The Public Purpose Fund plays a crucial role in supporting essential services on Roosevelt Island, yet concerns have arisen regarding the distribution of funds, particularly to the Roosevelt Island Visual Art Association (RIVAA). RIVAA received $40,000—more than any other nonprofit—while others, like the Wildlife Freedom Foundation and iDig2Learn, received significantly less or none at all. The lack of transparency in the funding process raises questions about fairness and accountability. Calls for reform include clarifying funding criteria, ensuring equitable distribution among nonprofits, and fostering transparency in applications and awards. The goal is to maintain artistic support while prioritizing community needs.
Why Public Purpose Funds Matter—And Why Art Belongs in the Mix
The Public Purpose Fund is one of the few tools Roosevelt Island has left to direct funding where the community actually lives—in nonprofits, mutual aid groups, and organizations that fill the cracks government leaves behind. From education to elder care, from wildlife rescue to youth empowerment, this fund matters.
Art belongs here, too. No question. The Roosevelt Island Visual Art Association (RIVAA) has been part of the island’s cultural core for over two decades. Their gallery on Main Street, their rotating exhibitions, their role in community programming—it all matters.
But in a year when so many essentials were cut or ignored, the question isn’t whether art deserves funding.
The question is: How did one organization walk away with two grants when others received nothing at all?
Is Art More Important Than Essential Services?
In the 2025 Public Purpose Fund cycle, RIVAA received $40,000—more than any other nonprofit on the island. That total was split between two separate grants: one for its gallery programming and another for a concert and puppetry initiative.
Meanwhile:
- The Wildlife Freedom Foundation, which responds to injured animals and supports Roosevelt Island’s fragile habitat, received just $5,000. Eleanor Rivers documented the impact of this neglect in her recent piece on the Lighthouse.
- iDig2Learn, an environmental education initiative with deep roots in Roosevelt Island public schools and outdoor stewardship, saw its grant drastically reduced.
- Several long-serving, low-visibility nonprofits received no funding at all.
We don’t need less art.
We need more fairness.
The History and Complexity of the Public Purpose Fund
Every few years, the PPF reemerges as a flashpoint—because the process, at its core, lacks structure. There are no published funding priorities. No maximum caps per organization. No clear standards on what counts as essential service vs. supplemental programming.
Instead, it often feels like a reward system for those who know how to play the game:
- Rebrand a year-round program as an “event.”
- Submit multiple applications under related banners.
- Cultivate informal power through formal friendships.
Reviewers are handpicked. While the final list is published after the fact, their affiliations are not disclosed, and the original applications submitted by grantees remain completely hidden from public view.
Did RIVAA Double-Dip?
The core question is simple: Did RIVAA receive two separate grants as two separate entities—or as one group under different names?
We asked RIOC, the New York Community Trust and RIVAA directly.
No one answered.
The Public Purpose Fund cannot function on mystery. If an organization received two grants totaling $40,000, the public deserves to know:
- Was there a second legal entity?
- Were board members shared across both applications?
- Were reviewers aware of the overlap?
RIVAA has earned its place in the island’s cultural fabric. But no nonprofit should earn the public’s silence in return. When a nonprofit receives public funds, it has a responsibility to the public—it should be transparent and open. Yet even the process remains opaque. How can the public trust that things are fair when they don’t feel fair and answers are not forthcoming? How can we trust the Public Trust, when we ask them a question and their response is a polished PR statement about how they are trustworthy—without any willingness to actually answer the question?
The Power Behind the Gallery Walls
RIVAA isn’t just a gallery—it’s a familiar gathering place for certain island voices. Behind the scenes, some of the island’s longstanding power brokers have deep connections to multiple reviewers who served on this year’s committee, as well as in prior years. One of those figures—well-known in the community for defending RIVAA publicly while remaining off its official paperwork—is actively reacting to our questions directed at RIVAA, RIOC, and the Trust. It’s not the first time, either. According to sources, these same individuals have dismissed public inquiries in past years with phrases like “we don’t respond to blogs,” a sentiment that has since evolved into:
“We don’t respond to pseudonyms.”
Same posture. New polish. Same avoidance.
