2 20 31 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/13972b1fd230e66016e2e80a6fd0a16f.pdf c8e4ad8a65f79a0c18444876f70be19d Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. . ___ \ ....._.,... . . l ' THE NEW YORK TIMES, ·.M ONDAY, N OVE':\1:BER 21, 1966. .POPULAT.ION ISSUEIf _ .,. .,~· .\/,·<:.··'.-,·.: -,:-~:'-~ ,,,·-~-~I . ~i-,. ! ; !:· -- ., . ···:.~ '.l ··· PERTURBS H TIRTZ [ J./, -: . •'·· ' · ,._ .~~,, · H 1 .., Dangers F oreseen i ·r,'i "Just as science has made training in ,two \\.;Y~ by_ pro~·id-· ,ri-;/" ~ war t oo dangerous to be left _to ing an across-the-board mcrease I the aenerals, Mr. W irtz said, in medical t raining and by !)roj ;- _ .-_ .-·· · · I' "scie; ce, when it unloc_ks t~e viding a S30-million fund to ·<:- ;:Y;r ,. ·f arcane of thought an~ llfe Will es tablish 60 academic chairs to tf .>.• ·. • ;:_ · • ,-:,. · I either h ave made science t oo s tabilize the college's long-range He Discerns Inadequacies in i j f ,...,, . ·, ·.:.~ . . dangerous t o be left t o th e sci- educational program. ~ '\ !1~~;,;_s,' / : ,~,. _,entists or will have made gov- ' Ee indicat ed that medical Birth Control Discussio1is i . 'fl'::.;J -~ _s;.'t_·,..-·:· F.'t!i ernment t oo danger~us t o be student enrollment would in{_-,_ , }it,-.:,; ;{ ;,;~~ {- · .t;;' left t o the governed.' crease from 96 t o 120 a class, that enrollment for doc torates is E~~s!;~~h~~ll~:lv;~~it~~ would double from 45 to 90 and 1 t hat there would be a substanW il- ; · ·\ . .,% ,f>_}:f--'.:_'_,_, began yes terday a S120-m1l!Jon s e! ;et:~; Jard Wirtz observed critically 'Z.h'f': _: pt /d, development program over a ti2! inc rease in the number of . ' \,\i,,~j:;,,,. . .. • ·  :::-",-i.fa; 1 10-year period to _strengthen_ :nte:n residents and post-docyest erday' tha t the controversia l "'(.lf_,:. and ex tend the me~1cal school toral fellcws trained. question . of birth control had t ...' .·, \_·, .. • . -~'0 progra ms of education a nd reTo pr'.lvide fac ilities for its not been dis cussed openly- :. . . ·. .qf. i..,._Y:: ~ search a nd the development of cxp~.nded enrollment, t he E in"unless -to be der ided"-a t the /r · _;;:·,,,.- , / ' · :,.J ::xtensive facilities. Medical School is planning r_ecentlyth heldh eletchtion catm- f:_ .· · ·"· J ack D. Weiler, chairman of ste::-i ./ E duca~:anal Center . paigns roug out e coun ry. f -·-..1.,, the Medical College's Board of :nr15-story He":~h Sciences on its N oting that some population ;. ,/ ,Overseers, a nnounced that the · -campu.;;. experts· predict there will be f , campaign h ad · started _ wi~h T he build ing would proYide three billion people 01· m ore by t/_ .· preliminary pledges of Sl J-nul- classrooms, lecture nails and t he year 2,000, :Mr. Wirtz added ~ . lion. laboratories, as \\'ell a s other that "t ~ere is ? . ;;:owing aware- i One of t he highlight s of the facilities, including a two -story ness tha t centuries after 1\1:al- I convocation was t he presenta computer center and headquarthus's warning- that t her e may , tion of honorary degrees to four ' t ers for a greatly expanded pronot be fo od to feed so many." l.......... prominent Americans for vari- gram of preventive medicine His r eference to :Malthus reThe New York T i mes ous achievements in their and communit y health. 1 ferred t o Thomas R. Malthu3, VIEWS BIRTH RISE: fields. · Three large middle - income 18th century economist who Secreta ry of Dabor W. WitCited were 1\fr. Wirtz, who apartment houses ,::'.I'. be built was a uthor of the theory that la rd W irtz said birth con- was awarded the degree of on' the campus site to provide_ population t ends to increase docto r of laws ; Cha rles H. Revresidential quarters fo r nurses, fa ster than the f::l:Jd supply, and trol issue s h ould h a ve been son. chairman of the boa rd of h ouse staff, married s tudc:-its, tha t war , disease and famine a re d iscussed m ore openly iii Revlon, I nc., doctor of humane pos t-doct oral fellows and juniur I !'!~ce~=~ry t k ee:' t:w popula- . t i!3 .::.Cl_ccfio-;: · · ca m 1i::i.i~l]s.;_: letters ; Dr. Albert B. Sabin, faculty. · tion in balanc with the food who developed oral polio vacsupply. P opula tion H althus said,, cine, doct or of science, and Dr. mus t be checked by moral reSidney Farber of Ha rvard straint.Medical School, doctor of sciSpeaking at a s pecia l convoence. cation at the Albert Eins tein Dr. Samuel Belki n, president Colle"'e of :Medicine in th e upof , Yeshiva University. who 0 per Bronx, Secreta ry Wi:·tz awarded the degrees, observed used t he birth control qu estion t hat the r ecipients represented as an example of the failure of,· the "creative pa rtnership of in his words, "the majority" to government, science and philanface u p t o t he k:iowledge· thropy in the growth and development of American medical science ~- consta ntly dc·,elop· · education and re earch." ing. . · · · I 'l'he new program. j\fr. Weiler "There is, at least," h e said, sa id, would streng then medical "a rouah equiv:i lent between both th; na ture and the infinite importa nce of t wo pur.,uits: that by the life scienti~( of th e method· of creating life, a nd that by society of how t o con- 1 . o! bi rth.. . J t \::::c:.L l \L' {1 r. 't '/;;,:~lt)( <.· f ·· ·., f. i A ·_·._ .: · t I _.-. )~,!~ · ~~t -:• l I"_ 0 I L L _ f I ~. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document A. _THE. ‘NEW YORK TIMES, “MONDAY, NOVEMBER 21, 196. ‘POPULATION ISSUE PERTURDS WIRTZ) He Discerns Inadequacies in Birth Control Discussions By IRVING SPIEGEL Secretary of Labor W, Wil- lard Wirtz observed critically yesterday that the controversial question of birth control had not been discussed openly— “unless to be derided"—at the recently held election cam- paigns throughout the country. Noting that some population experts predict there will be three billion people or more by the year 2,000, Mr, Wirtz added that “there is 2. growing aware- ness that centuries after Mal- thus's warning—that there may not be food to feed so many.” His reference to Malthus re- ferred to Thomas R. Malthus, 18th century economist who was author of the theory that population tends to increase faster than the f20d supply, and that war, discase and famine are necezsary to keen the nopula- ths tion in balanc> with the food supply. Population Malthus said, must be checked by moral re- straints i Speaking at a special convo- cation at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in the up- per ‘Bronx, Secr etary Wirtz used the birth contro] question as an example of the failure of, in his words, “the majority” to face up to the knowledge science 4s constantly develop- ing. “a rough equivolent between both the nature and the infinite importance of two pursuits: that by the life scientis' of the method of creating life, and ‘that by society of how to con- ol birth.” } CLO aera Se manna pe Oe RE AN UAE it es 4 5 ni The New York Times VIEWS BIRTH RISE: Secretary of Imbor W. Wil- lard Wirtz said birth con- trol issue should have been discussed more openly in lection “There is, at least,” he said, 2 campaigns, - Dangers Foreseen war too dangerous to be left to the generals, Mr. Wirtz said, “science, when it unlocks the arcane of thought and life will either have made science too} dangerous to be left to the sci- entists or will have made gov- ernment too dangerous to be left to the governed.” The Einstein College, which is part of Yeshiva University, began yesterday a $120-million development program over 4 10-year period to strengthen! and extend the medical school programs of education and re- search and the development of oxtensive facilities. Jack D, Weiler, chairman of the Medical College's Board of ‘Overseers, announced that the campaign had started with preliminary pledges of $15-mil- lion, One of the highlights of the convocation was the presenta- tion of honorary degrees to four prominent Americans for vari- ous achievements in their fields. Cited were Mr, Wirtz, who was awarded the degree of doctor of laws; Charles H, Rev- son, chairman of the board of '|Revlon, Inc., doctor of humane letters; Dr. Albert B, Sabin, who developed oral polio vac- cine, doctor of science, and Dr. Sidney Farber of Harvard Medical School, doctor of sci- ence. Dr, Samitel Belkin, president of . Yeshiva University, who awarded the degrees, observed that the recipients represented the “creative partnership of government, science and philan- thropy in the growth and de- velopment of American medical education and research.” The new program, Mr. Weiler said, would strengthen medical “Just as science has made + training in two ways by provid- ing an across-the-board increase in medical training and by pro- viding a $30-million fund to establish 60 academic chairs to stabilize the college's long-range educational program. Ee indicated that medical student enrollment would in- crease from 96 to 120 a class, that enrollment for doctorates would double from 45 to 90 and) that there would be a substan- tial increase in the number of intern residents and post-doc- toral fellcws trained. To provide facilities for its expanded enrollment, the Ein- stc!n Medical School is planning ja 15-story Educational Center, jor Health Sciences on ‘campus. its The building would provide classrooms, lecture halls and laboratories, as well as other facilities, including a two-story computer center and headquar- ‘ters for a greatly expanded pro- gram of preventive medicine and community health. ' Three large middle-income apartment houses vill be built on the campus site to provide. residential quarters for nurses, house staff, married students, post-doctoral fellows and junivr, faculty. ' Le  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 22, Folder 17, Document 20 Box 22 Box 22 Folder 17 Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/859eb47a183198b3fbbf6bc8b0aa2651.pdf e4392eff2956fcb7f91224930402c91b Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. r 15, 1 66 Force Tot At th , direction of P ul Yl of the pr y r, I tt chi • Ch pin on lo - r n i , co y es for co If y _ aibl roul to t l c.re of dt trl utt of lee it to t' _ oth .~ merm>e:r•• � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document November 15, 1966 MEMORANDUM Tor Members of Task Force Frome ArDee Ames At the direction of Paul Ylvisaker, I am attaching a copy of the memo prepared by Mr. Chapin on long-range issues for consideration by the task force. If you would send your memo to this office as soon as possible we will take care of distributing it to the other members.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 22, Folder 17, Document 21 Box 22 Box 22 Folder 17 Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/89b4a729c3ed6f666c719cf215fa9fa5.pdf 488d715cbf8134eab71b4fea9871c3ed Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. STATEMENT ON LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS For a tenant who is poor and lives in a slum, the balance of power in landlord-tenant relations is an unequal one. The slum dweller's ability to compete in the market place by moving elsewhere is · sharply limited. His ability to -seek legal redress is hampered both by his level of poverty and the lack of an adequate · framework of legal protection. His ability to obtain protection from government is limited by inadequate code enforcement programs and a lack of effective governmental sanctions in dealing with major code violations. Reformation of landlord-tenant law is a state and local government responsibility, but of major importance to the national welfare. The federal government already has substantial authority to help protect the rights of tenants through better code enforcement. The steps ta.ken by the federal government, while indirect, can be of decisive importance. I I I Recommendations: 1. The Task Force therefore recommends: That a National Institute of Urban Housing Law be es- tablished and adequately funded on a long-term basis. The Institute should be em.powered to prepare model statutes, develop briefs, and serve as a clearinghouse of housing law information. ~-- ... __ / / �2. That the administration of HUD' s "Workable Program" which now statutorily calls for an effective program of code enforcement, be strengthened (a) by giving the matter highest possible priority in the · Department, (b) by clarifying regulations and developing specific criteria on what constitutes an effective program, and (c) ~by requiring · uniform statistical reporting to determine comparable rates of municipal performance. 3. That HUD's program of aid for concentrated code enforce- ment (Sec. 117) be revised to allow the use of such funds in hard ·core slum areas to cope with most urgent code violations, or new legislation should be sought to provide a new aid program for urgent repairs and intensified municipal services in such slum areas. 4. That HEW should be directed, either by legislation or administrative action, to require as a condition of continued welfare payments that state and local governments establish a program that: (a) provides a system for the inspection and certification of major code violations and the opportunity for welfare recipients to elect to with- I I hold their rent where justified, (b) allows rent to be placed in escrow for the repair of such violations, and (c) requir~s enactment of appropriate legislation prohibiting summary eviction of such welfare tenants. 5. That all federal departments concerned with property acqui- sition prohibit peyroents for values rep~esented by the amount of code violations. 6. I -- _/ That federal departments dealing with the audit and veri- fication of real estate and mortgage loan assets require certification, for each property concerned, that no official complaints of code violations I are presently pending. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document STATEMENT ON LANDLORD-TENANT RELATIONS For a tenant who is poor and lives in a slum, the balance of power in landlord-tenant relations is an unequal one. The slum dweller's ability to compete in the market place by moving elsewhere is sharply limited. His ability to seek legal redress is hampered both by his level of poverty and the lack of an adequate © framework of legal protection. His ability to obtain protection from government is limited by inadequate code enforcement programs and a lack of effective governmental sanctions in dealing with major code violations. Reformation of landlord-tenant law is a state and local government responsibility, but of sade dumewian se to the national welfare. The federal government already has substantial authority to help protect the rights of tenants through better code enforcement. The steps taken by the federal government, while indirect, can be of decisive importance. Recommendations: The Task Force therefore recommends: 1. That a National Institute of Urban Housing Law be es- tablished and adequately funded on a long-term basis. The Institute should be empowered to prepare model statutes, develop briefs, and serve as a clearinghouse of housing law information. 2. That the administration of HUD's "Workable Program" which now statutorily calls for an effective program of code enforcement, be strengthened (a) by giving the matter highest possible priority in the Department, (b) by clarifying regulations and developing specific criteria on what constitutes an effective program, and (c) by requiring uniform statistical reporting to determine comparable rates of municipal performance. 3. That HUD's program of aid for concentrated code enforce- ment (Sec. 117) be revised to allow the use of such funds in hard ‘core slum areas to cope with most urgent code violations, or new legislation should be sought to provide a new aid program for urgent repairs and in- tensified municipal services in such slum areas. 4. That HEW should be directed, either by legislation or administrative action, to require as a condition of continued welfare payments that state and local governments establish a program that: (a) provides a system for the inspection and certification of major code violations and the opportunity for welfare recipients to elect to with- hold their rent where justified, (b) allows rent to be placed in escrow for the repair of such violations, and (c) requires enactment of appropriate legislation prohibiting summary eviction of such welfare tenants. 5. That all federal departments concerned with property acqui- sition prohibit payments for values represented by the amount of code violations. 6. That federal departments dealing with the audit and veri- fication of real estate and mortgage loan assets require certification, for each property concerned, that no official complaints of code violations are presently pending. # i #  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 22, Folder 17, Document 22 Box 22 Box 22 Folder 17 Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/6914b3c02ce64f7f9450482df3756112.pdf c013b3cf2043b6c55e3666d825022446 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. December 1, 1966 SUMMA_·1w REPORT TO T:FIE ?R~SIDEI\i'T BY THE TASK FORCE ONT}~ CITIES ... ., - DJTRODUCTION The Task Force was convened on October 28 to give con sideration to issues and proposals in four areas : centers, (2) homern-mership by the poor, Corporation, and (4) (3) (1) neighborhood Urban Development landlord-tenant relations . GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Neighborhood Centers: A federal inter - agency progr ara should be initiated on a demonstration basis . But t he goal should be to shape the tot al service system of a city, so that it effectively meets needs from the individual's viewpoint and not just to te st out different kinds of "models II as though neighborhood centers a.r e ends in t hemselves r ather than t he delivery ar m of the city's service system. Homeownership by the Poor : trying on a pilot program basis . Is a good i dea and well worth But it is no panacea . It should be made part of a. larger neighborhood i mprovement program. It should make mmership possible outside the slum as well as i n i ·~. Dwellings should be rehabilitated prior to asswnption of mmership . Low interest loans and rent supplements or other subsidies from owners will be necessary . �2. Uroan Developr .ent Corooration : As a means of stimulat ing teci_r1ological and o-che r cost-s aving i nnovations, it is an attr active idea . But it must be done on a large enough sc ale if it is to have any i mpact . A number of risks ar e involved. Fir,. commitments on t he availab ility of low- interest loans and rent supplements must be made . Landlord - ten2.nt relations : The federal government ha s present authority, and can issue additional administr ative regulations , to help tenants by requiring vigorous code enforcement a s a condi tion of federal assistance . In addition, consideration should be given to using welfare payments as lever age to correct serious code violation s by l andlords . s·lmn areas . HlJ1) 1 s aid program for code enforcement should be used in A National I nstitute of Urban Housing Law should be es - tablished . fl :ff ,t " · � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document December 1, 1965 SUMMARY REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT BY THE TASK FORCE ON THe CITIES TNTRODUCTION The Task Force was convened on October 28 to give con- sideration to issues and proposals in four areas: (1) neighborhood centers, (2) homeownership by the poor, (3) Urban Development Corporation, and (4) landlord-tenant relations. