Judith Goldiner
Attorney in Charge,
Civil Law Reform
The Legal Aid Society

Hearing on
City Council Resolution Calling on the State Legislature to Enact
“NYCHA Real Property Public Review Act”
City Council Committee on Public Housing

The Community Service Society and the Legal Aid Society wholeheartedly support the proposed Council Resolution calling on the State Legislature to enact the “NYCHA Real Property Public Review Act”, which requires that any disposition of land or buildings by the Authority be subject to and comply with the provisions of New York City’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP).  ULURP is the prevailing “gold standard” for community review of complex land use proposals that have potentially significant impacts, requiring Community Board review and ultimate approval of the City Planning Commission and the City Council. 

The NYCHA Infill Plan and the Need for ULURP

At present the Infill plan calls for a significant degree of private residential redevelopment on available land leased by NYCHA at eight targeted Manhattan developments —five in the Lower East Side, two in East Harlem, and one in the Upper West Side.  This is just the first wave of an escalating number of Infill initiatives across the boroughs, intended to ameliorate the Authority’s serious financial straits and generate needed revenues to improve and preserve public housing. Large numbers of public housing residents stand to be affected by Infill-type initiatives—residents number over half a million people,  roughly one out of every 16 New Yorkers. 

Current Infill plans do not require NYCHA to comply with ULURP, because the Authority’s proposed private redevelopment initiatives are “as-of-right”, that is do not require zoning changes, or waivers in local/state regulations. Nevertheless, the potential for significant change in the quality of life in the hundreds of communities in which NYCHA developments are located is enormous and, despite the financial pressures on the Authority, such sweeping changes are not acceptable without thorough review and meaningful community engagement in the process, which we believe has been lacking to date. That is why we support the Council Resolution and the pending State legislation.

Calling for a Halt

Considering the haste with which the current NYCHA Infill plans evolved, and the lack of real transparency in the community engagement process, ULURP may not suffice to remedy gaps and faults evident in the Infill proposals from the start.  That is why CSS and the Legal Aid Society are also calling for a halt in the current NYCHA Infill plan—we are asking that NYCHA go back to the drawing boards and start with meaningful community participation from day one as to whether and how an Infill-like strategy of private redevelopment can be a boon to both NYCHA and its communities. Here are our reasons:

Long-term, better NYCHA planning is needed—there is no urgent reason to rush Infill plans forward.

Infill is an attempt to address NYCHA’s serious financial condition.  But the Authority faces a long-term, structural deficit, one that will not be solved in the short term, or by the current plan alone.  It will require more community-sensitive, more comprehensive planning than NYCHA has carried out to date, which primarily designates sites to be leased for private residential construction. There is much more that needs to be considered. Yet NYCHA is scheduled to release its RFPs to developers within weeks.  In short, why the rush?

Alternative sources of revenue also need to be pursued.

Infill may be a valid strategy for revenue generation, but other sources of capital also need to be conscientiously pursued, such as the excess revenues generated by the Battery Park City Authority that were originally intended to be allocated to the preservation and development of affordable low-income housing in other neighborhoods; such as relief from the $100 million in annual payments NYCHA must make to the city, largely for police services ($75 million) and PILOT payments ($23 million). While these options are not within NYCHA’s control, it is unclear that they have been brought to the attention of the officials and agencies with the necessary decision-making powers.

Funds for independent legal and technical assistance to Resident Councils targeted for Infill are not in sight.

This week NYCHA released an RFP under which it would designate a third-party consultant to administer the use and decide on the allocation of TPA (Tenant Participation Activity) funds for this purpose.   The consultant will be responsible for facilitating access to experts and for monitoring the effort. There is no reason why this couldn’t have been done from the start, rather than weeks before NYCHA is scheduled to release its Infill RFPs to developers.  Resident and community leaders have not have adequate opportunity to assemble technical assistance teams that enable them to have an effective voice in these decisions.  Again, why the rush?

Drafts of the Infill RFPs have not been available for community review.

Apart from what NYCHA staff choose to tell concerned community leaders, there has been no opportunity for review of the actual drafts.  In one case, a community center in East Harlem is scheduled for demolition—it is uncertain how the RFP spells out provision for developer responsibility for rebuilding the center and securing temporary relocation without loss of services to the community.  Developers and owners of the new residential structures, we are told, will have to comply with Section 3 or even stronger standards for providing resident access to temporary and permanent job and training opportunities, as a condition of the 99-year lease, but it is unclear whether or how the RFP makes provision for these community benefits.

More comprehensive, mixed-use approaches to participatory community planning are called for, not just making room for private residential redevelopment.

Most importantly, Infill planning to date has been rushed, insensitive to the full range of community needs, and far too narrow in scope.  Plans fall short of prevailing standards for assessing and addressing a range of community benefits and needs that might be included as part of a more fully-realized redevelopment plan.  For one, NYCHA has preferred to plan within prevailing zoning constraints, again in order to accelerate the Infill process. Nearly all the targeted developments are zoned exclusively residential, which precludes retail and commercial development that might benefit the community. Only one Infill plan includes commercial space, at Meltzer Towers.  Yet many NYCHA communities, because of their original design and zoning, may feel the need for better, more accessible, on-site retail and commercial facilities.

There has also been community concern about Infill residential construction plans, particularly the low proportion (20%) of affordable units against market-rent units (80%), which remains unaddressed.  Questions are being raised about “the massing” of the new structures in relation to the existing community. Additionally, with an aging NYCHA population, building housing to accommodate seniors is a priority concern registered at many developments:  It would help reduce the number of currently “underoccupied” public housing units, making them available to larger households, while it allowed older residents to remain in the community.

In the rush to move Infill redevelopment forward, the Authority is not only pressing on with a controversial plan for the target communities.  More importantly, it has overlooked what is needed to create the more balanced, robust, mixed-use community that NYCHA residents may want to see evolve over the foreseeable future. 

As a result, we are recommending bringing the current Infill plan to a halt, and instituting a longer-range, more in-depth, more inclusive assessment of whether and how NYCHA land-leasing and private redevelopment can be a boon to both NYCHA and its communities. ULURP continues to be a vital part of that process and we strongly support the Council resolution.

Thank you. 

The Community Service Society of New York (CSS) is an informed, independent, and unwavering voice for positive action to improve conditions and opportunities for over 3 million low-income New Yorkers.  CSS draws on a 170-year history of excellence in addressing the root causes of economic disparity through research, advocacy, litigation, and innovative program models that strengthen and benefit all New Yorkers.  As part of its housing policy research and advocacy agenda, CSS convenes the NYC Alliance to Preserve Public Housing, a working collaboration of resident leaders, advocates, and concerned elected officials.

The Legal Aid Society (the Society) in New York is the nation’s oldest and largest not-for-profit provider of legal help for vulnerable low-income children and adults.  Operating from 25 locations in New York City with a full-time staff of over 1,700, the Society handles more that 300,000 individual cases and legal matters each year. The Society is counsel on numerous class-action cases concerning the rights of public housing residents and Section 8 tenants and is a founding member of the NYC Alliance to Preserve Public Housing. The Society is currently representing the Resident Association President for Douglass and Baruch Houses, two of the developments facing the Infill proposal.

CSS coordinates the state’s health care ombuds program, Community Health Advocates, guiding New Yorkers through the health insurance maze of enrolling and using coverage.  Our Retired & Senior Volunteer Program mobilized over 4,000 trained volunteers last year, providing over one million hours of service throughout the city.  Our voter registration drives empower people to participate in the civic life of the city.  Our Benefits Plus Learning Center provides training and technical assistance to both professionals and the public.

CSS has a long legacy of achievements.  In 1862, we launched the drive for pure milk laws as well as organizing the medical facility that is now the Hospital for Special Surgery.  We set up the prototype for the national free school-lunch program in 1913 and laid the groundwork for the state’s Old Age Assistance Act in 1930 – the forerunner of Social Security.

CSS conducts rigorous research on critical issues affecting low-income New Yorkers; research we use to drive advocacy and policy change.  In the last decade, our credibility has put issues on the map ranging from the crisis in black male joblessness to disconnected youth.  More recently, we drew press coverage for our work uncovering the declining opportunities for black and Latino public high school graduates at the top-tier senior colleges at CUNY.   

CSS provided $5 million of financial assistance to help New Yorkers who lost jobs and family members as result of the World Trade Center disaster.  In 2002, CSS initiated “The Unheard Third,” an annual survey of New Yorkers, the only regular polling of low-income opinion in the United States.

CSS launched the New York Reentry Roundtable in 2005, a monthly forum to address obstacles faced by formerly incarcerated individuals.  As an outgrowth of the Roundtable, CSS established the annual Advocacy Day, which enables stakeholders to meet in Albany with key legislators and staff.  Advocacy Day participants educate legislators about the Roundtable’s legislative agenda, which includes bills focused on eradicating barriers to reentry and on easing some of the challenges faced by people who are currently incarcerated.

Recently, CSS was instrumental in the successful agreement on paid sick leave legislation by the City Council, providing this crucial benefit for the first time for over a million New Yorkers, many of them low-wage workers.

Last month, at the second mayoral forum co-sponsored by CSS, all five major Democratic candidates pledged that, if elected mayor, they will end the current policy of requiring the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to pay the city nearly $100 million annually out of its federal operating funds - $75 million annually for special police services that the NYPD provides free to private landlords, and another $23 million for PILOT payments in lieu of taxes from which many nonprofit housing providers are exempt.  This is a policy that CSS has long advocated should end.  

By crafting innovative policies and solutions to problems faced by low-income communities, CSS has made New York a better place to live for all New Yorkers.  But there is still much to be done: one in five New Yorkers live in poverty, the public school system shortchanges children of color, the battle for access to affordable health care, and continuing loss of affordable housing in the city.

Our tradition of enabling, empowering, and promoting opportunities for poor families and individuals to develop their full potential to contribute to society goes back to the 1840s.

Today, CSS coordinates the state’s health care ombuds program, Community Health Advocates, guiding New Yorkers through the health insurance maze of enrolling and using coverage.  Our Retired & Senior Volunteer Program – the largest in the country – mobilized over 4,000 trained volunteers last year – older adults – who provided over one million hours of service throughout the city.  Our voter registration drives empower people to participate in the civic life of the city by voting.  We bring legal challenges to protect the rights of the poor.  Our Benefits Plus Learning Center provides training and technical assistance to both professionals and the public.

Legacy of Achievements

The Community Service Society has a long legacy of achievements.  In 1862, we launched the drive for pure milk laws as well as organizing the medical facility that is now the Hospital for Special Surgery, the nation’s foremost orthopedic hospital.  We organized the New York School of Social Work in 1898 – now the Columbia University School of Social Work.  We set up the prototype for the national free school-lunch program in 1913 and laid the groundwork for the state’s Old Age Assistance Act in 1930 – the forerunner of Social Security.

