Bigger Pie, Uneven Slices

When public dollars are up for grabs, who decides what counts as essential?

This year’s $250,000 Public Purpose Fund looked like a win for Roosevelt Island—more money to spread across community nonprofits. But behind the numbers lies a troubling truth: niche projects and favored players walked away with five-figure checks, while mission-critical services were sidelined or snubbed entirely. Tango scored more than triage. Retail kiosks beat out wildlife rescue. And at least one grant crossed a legal line—quietly, with no public explanation.

This isn’t just a question of taste or preference. It’s about priorities, rules, and who gets to bend them. When the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation (RIOC) handed off grant-making to a private trust, it didn’t shed responsibility—it just blurred the lines. Today, that lack of clarity has allowed a civic group explicitly ineligible under the grant rules to walk away with $10,000, while longtime 501(c)(3) nonprofits struggle to stay afloat.

This article examines that imbalance—one award at a time—and calls for something basic: transparency, consistency, and fairness in the way public funds are awarded. Because if we don’t ask who’s steering the ship, we shouldn’t be surprised when it veers off course.

How the money fell

• Seven winners, $20–25 K each: Island Kids, MST&DA, Carter Burden, PTA 217, RIDA, RI Concerts … and RIVAA with an outsized double-wide slice.

• Middle tier, $15 K: Piazzolla 100’s tango troupe, RIVAA’s spin-off concert arm, RI Historical Society, RI Senior Association.

• Token plate-lickers, $5–10 K: Wildlife Freedom Foundation and iDig2Learn—the two groups that actually keep swans, stray cats, and school gardens alive—plus RIRA.

That means $95 K for arts lighting, tango shoes, and gallery openings, while the Island’s only 24-hour wildlife rescue splits a ten-grand consolation prize with an elementary-school garden program. If that sounds upside-down, you’re hearing it right.

$25 K buys a year’s worth of antibiotics and bird seed. Instead, it bought concert lighting in a room that already sells tickets.

---

The Eventification of RIHS et al.

The Roosevelt Island Historical Society (RIHS) operates out of the glass-box kiosk at the Tram plaza—arguably the island’s highest-traffic tourist corner—and this year received $20,000 from the Public Purpose Fund. That kiosk is public property, yet RIHS sells books, maps, and souvenirs there year-round. In past seasons, the Society even lobbied to move—or remove—a competing hot dog vendor, citing damage to its retail revenue.

To be clear: RIHS brings value to Roosevelt Island. It’s a public-facing nonprofit with deep roots in the community. Eleanor Rivers, in fact, considers herself one of RIHS’s biggest supporters. The kiosk doubles as an informal welcome booth and wayfinding point for tourists.

But this year, RIHS didn’t apply for kiosk upkeep or preservation work. It received $20K for a series of events tied to Roosevelt Island’s 50th anniversary. Like several other groups, it pivoted its ask toward public programming—what we now recognize as a winning grant strategy.

It wasn’t just RIHS. Roosevelt Island Concerts received $20,000 for six community concerts. PIAZZOLLA100 was awarded $15,000 for a festival, concert series, and workshops. RIVAA secured $15,000 for a separate concert and puppetry program.

Both of the Island’s environmental pillars were shoved to the bottom, while a boutique tango troupe pocketed fifteen grand. As publisher David Stone put it, “It’s more than a little weird that the extremely limited‑effect tango group would haul in such a bundle.”

“The tango group should have no claim for lessons because MSTDA has provided tango lessons for years.”

According to a source close to Main Street Theatre & Dance Alliance (MSTDA)

Each leaned on keywords like series, festival, or public performance. All of them received full or nearly full requests. Meanwhile, long-serving nonprofits that focused on year-round services—like the Wildlife Freedom Foundation ($5,000) or iDig2Learn (reduced funding)—saw their grants cut or eliminated.

We can’t prove it was coordinated. But it’s difficult to explain otherwise: some nonprofits clearly knew how to frame their applications for maximum return, while others seemed entirely out of the loop. It’s not a conspiracy—but it is a pattern.

And no group benefitted from that pattern more clearly than RIVAA.

---

Double dip for RIVAA—art above all?

RIVAA Gallery received two separate Public Purpose Fund grants this cycle—$25 K for its Main Street gallery programming and another $15 K for its affiliated concert series. The combined $40 K is the single largest slice of the 2025 pie, nearly four times what the Island’s two environmental nonprofits were awarded in total.

