A groundbreaking in East Harlem (photo: John McCarten/City Council)

(Housing projects and tenements surround the $6 billion Second Avenue Subway Phase 2 planned route (MTA Capital Division))

Plans are advancing rapidly for the 1.5 mile Second Avenue (Q) Subway from 96th to 125th  Streets. The estimated cost of the segment’s three new stops (106th, 116th, and 125th streets) is about $6 billion, with the likelihood of an even higher price tag by the planned opening date of 2029. The project has strong support from city, state, and federal officials and will benefit from the federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (2021).

The Second Avenue Subway three-stop extension will likely become the nation’s most expensive urban mass transit project. Still, it will fail to benefit many city residents unless significant zoning changes are made to the neighborhood.

MTA capital planners estimate that the East Harlem extension would, at best, add “an additional 100,000 daily riders.” Moreover, many of these subway riders are likely to be East Harlem residents shifting from the existing Lexington Avenue Subway (4/5/6) to the more convenient Second Avenue extension further east. These ridership projections are underwhelming in the context of a subway system back to carrying over 3 million riders a day on most weekdays.

High-quality planning and significant upzoning could boost ridership on the new line and remake East Harlem into a place that more comfortably accommodates current and future residents–of all income levels. The New York City Department of City Planning, the MTA and its New York City Transit division, and NYCHA need to plan proactively and “think big” for the neighborhood’s future.

Density Is the Solution, Not the Problem

(R8 zoning on the left and R10 zoning on the right. These high-density zoning designations, and contextual variations (R8A, R8B, R10A, etc.), animate the Upper East Side below 96th street. See NYC Planning for full descriptions.)

The first phase of the Second Avenue line (with stops at 72nd, 86th, and 96th Streets) serves the Upper East Side. This affluent district is characterized by large apartment buildings permitted primarily by R8 and R10 zoning. Major institutions like Hunter College and hospital complexes attract thousands of daily subway commuters. The first stops of the Q Line quickly attracted about 200,000 riders per day, and patronage is rebounding amid pandemic recovery.

This strong ridership was predictable. Upscale, high-density redevelopment of the East Side tenements has been a civic priority since the 1940s. Big, bulky apartment buildings are often frowned upon in NIMBY circles, but the vitality of the Upper East Side demonstrates the value of concentrating hundreds of thousands of people together in suitable housing near transit. The apartment buildings frequently have stores at the base and wide sidewalks. Many remaining tenement buildings have been renovated for higher-income renters. Population density of this type is one of New York’s enduring assets–and a key to its rebounding fortunes in the post-covid era.

Extending the subway line in East Harlem along Second Avenue between 96th Street and 125th Streets is a different story. The neighborhood's threadbare low-rise tenements remain a dominant feature. Developers, due to redlining, ignored the area for decades. Overcrowded apartments, rent-burdened families, and building code violations in the area are well documented. The longstanding Puerto Rican and Black communities in the area have thrived despite widespread housing exploitation and poor living conditions.

(Typical East Harlem street scene.)

The city and NYCHA redeveloped sections of the district since the 1940s, but these efforts have lost their luster. East Harlem retains one of the nation’s largest concentrations of “tower in the park” public housing. The iconic red-brick towers, built far below the allowable zoning envelope, were once a showpiece of the city’s social vision. Today, however, growing maintenance issues, because of limited capital and operating subsidies, have undermined resident quality of life.

Despite their Manhattan location and the Lexington Subway line running nearby, planners built the NYCHA housing projects at low-density levels with acres of lawn and surface parking. The local stations through which the current Lexington Subway runs (103rd, 110th, and 116th Streets) have modest ridership compared to stations below 96th Street. Very few NYCHA developments have stores at ground level, creating empty zones along major Avenues.

(2017 Rezoning of East Harlem)

The East Harlem rezoning approved in 2017 did what it could, given anti-density politics, to consider the future impact of the Second Avenue Subway. But most of the neighborhood remained R7, and only a few narrow corridors along major avenues were rezoned to R9 and higher density commercial.

The expectations in East Harlem for new housing in the rezoned corridors  is about 3,500 units, only some of which would be affordable under the MIH (Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning) requirements. These new apartments will not compensate for subway-related gentrification or drive much new ridership. Most new housing in the neighborhood outside the rezoned areas will probably be “as-of-right” market housing, taking advantage of the new subway stops, with few options for low-income tenants. 

(The dominant R7 zoning (in yellow) of East Harlem; on the right is typical R7 massing. (NYC Planning))

Density for Living and Transit
East Harlem needs to be upzoned on a more comprehensive basis to make the most of the multi-billion dollar subway investment. Given the density of transit-oriented areas below 96th Street, R7 is not making the best use of this valuable new subway resource.

The rezoning should be at levels similar to the dense neighborhoods (R8-R10) below 96th Street on the Second Avenue Subway corridor. Only much greater residential zoning in East Harlem can attract developers and drive the creation of sufficient market housing to cross-subsidize thousands of additional low-cost units in East Harlem. These regulations should emphasize the deep affordability option under MIH to make sure the number of units and rent levels align with the neighborhood's needs. Neighborhood priorities will guarantee a fair share of these new affordable units for existing and future low-income neighborhood residents from redeveloped tenements.

With so much of the land tied up in low-density NYCHA public housing, rezoning alone will be insufficient to change much of the area. City leaders need to push harder on the redevelopment options for NYCHA projects in this specific area. Redevelopment isn’t suitable for many NYCHA developments elsewhere, and renovation is long overdue in almost all NYCHA buildings. Yet the logic in favor of comprehensive redevelopment is overwhelming for East Harlem because of the Second Avenue Subway project.