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS Neighborhood Centers: A federal inter-agency program should be initisted on a demonstration basis. But the goal should : be to shape the total service system of a city, so that it effectively meets needs from the individual's viewpoint and not just to test out different kinds of "models" as though neighborhood centers are ends in themselves rather than the delivery arm of the city's service system. Homeownership by the Poor: Is a good idea and well worth trying on a pilot program basis. But it is no panacea. It should be made part of a larger neighborhood improvement program. It should make ownership possible outside the slum as well as in is. Dwellings should be rehabilitated prior to assumption of ownership. Low interest loans and rent supplements or other subsidies from owners will be necessary.  Urban Development Corporation: As & means of stimulating ce echnological and other cost-saving innovations, it is an attractive ea. But it must be done on a large enough scale if it is to have ‘a Pu any impact. A number of risks are involved. Firm commitments on the availability of low-interest loans and rent supplements must be made. Landlord-tensent relations: The federal government hes present euthority, and can issue additional administrative regulations, to help tenants by requiring vigorous code enforcement as a condition a ederal assistance. In addition, consideration should be given to Fy or using welfare payments as leverage to correct serious code violations by landlords. HUD's aid program for code enforcement should be used in slum areas. A National Institute of Urban Housing Law should be es- teblished. Oe al wot #  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 22, Folder 17, Document 23 Box 22 Box 22 Folder 17 Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/4c8f1268c4d0d3b369585d17475fa9dc.pdf 9f1177dbeec021c69a501356e6141b89 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. SlJi,~,_;_/illy STATEJ'l.lEI,iT ON 1JEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS The Ta sk Force is concerned over what appears to be a tendency to look at ne i ghb orhood centers through t he i·r.cong end of the telescope . The quest ion is not how many cente rs we need, n or whether t hey should be pure information centers , di agnosis centers, one stop r:mlti - purpose centers, or othe r combinations . The ques tion is how to t ake the bewildering maze of pr e sent social service s (broadly defined)- a..'1.d develop a system for delivering those services in a manner th.s.t ma..1-rn s sense from the st andpoint of the men, women , and children who need he l p the most. Ne i ghb orh ood centers c an serve as the delivery ar m for the city's system of social services . They can serve effectively, however, only if the city's system is rationally orgru1iz ed to :provide coordinated and mutually reinfor cing s ervices in a manner that genuine ly meets the consumer's needs . They cannot and should not - - be come small repli c as that simply mirror and se ek to compete wit h the larger institutions that make up the pr e sent dis or g anized system . In t he long run that woul d only add one more twist to an already t ortuous maze . Unless there is reorgani zation at the federal, s t ate , and local l evel t o develop a system that is tailored from the viewpoint oi t he i ndividual's needs, the establishment of neighborhood centers in every ghetto of America wil l have little lasting value. �Recommendations: 1. The Task Force therefore recommends: That the proposed inter-agency demonstration in 14 cities negotiate only with cities willing to develop plans and mechanisms for the coordination and rational delivery of its service system. 2. That, to the extent possible, this inter-agency demonstra- tion be carried out in cities participating in the Model Cities Program. 3. That the inter-agency steering committee be directed to study and make recommendations for revision of federal statutory and administrative regulations that would contribute to the development of a coordinated system 4. That, to provide greater funding flexibility, legislation should be sought to enable HUD to use present funds for services as well as physical facilities. 5, That any neighborhood c~nters established be equipped with the mandate and resources to serve as an effective catalyst, influence and advocate for making the total system more responsive -to individual's needs. 6. That the program be carried out with maximum participation and involvement of the people to be served. I I I _,,...- I ~ � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document SUMMARY STATEMENT ON NETGECORHOOD CENTERS | The Task Force is concerned over what appeers to be a tendency to look at neighborhood centers through the wrong end of whe telescope. The question is not how many centers we need, nor whether they should be pure information centers, diagnosis centers, one- stop multi-purpose centers, or other combinations. The acuestion is how to take the bewildering maze or present social services (broadly defined). and develop a system ror delivering those services in a manner that makes sense from the standpoint of the men, women, and children who need help the most. Neighborhood centers can serve as the delivery erm for the city's system of social services. They can serve effectively, however, only if the city's system is rationally organized to provide coordinated and mutually reinforcing services in a manner thet genuinely meets the consumer's needs, They cannot -- and should not -- become small replicas that simply mirror and seek to compete with the larger institutions thet up the present disorganized system. In the long run that would @ mak only add one more twist to an already tortuous maze. Unless there is reorganization at the federal, state, and locel level to develop a system that is tailored from the viewpoint of the individual's needs, the establishment of neighborhood centers in every ghetto of America will have little lasting value. ede Recommendations: The Task Force therefore recommends: 1. That the proposed inter-agency demonstration in 14 cities negotiate only with cities willing to develop plans and mechanisms for the coordination and rational delivery of its service system. 2. That, to the extent possible, this inter-agency demonstra- tion be carried out in cities participating in the Model Cities Program. 3. That the inter-agency steering committee be directed to study and make recommendations for revision of federal statutory and | administrative regulations that would contribute to the development of a coordinated system ; 4, That, to provide greater funding flexibility, legislation should be sought to enable HUD to use present funds for services as well as physical facilities. 5. That any neighborhood centers established be equipped with the mandate and resources to serve as an effective catalyst,influence and advocate for making the total system more responsive to individual's needs. 6. That the program be carried out with maximum participation and involvement of the people to be served. # # #  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 22, Folder 17, Document 24 Box 22 Box 22 Folder 17 Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/9b3b4a2c1721686335728abdef6a15d7.pdf 26ab5dcd6d6b02fffd811ee32edb83c8 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. SUBCOMM ITT EE REPO RT ON PROMOT ING HOME OWNERSH IP AMONG SLUM RES IDENTS I. Fact ua l Background l. 2. 3. The federal governmen t already prov ides a very significant subs idy for home ownership among middle-income and upper- income groups t hrough income tax deduc tions for int erest and property taxes. a. In 1962, th is subsidy amounted to a $2.9 bi llion tax saving for midd le- and upper- income groups. b. The uppermost 20% of a ll fami lies (w ith incomes over $9, 000) rece ived a subsidy o f $1 . 7 bil lion in 1962 - o r doub le the total 1962 housing subs idy given 1·0 th e lowermost 20% in t he fo rm o f public housing costs, welfare hous ing payments, and tax deductions combined. In ge neral, own e r-occupied ho mes in slum areas a re in better physica l condit io n t han ren t e r-occupied homes. However, this may result from the fac t t hat owners genera lly have higher incomes and mo re assets than ren t ers, rath er than from ownership per se . a. Th e proport ion of substa nda rd uni ts a mong fami lies w ith inco mes be low $4 , 000 in c ent ra l cities in 1960 was 8% for own er-occupied uni ts a nd 21% for renteroccupied un its. b. The pro po rt ion o f unso und dwe lling un its among a ll fam i ies in c entra l citi es in 1960 wa s 11% fo r owner-occupie d un its and 33% for ren t er-occupied un its . c. Th ere is a st rong consensus a mong housing expe rts and so cia l wo rkers ex perienc e d in slums tha t prov iding fa mi ies who want to own homes w it h a chanc e to do so wo ul d induc e signifi cantl y grea ter responsibil ity on t he ir part towa rd ma intenan c e o f bot h property and genera I neighborhood cond itio ns. Low-income residen ts get less qua lity pe r do lla r of rent than higher-income residents, and non - white get less t han w h tes. 0 a. In Houston , 80% o f low-in co me families pay ing $40 to $60 pe r month rent Iived in deterio ra ti ng or dila pida ted units, as compa red to only 21 % o f families with incomes o f $3, 000 to $6,000 payin g the same rents . Similar fi ndings (but less ext re me) were ma de in all cities recentl y studied. b. In Chi cago, w hites a nd non-whHes both pai d a median rent of $88 per month in 1960 , but the med ian unit fo r non - w hites was small e r and mo re crowded, and 30 . 7% o f a ll non-white occupied units were deteriorating or dilapidated, as compared w ith 11. 6% of al! white-occupied units. �-2- 4. Absentee ownership is higher in slum areas than in non-sl°um areas for comparable types of property. However, this could be a result of slum cond itions (for example, many peop le wealthy enough to be owners may not want to live in slums) rather than a cause of t hem. 5. Res iden ts o f poveri·y areas and racia l gheHos consider obtaining decent housing to be one of their most significan t prob lems. Yet they often feel frustrated by their apparent inabi Iity i·o improve their housing conditions through their own action. a. II~ 111. Most soc ial workers and other o bservers of slums believe that many very lowincome families have a strong desire l·o own their own homes. Objecti v es of Programs Encouragi ng Ho me O w nership 1. Providing more persons living in s lums wi t h an opportunity of shaping their own destiny regard ing the na t ure and condition of the ir housing. Thi$ would help t hem (a) develop a stake in society, (b) derive signifi cant benefits from governmental and other institutions they now regard wi th suspicion or host i lity, (c) learn how to make good use of such institutions, and (d) increase the feelings of self-estee m, pride, and adequacy which are so batt~red by life in s lum areas. 2. Improving the quality of housing occupied by s lum dwellers, and the qua lity they receive per dollar of expenditure on housing. 3. Providing a greater incentive for s lum a'wel lers to better mainta in the pro perty they Iive in, and to generally improve their own Iives. 4. Improv ing landlord-tenant rela tions among slum dwellers by shifti ng fro m absentee to resident landlo rds. 5. Prov iding easier and more widely accessible means for some slum fami Iies to " escape" from s lum areas by buying ho mes in non-slum and non-ghetto areas wh ich are nearer to new sources of jobs and have better-q ua lity env i ronments and government servic_e s. Constraints Under Which Any Programs Should Operate 1. Programs encouraging home ownership among persons now liv ing in s lums should involve two major facets: improving housing conditions and household morale in slum areas, and helping households now living in those areas move to better neighborhoods. Neither of these facets should be neglected. a. Those parts of any program concerned wi th slum areas themselves should be linked w ith re habili tation of housing in such areas. b. Those parts of any program concerned with helping people move out of s lums need not be linked w ith rehabilitation. �-32. 3. 4. Home-ownership-encourag ing programs shou ld be tried and developed only in three types of a reas: a. Slum areas where the en i·ire env ironmen t is being upgraded through o ther programs, such as improved government services, better schoo ls, intensive socia l work, etc. Ownership a lone is no t a panacea and c anno t co pe with a ll t he dep ressive factors in s lums. Hence s lum ownership programs should be tied in wii-h Model C ities Prog rams. b. O lder bui· well-established and stabl e neighborhoods genera ll y in good physical cond ii"ion and sup p lied wi t h good-qua lity govern ment services. In such areas, programs cou ld be both lin ked wi th rehabilitation o f t he few run-down struc t ures presen t, o r ca rried out wi t h hous ing a lready in good co ndition. The un its invo lved would be occup ied by e ith er new owne rs moving in from slum areas, or present renters in the neighborhood assuming owne rshi p . c. Newer and ou tl ying and suburban ne ighbo rhoods in excel len t conditio n and supp lied wi th good-qua lity governmen l· services. Here s lum dwe ll ers would assume own ership o f hous ing a lready in good cond ition. Programs en cou ra gi ng ho me ownership by s lum dwellers must no t work to thei r disadvantage. These programs shou ld nei ther cause suc h ho useho lds to in v est in property likely to deprec iate rapid ly in va lue , no r II lock them in to the s lums" and b lock their chance to move out into better ne igh borhoods. The refore: a. Such programs should no t be undertaken in slum areas w here cond itions are so bad tha t most o f t he dwe llings w ill e ventua ll y be demo li shed and replaced. b. Such programs shou ld not be un dertaken in any slum a reas un less 11 a ll-out 11 environment-improv ing programs are also currentl y underway. c. Suc h programs shou ld embody a "take-out " feature . It wou ld co nsist o f a guarantee by some public agen cy to buy the un it ba c k from its new owne rs within a certain time period a t no loss to them in case they decide (1) they would rather move ou t of th e slum area altogether, (2) they cannot handle the con tinuing burdens of owne rship, or (3) they do no t want to own this property beca use of con tin ui ng decline in the quality of the neighborhood as a whole. However, owners would be allowed to keep at least a portion of any capital gains resulting from their selling their property to other persons likely to maintain the property adequately. Ownership-encouraging programs linked to the rehabilitation of s lum properties should require it to occur before those properties are transferred to thei r new owners. The costs of rehabilitation can then be built into the debt structure of �- 4- these properties. Such cos"i·s can ·i·hen be subs idi zed th rough (a) e 1m!naJ·ion o f any required down-payment, (b) use of below-market-interest-rate loan fu:-i ds, (c) prov ision o f rent subsidies to tenants in resident land lo rd bui Idings, and (d) prov ision o f owne rship subsidy paymeni·s to new owners who are not land lo rds. 5. In order to make even t he lowest- income groups e lig ib le for these programs , 't would be desirable to chan ge pub lic aid regu lations so that we lfare payments fo r hous ing cou ld be appl ied against debt service and other ownershi p costs as we as a gainst rent. 6. Such programs shou ld not resu li· in the reaping of large profits by a bsentee owne rs who have refused to keep up th e ir propert ies, but who are required by t hese programs to se l I their properi"ies to o thers. 7. O wnership-encouragi ng programs for s lum dwel lers mus1· embody sign if cant preand post-ownersh ip counse ling and financial help admin istered by o rgan iza t ion s located in the slum areas themselves. These supplementary programs a re essen t ' a l to he lp t he new own ers w ith the lega l, fi nanc ial, maint enance, and rehabilita tion prob lems they w i 11 en counter a fter assum ing own ershi p. 8. Such pro gra ms shou ld no t requ ·re eit her the new owners or their ten an ts to ra ' se signi fi cantly the propo rtions o f thei r in comes they spend on housing, since t ha t pro portion is a lready high. 9. Because o f t he uncertainty conc erning the possib le success o f owne rsh ip-encouraging programs, and the particular forms o f them wh ic h w il I be most effective , they should be started on an experimenta l basis. This implies t ha t: -a. Sev e ra l different formats shou ld be started simu ltaneous ly, and eac h shou ld be tested un der a variety of condifions. b. Such programs shou ld be started on a rela t ive ly sma ll sca le, a nd expanded to larger-scale o peratio ns on ly aft er some experien ce has been ga ined about wh ich forma ts are most e ffec tive. c. Ea c h experiment shou ld be designed so that its effectiven ess can be accurate ly eval uated w ithin a rel a tive ly sho rt ti me. The obje c tives which shou ld be weight ed most heav ily in such eva luation shou ld be those concerni ng th e pro~ gram's impact upon t he ind iv idua l househo lds and fami li es invo lved, ra th e r than its impac t upon the phys ica l condition of housing, or th e flsca! status o f the c ities concern e d. d. The federal agenc y sponso ring such programs shou ld develop a set of specifl c formats w hic h it seeks to t est , and shou Id be sure that eac h o f th ese formats is g iven an e ffective test in one o r mo re c ities. �-5e. IV. Individual experiments shou ld be in corporated in the Mode l C ities Prog ram in many cases, since this program has been created to stimulate and test innovations in cop ing with s lum cond itions. 