Organizing efforts in Queens (photo: @johnchoe4nyc)

City Hall is a fascinating place where you can easily transform to be an “anti-racist,” if you know how to seize the opportunity. In December 2022, a member of a non-profit organization made racist remarks casting Asians as unwanted foreigners during a City Hall hearing. Sandra Ung, the Chinese-American City Council Member from Flushing, quickly jumped to condemn this person’s hurtful remark, portrayed herself as a staunch fighter against bigotry, and, one month after the incident, wrote an op-ed in Gotham Gazette reminding people of “the danger of downplaying AAPI bigotry.”

Throughout, Council Member Ung and many others who say they are champions of AAPI communities have been downplaying something else: Chinese home attendants in Ung’s district and beyond have been calling out her and other elected officials for upholding racist 24-hour workdays.

Home attendants in New York City — majority immigrant, Asian and other women of color — have been forced to work the inhumane 24-hour workdays, days on end, taking care of clients in serious health conditions who need round-the-clock care, and with only 13 hours of pay. If the workers refuse these shifts, the home-care agencies will punish them by not giving them work or assigning them few hours. The 24-hour workday has caused physical and mental damages to the workers such as insomnia, anxiety, back pain, deformed hands and injured legs, and ruined their family relations. It also puts patients in danger as it deprives the caregivers of needed rest. 

Outside New York City, where home care work is performed mostly by white and other citizen workers, 12-hour or even 8-hour shifts are the norm. Home attendants in New York City have long-called for an end to the racist violence committed against them by the insurance companies and home care agencies in order to make profit.

Most recently, the New York State Department of Labor has been investigating the serious wage theft of numerous home-care agencies that stole from each worker hundreds of thousands of dollars on average, some as much as half a million. And now, with the “No More 24” Act (Intro. 175 at the City Council), New York City has a chance to end this racist and shameful practice of 24-hour workdays for good.

But Council Member Ung will not have it. While happily tweeting support for the leading wage-stealing home-care agency, Chinese-American Planning Council (ironically for “breaking stigmas of poverty”), she refuses to meet with her home attendant constituents to discuss the legislation. In early September of last year, home attendants testified for hours at City Council chambers detailing the torture they endured from 24-hour workdays. Yet Council Member Ung was nowhere to be found, nor did she write any op-eds reminding people of the racist violence faced by those Asian women workers. Instead, she held a press conference, disrespecting workers further by saying reasonable shifts can only happen with more state money for the agencies: we need more funding for these blood-sucking home care agencies, otherwise violence must continue!

It chills our bones to see Council Member Ung ask people to respect AAPIs for their “indispensable role in this great city.” What’s the “indispensable role”? That some so-called community representatives commit harrowing abuse upon Asian women in their community? That our elected representatives provide cover for such sweatshop conditions and look down on Asian women?

In her op-ed, Council Member Ung even cites historic examples of labor strife and competition, but casts workers of other races as the cause of Asian hate. The truth is, immigrant workers have been used by the government to suppress wages and lower working conditions for all workers. The 24-hour workday is the worst example as it creates a bottomless floor, forcing workers of other races to accept extra-long hours of work in order to compete. It’s in the interest of all workers to unite to end it. But Council Member Ung refuses to even co-sponsor the City Council legislation to end these abuses.

The status quo only strengthens the racist stereotype of Asians as cheap and happy slaves, willing to endure any unfair treatment and not daring to speak out. It furthers the resentment of other working people who bear the brunt of the worsening conditions created by those in power. It will only lead to more harassment and attacks against Asians, verbal and physical, in the street and in City Hall. This is the danger of upholding sweatshop conditions for our community.

Council Member Ung might think she successfully shields herself from responsibility by condemning “AAPI bigotry.” Yet, upholding the 24-hour workday for home care workers is upholding anti-Asian violence in the City Council. The home attendants have taken to the street with multiple protests and a petition against her, and are unifying the community to demand she step down — a defender of AAPI sweatshops cannot continue to represent the community.

***
Zishun Ning is an organizer of Flushing Workers Center.

City Council Members Louis, left, & De La Rosa, center - the authors (photo: Emil Cohen/NYC Council)

Our first women-majority New York City Council continues to make strides towards addressing critical inequities and disparities in the largest municipal workforce in the United States. The Council took an important step in addressing pay inequities in the municipal workforce with the recent passage of three bills. This legislative package aims to address pay disparities, occupational segregation, and the diversification and retention of city workers. Together, they will help to address many challenges impacting women and people of color in New York City.

These are real issues in New York City’s municipal workforce, just as they are across sectors and localities. In 2019, the City Council passed Local Law 18 (LL18) and began collecting and analyzing pay data across race and gender lines. Analysis from that data exposed troubling trends.