(Washington Houses is 86.3% open space, much of it lawns or surface parking. (NYCHA))

An antique East Harlem NYCHA development like Washington Houses has 1,151 apartments housing only 3,334 residents on 20.82 acres. That is a modest number of potential riders from such a large slice of Manhattan land. In contrast, rebuilding the housing project could house both current NYCHA residents and many times the number of future residents of various income levels.

Washington Houses is just one of many possible NYCHA projects in the area that could benefit from a redesign. Redeveloped projects could include thousands of new apartments, ground-floor retail, and social resources such as new schools and community centers. A selected portion of NYCHA open spaces could be preserved and then redesigned as New York City parks to serve their neighborhoods as community assets. The neighborhood would become much more vibrant with changes like these.

Substantial protections would be required to make sure NYCHA tenants get new apartments. Given the success of NYCHA organizing around RAD/PACT and infill development, it is reasonable to believe such protections could be secured from NYCHA, HUD, and private developers. The redevelopment would also permanently solve the longstanding mold and maintenance issues by leveraging private sector investment to rebuild from the ground up. Hopes for a federal bailout for NYCHA seem more remote by the day–yet conditions in many buildings continue to decline.

As recently proposed but now abandoned at NYCHA’s Fulton Houses, a staged redevelopment could ensure that residents are rehoused respectfully and systematically during the process. NYCHA residents would move into the first new building constructed on-site (on a former parking lot, for instance). Their vacated tower could then be demolished and redeveloped on a mixed-income model for tenants from the next NYCHA tower (and so on). This scenario is practical given the small number of current NYCHA residents compared to the future capacity of much larger buildings that would rise under rezoning.

Redevelopment may have some political capital in the new administration. Mayor Adams has not yet outlined a clear vision for NYCHA or affordable housing but is a fan of big ideas. Jessica Katz, the mayor’s new Chief Housing Officer, has been outspoken in her admiration for  London’s public housing regeneration programs. As Executive Director at Citizens Housing and Planning Council, she published CHPC’s report on “Public Housing Revolution” that highlighted how redevelopment in London created “entirely new neighborhoods . . . out of what were once superblocks of poorly maintained public housing.”

Redevelopment of East Harlem private “tower in the park” developments, most built initially with government aid, could follow a similar regeneration model with city encouragement through new zoning, incentives, and tenant protections. The Franklin Plaza Apartments, for instance, stretching from 106th to 108th Streets, could house many more residents who might like to live near the new subway stop at 106th Street.

The likelihood of planned densification of East Harlem, as proposed here, is remote given the dominant anti-development sentiment. Brave city leaders and activists will need to speak up for the needs of future city residents who could be accommodated under this proposal (or something similar). City leaders must also make sure that New Yorkers get their fair share of social benefits in return for billions in public transit investments. Deeply affordable Mandatory Inclusionary Housing requirements and public housing regeneration are two ways to achieve this goal.

Leaving current zoning/density in advance of the subway extension is a vote for market-driven gentrification. Big money will inevitably follow the subway lines into East Harlem. Left to their own devices, developers will add few affordable units in new buildings permitted under current zoning. Many of the existing tenement apartments will become more expensive. Most affordable housing interests will be priced out of the neighborhood. Fancy new buildings will rise around decaying NYCHA towers, as often happens elsewhere. Yes, these new private buildings will be less bulky than under a major rezoning, but that does not mean social equity will have been achieved.

The East Side Access project is a cautionary tale in failing to integrate transit and density. The $11 billion MTA megaproject bringing Long Island Rail Road riders directly to Grand Central moved ahead without upzoning the suburban towns on Long Island that benefit from this luxurious new asset. The city rezoned East Midtown for massive new office buildings and yet leaders left single-family home zoning dominant in the suburbs. The most expensive transit project in the nation will thus underperform because the potential residential market for new transit services remained artificially restricted by local governments. Without significant changes to land use in East Harlem, transit planning history will repeat itself with the Second Avenue extension.

***
Nicholas Dagen Bloom is Professor of Urban Policy and Planning at Hunter College and author of Public Housing That Worked (2008) and the forthcoming The Great American Transit Disaster (Chicago, 2023). He was a co-curator of the Housing Density show at the Skyscraper  Museum.

Gov. Hochul at a rally (photo: Don Pollard/Office of Governor Kathy Hochul)

Over the past two years, Asian Americans have learned to look over our shoulders on the subway platform and keep one earbud out as we walk down the street. An onslaught of anti-Asian hate incidents has instilled fear in our community, from our children to our elders, influencing how we go about our daily lives.

Seniors are afraid to leave their homes to obtain basic services, Asian Americans have experienced the highest rates of unemployment, and non-native English speakers struggle to navigate resources in a language they do not understand. Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, New York's Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) community has been acutely targeted and isolated, and we are still bearing the brunt of its lingering effects.

Within the next several days, New York State will finalize a budget that will shape the lives of all its residents. The budget is a test of what our government prioritizes and values. State government leaders have an opportunity to combat the marginalization, violence, and isolation the Asian American community is facing, by including the AAPI Equity Budget in the upcoming budget deal.

The AAPI Equity Budget is a detailed $64.5 million policy that would fund programs to improve the lives of AAPI communities throughout New York State. From mental health care to education and economic initiatives, the Equity Budget would address a wide range of needs in New York’s Asian communities. We are asking for this historic investment because our community has been systemically underfunded for years even while growing at the fastest rate of any racial group in the state, creating a chasm between what our service-providers and community-based organizations need and what they’re receiving. This situation has further been exacerbated by a relentless surge in hate crimes and the economic toll of the pandemic.