9. Programs encouraging home ownership among slum dwellers shou ld not be eva luated in terms of their effectiveness a t sav ing money in relation to other housing programs (such as urban renewa l o r public hous ing). They w ill probab ly cost no less than such o ther prog rams, and perhaps more. -Bui· they can be evalua1·ed in terms of thei r effectiveness at sav ing money in the long run by red ucing the costs of o ther programs aimed at coping wh"h the impacts of s lum a reas upon individuals. Examples are welfare programs, po lice action, and anti-de linquen cy programs. l 0. Ownership-encouraging prog rams can be best undertaken when norma l market forces are bringing about a rapid expansion in the i·otal supply of housing t hrough extensive construction of new mu lti-fami ly and single-family homes. O therwise the add itional demand fo r housing generated mighi· simp ly a ggrava t e any existing shortages and drive up prices and rents, rather than increasing the supp ly ava ilable to low-income families. This means such programs w ill func tion best when interest rates are re lative ly low rather than in a 11 tight money 11 c lima te . Suggested Programs l. A program to locate s lum dwe llers now renti ng in absentee-owned bui Idings who migh t become successful resident land lords , to find bui Idings appropriate for conv ersion from absen tee- to resident-l and lordship, and to assist the persons found to assume own ership o f those bui !d ings. a. The program wou ld invo lve full subsic;lies for down payments where re uired, and wou ld fi nance on-go ing o perating expenses and debt amortization out o f rents. b. Costs o f any rehabilitation necessary to bring the buildings up to con formity w ith re levant codes wou ld be cap ita lized into the debt structure. c. Below-market-interest-rate loans wou ld be used to finan c e purchase~ d. It wou ld concentrate upon buildings now in poor condition, but still capable o f satisfactory rehabilitation w ithout enormous costs. These buildings cou ld be a cquired from their absen tee owners through a 11 sq ueeze-out 11 process of code enforcement w ii-h minimum public investment. e. This program wou ld be applied on ly in 11 minimum-sized pieces. 11 Each would invo lve a c erta in minimum number of buildings located c lose together in a single block o r a few adjacent blocks. The number of uni ts wou ld be of sufficient "c ritical mass 11 to affect the entire environment of �-6- the b lock or b locks invo lved . Mo reover, eac h such "critica l-mass-sized piece" wou ld be processed simu l'·aneously and as a who le by the govern ment agency hand li ng the prog ram, ra-rher than one bui lding at a time. 2. f. The famil ies seek ing 1·0 become resident land lo rds unde r this program would no t have to remain in i·he spec ifi c buil dings t hey now occupy, but shou ld be allowed to assume ownersh ip in the neighborhoods whe re they now reside. g. In cases where recoverlng the cost of rehabilita tion requ ired rents ·n excess o f the ability to pay o f loca l low-in co me ho useholds, ren t subsidies would be linked into the ownersh ip-encouragement progra m. The combin ed effec t wou ld (1 ) provide rehabilita ted un its for low-income renl·ers and (2) a llow some low-income fami lies to become resident land lords in these rehabil ita t ed bui !dings. h. The program shou ld be run by new, loca l ly-offic e d o rgan izations operating under th e jurisdic i"ion of t he Ass istant Secretary 6f Housing and Urban Deve lopment for Demonstrations and Resea rc h. (1) Because the basi c o biec tiv e o f this program wou ld be a c hange in the soc ial cond it io ns and men ta l a ttil- udes o f s lum dwellers., it wou ld be des irab le fo r primary responsibility to rest in some a gen cy other than FHA . This wou ld a llow FHA to reta in its bas ic " prudent inv estment" o rienta tion w ithout conflkHng with the o bjectiv es o f t hi s program, w hi ch vary from II prudent investment. 11 As lon g as this program is muc h smaller t han FHA 's ot her activ ities (and it must be at least to start), it wou ld be diffi cu lt for FHA to generate the necessary enthusiasm and out look to encou rag e !·he high-risk and frank ly experimental operat·ons essent ia l to success. (2) The Assistant Secreta ry shou ld set general standards of performance and evaluat ion for the program. However, he shou ld be fre e to c reate a variety o f specifc o rganizationa l a rrangemen ts with loca l groups to o perate the program in different metropo litan a reas. Examp les are non-pro fit co rporations, chu rch groups, un ions, or city departments . (3) Each such organ ization shou ld opera t e loca l neighbo rhood o ffi c es to assist new owners w ith (a) pre-ownersh i p training in housekeep ing , mak ing minor repa irs, and lega l responsibi lities, (b) counsel ing on main t enance and fi nancing du ri ng the initial ownershi p period, and (c) fo l low- on counseli ng as necessary. A simi la r progra m to he lp ren t e rs in slum areas take over ownership o f indiv idual un its in mu lt i-fami ly bu il d ings on a condom in ium basis (but not on a cooperati ve ownership basis). �-7- a. This program would hav e a ll o f ·i· he attributes of the first program described above except the use o f rent subsidi es (parl· g). b. If the in co m_es o f the potential owners were not suffi c ient to pay the ca rrying costs o f ownership, then an add it iona l con t inuing su bsidy cou ld be used. This subsidy wou ld be considered the eq uiva len1· o f i·he in.terest and pro perty- tax ded uc tion subsi dy en joyed by midd le-in co me and upper- in come househo lds. Since low- income househo lds do not hav e enough income to benefit fro m such ded uctions, they wou ld be given direct cash equiva lents. The higher the income, the lower the equiva lent; t he larger the household, the hig her the equiva lent -- o ther things being equa l . 3. Anothe r program to he lp renters of sing le-fami ly dwe llings in slum areas ( like Watts) i·ake over ownershi p o f their dwe llings o r o f o ther similar sing le-fam ily dwe llings nearby . This program wou ld a lso have a ll of the a tt ributes o f th e first program desc ribed above except the use o f reni· subs idies. It wou ld make use o f in co me-ta xdeduction-equiva lents, as desc ribed under the second program set fo rth above. 4. A fourth program design ed to encou rage slum dwel lers to mov e into non- slum areas by buying s ing le-fam ily o r two-fam ily bui ldings, o r individua l un its in con do mini um bui ldings, in such a reas. a. This prog ra m wou ld invo lve fu ll subsidies fo r downpayments where req uired. b. It wou ld be focuss ed upon bui Idings a lready in standard condition and therefore needing v ery li tt le rehab i litation. c, It wou ld invo lve indiv idua l bui ldings· scattered throughout neighborhoods containing soc io-economic lev els above th e slum areas , but not as high as upper.,. middle-in come areas . Howev er, the condom ini um parts of the program wou ld invo lve entire bui Idings o perated unde r the program. d. It wou ld incorporate the aspec ts o f the first program desc ribed a bove set fo rth · in paragraphs IV, 1, f-g-h . It wou ld a lso in co rporat e the cont in uing subsidy based upon income-t ax-deduction ·eq uivalents described in paragraph IV, 2, b above. e. The o rganization o pera ting this progra m should have a metropolitan-areawide jurisdiction rather than covering on ly the c entral c ity therein. In fact, it shou ld emphasize placement o f former slum dwellers in suburban areas where possible. Yet this organization should be the same as, or close ly linked to, w hatev er organization administers the o ther programs described abov e . f. The exact locations of the housing se lected for use in this program should be based upon the fol low ing considerations: �- 8- 5. (1) The housing un its se lected shou ld be in sound neighborhoods but sho u ld not be far beyond the econo mi c capabi Iities of th e households moving out of the s lums. Hen ce these househo lds mig h·i- be expec ted to assume fu ll ownership w ithout a con ti nu ing subsidy a fter a c ertain period. (2) There shou ld be a mixture of Negro and white households in vo lved. Some of the s lum move-outs shou ld resuli· in re location o f Negro fa milies in previous ly a ll -wh ite o r predominan·tl y-whi t e areas, a nd some shou ld resu l-r in p lacemeni· o f Negroes in previous ly Negro areas and wh il-es in prev ious ly whi t e a reas. (3) In no cases should the househo lds moved out o f s lums under ·this program be conc entrated together in the rec eiv ing neighbo rhoods i·o suc h an exteni· as to become a dominant group in any given b lock o r elementary schoo l d istrict. (4) If possible, the neigh bo rhoods chosen shou ld be c lose to the type o f jobs possessed by the fami I ies mov ing oui· o f the s lums , and to so_urces o f new employment o ppo rt uni ties being created in the metropolitan area. (5) If possible, the neighbo rhoods c hosen shou ld be parts of c il"ies benefiting fro m o ther federal programs (suc h as urban renewal, the Interstate Highway Progra m, or federal aid to education) the contin uance o f whic h might be linked a t least informa lly w ith wi llin ness to coo perate w ith this program. Sim il arly, this program might be linked with defense procu rement acti v ities in commun ities be nefiting from defense production con trac ts . g. This program wo u ld not invo lve the c reation o f resident land lords (exc ept in two-unit bui !dings) by eliminatio n o f absen tee land lordsh ip . h. It might be desirab le to link this program w ith th e o the r programs encouraging own ership of buildings in s lums by s lum-dwe llers . This cou ld be done through some type of formu la wh ich wou ld require prov isio n of a certain number of · 11 s lum-escape 11 un its for each set o f "slum-renovation " units invo lved . Al l of the above programs should be linked to a number of o ther federa l programs or policies aimed at reducing the impact of ethnic discrimina tion upon housing markets. Discrimination creates a " back-pressure" in areas readily avai lable to minority groups which tends to raise prices therein . This makes it ha rder for resi ents to own their own homes, and reduces the incenHve of absentee lan d lo rds to improve deteriorated slum properti e s. Among the possible ways to counteract these forces might be: a. Requirement that any dwe lling uni ts financed with mortgages furnished by institutions supported by federal agencies (such as banks and savings and loan associations) be sold or rented on a non-discriminatory basis. �----- ·------------ - -- --- -·- -·-- - - -9b. CreaHon o f pub li c ho us ing on va c ant land, parH cu la rly in subu rban areas; preferab ly on sca ttered sites an re la ti ve ly sma li u low- dse pro jec ts. Th is assumes that the hous ng so c reated wou ld be ntegrai-edu preferab ly with a Negro mino rity u ra ther than l 00 perc ent Negro. 0 0 c. Subs diz a tion o f privat e groups des"gned to he lp Neg ro househo lds move onto prev ious ly a ll -wh t e neighborhoods in suburbs and pe d phera l ne ighbo rhoods in c entral ci·H es. (An examp le ss the group o f th us type in Ha rtford 0 Connect icut) . Such subs idy cou ld consist o f gran Hng o f tax exemptions u o r a llow in g the sa le o f ta x-exempt secu rit° es,. as we ll as provhbn of g rants to cover cap ita l or ope ra ting costs. · 0 0 V. Estimated Costs of Owne rsh ip-En co uragement Programs Undertaken a t Va d ous Sca les l. Bas ic assumptions unde rl y ing l·hese cost estimates are de r°ved from FHA expe d en ce and census data. They are as fol lows: a. Th e total cost o f acqu ring and rehabilitating e ither singl e-fam nl y o r m t· fam ily hous ing will be $1 2,,500 per un it . b. Tota l per-uni t mon -i·h ly ope rating expenses a re $48 .46 for sing le-fam ily houses, and $49 . 42 for mu lti -fam ly bu il d ings (i nc lud ing a $9 a lowan ce for vacancy and contingencies but no a Ilowance for management fees). 0 0 c. Househo ld inc o mes have ri sen about 25% since 1959, when t he in come d istribution among occupan ts of substandard hous·ng uni ts who ea rned less than $6,000 per yea r was as fo ll ows: Unde r $2,000 $2,999 17 . 2% $3;000 - $3, 999 13.5% $4,000 - $4, 999 9.3% $5,000 - $5v999 6 . 4% $2,000 Tota l d. 51.9% 100 .0% Th e proposed prog rams will extend ass istance to members of a ll th ese ·ncome groups proportionately . Henc e ca lcu lotions about the total subsidy re quired can be based upon th e we ighted average 1965 in come o f th e entire group, which as $2,840 per year. �- 10- e. Househo lds can devote 25% o f t heir incomes to housing. Thss a mo un ts to a we ghted average of $59.16 per mon1-h for th e en f re g roup invo ved. 0 2. f. A ! costs of acq uisition a nd re ha bi ta tion w "I be :nco rporat ed nto the tota l in "Ha l loan and amo rtazed over a 30-year period on a no-dow n- payme, t bas·s. g. Mu lt"-fam!!y p rograms w ill uta aze 12-un it buo! d ings and provode no ex p!k H a llowance for owner profts. 0 0 These assumpt 'ons lead to t he fo l owing conc lus'ons: a. The annua I ra t e of d h e c t subs idy per un H, not coun ti ng ad mi nistra tive costs or losses of int e rest from be low-markel- ra i·es,. wou ld be $504 fo r a seng le-fa mq y program a nd $5 16 for a mult~-famely program at a 3% nt e rest ra t e. Hence direct subsid ies per un it a re very similar fo r the two programs. 0 b. D rect subs idy costs a re ve ry sensit°ve to c ha nges in int erest ra te . For a s ngl efa mi y program, the va ria t on is fro m $772 per uni t per year a t 6% to $504 a t 3% and $288 a t z e ro nteres1. However g if losses in int erest a re co nted a s costs, th s sensitiv ity drops to zero. 0 0 0 0 0 c. Direct subsedy costs are a lso very sensitive to c hanges in the ·ncome-co mpos1t"on of the groups serve d. Exc luding fam H°es w"th inco mes below $20 000 ra ~ses the we "ght ed average a mou ,t ava "lable per month fo r hous ing fro m $59 . 16 to $94 .88 . This reduc es the annua l s'ngle- fam ily subsidy a t 3% 'nterest from $504 per un it to $75 - - a drop of 85% . However, it a lso exc ludes 52% o f the ho use ho lds w ith incomes unde r $6 8 000 liv ing in substa nda rd hous"ng. d. To·ta l costs a t va d o us sca les o f operatcon (exc luding a dministratuon) a re snmll a r fo r both song! e-fa mal y and mu lti -famoly programs. Hen ce they ca n both be 1tl ustrated by the fo iow cng ta ble for singl e-family pro gra ms,. assumong a 3% int e rest ra te : Number o f Housing Units Annual Direct Subsidy Charges ($ m· I lions) Requi red !nut[a i Loan Fund A llocat·ons ($ m 1!'ons) 0 $ 62 . 5 5;000 $ 2 . 520 10,.000 5.040 125 . 0 25g000 12. 600 312.5 50,000 25 . 200 625 . 0 50.400 1,250 .0 �- 11 - e. 3. Th e above tab le ·s based upon pro po rt·ona i pa rt dpat ion by a H uncome groups un der $6, 000 pe r year. Va·ia tions in tota l cosi·s a t th ese sca les res u ltung from changes ·n int erest ra t es or in come-g roup compos itio n can be roug h ly est; ma t ed from po ints (b) and (c) a bove. 0 The s"gn· .c·cance of th e sca le of ho me-owne rsh ip programs depends upon the tota l number of s lum fam i ies Bv ng ·n substanda rd hous ng who wou ld Hke to beco me owners • 0 0 . 4. a. n 1960, t he re we re 6.9 millio n ren te r househo lds lov ing ·n cent ra l c Hes. Aboul· 818, 000 (1 2%1 le ved in substanda rd un its; 508 , 000 of these had ~ri comes unde r $4, 000. Ano t her 992,000 (14%) lived in standard but c rowded un its; 390,000 o f these had oncomes unde r $4u 000. Hence th e paten-Ha ! centra l..: d ty "unive rse" consists o f 1.8 m' llion ren t ers in substandard or c rowded Lm!ts 17 o f whom 898 1 000 had incomes under $4,000 in 1960. Of course., now he re nea r a l I of these househo lds wish to become owners. b. There w e re ac t ua ll y more renter househo lds in substandard un' ts o uts;de c entra l c ities t han ins ide th em in 1960: 1,923; 000 vs. 818 8 000. Howeve r, except for 205 , 000 local·ed in the urban fringes o f metropo litan a reas, t hese househo lds shou ld perhaps no t be co nsidered as "s lu m res idents. 11 0 is The cost o f home-owne rsh ip programs sim il a r to tha t o f ren t supp lement prog rams 8 coun t 'ng on !y direc t subsidy pay ments. The d rect rent supp lemen t s bs udy a verages about $600 per uni t per yea , as co mpared to $504 pe r uni t per yea r for scng !efamily ho me ownership a t 3% interest. Howev er, if interest losses due to below market rates are co unted, th en another $268 per un H per yea r must be added (H th e market ra t e ·s conside red to be 6%). Th s inc r~ases the per un it per year cost o f th e home- ownershop prog ram to abou t· 29% a bove that fo r th e ren t supp lement prog ram, exc luding adm in°st ra ti ve costs from both . 0 0 VI. Recommended Add st°o!1a l Researc h 1. Some o f the concepts and quant fned esta ma t es set forth abov e have been based upo n adm tted !y [n adequa t e o r unreHab le da ta. Therefore, we recommend t hat additiona l resea rc h be undertaken before the programs described here ln a re g uven flnal app rova l in concept or designed in detail. 