CSS conducts rigorous research on critical issues affecting low-income New Yorkers and we use our research to drive advocacy and policy change.  In the last decade, our credibility has put issues on the map ranging from the crisis in black male joblessness to disconnected youth.  Our research tracking rent burdens and the loss of affordable housing are widely relied on.  And, more recently, we drew press coverage for our work uncovering the declining opportunities for black and Latino public high school graduates at the top-tier senior colleges at CUNY. 
 
CSS provided $5 million of financial assistance to help New Yorkers who lost jobs and family members as result of the World Trade Center disaster.

In 2002, CSS initiated “The Unheard Third,” an annual survey of New Yorkers, the only regular polling of low-income opinion in the United States.

CSS launched the New York Reentry Roundtable in 2005, a monthly forum for reentry advocates, focusing on legislative reform to address obstacles faced by formerly incarcerated individuals.  As an outgrowth of the Roundtable, CSS established the annual Advocacy Day, which enables stakeholders to meet in Albany with key legislators and staff.  Advocacy Day participants educate legislators about the Roundtable’s legislative agenda, which includes bills focused on eradicating barriers to reentry and on easing some of the challenges faced by people who are currently incarcerated.

CSS Gets Things Done

Just last month, CSS was instrumental in the successful agreement on paid sick leave legislation by the City Council, providing this crucial benefit for the first time for over a million New Yorkers, many of them low-wage workers.

Also last month, at the second mayoral forum co-sponsored by CSS, featuring candidates discussing their vision for the future of public housing in the city, all five major Democratic candidates pledged that, if elected mayor, they will end the current policy of requiring the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) to pay the city nearly $100 million annually out of its federal operating funds - $75 million annually for special police services that the NYPD provides free to private landlords under “Operation Clean Halls,” and another $23 million for PILOT payments in lieu of taxes from which many nonprofit housing providers are exempt.  This is a longstanding policy that CSS has advocated should end. 

CSS utilizes a combination of research, advocacy, court challenges, direct support, and community involvement to effect fundamental changes that improve the lives of low-income families, school children, health care patients, immigrants, and poor people throughout our history. 

  As we look to the future, we still see one in five New Yorkers living in poverty, a public school system that shortchanges children of color, a battle – hopefully being won - for access to affordable health care, and the continuing loss of affordable housing in the city.

There is much to be done.  And, as we have for 170 years, we at the Community Service Society intend to make our presence felt in the ongoing struggle for a fairer and better New York City.

This is a significant piece of news.  It was made recently at a mayoral forum featuring the five Democratic candidates for mayor discussing their vision for the future of public housing in New York City.  The forum was co-sponsored by the Community Service Society and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 237.

Under an agreement that dates back to the consolidation of the city’s Housing Police force within the New York City Police Department, NYCHA pays the city $75 million annually for special police services that the NYPD provides free to private landlords.  Another $23 million goes for payments in lieu of taxes from which many nonprofit housing providers are exempt. 

Given the authority’s dire financial situation – a $60 million dollar annual operating deficit and a $6 billion dollar backlog in major capital improvements – the city should not be in the business of siphoning off funds that were intended to address critical public housing needs.  This policy is even more egregious since NYCHA has been increasingly starved for government funding for the past 15 years.

The Democratic candidates for mayor -- City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, City Comptroller John Liu, City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, former City Comptroller Bill Thompson, and former City Council Member Sal Albanese – also expressed strong misgivings about NYCHA’s Infill proposal.  NYCHA plans to raise needed revenue by leasing land in public housing communities for private development.  The plan has aroused controversy because it uses public open space for private development purposes to build housing mostly at market rents.

All five candidates want to see NYCHA open up the public process so that resident and community leaders have a chance to assess and shape any redevelopment plans.  Some of the candidates said they would like to see the Infill proposal go through the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP). 
Note: Republican mayoral candidates Joe Llota, John Catsimatidis, and George McDonald, and independent candidate Adolfo Carrion Jr., were invited to the forum but declined.

The next mayor will inherit an incredible public housing resource which once served as the model across the nation.  While NYCHA has managed to preserve its public housing, this once high-performing authority is struggling to restore its image as a result of chronic funding shortfalls, management deficiencies, and increasing resident complaints.

The Community Service Society recently released a detailed analysis of the city’s public and subsidized housing stock.  The report, entitled, “Good Place to Work, Hard Place to Live,” found that as the city’s economy continues to generate large numbers of low-wage jobs, the private housing market and affordable housing subsidy programs are falling behind the housing needs of low-income New Yorkers. 

New York’s public housing population is estimated at a half million residents, larger than the population of Atlanta, Cleveland, or Miami.  It represents a substantial part of the city’s affordable housing stock.  While leveraging NYCHA’s assets to generate revenue in support of its operating and capital needs may become necessary, any redevelopment proposals must ensure the full and informed participation of NYCHA residents and the surrounding communities.  At least the Democratic candidates are in agreement on this issue.

In fact, as a just-released study by the Pew Research Center indicates, in the period 2009-2011, the net worth of households in the upper 7 percent of wealth distribution rose an incredible 28 percent, while those in the lower 93 percent dropped by 4 percent ("An Uneven Recovery, 2009-2011: A Rise in Wealth for the Wealthy; Declines for the Lower 93%," Pew Research Center, April 23, 2013).

So why the anger at calls for minimum wage increases and paid sick leave for low-wage workers running into such vigorous opposition from everyone from Mayor Bloomberg to the New York Chamber of Commerce and both New York tabloids? In my view, with income inequality in New York greater than anywhere else in the country and Mayor Bloomberg's wealth increasing from $22 billion to $27 billion in the past year ("The World's Billionaires," Forbes) I for one would be doing everything to dispense crumbs to the poor, just to show that even though I have my own jet fleet, I still care about the less fortunate. But that's not what's happening and it's probably why I'm not among the super wealthy.

It's against this background that the latest proposal to "save public housing" seems so uniquely bizarre. New York City's Public Housing Authority (NYCHA) owns and manages 179,000 apartments housing at least 500,000 New Yorkers. That's the equivalent of Cleveland, Philadelphia, or Pittsburg.

It's been hemorrhaging money for years and has recently been the subject of scathing attacks for being too slow to spend a billion dollars in capital funds, and its poor response to major suffering among its residents in the wake of Hurricane Sandy because crisis plans were not in place and officials were slow to get needed repairs done quickly. This comes on top of the fact that NYCHA's operating deficit topped $60 million this year.

In fact, the NYCHA deficit is inflicted directly by the city of New York, which charges the Authority $75 million for police protection, something that is provided free of charge to private landlords under Operation Clean Halls, and then, to just pile it on, charges Payment In Lieu of taxes of $23 million, something the Museum of Modern Art isn't assessed because it obviously serves a better class of clientele.

So following the premise that we should kick the powerless as much as possible, the leadership of NYCHA under the mayor's auspices has recommended the leasing of prime real estate holdings on NYCHA's land to private developers for residential construction as a way to raise revenues. Now I have no difficulty seeking new revenue sources for NYCHA. Cutbacks in federal, state, and city support requires new ways to raise funds, but the proposal strikes me as another giveaway to real estate developers.

The plan calls for only 20 percent of the apartments to be "affordable" (the affordable pricing virtually all of the working poor out of the picture), and the rest being market rate. The plan talks about separate entrances for the new apartments so they wouldn't have to encounter any existing NYCHA residents, and little if any input in the planning from existing tenants or local community boards.

This is a deal that is the standard for housing development in the city, which has been the subject of much criticism by housing advocates, and is especially egregious when applied to public housing because the run up in rental prices have led 61 percent of low-income families to routinely spend more than half of their income on rent alone ("Good Place to Work, Hard Place to Live: The Housing Challenge for New York City's Next Mayor," Community Service Society, April 2013) leaving little for food, clothing, and transportation. This is directly responsible for the explosion in the number of homeless families in the city, now having reached 55,000 (Coalition for the Homeless,January 2013).

There is some relief on the horizon. At a recent mayoral forum co-sponsored by CSS and the Teamsters Union, all four of the Democratic mayoral candidates promised to remove the unfair charges for police and Payment and Lieu of taxes. It would be even better if the current administration would revise its plans to better reflect input from tenants and advocates and make serious efforts to make public housing the model for the nation that it has been and should be -- if the city intends to provide decent housing for the one-third of the city that constitutes the working poor.

Before a large audience of New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) residents, tenant leaders, union members, housing advocates, and elected officials gathered on Saturday morning at the lower Manhattan Salvation Army Centennial Memorial Temple, all five major Democratic candidates pledged that, if elected mayor, they will end the current policy of requiring NYCHA to pay the city nearly $100 million annually out of its federal operating funds.

Under an agreement that dates back to the Giuliani administration and the consolidation of the city’s Housing Police force within the New York City Police Department, NYCHA pays the city $75 million annually for special police services that the NYPD provides free to private landlords under “Operation Clean Halls.”  Another $23 million goes for PILOT payments in lieu of taxes from which many nonprofit housing providers are exempt. 

Out of a combined operating and capital budget measured in the billions, returning $100 million to the Authority’s budget may not sound all that impressive.  But try to tell that to NYCHA residents enduring substandard conditions in aging, rapidly deteriorating housing stock with long waits for needed repairs.  Given the Authority’s dire financial situation – a $60 million dollar annual operating deficit, a $6 billion dollar backlog in major capital improvements – the city should not be in the business of siphoning off funds that were intended to address critical public housing needs.

This policy is even more egregious when you think about the fact that NYCHA has been increasingly starved for funding at the federal, state, and local levels for the past 15 years.

The Democratic candidates for mayor -- City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, City Comptroller John Liu, City Public Advocate Bill de Blasio, former City Comptroller Bill Thompson, and former City Council Member Sal Albanese – also expressed strong misgivings about NYCHA’s Infill/Land-Lease proposal.  Through this proposal, the Authority plans to raise needed revenue by leasing available land in public housing communities for private development.  The plan has aroused controversy because it uses public open space for private development purposes to build mostly high-end housing at market rents.

Understandably, the plan has stirred opposition from resident and community leaders, elected officials, and advocates because of the speed and secrecy with which NYCHA moved forward on the proposal.

When asked about it at Saturday’s mayoral forum, all five candidates said they want to see NYCHA slow down, and open up the public engagement process so that resident and community leaders have a chance to assess and shape the redevelopment plans.  Specifically, some of the candidates said they would like to see the NYCHA Infill/Land-Lease proposal go through the city’s Uniform Land Use Review Process (ULURP), echoing a recent resolution passed by the City Council. 

NOTE: Republican mayoral candidates Joe Llota, John Catsimatidis, and George McDonald, and independent candidate Adolfo Carrion Jr., were invited to the forum but declined.

The next mayor will inherit an incredible public housing resource which once served as the model across the nation.  Unlike large cities that have demolished or converted public housing – like Chicago, Atlanta, and Newark – NYCHA has managed to preserve its public housing.  Unfortunately, as a result of chronic funding shortfalls, management deficiencies, and increasing resident complaints, this once high-performing Authority is in a struggle to restore its image.

