Fulfilling the Promise of Opportunity
Donate
FPWA Analysis

FY 2025
New York City
Budget Analysis

On June 30, 2024, New York City passed its budget for fiscal year 2025 (FY25). While the $112.4 B budget is the biggest adopted in New York City history, the human services sector had mixed success in averting proposed cuts to vital services.

In a familiar dance, the series of cuts as part of the “Program to Eliminate the Gap” (PEG) were made in the name of fiscal responsibility, however history has shown that they only create undue strain on an already overworked and undervalued human services sector.

We are pleased that some of the proposed cuts were restored thanks to the tireless work of those championing the human services sector, including proposed cuts to affordable housing, libraries, and cultural services. Despite this, cuts to the Department of Social Services, CUNY, and parks risk further stifling economic security and well-being for New Yorkers.

In this analysis we explore what this means for our city’s human services sector, and for the economic security of millions of New Yorkers.

Read the full analysis

What it means for human services funding

Hover over the icon below to find out more

The FY25 budget cuts funding for 5 human services agencies, plus CUNY, DOE and Parks compared to the FY24 modified budget.
Find out more >

What it means for New Yorkers

Hover over an icon below to find out more

Housing

Positive investments in housing could be undermined by the city’s shelter eviction policies, and sufficient funding for CCHR to protect the CityFHEP housing voucher program.
Find out more >

Income Supports

The budget reduces funding to DSS by 9%, failing to address the high rates of denials for benefits and exacerbating the persistent administrative barriers.
Find out more >

Food Security

Funding for SNAP administration and other key programs falls short of what is needed.
Find out more >

Civil Rights Enforcement

New York City Commission on Human Rights receives much funding increase, which may be insufficient to keep up with the volume of discrimination claims it receives.
Find out more >

Education

City makes up the shortfall for several programs impacting by expiring federal COVID-19 funding, but CUNY misses out again.
Find out more >

Parks & Culture

Libraries and cultural institutions receive funding boost, but funding for Parks continues to slide.
Find out more >

New New Yorkers

The lack of coordination by the city amongst city agencies, contractors, and advocates and inflexibility of city programs undercuts that impact of asylum seeker funding.
Find out more >

Overall Analysis of FY25 Budget

After months of negotiation, the Council and Mayor agreed to a $112.4B balanced budget.  FPWA applauds the restoration of crucial funding to programs initially targeted for cuts, securing key investments in vital services for our city. But despite its size, the budget missed key opportunities to advance the economic security of New Yorkers, cutting funding to agencies that provide vital human services.

Economic pessimism threatened the city with steep austerity conditions, due to projections of reduced revenue as a result of a slowing economy and higher than average costs for additional services to asylum seekers. In light of these projections, the Administration considered mid-year cuts across agencies in the “Program to Eliminate the Gap”.

Yet despite this, the economy surpassed fiscal forecasts, with the city’s revenue outperforming projections and asylum seeker costs below OMB’s estimates. In the end, rather than a fiscal shortfall in FY24, New York City enjoyed a $3.8 B surplus. Projections by the IBO and City Council showed that city’s revenue projections were conservative and risked bringing about a self-fulfilling prophecy, where reduced government spending leads to further economic insecurity. Lower spending on social services has dire consequences to the city’s economy: it can lower employment, deepen poverty, and incentivize outmigration. While we acknowledge the uncertainty in any economic forecasts, we assert that the cuts were premature, and put the city at risk.

Human Services Do Not Receive Fair Share of Funding in Budget

While the FY25 adopted budget is large, many budget cuts were not fully restored from the last fiscal year, leaving New Yorker’s needs unmet. This is particularly apparent for agencies that provide human services, which have historically been undervalued in the budget process, as shown by FPWA’s New York City Funds Tracker.

Major funding was restored or increased to the Department of Aging (DFTA), Housing and Preservation Department (HPD), the Department of Homeless Services (DHS), the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCLA), and public libraries.

Yet, despite the importance of these restorations, most of the city’s human service agencies baseline funding is lower than last year’s spending levels. 

While the $112.4 B budget represents an increase of 5% over the FY24 adopted budget, looking at how much was actually spent last year tells a different story. In this analysis, we compare the FY25 adopted budget with the FY24 modified budget, which reflects the most up to date estimate of actual expenditures in FY24. When comparing the FY25 adopted budget to FY24 spending, the FY25 adopted budget in fact shows a 2.5% reduction in funding year-over-year, with some human service agencies facing budget reductions of over 15%.