The City’s female employees make just 73 cents to the dollar made by their male colleagues. Black male employees of city government make 79 cents for every dollar made by their white counterparts. And, appallingly, Black women make just 69 cents on the dollar when compared with white male employees.

Furthermore, the analysis showed that occupational segregation is the driving force of these pay inequities. In other words, certain races, ethnicities, and genders are concentrated in specific positions within city government, and those roles are compensated differently than jobs filled by different demographics of employees.

In New York City, our government workers have carried us through the storm of COVID-19. We told them they were essential while we counted on them to drive our buses, clean our streets, distribute benefits, and keep our city running. We are currently facing severe government worker vacancies, with key agencies operating with skeleton staff, leading to challenges in New Yorkers receiving food stamps, cash assistance benefits, and other services. This is unacceptable — both for city workers, as well as for vulnerable New Yorkers who depend on these benefits to survive, and all of us who call this city home.

An oversight hearing last September addressed these vacancies in city agencies and accessibility to municipal jobs, and led to the passage of Local Law 02 of 2023. This law established the civil service ambassador program, aiming to bring awareness and additional educational support for the examination process required for 80% of municipal jobs and to reduce the approximately 8% citywide vacancy rate.

Based on the September 2022 Pay Equity Report, pay gaps decrease among employees who share the same civil service title, reaffirming that amplification of the civil service exam provides a clear pathway to close the pay equity gap within the municipal workforce. The ambassador program goes further to promote the civil service exam in non-traditional outreach locations such as high schools, juvenile justice facilities, foster care programs, shelters, and social work programs.

Government jobs can provide an important source of stability, growth, and opportunity for New Yorkers, especially for traditionally underserved communities. But these jobs must be distributed equitably. Workers of color must be afforded the same pay, benefits, and job opportunities as their white, male colleagues. And a fully staffed workforce is essential to providing the services and support New Yorkers depend on. These newly-passed bills represent a pay equity package that aims to address these issues from different, but related vantage points.

The Pay Equity Package seeks to provide the additional data collection, reporting, and analysis necessary to build on the foundation set by LL18 and LL02. Collectively, they look at the whole funnel of government employment, from the civil service exam process to recruiting and retention to terminations and resignations. They also remove some of the restrictions LL18 put in place that hindered analysis, and they dig deeper into the departments that are most segregated by race and gender. Together, they provide the City Council with the tools it needs to act on the disparities exposed by LL18.

Pay equity and a diverse workforce are the cornerstones of a just society. Without them, employees face unequal opportunity that harms them, their families, and our communities. The four years since LL18 was passed have shown us the importance of collecting the data to illuminate key trends. It was the first step towards addressing pay inequity and providing equal opportunities for city workers. But it didn’t go far enough.

These new policies take action on what we learned from that initial data. They send a strong message that we are prioritizing pay equity and a diverse workforce as our path to economic recovery and resilience. They bring New York City one step closer to its goal of being a place where people can live, work, and thrive equally. Our new majority will continue to lead the way in ensuring New York City is an equitable workplace for all. 

***
City Council Members Farah Louis (District 45) and Carmen De La Rosa (District 10) represent parts of Brooklyn and Manhattan, respectively. On Twitter @CMFarahLouis & @CnDelarosa.

Gov. Hochul visits health care providers (photo: Kevin P. Coughlin/Governor's Office)

With her 2023 agenda, it’s clear Governor Kathy Hochul wants to be seen as a champion for New Yorkers who face significant health disparities. But for all she pledges to do, she’s failing to rise to the challenge to address a serious health care crisis coming this April.

On April 1, the state will divert funding away from safety net providers like mine — Alliance for Positive Change — and the New Yorkers we serve from under-resourced communities. This is funding we use to provide not only connection to health care, but the housing, food, behavioral health, and other wrap-around supports people need to stay healthy. 

Hochul’s executive budget maintains what’s known as the Medicaid pharmacy benefit “carve-out,” an ill-conceived leftover policy proposal from the Andrew Cuomo era that will disrupt thousands of people’s lives through service reductions and job cuts. Worse yet, some safety net facilities could even be forced to close completely if the Legislature doesn’t now step in.

More than 1,000 people rely on Alliance for Positive Change for access to their prescriptions, treatment counseling, and other supportive services that help them take their medications. In all, safety net providers care for more than 2 million New Yorkers. They can’t afford for implementation of the “carve-out” to move forward. 