The 2.1 million Asian Americans who call New York home account for 10.8% of the total population of the state. We are the fastest growing group, having increased by 37.6% since 2010. However, even as our community has grown rapidly, we have been left unsupported.

Poverty affects 1 in 5 Asian New Yorkers, owing to social isolation and a lack of access to government services. If Asian Americans do not speak English well, which is true for more than 40% of our community, they are more likely to live in poverty. This language barrier makes accessing government programs, health care, and economic opportunities even more difficult. It is past time for New York to recognize this reality and provide the services that our diverse community needs.

This is where the AAPI Equity Budget comes in. The majority of its funds would be distributed to existing community groups already working to uplift AAPI populations. Hundreds of ethnic groups and languages make up the pan-Asian community in New York, and allocating state funds to organizations already deeply connected to these distinct communities would ensure that resources are directed to those in greatest need. 

For example, the AAPI Equity Budget would support organizations offering culturally competent mental health care, through providers who understand AAPI experiences and speak our languages. This is especially important given the trauma that anti-Asian hate-based violence has inflicted on victims – and the fear these crimes have instilled in all of us.

The AAPI Equity Budget would fund language classes, a pre-K through 12th grade AAPI educational curriculum, senior services to reach our most isolated, food security, workforce development, safety against gender-based violence, civic engagement for a rapidly growing group, health care, access to covid vaccines and treatments, and countless other community needs.

This funding is critical to ensuring support, safety, and wellbeing for Asian New Yorkers at a time when our community is experiencing rapid population growth, persistent anti-Asian hate, increased isolation, and economic hardship brought on by the pandemic. The New York State budget must address the systemic underfunding of AAPI communities in the face of sustained increases in demand.

Last year, California passed a similar measure. It is now up to New York, as the state with the second-largest Asian population, to step-up. We ask New York State’s Governor, Senate, and Assembly to show their support for Asian American communities as we face one of the most challenging times in recent memory, and pass the AAPI Equity Budget.

***
Jo-Ann Yoo is the Executive Director of the Asian American Federation, the largest AAPI umbrella leadership organization in New York. John Liu is a New York State Senator. On Twitter @AAFederation and @LiuNewYork.

A rally for Fair Pay for Home Care (photo: @JFREJNYC)

For people with disabilities and older New Yorkers, home care is the lifeline that enables them to stay in their homes and lead independent lives. Right now, the home care sector faces an alarming workforce crisis, jeopardizing the availability of at-home assistance and community living that enable people with disabilities and older New Yorkers to live their lives with dignity.

We are facing a growing demand to increase the home care workforce. While agencies managed to continue essential in-home care throughout the pandemic, we now face a nearly insurmountable challenge, with nearly one in six home care jobs currently left unfilled. It is estimated that 26,510 new home care workers will be needed just to keep up with increasing demand in New York, and an additional 71,680 workers are required each year to address high annual turnover. If this issue is left unaddressed, vulnerable New Yorkers across the state will be left without needed care in their homes.

The remedy is clear: it’s imperative that advocates, providers, workers, consumers, families, and unions alike come together to support several new pieces of legislation that offer long-term, sustainable change in an industry that is vital to our nation’s most vulnerable populations. And that starts in the state budget deal being negotiated in Albany.

The Fair Pay for Home Care bill (S5374A May/A6329A Gottfried) would raise home care worker pay to 150% of the highest area minimum wage across the State. By increasing home care wages, the Fair Pay for Home Care bill would make home care compensation more attractive, with the goal of addressing worker burnout and incentivizing new people to join the workforce.

Currently, home care agencies face restrictive limitations on the compensation that workers receive because many are 100% funded by Medicaid. Importantly, the Fair Pay bill contains provisions designed to ensure Medicaid reimbursement supports fair pay. To carry out the bill’s purpose and support these improvements, New York State must enact a budget that fully funds these reimbursement provisions. Home care agencies acting alone cannot rectify the problem.

This session, the Legislature is also considering another home care bill (A3145A Epstein/S359A Persaud) that aims to address another flaw in the current system. If passed, this bill would split all 24-hour shifts for home care workers into two, separate 12-hour shifts. The bill would effectively end legacy practices that reimbursed Medicaid-funded nonprofit home care agencies for 13 hours of a given worker’s pay in a 24-hour shift, with the understanding that the other 11 hours were unpaid time for sleep and meals.

These antiquated government policies have, for far too long, placed an undue burden on New York’s home care workers. In order to make this bill work for agencies and ensure that it does not lead to a reduction in care for people who need care in their homes, the bill must change Medicaid reimbursement rules and managed care service authorization, helping to ensure there are sufficient workers to care for the most vulnerable. As with fair pay, home care agencies alone cannot solve these challenges.

In many ways, the Fair Pay for Home Care bill is a complement to the shift-rule bill, ensuring that Medicaid resources are made available to fund these structural and comprehensive reforms to home care compensation. Bills like these represent a timely and much-needed step in the right direction – but in order for these reforms to be successful, both bills must work in tandem.

If we hope to build an equitable and caring home care system to meet growing demand, one fact remains abundantly clear: we must pass systemic reforms which come from government leaders. Time is of the essence.

On Friday, March 18, home care agencies, workers, and consumers came together to rally in front of the governor’s office in New York City to fight for the Fair Pay for Home Care bill. Our coalition, which includes stakeholders from across the home care sector, called on our executive and legislators to invest in the future of the home care industry and our communities, empowering home care workers with the tools and resources required to provide the best care possible for people in need across New York State. We’ve relied on home care workers’ unconditional kindness, generosity, and passion for caretaking for too long. It’s time for Albany to equitably and fairly compensate home care workers. 