These shortfalls reflect the practice of continually underbudgeting expenses. Adopted budgets regularly do not meet known needs and expenses. Instead, Administrations often rely on the modified budget process, when tax revenue projections are updated, to allocate additional funding for needs. But even with the opportunity to secure additional funding, uncertain funding levels undermine efficient budgeting for agency operations because agencies are unsure about the amount of additional funding that will be secured, hampering their ability to plan effectively for the fiscal year.  

Underbudgeting and Under Staffing: Budget impacts on administration

The practice of underbudgeting as seen in FY25’s budget, compounds complex, administrative challenges, in particular staffing. Municipal staff are the backbone of government. They provide direct services, process applications for assistance, and ensure the operation and strategic direction of its services. To this end, agency staffing levels have a direct impact on the quality and timeliness of services available to New Yorkers.

Over the past budget cycle, agency staffing has suffered with hiring freezes and vacancy reductions instituted in the name of fiscal responsibility. From delivering meals to older adults, to processing Cash Assistance applications, the resulting shortage of municipal workers has touched almost every aspect of life in the city. In response to this crisis, we were pleased to see the Mayor end the hiring freeze and announce the new ‘Jobs NYC’ initiative. The new initiative includes strategies to help fill these vacancies and there was anticipation that this modestly increased staffing would be reflected in the FY25 budget. However, despite the promise of this new initiative, there are further staffing reductions proposed across key agencies. Our analysis of agencies relevant to the human services sector shows that only 3 agencies project an increase in staff, while 10 others experience staffing reductions. These staffing changes should be considered in light of increasing demand for city services, such as processing applications for income supports and the city’s legal obligation to reduce classroom sizes.

Looking closer at the agencies expecting staffing reductions reveals that the Department for the Aging (DFTA), and the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (DHMH) are expecting the largest proportional decrease in their staffing levels. These agencies face a staffing reduction of 4.6% and 4.2% respectively.

These staffing cuts will hurt the City’s ability to meet the growing need for services. For example, DFTA must meet the growing needs of the population of adults ages 65 and older. In New York State, this population is expected to increase by over 25% between 2021 and 2040. Without proper funding, it will become more difficult to remain a life-long New Yorker and enjoy all the benefits of aging in place.

Moreover, it should be noted that staffing reductions in the FY25 budget do not capture the extent of city workforce shortages. City workforce remains below pre-pandemic levels, worsened by the hiring freeze and cuts in the PEG.

Impact on contracted workforce

The budget not only affects municipal workers but also workers from human services organizations who hold contracts with the city.

We were pleased earlier this year when the Mayor announced a long-awaited cost-of-living adjustment for our city’s vital human services workers. Over the next three years, the city’s budget will see a nearly 9.27% increase in wages for human services workers contracted by the city.

While we celebrate the impact of this announcement, we know that the work is far from over. Human services workers play a vital role in serving millions of New Yorkers daily and deserve compensation that reflects the value they bring to the city. They are the backbone of childcare centers, food pantries, shelters, domestic violence shelters, and clinics across our state. Yet, their median annual wages and benefits lag those of comparable positions in the government and private sectors by 20 to 35 percent. Alarmingly, two-thirds of full-time human services workers earned below the city’s near-poverty threshold in 2019. And while we support any movement to reduce the systemic disinvestment and underfunding of this sector, this increase still pales in comparison to agreements the city reached with its unionized workforce, such as the 8-year, 28.25% pay deal for NYPD officers last year. FPWA will continue to demand that human services workers are valued and receive wages that not only reflect their value to the city, but also provide these vital workers with salaries that provide them with economic security.

This should not be a fight that human services workers enter every three years. We call on the city to embed cost-of-living pay increases in human services contracts.

We remain steadfast in its commitment to ensuring that individuals with low incomes have the means to thrive and build assets, while advocating for an equitable, adequately funded human services sector that meets the needs of all New Yorkers.

Salary parity for Childcare Workers

Access to quality, affordable childcare is not only essential for the economic well-being of families in New York City, but it is also essential for the economy and our city, as a whole. But more than 80% of families with children under 5 are unable to afford childcare in New York City, and in 2022 alone, the city is estimated to have lost $23 billion in economic activity because of parents leaving the workforce or downshifting careers to meet childcare needs. Childcare workers, who are almost entirely women and are disproportionately women of color, continue to be severely underpaid and undervalued despite the vital work they do each day. The average wage for childcare workers in New York State is just $35,190, one of the lowest among all professions. In fact, 98% of occupations in New York City pay more than childcare.