Put simply, safety net providers rely on savings that come through the pharmacy benefit program to fund the myriad supports essential to overall health care for low-income New Yorkers. Under the proposed carve-out, the state will snatch away hundreds of millions of dollars. Rather than listening to providers who have presented a workable solution to her administration, Hochul uses her budget plan to create a convoluted payment mechanism that fails to adequately protect providers and the patients they serve.

This is a complex scheme with profound ramifications for the most vulnerable patients: Personalized, lifesaving care will be, at best, disrupted. At worst, it will disappear completely.

Alliance for Positive Change helps participants take their medications on time, get to their doctor appointments, and navigate systemic inequities to achieve health and well-being. We provide them a safe space where they can access pharmacy services and get structured support, including counseling, nutritional advice, and even MetroCards. They also have the opportunity to engage with a community of New Yorkers who face similar challenges. 

These are low-income New Yorkers living with HIV/AIDS and other difficult-to-manage chronic conditions. Many contend with additional challenges like homelessness. Incredibly, more than 95% of those enrolled in Alliance’s Treatment Adherence Program maintain an undetectable viral load — the amount of HIV in the blood — meaning they cannot sexually transmit HIV to others.

One success story stands out for me. I helped a young man living with HIV get his prescriptions, stick with his treatment regimen, and access food and nutritional services so he could take his medication as directed. As a result of his commitment, and our support, he graduated from our peer training program, is now employed part-time, and has sustained his undetectable viral load. Most striking of all is what he said about our work together: “Before I met you, I was terrified of who I was. Now, I’m not scared. I am open about my status, and I can share my story with people.”

Without the pharmacy benefit savings, I fear that the services for this person — and so many others like him — will disappear. Roughly 20% of Alliance for Positive Change’s budget is built on these savings, but other safety net providers lean on the pharmacy benefit far more. 

The carve-out scheme will devastate the continuum of care for patients, resulting in a reduction in treatment adherence, increased hospitalizations, and higher health care costs. It would worsen already startling health disparities and cost the state tax revenue, as reported in a recent publication by the Wakely Consulting Group — ultimately thwarting our statewide efforts to end the HIV/AIDS epidemic. 

As early as this month, Medicaid recipients will begin receiving notifications of these impending changes, creating confusion and chaos. If the governor and legislative leaders don’t cancel the carve-out as part of the final state budget deal due by April 1, there will not only be significant financial costs associated with poorer health outcomes, but also moral costs of sabotaging the safety net for millions of New Yorkers. 

Addressing health disparities is important work. But creating greater disparities in the process is a zero-sum game.

*** 
Samuel Rodriguez is a Treatment Adherence Manager at Alliance for Positive Change. On Twitter @thealliance_nyc.

On the construction site (photo: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office)

While it’s no secret that the pandemic and looming recession have taken a toll on all New Yorkers, they have been particularly detrimental to low- and middle-income communities, as they’ve only exacerbated the ongoing shrinking of the middle class and troubling disparities in wealth and income.

However, with the inevitability of hardship comes the longevity of certain sectors that will always serve as catalysts for recovery and reinvigoration of the economy and subsequently, the middle class. One of these crucial industries is unionized construction.

Historically, construction has been an enduring and dependable sector throughout and immediately following difficult times, including the Great Depression, times of war, and the Great Recession of 2008. Since 1940, the construction industry has consistently added jobs, with some of the biggest increases coming immediately after these major events.

Following the onslaught of COVID-19, and throughout talks of recession, this pattern has remained the same. Despite the pandemic paralyzing our economy, construction has been able to valiantly bounce back and return to its upward trajectory.

This is why New York must remain committed to greenlighting large-scale public works and private development projects that are built union. If we’re to fully recover from the pandemic and weather the storm of a possible recession, we’ll need the economic stimulus and job creation that unionized construction uniquely drives forward.

Development is the leading generator of family-sustaining careers in New York's unionized construction industry. By creating reliable and honest work for our tradesmen and tradeswomen, projects that are built union, including clean energy and green infrastructure initiatives, give New Yorkers from a diverse range of backgrounds an opportunity to pursue the middle class and contribute to the betterment of the community around them.

Not to mention, as the barriers to education remain and starting salaries for many occupations struggle to keep up with the cost of living, let alone loan repayment, union construction remains an industry accessible for New Yorkers of all backgrounds, including those from diverse and disenfranchised communities.

Pre-apprentice, apprentice, and direct-entry programs have become the crux of the unionized construction industry. They provide entry-level workers with accessible, on-site, and in the classroom craft skills training, as well as safety training, and prepare individuals for careers in the construction industry by providing them with the skills necessary to succeed. These programs ensure that we will have a ready, safe, and productive workforce to build critical infrastructure for years to come and uniquely pave a clear pathway for hardworking New Yorkers to build a sustainable, middle-class career.

