police Training Council also recommended that law enforcement record interrogations.
In New York City, the NYPD recorded 146 interrogations in 2011. That number jumped to 847 in 2014 as more rooms were equipped with recording software and the focus on recording interrogations increased. But as those numbers continue to climb through 2016, it is unclear whether the NYPD has fully implemented the recording of criminal interrogations, and the department is withholding information about its practices.
Though the NYPD says it is departmental policy to record all interrogations for certain crimes, it is under no obligation to do so by law, and it is unclear whether, and unlikely that, the NYPD has fully implemented the recording of all interrogations for those most serious crimes included in its policy. However, legislation is being drafted in the City Council that would indeed mandate the practice.
Since 2011, the department has recorded approximately 5,000 interrogations, according to the NYPD. However, the department’s unwillingness to share more information regarding its recording practices has made the implementation of the policy difficult to assess. The NYPD refused to appear at a September 23 City Council hearing examining its safeguards against wrongful convictions. The hearing was held jointly by the committee on Courts and Legal Services and the Public Safety committee, chaired by Council Members Rory Lancman and Vanessa Gibson, respectively.
The NYPD began a pilot program to record interrogations in 2011, after former Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said advances in digital recording technology had made it possible for the department to afford it. Two precincts participated and a total of 146 interrogations were recorded that year, with only interrogations for felony assaults in the two participating precincts subject to recording. Three additional precincts began recording interrogations for felony assaults in 2012, and 183 interrogations were recorded, according to the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ), which did testify at the September Council hearing.
The program has since been expanded citywide, according to the NYPD. "Currently, the New York City Police Department has 82 rooms equipped with video recording software. Each detective squad that is assigned to a precinct has a room equipped with this software. All Special Victim Squads are equipped as well," said Chief of Detectives Robert Boyce, in written testimony submitted to the City Council for the September hearing.
Crimes for which interrogations are subject to recording have also expanded since 2011. Since 2015, it has been NYPD policy that "all arrests effected by NYPD detective squads for index felony offenses and attempts...are subject to video recorded interrogations," according to Boyce's testimony. Index felony offenses include murder, rape, robbery, burglary, assault, grand larceny, and grand larceny auto. Certain arrests for gun offenses are also recorded, as well as "certain misdemeanor arrests...most often with misdemeanor sex crimes."
Nothing beyond internal policy is guiding NYPD interrogation recording practice, and the wording of the policy itself, as described by Boyce, seems to give police officers some latitude when it comes to implementation.
One issue in ascertaining up-to-date data is that the NYPD is not providing a full accounting of annual numbers even in the 2011-2016 timeframe. The department provided yearly interrogation recording data for 2011 through 2014, then grouped 2015 with 2016 through October.
For January 2015 through October 2016, the NYPD reports recording roughly 3,200 interrogations, according to data shared by MOCJ. It is a number that appears to be far short of the total number of interrogations that occurred.
“What I understand is that right now, the detective squads videotape interviews with people who have been arrested in the seven majors...that’s been the process since I think around mid-2015,” said MOCJ Director Liz Glazer during the September 23 City Council hearing.
Yet, 84,988 arrests were made for the seven major felonies during 2015 and 2016, according to the NYPD’s director of public information, which means a large number of felony arrests did not result in recorded interrogations.
Just this month, Governor Andrew Cuomo voiced his support for mandating the recording of interrogations, among other criminal justice reforms. During his 2017 State of the State speech in New York City, Cuomo said he was there to “propose groundbreaking reforms: we will videotape interrogations, improve fairness in lineups, and raise the age of [adult] criminal liability from 16 to 18.”
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance released a statement in support of Cuomo’s proposed reforms, noting that his office had partnered with the governor in 2016 “to fund the recording of police interrogations across the state.” The initiative made $500,000 in funding available to local law enforcement agencies outside of New York City to expand their ability to record interrogations.
As Cuomo’s proposal and NYPD reporting make clear, there is no state or city law to require the recording of criminal interrogations, major felony crimes or otherwise.