***
Wayne Ho is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Chinese-American Planning Council, Inc. Kathryn Haslanger is CEO of JASA.

Top New York officials (photo: office of Governor Kathy Hochul)

Jewish tradition offers us a comprehensive blueprint for how to build just and caring communities. From the very beginning of our story, we learn that we are knit together with a clear directive toward mutual obligation and responsibility. Supporting and nurturing our children is a fundamental part of that ethos.

We were devastated to see Governor Hochul’s last-minute proposals to include rollbacks to New York’s historic Raise the Age legislation in state budget negotiations. Before the original Raise the Age bill passed in 2017, we at Central Synagogue and Congregation Beth Elohim were at the table from the beginning to build support around the legislation, joining with over 65 faith communities and justice organizations from across the city and state to mobilize support for our young people.

New York must continue to protect Raise the Age. We must resist this new call to make it easier to prosecute 16- and 17-year-olds as adults in criminal court, because that would encourage regressing back to failed, racially-biased policies of the past – and leave our children as collateral damage.

At a moment when New Yorkers are still reeling from the devastation of the pandemic, we cannot allow fear to eclipse facts. State leaders must lead with courage and resist any efforts to roll back Raise the Age. We must invest in public safety solutions that address the root causes of gun violence and give the youngest New Yorkers the opportunity to heal and flourish.

To put it simply: rolling back Raise the Age will not make New York safer. While it is clear that the uptick in gun violence is an epidemic that requires action, the Raise the Age law is not responsible for this crisis. During the first 18 months of Raise the Age, shootings in New York City remained the lowest they’ve been in decades, even as arrests and incarceration of 16- and 17-year-olds declined. It was only after widespread COVID-19 infections, death, and lockdowns that gun violence spiked, a trend that was felt across the country, including in cities where similar criminal justice reforms had not been enacted.

Jewish law carves out a special place for children, outlining their rights and what they are owed not only by their families but also by the entire community. Our children are resilient, but it is on us to ensure they have the support they need to grow and thrive. Part of that support must come in the form of setting boundaries and teaching them to be accountable for their actions, but doing so in a way that supports their development in the long term. Treating them in age-appropriate ways in the legal system strikes this balance. The family court provides accountability -- including detention and long-term placement in a residential facility in serious cases -- but it also provides mental health, education, and other supports designed to promote wellbeing and reduce recidivism. In the most serious cases, where a young person displays or uses a deadly weapon, Raise the Age dictates that the case remain in adult court, but is heard by a judge with family court training. 

As we continue to process the collective trauma of the COVID-19 crisis across New York and work to uproot systemic racism from our criminal legal system, this is the moment for a bold new vision for youth justice for more resilient and safer communities. New York needs robust investments to lift incomes, promote housing security, and expand access to mental health and social and emotional learning supports in our schools. They also must invest in community-based violence prevention, alternatives to incarceration, and restorative justice programs.

We also need to ensure that full funding for Raise the Age is reaching communities, which has not happened in the five years since the law went into effect. As lawmakers in Albany finalize the state’s fiscal year 2022-2023 budget, the Governor and Legislature must streamline the process for Raise the Age implementation, making certain resources reach localities quickly to support direct service organizations led by and serving youth that are rooted in the community.

To imagine a criminal legal system and state shaped by Jewish notions of justice is to see a system that upholds the dignity of every person and is animated by the value of teshuvah, of transformation and return. To state that another way: true repentance, atonement, and healing can only happen in the community and with support, not through excessive punishment and permanent exile. New York must protect Raise the Age. 

***
Rabbi Hilly Haber is Director of Social Justice Organizing and Education at Central Synagogue in Manhattan. Rabbi Stephanie Kolin is a rabbi of Congregation Beth Elohim in Brooklyn.

988 hotline to launch this summer (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

Suicide is a leading cause of death in the United States and the number of people who think about or attempt suicide is of course even higher. This is one of the greatest public health crises of our time and we have an opportunity to respond in a transformative way with the implementation of the 988 mental health crisis hotline.

To ensure that starting in July New Yorkers will dial 988 for a mental health crisis, not 911, we are advocating for significant investment in peers and families with lived experience to be involved from crisis response and services to hotline feedback.

In October 2020, the federal National Suicide Prevention Designation Act was passed to transform the existing ten digit number into the easy to remember 988 number for mental health emergencies. The need is great. In 2020, the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline received nearly 2.4 million calls.

In New York, we are glad to see that $80 million has been invested by the state in a critical 988 hotline fund and a 988 surcharge established that will offer sustainable funding each year. However, we must take further action before the hotline number goes live this July.

For 40 years, the National Alliance on Mental Illness of New York City (NAMI-NYC) has rooted its work in the power of peer and family support and we advocate for their inclusion in 988 implementation. Here are the key next steps:

First, New York must invest in a peer-led, non-police response to mental health crises. Individuals and families affected by mental illness, including the NAMI-NYC staff, have been waiting for an opportunity like this to more fully transition to non-police response for mental health crises. Half of all people killed by the police live with mental health issues.

During the pandemic, we have heard countless stories from families we serve on our own helpline. When one mother called 911 during a crisis, rather than receiving help for her son, a 23-year-old Black man, the police arrived with their guns drawn. Since 2015, the NYPD has killed at least 18 individuals experiencing mental health crises and 15 of those individuals were Black or other people of color.