While Governor Hochul, Mayor Adams, Majority Leader Schumer, and the Biden administration are seemingly aware of the importance of union construction, and should be applauded for their collective focus on infrastructure, we must continue the progress made on pushing forward or commencing major initiatives like the Penn Station Redevelopment, the Hudson River Tunnel Access project, the new Buffalo Bills stadium, and the NYCFC soccer stadium in Flushing. It will be projects like these that create tens of thousands of middle-class union jobs, bolster and sustain our economy, and foster stimulus for other local businesses and industries, including hospitality, retail, transportation, culinary, real estate, and more.

When it comes to periods of uncertainty, history has undoubtedly repeated itself, and each time, unionized construction has played a role in leading us out of the dark. With our current situation, we must lean into what we know how to do best: innovate, build, and develop by training and mobilizing our dedicated and skilled workforce of union tradesmen and tradeswomen. Not only will this sustain and uplift our middle class, but it will also maintain New York’s place as a leader in modernized infrastructure, fiscal opportunity, and forward-thinking ideas.  

 ***
Gary LaBarbera is the president of the New York City and New York State Building and Construction Trades Council. On Twitter @NYCBldgTrades.

Mayor de Blasio in Williamsburg (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)

State Education Commissioner Betty Rosa’s demand for June completion of New York City yeshiva investigations is a step in the right direction. But her order will be hollow unless deficiencies are quickly addressed. Every day that ultra-Orthodox yeshivas fail to provide substantially equivalent secular instruction to their students is a day that those children are deprived of their legally guaranteed educational rights.

What The Daily News criticizes as “slow motion” progress is insufficient, demonstrated by the recent case of Yeshiva Mesivta Arugath Habosem (YMAH) in Brooklyn, where after years of delayed investigations and months after Commissioner Rosa finally determined YMAH is violating state education law, no meaningful improvements have occurred.

Last October, after a lengthy legal case, Commissioner Rosa ruled that, contrary to New York City Department of Education findings, YMAH doesn’t provide required secular instruction, such as English Language Arts, science, math, social studies, and other mandated subjects. A corrective plan was ordered by December. Yet the Commissioner’s detailed twelve-page decision was cynically met by YMAH with a mere three-page, widely-spaced response more intent on delay than meeting the educational standards itemized in the decision.

That plan, I said, “could have been written on a napkin during a quick lunch.” It is devoid of even the most basic structure of the school day, daily or weekly hours of instruction in the required subject areas, the scope and sequence of topics in each instructional area, and the specific qualifications needed to teach them. Merely parroting words plucked from the commissioner’s decision and relevant regulations, the napkin plan attaches speculative dates for delivery without explaining the process or sources through which deadlines will be attained, making a mockery of a timeline that extends well into next year prior to implementation and eventual evaluation.

Perhaps most astounding, the plan includes the mystifying passage that “connections to particular lessons in Judaic Studies will be identified to demonstrate how the Judaic Studies curriculum satisfies learning standards” and that “Judaic studies curricular materials will be included,” raising the question of whether YMAH intends a separate secular studies program at all.

Yet, despite its empty substance and extended timelines, Commissioner Rosa still has not ruled on the so-called napkin plan, allowing YMAH to shrug off the legal and ethical duties that the commissioner demanded.

That same scenario is playing out again with the commissioner’s new order for New York City to complete other investigations by June. These have been delayed since a complaint was filed by Yaffed, an advocacy organization, in 2015. The city’s Department of Investigation determined that the de Blasio administration obstructed the task for political purposes, words also used in the state education commissioner’s latest order concerning Mayor Adams’ conduct. Yet, incredibly, the commissioner is still depending on the city to conduct a timely review.

Moreover, the DOE’s previous examination of YMAH gave it a clean bill of health, requiring the state commissioner herself to visit and overturn that decision! Why should the city continue to be trusted with this investigatory function when it has demonstrably failed to hold yeshivas accountable for providing the sound, basic education required by the state constitution?

So, come June, the scenario of questionable city investigations will be repeated with no promise that the State Education Department will adequately review its results. And even if it does, more time will be lost with further letters of demand from the commissioner and more napkin plans submitted for further review and, best case, slow-motion implementation.

This chicanery, robbing children of required instruction in math, reading, history, and science, must end. The public has lost faith in government because of farcical cycles of buck-passing where nothing is accomplished. The commissioner’s “enough is enough” is not good enough. It extends good faith to bad actors at the cost of educational justice and public confidence. That price is too high. State Ed has to send its own independent experts into the yeshivas, make rapid detailed evaluations of any deficiencies, and institute immediate reforms consistent with state law.