This is why we advocated for the city to include funding in this year’s budget to provide all members of the childcare workforce compensation parity with similar positions in the public school system. However, the FY25 budget falls short of making this a reality and given that the state budget also failed to provide long-term support for the childcare workforce, this crisis will continue.

Conclusion

Overall, while the FY25 adopted budget is large, many budget cuts were not fully restored from the last fiscal year, leaving New Yorker’s needs unmet. In this light, we believe the budget is largely a missed opportunity to advance economic security in New York City.

The rest of this analysis highlights the impact of the FY25 budget changes on specific programs through the lens of economic security for all New Yorkers – both wins and losses.

Click the icons at the top of the page to read more about how the Budget impacts different aspects of New Yorker’ lives.

Stay in Touch
Join our network and learn about FPWA events and news.
© 2025 Federation of Protestant Welfare Agencies.
All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy  /  Grant Scam & Fraud Alert

LEARN MORE

ABOUT FPWA

GET INVOLVED

better business bureau (BBB) accredited charity seal in blue
Facebook Instagram Twitter Youtube Linkedin
Rent our Conference Space

Housing

NYC FY 2025 Budget Analysis

The city budget includes meaningful investments into addressing the housing unaffordability and lack of inventory crises, however, those investments are undermined by the city’s shelter eviction policies, and by the insufficient funding of the New York City Human Rights Commission (CCHR), city resident’s greatest tool for enforcing their housing rights.

We are thankful that the city has allocated an additional $2 billion capital investment over the next two years to Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) and the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). During FY25, NYCHA will receive an additional $350 million, while HPD will receive an additional $650 million in capital funding.

The shortage of housing in New York is driving up rent prices, and last year New York City had its lowest vacancy rate (1.4%) since 1968. In New York city, 69% of residents are renters, and 52.1% of renters are rent burdened or pay more than 30% of their monthly income on rent. With such sizable portions of income going to rent, it is difficult for many individuals to cover other costs such as food, healthcare, and transportation, let alone save for an emergency or for a potential downpayment on a home. An investment in affordable housing is an investment in the prosperity of communities.

We are also pleased that the city has allocated $540.3 million baseline funding for the CityFHEPs housing voucher program, a rent supplement for families with children who receive Cash Assistance and have been evicted or are facing eviction, who lost their housing due to a domestic violence situation, or who have lost their housing because of health or safety issues. Providing housing subsidies to families in need is an investment, due to the positive impacts of housing stability on physical and mental health.

These investments are a critical step forward in addressing the housing crisis in New York City and preserving housing stability for all New Yorkers, however, at least two discrete issues undermine these goals:  the underfunding of CCHR, discussed in the Civil Rights Enforcement section of this analysis, and the city’s continued eviction of migrants from city shelters.

While we are pleased that CCHR received more funding than was outlined in the Executive Budget, we have concerns about the ability of the agency to maintain sufficient staffing to adjudicate all claims, particularly source-of-income discrimination which threatens to undermine the success of the CityFHEP program, and implementation of the Fair Change for Housing Act. Additionally, we believe that CityFHEP program’s eligibility and calculations should not be impacted by immigration status.

We are also dismayed by the continued eviction of migrants from city shelters. Right now, the dismantling of the right to shelter is currently targeting migrants, but it has implications for all New Yorkers. The city is issuing eviction notices to migrants living in the city shelter system – 30-day notices for single adults and 60-day notices for migrant families. While we are grateful to the New York City Council for reintroducing a bill to challenge the shelter limits placed upon migrants, we are disappointed that this bill did not come to a vote. A recent report from the NYC Comptroller noted that of the 4,753 adults from families with children in households whose 60-day notices had expired as of February 4th, 16% remain in the shelter where their 60-day notice was given, 29% have been transferred to other shelters, and 55% do not remain in shelters. Some of these migrants are finding housing, but many are ending up homeless or living in substandard conditions.

In a context in which the U.S. Supreme Court recently upheld the criminalization of homelessness, and the Administration is challenging the Right to Shelter in NYC, established over 40 years ago, New Yorkers are particularly vulnerable to the harms of homelessness.
 
New York City has taken significant steps towards addressing the years-long housing crisis. Providing critical investments into housing development and repairs, including NYCHA’s public housing inventory, and housing affordability, including funding for the CityFHEPs voucher program, is commendable. City government must be careful not to undercut its own efforts. Insufficiently funding CCHR, which adjudicates source-of-income discrimination claims when landlords refuse to accept housing vouchers, undermines the success of the CityFHEPs programs and the impact of additional funding. Continuing to evict migrants, and challenging the right to shelter, threatens an essential safety net for all New Yorkers, at a time when we have a housing affordability crisis, and prevents migrants and their families from achieving the financial stability necessary to permanently leave the shelter system.