From reviewing RIVAA’s financial disclosures, we know that the organization generates income through a combination of membership fees, art sales, space rentals, and grants. In addition, RIVAA regularly collaborates with RIOC—most notably in the annual Fall for Arts festival and other community-facing events. Yet according to RIOC’s legal department, “RIVAA does not have current agreements with RIOC.” That may be technically accurate, but it raises questions about the unofficial funding mechanisms behind those collaborations—and whether those partnerships were factored into the funding allocation.

Art has its place—but is it above the Island’s mission? RIOC’s charter speaks of planning, development, and maintenance—not gallery walls and upright bass. If beauty is prioritized over backbone services, the least RIOC can do is admit it in writing.

And if the rules are to be applied evenly, then let’s ask the obvious: shouldn’t organizations with substantial ongoing collaborations or indirect support from RIOC be evaluated differently when applying for additional grant funding? Because if RIVAA can receive both—grants and recurring visibility through RIOC-sponsored events—why was the Wildlife Freedom Foundation’s service contract terminated, despite offering 24/7 emergency response for RIOC and PSD, free of charge? If this is about fairness, that’s a good place to begin.

Because behind the scenes, it was RIOC board member Howard Polivy—longtime defender of RIVAA—who enabled the quiet cancellation of Wildlife Freedom Foundation’s service contract. No public vote. No explanation. Just silence for the nonprofit that responds to PSD and RIOC staff calls day and night, removing injured wildlife from public spaces without pay. Meanwhile, RIVAA, already linked to RIOC through joint programming and space, walks away with $40K and no questions asked. If rules matter, if fairness matters—why does enforcement seem to depend on the recipient?

---

A second serving for PTA 217

PTA 217 secured $25 K from this year’s Public Purpose Fund—placing it in the top award tier—on top of a standing, no‑fee permit from RIOC to operate the Saturday Farmers Market at Good Shepherd Plaza. Because no rent changes hands, the arrangement never reaches the RIOC board for approval, yet it channels steady vendor‑fee revenue to the PTA.

That indirect subsidy is not pocket change: the market regularly hosts 20‑plus vendors, each paying stall fees that support PTA programs. In contrast, the Wildlife Freedom Foundation, which fields midnight calls about injured swans and feral cats—essentially unpaid work for RIOC—received just $5 K and no service contract.

RIOC found a loophole to take care of PTA 217, whose connections run deeper than most realize. While technically not a contractor, the PTA benefits from a quietly brokered arrangement that avoids public oversight—yet acts as a de facto revenue partnership. It’s a backdoor deal that has never faced full daylight, tied informally to at least one current board member. And unlike Wildlife Freedom Foundation, which saw its contract voided despite providing critical services, PTA 217 was not only protected—it was rewarded. If selective enforcement is the norm, and silent favoritism the standard, then what is this process really funding? Public purpose—or political rewards?

---

A 501(c)(4) walks through a 501(c)(3) door—no one blinks

Before diving deeper, it’s important to clarify how eligibility is defined for Public Purpose Fund recipients. The fund—administered through the New York Community Trust—explicitly limits applicants to 501(c)(3) public charities. These are nonprofits organized exclusively for charitable, educational, or scientific purposes. Donations to 501(c)(3) groups are tax-deductible, and they are heavily regulated in terms of political activity.

In contrast, 501(c)(4) organizations, which focus on social welfare and civic engagement, can engage in political lobbying and are not eligible for tax-deductible contributions. Because of their looser restrictions, they are also excluded from Public Purpose Fund eligibility.

This distinction exists to ensure that public funds support mission-driven programming—not lobbying, electioneering, or organizations with vague or overlapping governance.

The Trust’s published criteria are blunt: applicants must be 501(c)(3) public charities (or fiscally sponsored by one). The Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) is not; it operates as a 501(c)(4) social‑welfare group that can lobby and endorse candidates. That is perfectly legal—but explicitly outside the grant’s eligibility fence. Yet RIRA still received $10 K.

To be clear, RIRA is an important civic voice—organizing island‑wide elections, convening resident committees, and pitching in at public events. But value alone cannot justify a silent rule‑bend while other long‑serving nonprofits, fully compliant and arguably more mission‑critical, were left unfunded. If the Trust or RIOC wished to allow 501(c)(4)s, that waiver should have been stated up front and applied evenly.

Because if the rules are just suggestions—and exceptions don’t need to be explained—how can the public trust the Public Trust?

Editor’s Note (Added June 15, 2025):
After publication, RIRA President Frank Farance responded to clarify that RIRA did inquire about eligibility before applying and disclosed its 501(c)(4) status. According to Farance, RIRA applied using a fiscal sponsor—RISA/Good Life, a 501(c)(3)—a process he says aligns with standard PPF procedures and was discussed in their NYCT interview. He emphasized that no waiver was needed or granted, and that this fiscal sponsorship model has precedent in past awards, such as iDig2Learn’s use of the Open Space Institute. His full response is attached to this article as a comment by Frank.

