Budget Craziness

whynot_31

Broken Promises and Bad Policy: Nonprofits Fight Governor’s Veto of Discretionary Funding (from NY Nonprofit Press)

Human service advocates and providers gathered in both Albany and New York City this morning to highlight the damage to nonprofit agencies and programs resulting from Governor Paterson’s veto of discretionary funding appropriated by the Legislature.

Three weeks ago, Governor Paterson vetoed discretionary funding that many non-profits receive to provide critical services. These vetoes eliminated committed funds that were appropriated in previous years that many not-for-profits were depending on and had already budgeted. In addition, the Governor has blocked efforts to appropriate new legislative discretionary funding – an estimated $180 million that nonprofits rely on to support programming – in this year’s budget which began on April 1st.

Advocates have a three part message for the Governor and lawmakers.

First, they argue that discretionary funding, typically maligned in the press as “pork” or “slush funds”, actually is a critical source of support for a wide range of essential and highly-valued human service programs.

Second, they claim that the governor’s veto of discretionary appropriations which were approved, but not yet paid out, in prior year budgets represents a “broken promise” and “breach of trust”. Nonprofits, they say, are being left holding the bag for millions of dollars worth of expenses for services that were already provided.

Finally, the Governor and legislative leaders need to resume negotiations to resolve the State’s budget crisis and find a way to restore funding for services to the most vulnerable New Yorkers, say advocates.


“Discretionary Funding Isn’t Pork”

“These funds are not pork,” said Ron Deutsch, Executive Director of New Yorkers for Fiscal Fairness, at the Albany press conference. “It is a disservice to these programs and services to continue to call them pork. The vetoed items are critically important services in communities throughout this state which were allocated in previous budgets.”

"Over the years, a failure to adequately reimburse human service agencies for the true costs associated with doing business has resulted in our members becoming extremely creative in obtaining funds,” said Lauri Cole, Executive Director, New York State Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare. “Member items often fund necessities including roof repairs on older buildings were a mental health program is located, or the expansion of a satellite program into a remote location within a community where services would otherwise not be available."

“Without this funding, our ability to serve over 4,000 victims each month is sharply curtailed,” said Lucia Rivieccio, LCSW, Director of Manhattan-based STEPS to End Family Violence. “Life-saving services such as crisis counseling, safety planning, and legal advocacy are critical to victims of domestic violence and prevent greater future cost for shelter, medical services, public assistance, legal services, and workplace productivity. Every $1 spent on domestic violence services saves $10 in future medical, employment, mental health, shelter, and safety-related expenses."

“The Governor's vetoes for member items will impact vital programs and services provided to low-income New Yorkers across this state,” said Denise Harlow, President and CEO of the NYS Community Action Association. “These funds are vital resources that are used to fill gaps and provide needed services.”

Contrary to the common image of small, individual grants to community organizations, much discretionary funding represent significant legislative initiatives to address human service needs, say providers.

In the area of HIV/AIDS services, for example, they argue that the Governor’s vetoes will have a devastating impact on core programming. “The Governor is taking away funding that has been allocated to health and human service programs for many years in a row,” says Sharon Duke, Executive Director of the AIDS Service Center of New York City. “These allocations have functionally been incorporated into our base funding.” Duke estimates that her agency could lose as much as $250,000 – more than a quarter of its core State funding. It is this financial foundation which supports a wide range of additional services based on Medicaid and other state and federal funding streams. Without this financial base, the agency’s entire funding structure becomes uncertain.

“Broken Promises”

“The State needs to make good on their promises of funding," said Michael Stoller, Executive Director of the Human Services Council, at the New York City rally. “The Governor’s vetoes cut funding not only to current and future programs, but take away funding that was already allocated to not-for-profits.”

“For the Governor to veto re-appropriated funds is unheard of,” said Deutsch.

“The vetoes will result in the loss of more than $100,000 anticipated by Catholic Charities of Brooklyn and nearly $80,000 for Catholic Charities of Albany,” said Earl Eichelberger, Director for Catholic Charities at the NYS Catholic Conference. “Additionally, over 150 parish-based programs, which had been assured of funding in last year’s budget will not receive a penny of those funds, if these vetoes stand.”

Educational Alliance could potentially lose as much as $600,000 in funding for services it has already provided. “That is money we have already spent for services we have actually performed,” says CEO Robin Bernstein. “We submitted all our contract paperwork almost a year ago.” The Governor’s vetoes would leave Educational Alliance unreimbursed for these expenses, unless individual state agencies like the Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) can successfully process its extraordinary backlog of contracts – get them approved by the State Comptroller and Attorney General – and then make payment on outstanding invoices … all by September 15th. “We are hoping,” says Bernstein.

Time to Act

“The unnecessary delay in passing a state budget is not simply a political inconvenience for lawmakers,” said Brittany R. Allen, Executive Director of the New York AIDS Coalition. “It is a potential catastrophe with real human costs. In this time of fiscal uncertainty in Albany, social service agencies are forced to slash programs just to stay afloat, while some are on the brink of going out of business all together. New Yorkers in need of those services are finding themselves without a safety net to assist them in their most critical hour.”

The State legislature is expected to come back into session this week to continue working on the budget, which is already fifteen weeks past due. Representatives of the rally are planning a week of State actions and public events to give thousands of New Yorkers a platform to be heard during budget negotiations.

“Our leaders need to restore these funds and maintain their commitments to needy New Yorkers and the organizations that serve them,” said Deutsch.

Both the Governor and the Legislature must reconsider the cuts made through the Governor’s veto of various legislative adds and rectify their elimination,” said Carmelita Cruz, Esq. of Housing Works.

whynot_31

I posted this b/c we have a few issues here:

1. The RFP process is cumbersome and poorly managed. It causes non-profits and government to try to circumvent the process thru the use of discretionary funds. The smart non-profits get to get $ with very little accountability. "it's not a contact with the state, its a donation from the state"

2. It is one thing to say "there will be no more discretionary funds going forward", but entirely another to retract awards that have been promised, yet not delivered. Non-profits successfully begged for these awards, and are counting on the money that they were promised.

3. If we are going to get rid of this fraud ridden, influence peddling perk known as "Discretionary Awards" that is presently available to politicians, are we going to replace it with something else? How will politicians be able to show that they are bringing home the bacon to their home districts if we get rid of this?

4. Could we reform the RFP process instead? ....probably not. Real reform would allocate available funds on the basis of population and need, which would be opposed by all of the folks that live in districts (ahem, many upstate, ahem) that get state funds for social services that (how do I say it) "don't have a clear justification". The upstate representative would never agree to such a reform.

boygabriel

Thank you for posting this and your thoughts. Very interesting and disappointing, to say the least.