Income Supports

NYC FY 2025 Budget Analysis

A core focus of our advocacy on behalf of New Yorkers with low incomes is ensuring that individuals and families have access to income supports like Cash Assistance and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These programs, administered by the Department of Social Services (DSS), provide vital assistance to New Yorkers, including many children, individuals with disabilities, and older adults. They also help New Yorkers who are in crisis, whether due to domestic violence, eviction, job loss, illness, or some other emergency.

To ensure these vital programs are effective, we urged the city to increase funding to the Department of Social Service/Human Resource Administration (DSS/HRA) to improve the management and administration of benefits and make the experience more dignified for New Yorkers accessing benefits. However, as mentioned in our detailed analysis, the FY25 budget cuts the DSS/HRA by nearly 9%. This continues a concerning trend, as the agency has been facing covert budget cuts since FY12, according to FPWA’s NYC Funds Tracker.

Income supports not only reduce poverty, but they also improve outcomes for individuals, families, and communities. For example, research shows that recipients of direct cash experience improvements in their physical and mental health, improved food security and nutrition, and cash has also been shown to reduce violent crime, domestic violence, and child maltreatment. Cash income is also linked to increases in employment, and it is effective at reducing poverty because it promotes economic mobility and allows individuals to plan for the future.
  

Cash Assistance

Cash Assistance provides direct cash aid to individuals and families with the lowest incomes for basic needs, like clothing, hygiene products, and household items. As aforementioned, we advocated for additional funding to DSS/HRA to improve the administration of the program, and we are disappointed to see further cuts in the FY25 budget. In addition, the FY25 budget also includes cuts to DSS staff, which is likely to hinder the administration of this program.

Additional funding is urgent to address a few key issues. First, New Yorkers face challenges with the processes to apply for and retain Cash Assistance, which can be time-consuming and require divulging personal information and providing extensive documentation. Ultimately, many in need of assistance—including many who are otherwise eligible—are denied benefits or lose benefits at recertification precisely because of these challenges. For example, as discussed in FPWA’s 2023 report on Cash Assistance, each year tens of thousands of New Yorkers are denied access to the program due to administrative barriers. In New York City in FY23, more than 84,000 cases were denied because the applicant was unable to complete the interview, and another approximately 25,000 were denied because of “failure to provide verification.” More than 37,000 cases were closed because recipients were unable to complete the recertification; another nearly 9,000 were closed for not completing the interview; and an additional nearly 40,000 were denied because they were unable to provide the proper documentation. Not only this, but applicants and recipients also report facing stigma and disrespect from case workers in the process. In addition to these challenges, applicants for Cash Assistance have experienced severe processing delays, leaving thousands of New Yorkers waiting longer than 30 days to receive benefits. Just 14% of Cash Assistance applications were processed on time between July and October of last year.

We will continue to advocate for additional funding to DSS/HRA going forward, which must be used to reduce case closings/application denials caused by administrative barriers. This includes streamlining the application and recertification processes, cutting down on unnecessary paperwork requirements where possible, and improving technology used by HRA to manage cases. It also should be used to hire more staff on a permanent basis to increase processing time and prevent future backlogs; better engage CBOs in benefits outreach to connect more eligible New Yorkers to benefits; and improve staff training and implement people-centered, trauma-informed practices into the delivery of services.

Food Security

NYC FY 2025 Budget Analysis

New Yorkers continue to experience alarming rates of food insecurity, which is why we advocated for a number of investments in food and nutrition programs in this year’s budget. First, as aforementioned, we called on the city to increase funding to DSS/HRA, which also administers the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program. This is urgent because SNAP applicants have also experienced severe processing delays. In the first four months of FY24, just 41% of SNAP applications were processed within 30 days. Thus, we are particularly concerned with the reduction of funding for DSS/HRA. Further, funding specifically for “food stamp operations” has decreased since 2023 ($85.8 million, actual funding) to $78.3 million forecast for FY24, decreasing further to $69.2 million forecast for 2025. These steeps cuts will negatively impact how SNAP is administered and risk future processing delays for SNAP applications like we saw last year.

SNAP helps improve food security, which has been shown to support physical, intellectual, and emotional health. It is also linked to improved educational attainment and higher rates of school completion. SNAP also stimulates local economies, as every dollar in new SNAP benefits increases GDP by $1.50 in a weak economy. Thus, it is critical that these programs are accessible and administered effectively and equitably.