---

A Legacy of Theft: Why RISA Must Be Held Accountable

In 2016, the Roosevelt Island Seniors Association (RISA) was at the center of a felony fraud case that left lasting scars on the credibility of the Public Purpose Fund. Then-executive director Rema Townsend pleaded guilty to multiple counts of grand larceny for submitting identical invoices to both RIOC and the NYC Department for the Aging—double-dipping thousands in taxpayer funds. Court records detail how she fabricated route sheets, forged signatures, funneled checks into her personal account, and used false timesheets to collect $50,000 from Medicaid while simultaneously running RISA full time.

Despite this, the funds were never returned. No apology was issued. And for years following Townsend’s conviction, RISA disappeared from the grant list—a quiet, necessary freezeout while RIOC’s legal counsel, Gretchen Robinson, oversaw internal compliance.

That changed this year.

In the 2025 Public Purpose Fund cycle, RISA reappeared—receiving $15,000 for “community events and weekend and evening classes for older adults.” There was no public announcement. No formal explanation of what had changed. And most importantly, no resolution to the felony theft that preceded it.

Since 2017, other organizations have stepped in to fill the void left by RISA. Most notably, Carter Burden Network, under the leadership of Lisa Fernandez, now provides consistent, reliable services to seniors on the Island—without scandal, without audit flags, and without a trail of stolen funds.

So what purpose is served by reintroducing a competing nonprofit that once exploited its position, failed to make restitution, and never accepted responsibility? Especially when that funding could go toward expanding services that already work?

---

Accountability, Outsourced and Abandoned

This is where the pattern emerges. After the double-dips, the silent waivers, and the lopsided grants, a bigger question looms: who’s setting the standards—and who benefits when no one’s watching? RIOC didn’t just outsource the paperwork. It outsourced responsibility. And in the vacuum left behind, the Trust has operated without clear rules, consistent logic, or any meaningful public scrutiny. This isn’t delegation. It’s abdication.

Reviewer roulette. NYCT invited most—but not all—applicants to nominate names for the five‑person “independent” panel. Wildlife Freedom Foundation and two other nonprofits never got the invite. When the committee that divides public money is largely chosen by the groups getting that money, “independent” is a stretch. We’re still waiting for NYCT to reveal who else was shut out and why one reviewer was recycled for a second tour.

Mission drift. RIOC’s enabling legislation says the Corporation exists to plan, develop, and maintain Roosevelt Island. Concert lighting and tango galas enrich culture, but do they outrank wildlife rescue, environmental education, or senior support? Without a published priority framework, every grant cycle is a guessing game—and niche projects leapfrog essentials.

Time to reclaim the steering wheel. RIOC outsourced grant-making to avoid criticism, yet accountability ultimately lives on Main Street. Publish clear priorities—seniors, disability, environment, public safety, culture—and instruct the Trust to follow them. If art sits at the top, say so in writing. If not, own the choice.

Where we go from here

Light is the cure for most problems—and this one is no exception. Credit where it’s due: CFO Dhruvika Patel Amin pried loose an extra $100K from a board that routinely authorizes millions without reading the fine print. That funding boost gave Roosevelt Island a bigger pie. Now RIOC needs to show it knows how to slice it with purpose.

That starts with leadership. RIOC must define—and publish—its priorities. Not in footnotes or side channels, but clearly, publicly, and in language that residents understand. Because while we all love a good show, RIOC already organizes performances as part of its annual operations. There is no logic in funding private cultural events with public purpose money while neglecting core services: environmental stewardship, wildlife response, and year-round support for seniors and vulnerable neighbors.

RIOC doesn’t need to do everything. But it does need to lead. Until it does, these grants will continue to feel less like public purpose—and more like political theater.

---

We’ve sent detailed questions to every organization and official named above—RIVAA, RISA, PTA 217, RIHS, RIRA, NYCT’s Julia Chang, RIOC’s board and legal team, and CFO Dhruvika Patel Amin. While we received non-substantive responses from RIOC and the New York Community Trust, many of the article’s insights were shaped through off-the-record conversations with members of the very organizations named here—people who care about the process, even if they can’t speak publicly about it.

We’ve posted the official responses, in full, on our sister site, The Roosevelt Island Daily. If more answers arrive before publication, they’ll be woven into this article. If they arrive later, they’ll be published there with a follow-up narrative that digs as deep as the facts allow.

Either way, the conversation won’t stop at “Publish.” It will stop when the process is transparent, the rules apply to everyone, and the Island’s most essential services get more than crumbs.