Saturday’s mayoral forum, which was co-sponsored by the Community Service Society and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 237, pressed the candidates for their vision for preserving this housing resource for current and future generations of low-income New Yorkers.

To underscore the critical importance of public housing in the city, and the power and influence the mayor has to guide policy and funding decisions, the Community Service Society released a detailed analysis of the city’s public and subsidized housing stock.  The report, entitled, “Good Place to Work, Hard Place to Live,” found that as the city’s economy continues to generate large numbers of low-wage jobs, the private housing market and affordable housing subsidy programs are falling further and further behind the growing needs of low-income New Yorkers.

In addition to holding the candidates accountable for their pledges to end NYCHA payments to the city, it is imperative that the next mayor make use of every policy lever at his or her disposal to address the dwindling supply of housing affordable to low-income New Yorkers. 

New York’s public housing population is estimated at a half million residents, larger than the population of Atlanta, Cleveland, or Miami.  It represents a substantial part of the housing infrastructure affordable to low-income New Yorkers.  The challenges facing public housing are not insurmountable. Leveraging NYCHA’s assets to generate revenue to support operating and capital needs may be necessary.  However, any redevelopment proposals must ensure the full and informed participation of NYCHA residents and the surrounding communities.  As evidenced by Saturday’s forum, at least the Democratic candidates are in agreement on this issue.  Let’s hope it’s not too late.

New York’s supply of housing affordable to low-income New Yorkers has been steadily dwindling. As the city’s economy continues to generate large numbers of low-wage jobs, the amount of affordable housing being produced now is not keeping pace with the growth of the city’s low-income population – now three million people.

A new report by the Community Service Society (CSS) provides the first comprehensive analysis of New York’s public and subsidized housing inventory and the underlying causes of the losses in housing affordable to low-income New Yorkers. It also draws attention to the key levers the mayor can use to preserve and expand the city’s existing stock of affordable housing to meet the city’s most urgent needs.  These include the income targeting of new housing, city budgetary decisions, zoning, advocacy for stronger federal and state housing policies – and important policy changes for the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA).

“The next mayor will inherit an incredible public housing resource which once served as the model across the nation,” said David R. Jones, President and CEO of the Community Service Society. “But unless changes are made, public housing for low-income New Yorkers will continue to be put at risk. Those changes should focus on accountability to public housing tenants and strengthening NYCHA’s ability to act as a steward of its property and affordable housing mission.  And not on weakening it or allowing its underfunding to continue.”

The report, “Good Place to Work, Hard Place to Live, The Housing Challenge for New York’s Next Mayor,” was released at an April 20 mayoral forum focused on NYCHA and sponsored by CSS and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 237. The five leading Democratic candidates for mayor participated in the forum and expressed support for a key recommendation of the report -- ending the practice of the city taking nearly $100 million in operating funds from NYCHA for primarily police services it provides free to private landlords.

NEEDS OUTPACE SUPPLY

In 1970 New York City had 64 units of subsidized housing for each 1,000 low-income people. By 1990, that number had risen to 122, thanks primarily to the construction of about 100,000 new U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Mitchell-Lama rental units. But by 2010, the number had fallen back to 114, despite Mayor Bloomberg’s New Housing Marketplace.

In other words, the total effort that government makes toward affordability per low-income resident peaked around 1990, and has now fallen by seven percent. At the same time, the total assisted stock has also shifted in income targeting. The result is that subsidized housing is now targeted to somewhat higher income households than before.

Even the city’s public housing is now threatened by underfunding. NYCHA owns and manages the city’s 179,000 public housing apartments housing a half million New Yorkers. More than half of the city’s poor households are either public housing residents, hold Section 8 vouchers from the Authority, or are among the 140,000 families on NYCHA’s waiting list. Hit by funding cuts from the federal, state and local levels of government, NYCHA has an operating shortfall of $60 million a year, and a $6 billion backlog of major capital improvements.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The report argues that the decline in the government’s affordability effort is one reason for rising rent burdens for low-income households. This situation will continue to worsen as the city’s low-wage workforce continues to grow. In 2011, 61 percent of the city’s low-income renter households paid at least half of their income in rent compared to 46 percent in 1999.

In addition to eliminating NYCHA’s unnecessary payments of nearly $100 million a year to the city treasury, the report urges the next mayor to be a national advocate for a better federal response to the housing shortage that exists in New York and many other cities across the country. It also calls for the city to:

• Invest its technical capacity and its own financial resources in maximizing the use of the federal Low Income Housing Tax Credit and other affordable housing subsidies;
• Take steps to promote permanent affordability in tax credit developments;
• Ensure that any NYCHA land that is redeveloped supports the Authority’s mission to provide affordable housing to low-income New Yorkers;
• Release long-withheld HUD tenant participation funds so that tenant groups can obtain independent technical assistance during the process;
• Increase the Housing Preservation and Development’s (HPD) role in inspecting NYCHA units and ensuring accountability to tenants.

But NYCHA is in serious financial trouble. It has been starved for funds.  The federal government has been slowly getting out of the business of funding affordable housing.  The city and the state have turned their backs on NYCHA, even for operating support of public housing they financed.  NYCHA is operating with a shortfall of $60 million a year and a $7 billion backlog in major capital improvements.  Its residents must endure accelerating deterioration and long waits for needed repairs.

The city has to take some responsibility for seeing that public housing is improved and preserved.  This is not the time to expect more from Washington.  There are two major initiatives that the city should pursue.

First, NYCHA is required to pay the city nearly $100 million annually out of its federal operating funds, most of it for special police services that NYPD provides free of charge to private landlords.  This is a legacy of the Giuliani administration.  Mayor Bloomberg could end this simply by fiat.  That, alone, would cover the operating deficit. 

Secondly, the backlog of major improvements needed to stem deterioration could be significantly reduced with capital commitments from the city.  One source of funding is the excess revenues generated by luxury housing developed in Battery Park City (BPC).  Owned and operated by the Battery Park City Authority, a public corporation created by the state in the 1970s, Battery Park City was originally conceived as a mixed income development.  But affordable housing was dropped from the BPC plan.  Instead, a deal was made to use surplus revenues generated from Battery Park City’s luxury housing to finance the building and rehabilitation of affordable housing in other city neighborhoods.

But for years, these funds were siphoned off into general funds on the pretext that they were needed to balance budgets.  In 2009, Governor Paterson said he needed the $270 million from Battery Park City revenue – a drop in the bucket - to help close a $15 billion deficit. It is time that BPC revenues were committed as intended. They could be an ideal source of funding for NYCHA.   
   
New York City will elect a new mayor this year.  The candidates must be asked if they have a plan for public housing.  The city’s public housing stock is too important for public officials to ignore.

The next mayor must end the $100 million annual payments by NYCHA to the city.  This alone would go a long way to solving NYCHA’s immediate financial problems.  The city provides capital investments for sports stadiums, museums, and the performing arts.  It should increase its funding for public housing.  The next mayor must use surplus revenue from Battery Park City to construct and rehabilitate public housing and other affordable housing.

The Community Service Society is sponsoring a mayoral candidate forum on Saturday, April 20th, that will focus entirely on NYCHA and the future of public housing in New York City.  It will be moderated by Michael Powell of The New York Times.  It is free to the public, but space is limited so we ask that you to register online or call 212-614-5365.

New York City has just managed a victory for more than a million workers – many of them low-wage workers - who toil without paid sick leave.  The City Council passed legislation mandating a certain number of paid sick days for working people.  It is the culmination of a three year struggle – including strong support from the Community Service Society.  It shows what can be done to change the lives of so many New Yorkers for the better.  

Meanwhile, NYCHA and our public housing are in serious financial trouble. Over the years, NYCHA has been starved for funds.  The federal government has been slowly getting out of the business of funding affordable housing.  The city and the state have turned their backs on NYCHA, even for operating support of public housing they financed.  As a result, NYCHA is in a serious deficit position, with an operating shortfall of $60 million a year and a $7 billion backlog in major capital improvements.  Its residents must endure accelerating deterioration and long waits for needed repairs.

Although NYCHA is taking steps to raise revenues — through private redevelopment in the midst of its communities — the city has to take some responsibility for seeing that public housing is improved and preserved.  This is not the time to expect more from Washington.  There are two major initiatives that the city should pursue.

First, NYCHA is required to pay the city nearly $100 million annually out of its federal operating funds, most of it for special police services that NYPD provides free of charge to private landlords.  This is a legacy of the Giuliani administration that the mayor could end simply by fiat.  That, alone, would cover the operating deficit. 

Secondly, the backlog of major improvements needed to stem deterioration could be significantly reduced with capital commitments from the city.  One obvious source of capital is the excess revenues generated by high-end housing developed in Battery Park City (BPC).  Owned and operated by the Battery Park City Authority, a public corporation created by the state in the 1970s, Battery Park City was originally conceived as a mixed income development.  Affordable housing was dropped from the BPC plan.  Instead, the deal was to use surplus revenues generated from BPC luxury housing to finance the building and rehabilitation of affordable housing in other city neighborhoods.

But for years, these funds were siphoned off into the city’s and state’s general fund on the pretext that they were needed to balance budgets.  In 2009, Governor Paterson said he needed the $270 million from Battery Park City revenue – a drop in the bucket - to help close a $15 billion deficit. It is time that BPC revenues were accounted for and committed as intended. They could be an ideal, reliable source of the capital NYCHA needs.   
   
New York City will elect a new mayor this year.  There are many candidates.  They should be asked what they intend to do about supporting public housing.  Do they have a plan or a vision?  Are they even focusing on public housing?  

The next mayor must immediately end the $100 million annual payments by NYCHA to the city.  This alone would go a long way to solving NYCHA’s immediate financial problems.  The city provides capital investments for sports stadiums, museums, and the performing arts.  It should increase its funding for public housing.  The next mayor must pledge to use surplus revenue from Battery Park City to construct and save public housing and other affordable housing.

The Community Service Society is sponsoring a mayoral candidate forum on Saturday, April 20th, that will focus entirely on NYCHA issues and the concerns of public housing residents.  It will be moderated by Michael Powell of The New York Times.  It is free to the public, but space is limited and we ask you to register either online or call 212-614-5365.

The results: of the 5,229 students accepted to the city’s eight Specialized High Schools this year, only 618 were black or Latino, a decline of nearly 16 percent in one year alone. Latinos make up just 2.4 percent of students at Stuyvesant High School.     

The “test prep” industry is having a profound impact on admissions while generating many millions in profits.  Test prep used to be only for college or graduate school, but it has spread to preparation for the city’s Specialized High School admissions test and even for admission to the city’s “gifted and talented” kindergarten program. 