We Don’t Want the Fund to Disappear—We Want It to Evolve
None of this is a call to kill the Public Purpose Fund. In fact, we’re grateful to RIOC CFO Dhruvika Patel Amin, whose efforts brought an additional $100,000 into the grant pool this year. That was leadership.
Now it’s time to lead again:
- Publish the applications.
- Clarify what counts as a unique nonprofit.
- Cap total awards under a shared organizational umbrella.
- Ensure that the groups doing year-round, mission-critical work aren’t outmaneuvered by those better at storytelling or committee politics.
This isn’t about punishing art.
It’s about protecting purpose.
And it’s about making sure the next time someone asks, “Did this group double-dip the Public Purpose Funds?”, we all get a straight answer.
Official Responses Received
After sending inquiries to RIVAA, RIOC, and the New York Community Trust, we received the following replies:
From RIOC Finance:
“RIOC engages with New York Community Trust to ensure these public funds are allocated fairly among the island’s eligible 501c3s. They do their due diligence in accordance with strict internal protocols and have a very strong reputation. It’s important for us to ensure the integrity of this process, which is why utilizing a partner like NYCT is so important.”
From RIOC Legal:
“Please be advised that RIOC does not have current agreements with RIVAA. RIVAA is Hudson Related’s tenant, not RIOC’s… FOIL pertains to existing records of an agency. Nothing in FOIL requires any agency to supply information in response to questions. Please direct your questions and requests for information that are not records of the corporation to Communications and Community Affairs Department.”
From the New York Community Trust:
“The Roosevelt Island Public Purpose Fund at The New York Community Trust was established by RIOC to provide public purpose funding for specific projects carried out by nonprofits serving the Roosevelt Island community. Funding is awarded through an open, competitive, request-for-proposals (RFP) process… The Trust reviews all pending grantees prior to approving grants to ensure they have sound fiscal and governance practices.”
None of the above addressed the core question: Did RIVAA receive two awards under a single legal umbrella—and if so, why?, the winners, the patterns, and the structural issues that need urgent reform.
We’ll be publishing an in-depth article this Friday examining the full Public Purpose Fund allocation process, the winners, the patterns, and the structural issues that need urgent reform. If you’d like that article sent to your inbox, subscribe to The Roosevelt Island Lighthouse. Once you do, you can reply to any email directly—your messages go straight to me. Any insight, tips, or firsthand experience that could help us understand how to improve this process is welcome.
You Can FOIL* It
On April 15, at the Steam Plant Demolition Town Hall, a simple exchange revealed something far more consequential than anything formally presented that evening.
Theo, I sent you an E-mail on May 27, the day after you sent your questions to me, please check your spam folder and mark me as Not Spam. Here is the contents:
——– Forwarded Message ——–
Subject: Re: Comment requested on 2025 Public Purpose Fund awards for RIRA
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 14:29:50 -0400
From: Frank Farance
To: Theo Gobblevelt
Theo-
Hi, I don’t know if we’ve met in person, so I look forward to meeting you.
Here are answers to your questions:
– Yes, RIRA asked about applying before submitting the application.
– Yes, RIRA disclosed that we are a 501(c)(4) corporation, and we are using a fiscal sponsor, which is RISA/Good Life – a 501(c)(3) corporation – which is a normal part of the PPF application process. And our use of a fiscal sponsor was discussed in our NYCT interview process.
– No, there was no waiver, we are complying with the normal provisions of the PPF grant application and process:
– FYI, in the past (even before when RIRA was reviewing RIOC’s PPF grant applications) there was a “fiscal sponsor” process, for example, iDig2Learn – a regular PPF awardee for a decade plus – was not a 501(c)(3) organization but uses the fiscal sponsor Open Space Institute – see their website “https://www.idig2learn.org/about”.
In summary, RIRA has followed all the normal processes, RIRA is eligible per the normal guidance and criteria, NYCT is aware we are a 501(c)(4) using a fiscal sponsor, and no waivers were required or granted. Did I answer all your questions?
Frank Farance
RIRA President
Thanks Frank. Your original email landed in my spam folder, but I’ve now marked you as “not spam” so this doesn’t happen again.
The anchor article has been updated with an editorial note reflecting the clarification you provided. My follow-up piece currently in development will include your feedback as well.