Enough is enough.

***
David C. Bloomfield is Professor of Education Leadership, Law, and Policy at Brooklyn College and The CUNY Graduate Center. On Twitter @BloomfieldDavid.

Guards on Rikers Island (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

Mayor Adams says we cannot look away from New Yorkers who are suffering. Yet, his new preliminary budget suggests that he’ll slash social services now and over the coming years. Yet, he continues to say ‘yes’ to luxury developers and dedicate limited resources to supportive housing. Yet, he questions the mandated closure of the Rikers Island jail complex.

New York City is required by law to close Rikers by 2027. The conditions at Rikers should prompt the administration to accelerate that timeline. Instead, our mayor is asking the City Council to extend it, or reconsider closing Rikers altogether. We don’t need Rikers. We need plans for more community-based supports, more crisis respite centers, more hospital beds for those who need emergency care, and more investments in a culturally competent and linguistically appropriate workforce.  

People at Rikers – more than half of whom are affected by mental illness and almost 17% of whom have a serious mental health diagnosis – are far too often not receiving the treatment they need and are subjected to inhumane, unsafe conditions, including solitary confinement. They are not in the right place for the treatment they need. Rikers has been aptly described as a “torture chamber.”

New Yorkers at Rikers don’t have access to appropriate mental or medical health-care. They are already isolated in a place that takes their families hours to reach by public transportation, and soon may no longer have access to physical letters and other mail. Those who are incarcerated are still subjected to solitary confinement even though we passed the HALT Act and know that solitary confinement significantly increases the risk of suicide and self-harm. In 2022 alone, 19 of our fellow New Yorkers died at Rikers—many of them lost to suicide and preventable medical issues. Another 15 died in 2021.

Rikers is a death sentence.

What other reasons do we need to close Rikers? Why are we still debating this?

NAMI-NYC is a part of the Treatment Not Jails coalition, a group based on a bill with the same name. The Treatment, Not Jails Act would ensure that people living with serious mental illness are diverted from the criminal legal system and instead have access to therapeutic and trauma-informed care. Research shows that government saves money by investing in mental health and drug treatment courts, which both reduce recidivism.

We have also spoken with reporters, families, and many others about the mayor’s problematic forced hospitalization directive. If we closed Rikers and provided actual mental health care – more crisis response teams, more psychiatric hospital beds, more crisis centers, more peer-based community centers – we wouldn't be in this position. To live healthy lives, people need treatment, not jail stays.

We are tired of false promises. Rikers is under a costly federal monitor, but not improving and as an institution, it is beyond repair. It costs far more to jail New Yorkers than to provide the health-care services and supportive housing they need. The mayor must move more aggressively to close Rikers as quickly as possible. It's clear to NAMI-NYC and over 130 organizations signed on to the Campaign to Close Rikers that it’s the humane thing to do.

***
Matt Kudish is CEO of the National Alliance on Mental Illness of New York City (NAMI-NYC), helping families and individuals affected by mental illness for over 40 years. On Twitter @NAMINYCMetro.

Norm Fruchter (photo: Courtesy of NYU Metro Center)

Norm Fruchter, an education activist whose unique intellectual and organizational abilities led to major change for the New York City school system, died in early January from injuries sustained after being hit by a car in December. His special significance was recognized in a New York Times obituary.

Norm’s contributions weren’t just about school funding, but the development of the small school movement that focused on equity and integration as well.

My early years of service in the New York State Assembly in the ‘80s and ‘90s overlapped with Norm’s service as an elected school board member in District 15 in Brooklyn, from 1983 to 1994. District 15 included the neighborhoods I represented, Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, Sunset Park, Kensington, and Boro Park, and I knew Norm well.

His leadership in organizing the Campaign for Fiscal Equity school funding lawsuit, brought in 1993, was affirmed by New York State Senator Robert Jackson, one of the original plaintiffs in the case, when I spoke with the Senator.

Senator Jackson, who was an elected School Board member from Washington Heights at the time, said that among Norm’s critical insights (along with Heather Lewis, another District 15 School Board member whom Norm married after his first wife when she was also hit by a care in 1997), was to ensure parents and their kids as plaintiffs. When the State moved to dismiss the case, the courts ruled that the City of New York and the community school board did not have standing to sue the State, but parents and their kids did, and the case was allowed to proceed.

One of my clearest memories of Norm involves a confrontation between him and then-Speaker of the Assembly Mel Miller about school funding at a District 15 School Board meeting in the late ‘80s. The powerful Brooklyn Speaker, whose own district also overlapped District 15 along with mine, had simply arrived at a local community meeting. I was in the audience when Norm began ‘speaking truth to power,’ criticizing unfair State funding of the City school system in comments directed at Miller.