0 0 2. Consequent ly,, re li ab le information about the fo l lowing shou ld be o bta ined: a. Ac cura t e est ·mat es of tota l operat'ng costs for mu lti -fam ily hous b g to be deve loped under any owne rsh ip program. Th e opera ti ng cost estlma t es a n d conti ngency a llowances used 1n t he above ca lcu la tions were sup p!o ed by FHA . Howeve r.v we be lieve they may be low v because opera ti ng costs no rma l!y run 60% of to ta l g ross revenue 6 and no t all funds ava il ab le for debt service are actua ll y app lied to debt service. �-12b. Th e required a tt ribut es of home owne rs in slums . Probab ly they revolve around steady emp loymen t , ·rhe a va il abi lity of mu lti p le fam ly membe rs some o f wh o m are ho me and ca n keep i"rac k of t he pro per·'·y , reasonab ly good c harac ter reco rd, etc. 0 c. The spec ifi c urban areas c lassified as s lum a reas for pu rposes o f these programs, a nd c ertain da ta about them . (1) Number o f dwe lling un its by ·' ype o f struc t ure : sma ll mu lti - fam i y, la rge mu lti - fam il y, a nd sing le fam ily . (2) Number of ho useho lds li ving t herein a nd their ma jo r inco me, ethni c , a nd fami ly size c haraderisti cs . (3) Condi t io n o f structures. d. The numbe r o f pe rso ns o r ho useho l s in i·hese areas who hav e the requ·red c harac teristi cs for ownership, abso ute ly and as a perc entage o f the tota l. e. Ways in whi c h ownersh ip programs can be ti ed into over-a ll stra i"egi es conc erning low-in co me ho using and th e ame li o ratio n o f gheHos so t hat they do no t mere ly perpet uate s lums by II lock"ng in 11 the new owners of o ld bui ldings. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT ON PROMOTING HOME OW NERSHIP AMONG SLUM RESIDENTS I, Factual Background 1. The federal government already provides a very significant subsidy for home owner- ship among middle-income and upper-income groups through income tax deductions for interest and property taxes. a. In 1962, this subsidy amounted to a $2.9 biilion tax saving for middle- and upper-income groups. The uppermost 20% of all families (with incomes over $9,000) received a subsidy of $1.7 billion in 1962 — or double the total 1962 housing subsidy given to the lowermost 20% in the form of public housing costs, welfare housing paymenis, and tax deductions combined. In general, owner-occupied homes in slum areas are in better physical condition than renter-occupied homes. However, this may result from the fact that owners generally have higher incomes and more assets than renters, rather than from ownership per se. a. The proportion of substandard units among families with incomes below $4,000 in central cities in 1960 was 8% for owner-occupied units and 21% for renter= occupied units. The proportion of unsound dwelling units among all families in central cities in 1960 was 11% tor owner-occupied units and 33% for renter-occupied units. There is a strong consensus among housing experts and social workers experienced in slums that providing families who want to own homes with a chance jo do so would induce significantly greater responsibility on their part toward maintenance of both property and general neighborhood conditions. Low-income residents get less quality per dollar of rent than higher-income residents, and non-white get less than whites. a. In Houston, 80% of low-income families paying $40 to $60 per month rent lived in deteriorating or dilapidated units, as compared to only 21% of families with incomes of $3,000 to $6,000 paying the same rents. Similar findings (but less extreme) were made in all cities recently studied. In Chicago, whites and non=whites both paid a median rent of $88 per month in 1960, but the median unit for non-whites was smaller and more crowded, and 30.7% of all non-white occupied units were deteriorating or dilapidated, as compared with 11.6% of all white-occupied units. ll. ith: a Absentee ownership is higher in slum areas than in non=slum areas for comparable types of property. However, this could be a result of slum conditions (for example, many people wealthy enough to be owners may not want to live in slums) rather than a cause of them. . Residents of poverty areas and racial ghettos consider obtaining decent housing fo be one of their most significant problems. Yet they often feel frustrated by their apparent inability to improve their housing conditions through their own action. a. Most social workers and other observers of slums believe that many very low- income families have a strong desire to own their own homes. Objectives of Programs Encouraging Home Ownership i Providing more persons living in slums with an opportunity of shaping their own destiny regarding the nature and condition of their housing. This would help them (a) develop a stake in society, (b) derive significant benefits from governmental and other institutions they now regard with suspicion or hostility, (c) learn how to make good use of such institutions, and (d) increase the feelings of self-esteem, pride, and adequacy which are so batiered by life in slum areas. Improving the quality of housing occupied by slum dwellers, and the quality they receive per dollar of expenditure on housing. Providing a greater incentive for slum dwellers to better maintain the property they live in, and to generally improve their own lives. Improving landlord-tenanit relations among slum dwellers by shifting from absentee to resident landlords. Providing easier and more widely accessible means for some slum families to “escape" from slum areas by buying homes in non=slum and non=ghetio areas which are nearer to new sources of jobs and have betier-quality environments and govemment services. Constraints Under Which Any Programs Should Operate ts Programs encouraging home ownership among persons now living in slums should involve two major facets: improving housing conditions and household morale in slum areas, and helping households now living in those areas move to better neighborhoods. Neither of these facets should be neglected. a, ‘Those parts of any program concerned with slum areas themselves should be linked with rehabilitation of housing in such areas. b. Those parts of any program concerned with helping people move out of slums need not be linked with rehabilitation. ~3- 2. Home-ownership-encouraging programs should be tried and developed only in three types of areas: a. Slum areas where the entire environment is being upgraded through other programs, such as improved government services, better schools, intensive social work, ete. Ownership alone is not a panacea and cannot cope with all the depressive factors in slums. Hence slum ownership programs should be tied in with Model Cities Programs. b. Older but well-established and stable neighborhoods generally in good physical condition and supplied with good-quality government services. In such areas, programs could be both linked with rehabilitation of the few run-down siructures present, or carried out with housing already in good condition. The uniis involved would be occupied by either new owners moving in from slum areas, or present renters in the neighborhood assuming ownership. ¢. | Newer and outlying and suburban neighborhoods in excellent condition and supplied with good-quality governmeni services. Here slum dwellers would assume ownership of housing already in good condition. 3. Programs encouraging home ownership by slum dwellers must not work to their dis- advantage. These programs should neither cause such households to invest in property likely to depreciate rapidly in value, nor "lock them into the slums" and block their chance to move out into better neighborhoods. Therefore: a. Such programs should not be undertaken in slum areas where conditions are so bad that most of the dwellings will eventually be demolished and replaced. b. | Such programs should not be undertaken in any slum areas unless "all-out" environment=improving programs are also currently underway. ¢. Such programs should embody a "take-out" feature. [It would consist of a guarantee by some public agency to buy the unit back from iis new owners within a certain time period at no loss to them in case they decide (1) they would rather move out of the slum area altogether, (2) they cannot handle the continuing burdens of ownership, or (3) they do not want to own this property because of continuing decline in the quality of the neighborhood as a whole. However, owners would be allowed to keep at least a portion of any capital gains resulting from their selling their property to other persons likely to maintain the property adequately. 4. Ownership-encouraging programs linked to the rehabilitation of slum properties should require it to occur before those properties are transferred to their new owners. The costs of rehabilitation can then be built into the debt structure of  sibs these properties. Such costs can then be subsidized through (a) elimination of any required down-payment, (b) use of below-market=inierest-rate loan funds, (c) pro= vision of rent subsidies to tenants in resident landlord buildings, and (d) provision of ownership subsidy payments to new owners who are not landlords. In order to make even the lowest-income groups eligible for these programs, it would be desirable to change public aid regulations so that welfare payments for housing could be applied against debi service and other ownership cosis as weil as against rent. Such programs should not result in the reaping of large profits by absentee owners who have refused to keep up their properties, but who are required by these pro- grams to sell their properties to others. Ownership-encouraging programs for slum dwellers must embody significant pre- and post-ownership counseling and financial help administered by organizations located in the slum areas themselves. These supplementary programs are essential to help the new owners with the legal, financial, maintenance, and rehabilitation problems they will encounter after assuming ownership. Such programs should not require either the new owners or their tenanis to raise significantly the proportions of their incomes they spend on housing, since that proportion is already high. Because of the uncertainty conceming the possible success of ownership=encourag- ing programs, and the particular forms of them which will be most effective, they should be started on an experimental basis, This implies that: a. Several different formats should be started simulianeously, and each should be tested under a variety of conditions. b. | Such programs should be started on a relatively small scale, and expanded to larger-scale operations only after some experience has been gained about which formats are most effective. cs Each experiment should be designed so that its effectiveness can be accurately evaluated within a relatively short time. The objectives which should be weighted most heavily in such evaluation should be those conceming the pro= gram's impact upon the individual households and families involved, rather than its impact upon the physical condition of housing, or the fiscal status of the cities concemed. d. The federal agency sponsoring such programs should develop a set of specific formats which it seeks to test, and should be sure that each of these formats is given an effective test in one or more cities. 10, =5- e. Individual experiments should be incorporated in the Model Cities Program in many cases, since this program has been created to stimulate and test innova- tions in coping with slum conditions. Programs encouraging home ownership among slum dwellers should not be evaluated in terms of their effectiveness at saving money in relation to other housing programs (such as urban renewal or public housing). They will probably cos no Tess than such other programs, and perhaps more. -But they can be evaluated in terms of their effectiveness at saving money in the long run by reducing the costs of other programs aimed at coping with the impacis of slum areas upon individuals. Examples are wel- fare programs, police action, and anti-delinquency programs. Ownership-encouraging programs can be best undertaken when normal market forces are bringing about a rapid expansion in the total supply of housing through extensive construction of new multi-family and single-family homes. Otherwise the additional demand for housing generated might simply aggravate any existing shortages and drive up prices and rents, rather than increasing the supply available to low-income families. This means such programs will function best when interest rates are rela- tively low rather than in a "tight money" climate. IV. Suggested Programs 1. A program to locate slum dwellers now renting in absentee-owned buildings who might become successful resident landlords, to find buildings appropriate for con- version from absentee= to resident-landlordship, and to assist the persons found to assume ownership of those buildings. a. The program would involve full subsidies for down payments where required, and would finance on-going operating expenses and debi amortization out of rents. b. Costs of any rehabilitation necessary to bring the buildings up to conformity with relevant codes would be capitalized into the debt structure. c. Below=-market-interesi-rate loans would be used fo finance purchase. d. It would concentrate upon buildings now in poor condition, but still capable of satisfactory rehabilitation without enormous costs. These buildings could be acquired from their absentee owners through a "squeeze-out" process of code enforcement with minimum public investmeni. e. This program would be applied only in "“minimum=sized pieces." Each would involve a certain minimum number of buildings located close together in a single block or a few adjacent blocks. The number of units would be of sufficient "critical mass" to affect the entire environment of ahi the block or blocks involved. Moreover, each such "critical-mass-sized piece" would be processed simultaneously and as a whole by the govern- ment agency handling the program, rather than one building at a time. F. The families seeking to become resident landlords under this program would not have io remain in the specific buildings they now occupy, but should be allowed to assume ownership in the neighborhoods where they now reside. g. In cases where recovering the cost of rehabilitation required rents in excess of the ability to pay of local low-income households, rent subsidies would be linked into the ownership-encouragement program. The combined effect would (1) provide rehabilitated units for low-income renters and (2) allow some low-income families to become resident landlords in these rehabilitated buildings. h. The program should be run by new, locally-officed organizations operating under the jurisdiction of the Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop- ment for Demonstrations and Research. (i) | Because the basic objective of this program would be a change in the social conditions and menial attitudes of slum dwellers, it would be desirable for primary responsibility to rest in some agency other than FHA. This would allow FHA jo retain its basic "prudent investment" orientation without conflicting with the objectives of this program, which vary from "prudent investment." As long as this program is much smaller than FHA's other activities (and it must be at least to start), it would be difficult for FHA to generate the necessary enthusiasm and outlook to encourage the high-risk and frankly experimental operations essential to success. (2) The Assistant Secretary should set general standards of performance and evaluation for the program. However, he should be free to create a variety of specific organizational arrangements with local groups to operate the program in different metropolitan areas. Examples are non-profit corporations, church groups, unions, or city departments. (3) | Each such organization should operate local neighborhood offices to assist new owners with (a) pre-ownership training in housekeeping, making minor repairs, and legal responsibilities, (b) counseling on maintenance and financing during the initial ownership period, and (c) follow-on counseling as necessary. 