We need peers, not police, responding to mental health crises.

The new $21 million state investment in 20 Safe Options Support (SOS) teams announced by Governor Hochul alongside Mayor Adams and intended to address recent concern about subway safety, includes both mental health professionals and police.

The 988 rollout requires further investment in training and developing a pipeline to certify young adult and adult peers and their families. Practitioners and advocates have long praised Oregon’s CAHOOTS program and we have seen the success of New York City’s B-HEARD pilot program in Northern Manhattan, which dispatches two EMTs or paramedics and a mental health professional to the scene of mental health emergencies.

We need a mental health response to a mental health crisis, not to reinforce the criminalization of people living with mental illness.

Second, New York must fund 24/7 crisis stabilization programs with peer specialists before sending people to emergency rooms.

We support $100 million for 12 new crisis stabilization centers, three of which will be in New York City, to keep people living with mental illness out of emergency rooms. In addition, Certified Behavioral Health Clinics are well-positioned to provide these services 24/7, 365 days a year without appointments or referrals.

Crisis stabilization programs can provide appropriate referrals for services and supports in their communities, and connect New Yorkers to wraparound supports leading to long-term, safe, and stable health care, housing, and employment. In Tucson, Arizona, one program–open 24/7 for walk-ins and up to 23 hours a day for stabilization services–has found that 60% of people served return to the community and do not require hospitalization.

Additionally, studies show that the involvement of peer specialists at such programs can reduce inpatient admissions and emergency room use as well as reduce stigma and bring hope of recovery unlike any professional staff can.

Let’s keep New Yorkers with mental illness out of emergency rooms and police departments.

Third, we must elevate the voices of peers with mental illness and their families. While stakeholders throughout New York are in communication about 988 implementation, we fully advocate for even greater participation of people living with mental illness and their families to be an instrumental and central part of the design, planning, implementation, reporting, and improvement of this program.

We know that communities of color have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, compounded with systemic racism, and that LGBTQ+ communities, particularly young adults, are at greater risk of attempting suicide. We need peers with mental illness and their families from underserved communities to be a part of 988 planning committees and engage in how they will participate in crisis response, crisis stabilization, and community services, which is almost more important than the 988 number itself.

From cross-agency and provider collaboration to the technical requirements of referring callers to local behavioral services, there are so many unknowns of implementation these next several months. Proactive community feedback and insight would be critical even with an introduction of an early 988 pilot. 

If we truly want to divert mental health calls from police to behavioral health providers, New York City needs a clear plan for peer involvement and feedback across the board. We will continue to advocate alongside our community partners to ensure that people affected with mental illness – our family, our friends, our neighbors, our colleagues – are not endangered when reaching out for help.

***
Matt Kudish is the Executive Director of the National Alliance on Mental Illness of New York City (NAMI-NYC), which supports families and individuals affected by mental illness. To join our advocacy efforts around 988, visit here. On Twitter @NAMINYCMetro.

Jessie Montgomery, a Van Lier Fellow at Third Street Music Settlement then at the American Composers Orchestra (photo: Ari Mintz for The New York Community Trust)

During Women’s History Month, we pay tribute to women who have been central figures in the ongoing campaign for equality.

While it’s important to recall those who have led the charge for voting rights and equal pay, we often overlook the pioneering women whose philanthropy has shaped our city and trailblazed for subsequent generations of women.

Throughout the past century, women have been making a mark on New York through their charitable giving. While their generosity and vision has long been overshadowed in public conversations about philanthropy, studies have continuously shown that women are more likely to give—and give at a higher level—to charitable causes than men at every income level.

I've seen this dynamic play out time and again throughout my career in philanthropy and at The New York Community Trust, which has been working closely with New York philanthropists for nearly a century.

You may not know the names of women like Mildred Anna Williams, Jadin Wong Chichester, or Sally Van Lier, but these figures deserve our attention—both for what they've accomplished so far, what they continue to do through their philanthropy, and how they inspire the next generation of philanthropic women.

Williams’ story is emblematic of the substantial impact of New York’s women in philanthropy. When Williams died in 1939, she recalled her own struggles as a young woman and set aside $2 million in her will to create the Mildred Anna Williams Fund in The New York Community Trust to “support activities conducive to the welfare of girls.”

Because that gift appreciated in value over time, Williams’ charitable impact has multiplied. Over the past three decades alone, the fund has provided $27 million in grants to nonprofits that support girls and young women. Recent grants from her fund have helped young women navigate teen parenthood, find shelter away from abuse or traffickers, and become activists.  Her gift has been truly transformational to so many.

Her fund not only supports direct services for these young New Yorkers, it also promotes advocacy and infrastructure to improve their lives. Her philanthropy has helped open a women’s health clinic in Long Island City and supported advocacy for legislation to curtail online sexual harassment.

While few modern New Yorkers are familiar with her name, Williams’ impact on the lives of women across our region cannot be overstated.

The same is true for Jadin Wong. Growing up in California’s gold country prior to the Great Depression, Wong pined for a career in show business. As a teenager, she climbed out of her bedroom window and joined a touring company, performing with a young Danny Kaye before being caught by a truant officer.

Over the years, she danced in Europe, appeared in movies including “The Pink Panther,” and befriended stars such as Noel Coward. She settled in New York, appearing in Broadway shows including “The King and I” and “The World of Susie Wong,” and started a management company that represented more than 400 Asian and Asian-American artists—opening doors for hundreds of performers who would have otherwise been overlooked.