We also advocated for funding for several other initiatives to address food insecurity. First, we urged the city to maintain funding for NYCBenefits, a new program that enables CBOs to conduct benefits outreach and connect eligible New Yorkers to government benefits that are currently underutilized. Benefits outreach programs like this are critical to ensure that more eligible New Yorkers receive benefits for which they are eligible, so we applaud the city for maintaining funding for this program. We also urged the city to increase and baseline funding to a total of $60 million for the Community Food Connection program (CFC) to respond to increased demand at emergency food providers across the city. The FY25 budget restores $31.9 million for the program. While this funding is a good initial step, the city should invest more to meet the ongoing need, including serving asylum seekers and other migrants seeking refuge in New York City, and to ensure emergency food providers can deliver fresh, healthy, and culturally appropriate food to communities in need.

We also called on the city to maintain funding for the Groceries to Go program, which provides food insecure New Yorkers (who also have health conditions such as hypertension and/or diabetes) with a monthly credit to purchase groceries through an online marketplace. We recommended increasing the monthly credits, expanding the list for diet-related conditions to widen the scale of the program, and allowing for the participation of young adults who meet the other eligibility criteria. The Adopted Budget includes $2.3 million for the program, down from the $5.6 million in last year’s budget. Going forward, we will continue to advocate for the city to increase funding for this program to expand its reach and provide relief to New Yorkers struggling with both serious health conditions and food insecurity.

Finally, we also called on the city to restore $2.8 million for the Anti-Poverty Initiative, which provides Council members additional discretionary funding based on the number of people in their districts below the Federal Poverty Line; $2.1 million for Access to Healthy Food and Nutritional Education, which funds farmers markets, urban farms, community gardens, and programs to expand the use of SNAP benefits; and $1.5 million for the Food Access and Benefits Initiative, which supports SNAP and emergency food assistance benefits education and outreach as well as SNAP eligibility screening, application, and recertification assistance. We applaud the inclusion of all three of these funding asks in the FY25 budget. Lastly, we urged the city to restore $7.3 million for food pantries, a City Council initiative to provide funding to pantries across the city, and we were encouraged to see $8.3 million allocated for this in the adopted budget. This will support CBOs to provide more emergency food assistance to New Yorkers in need.

Overall, the FY25 budget made some key investments in programs that help expand access to SNAP and provide emergency food to New Yorkers in need. While more work needs to be done to ensure that no New Yorker faces food insecurity, we applaud the city for these initial efforts, and we are grateful to the advocates and community members who championed these issues alongside us this budget season.

Civil Rights Enforcement

NYC FY 2025 Budget Analysis

We are pleased with the allocation of $14.5 million in funding to the New York City Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), more than the $13.5 million allocated in the Administration’s preliminary budget.

CCHR administers New York City’s Human Rights Law. The Human Rights law, and its administration, should be a point of pride for New York City, because, compared to other jurisdictions, it is an outlier, in terms of its expansiveness, and model for other civil and human rights laws. There is a long list of protected classes recognized under this law including age, immigration or citizenship status, disability, gender and gender identity, national origin, race, religion/creed, sexual orientation, and more, well beyond those recognized by the federal and state governments.

CCHR primarily investigates and prosecutes claims of discrimination in employment and housing, an important function for creating economically stable communities where individuals can thrive. Promoting economic stability is integral to maintaining healthy communities. Housing and employment stability are vital components of economic security and counteracting structural economic deprivation. Structural economic deprivation is the intentional creation and maintenance of societal conditions that inhibit individuals or households from achieving economic security, sustaining financial stability, and addressing their material and physical needs. This deprivation prevents individuals from asserting their rights and actively and meaningfully participating in the political process. Low-income New Yorkers cannot afford to hire attorneys to address economic and housing discrimination. Without a well-funded CCHR to investigate and resolve civil rights claims, low-income New Yorkers lack access to justice and the ability to protect their housing and employment, foundational parts of their economic stability.

While we are pleased to see an increase in funding for CCHR, we are concerned that CCHR will continue to struggle to keep up with the volume of claims it receives.

Since 2018, the number of staff attorneys in the law enforcement unit of CCHR has been reduced from 47 to 13 as of 2023. These are the folks who are tasked with investigating claims of human rights violations and seeking redress and relief for vulnerable New Yorkers. The staffing shortages have created a backlog in the CCHR intake process forcing New Yorkers to wait to address their discrimination claims. Some claims are never fully processed or investigated. We advocated for $3 million to be added specifically to the Law Enforcement Unit and for staffing levels to return to at least 34 attorneys. We remain concerned that CCHR will still not be able to keep up with the volume of discrimination claims it receives.