It is evident that these admissions programs significantly advantage young people whose parents can afford the cramming programs that give them an overwhelming edge in scoring well on the standardized admission tests.  The costs for taking these prep courses are staggering, well outside the reach of low-income New Yorkers.  Typical costs are $1,350 for prepping a 4 year-old to take the “gifted and talented” test, and $1,500 and more for the Specialized High School admissions test. 

Half of low-income respondents in the Community Service Society’s latest annual survey of New Yorkers said they have less than $500 in total savings and half living in unassisted housing report spending more than 50 percent of their income on rent alone.  For these families, the impossibility of spending over $1,000 to get one’s 4 year-old ready for the gifted and talented test is patently obvious. 

The impact on the racial composition of the Gifted and Talented program is made plain in a recent Wall Street Journal article.  The city reported that only 29 percent of students in these elite kindergarten programs were black and Latino, even though they make up over 70 percent of the overall elementary school population.  Once again we seem to be slipping into an educational system supported by taxpayer dollars which favors those with the most resources.

Last year, the Community Service Society joined with LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Center for Law and Social Justice at Medgar Evers College in filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.  We are challenging the city’s use of a single test to determine admission to New York’s elite Specialized High Schools because the admissions process works to exclude black and Latino students.  This filing was met with outright hostility by our mayor.

To use scarce public resources to reinforce unequal access to the best in public education is not something we should strive for in this, the most racially diverse city in the world.  We are creating a dual system of education which leads directly to a dual society.

New York City now has the highest level of income inequality of any city in the nation.  We should not be contributing to that problem by denying New Yorkers of limited means – many of whom are black or Latino – access to the best our public education system has to offer.

In March 2010, the federal health reform bill, known as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), was enacted.  Under the ACA, states can set up health insurance exchanges, or marketplaces, where individuals and small businesses can shop for and enroll into health coverage.  To help ensure that the New York Health Benefit Exchange best meets the needs of New York’s employers and employees, CSS launched the Small Business Assistance Program to educate small businesses about the health reform law, address their current insurance coverage needs, and help inform the design and development of the Exchange. 

“This program is the first of its kind in the country to target and support small businesses as they make their way through the bewildering morass of our health care system” said David R. Jones, President and CEO of The Community Service Society. “New York’s small businesses now have an advocate on their side.”

“Small businesses will be a linchpin of health reform’s success in New York State,” said James R. Knickman, President and CEO of the New York State Health Foundation. “Making the most of the ACA’s potential for expanding coverage to 1.2 million more New Yorkers will require intensive outreach, education, and assistance through a strong network of trusted messengers and informed assisters like those participating in the SBAP.”

The 16 groups funded by the New York State Health Foundation will join SBAP’s existing network of 18 business serving organizations. These 34 SBAP organizations provide education and assistance to small businesses on topics including:  the availability of small business ACA tax credits; health insurance and care options for small businesses and their employees; how to understand and comment upon proposed insurance rate increases under New York’s new prior approval law; and the upcoming New York Health Benefit Exchange.   

The grantees are as follows:

• Actors Fund
• Business Council of Westchester
• Business Services at LaGuardia Community College
• CAMBA
• Community Development Corporation of Long Island
• Cornell University Cooperative Extension of Rensselaer County
• Greater Olean Chamber of Commerce
• Greater Watertown-North Country Chamber of Commerce
• Guilderland Chamber of Commerce in partnership with Colonie Chamber of Commerce and Bethlehem Chamber of Commerce
• Manhattan Chamber of Commerce
• Small Business Development Center at Binghamton University
• Small Business Development Center at Jamestown Community College
• Small Business Development Center at University at Albany
• S2AY Rural Health Network

Contact: Jeffrey N. Maclin      
(212) 614-5538 (office)
(718) 309-2346 (cell)
jmaclin@cssny.org
www.cssny.org

It took us more than three long years, but today the city is one step closer to ensuring that hundreds of thousands of working New Yorkers, particularly low-wage workers, will now be entitled to paid sick days and that no worker will be fired for being out sick a few days.  A deal struck last night to allow a City Council vote on this long overdue legislation is a victory for advocacy groups who have made this a key issue in the upcoming mayoral contest.

The Community Service Society is proud of the role our research and advocacy played in highlighting the evidence for and against a paid sick days law.  Our work showed that the benefits of this legislation substantially outweighed the costs.  Fewer workers going to work sick will make New York City a healthier place, and low-income wage workers receiving job protection and wages they deserve will help those struggling to get by, keep their heads above water, and boost our local economy.  Moreover, the oft-stated criticism that paid sick days would somehow kill jobs or hurt businesses was not supported by economic evidence or empirical data from cities with laws on the books.

Now the measure will go before the City Council where a majority of members already favors the legislation.  Although the bill is not perfect, it is an important first step in providing a basic protection to workers.  Along with other groups who have pushed this issue, CSS will continue to fight to ensure that no worker in New York City is denied access to paid sick days.

In each case, the disparate admissions of blacks and Latinos are driven by the use of a single test that has never been validated as predicting success in school.  No other factors are allowed to count.  Teacher assessments, academic achievement, or the fact you come from an economically distressed household or community – none of these matters.

Test Prep Industry

This situation is made much worse by the emergence of an entire “test prep” industry that is having a profound impact on test results while generating many millions in profits.  Test prep originally just focused on college and graduate school admission, but it now has spread to preparation for the city’s Specialized High School admissions test and even for admission to the city’s “gifted and talented” kindergarten program.  The costs for taking these prep courses are staggering, well outside the reach of low-income New Yorkers. 

We called a few of these test prep companies to get approximate costs: $1,350 for prepping a 4 year-old to take the “gifted and talented” test, and $1,500 and more for the Specialized High School admissions test.  When the Community Service Society (CSS) surveyed New Yorkers earlier this year for our annual Unheard Third report, half of low-income respondents said they have less than $500 in total savings and half living in unassisted housing report spending more than 50 percent of their income on rent alone.  For these families, the virtual impossibility of spending over $1,000 on getting one’s 4 year-old ready for his or her gifted and talented test is patently obvious. 

The impact on the racial - and I assume the economic - composition of the Gifted and Talented program is made plain in a recent Wall Street Journal article.  The city reported that only 29 percent of students in these elite kindergarten programs were black and Hispanic, even though they make up two-thirds of the overall elementary school population.  Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott response was “just because they don’t qualify for gifted and talented, doesn’t mean they’re not getting a high-quality education.”  Really?  In New York City’s public schools?  Once again we seem to be slipping into an educational system supported by taxpayer dollars which favors those with the most resources.

In September of last year, CSS joined with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Center for Law and Social Justice at Medgar Evers College, and a host of education-focused groups in filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.  We challenged the city’s use of a single test that has never been validated as a predictor of academic success to determine admission to New York’s elite Specialized High Schools because this admissions process works to exclude black and Latino students.  This filing was met with outright hostility by Mayor Bloomberg.

Problem Getting Worse

On a recent Friday afternoon, long after the daily newspapers had been printed, the city revealed that the schools problem hadn’t improved but, in fact, has become substantially worse.  Of the 5,229 students accepted to the city’s eight Specialized High Schools this year, only 618 were black or Hispanic, a decline of nearly 16 percent in one year alone.

To use scarce public resources to reinforce unequal access to the best in public education seems a throwback to South African apartheid, not something we should strive for in this, the most racially diverse city in the world.  We are creating a dual system of education which leads directly to a dual society.

The test prep regime and its results have morphed into a matter of economic discrimination as well.  It is evident that both of these test-centric admissions programs significantly advantage young people whose parents can afford the cramming programs that give them an overwhelming edge in scoring well on the standardized admission tests. 

In the last decade, New York reached the highest level of income inequality of any city in the nation.  It seems almost criminal to contribute to that problem by denying New Yorkers of limited means – many of whom are black or Latino – access to the best our public education system has to offer.

Hearing on Int 97-2010 A, the “Earned Sick Time Act”

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of the “Earned Sick Time Act,” legislation urgently needed to enable working New Yorkers to take care of their health without sacrificing their pay and putting their jobs at risk. I am the Vice President for Policy Research at the Community Service Society of New York, a 170 year-old organization that addresses the root causes of economic disparity through research, advocacy and innovative programs.  I have led the research that first identified the widespread lack of paid sick days among low-income New Yorkers, and documented the hardships and adverse health impacts that result for people like Paulina Cac Lux.

Paulina was a cashier at a large supermarket chain making $7.25 an hour. Think about someone handling every one of your food items as it comes down the conveyor belt, someone you would not want working sick. She took off a few days when she came down with the flu, and had her meager minimum wage pay docked. When she got sick a few months later, she asked for a day off to see the doctor. She was told that she was “always sick” and fired on the spot.

You’ve heard lots of other stories like Paulina’s this morning. What I am here to tell you is that these are not isolated stories. Well over a million working people in New York City today are denied even a few paid sick days a year, a basic labor standard that most higher-income earners, and all of you, take for granted.

Latinos are the least likely of any racial or ethnic group to have access to paid time off when illness strikes because of their overrepresentation in low-wage occupations in the restaurant, food, retail and non-union construction industries.  Because 56 percent of Latinos live below twice the federal poverty level, the loss of even a few days’ pay means serious hardships. Latinos literally cannot afford to get sick.  Moreover, Latinos have high rates of chronic health conditions, like diabetes and asthma, associated with poverty. Their lack of paid sick time makes it harder for them to get timely care needed to manage these ailments, so too many end up sicker in costly emergency rooms.  These and other research findings are described in a report released by CSS this week.

Now I know that some speakers have said lack of paid sick days is not really a problem. The report prepared for the Partnership for New York City by Ernst & Young, claims that 88 percent of the city’s private sector workers have access to paid leave that they can use when they are ill, though perhaps not to care for a sick child. The trouble with this estimate is that it is not based on a representative random sample, but on responses from a self-selected group of 708 employers, with an average size of 585 employees.  Most very large businesses do provide paid leave, at least to their salaried and higher-paid workers. But our findings, based on more than ten years of annual surveys conducted for CSS by Lake Research, using random-digit dialing and adhering to standard scientific survey methods, reveal a different picture. Forty-three percent of working New Yorkers—and 62 percent of low-income working New Yorkers—do not have paid sick leave. But you do not have to rely on just our research. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows virtually the same figure for low-wage workers: according to the March 2011 National Compensation Survey for the metropolitan New York region, 60 percent of workers in the bottom wage quartile do not receive paid sick leave. And it is these low-wage workers we are most concerned about. These are the workers for whom losing even a few days’ pay means serious hardships. A recent Economic Policy Institute study found that three and a half days of unpaid time off is equivalent to a family’s grocery budget for an entire month (Gould, et.al., June 2011).

Fears have been raised that paid sick days should not be passed now because it could burden small businesses that are hanging on by a thread and might cost New Yorkers jobs.  I would like to respond to that.

• First, the measure now exempts mom-and-pop shops, with fewer than five employees from having to provide any paid sick leave. While this may sound like a small category, it actually excludes 64 percent of New York City’s 220,034 business establishments.