2. Asimilar program to help renters in slum areas take over ownership of individual units in multi-family buildings on a condominium basis (but not on a cooperative ownership basis). “fx a. This program would have all of the attributes of the first program described above except the use of rent subsidies (part g), b. lf the incomes of the potential owners were noi sufficient to pay the carrying costs of ownership, then an additional continuing subsidy could be used. This subsidy would be considered the equivalent of the interest and property-tax deduction subsidy enjoyed by middle-income and upper-income households. Since low-income households do not have enough income to benefit from such deductions, they would be given direct cash equivalents. The higher the income, the lower the equivalent; the larger the household, the higher the equivalent -- other things being equal. Another program jo help renters of single-family dwellings in slum areas (like Wats) take over ownership of their dwellings or of other similar single-family dwellings nearby. This program would also have all of the attributes of the first program des- cribed above excepi the use of rent subsidies. It would make use of income-tax- deduction-equivalenis, as described under the second program set forth above. A fourth program designed to encourage slum dwellers to move into non=slum areas by buying single-family or iwo-family buildings, or individual units in condominium buildings, in such areas. a. This program would involve full subsidies for downpayments where required. b, lt would be focussed upon buildings already in standard condition and there=- fore needing very little rehabilitation. ts lt would involve individual buildings scattered throughout neighborhoods con= taining socio-economic levels above the slum areas, but not as high as upper= middle-income areas. However, the condominium parts of the program would involve entire buildings operated under the program. d. lt would incorporate the aspects of the first program described above sei forth in paragraphs IV, 1, feg-h. [i would also incorporate the continuing subsidy based upon income-tax-deduction equivalents described in paragraph IV, 2, b above. e. The organization operating this program should have a mefropolitan-area- wide jurisdiction rather than covering only the central city therein. In fact, it should emphasize placement of former slum dwellers in suburban areas where possible. Yet this organization should be the same as, or closely linked to, whatever organization administers the other programs described above. f, The exact locations of the housing selected for use in this program should be based upon the following considerations; (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) -3- The housing units selected should be in sound neighborhoods but should not be far beyond the economic capabilities of the households moving out of the slums. Hence these households might be expected to assume full ownership without a continuing subsidy after a certain period. There should be a mixiure of Negro and white households involved. Some of the slum move-outs should result in relocation of Negro families in previously all-white or predominanitly-white areas, and some should result in placement of Negroes in previously Negro areas and whites in previously white areas. In no cases should the households moved out of slums under this program be concentrated together in the receiving neighborhoods to such an extent as io become a dominant group in any given block or elementary school district. If possible, the neighborhoods chosen should be close to the type of jobs possessed by the families moving oui of the slums, and to sources of new employment opporiunities being created in the metropolitan area. If possible, the neighborhoods chosen should be paris of cities benefit- ing from other federal programs (such as urban renewal, the Interstate Highway Program, or federal aid to education) the continuance of which might be linked at least informally with willingness to co- operate with this program. Similarly, this program might be linked with defense procurement activities in communities benefiting from defense production coniracis. g. This program would not involve the creation of resident landlords (except in two-unit buildings) by elimination of absentee landlordship. h. |i might be desirable to link this program with the other programs encouraging ownership of buildings in slums by slum=-dwellers. This could be done through some type of formula which would require provision of a certain number of “slum=escape" units for each set of "slum=renovation" units involved. All of the above programs should be linked to a number of other federal programs or policies aimed at reducing the impact of ethnic discrimination upon housing markets. Discrimination creates a “back-pressure" in areas readily available to minority groups which tends to raise prices therein. This makes it harder for residents to own their own homes, and reduces the incentive of absentee landlords to improve deteriorated slum properties. Among the possible ways to counteract these forces might be; a. Requirement that any dwelling units financed with mortgages fumished by institutions supported by federal agencies (such as banks and savings and loan associations) be sold or rented on a non=discriminatory basis. 29s b, Creation of public housing on vacant land, particularly fn suburban areas, preferably on scattered sites in relatively small, low-rise projects. This assumes that the housing so created would be integrated, preferably with a Negro minority, rather than 100 percent Negro. c. Subsidization of private groups designed to help Negro households move into previously all-white neighborhoods in suburbs and peripheral neighbor- hoods in central cities. (An example is the group of this type in Hartford, Connecticut), Such subsidy could consist of granting of tax exemptions, or allowing the sale of tax-exempi securities, as wel! as provision of grants fo cover capital or operating cosis. V. Estimated Costs of Ownership-Encouragement Programs Undertaken at Various Scales l, Basic assumptions underlying these cost estimates are derived from FHA experience and census data. They are as follows: a. The total cost of acquiring and rehabilitating either single-family or mulii= family housing will be $12,500 per unit. b. Total per-unit monthly operating expenses are $48.46 for single-family houses, and $49.42 for multi-family buildings (including a $9 allowance for vacancy and contingencies but no allowance for managemeni fees), Cs Household incomes have risen about 25% since 1959, when the income dis- tribution among occupants of substandard housing units who earned less than $6,000 per year was as follows: Under $2,000 51.9% $2,000 - $2,999 17.2% $3,000 - $3,999 13.5% $4,000 = $4,999 9.3% $5,000 - $5,999 6.4% Total 100.0% d. The proposed programs wil! extend assistance to members of all these income groups proportionately. Hence calculations about the total subsidy required can be based upon the weighted average 1965 income of the entire group, which is $2,840 per year, 2. These -10= Households can devote 25% of their incomes to housing. This amounts to a weighted average of $59.16 per month for the entire group involved. Al! costs of acquisition and rehabilitation will be incorporated into the jota! initial loan and amortized over a 30-year period on a no-down=payment basis. Multi-family programs will utilize 12-unit buildings and provide no explicit allowance for owner profits. assumptions lead to the following conclusions: The annual rate of direct subsidy per unit, not counting administrative costs or losses of interest fromm below-market rates, would be $504 for a single-family program and $516 for a multi-family program at a 3% interest rate. Hence direct subsidies per unit are very similar for the two programs. Direct subsidy costs are very sensitive to changes in interest rate. Fora single- family program, the variation is from $772 per unit per year at 6% to $504 at 3% and $288 at zero interest. However, If losses in interest are counted as costs, this sensitivity drops to zero. Direct subsidy cosis are also very sensitive to changes in the income-composi- tion of the groups served. Excluding families with incomes below $2,000 raises the weighted average amount available per month for housing from $59.16 to $94.88. This reduces the annual single-family subsidy at 3% interest from $504 per unit to $75 -- a drop of 85%. However, it also excludes 52% of the households with incomes under $6,000 living in substandard housing. Total costs at various scales of operation (excluding administration) are similar for both single-family and multi-family programs. Hence they can both be illustrated by the following table for single-family programs, assuming a 3% interest rate: Annual Direct Required Initial Loan Subsidy Charges Fund Allocations Number of Housing Units ($ millions) ($ mil }ions) 5,000 $ 2.520 § 62.5 10,000 5.040 125.0 25,000 12.600 312.5 50,000 25.200 625.0 100,000 50.400 1,250.0 afta e. The above table is based upon proportional participation by all income groups under $6,000 per year. Variations in total costs at these scales resulting from changes in interest rates or income-group composition can be roughly estimated from points (b) and (c) above. The significance of the scale of home=-ownership programs depends upon the foial number of slum families living in substandard housing who would like fo become owners, a. In 1960, there were 6.9 million renter households living in central cities. About 818,000 (12%) lived in substandard units; 508,000 of these had incomes under $4,000. Another 992,000 (14%) lived in standard but crowded uniis; 390,000 of these had incomes under $4,000. Hence the potential central- city "universe" consists of 1.8 million renters in substandard or crowded units, of whom 898,000 had incomes under $4,000 in 1960. Of course, nowhere near all of these households wish to become owners. b. There were actually more renter households in substandard units outside central cltfes than inside them in 1960: 1,923,000 vs. 818,000. However, except for 205,000 located in the urban fringes of metropolitan areas, these house- holds should perhaps not be considered as "slum residents." The cost of home-ownership programs is similar to that of rent supplement programs, counting only direct subsidy paymenis. The direct rent supplement subsidy averages about $600 per unit per year, as compared to $504 per unit per year for sing!e- family home ownership at 3% interest. However, if interest losses due to below- market rates are counted, then another $268 per unit per year must be added (if the market rate is considered to be 6%), This increases the per unit per year cost of the home-ownership program to about 29% above that for the rent supplement program, excluding administrative costs from both. VI, Recommended Additional Research hs Some of the concepts and quantified estimates set forth above have been based upon admittedly inadequate or unreliable data. Therefore, we recommend that additional research be undertaken before the programs described herein are given final approval in concept or designed in detail. Consequenily, reliable information about the following should be obtained: a. Accurate estimates of total operating costs for multi-family housing to be developed under any ownership program. The operating cost estimates and contingency allowances used in the above calculations were supplied by FHA. However, we believe they may be low, because operating costs normally run 60% of total gross revenue, and not all funds available for debi service are actually applied to debt service. =| P= The required attributes of home owners in s!ums. Probably they revolve around steady employment, the availability of multiple family members some of whom are home and can keep track of the property, reasonably good character record, etc. The specific urban areas classified as slum areas for purposes of these programs, and certain data about them. (1) | Number of dwelling uniis by type of structure; small multi-family, large multi-family, and single family. (2) | Number of households living therein and their major income, ethnic, and family size characterisfics. (3) Condition of structures. The number of persons or households in these areas who have the required characteristics for ownership, absolutely and as a percentage of the fotal. Ways in which ownership programs can be tied into over-all strategies con- ceming low-income housing and the amelioration of ghettos so that they do not merely perpetuate slums by "locking in" the new owners of old buildings.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 22, Folder 17, Document 25 Box 22 Box 22 Folder 17 Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/6feb088e02ad6d1367a5f9a2fd75fff2.pdf 9faa6096248f65733e54ad03e7ec87f7 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. =r----- -,..,-.-..,--.x,.-n.,·. ,- --·--- ··- --- --·-- --~-·-- · - . . . ' - - - - i ' t ·, j ' ~ ' . d: ·• ··., . . .. ' . Draft: IBJD/l'o/25/66 · · NEIGHBORHOOD Cf! :-:T?R PI LOT PRCGR/IJ-1 I. '. l Introduction A. Purpose of the pilot J?TOGr<".:-:r On Friday, August 19, the Pr ~sident in his Syracuse, New York, I speech asked. • • "the Secretary c f I{ou3inc; and Urban Development to set a.s his goal the est~blishmer: t --· in every ehetto .in A."llerica .-- · I of· a neighborhood center to service the people who· live there." ! .I Acco:..~din~ly initial_ steps tc ;.ro r o. fulfilling this · goal were t l I taken when, under Executive OrdE t·. 11297, t he Department of: Housing · ~ a~ Urban Development convened a meetin3 on A~gust / · / 30,; 1966; of 1 Federal agencies to develop a rE DO~t to the President and initiate . / a · program of, action to meet the Pres ident's r equest. ·1 As a re sult of a serie s of :i n'cer-agency meetings a ·plan for · ,/ l : / f ./ ,: . a program ·o f pilot projects, wh::i ch would become the first-step toward the President I s goal, haro bee_n developed. This program · will be desi gned and carried out a long t he -f ollowing lines. · 1 I 1. •X- ·X- ·X· K· ·X· -'i<· ll. ·Purnoses of a Ne ighbor hood Cent o· A neighborhood center shoulo facilitate the deliverance of ' services to people in low-inconc nei ghborhoods and .provide a broad range of health, recreation, soc ial and employment service s . More social, .health, employnent, recreation, and education services are nee<l,ed in the pover.t y c).rc~$; t.he se services need to l· ) i I· I �·2 be· decentraliied to such areas to be moGt effectively used; and ·[ these se::c.-vices- should be provic c ,'i to t he r,rectest extent possible in the context of One-Ston or T· ei. -1-,bo;:-1,oocl Center. ·. Such a center 0 would :provide adequate deliver:i o'f: these services inn co~erent, coordinated manner, reach tne tni nformecl, the isolated and alienated' I ' and :provide a .forum where the reeds of the neighborhood can 'be · e:>.1)ressed. I III.· Criteria for a Neir,hborhood Ccrtcr ¥.any variations are possfoJc in the design of neighbor~ood centerG; and local conditions, resou=c0::., 1:ced.s , choices, and p;>:-og_ra.r.is will determine specific solutions. To be considered a neighborhood center ror this pilot program, however ~ the facility must provide at a minimum a :progrEUn for the following ser vices : . 1. Inf'ormation on citizenr' ri5hts and on how and where to get services and assistancE. 2. Diagnosis of problems e nd referral to service agencies. · 3. Follow-up or outreach f 0 1· continued counseling .and services. 4. Co-ordination among aeEncies (Federal, State, local-public a nd private) supplying cervi ce s to t he neighborhood:. 5. Involvement by t he ne i f hborhood resident s. Whei;iever feasible the progrc1m for t hese ·r.iinirr.um · services should be · expanded t o :t,nclude other t ype:: of services and acti vities, depend.i ng on the needs of the particular ser·vice area. 1\lnong them are: 1. Social services . 2. A broad range of active end passive recr ~ational facilities . �------ i 3. I. I Employment informat i on. r c:E'm.·i·al , counceling and training facili tics. I / 4. I I Houcing ascistance. I 5. Acti vi tiec ·directed t o I 6. Health services includ:.ri~ cxcmi nution and consultive services. 7. Cultural enrich.-nent. -8. tl:c need.::; of tenior · ci tizer.s. Non-curricular and remc·dfa1 education. 9. Decentralization of r:m.1ty Ci ty Hall service functions to the neighborhood. The :fll'o/Sical size of t he nc·i c;hi)orhood center will depend oh the. scope of the cervi ce progr am i-,. j_:, t o h ou ::;e. I In addition to the con- · cept of the neighborhood centeJ· ~s a s incle building, consideration raa.y be Given, wher e the neig:ioc,:;.·:1ood i s small in area but dense· i n po:pulation, to the concept of r. ,st r uctu::-e havin~ many services supported by other· off ices or str.".ctu:..·e s p1·oviding su:p:porting services. ' I . I V. I. I I A l':e ir.:hbm.· hood Center Exanrole Although a cent er wi l l have mo.ny ccml)onents, such a facility :crc1.st · be organized a nd administrated · in a coherent f ashion... This would r e - I I I • l. l. l Reception , referral, cb c:i.:snos i s , :follow -up , .outr~ach, and related gener.a li zed se1 vices be performed through a com:non reception and adminir.tlcJtion system. 2. All or most of the comrunity's nocial s ervice agencies providing services of nee<' to the neighborhood . should be located in one building or witl-·in waL'l<ing distance of each other. /. / xc ... -·· , I' I r �F -===============~-==-~~ l ,___, .~~ :=:~j~. ~-•~:::;143.215.248.55::;:':;;=·. ~ ..r~- .:- · : - .. -·--..,,-......- - ·.- - .:- . · ~ - ~ =~' . -· •.•::...._ ·.:;~ - ,-::-':'::~~'.-~ ·:::::: ·a--·:·::::::::--;: ·· n~,o~'<~>;~~-~<:::-!fii~ .- *ti~ ..:..;...~/ ___:____ ~ !· ' • _ ,:·j, l I I l · 3. If smaller infonnation, u.::.ci. rc,fc-r;_·o.l or servi·c e center::; are located in the r.ei,;l1L1orhcoc1 ) they snould be related II j ! to the larger one-stop :-;crvicc cer-.'ccr. ~• I A center would be design.eel i1; a flexible manner so that · the Sl)ace ·can be utilized to the optimum· &nd sriace areas would be· ·d esigned to serve multi-functions. · The s:9acc ·.mule. i :'1.clude meeting areas, office$ . i I for counseling services, speci: llizecl service areas, and recreatior..al · facilities. J.. A neighborhood cc:1-'.:.· cr micht contain: A CAA :progra.'il componen-; i·ihich would f ocus on the organization and participation o-1' t i tc 1·csic.ents of the neighborhood. · It \. would be responsible f,n· ic1suri:nc that th~ other components of the Center work to · Ji.e i:lencfit and satisfaction of the · neighborhood. Loca l Cl.J?s mi z,.~t a l s o provide services such . as l egal a id. 2~ Recreation ·services ancl fac ilities . This might include a small outdoor recreati,m a1·ea~ •,,ith a swinnning pool when war-..canted , and a multi-·:9ur:pose gymnasium which could also be used for large gath1 ir ings) . including theatrical proa.u·c ~ions. 3. A preventative progra:.~ of healtn services which ·might i nclude a prenatal clinic, a wc:11:-baby clinic, a mental hygienic clinic and an ambul ato:·y health services clinic. 4. · An educational and cul~;ural com:9onent which would include a pre-school program o:' the HeadGtart variety, adult literacy, _special adult classes . . and drama ~ro&rams. LS well as special library, music, art l I I J �., .... 5 5 • . Employment services wot: J.c: t e an inte.zral po.rt of the Center. Information 'would be p:r0vi,;ec: 0:1 the job opportuniticz; testine; services and b ·.1:,.-::.ccl jo1) t:::.·o.ining services should be available. In additior, :::;peci:3.l jo·o oriented procra:-:is such as the Job Corps, t he I• 2ic;i'.l:orl1ooci Yoath CorJ.)s, and the Work and Training Proeram fer 91.1.blic assistance clients might also-- be coordinated t~::m::;h this part of -the Center. r 6. Assistance wi -r.11 respect to hou::;j_n:; and rc:.location should be provided in tne Center. Ict'orn:e.tion should be available on relevant local housinc r r ograms, and assistance,sha~ld be o:':fered to clients on :: ow to :i:,,prove their homes, how to ' secw.·e ·adeQuate :financi ni, and the availability .of public housing and integrated l1 ousing. 