In FY23, 42% of CCHR cases, (down from 56% in FY22), were administratively closed rather than settled, mediated, referred to the Office of Mediated Trials and Hearings, or closed due to a lack of probable cause. Administratively closing these cases rather than adjudicating them leaves vulnerable New Yorkers without a way to meaningfully protect their rights. We hope that the new investments in CCHR result in more adjudications and far fewer administrative closures during the upcoming fiscal year.

Under the current budget restraints CCHR cannot play its essential role in preventing housing discrimination for low-income New Yorkers.

The staffing shortage has undermined CCHR’s ability to tackle one of its priorities, source-of-income discrimination in housing. This is when lenders and brokers refuse to rent to low-income New Yorkers, because they are using housing subsidies to pay rent. The city has invested a historic $540.3 million baseline investment in CityFHEP, which could be undermined by a lack of sufficient investment in the investigative and enforcement capacity of CCHR. The prevalence of this discriminatory practice is not only an injustice against the individuals and families who struggle to find permanent housing due to source-of-income discrimination, but also an administrative issue for New York City, at a time when New York City’s shelter system is overwhelmed.

It is disappointing that there is no specific funding allocated for the implementation of the Fair Chance for Housing Act, which would prohibit landlords, owners, and brokers from using criminal history to exclude otherwise qualified individuals from housing with few exceptions. It’s estimated that 750,000 New York City residents have criminal convictions and could be impacted by the passage of this law, which is set to take effect on January 1st of 2025. Once in effect, individuals whose arrest records or convictions were used to exclude them from housing can file a complaint with CCHR. This could have a transformative impact on the lives of New Yorkers with criminal histories, who have historically struggled to find housing.

Formerly incarcerated individuals are ten times more likely to be unhoused than the general population. When those with criminal convictions are unable to obtain stable housing, their families suffer, particularly their children. Having a parent with a criminal conviction increases the likelihood that a child will live in poverty. Children that grow up in poverty are far more likely to remain living in poverty throughout their lives.
The budget restraints and staffing shortages also impact the ability of CCHR to protect against employment discrimination.

One of the many issues that the work of CCHR can help to alleviate, is the consequences of occupational segregation, or segregation of labor sectors by demographic. This accounts for the barriers to entry into a particular labor sector, and the circumstances that prevent workers from thriving, and ultimately push them out of a labor sector, such as sexual harassment. Women report sexual harassment at higher rates in professions that are dominated by men such as construction, utilities, mining, and transportation and warehousing. Federal protections against discrimination based on race, gender, disability, and pregnancy do not adequately protect against employment discrimination, partly due to a lack of enforcement capacity. This is why sufficient funding for CCHR is so essential.

While we are pleased that the city has allocated additional funding to CCHR. This funding is not enough to bring CCHR staffing anywhere near its 2018 staffing levels. This leaves vulnerable New Yorkers without the ability to utilize CCHR to protect their civil rights.

Education

NYC FY 2025 Budget Analysis

The impact of education on economic mobility is well-documented, and therefore an adequately funded education system is vital to New Yorkers’ economic security. From Pre-K and childcare, to schools, to CUNY, this budget was a mixed bag for our city’s education system.

We were pleased to see the Administration and City Council make $418 million in investments in education to save critical programs and services that were previously funded by expiring federal funds. We have long been sounding the alarm on this issue through our NYC Funds Tracker and we were glad to see the Administration finally respond. This covered services such as social workers, psychologists, community schools, Summer Rising, Learning to Work, bilingual programs, translation services, and dyslexia programming.

We also appreciate the Council’s leadership in restoring funding for additional education programs, including the Mental Health Continuum, the immigrant family communication and outreach initiative, restorative justice, and Student Success Centers.

The programs preserved through city investments are vital in supporting the whole child through their academic career, as well as supporting their families.

While we appreciate the investments announced in the area of early childhood education, it is disheartening that the Administration did not hear the call from parents to fully restore 3-K and Pre-K or fully fund preschool special education. Overall, funding to the Department of Education decreased by 1% compared to the levels in the FY24 modified budget. We will continue to work with our partners in government and the nonprofit sector to strengthen the early child education system and ensure families have the support they need to access these programs.

CUNY

CUNY plays a vital role as an engine of economic mobility and as a major contributor to economic growth in both the city and state.