Her travels increased her determination to help others with no contacts or money. Before her death in 2010, she started the Jadin Wong Educational Fund in The New York Community Trust, specifying that the money should go to artists, musicians, and dancers of Asian descent. Since then, the fund has enriched the arts and helped artists follow their passions.

Sally Van Lier provides another example of a woman who drew on her own experiences to create a legacy of helping others.

Van Lier knew what it was like to be a struggling artist. Starting out as an actress, she and her husband Edward, a real estate investor, were passionate patrons of the arts long after she left the stage. After Edward’s death in 1978, she told The Trust she wanted to set up a fund to help talented, aspiring artists, especially those with very little money.

That led to the Van Lier Fellowship Program in The New York Community Trust, which offers emerging artists financial assistance, mentoring, studio space, and other help. Since 1991, the fellowship has awarded more than $17 million through 100 arts training groups, ranging from well-known institutions such as the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater to smaller groups such as Theater Mitu. More than 2,000 artists have been Van Lier Fellows. Many have gone on to win top prizes in their fields including the MacArthur “genius grant” and the Pulitzer Prize.

As we celebrate Women’s History Month, it’s important to honor the generosity and vision of these and many other women who have been making a mark on our city for decades—and will continue to do so for generations to come.

***
Marie D’Costa is vice president and chief development officer for The New York Community Trust. She is a Founder’s Circle member of Women of Color in Fundraising and Philanthropy. On Twitter @NYCommTrust.

Parents back to school (photo: Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography)

Two non-profit organizations I led later closed down, for very different reasons. One, the September 11th Fund, closed in 2004, having allocated all its funds and determining that many other organizations were in place to continue to provide funding and services to victims of 9/11. This was the right, though difficult thing to do, and it probably should happen more often. 

But sometimes a non-profit is forced to close despite the fact that it is doing unique, valuable, impactful work. This is what happened to another organization I led, Learning Leaders, which shut down five years ago this month.

The oldest, largest public school parent volunteer organization in the country, it was tragic that it had to cease operating because it couldn’t come up with the support needed to sustain its work. Now more than ever we need parents in the schools helping kids catch up on reading, math, and social-emotional skills after the long, stressful time spent out of the classroom due to COVID-19.  The new Mayor and Schools Chancellor should take the lead in bringing Learning Leaders back to our schools as quickly as possible.  

Founded in 1956 as the NYC School Volunteer Program, Learning Leaders grew steadily from a small core of stay-at-home moms in Manhattan into a city-wide corps of trained parents volunteering to work with students on their academic skills with the full support and cooperation of the city’s principals and teachers.

At its highest point, there were approximately 15,000 Learning Leaders volunteers, the vast majority of whom were parents volunteering in their own kids’ schools, in all boroughs, across all income levels and ethnic groups.

I was the Executive Director of Learning Leaders from 1998-2002 (I initiated the change of name to more adequately reflect the role – and deserved pride – of the parent volunteers). Before I left for the September 11th Fund, we contracted with a respected research organization, Arete Corporation, to evaluate the impact of Learning Leaders on the schools in which it worked and on the academic performance of the volunteers’ own kids.

The research went far beyond the anecdotal and subjective; it included a telephone survey of a random sample of 2,000+ parent volunteers as well as the academic records (provided with Department of Education and parental consent) of 7,000+ children of volunteers and a similar sized blind sample of records of other children in the same schools. The conclusions of its report, “Parent Volunteers Make the Difference” were unequivocal:

“The overwhelming conclusion… is that the Learning Leaders approach “works.” It is a major factor in bringing about positive change in parental behaviors, student performance and the quality of school environments. It has demonstrable impact on higher student academic performance, a more orderly school atmosphere…., and better parent-teacher communication…It is not simply volunteering itself but, more specifically, volunteering as Learning Leaders that leads to these benefits to public schools, parents and their children.”

The Arete report documents a number of benefits of the Learning Leaders program including more time spent by parents on homework and reading with their children, better school attendance and scores in reading and math, and lower suspension rates in schools with large corps of parent volunteers.

Learning Leaders was a win for everyone – students, schools, parents. Roughly 95% of the parents surveyed said they were very positive about their experience; 4% said somewhat positive. There was not a single negative response. Many parent volunteers were motivated to continue their own education and/or become employees in the schools. This was not a pilot program; almost 300,000 students were engaged each year. Why on earth would such a popular and vital program be allowed to close down?

The answer is a combination of factors. It was difficult to recruit new board members and other individual supporters willing to make significant financial commitments to local public education. Foundations, which had been generous and important supporters of LL eventually moved on to other priorities. The de Blasio administration, for reasons I do not completely understand, did not regard Learning Leaders as a priority and declined to solicit or allocate private funding for it through the Mayor’s Fund to Advance New York City or to increase its relatively small ($400,000) allocation from the Department of Education.

So the board reluctantly and sadly decided to terminate operations, use its remaining funds to provide severance to the staff and turn its training materials over to NY Cares in the hopes that it would use them to develop a new school volunteer program. (NY Cares has volunteer programs in a certain schools in the Bronx and Queens but no plan to expand to a city-side effort.)

There can be no disagreement that bringing our public schools back fully and strongly is crucial to the city’s recovery and children’s future. We need all hands on deck. Parent involvement is often favorably cited but Learning Leaders was far more than a platitude. It was a real force for educational achievement and could be readily expanded even more if given support and encouragement.

Mayor Adams and Chancellor Banks, read the Arete Report and find a way to bring back Learning Leaders! Its entire budget was less than $3 million a year; this level of combined private and public funding can be found if you make it a priority.