7. Family services and hchz manac0men~ is another importan~ component. Pulllic welf s.rc case wor l~crs might operate from the Center and pre ·,iicle advice and counseling to the neighborho~. Family e ricl marital counseling might be · offered as well as cons ~~er education, money management, and homemaker services. I ./ "', . .., tJ ... . SJ � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document Draft: HUD/10/25/66° NEIGHBORHOON CENTNR PILOT PROGRAM Introduction at A. Purpose of the pilot progran n he ot On Friday, August 19, the Prosident in his Byraeuse » New York, “ speech asked... "the Secretary cf Housing and Urban Development to set as his goal the establishmert -- in every ghetto in America <=: ° . of a neighborhood center to service the people who live there." Accordingly initial steps tcward fulfilling this goal were ‘taken when, under Executive Order 11297, the Department of Housing and Urban Development convened ¢ meeting on August 30,: 1966; of , Federal agencies to develop a report to the President and initiate ° & program of action to meet the President's request. As a result of a series of inter-agency meetings a*plan for a& program of pilot projects » which would become the first. step toward the President's goal, has been developed. This program: will be designed and carried out along the following lines. xX RH HK Purposes of a Neighborhood Center 2 ot A neighborhood center shoulé facilitate the deliverance of services to people in low-income neighborhoods and provide a broad range of health, recreation, social and employment services. More social , health, employzent, recreation, and education services are needed in the poverty orcas; these services need to  ia ead ai E dak bad z : a = : Ba. eal ee ee eee ae be te. Fa we emaretiatents ninene he e = See —=j, ae san a ee eer a 2 ‘ 2 , be Gecentralized to such areas to be most effectively used; and these services- should be provi¢ed to the greatest extent possible in the context of One-Stop or Tcivhborhood Center. -Such ea, center would peeytas adequate deliver; of these services in a coherent, coordinated manner, reach the uninformed, the isolated end alienated ' and provide a forum where the recds of the neighborhood can be ‘expressed. III. ‘Criteria for a Neishborhood Certer Many variations are possivie in the design of neighborhood centers; and local conditions, resources, needs, choices, and prograris will determine specific solutions. To be considered a neighborhood center for this pilot program, however , the facility must provide ata minimum & progran for the following services: i. Information on citizens' rights and on hoe and where to get services and assistance. 2. Diagnosis of problems end referral to seein agencies. 3. Follow-up or outreach for contimed counseling and services 4. Co-ordination among agencies (Federal, state, Localwpublie and private) supplying services to the neighborhood. 5. Involvement by the neighborhood residents. | Whenever feasible the program for these minimum services should be expanded to include ovher types of services and activities, depending » on the needs of the particular service erea. Among them are: — 1 Social services. : | 2. A broad range of active and passive recreational facilities, | ey ae a-ha , . - >. iv. SSS Shey cn al Te i tp tenn ny ein nl Byam See a IY e : ana es = i ere en w 3. Employment information, referral, counseling and training facilities. he Housing assistance. Bh Activities directed to the needs of senior oleaeeties 6. Health services includ:.ne exemination and consultive services. Te tural enrichment. | . 8. Non-curricular and rem-dial. education. 9. Decentralization of many City Hall service functions to the neighborhood. | The physical size of the neighborhood center will depend oh the Scope of the service program ii. is to house. In addition to the con=" cept of the nisi ghbacnooe cente:' 2s a single building, consideration may be given, where the neighborhood is small in area but dense in pooulation, to the concept of ¢. structure having many services sup- : ported by other offices or sim .ctures providing supporting services. A Neighborhood Center Example ; ‘ ee Although a center will have many components, such a facility must - be organized and administrated in a coherent fashion... This would re- quire that: | 1. Reception, referral, diagnosis, Zollow-up, outreach, and . | ; related generalized seivices be performed through a comuon reception and administiation system. 2. All or most of the comunity's social servis agencies pro- viding services of nee¢é to the neighborhood, should be aeeated’ in one building or witrin walking distance of each other.  atone ee et gr ne te = = = ——— a = B= ee ee - alae i. [ i | 1 | | \ 3. If smaller information, and referral or service centers are located in the neishborhced, they should be related ade to the larger one-stop service center. ; | Se 5 A center would be designed in a flexible manner so that ‘the spece . can be utilized to the optimum: and space areas would be designed to serve enritaetuneeione, The spice vould include meeting areas, offices | for counseling services, specinlized service areas, and recreational - facilities. A neighborhood ce:ter might contain: 3 1. A CAA vrogram componen: sihich would. foeus. on ‘the organization t Aa: and participation of she resicents of the Hed ambarhooas Lt ould be responsible for insuring that the other componerits sy mtd ik of the Center work to “che benefit and satisfaction or the - neighborhood. Local C:irs might also provide services such as legal aid. 2. Recreation services aml facilities. This might inp @ small outdoor recreation area , with a swimming pool when warranted, and a milti-ourpose gymnasium.which could also ‘be asad. for large gatherings, including theatrical productions. 3. A preventative program of health services which might include . a prenatal clinic, a wall-baby clinic » & mental hygienic clinic and an ambulato:y health services clinic. 4, An educational and cultural component which would include a re<2choah program o:' the Headstart variety, adult literacy, | ‘6 special adult classes is well as special library, music, art and drama programs.  5. Employment services would te an integral part of the Center. Information would be provided on the job opportunitics; testing services and linived job training services should be available. In additior, snecial job oriented programs such - as vhe Job Corps, the Foichborhood Youth Corps, and the Work and Training Program fcr nublic assistance clients might . also: be coordinated throuch this part 6f the Center. 6. Assistance with respect to housing and relocation saould be provided in the Center. Informetion should be Eyaliatie on relevant local housing progrems, and assistance: should be ha offered to clients on ow to improve their homes, how to secure adequate financing, end the availability of public housing and integrated housing. 7. Family services and hore management is another important component. Public welfzre case workers might operate © from the Center and Srcvide advice and counseling to the neighborhood. Family end maritel counseling might be- offered as well as consumer education, money MeneheNentS and homemaker services. AT Pe MAM. ty SE re e  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 22, Folder 17, Document 26 Box 22 Box 22 Folder 17 Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/4e7ceff5fa27220ac4de96354a0b9048.pdf 4bf4862e31667d30ce4bd9276b5ef157 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. . j/ , ,·/ / · •.. /- .PLANrrnrG FOR NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRA1,S . Introductioh I I i• · A neighborhood program will or~narily be one part of a larger city'W'i.de comir.unity action program. Thus questions must be asked about the city at large and the whole cor::munity action planning, along with an inquiry into the ·neighborhood. program itself'. Funds are likely to be limited so that in I:10st cases a choice of some neighborhoods must be made, either to start the city's program or to be ' . _.. -~ ' used as a. "demonstration." At the outset, reasons for preferring certain neighbqrhoods over others ( should be explored. In soce cities past social .dis"Gurbances or chronic , trouble may dictate the choice of a neighborhood for concerted social i ) · effort. There is a caveat: A city may prefer to choose neighborhoods with problems that can be dealt ·with rather quickly be.c ause succes~ . .. will be more certain and visible. Unfavo1·abh coinJ?arisons should not be made once programs a.re initiated between the more easily solved neighborhood. · problems and the knottier ones. i· The preference of one kind of neighbor- hood. over another may result from wise and responsible political. decision, ., but the basis for decisions should be understood both by the coc::ru.nity and by the federal agencies. In the attached outline we have asked a series of questions designed ·· to otter some go.tides for those evaluating neighborhood progrf!J=!S. Because these programs are so frankly ex:perimental, no such outline can provide .\ I more than a. general approach. More reliable criteria will emerge from. concrete experience with actual programs, their inevitable failures and . . ' :~_:• •:·-~·.~·~~ "'.'"'-···success~s ~• •••., .,- ·~--:-•••N'.-~~·-:~ ··." .--·-:-··.··•••·~~- •':"'--~' ,•--,.<••~~:..,;:.,-•~:"' '" ,,,-.-··-->---~-·- - ·.-:.'•·- ':, ,, - i- ~ ·· I- ...,:., . •• •• �--'-_ i-, -' 4 -=. · , ,,=-· .••,., · · ~ .. ~--·-~.·..__JI· ~-,-=,-~........ - , ___,_ .. 'c'-· __,....._ c-._.,,W __,_.......,--,..1s.... ·, . . -.............. - -. • .· ,. ·_,. ·~~· .. fe_" w ·· ·~ · . .· I . - -· ~·-· - -~ - - ,,. . ,II • . r -r . 2 A detailed knowledge of the city, the sponsors, and the over-all political context will be necessary for judg::ie_!lt. ~ each case. Still., it may be a useful exercise to try to articulate in advance so:::ie of the factors that shouJ.cl enter into evaluation, even though judgments a.re likely to be intuitive. The discussion that follows is divided into two parts: (1) criteria for defining the appropriate neighborhood; and (2) criteria for judging the substance of programs for a neighborhood. It is not inappropriate to point out that some decisions to accept or reject a proposal for neighborhood programs must be piaa.e on a primarily political basis. The Federal. progra!:l needs Congressional support and it needs the support of all the t r aditional agencies in the Executive branch / with which it must cooperate . I of any city is F1trther, the over-all political situat i on an essential i ngredient in the success or failure of a community action program and of the neighborhood program which is its natural offspri ng . This point is probably understood, if not articulated, by applicant s and evaluators alike . The f orms t o be filled out for the '. ~~pt~ - of _~ou·s·~ - &:_Ur b~ :_DevelolJ.~!1t · 'jr.ay__·· ·· set up standards and expectations., but t hey are not like aptitude t ests . A high score does not imply autooat ic admission to "school. " As long as funds a.re insufficient t o j;lermit ·:every soU!ld progral:1 t o 'be accepted., it should be understood that choices involve a variety of factors, not the least of which .is political. There is another risk. . . ·--·---·--..... The existence of complicated .forms., the pro- mulgation of standards. and the coi::J::lOn knowledge that.. choices . . .. . have to be / /·• I �made, may lead cities to imitate slavishly the type of progr8.l:l.S that have been accepted before. This could lead to rigidity -- ·a calcification which is the enemy o'f innovation and imaginative use of these special local characteristics of a city and neighborhood. Neighborhood / I , The limted experience thus far with community action programs and the longer history of settlement houses ,have led those :working with problems of organization to insist upon a small local ·area as the lowest common denominator for any new social programs. The word . ;'neighborhood" . . is used to mea:i a relatively compact geographical area and also an area which has some sort of functional cohesiveness. Before the concept of neighborhood progra:n becomes a . cliche' easily glossed over, it '!Lay be important to ask sorae questions about what may or may not be ·defined· as "neighborhood" and for what purposes. Reaching out: It is fairly well accepted now that any progra.o of social action tnl.St be broken down into local units so that it can reach out to those people who are unwilling or unable to go very far for service, either because of fear, inexperience or lack of basic skills to make use of available services, on their own. Thus the very first criterion of any_ neighbor- hood program. is that it be sufficiently local to achieve this end. Elasticity: The kind of services ottered, a.ncI ·the characteristics of the people· .- ..... . . ' - . -· .. _. :: ·--... 'I ._ ........ �~·=_--_._. ...~_-_:'"_--_:-__::-_-_...., '- _---_-_cc- ~--:-- -_.. tlo~-~ ~~A~.-- - ____ _: _-~--- .-'" • w · . _ F··· · -· . I served will affect tQe definition of "neighborhood." For example, a i. mother with a sma.ll child has a far greater physical-geographical limitation_than does an adolescent who is used to wandering the city with a gang. Could you serve them both in a neighbor center? The unit for phys- . ica1 hea1th care might be quite different from the unit for mental health care, in part because of the degree of education needed before the patient wants the services offered. A co~text of multiple services, or even ser- vices to a wide age range, indicates both elasticity of the concept of neighborhood and the arbitrariness of any definition. one center may The very fact -that offer a multiplicity of services will ~lso affect the delineation of "neighborhood." Even a single person may define his neigh- borhood very differently for different purposes -- church, school, or . . . socializing, for example. The si"t~ation becomes infinitely mo.re compli- cated when the "target population" encompasses many groups. A neighborhood may exist because of pr eexisting -services or grouping of services, for example, an eff ectively functioning settlement house wi-t h a long tradition, as in t he Nort h End, Boston, or a clinic. The Peckham Health Cent er in England created a very cohesive neighborhood for purposes . many A preex~.s.t i ng sense of community of'ten grows up because of ethnic s imilariti es or racial is olat i on. The sense of coIIII:lunity, however, may be a decept ive f actor on which to rely. An effective :preexisting service may provide a ·coI11I:1unity on which . broader services can be built and should be built. . On the other hand., . the invisible walls which create a ghetto like Harlem., create a "coI:1?:1unity; 1---,- -· ._ _ _ but.one frayed .w.;.th strife and hostility _.which may_have .to 1;,e broken down ' �- I ~ C ' • 5. into very small units to penetrate resistance that the larger cor::::rrunity reini'orces. In other words, a neighborhood has tp be a manageable unit. - If there had been trouble, hostility, delinquency ~r a high crime rate, the negative aspect of a community may argue for the arbitrary creation_ of very s~.all neighborhood units for certain kinds of services, in order that the :population ca.~ rea~ be reached and involved. Use of Personnel Affects Delineation of a Neighborhood The availability and training of the personnel to staff a neighborhood program will affect the parru:ieters of a neighborhood unit. 11,ore is meant here than the ratio of professionals to "cl.:i;ent·. ". It goes ·without saying tha.t one doctor in a clinic will serve a far-smaller population than ten. But personnel can be iI!l_portant in a qualitative sense, . as well • I ·The supporting worker can serve a.s· connective tissue ar.ong professional - -I' services. This is the worker who knows the language of the neighborhood and who is able to direct the people in it to needed services, provide follow-up, and help the person coordinate the various services that may be asser.ibled to neet his particular needs, whether welfare, medical, educational, or employment, or a combination of any or all of these, in any problem or crisis. Such personnel make ·up a psychological transpor- tation and concunication syst~~ An A store-front room may serve a block. exacyle may nake this more concrete: . In it may be neighborhood workers or urban agents who can take in.forr:iation from those on the block and steer them to adult education, eJ::ll)loyment training, work crews, mental health ' clinic, the hospital, a local lawyer, the ·hou.siog authority, etc. ~-~-- - ---~~--- of' -these services·. need -not be represented All ill -the st<;>re-tront room, but - �they must be ~ade accessible by effective workers who can coI:II:1unicate with the people ·the program is designed to serve. The urban agent be- !. coi::.es a path:f~nder for the individual in need, to all the agencies and services required. Thus the concept of "neighborhood" is in part defined by the kind of staff' available, because those who help people find their -; / ' . way through a labyrinth of services ma.1-.e the programs really accessible; I· Actual transportation is of great importance, since the inability to find one's way is so characteristic of the -·poor. Their neighborhood, for purposes, is walking radius. · Here again workers can help make exis- many ting transportation usable and therby make far-flung prog;rams accessible to a neighborhood. We have stated earlier that one varient of the definition of neighborhood is the kind of service th~at is offered. We are assuming that one goa.l i s comprehens·iveness - the offering of a group of interreJA,ted human j. services that will raise the aspirations and the opportunities of the / I 1,/ l people to be served. It is understood, then, that different services will serve different geographical areas. As pointed out, the lowest common denominator may have to be the workers who can link physically · separated services. But this is only one alternative. creation of a new instit ution designed defines the neighbor hood. There are others. For example, the t o have such great impact t hat it Consider the Comi:iu.nity School as it exists i n New Haven, Connecticut, and Flint, Michigan. They draw upon the neighbor- hood. of the families whose children attend t he school. In new Haven, Conte School is made as attractive 'f.l,th a center to~ s~nior citizens, .,..,.,..1.. .. -~ · ·- ·- -:. · ...._:. .."'_ .. _.....,_ ,,_ ',, .., .. ..... .•• -.. .....:•• .__,.._,,..,.:. _ _ __.., .......~ ...- ••:. ..-"."'........ ·· •• __ . , ... _.._ ..•.: - •.- ~· _.,:,_ ••• -- • . ~. - . . : . . . . - - - - · · .-14-• -L "i . II ,O �- . -. 