• Second, the cost is minimal.  The Institute for Women’s Policy Research estimates providing paid sick time to newly covered workers under this bill will average just 18 cents an hour. Looked at another way, the Economic Policy Institute estimates the cost would range from .06 percent to .54 percent of sales depending on the industry sector.

• Third, there is no evidence that the small costs of paid sick days would cause job loss. None.  A substantial body of rigorous economic research on the minimum wage has demonstrated that the additional labor costs associated with minimum wage increases have not resulted in a decrease in employment. The cost of paid sick days would be less than the cost of recent and proposed minimum wage increases. Moreover, there is no evidence that paid sick days policies already in effect in other places have been detrimental to business. A study by economist Arindragit Dube found that over 80 percent of San Francisco employers said their paid sick days ordinance—which is wider in scope—has had no effect at all on their bottom line. This is because a law creates a level playing field, so no business is at a competitive disadvantage and much of the costs can be passed along.  In fact, this is the argument for having a public policy covering as many businesses as possible.  It means that the good actors will not be undercut by those willing to force their workers to come in sick and jeopardize their own health, that of customers, co-workers and commuters. Arbitrary carve-outs are not good public policy because they allow unfair competition and are more difficult to implement, as a practical matter.

• Fourth, the argument that small businesses would be burdened assumes that the entire cost would have to come out of employers’ pockets. That is not the case. As just explained, once a law creates a level playing field the small costs, of the order of magnitude being considered here, can easily be absorbed through minor adjustments in operations, prices, or compensation.
In short, even in bad economic times a paid sick days law will not be detrimental to business for the reasons I just outlined.  In fact, providing greater financial stability for working families helps neighborhood businesses grow. What drives the shoe store owner to hire the next worker or open the next shop is not cutting government regulations, but a long line of customers at the cash register who can afford to buy new shoes.

Nevertheless, fears about the economy may have resonated in 2009 when this bill was first introduced.  But now it is 2013. New York City is no longer in a recession. Crain’s business newspaper reported just this month that, “The city’s economy last year added 84,600 private sector jobs, according to the state Department of Labor. The gains capped a remarkable two year run in job growth and were followed by strong numbers in January.” (Crain’s, March 7, 2013).  And the New York Times reported March 4th that “corporate earnings have risen at an annualized rate of 20.1 percent since the end of 2008, but disposable income inched ahead by [only] 1.4 percent annually over the same period, adjusting for inflation.” So yes, some folks are hanging on by a thread, but it’s not business that’s hurting; it’s the working people who are hanging on by a thread. It is time for the City Council of New York to stand up for them and throw them a lifeline of support.

The city’s Mexican population has increased nearly five times over the last 20 years, with almost half of all New Yorkers of Mexican origin under the age of 25. As the Mexican population shifts from immigrant adults to a larger share of young people born here, educational attainment levels are not keeping pace compared to other Latino groups. At the same time, Mexican immigrants work at high rates in the lowest paying jobs. When they start families, their children are more likely to grow up in poverty.

These are among the findings of a new Community Service Society (CSS) study, entitled “Young Mexican-Americans in New York City: Working More; Learning and Earning Less.” The report, which examines the challenges facing young Mexican immigrants and children born here to Mexican parents, found that nearly two-thirds of the city’s Mexican residents are living in low-income households. And more than a third of Mexican young people have challenges speaking English, with 14 percent not speaking English at all. Most alarming, Mexican children have the highest rates of poverty within the community of Mexicans living in the city.

"More than any other racial or ethnic group, Mexicans are highly concentrated in the lowest paying jobs.  As a consequence, a large share of Mexican children who are born here are growing up in poverty and facing significant obstacles completing their education and giving themselves a chance to do better financially than their parents,” said David R. Jones, President and CEO of the Community Service Society of New York.

In October 2010, CSS published a report examining school and labor force participation of young people of Hispanic background. This latest effort builds off the earlier report with a focus on Mexican youth. The Deutsche Bank of Americas Foundation (DBAF) conceived of and funded research for the report. Here are some of the key findings:

• Just 37 percent of Mexican young people are enrolled in school, including only 31 percent of young Mexican males.

• Nearly 60 percent of young Mexican men – and nearly half of young Mexican women – who are out of school lack a high school diploma.

• Young Mexican immigrants have very high rates of employment, but at the lowest paying jobs. Young Mexicans born in the U.S. work at rates similar to their peers.

• Foreign-born Mexican workers have the lowest median income of any group in the city as a result of their concentration in low-paying food services and housekeeping jobs.

• Eight out of ten Mexicans under the age of 16 live in households below 200 percent of the federal poverty line ($38,000 for a family of three). Nearly half are poor.

To improve educational and economic outcomes for the city’s Mexican youth the report recommends several policy interventions. They include targeting public assistance, food stamps and health support to neighborhoods with high concentrations of Mexican families; expansion of GED and English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs for young people who have not obtained their high school diploma; increasing the state minimum wage; and, passage of the Paid Sick Time Act which would provide basic protections for low-wage workers.

I’m a fan of the comedian Lewis Black.  In addition to being my age, he expresses my sense of almost complete loss of control at some of the more blatant instances of unfairness and stupidity that occur in the nation generally and in New York City in particular.

So I’m “channeling” Mr. Black when I look at the grossest forms of racism and economic discrimination that take place in the “elite” parts of New York City’s public education, running the gamut from the “gifted and talented” kindergarten programs which systematically exclude black and Latino 4 year-olds to the elite public high schools such as Stuyvesant where, in a student body of 3,300 young people, only 40 are African-American (“To Be Black at Stuyvesant High,” New York Times, February 25, 2012).  And the words coming to mind aren’t pretty.

In each case, the disparate admissions of blacks and Latinos are driven by the use of a single exam that has never been validated as predicting success in school.  No other factors are allowed to count.  Teacher assessments, academic achievement (farfetched for a 4 year-old), or the fact you come from an economically distressed household or community – none of these matters.

If that were the only problem, it would be bad enough, but it’s made much worse by the emergence of an entire “test prep” industry that is having a profound impact on test results while generating many millions in profits.  Test prep originally just focused on college and graduate school admission, but it now has spread to preparation for the city’s Specialized High School test and even for admission to the city’s “Gifted and Talented” kindergarten program.  It’s not just the time spent on cramming for unvalidated tests that rankles.  More troubling, the costs for taking these prep courses are staggering, well outside the reach of low-income New Yorkers. 

Our staff called a few of these test prep companies to get approximate costs: $1,350 for prepping a 4 year-old to take the “gifted and talented” test, and $1,500 and more for the Specialized High School admissions exam.  Considering that when we surveyed New Yorkers earlier this year for our annual Unheard Third report, half of low-income respondents said they have less than $500 in total savings and half living in unassisted housing report spending more than 50 percent of their income on rent alone, the virtual impossibility of spending over $1,000 on getting one’s 4 year-old ready for his or her Gifted and Talented test is patently obvious. 

Also, these test preps aren’t shown to make students any smarter; they just help them to score higher on the tests.   The same issue presents itself for college, as the SAT favors higher income students despite the fact that it doesn't actually do a great job of determining how well students do in college – grade point average is a much better determinant.  But, sadly, colleges rely more on tests, for which higher income families have more resources to prepare their children.

The impact on the racial (and I assume economic) composition of the Gifted and Talented program is made plain in a recent Wall Street Journal article.  The city reported that only 29 percent of students in these elite kindergarten programs were black and Hispanic, but they make up two-thirds of the overall elementary school population.  By responding that “[j]ust because they don’t qualify for gifted and talented, doesn’t mean they’re not getting a high-quality education” (“City Defends Gifted Policy,” Wall Street Journal, March 5, 2013), Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott doesn’t allay my fears that once again we seem to be slipping into an educational system supported by taxpayer dollars which favors those with the most resources.

In September of last year, the Community Service Society joined with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Center for Law and Social Justice at Medgar Evers College, and a host of education-focused groups in filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.  We challenged the city’s use of a single test that has never been validated as a predictor of academic success to determine admission to New York’s elite Specialized High Schools because this admissions process works to exclude black and Latino students.  This filing was met with outright hostility by Mayor Bloomberg, who was quoted as saying in response to the case that, in effect, life isn’t fair (“Bloomberg To Minorities Rejected By Elite High Schools: Life's Not Fair,” Gothamist.com, September 28, 2012).

Life continues not to be fair to blacks and Latinos under the mayor’s watch.  Late Friday afternoon, long after newspapers had been printed, the city revealed that the schools problem hadn’t improved but, in fact, has become substantially worse.  Of the 5,229 students accepted to the city’s eight Specialized High Schools this year, only 618 were black or Hispanic, a decline of nearly 16 percent in one year alone (“Fewer black and Hispanic students admitted to top high schools,” Gothamschools.org, March 15, 2013).  At this rate of decline, six years from now there will be no black and Hispanic students admitted at all.

Unlike comedian Lewis Black, whose routines are not for the timid, I will keep my comments printable, but I’m incensed by the both the exclusion of black and Latino 4 year-olds from “Gifted and Talented” kindergarten programs and the almost utter lack of blacks and Latinos at the city’s elite high schools for any number of reasons.  To use scarce public resources to reinforce unequal access to the best in public education seems a throwback to South African apartheid, not something we should strive for in this, the most racially diverse city in the world.

The test prep regime and its results have morphed into a matter of economic discrimination as well, since it’s evident that both of these test-centric admissions programs significantly advantage young people whose parents can afford the cramming programs that give them an overwhelming edge in scoring well on the standardized admission exams. 

We live in a city that in the last decade has reached the highest level of income inequality of any city in the nation (“Income Data Shows Widening Gap Between New York City’s Richest and Poorest,” New York Times, September 20, 2012).  It almost seems criminal to contribute to that problem by denying New Yorkers of limited means – many of whom are black or Latino – access to the best our public education system has to offer.

The Community Service Society’s Next Door Project (NDP) is looking for volunteers aged 55 and over to help fellow New Yorkers understand, clean up mistakes in and learn how to discuss their conviction histories when applying for employment and housing.  Specially trained by skilled attorneys and dedicated supervisory staff, our counselors find satisfaction in working to increase their clients’ ability to become self-sufficient, contributing members of their communities.  Many NDP counselors live in neighborhoods with high incarceration rates; all believe in second chances.

An estimated one in three New Yorkers has a criminal record.  Compounding the situation, an estimated 45 percent of New York State’s official Records of Arrest and Prosecution (“RAP sheets”) have at least one error. While nearly 70 percent of convictions are for low-level crimes—misdemeanors and violations, not felonies – even individuals with the least serious convictions find that no matter how long it has been since their involvement with the criminal justice system, they face barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities that hinder their ability to move ahead.  Effectively barred from fully participating in the economic and civic life of their communities, New Yorkers with conviction histories may feel discouraged and without hope.