Outside Rikers Island jails (photo: Gerardo Romo/NYC Council Media Unit)

Rikers Island is a devastatingly terrible investment. New York City spends more on jails than anywhere else in the country – over $500,000 per person per year. Yet, violence rates dwarf those elsewhere.

The jails on Rikers Island are decrepit beyond repair. Their crumbling walls are turned into weapons. Built mostly on decaying landfill, the jails are plagued by methane leaks and asbestos. Working conditions for staff, and morale, are abysmal. Almost everyone hurt by Rikers is Black or Latino – staff and incarcerated people, families, and communities, because what happens in Rikers does not stay in Rikers.

Ending this maelstrom of dysfunction and danger requires immediate action on two fronts: pressing forward with the borough jails necessary to close Rikers forever, and safely lowering the jail population to a level the Department of Correction (DOC) can handle. Both will pay profound dividends, saving lives and dollars.

To put it bluntly, without rebuilt borough jails, we simply cannot close Rikers.

Closer to courts, family, and services, the borough jails will speed up the administration of justice and put people on a far better path to re-entry. State-of-the-art design will ensure staff have safer working environments. The jails also make financial sense.

Borough jails will cost $575 million per year to build, paid for with bonds. Compare that to the $2.6 billion per year the city spends to run DOC today. The safer, more efficient facilities can slash those operating costs by almost $2 billion.

The jails will be bolstered by hundreds of new secure hospital beds for people with serious mental and physical illnesses. All are on pace to be completed by the legal deadline to close Rikers: August 31, 2027.

Still, new jail construction can be reduced if the city secures the three empty or underused state prisons in Manhattan and converts them to secure, therapeutic facilities for women and people with serious mental illness. 

Some say we should rebuild on Rikers. Such a scheme would cost up to 15% more than the borough-based jail plan and take years longer to finish. Demolition and site remediation alone on the former garbage dump would cost billions. Having to work around an active jail complex would severely limit construction hours and access. New jails on Rikers would also completely fail to address the isolation that allowed lawlessness and lack of accountability to fester for decades. 

Even as we work toward a new structural and operational future, we must lower the number of people locked up in Rikers, safely and smartly.

Start with supportive housing. An estimated 2,500 people with serious mental illness and addiction issues cycle in and out of Rikers at a cost of $500,000 per year per person, in deplorable conditions. A supportive housing bed (affordable housing plus wrap-around services) costs $42,000 per year per resident, and provides stability and safety.

Then focus on the almost 90% of people at Rikers who are held pre-trial. About 1,500 of them have been in jail over one year waiting for their day in court. Incarceration of those people alone has cost city taxpayers at least $750 million.

The city should follow the lead of other parts of the U.S. and establish Population Review Teams that can comb through case by case to determine whether people in Rikers can be safely released with conditions like electronic monitoring and mandatory treatment, or whether their cases can be resolved fairly. Fewer people will languish in Rikers for years. Fewer victims will wait endlessly to know if the person accused of harming them is actually guilty, and if so, will be held accountable.

Finally, DOC is overstretched and underskilled. An independent federal monitor reports that on any given day, over 30% of the workforce is not coming to work and/or is not available to work with incarcerated individuals, with dire consequences. Herman Diaz died this month at Rikers after choking on an orange, in part because no staff member was at the assigned post inside his housing unit.

DOC must close the most dangerous jails on Rikers and consolidate people into fewer facilities, covid-permitting. Violence would drop. Work conditions and morale would improve. Not to mention, we would save millions. The city should use some of that money for strong leadership training for Rikers supervisors, and mental health support for staff who frequently experience trauma in the jails.

These concrete steps will ensure we can close Rikers Island forever, while helping prevent crime and lower recidivism. They will also improve conditions significantly for anyone who remains incarcerated and for correctional staff. That’s the kind of investment we need.

***
Zachary Katznelson is Executive Director of the Independent Commission on New York City Criminal Justice and Incarceration Reform.

Trash (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

New Yorkers buy and order a lot of stuff. And all of that stuff comes in packaging, all too much of it plastic. So much stuff that of the 17 million tons of waste generated annually in New York State, 40% comes from product packaging and paper products – plastic containers, glass bottles, aluminum cans, cardboard, and other materials.

Across the United States, only 50% of PPP is recycled; in New York State, the rate of recycling for PPP hasn’t changed in nearly 20 years. And while the financial and physical responsibility to properly dispose of and recycle these products falls on and has been growing for local governments and taxpayers, there has not been a meaningful reduction in the amount of waste that goes to the landfill.

That’s why we must shift our waste system that heavily relies on reactive measures to one that takes a proactive approach to materials management.

Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) shifts the responsibility of the post-consumer stage of a product back to the producer. It provides environmental benefits by boosting recycling rates; building the market for post-recycled content — building a true circular economy — and providing community benefits by alleviating the burden of recycling for municipalities, allowing them to invest more resources back into the community.

New York loses around 860,000 tons of potentially recyclable materials every year, the equivalent of only 20% of people utilizing recycling programs. However, in regions where extended producer responsibility has been instituted, that number has jumped to 70%, driven by ease of access.

Earlier this year, Governor Hochul included EPR legislation in her executive budget to take the pressure off of municipalities and put it back on producers. A version of this EPR legislation sponsored by State Senator Todd Kaminsky was also included in the Senate’s one-house budget, but not in the Assembly’s.

The proposed Extended Producer Responsibility Act would place the responsibility of dealing with product waste on producers rather than municipalities, who have long been overwhelmed with the scale of waste they have to deal with. If passed, EPR will reimburse local governments for the expenses of collecting and processing recyclables, while requiring producers to pay for the collection and recycling of the packaging materials they distribute into the state. Outside of New York City local governments currently pay $80 million per year to keep recycling programs going.