While the adopted budget funds $77.6 million more than was initially proposed in the preliminary budget, it is still not enough to make up for years of divestment that CUNY has experienced. As outlined in our fiscal analysis, CUNY experienced one of the biggest budget cuts compared to its FY24 modified level, losing $233.3 million, or 15.2% of its city funding. This comes on top of years of successive PEG cuts – since January 2022, CUNY has faced $95 million in recurring annual cuts.

These cuts have hollowed out CUNY administration, with over 400 vacancies in CUNY’s community colleges alone.    

We call on the city to restore these cuts. Investing in CUNY is one of the best investments the city can make. According to a Brookings Institute study, six of the top ten colleges nationwide for bottom-to-top economic mobility are CUNY colleges. Further, CUNY students are:

  • 76% students of color
  • 60% first generation college students
  • 58% women
  • 38% people who speak a native language other than English.
This continual underfunding of CUNY disproportionately impacts New Yorkers who are striving for economic mobility.
 
Overall, adequately funding the city’s educational institutions and programs is vital to economic mobility for all New Yorkers. We will continue to work with our partners in government and the nonprofit sector to achieve this goal.

Parks & Culture

NYC FY 2025 Budget Analysis

Libraries and cultural institutions spared the worst of the cuts

Emblematic of the negotiations that were held across the city, perhaps none caught the attention of New Yorkers like the proposed cuts to libraries. We are pleased that funding for libraries was restored after initially being proposed to be cut . The budget specifically invests $58.3 million to fully fund the New York Public Library (NYPL), the Brooklyn Public Library (BPL), and the Queens Public Library (QPL). The investments will allow some libraries to resume Sunday service across branches that previously offered it and open newly renovated locations across the five boroughs. Libraries are more than just a place with books. They play an important role in community building, as a central hub, and for many, are the first port of call for any interaction with government, and for many, are the first port of call for any interaction with government.

The restoration of library funding will also positively impact New York City’s large and vibrant immigrant communities. Libraries offer services that benefit newly arrived immigrants as well as those who have resided in New York City for many years. This includes free multi-language resources, classes for English-language learners, resources concerning important immigration processes such as Naturalization, as well as ID services, which are particularly vital for immigrants who do not have a permanent address such as newly arrived migrants living in shelters.

Cultural affairs

After years of fighting for adequate funding, the FY25 budget finally saw an increase in funding for the Department of Cultural Affairs (DCLA) with its budget increasing by 14.6% (compared to FY24 modified) to $253.8 million. The benefits of adequately funding the arts are multi-faceted:

Funding to DCLA is important to ensure that these benefits of arts and culture are accessible to all new Yorkers, not just the elite.

Parks face funding reductions

While the budget saw funding wins for libraries and DCLA, unfortunately, funding for public parks had less success. The FY25 adopted budget funds $618 million for the Department of Parks and Recreation (Parks), a reduction of $1.2 million compared to the FY24 modified budget. While this reduction appears modest at first, the budget also includes a reduction in staffing of 259 employees. Funding falls short for Parks when considered in the context of the size of the overall budget. It represents 0.55% of the FY25 budget, the lowest share of funding in an adopted budget in a decade. This falls well short of the 1% that the Mayor has previously backed, and less than other major cities like Los Angeles, San Fransisco and Chicago. Access to parks and green spaces has benefits to both individuals and the city at large. They provide billions in recreational value, tourism and environmental benefits for the city. They also provide strong health benefits to individuals and have been shown to increase health equity between income and across racial groups. The importance of parks, will only grow as the city experiences the impact of climate change, an issue that disproportionately affects communities of color and New Yorkers with low incomes. Parks reduce the impact of heat stress illnesses, lowering nearby ground temperatures, and providing shade – a particularly important feature for New Yorkers who do not have access to air conditioning. Economic security means being able to thrive, not just survive, and access to parks and recreation is a key part of this. Overall, parks benefit all aspects of our lives, and their importance will only grow in the coming years. We call on the city to reflect this in the funding it provides for them.

New New Yorkers

NYC FY 2025 Budget Analysis

We are pleased that New York City has allocated $4.75 billion across 19 city agencies for FY25, an increase from the $3.8 billion allocated in FY24. This allocation occurred despite  misguided claims that providing services to asylum seekers necessitated severe cuts across city agencies – discussed in FPWA’s Budget Analysis. While we commend the city for investing in services for asylum seekers, the utility of this investment is undermined by the inflexibility of city agencies to respond to the ebbs and flows of migration.