NDP counselors help to change this reality.  With training and ongoing support from NDP staff and CSS attorneys, volunteers gain a basic understanding of New York criminal law, discover how to spot and fix mistakes on rap sheets, learn the truth about the real-life consequences of criminal convictions, and learn to educate individuals so that the words in their records are not the story of their lives. Working one-on-one with clients and with support of NDP staff, volunteers review RAP sheets for errors, inform clients how to fix the errors and help them do so if necessary, and make sure that clients fully understand their criminal records and are well prepared to discuss them in job interviews and applications for housing.  Clients also receive help obtaining a sample criminal background check maintained by a consumer credit reporting agency, so that they can review what an employer may typically see and correct errors if needed. In addition, volunteers determine whether clients are eligible for Certificates of Relief from Disabilities or Certificates of Good Conduct, official New York State documents that demonstrate rehabilitation and help clients in the application process.  Finally, volunteers have the satisfaction of knowing that they’ve made a significant difference in clients’ lives.

The Community Service Society (CSS) is an informed, independent, and unwavering voice for positive action on behalf of more than 3 million low-income New Yorkers. We draw on a 170-year history of excellence in addressing the root causes of economic disparity through research, advocacy, and innovative program models that strengthen and benefit all New Yorkers. In the process, CSS advances pragmatic, practical solutions – such as NDP – that strengthen and benefit our city and create opportunity and prosperity for all New Yorkers.

To learn more about the opportunity to volunteer with NDP, please call Hazel Beckles Young Lao, Project Director at 212 614 5556.  Please also call to reserve your seat at the NDP Information Session and Open House, to be held on Wednesday, April 3rd, 2013 from 9:30AM to 11:00AM at CSS, located at 105 E 22nd Street, 4th Floor, Conference Room 4A.  Refreshments will be served and your questions will be answered.  We look forward to seeing you there!

Overrepresentation in low-wage jobs and high rates of poverty mean Latinos have a greater need for paid sick leave

More than 450,000 Latino workers in New York City are unable to take even one paid day off when they or a family member becomes ill. In fact, of all the city’s ethnic and racial groups, Latinos are the least likely to have access to paid time off, in part because they are disproportionately employed in low-wage jobs that provide few, if any, basic benefits. 

These are among the findings of a new report by the Community Service Society (CSS) that examines the impact the lack of paid sick days is having on New York City’s Latino community, and what it means for their health, the financial security of their families and the health of the wider public. According to the report, “Latino New Yorkers Can’t Afford to Get Sick,” the widespread lack of access to paid sick days for Latinos can be attributed to three factors: their concentration in low-wage jobs; overrepresentation in certain industries with weak labor standards, including non-union construction and food services; and, the higher proportion of foreign-born workers among this population. 

“For a vast majority of the city’s low-income Latino workers, getting sick invariably means being forced to choose between the health concerns of themselves or their children, and holding onto their jobs,” said David R. Jones, President and CEO of the Community Service Society. “There is no justification for denying workers this most basic protection while helping to create more stable healthy workplaces.  It’s time to pass the Paid Sick Time Act.”

On Thursday, March 22, the City Council will hold a hearing on an amended version of the paid sick leave bill, which was first introduced in 2009. The bill calls for workers to earn five paid sick days a year. Workers in ‘Mom and Pop’ businesses employing fewer than five employees would not receive paid sick time, but they could not be fired for being sick up to five days a year.

Although passage of a paid sick leave bill would benefit all New Yorkers, it is the Latino community that is bearing a disproportionate brunt of the city’s inaction on this issue. Drawing on research from the Community Service Society’s annual Unheard Third survey of low-income New Yorkers, public health studies and the stories of Latino workers themselves who have lost wages, and in some cases their jobs, the report highlights the following key findings:

• Forty-seven percent of Latino workers in New York City lack paid sick days, the highest share of any racial or ethnic group.   Nearly two-thirds of low-income Latinos do not have access to paid sick days.  Latinos are overrepresented in low-wage occupations that provide few, if any benefits, such as food services, non-union construction, and retail trade.

• Fifty-six percent of Latinos live below 200 percent of the federal poverty level, including 31 percent of full-time working Latinos.  By comparison, only 7 percent of white full-time workers are below 200 percent of the federal poverty level.  

• Due to their lack of paid sick days, Latinos are the most likely group to go to work ill, send sick children to school, and visit emergency rooms because they can’t see a doctor during normal business hours.  Over half of low-income Latino workers without paid sick days reported going to work sick frequently or sometimes because they were worried about losing their pay or their job. 

• Latinos have the greatest health needs of all New Yorkers.  Latinos have the highest rates of asthma and diabetes, and are far more likely than any other group to report their health as being only fair or poor. 

• The Bronx, home to nearly one-third of the city’s Latino population, and where over half of the population is Latino, ranks dead last in health outcomes out of the 62 New York State counties, according to the County Health Rankings.   

• In addition to the 38 out of 51 City Council members who support paid sick days, 84 percent of Latinos support the paid sick days proposal, including nearly 7 out of 10 who favor it strongly.   

The cities of San Francisco, Washington D.C., Seattle and Portland, Oregon have already enacted paid sick day laws. Last year Connecticut became the first state to pass a paid sick days law. Research on the impact of San Francisco’s paid sick time requirement -- which is more wide-reaching in scope than the law proposed for New York City – found no evidence that the law had been detrimental to business.

The Unheard Third 2012 was conducted by the national polling firm Lake Research Partners for CSS, from July 8 to July 25, 2012. It surveyed 1,468 New York City residents (including 441 Latino residents) age 18 and older and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.7 percent. It is the only annual survey of low-income opinion in the nation. The poll is partially-funded through the support of The New York Community Trust.  CSS has used the survey to inform and guide its research, direct service programs and policy recommendations. It has served to narrow the focus of the agency’s agenda on the working poor and reinforce its belief that public policy aimed at this population must, in part, be guided by the life experiences and ideas of New Yorkers living in poverty. 

More than one million working New Yorkers lack even a single day of paid leave.

Watch a new video produced by CSS about the need for paid sick days legislation in New York City.

Visit www.cssny.org/paid-sick-days to learn more and take action.

Starvation funding from Washington, and the neglect of local and state government, have put NYCHA in a serious deficit position, with an operating shortfall of $60 million a year and a $7 billion backlog in major capital improvements. Residents are the prime casualties, who have to endure accelerating deterioration and long waits for needed repairs.

NYCHA’s Infill Program

To obtain the revenue it needs to maintain and preserve its public housing, NYCHA is launching the Infill Program, which leases available NYCHA land for private redevelopment: housing and school construction, commercial and retail facilities.  Eight Manhattan developments in “prime market” areas are now targeted — five in the Lower East Side, two in East Harlem, and one on the Upper West Side.  That is the first wave of what NYCHA describes as a growing program that will encompass developments across the boroughs.

Many questions need to be answered before the ink dries on plans and shovels are put into the ground.  What voice will residents and the community have in shaping these plans? Fortunately, no housing authority can dispose of its property without HUD approval of a Section 18 proposal, which requires “resident consultation” in the development of the plan. 

NYCHA is now staging resident meetings at the eight developments, but it is unclear how consultation will proceed and who in the community is included.  Advocates are urging resident leaders to obtain legal representation and any independent technical assistance they need to negotiate with NYCHA to assure any redevelopment addresses the interests of the community.

Part of the growing Infill controversy concerns the private housing to be built and the extent to which it is affordable.  NYCHA is proposing 80/20 housing; that is, high-end market rentals, except for 20 percent for household incomes up to $50,000 (for a family of four).  Income-mixing may be necessary to create the affordable units, but the 80 percent is not acceptable or consistent with NYCHA’s low-income housing mission.  The Authority must require that developers provide a higher proportion of units targeted at lower incomes comparable to public housing residents.

NYCHA estimates it will gain $30 to $50 million in annual revenue from leasing under the current Infill proposal.  That seems small when the mayor, with a stroke of his pen, could relieve NYCHA of nearly $100 million in annual payments to the city, most of it for special police services that are provided free of charge to private landlords.

Governing Board Changes

Recent criticism of the high-salaried NYCHA board has led Mayor Bloomberg to propose legislation in Albany that would radically change how the Authority is governed.  His bill has already been introduced by Keith Wright, Chair of the Assembly Housing Committee, and Martin Golden, Chair of the Senate Committee.

The bill calls for an expanded board of five volunteer members and a salaried chair, all appointed by the mayor.  Two members must be NYCHA residents.  However, all members would serve at the pleasure of the mayor.  This provision flies in the face of federal and state charters that established housing authorities to assure they enjoy a degree of independence from City Hall.  What promotes independence is that board members, except for the chair, are appointed for fixed terms and can be removed only for cause.  With this bill, any member who is not a rubber stamp can be removed by the mayor, like those on the Panel for Education Policy.  The bill would literally turn NYCHA over to whoever is elected mayor.

Public housing is too large and important a part of the city to allow it to be transformed, for better or worse, without substantial input from resident and community leaders.  The Community Service Society is sponsoring a mayoral candidate forum on Saturday, April 20th, that will focus entirely on NYCHA issues and the concerns of public housing residents.  It will be moderated by Michael Powell of The New York Times.  It is free to the public, but space is limited and we ask you to register either online at or call 212-614-5365.

CSS co-sponsored the event with 32BJ SEIU, The Center for Popular Democracy , City Limits, and United NY.  Here's a sampling of press coverage. 

View photo highlights.

Watch the entire forum here:

Check out our Voter Guide for more from the candidates on issues that emerged as key priorities among respondents to our 2012 annual survey of low-income New Yorkers, The Unheard Third.   

Stay tuned for details and sign-up info for our upcoming April forum, when mayoral hopefuls will respond to issues of top concern to our city's public housing residents. 

It’s time for the candidates for mayor to talk about the needs and concerns of low-income New Yorkers, including the problems of poverty.  Last week, the Community Service Society (CSS) co-sponsored the first of two forums for candidates for mayor.  The other sponsors were Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union, the Center for Popular Democracy and United New York.

We are holding these forums because we believe it is important for the future of the city that the voices of low-income New Yorkers be heard by the candidates for mayor.  One out of three voting age citizens in New York City — a huge potential bloc — lives in families with incomes below twice the federal poverty level of $47,100 for a family of four.  Their voices are too often ignored by candidates seeking public office.   

CSS conducts an annual survey of opinion of low-income New Yorkers.  In our latest survey, we found that New Yorkers — by more than a three-to-one margin — favor a mayor who supports policies that help working New Yorkers and their families get ahead over a mayor who supports policies that make New York City a good place to do business.

New Yorkers believe that the way for working families to get ahead is by raising the floor for low-paying jobs, attracting more middle-skilled jobs to the city, and ensuring that young people have the education they need to fill those better-paying jobs.

New Yorkers don’t buy the argument put forward by the business elite that putting their interests first is the key to a prosperous city.  Wall Street and the big banks, bailed out by the taxpayers, are making lots of money again.  Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers have gotten nothing since a dime increase in the minimum wage in 2009 and face wealthy corporate and political leaders so mean-spirited they would deny them the right to even five paid sick days a year.

