Gotham Gazette

The Place for New York Policy and politics

Opinion

Opinion

Food for Thought: Healthy School Meals are a No-Brainer


The Mayor & Chancellor at School (photo: Michael Appleton/Mayor's Office)


When Mayor Adams launched his campaign to improve school nutrition, he opened the door to solving a devastating and long-neglected issue that has left generations of New York City students without the fuel they need to get through the day.

We’ve all seen photos of disappointing school lunches over the years — the same sloppy joe’s, wilted veggies, and lukewarm pizza that generations of New York City students have sadly grown up on for decades. The truth is that these meals aren’t just unappealing, they’re downright harmful to students. Research shows that children whose diets lack fruits, vegetables, healthy proteins and other key nutrients have lower grades and higher rates of absenteeism.

The status quo is failing our kids. It’s time we address the child nutrition crisis head-on. We can turn this moment into a movement that prioritizes the health of our city’s youth — starting with the food on their lunch trays.

In a city where one in three children are food insecure, the hard truth is that schools are often the only thing standing in the way of hunger for hundreds of thousands of kids. Children depend on school cafeterias and lunch hours to stay nourished - especially those from historically marginalized communities, with Black and Hispanic children almost twice as likely to live in a food insecure home in comparison to their white classmates.

The depths of this crisis were never more apparent than during the height of the pandemic, when schools went remote, yet kept their doors open as food pantries serving millions of meals to students. The incredible mobilization of our schools was inspiring, while also revealing. It demonstrated how deep food insecurity runs through our communities, and how much more we must do to ensure students get the nutrition they need to learn and grow.

The reality is that food insecurity isn’t just about access to food, it’s about access to nutritious and delicious food that allows people to live healthy and active lives. The research couldn’t be clearer: healthy students have better outcomes, academically, physically, and cognitively. Of course, New Yorkers all recognize that kids deserve healthy meals, but with an issue this systemic, how do we address it?

It begins with a recognition that every part of the culinary process is critical when it comes to nutrition – from the farm all the way to the kitchen. It’s obvious that our students need more fresh veggies, fruits, and healthy proteins, but these foods have to taste good for them to have an impact. A salad means very little if it’s left half-eaten and supplanted by a bag of chips. But that’s exactly what’s happened for years at schools across the city that have relied on expensive third-party food vendors that simply aren’t getting the job done for students and families. To solve this crisis, schools can go straight to the source.

Look no further than what has been accomplished by KIPP NYC College Prep High School, a public charter school in the Bronx, for example. For years, our school, like so many others, relied on an outside catering company that provided pre-made and uninspired lunches for students. We realized we could do better if we took nutrition into our own hands - and so we did. Today, we source and cook our own fresh ingredients and offer vegetarian and vegan lunch options every single day, all cooked by our very own culinary team, including student and alumni workers who are passionate about the culinary arts.

The results of this initiative have been nothing short of remarkable. Students are actually excited to eat their school lunches, and teachers are reporting that students are more alert and attentive in class. What started as a culinary club has expanded to a full-blown nutrition program at seven schools, serving thousands of students with sustainable in-house breakfast, lunch, and snacks every day, and a goal of soon serving all 10,000 of our students, including those sharing buildings with district schools.

Students across New York City depend on schools to nourish their minds and their bodies, and no matter what type of school they attend, they deserve nothing less. Today, schools across the city are innovating to provide better food and nutrition to their students, and in the spirit of Mayor Adams’ own words, when we see excellence, we need to scale it up.

The mayor and Schools Chancellor Banks have gotten the conversation started, but it will take all of us to fix the broken school nutrition system and provide students with the healthy, delicious food they deserve. We can do it one school meal at a time. 

***
Mike Ioli is Senior Director of KIPP NYC’s Culinary Team.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

New York Can and Must Stop Insurance Companies from Fueling the Climate Crisis


Gov. Hochul (photo: office of governor Kathy Hochul)


We are often told that insurance companies are “like a good neighbor” or “on our side.” And for many things in life this is true. But when it comes to climate change—the single greatest threat to global health and security—insurance companies could be making things much more dangerous for all of us.