Due to the NYPD absence from the September 23 City Council hearing, there has been limited public discussion of the department’s efforts to prevent wrongful convictions. Most of that conversation has happened through individual district attorney offices, which vary in their efforts to overturn wrongful convictions, action that is corrective rather than preventative.
Experts who testified at the Council hearing, including judges, representatives of the city’s district attorneys, and a police chief from Massachusetts, say recording interrogations is helpful for everyone involved.
Glazer appeared at the hearing in place of the NYPD as the representative of the de Blasio administration.
In the written words of Chief of Detectives Boyce, “It has been our experience that recording not only aids those who are innocent, but also bolsters the work performed by our officers by preventing disputes about how an officer conducted him/herself while also increasing transparency as to what was said and done during an interrogation.”
Glazer explained that the “NYPD videotapes the interviews of every defendant arrested for index felony offenses and attempts, commonly referred to as the ‘seven major felonies.’”
As Boyce wrote, “NYPD policy mandates that the recording system is activated before the subject enters the interrogation room” and “that the interrogation is recorded in its entirety.”
While Glazer and Boyce say the NYPD records the interviews of every defendant arrested for the seven major felonies, the numbers for January 2015-October 2016 leave roughly 80,000 arrests for the seven major felonies that did not result in recorded interrogations. (It is likely that more interrogations were recorded in the final three months of 2016, but multiple requests for updated information on the number of recordings made by the NYPD went unanswered).
There are some exceptions to the NYPD’s recording policy, such as when the individual being interrogated requests an attorney, invokes their right to silence, requests not to be recorded, or when recording equipment malfunctions. When asked for clarification on the difference between the number of arrests and recordings in a phone interview with Gotham Gazette, NYPD Lieutenant John Grimpel said, “Not everyone arrested for a felony crime has to be interrogated or is interrogated by detectives.”
“Interrogations are recorded,” Grimpel said, “but I don’t have to interrogate everyone I arrest. I have 52 witnesses of a murder, right, I might not even need to talk to [the suspect] in regard to it. If there’s no witnesses, then I’ll interrogate him about a crime.”
Yet, judges who testified at the City Council hearing called the NYPD’s implementation of the policy into question. When Council Member Lancman, chair of the Committee on Courts and Legal Services, asked Judge Daniel Conviser if he was seeing evidence that the NYPD universally records interrogations or confessions, Conviser replied, “I’m seeing it rarely by the NYPD.”
“I have to say, I haven’t seen too many recorded police interrogations,” said Judge Mark Dwyer, a member of the Justice Task Force.
Still, both judges cautioned that what they are seeing from the NYPD might be slightly dated, as it can take anywhere from six months to two years for cases to come to trial.
At the hearing, Marika Meis, legal director at Bronx Defenders, said her office isn't seeing many cases where the interrogation was recorded. "Right now, my office has 800 felony cases that have been pending for over a year,” Meis said. “We have 15 cases in which the interrogation was recorded, and those are largely in homicide and sex cases, and a couple other violent felonies. And in the years preceding the recent past three or four years, we had a total of I think six or seven.”
Twenty-two states and Washington, D.C. mandate the recording of interrogations, and many police departments across the country do so voluntarily. Lancman has put in a request for legislation to be drafted that would do the same in New York City.
A hearing on such legislation to mandate the recording of interrogations could prompt the NYPD to share more information regarding the current state of its recording practices. Though both Glazer and Boyce stated in their testimonies that every detective squad in the city is now equipped to record interrogations, a Patrol Guide issued Feb. 4, 2015 identified only five detective squads participating in the recording of interrogations. When Lancman asked Glazer why this was the case, she could not provide an answer.
“There’s a vast discrepancy between qualifying crimes and the interrogations being recorded that the NYPD has been unable to explain,” Lancman said in a statement to Gotham Gazette.
***
by Meg O'Connor, Gotham Gazette
@megoconnor13 @GothamGazette