We should be raising the floor for low-wage workers with a higher minimum wage, indexed to inflation and requiring employers to provide at least five paid sick days to their workers.

The next administration should invest in infrastructure on a massive scale to address the needs made even more apparent by Superstorm Sandy.  Now is exactly the right moment, with a slack labor market, historically low interest rates and post-Sandy rebuilding funds, to upgrade our power and transportation
systems to withstand extreme weather events and meet 21st century needs.

We found almost universal support for creating jobs by upgrading subways, public housing, schools and parks.  These projects can provide good-paying jobs to unemployed skilled tradespeople and create new apprenticeships for low-income New Yorkers and young people with few prospects. 

We should be filling the pipeline to better-paying jobs with well-educated high school graduates.  We found a broad consensus for ramping up the quality and quantity of career and technical education and opening our public senior colleges more widely to groups who have been left out.

These are the issues we believe the 2013 elections should be about.  The next mayoral forum is scheduled for Saturday, April 20.  The topic will be affordable housing – how best to ensure that low-income families have the ability to live in the city where they work.

David R. Jones, Esq., is president and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for 170 years.  For over 10 years he served as a member of the board of directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.  The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer.

Today, at the Corinthian Baptist Church, we are holding the first of two forums where candidates for mayor address the issues affecting low-income New Yorkers.  This forum is sponsored by the Community Service Society, Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union, the Center for Popular Democracy and United New York.

We are holding these forums because we believe it is important for the future of the city that the voices of low-income New Yorkers be heard by the candidates for mayor.  One out of three voting age citizens in New York City — a huge potential bloc — lives in families with incomes below twice the federal poverty level of $47,100 for a family of four.  Their voices are too often ignored by candidates seeking public office.  

New York has the greatest gap between rich and poor of any state in the nation. In New York City, the stark disparity in income is even more pronounced: the top fifth earns an average of $223,000 while the bottom fifth struggles on a median income of $9,000, ratio of more than 24 to 1.

In New York City, 1.6 million people live below the federal poverty line ($23,550 for a family of four).  There are about 177,000 young people, ages 16 to 24, who are neither worker nor in school.  And there are 1.3 million New Yorkers (18 and older) without a high school diploma.

Low-Wage Opinions

The Community Service Society conducts an annual survey of opinion of low-income New Yorkers.  In our latest survey, we asked about the upcoming mayoral election.  We found that New Yorkers of all income levels want the next mayor to support policies that help families get ahead, raise wages and benefits, expand affordable housing, and create jobs that provide a path to the middle class.

New Yorkers — by more than a three-to-one margin — favor a mayor who supports policies that help working New Yorkers and their families get ahead over a mayor who supports policies that make New York City a good place to do business.

New Yorkers believe that the way for working families to get ahead is by raising the floor for low-paying jobs, attracting more middle-skilled jobs to the city, and ensuring that young people have the education they need to fill those better-paying jobs.

New Yorkers don’t buy the argument put forward by the business elite that putting their interests first is the key to a prosperous city.  Wall Street and the big banks, bailed out by the taxpayers, are making tons of money again.  Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of low-wage workers have gotten nothing since a dime increase in the minimum wage in 2009 and face wealthy corporate and political leaders so mean-spirited they would deny them the right to even five paid sick days a year.

There is strong support from low-income New Yorkers — and broad agreement from those across the income spectrum — for a set of policies that everyone sees moving the city in a positive direction of growing and shared prosperity.

Policy Agenda

• Raising the floor for low-wage workers with a higher minimum wage, indexed to inflation and requiring employers to provide at least five paid sick days to their workers

• Pursuing strategies to bring more middle-skilled jobs to the city to broaden the economic and tax base and complement initiatives that promise to make the city a world class center for high tech industries

• Investing in infrastructure on a massive scale to address the needs made even more apparent by Superstorm Sandy.  Now is exactly the right moment, with a slack labor market, historically low interest rates and post-Sandy rebuilding funds, to upgrade our power and transportation systems to withstand extreme weather events and meet 21st century needs.

We found almost universal support for creating jobs by upgrading subways, public housing, schools and parks.  These projects can provide good-paying jobs to unemployed skilled tradespeople and create new apprenticeships for low-income New Yorkers and young people with few prospects.

• Filling the pipeline to better-paying jobs with well-educated graduates.  New Yorkers want to put more resources into schools serving our poorest students so they can receive a first-rate education and the support they need to learn. 

We found a broad consensus for ramping up the quality and quantity of career and technical education and opening our public senior colleges more widely to groups who have been left out.  And New Yorkers want to put at least as much effort into persuading young people about the importance of finishing high school as we do persuading them not to smoke.

• Making a new commitment to affordable housing, on the scale needed so those who work here can afford to live here.

These are the issues we believe the 2013 elections should be about.  Let’s hear from the candidates themselves on these and other issues of concern to low-income New Yorkers.

The Community Service Society (CSS), in partnership with Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union, the Center for Popular Democracy, and United New York, is sponsoring a mayoral forum, which will be held on Thursday, February 28.  We have invited every announced and presumptive candidate for mayor to participate.

There are several specific issues of concern to low-income New Yorkers that we would like to hear the candidates discuss.

Improving Technical Skills

With a graduation rate that still hovers around 50 percent for blacks and Latinos, with few achieving a Regents diploma, there is a lack of the technical skills necessary to compete for jobs that pay well.  To be ready for a career in our labor market, students who are not going on to college need to be able to integrate technical knowledge and skills with core academic knowledge.  In our changing economy, even the most technical job today requires basic literate and numeric skills.

Currently, the city offers programs in career and technical education (CTE), once known as vocational education.  Students graduating from these courses should be entering a pipeline to well-paying jobs through apprenticeship programs in various industries. 

In many cases, this means bringing in trade unions as a partner to the educational process.  Unfortunately, the history of some of these unions has been to exclude people of color.  Given the fact that over 70 percent of the city’s high school students are black or Latino and, thus, are likely to form the overwhelming number of CTE students, this potential roadblock to work after school must be closely monitored by the city.

Expanding Affordable Housing

Too many low-income New Yorkers pay rents they cannot afford, placing them at risk of eviction and homelessness.  That is why our next mayor needs to expand affordable housing opportunities as well as preserve our assisted housing resources. 

Public housing — 179,000 units in 340 developments — is a major, irreplaceable part of the city’s housing infrastructure.  Due to continuing starvation funding, it is at serious risk of deterioration and insolvency.  Regrettably, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is planning to lease its underutilized real estate — not existing public housing — for private redevelopment to realize revenues it needs to operate and catch up with repairs and major improvements. 

The next mayor must see that resulting development of mixed-income housing is targeted to low-income households rather than market rentals, and that current NYCHA residents agree that redevelopment plans will enhance their communities.

Worker Benefits

Workers in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Connecticut have mandated paid sick leave.  Their economies haven’t tanked.  It’s time for New York City to institute paid sick leave for all workers as a benefit, particularly important to low-wage working women of color and to protect public health.  

Governor Cuomo has stated that he wants to increase the state’s minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $8.75.  Currently, a minimum wage worker in New York earns poverty wages; about $15,080 for someone working full-time, year-round.  That is not enough to put a family of three above the federal poverty threshold of $17,916.  A minimum wage increase is long overdue.

Thanks to Pastor Michael A. Walrond Jr., the forum will be held at the First Corinthian Baptist Church, 1912 Seventh Avenue (Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Blvd.).  His church has made significant contributions to the community.  The forum will be moderated by Brian Lehrer of WNYC.  It is free to the public but, because of space concerns, we ask that you register either online at www.cssny.org/forum, or call 212-614-5365.

David R. Jones, Esq., is president and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for 170 years.  For over 10 years he served as a member of the board of directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.  The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer.

On the important issue of public housing, the mayor correctly pointed out that inadequate funding of the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has hurt the Authority’s ability to meet all of its operating and capital needs. The situation is expected to get even worse when Washington tackles deficit reduction.

For his part, the mayor promised not to “walk away” from the city’s public housing. But he did not offer any funding relief to NYCHA, or even to terminate the $100 million in annual payments the Authority makes to the city largely for policing ($75 million), which he could do with the stroke of a pen. Instead, he said NYCHA would “develop new housing at under-developed” sites around the city, a plan that is already stirring controversy in NYCHA communities.

Before the mayor’s 320 days in office expire, we urge him to consider taking some definitive steps to improve the job prospects of public housing residents. Among other efforts, the city should ensure that resulting construction and capital improvements maximize job and training opportunities for low-income public housing residents.

We know the mayor cares deeply about the city. To his credit, he has focused much-needed attention on public health issues.  And through his `Young Men’s Initiative’ city agencies are coordinating efforts to help black and Latino young men in the areas of education, employment, health and the criminal justice system.  However, in helping the most vulnerable New Yorkers find a way out of poverty, there remains much work ahead.

• one in five residents struggling to survive on income below the poverty level
• income inequality greater than any other urban center
• more than 50,000 mostly black and Latino young people who have left school without a diploma or a job
• thousands of New Yorkers struggling to support their families on low-wage, non-union jobs
• 348,000 unemployed New Yorkers, many of whom have been jobless for more than a year
• 350,000 (1 of 5) renters pay at least half their incomes for housing

To focus on these and other issues of concern to low-income New Yorkers, the Community Service Society (CSS), in partnership with Local 32BJ of the Service Employees International Union, the Center for Popular Democracy, and United New York, is sponsoring the forum, which will be held on Thursday, February 28.  We have invited every announced and presumptive candidate for mayor to participate.

There are three specific issues of concern to low-income New Yorkers that we would like to hear the candidates discuss: (1) how to strengthen the linkage between education and jobs for our young people; (2) whether the latest public housing plan for mixed income units will generate sufficient income for more affordable housing; and (3) the candidates’ stand on the extension of job benefits to support low-wage workers.

Linking Education to Jobs

In New York City, with a graduation rate that still hovers around 50 percent for blacks and Latinos, with few achieving a Regents diploma - which is accepted as the minimum needed to really compete for higher wage, higher skilled jobs – there is a  lack of the technical skills necessary to compete for jobs that pay well.

To be ready for a career in our labor market, students who are not going on to college need to be able to integrate technical knowledge and skills with core academic knowledge.  In our changing economy, even the most technical job today requires basic literate and numeric skills.

Vocational education, now known as career and technical education (CTE), was once a separate “track” in our high schools.  Presently, the city offers programs in its CTE schools in many areas.  Students graduating from these courses should be entering a pipeline to well-paying jobs through apprenticeship programs in various industries. 

In many cases, this means bringing in trade unions as a partner to the educational process.  Unfortunately, the history of some of these unions has been to exclude people of color.  Given the fact that over 70 percent of the city’s high school students are black or Latino and, thus, are likely to form the overwhelming number of CTE students, this potential roadblock to work after school must be closely monitored by the city.  