Miller defended the State aid formula, which required the City to contribute to school funding in proportion to its own wealth. They argued and it was an unsettling public conversation. I see it now as a prelude to the CFE lawsuit, which argued that the issue was broader than just the distribution of aid, that in fact the amount of money for the schools was simply not adequate to provide a basic education.

It took ten years of resistance from former Governor George Pataki before the lawsuit was victorious in the State’s highest Court, the Court of Appeals. Even then, large sums of money to make good had to await the early budgets of Governor Eliot Spitzer. The premise of the lawsuit was not just that the State had obligations to increase funding, but municipalities too because they were subdivisions of the State.

The additional dollars in the New York City school budget are immense compared to decades ago, even adjusted for inflation (enrollment is similar), overcoming the 2008-2009 recession and the covid pandemic. Below is a snapshot of the New York City School Budget from 1999-2000, taken from the Department of Education’s School-Based Expenditure Report:

The City’s system-wide budget was $11.39 billion in that year and enrollment was 1.1 million students. Per pupil expenses were roughly $10,000 per year. 

Fast forward to the 2022-2023 City schools budget (via New York City Office of Management and Budget, Publications 2022, Mayor’s Message, FY 2023 Executive Budget - Message of the Mayor (nyc.gov) :

The New York City education budget is now $37.2 billion; there are still about 1.1 million students.Inflation has doubled since 1999, meaning funding in today’s dollars has risen from $22.6 billion then to $37.2 billion now, a 67% increase per student after the inflation adjustment. (The City of New York remains the largest contributor, funding 54% of the budget, with the State and Federal governments the remainder.)

While there has been much significant change since the CFE lawsuit was brought in 1993, Robert Jackson, Norm Fruchter, Heather Lewis, and the many other activists who brought that lawsuit, with their lawyer Michael Rebell, surely laid a foundation for the system to have the resources it would require for progress in areas like graduation rates.

No tribute to Norm would not be complete without a mention of his contribution to the small schools and public school choice movement. I was also there when a small group of parents and teachers in District 15 founded the Brooklyn New School in 1989 (discussed in this Chalkbeat column on Norm’s passing). Norm described his involvement: “Fruchter recalled getting a pitch from a group of parents dissatisfied with the largely segregated local public school in their neighborhood and pushing to open a new one.”

“I shared the parents’ vision of a small school driven by progressive instruction, project-based learning and a parent choice lottery admission process designed to ensure a diverse and representative student population,” he later wrote, even though he had some misgivings about the idea of starting a new school. That push eventually led to the creation of Brooklyn New School, a progressive public elementary school that remains a popular choice in District 15.

The small schools movement gained momentum as the system’s failures deepened. A 1994 report from then-New York City Schools Chancellor Ramon Cortines acknowledged that the high school on-time graduation rate was 44%, and dropout rates were astonishingly high. Norm spurred grants from the Diamond Foundation to fund public school choice initiatives like innovative new schools, along with other groups like the Annenberg Institute and New Visions.

Elected New York City school boards were (unfortunately, in my view) abolished in 2002, along with the State Legislature granting new Mayor Michael Bloomberg administrative control of the school system. Bloomberg brought in one of Norm Fruchter’s friends, Michele Cahill from New Visions, to help develop new schools. The result was hundreds of new schools throughout the system, many connected to the breakup of the big high schools.

I’m not sure Norm would celebrate the charter schools now educating a large portion of city students, but his visionary contributions to the small schools movement is another one of his unique achievements. The 2022 on-time high school graduation rate for New York City school students was 77%, a far cry from 44% in 1994.

Norm Fruchter was a brilliant person who shined a light on the path forward for the New York City schools. His final blog, written shortly before he was killed, showed he was keeping up with the latest issues on the schools, criticizing Mayor Adams for limiting expansion of 3-K and advocating for his long-held principles and what he believed was best for New York City’s children.

CM Brooks-Powers, left, with MTA CEO Lieber (photo: William Alatriste/NYC Council)

This week President Biden visited New York to celebrate a major milestone. 

More than a decade after Superstorm Sandy badly damaged the century-old train tunnels between New Jersey and New York, we’re finally advancing the repair and expansion work needed. 

New funding streams made possible by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law are finally fast-tracking this essential project that will double the number of people able to move on trains beneath the Hudson River. 

Federal funding for projects like this has historically been far too rare. Until recently, most federal transportation spending has overwhelmingly prioritized a narrow focus on expanding roads and highways. While these are important, the funding imbalance often neglected public transportation and the many millions of riders who rely on it. 