We all know that before we get to recycling we should reduce and reuse first. Sustainable waste management starts with products that are more durable, less toxic, less resource intensive to make, and, when the end of their useful lifetime finally comes, more recyclable. That’s why successful EPR programs use what are called eco modulation fees to incentivize producers to price in sustainability. This means that regulated entities that produce less total packaging waste, pack their wares in easily reusable packaging, and use higher amounts of post-recycled content pay less into the program, boosting their bottom line.

The EPR proposals being debated as part of the New York state budget would also ban toxic chemicals like PFAS in packaging materials. 

EPR is already a familiar concept to New Yorkers — we use it for electronic waste, car tires, and soon, paint and pharmaceutical drugs. While EPR for product packaging and paper products was authorized by a first U.S. state, Maine, last year, it has been used in Canada and the European Union for years. 

Now New York has a chance to build on those models and authorize a stronger EPR for packaging in time for Earth Day. Governor Hochul and the State Senate have proposed EPR legislation as part of the budget. Now we need the State Assembly to negotiate this bill as part of the adopted budget due by April 1. 

***
Julie Tighe is President of the New York League of Conservation Voters. On Twitter @julietighe17 & @nylcv.

Protect housing for the most vulnerable (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayoral Photography Office)

Five years ago, New York became the first city in the country to create a right to counsel for low-income tenants facing eviction. Unfortunately, this right is now being hollowed out by the combination of a recent explosion of eviction cases and a shortage of tenants’ rights attorneys. Since the beginning of March, housing court judges have compelled at least 18 tenants to participate in their own eviction proceedings without access to a city-funded attorney.

This should not be happening. Our courts have the power to proactively manage their dockets to protect the right to counsel. It is time for them to use it.

Like so many challenges these days, the current threat to the right to counsel has its roots in the pandemic. The stresses of covid, combined with low pay and long hours, have led to a great resignation of young tenant rights attorneys. Our city-funded right to counsel programs have been depleted as a result. The Bronx Right to Counsel program, for example, recently reported that it has lost over a quarter of its tenant rights attorneys.

Tenants might not have initially noticed this shortage of attorneys because a statewide moratorium on eviction proceedings remained in place. That moratorium recently expired. Now eviction filings are skyrocketing.

The long-run solution to this challenge is to replenish the number of tenants’ rights attorneys and to reduce evictions by passing “good cause” eviction legislation. In the short-run, however, our options for protecting tenants are limited. Today, even though city law promises that every tenant earning less than 200% of the federal poverty level has the right to an attorney in eviction proceedings, in practice many cannot get one.

Tenant attorneys are currently overwhelmed, with many reportedly handling 80 cases at a time. Legal service providers are concerned that if attorneys take on even more clients they will not be able to provide quality counsel, putting them at risk of violating their ethical obligations to provide tenants with competent representation. 

Our courts must act to protect the right to counsel. In cases where a tenant is entitled to a city-funded attorney but cannot find one, state law empowers housing court judges to adjourn eviction proceedings until an attorney becomes available. New York’s Office of Court Administration could direct housing court judges to use that power to slow the torrent of eviction proceedings to match the availability of tenant attorneys. 

Unfortunately, the Office of Court Administration announced that it would not do so. Instead, eviction cases are proceeding double time. Whereas in some courts judges used to hear one eviction proceeding every 30 minutes, they are now reportedly hearing two cases every 15 minutes. 

These assembly-line style eviction proceedings are devastating for families. Without counsel present, landlords – who are almost always represented by an attorney – are able to ride roughshod over tenants, who are overwhelmingly low-income Black and Latino New Yorkers.

This only causes unnecessary pain on all sides. Attorneys can often prevent evictions and help landlords get paid. They are able to help tenants access federal funds to cover overdue rent or find other paths to stay in their homes. In fact, according to legal service providers, right to counsel legislation can reduce evictions by more than half.  The original Right to Counsel bill, which passed in 2017, was an unconditional success: 84% of families facing eviction stayed in their homes in the program’s first year.

If our courts will not act on their own, we need all hands on deck to solve this crisis. The city’s Office of Civil Justice, which is responsible for working with legal service providers to ensure a right to counsel, should step into the breach. The state Office of Court Administration has signaled that it might be willing to adjust its docketing practices if the city Office of Civil Justice asks it to do so. The Office of Civil Justice should engage the courts immediately to find a speedy resolution.

In addition, the New York City Council, where we are members, must act to prevent our history-making right to counsel legislation from becoming dead letter. If state legislation is needed to reform the Office of Court Administration in order to better safeguard our tenants, the City Council should work with lawmakers in Albany to get this done. Regardless, the Office of Court Administration should set an upper limit on the number of housing cases that one judge puts on their calendar at a time.

Every day, families walk into a court of law, alone, unaided by an expert of the law. Tragically, entering without an attorney often means exiting without a home. Instead of rushing people out of stable housing, the courts must give every New Yorker a true right to counsel by adjourning until an attorney can be provided.

***
City Council Member Shaun Abreu represents parts of Upper Manhattan and chairs the Council’s Committee on State and Federal Legislation, and is a former tenant rights attorney who was evicted from his home as a child. Deputy City Council Speaker Diana Ayala represents neighborhoods in Upper Manhattan and the South Bronx with some of the highest eviction rates in the city and chairs the Council’s Committee on General Welfare. On Twitter @ShaunAbreu & @DianaAyalaNYC.