  Affordable Housing

In a city with a tight, high-cost rental market, too many low-income New Yorkers pay rents they cannot afford, placing them at risk of eviction and homelessness.  That is why our next mayor needs to expand affordable housing opportunities as well as preserve our assisted housing resources.  Public housing —179,000 units in 340 developments — is a major, irreplaceable part of the city’s housing infrastructure.  Due to continuing starvation funding, it is at serious risk of deterioration and insolvency.  Regrettably, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) is planning to lease its underutilized real estate — not existing public housing — for private redevelopment to realize revenues it needs to operate and catch up with repairs and major improvements.  The next mayor must see that resulting development of mixed-income housing is targeted to low-income households rather than market rentals, and that current NYCHA residents agree that redevelopment plans will enhance their communities. 

Support for Workers

The local battle for paid sick leave has been brewing for several years.  Both Mayor Bloomberg and Council President Quinn have opposed legislation in the Council to mandate paid sick leave for workers in New York City.  Workers in San Francisco, Washington, D.C., and Connecticut have mandated paid sick leave.  Their economies haven’t tanked.  It’s time for New York City to institute paid sick leave for all workers as a benefit, particularly important to low-wage working women of color and to protect public health.

In his State of the State Address, Governor Cuomo stated that he wants to increase the state’s minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $8.75.  Currently, a minimum wage worker in New York City earns poverty wages; about $15,080 for someone working full-time, year-round.  That is not enough to put a family of three above the federal poverty threshold of $17,916.  A minimum wage increase is long overdue.

The forum will be moderated by Brian Lehrer of WNYC.  It is free to the public but, because of space concerns, we ask that you register either online at www.cssny.org/forum, or call 212-614-5365.

In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police nearly 700,000 times.  Many young black and Latino men were stopped multiple times.  These 700,000 encounters can’t all have been supported by the legally required “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.”  Arrests rarely followed.

The police contend that stopping and frisking thousands of black and brown New Yorkers is a necessary crime fighting tool and that it has contributed to the decrease in crime statistics.  But the massive number of stops and the relatively small number of resulting arrests or summonses mean that tens of thousands of innocent people of color are being stopped for no good reason.  And crime has decreased across the country, not just in places with stop-and-frisk policies. 

The NYPD needs to end this practice now.  Repeat stop-and-frisk encounters foster an antagonistic relationship between the police – who are ostensibly there to protect residents – and the community, which sees itself under siege.

The Bronx district attorney’s office no longer prosecutes people stopped for trespassing unless the police can show that the arrests were warranted.  Many of these arrests were made in public housing developments or under the NYPD’s Clean Halls program.  Some people were arrested in buildings where they actually live. 

In March 2012, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Bronx Defenders, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Ligon v. City of New York) on behalf of the residents of buildings whose landlords have enrolled them in the Clean Halls program and people who were stopped and arrested on trespassing charges through the program.

In January 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the practice of performing trespass stops outside private buildings without reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed is illegal.  She found that for years the NYPD knew or should have known that its officers routinely violated people’s constitutional rights.  The judge has allowed these stops to continue pending an appeal by the city to her decision.  This is standard procedure.  Last May, Judge Scheindlin certified a class of plaintiffs in Floyd, et.al. v. City of New York, a lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights to outlaw stop-and-frisk completely.

The police explain the racially disproportionate number of stops by saying that black and Latino men commit a disproportionate number of crimes in the city.  But what it really reflects is the difference in policing between white neighborhoods and communities of color.  The majority of those incarcerated in New York’s state prisons are black and Latino drug users.  This is true even though we know that drug usage by whites is greater than by blacks or Latinos.  But arrests that reflect this reality don’t follow.

The constitutionality of street stops was upheld in a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio, where the court ruled that “reasonable suspicion” was the minimum threshold needed to justify a police search.  But how can the NYPD justify nearly 700,000 stops on this basis?  Apparently, a large percentage of the city’s population is composed of suspicious characters, the overwhelming number of them people of color.
  
We cannot allow unconstitutional police conduct that divides us along racial lines, sows distrust, has the potential to result in an explosion of violence, and, in fact, does little to fight crime in communities of color.  This policy must end now.

David R. Jones, Esq., is president and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for 170 years.  For over 10 years he served as a member of the board of directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.  The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer.

The police contend that stopping and frisking thousands of black and brown New Yorkers is a necessary crime fighting tool and that it has contributed to the decrease in crime statistics.  But the massive number of stops and the relatively small number of resulting arrests or summonses mean that tens of thousands of innocent people of color are being stopped for no good reason.  And crime has decreased across the country, not just in places with stop-and-frisk policies.  The NYPD needs to end this practice now.

In 2011, New Yorkers were stopped by the police nearly 700,000 times.  Many young black and Latino men, in particular, were stopped multiple times.  These 700,000 encounters can’t all have been supported by the legally required “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot”: arrests rarely followed.  So something else was at work. 

This is the sort of activity that could be expected of the police of an occupying force.  That’s how the NYPD is viewed by many New Yorkers living in Harlem, Bedford Stuyvesant, the South Bronx, and other communities of color.  Repeat stop-and-frisk encounters foster an antagonistic relationship between the police – who are ostensibly there to protect residents – and the community, which sees itself under siege.

Legal Battles

Legal efforts are underway to end this bullying practice.  Last year, the Bronx district attorney’s office decided that it would no longer prosecute people stopped for trespassing unless the police could show that the arrests were warranted.  Many of these arrests were made in public housing developments or under the NYPD’s Clean Halls program.  Some people were arrested in buildings where they actually live. 

In March 2012, the New York Civil Liberties Union, the Bronx Defenders, and LatinoJustice PRLDEF filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Ligon v. City of New York) on behalf of both the residents of buildings whose landlords have enrolled them in the Clean Halls program and on behalf of people who were stopped and arrested on trespassing charges through the program. 

In January 2013, U.S. District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin ruled that the practice of performing trespass stops outside private buildings without reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed is illegal.  She found that for years the NYPD knew or should have known that its officers routinely violated constitutional rights through Operation Clean Halls, and that the practice of baseless stops and frisks “ha[d] risen to the level of deliberate indifference.”  The judge has allowed these stops to continue pending an appeal by the city to her decision.  This is standard procedure.  Judge Scheindlin is no stranger to the NYPD’s practices.  Last May, she certified a class of plaintiffs in Floyd, et.al. v. City of New York, a lawsuit brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights to outlaw stop-and-frisk completely.

Neighborhoods under Siege

The police explain the racially disproportionate number of stops by saying they simply reflect evidence that black and Latino men commit a disproportionate number of crimes in New York City.  But what it really reflects is the difference in policing between white neighborhoods and communities of color:  police presence is qualitatively and quantitatively different in predominately white areas of the city. 

This sort of policing leads to racially skewed results.  The majority of those incarcerated in New York’s state prisons are black and Latino drug users.  This is true even though we know that drug usage by whites is greater than by blacks or Latinos.  But arrests that reflect this reality don’t follow.

The constitutionality of street stops was upheld in a 1968 U.S. Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio, where the court ruled that “reasonable suspicion” of criminal activity afoot or already committed was the minimum threshold needed to justify a police search.  But how can the NYPD justify nearly 700,000 stops on this basis?  It defies common sense.  Apparently, a large percentage of the city’s population is composed of suspicious characters, the overwhelming number of them people of color.  

We cannot allow unconstitutional police conduct that divides us along racial lines, sows distrust, has the potential to result in an explosion of violence, and, in fact, does little to fight crime in communities of color.  This policy must end now.

In the midst of one of the worst flu seasons in years, doctors, nurses, workers without paid sick days, and elected officials gathered on the steps of City Hall January 18th to call on City Council Speaker Christine Quinn to bring the Paid Sick Time bill to a vote. One worker recounted how he was fired when he missed a day of work because of the flu.  The City Council’s newly elected member, Andy King of the Bronx, announced that he was signing on to the bill, bringing the number of supporters to 37 out of 51 Council Members. But despite that veto-proof majority, and widespread support from 83 percent of New Yorkers polled, the Speaker has still not allowed a vote on the measure.  CSS research shows that over a million New Yorkers—including 62 percent of low-income workers—are without paid sick days. They are forced to work sick or lose the paychecks and jobs they desperately need.

Watch highlights from the rally: 

Learn more at www.cssny.org/paid-sick-days.

In his annual State of the State Address, Governor Cuomo lent his support in favor of raising the state’s hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.75.  New York’s minimum wage is currently lower than 19 states and the District of Columbia.  Adjusted for inflation, the value of the current state and federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is actually lower than the minimum wage in 1980.  The minimum wage of $3.10 in 1980 would be worth roughly $8.70 today.

The governor’s address comes after a year in which members in the state legislature proposed an increase to $8.50 an hour with annual adjustments each year for inflation.  It is estimated that raising the hourly minimum wage from $7.25 to $8.50 would benefit more than one million residents in the state, including over 350,000 New York City workers who currently make less than the proposed new minimum wage.  The governor’s proposal will not immediately lift all of the working poor out of poverty, but it is the most sensible place to start.

Low-wage workers are not only falling further behind those with higher incomes, but too many are struggling to get by and support their families despite working full-time jobs.  The Community Service Society’s annual “Unheard Third” survey has been tracking the hardships experienced by low-income New Yorkers.  In the latest survey, we found that among the working poor, 43 percent reported experiencing three or more hardships in the past year – including falling behind in rent or mortgage payments, postponing getting medical care or filling a prescription because of a lack of money or insurance, and often skipping meals because there wasn’t enough money to buy food. 

These are not people on welfare.  These are New Yorkers working full time.
    
New Yorkers have voiced strong and widespread support for raising the state minimum wage.  According to CSS’s “Unheard Third” poll - the only survey of low-income opinion in the nation - 88 percent of New Yorkers favor an increase to $8.50 an hour, with adjustments each year for inflation.  Seventy-eight percent strongly support raising it, a stance that cuts across all income levels and party affiliations. 

Opponents are sounding the usual alarm bells about how the increased cost for business would harm the economy and small businesses.  However, the widespread support of a minimum wage increase recognizes the reality that, far from hurting small businesses, an infusion of cash into the pockets of those who will spend it will actually boost the economy.  

Help for low-income working families is long overdue.  When the economy collapsed during the latest recession, the government stepped in to bail out the financial institutions that were largely responsible for the crisis.  However, those among the hardest hit by the recession, low-wage workers with reduced hours and job insecurity, are still waiting for a little help. 

CSS’s policy brief, “The Case for Raising New York State’s Minimum Wage,” is available here.

David R. Jones, Esq., is president and CEO of the Community Service Society (CSS), the leading voice on behalf of low-income New Yorkers for 170 years.  For over 10 years he served as a member of the board of directors of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund.  The views expressed in this column are solely those of the writer.