Why? Because as long as insurers continue to underwrite and invest in fossil fuel companies, the companies will continue to pump emissions into our atmosphere.

And the hard truth is that if the global community is going to limit catastrophic damage from climate change, only a fraction of the current fossil fuels reserves buried in the Earth can be burned. The United Nations, in releasing its most recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warns that “rapid, deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions” are needed to safeguard our planet.

 The good news is that there is movement in the State Legislature to require the largest insurance firms operating in New York to align their portfolios and investments with the state’s ambitious goal of slashing greenhouse gas emissions under the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. That 2019 law, arguably the most ambitious climate law in the nation, calls for 100% zero-emission electricity by 2040 and an 85% reduction in greenhouse emissions by 2050.

 Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and our advocacy partners, including Public Citizen, also believe any new state legislation should also require insurers to integrate the so-called “precautionary principle” into insurers’ decision-making processes, including requiring insurers to anticipate, minimize, and/or try to prevent the destructive effects of climate risk.

Late last year, New York State regulators took an important first step by pressing insurance companies to take into account climate change risks in their business plans and financial disclosure documents. Specifically, the New York State Department of Financial Services issued guidance to insurers who do business in New York regarding the financial risks from climate change – including the “expectation” that they will consider current and future climate risks when making business decisions and publicly disclose its climate risks and risk management strategy. This move mirrors similar climate change risk planning and disclosure expectations placed on insurance companies in the UK.

 Fortunately, some insurers have begun to integrate climate risk in their decision-making processes. For example, AIG and Swiss Re both committed to achieve a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions portfolio by 2050. But most American insurers like Berkshire Hathaway, Travelers, and W.R. Berkley have done little.

 To be sure, insurance companies are not alone in the blame department. Most financial institutions have also continued investing in long-term oil and gas projects. This is why New York State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli’s landmark decision to decarbonize the state’s $225 billion pension fund by 2040 is such a big deal – and deservingly praised by the fossil fuel divestment movement.

 But much more is needed – and faster.

This is the reason why in Washington, U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, Elizabeth Warren, and others have issued a critical call to action for the insurance industry to rethink its underwriting and investment practices regarding fossil fuel assets. Insurance companies that continue to fuel the climate crisis by backing fossil fuel polluting industries are putting our planet at risk, as well as their own shareholders. 

Governor Kathy Hochul and the State Legislature can make New York a true national – and even international -- leader by mandating that all insurance companies align their practices and investments to support our transition to a low-carbon economy. This is a big policy step. But to meet the state’s climate targets, insurance companies (and ultimately all industries) will need to drastically change their business models to end our reliance on fossil fuels and squarely address the climate challenge we all face.

The sooner they do that, the sooner we can truly feel that “we are in good hands.”

***
Rich Schrader is the New York Legislative & Policy Director for NRDC and Mark Izeman is the New York Senior Director for NRDC. On Twitter @NRDC.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

How the Next Phase of the Second Avenue Subway Can Build a Better East Harlem


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.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

In This Moment, New York Needs The AAPI Equity Budget


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.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

New York's Home Care System is on the Verge of Collapse; It Can Be Fixed in the State Budget


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.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

No Rollbacks to Raise the Age


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.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

How New York City Must Prepare for a Successful Launch of 988 Mental Health Crisis Hotline


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.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Celebrating the History of New York’s Women in Philanthropy


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.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

To Boost the City's Recovery, Get ‘Learning Leaders’ Back in School


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.

***
Carol Kellermann was president of Citizens Budget Commission from 2008 through 2018.

 ***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

Solving The Crisis of Rikers Now and In The Future


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.

***
Have an op-ed idea or submission for Gotham Gazette? Email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.



Print Friendly and PDF

Editor's Choice


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