New York City is currently experiencing an increase in migration. Since the spring of 2022 over 200,000 migrants have arrived in New York City for a number of reasons including changing geopolitical circumstances in foreign countries, the end of pandemic era American immigration policies, (such as Title 42, under which federal government denied entry to and expelled asylum seekers due to fear of the spread of COVID-19), and political grandstanding at the southern border, including bussing migrants to New York City.

The Administration cannot control changing geopolitical circumstances or federal immigration policy. As a practical matter, it must strategically and methodically respond to those realities. Many city agencies are not flexible enough to mobilize and address the ebbs and flows of migration even though migration is a natural phenomenon.

City government, particularly agencies such as the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs (MOIA) and newly created Office of Asylum Seeker Operations (OASO) demonstrate a clear investment in meeting the needs of immigrant New Yorkers both by advocating for additional funding and advocating for federal policy immigration changes that positively impact asylum seekers such as the expansion of TPS. Despite the allocation of resources to 19 city agencies, at times the city has struggled with coordination, and has relied on advocates, activists, community-based and human services organizations to address gaps in services, often with minimal or no funding for this important coordinating work. The lack of funding compounds the already dismal treatment and general undervaluing of the human services sector highlighted in our analysis of the FY25 budget.  City government also often failed to sufficiently coordinate amongst providers who offer similar services and could collaborate for provider referrals if the city’s coordination was more robust. This lack of coordination is not only harmful to asylum seekers, but its wasteful of resources.  

The city’s investment in asylum seekers should enable them to reach financial security as they settle into their lives in New York City. This is undermined by policies disallowing access to certain public benefits based on immigration status.

To that end, we applaud the city for making a $25 million investment in Promise NYC in the FY25 budget, which will help advance economic security for immigrant families across the city. We advocated for the city to restore and baseline $20 million for “Promise NYC,” a program that was rolled out in December of 2022 to provide childcare assistance to low-income families with children whose immigration status makes them ineligible for other federally-funded subsidized childcare. 

In contrast, we condemn the decision  to challenge the right to shelter and evict migrants from the shelter system- discussed in the Housing Section of this analysis- and believe the CityFHEP housing voucher program should be expanded to recognize and calculate all household members regardless of immigration status. A study by the New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) and WIN found that expanding housing subsidy programs to all New Yorkers, regardless of immigration status, could save the city almost $3 billion in shelter funding.

We are thankful that New York City has continued to invest and advocate in newly arrived immigrant communities. Providing immigrant services not only allows immigrants to continue to contribute to the culture and vibrancy of the city, but also has positive economic implications for New York City. However, we urge the city to evaluate the way in which city programs are structured to respond to changes in migration, so that the next time there is a change in migration patterns into the city, it can be met with strategic mobilization rather than a crisis response.
  • NEW

NYC Funds Tracker Dashboard and Analysis

The interactive open data dashboard helps you visualize and track the city budget, with a specific focus on the critical human services funding we rely on.

Visit the Dashboard ⟶

Don’t forget to also check out our new analysis

This #GivingTuesday support our Holiday Gift and Toy Drive

Donate >
  • Grant Scam & Fraud Alert

FPWA has recently been receiving claims from members of the public emailing and calling our offices that individuals posing as FPWA agents have contacted them claiming that in order for the recipient to claim grant monies from FPWA they must first send the agent personal information, a cell phone number, gift card codes or money.

FPWA does not use social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), text messages or direct phone contact to solicit, review, or make awards. FPWA staff will not call or message you requesting money in order to be eligible for an award.

Further, FPWA does not make grants directly to individuals. FPWA works with its member agency partners and other reputable community-based organizations to direct support to families and individuals in our community.

If you or someone you know has been contacted by someone posing to be an “FPWA Agent” or staff person requesting money to release a grant, please do the following:

  • Cease communications with the individual contacting you claiming to be an “FPWA Agent” and do not provide any further personal information to them;
  • You or the affected individual should file a police report in the local jurisdiction of attempted fraud with the information you have available from them – a phone number, a Facebook messenger profile, etc. It is likely they have compromised a friend or family members Facebook account to make it seem like a qualified referral;
  • You or the affected individual should pass all information to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) (www.ic3.gov); and,
  • You or the affected individual should file a complaint with the Federation Trade Commission online, or call toll-free 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357); TTY: 1-866-653-4261.

If you have questions prior to reporting your incident, view the IC3 FAQs for more information.

Learn more about Facebook Scams from the BBB

Need help? Contact Us
FPWA 100 logo in color
Powered by  GDPR Cookie Compliance
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.