This is beginning to change. The new law takes a bigger and broader view of what counts as infrastructure. This includes $89.9 billion in funding for public transit over the next five years; $7.5 billion to build out a national electric vehicle charging network; and $50 billion to make our infrastructure resilient. 

As Chair of the New York City Council Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, I'm especially excited about what's happening and determined to ensure we make the most of it. Here are three specific opportunity areas where increased federal funding can jump-start long-delayed transportation infrastructure work in New York City:  

Fully accessible subways before 2055.
Much of our subway infrastructure was built a century ago, long before federal laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act were put on the books. Right now, approximately three out of every four subway stations are inaccessible to New Yorkers with disabilities, older adults, families with strollers, and many more who may need an elevator, ramp, or escalator. The MTA has a plan on the table to get 95% of our stations accessible by 2055. This isn’t soon enough! Dedicated federal funding can help us reach our goal sooner. 

Significant street safety infrastructure for dangerous roadways.
Over the past year nearly half of all pedestrian fatalities occurred on the most dangerous 7% of streets in New York City. We’ve identified these “Vision Zero” priority corridors here in New York and targeted federal funding can accelerate our efforts to reach our goal of zero deaths on city streets.

In fact, on February 14 the City Council will hold a hearing dedicated to street safety infrastructure in New York City.

We know President Biden originally proposed $20 billion for a national “Street Safety For All” initiative which was whittled down to just $5 billion in the final infrastructure law. This is an area where we need to grow, not shrink our funding commitments. 

Resilient transportation infrastructure everywhere.
In the face of climate change, we know we can’t wait for the next extreme weather event to hit before taking action. We know where streets flood during heavy rains and federal help is needed particularly in areas like Brookville Boulevard in Southeast Queens where overlapping city, state, and federal jurisdictions require every level of government at the table. The science tells us to prepare for a twenty-fold increase in seasonal coastal flooding in New York City and we need to be ready.

We look forward to welcoming the Biden Administration to New York again soon to build the transportation infrastructure New Yorkers need for the future!

***
City Council Member Selvena Brooks-Powers is Majority Whip and Chair of the Council’s Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. On Twitter @CMBrooksPowers.

A crime briefing at 1 Police Plaza (photo: Benny Polatseck/Mayoral Photography Office)

When thousands of New Yorkers went to see Drake at the Apollo last weekend, the last thing they wanted was to see the NYPD recording them, but that’s just what happened on Saturday as they emerged from the historic theater into the view of officers’ smartphones. The episode sparked questions from celebrities and everyday New Yorkers alike, wondering just why the NYPD was filming and what exactly they planned to do with the data. In the words of CBS’ Gayle King: “I didn’t see them videotaping after Harry Styles.”

In the end, the NYPD revealed that the filming was part of a self-congratulatory PSA put out by the department to depict its crowd control work as some sort of heroic feat, while conveniently omitting that Drake’s second show on Sunday got so raucous that one man fell from the balcony in an unintended crowd surfing episode. Yet even once the final video was published, social media commentators were quick to ask even more questions, such as “So....what happened to the raw footage?”

The public concern shouldn’t come as a surprise. Black artists have faced systematic NYPD surveillance for decades. In the ‘90s, they were called the “hip-hop police.” Now, they operate euphemistically as the Enterprise Operations Unit. But no matter what the unit is called, the truth is that Black artists and concertgoers face suspicion and surveillance simply for trying to listen to and perform the music that they love. 

For some it may seem like no big deal to have your image hijacked for a policing PSA, but the incident highlights just how little attention the NYPD pays to New Yorkers’ privacy rights. No company could have legally filmed concertgoers for an ad without their notice or consent, so what gives the police the right to use attendees’ images? The department may act like it’s above the law, but ultimately it has to ask for permission to film just like everyone else.

Of course, the NYPD has the ability to track New Yorkers like no one else. Tens of thousands of cameras crisscross the city, with new surveillance devices being rolled out by the day. Within hours of launching the Drake PSA, officers unveiled their new prototype “robocop” cruiser, with 360-degree camera standard. More and more cameras are capturing all of our lives, but still with almost zero rules controlling who the NYPD can watch and when, and what happens with the footage. 

And the cameras are only becoming more powerful, with facial recognition technology and other forms of biometric surveillance turning our own bodies into tracking devices. A camera system that can simply record what we do is invasive on its own, but when combined with these ever-more-powerful forms of artificial intelligence, the threat is chilling.

With the technology becoming more and more powerful, and police surveillance budgets ballooning, the need for new legislation comes clearly into focus. Right now, it’s the NYPD that largely decides what surveillance equipment to buy and how to use it. But there are forms of mass surveillance that it clearly can’t be trusted to wield. 

Cameras are one thing, but it’s long past time to unplug the NYPD’s facial recognition program. The software, which scans thousands of New Yorkers a year, is primed to wrongly put New Yorkers behind bars and increase bias. And with a growing cohort of New Yorkers speaking out against the ways the technology is used (both by police and private companies like Madison Square Garden Entertainment), lawmakers must act to stop the abuses.

Facial recognition is just one of the many forms of mass surveillance that New Yorkers fear, and that’s why we worked with lawmakers to introduce a ten-part package of statewide bills to “Ban Big Brother” and make New York a surveillance sanctuary state. But while momentum for these statewide initiatives is growing, the New York City Council must act too. Council Members have called for facial recognition legislation for years now, only to be blocked by both the speaker and central staff. This must be the year when the legislation moves forward, at least giving lawmakers the chance to have an open and honest debate about the tech that continues to spread across our city.

***
Albert Fox Cahn is the Founder and Executive Director of the Surveillance Technology Oversight Project (S.T.O.P.), a New York-based civil rights and privacy group, a TED fellow, and a visiting fellow at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project. Will Owen is the Communications Director at S.T.O.P. On Twitter @StopSpyingNY.

Gov. Hochul signs legislation (photo: Darren McGee/Governor's Office)

Everyone wants to feel secure in their own home, but for survivors of domestic violence, safety is an absolute necessity. 

At New Destiny Housing, we have spent nearly two decades building supportive housing for domestic violence survivors, striving to provide the security and support services that our families need to remain safe from violence and begin to rebuild their lives. 

But the chronic underfunding of the contract on which our oldest five buildings rely, the New York State Supportive Housing Program (NYSSHP), has left us choosing between case management or security, and hoping that donations can make up for the shortfall. 

NYSSHP was created in the 1980s, as the state’s first supportive housing program, funding social service providers to offer onsite counseling, job training, financial counseling, and community rebuilding programs for individuals and families who had lost everything. But funding levels have hardly changed in 30 years, providing just under $2,700 a year for single adults, and $3,700 for families with children. 

By contrast, the state’s more recent supportive housing program, Empire State Supportive Housing Initiative (ESSHI), funds up to $25,000 per unit, and even that is insufficient to meet today’s operating and service costs. 

Governor Kathy Hochul clearly recognizes the importance of supportive housing as one of the most powerful tools at the state’s disposal to address the myriad challenges the most vulnerable New Yorkers face. Last year, she funded the next five years of the state’s 20,000-unit ESSHI commitment. 

The Governor has proposed a plan to address the affordable housing and homelessness crises and build much-needed new units across the state. But we can’t keep funding new housing at the expense of leaving our vulnerable families without the most basic of services to stay safe from violence and recover from their trauma. This year we need the Governor to support our old NYSSHP-funded buildings in her Executive Budget proposal.

The Governor has repeatedly made clear that she is deeply devoted to supporting the survivors of domestic violence and has a unique insight into the many challenges survivors face. She has publicly shared the painful story of her grandmother’s domestic abuse, and how that spurred her mother to open a transitional domestic violence abuse shelter in her native Western New York, the Kathleen Mary House. 

Those experiences also informed Governor Hochul’s own activism, leading her to a life of service, and, more recently, to enact legislation that significantly enhanced housing resources for survivors across the state. She knows better than anyone the dangers that families who have escaped domestic violence face from their abusers — dangers that are especially keen in the time immediately after they leave to try to start a new life. 

Statistics show that the most dangerous time for a woman in an abusive relationship is after she has made the decision to leave. Seventy-five percent of domestic violence-related homicides occur upon a survivor’s separation from their abuser. 

That is why security is paramount at supportive housing programs like ours that focus on domestic violence survivors, but also our sister providers that house runaway homeless youth, homeless veterans, and other vulnerable populations. There are 20,000 households supported by NYSSHP programs all over the state, 10,000 of which depend solely on NYSSHP funding. 

The families we serve, who have been through the double trauma of homelessness and abuse, deserve better, as do all the tenants in existing NYSSHP-funded buildings located across New York. If the state fails to invest in these services and bring them into line with ESHHI rates, we will lose units as fast as we build them, if not faster, and the state will merely tread water in its quest to end homelessness. 

We very much hope that the soon-to-be-released Executive Budget includes a major boost for NYSSHP funding to protect the thousands of individuals and families who depend on it for stability – and, in our case, for their very lives. 

***
Nicole Branca is executive director of New Destiny Housing, a New York City nonprofit founded in 1994 to provide housing and services to one of the City’s most vulnerable homeless populations – victims of domestic violence and their children. On Twitter @NewDestinyOrg.