3 .7 - , an auditoriun, bocci courts, a park for young mothers, and so on - that a sense . of community is created by the very fact of the institution. other neighborhood se=:vices, legal, public health, wel:fare, etc., are then brought in to this "neighborhood." the neighborhood by their creation. Other kinds of institutions may define Probabzy this is what the multi- In such cases service center in Boston (Roxbu...-J) is attempting to do. the neighborhood is geographically larger than that served by the block store-front with the "pathfinder" personnel. With a large center, staff may literally walk the streets to ·bring the people to the services con- · I . centrated in one building. - There is no a priori reason t~ prefer one I l I structure of a neighborhood program over the other. I !· i So many neighborhoods are natural neighborhoods, defined by geography; I tradition, or other boundaries that they can be seen quite readily. In ... 'the end, high deference should be given .to the local definition , of a neighborhood. However, the Office of Economic Opportunity can and should insist that the city consider the many variables, including history and I . tradition, which go into the delineation of a neighborhood unit. It should ask for careful consideration of demographic data, for detail about the ethnic background of the people in the neighborhood, the economic and educational level, employment opportunities, housing, recreation and social outlets. A well-thought out proposal is likely to be rich in this kind of.detail. - - - " ' · - - - -- -· - .--- . · ·- - ..-~ · ··~ · " · -- ~ - , . . . . . . . . .. ... • . . . . . . . . . . . .. . , . ·- · - - - ... ~ - - , ..., ,-if' .~ -, .... 1 1· .... • , , ' • •, ' I �.j -=-~ ~-=.tp--=' =:-=-:1=-·=·=·=-·==-c== =--=-=·=~c..cc··=··:.c.._~ -· ~-=r:: r:~~-·-= .--=-::::-;:.;;::_=_=_=-=.·""'t":"'=..=====c.:.._""_==__= .c~'i! "-L "' J: ' 8 THE PROGRAM ·I The substance of the program is no less i.J!;portant than the delination of the neighborhood, and must be adapted to this delineation. I • The first overall re~uirement for a.cy program is the involve:ir.ent of the people to be served in the planning and then the operation of the programs designed to serve theo. l. It is not easy to involve the inarticulate poor, for whom organization is not a familiar phenomenon, but it is possible and it is essential. One · clear goal must be to reduce dependency in all areas, ·not to increase it. . This means that arry "tender plant" of a neighborhood, organization :ir.ust I· be built upon -- a.cy indigenous leadership that is at all constructive must be involved in the planning process. \ A list of needs outlined in the program planning stage, health, education, jobs, etc. should indicate how these needs are felt by the pop~ation. It is difficult to establish criteria from Washington to assure this, but there must be some warning signal of local indifference to neighborhood participation in a program. Furtherz:iore, it is so i~- portant that if there is arry doubt, a field tr~p might be worthwhile. We can anticipate antipathy and resistance to the organization and voice of the poor • . But these are risks that must be.accepted as natural and inevitable and perhaps even welcomed as evidence of involvement. Survey of Existing Services A pr oposal should include a survey of existing socia.J. services and education., including, if possible, cost statistics and th~ ratio of -,1 • • ..:.._ __ ~ • •_ .. . . , / _ . ......... .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . - ~~ - professional and supportive personnel to the neighborhood population. I It �9· would be useful to learn how accessible existing services are which reach the segnents of the nei ghborhood population. build on ;preexisting services , and i f not, Is the new plan going to why not" Often there are good reasons, but as often, a natural center for people, for exSJ:lple, a priest whose church has become a focus for inf'o:rmal social services, may be ignored and a new artif icial center created. Relations wi.th Existing Agencies In some cases there r:iay be value in by-passing existing social service agencies. In ·other cases this may be politically unwise pr unwise because of the strength of an agency. In th,e case of a strop.g well-supported agency, it is entirely possible that a neighborhood program should devel- I rI op from one di scipline or area of Iservice. For example, if the Board of Education were strong and innovative, t he idea of a COI:llllunity 5-C:~Oo_l might be the basis for t he nei ghborhood program and education . would then be t he nucleus . I f there were already a co:mnunity mental health cent er with local support, mental healt h could' be the nucleus of the community action pr ograo. Thus, in the Bronx, New York, a community action pro- gram is emerging from a mental health center out of t he Albert Eins t ein Medical School (Dr. Harris Peck) . In other citi es, t he _Youth Employment, or Opportunity Center has already become a familiar and accepted part of neighborhood and so a comprehensive program erierges with the el:!ployment or job training at its core. The judgment probably should be i:::ade "on the grou.:id." Although comprehensiveness of services riay be the ·goal, it is entirely . --·- ~-· ~--...possible·•"'t hat . ·a s ..a""beg:foni'ng 's 't ra tezy ··ror ·.i,oli ti~al; ..financial,· -or even ' �': xr::·_ ,. . 1: . ~7? · L C :i-----~--~- ---~--~:.. -. ,._. -==-=---=- L .~1 -· , · · 10 I ,1 social reasons, a si::lpler or even segi:1entalized progrru;i shotld be created. In other words, a city might want to start _with health~ education only, and slowly add employoent and perhaps much ,later deal with teenage recreation. Or, there r;,ay be an assault on the problem of teenage delinq~eccy which re~uired an across-the-board approach directed to that age group only, leaving fai:dlies and senior citizens for later. It is possible to choose to work only with the families of very young children or those children themselves, on the theory that the very young a.re the most salvageable part of the population. The reasons behind any of these or ether choices :oay have validit-J, in teros of short e.n~ I:ledill!:l range strategy, but they ,I:lust not become the excw.; e for abandoning the objective of a coqirehensive progra..~. ' \ The planned use of staff, including provision for training _should be examined carefu.1.ly. To ~hat extent does a neighborhood prograo search out indigenous workers, to what extent rely on outsiders? have connecting links to outside services been planned? plan to How A:re they suffi- cient to ma.~e all of the services truly accessible to the population of the neighborhood? Some provision should be made for working out a relationship of cooperation and connection among the traditional agencies and institutions which will either work with, control in part, or i.c:pede a neighborhood program. Friction may be inevitable, but its destructive aspect should be m nimized at the planning stage. A ;,very current exBJ:Iple of this is the creation of neighborhood legal services in liew Haven and in Washington, - - - - · -=--···r- n ~c:--±n- frew Haven, at present, ~liere·-1s ·serious opp~sit .i on °fr9m the �-_-,-_-_. ._-_~--------_-_..._-_-__ -.-.,.-~_-_ :~ . . .-O -,;~.:143.215.248.55-,.~-.. ~~-: .,_ · ,C"" .'.:'._-_-_::::::=::==::----- I,, • ll ,. organized bar which has slowed down the program seriously. In Washington, . the Bar Association and Legal Aid were involved at each step of pla.'llli~ and have thus far given strong support. Including the traditional serrice agencies in the planning process as much as possible and drawing upon their skill a:id experience may substitute cooperation f?r friction. The interrelationship of citywide or even state agencies is a question more directly related to the evaluation of· an entire community action program then for judging the specifics of the neighborhood proposal. Al.so a larger matter is the area of the whole question of information gathering and disse:crinating devices, com.~unication, data .and 9ollection, both formal and informa.J.. There are more ways of assuring effective com- munication than can be listed .here. Citywide newspaper coverage, radio, TV, are the ones first considered.1.- The functional illiteracy of many of the people who z:iost need to be reached means that person-to-:,perl:i_? n '.comI munication, and contact th.rough the places most frequented, whether bar or church, is the basis for an effect ive cor.:i:nunica.tions network that ought to be in every neighborhood picture. ~er a Prog:ram has been Accepted. The styl e of initiat i on of a pr ogram is ·something that should be r egarded with gr eat interes t . In s ome sit uations a quiet launching might be preferable t o one with fanfare. Crisis exploitation, cris i s creation, . and timing must all be con:sidered. We would want to know early what obstacles are anticipated and which obstacles are in fact faced. • ~ · - - · ·· · - - ... - · .,4 . . _ _ _ _ ·Il.1.itaracy, 1:8,ck of social cohesiveness, and · a.pa.thy r:,ay be· prevalent __a.lmost ev.e ry place that a program is co?J,templa.ted. • ••• ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • �' 12 I i ifaat are the plans to deal with them? l How are some of . these obstacles considered in the attempt to involve the neighborhood in Dlanning its own progra:n? f i' It is hard to anticipate whether a program will become rigid or calcified. We have already indicated the possibility that a~pllcation forms, or rumors of hard choices a:nong cities, may cause a proposing co~unity to take a "safe route." If it is made clear from the outset that all of I/ these programs are frankly experimental and that innovation is desired and that _constant feedback and evaluation, as well as program initiative at lower levels, are desirable, rigidity nay be avoided in ~ny places. I . There should be mechanisms for anticipating cris~s or resistance that may ,1- come from the mobilization of a neighborhood. •Progra.o effectiveness o:ften means the assertion or creat~on of a p@litical force which will be ' . fought. There are ways to lay the ground for significant changes, __al- though resistance or even outcry may be inevitable. The situation of the rent strikes in Mobilization for Youth and the political repercussions, raise the question of what kind of preparation might be most effective. Evaluation Plans for evaluating a neighborhood proposal must be built into the proposal from the beginning. This is a subject for another document. The whole area of comounity action is too new for us to be aware in ad- I/ I vance of the many causes of lags in progress or even failure. Feedback mu.st be rapid and constant. We would want to know who is evaluating the neighborhood program and --· . against what criteria • . Is it part of a larger evaluation scheme of a , · '/ �13 .citywide community action progrru:i? and Are there any plans to test theories conclusions against other neighborhood programs in the same and other cities? Long-range goals shouJ.d be broken down into sequenti_al. steps. tnl.St have a planning period beyond the first allocation of funds. Ea.ch But detailed plans should be worked out at shorter intervals _than overall plans and broken down in such a way that parts of a program. can be looked at separately i'rOI:J. other parts of the overall structux~. We would 'Wa!lt to know how often., what kind, and to whom reports are made; how much personal contact is there by the evaluators; how are they trea~ed at progra:;i headquarters., - ignored., exploited or self-supported? Are periodic reviews carried out? 'I Are the goals st.u.""'ficiently formulated in the beginning so that we couJ.d ask later on whether the plans were fulfilled? r -- Whether they were · SJ:1ended? How recent and bow severe and how i're~uent were the amendments? We would want to know whether the evaluation is set up in such a way that side effects could be anticipated or observed, if they occurred. We would be loath to set up any machanical criteria for judging the effectiveness of a comprehensive neighborhood program. course., each with some limited value. There are so~e, of For example, the concept of in- creasing life-long earning power, or, a reduction in _unem:plo~ent, the increase of staying power (retention) of yo\.lllg people in high school drop- I ' ·--··-· I I . outs., in illegitimate births., lowering crime r ate., family break-up, hospital admission., and so on. __ ...... ~-- · mu.st be enployed., ., Probably all of these statistical measures but each· should be.looked at quantitatively to see ' �,· I !I 14 l 1- whether, in fact, it tests the social condition we think it does. -· ample, an increase .. in employment For ex- is a good thing; but if. the -N~gr-oes continue to hold only t'lenial, lower paid jobs, the -eI.1ployment program is no success. If our goal is the tullest development of the resources and capacities of each h\.2::lan being, then we will not be satisfied with· any simple statistical measures. These will be only our mechanical sta.rting .:points. The aspirations of any neighborhood program should escalate with success • ·' ... '- / .. .-. l ...- . . .. . . .. . . . . .,_ .. . _•• • • - .._... . . . . ,. . . . . ·- · , _ , ...... . · - ··- -. . . . . . . . . .. ~ - - .. - - " .. - · ... - - , ... - _... _ ------ . .11 . . . . ... , • .,.. ·- ·- · ·· · •• • � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ff fd. eee : nda Dass ad Aes: eel ao Nears “~“suecessess ee 2 peer rte ee 4. fin ee ES] vos os PLANNING FOR NEIGHBORHOCD PROGRAMS Introduction - A feichborhood program will ordinarily be one part of a larger eiiys wide community action program. Thus questions must be asked about the city at large and the whole community action planning, along with an inquiry into the neighborhood program itself, Funds are likely to be limited so that in most cases a choice of some neighborhoods must be made, either to start the city's program or to be used as a “demonstration.” 7 At the outset, reasons for preferring certain neighborhoods over others should be explored. In some cities past social disturbences or chronic trouble may dictate the choice of a neighborhood for concerted soetan effort. There is a caveat: A ape may prefer to choose neighborhceds with problems that can be dealt with rather quickly tecause success will be more certain and visible. Unfavorable comparisons should not be made once programs are initiatea between the more easily solved neighborhood: problems and the knottier ones. The preference of one kind of neighbor- hood over another may result from wise and responsible political decision, but the basis for decisions should be indeveeoed both by the community and by the federal agencies. | oe A te In the attached outline we have asked a series of questions designed ‘to offer some guides for those evaluating neighborhood programs. Because these programs are so frankly experimental, no such outline can provide more than a general approach. More reliable criteria will emerge from concrete experience with actual programs, their inevitable failures and = eee re an seine ey names tere tee Respite t= te i eae Wh a apn Hidde ae emg = Darel helene ap paeene ee Ae: ote es ieinesie ieee Yeh ape aetna eee ne a ieee a —alienierneeaiea TE A detailed knowledge of the city, the sponsors, and the over-all political context will be necessary for judguént in each case. Still, it may be a useful exercise to try to articulate in advance some of the . factors that should enter into evaluation, even though judgments are likely to be intuitive. The discussion that follows is aividea into two parts: (1) criteria for defining the appropriate neighborhood; and (2) criteria for judging the substance of programs for a neighborhood, It is not inappropriate to point out that some decisions to accept or reject a proposal for neighborhood programs must be made on & primarily political basis. The Federal program needs Congressional support and it needs the support of all the traditional agencies in the Executive bvench with which it must cooperate, Further, the over-all political situation of any city is an essential ingredient in the success or failure of a community action proErai and of the neighborhood program which is its natural offspring. This point is probably understood, if not articulated, by applicants and evaluators alike. The forms to be filled out for the Dept. of Housing &/ Urban Development may ~ set up standards and expectations, but they are not like aptitude tests. A high score does not imply automatic admission to "school." As long as _ funds are insufficient to permit every sound program to be accepted, it should be understood that choices involve a variety of factors, not the least of which is political. There is another risk. The existence of complicated forms, the pro- ry: mulgation of standards and the common knowledge that choices have to be Nc sy So gabe | steric ahi. = ens a he = ate oi E ance ns x —T SS ——E———EESEEE—EEE — . = : = = made, may lead cities to imitate slavishly the type of programs that have been accepted before. This could lead to rigidity -- a calcification which is the enemy of innovation and imaginative use of these special local characteristics of a city and neighborhood, Neighborhood The limited experience thus far with community action nog and the longer history of settlement houses have led those working with ores blems of organization to insist upon 2 small local area as the lowest Dinolt denominator for any new weet programs, The word "neighborhood" is used to mean a relatively compact geographical area and also an area which has some sort of functional cohesiveness. Before the concept of neighborhood program becomes a cliche’ easily glossed over, it may be important to ask some questions about what may or may not be defined as "neighborhood" and for what purposes. Reaching out: It is fairly well accepted now that any program of social action must . be broken down into local units so that it can reach out to those people sone tee ee ee "who are unwilling or unable to go very far for service, either because of fear, inexperience or lack of basic skills to make use of available services, on their own. Thus the very first criterion of any neighbor- hood program is that it be sufficiently local to achieve this end. Elasticity: The kind of services offered, and the characteristics of the people soe me rahe ements cece tle bie eee Fe awe ie  served will affect the definition of "aeighborhood."” For example, a mother with a small child has a far greater physical-geographical limi- tation than does an adolescent who is used to wandering the city with a gang. Could you serve them both in a neighbor center? The unit for phys= ical health care might be quite different from the unit for mental health care, in part because of the degree of education needed before the patient wants the services offered. A context of multiple services, or even ser- vices to a wide age range, indicates both elasticity of the concept of neighborhood and the arbitrariness of any definition. The very fact that one center may offer a multiplicity of services will also affect the delineation of "neighborhood." Even a single person ay define his neigh- _ borhood very differently for different purposes me church, school, or socializing, for example. The situation becomes infinitely more compli- A neighborhood may exist because of preexisting services or grouping of services, for example, an effectively functioning settlement house with _@ long tradition, as in the North End, Boston, or a clinic, The Peckham Health Center in Imgland created a very cohesive neighborhood for many purposes. A preexisting sense of community often grows up because of \ ethnic similarities or racial isolation. The sense of community, however, may be a deceptive factor on which to rely. An effective preexisting service may provide a community on which ' broader services can be built and should be built. On the other hand, . the invisible walls which create a ghetto like Harlem, create a “community say ey, o.. DUG one frayed with strife and hostility which may have to be broken down ” > ee eee a a z 5 into very small units to penetrate resistance that the dergar community reinforces. In other words, 2 neighborhood has to be a manageable unit. If there had been trouble, hostility, delinquency or a high crime rate, the negative aspect of a community may argue for the arbitrary creation of very small neighborhocd units for certain kinds of services, in order that the population can really be reached and involved. Use of Personnel Affects Delineation of a Neighborhood The availability and training of the personnel to staff a neighbor- hood program will affect the parameters of a neighborhood unit. More is meant here than the ratio of professionals to "client." It goes with- . out saying that one doctor in a clinic will serve a far smaller population than ten. But personnel can be important in a qualitative sense, as well. ‘The supporting worker can gerie aa commective tissue among professional services. This is the worker who knows the language of the neieiborhecd and who is able to direct the people in it to needed mexvices, provide follow-up, and help the person coordinate the various services that may be assenbled to meet his particular needs, whether welfare, medical, educational, or employment, or a combination of any or all of these, in any problem or crisis. Such personnel make up a psychological teanspore tation and communication system. An example may make this more concrete; A store-front room may serve a block. In it may be neighborhood workers or urban agents who can take information from those on the block and steer them to adult education, employment training, work crews, mental health clinic, the hospital, a local lawyer, the housing authority, etc. AlL —- +--+ Of these services need not be represented in the store-front room, but. Boneprescre a = a ge ee ert er me oe they must be made accessible by effective workers who can communicate with the paonie’ tha rproarals is designed to serve. The urban agent be- comes a pathfinder for the individual in need, to all the agencies and services required. Thus the concept of "neighborhood" is in part defined by the kind of staff available, because those who help people find their way through a labyrinth of services make the programs really sdoesetblacn Actual transportation is of great importance, since the inability to find one's way is 25 characteristic of the-poor, Their neighborhood, for many purposes, is walking radius. Here again workers can help make exis- ting transportation usable ena tharty make far-flung programs accessible to a neighborhood. We have stated earlier that Ons varient of the definition of neigh- borhood is the kind of service that is offered. We are assuming that one goal is comprehensiveness - thavePfering of a group of interrelated human services that will raise the aspirations and the opportunities of the people to be served. It is understood, then, that different services will serve different geographical areas. As pointed out, the sunt common denominator may have to be the workers who can link physically . separated services. But this is only one alternative. There are others. For example, the creation of a new institution designed to have such great impact that it defines the neighborhood. Consider the Comin’ ty School as it exists in New Haven, Connecticut, and Flint, Michigan. They draw upon the neighbor- hood of the families whose children attend the school, In New Haven, Conte School is made as attractive with a center for senior citizens, rey aa ye ntemilt pees drmeaag ri renege iets vid Had avo tty Os sie th haieeinge | nto eee citar y tie tiene nent ahipabeis 1 > eee «teylgee yes meee  2 ee ae ap a pe ee a eS ES Se a fs il Ve | ead 2h wwe a a Nae we cl. an auditorium, bocci courts, a park for young mothers, and so on = that @ sense of community is created by the very fact of the institution. Other neighborhood services, legal, public health, welfare, etc., are then brought in to this "neighborhood." Other kinds of institutions may define the neighborhood by their creation, Probably this is what the multi- service center in Boston (Roxbury) is attempting to ne In such cases the neighborhood is geographically larger than that served by the block store-front with the "pathfinder" personnel, With a lerge center, staff may literally walk the streets to bring the people to the services con- centrated in one building.. There is no a priori reason to prepa one structure of a neighborhood program over the other. So many neighborhoods are natural neighborhoods, defined by geography, tradition, or other boundaries that they can be seen quite readily. In the end, high deference should be given to the local definition of a . neighborhood. However, the Office of Economic Opportunity can and should insist that the city consider the many variables, including history and tradition, which go into the delineation of a neighborhood unit. | It should ask for careful consideration of demographic data, for detail about the ethnic background of the people in the neighborhood, the eco- nomic and educational level, employment opportunities, housing, recreation and social outlets. A well-thought out proposal is likely to be rich in this kind of detail.  eM dd SP ee a: THE PROGRAM The substance of the program is no less important than the delination of the neighborhood, and must be adapted to this delineation. The first overall requirement for any progrem is the tnyatponans let the people to be served in the planning and then the operation of the programs designed to serve then. It is not easy to involve the inarticulate poor, for whom organization is not a familiar phenomenon, but it is possible and it is essential. One clear goal must be to reduce dependency in all areas, not to increase it, This means that any "tender plant" of a neigaborhood. organization must be built upon -- any indigenous leadership that is at all éonabrudtave must be involved in the planning process. : A list of needs outlined in the program planning stage, health, educaticn, Sebaccetes should indicate how these needs are felt by tue population, It is difficult to establish criteria from Washington to assure this, but there must be some warning signal of local indifference to neighborhood participation in a program. Furthermore, it is so in- portant that if there is any doubt, a field trip might be worthwhile. We can anticipate antipathy and resistance to the organization and voice of the poor.. But these are risks that must be. accepted as natural and inevitable and perhaps even welcomed as evidence of involvement. Survey of Existing Services A proposal should include a survey of existing social services and education, including, if possible, cost statistics and the ratio of professional and supportive personnel to the neighborhood population. © It “Rx. ay ee a “possible that as a beginning strategy for political, financial, or even y-—,| eee a x al PO Beh i Ji i SRO - ro _ 3 = eae chee = | would be useful to learn how accessible existing services are which reach the segnents of the neighborhood population. Is the new plan going to ‘ build on preexisting services, and if not, why not" Often there are gocd reasons, but as often, a natural center for people, for example, a priest whose church has become a focus for informal social services, may be ignored and a new artificial center created, Relations with Existing Agencies In some cases there may be value in by-passing existing social service agencies. In’ other cases this may be politically unwise or umwise because of the strength of an agency. In the case of a strong well-supported agency, it is entirely possible that a neighborhood program should devel- op from one discipline or area OF Servaces For example, if the Board of Education were strong and innovative, the idea of a community school might be the basis for the neighborhood program and education would then be the nucleus. If there were already. a community mental health. center with local support, mental health could’ be the nucleus of the community — action program. Thus, in the Bronx, New York, a community action pro- gram is emerging from @ mental health center out of the Albert Einstein Medical School (Dr. Harris Peck). Im other cities, the Youth Exployment, or Opportunity Center has already become a familiar and accepted part of neighborhood and so a comprehensive program emerges with the employment or job training at its core. The judgment probably should be made “on the ground." Although comprehensiveness of services may be the goal, it is entirely *  - 10 social reasons, a simpler or even segmentalized program should be created. In other words, a city might want to start with health and education only, and slowly add employment and wavheee much daterideat with teenage recre- ation. Or, there may be an assault on the problem of teenage delinquency which required an across-the-board approach directed to that age group only, leaving families and senior citizens for later. It is possible to choose to work only with the families of very young children or those children themselves, on the theory that the very young are the most sal- vageeble part of the population, The reasons behind any of these or cther choices.may have validity, in terms of short end medium range strategy, but theymust not become the excuse for abandoning the objective of a comprehensive program. The planned use of staff, including provision for training should be examined carefully. To what extent does a neighborhood progran plan to search out indigenous workers, to what extent rely on outsiders? How have connecting links to outside services been planned? Are they suffi- cient to make all of the services truly accessible to the population of “the neighborhood? > eo STE Some provision should be made for working out a relationship of coop= eration and connection among the traditional agencies and institutions which will either work with, control in part, or impede a neighborhood program, Friction may be inevitable, but its destructive aspect should be minimized at the planning stage. Avery current example of this is the creation of neighborhood legal services in New Haven and in Washington, “D6. In New Haven, at present, there is serious opposition from the ~ SSS ee  ae rime ae if — a : : sed : jas os ta . Loa . i iia = ao = srtertee in ely 4. J ed oF ee a Mle ar hn aig ere } far: il organized bar which has slowed down the program seriously. In Washington, the Bar Association and Legal Aid were involved at each step of planning and have thus far given strong support. Including the traditional service agencies in the planning process as much as possible and drawing upon their skill and experience may substitute cooperation for friction. The interrelationship of citywide or even state agencies is a question more directly related to the evaluation of an entire community action pro= gram then for judging the specifics of the neighborhood proposal. Also a larger matter is the area of the whole question of ingormation gathering and disseminating devices, commento: data and collection, both formal and informal. There are more ways of assuring effective con= munication than can be listed here. Citywide newspaper coverage, radio, TV, are the ones first considered., The functional illiteracy of many of ‘the people who most need to be reached means that person-to-person ‘com- munication, and contact through the places most frequented, whether bar or church, is the basis for an effective communications network that ought to be in every neighborhood picture. After a prorat has been Accepted The style of initiation of a program is something that should be re- garded with great interest. In some situations a quiet launching might be preferable to one with fanfare, Crisis exploitation, crisis creation, . and timing must all be considered. | We would want to know early what obstacles are anticipated and which obstacles are in fact faced. Tlliteracy, lack of social cohesiveness, and _apathy may be prevalent almost every place that a program is contemplated.  What are the pias to deal with them? How are some of these obstacles considered in the attempt to involve the Hat etborioed in planning its own program? ; It is hard to anticipate whether a program will become rigid or calci- fied. We have already indicated the possibility that application forms, or rumors of hard choices among cities, may cause a proposing community to teke a "safe route." If it is made clear from the outset that all of these programs are frankly experimental and that innovation is desired and that constant feedback and evaluation, as well as program initiative at lower S ovais fore desirable, rigidity may be avoided in many places. There should be mechanisms for anticipating crisis or resistance that may come from the mobilization of a neighborhood, Program efrectiveness often means the assertion or creation of 2 political force which will be fought. There are ways to lay the ground for significant changes, al- though resistance or even outcry may be inevitable. The situation of the rent strikes in Mobilization for Youth and the political repercussions, raise the question of what kind of preparation might be most effective. Evaluation Plens for evaluating a neighborhocd proposal must be built into the proposal from the beginning, This is a subject for another document. The whole area or community action is too new for us to be aware in ade vance of the many causes of lags in progréss or even failure. Feedback must be rapid and constant. We would want to know who is evaluating the neighborhood program and against what criteria. Is it part of a larger evaluation scheme of a | Se  citywide community action program? Are there any plans to test theories and conclusions against other neighborhood programs in the same and other cities? | | Long-range goals should be broken down into sequential steps. Fach must have a planning period beyond the first allocation of funds. But detailed plans should be worked out at shorter intabvats than overall plans and broken down in such a way that parts of a program can be looked at separately fron other parts of the overall structure. We would want to Know how often, what kind, and to whom reports are made; how much personal contact is there by the evaluators; how are they treated at progran heads quarters, - ignored, exploited or self-supported? Ape periodic reviews carried out? 7 Are the goals sufficiently formulated in the beginning so that we could ask later on whether the plans were fulfilled? Whether they were anended? How recent and how severe and how frequent were the shépdinente’: We would want to know whether the evaluation is set up in such a way that side effects could be anticipated or observed, if they occurred. We would be loath te set up any machanical criteria for judging the _ effectiveness of a comprehensive neighborhood program. There are some, of course, each with some limited value. For example, the concept of in- ereasing life-long earning power, or, @ reduction in unemployment, the increase of staying power (retention) of young people in high school bebe outs, in illegitimate births, lowering crime rate, family break-up, age pital admission, ana so on. Probably all of these statistical measures cation eee must be enployed, but each: should be. looked at quantitatively to see 14 whether, in fact, it tests the social condition we think it does. For ex- emple, an increase in employment is a good thing, but if. the Negroes continue to hold only menial, lower paid jobs, the. employment program is mo success. If our goal is the fullest development of the resources and capacities of each human being, then we will not be satisfied with any simple statis- tical measures, These will be only our mechanical starting points. The aspirations of any neighborhood program should escalate with success. -  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 22, Folder 17, Document 27 Box 22 Box 22 Folder 17 Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/1e6f9665e0ddc7301da751883029394c.pdf 78eb5bf63c1a3a4d01cb639e452bf182 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ' J . '· - / ::· ;-::'t ·.,. O' P t . . · -" ZS .L,. OUTLINE Neighborhood Programs: A. Some Questions Social Framework l. r E:::iergence of planning ·a. · In general, what conditions J.ed to the emergence of this specific _neighborhood plan? b. Who wi-ote the proposal? c. What is his (their) relation to the neighborhood? I d. Were neighborhood people involved in th~ planning? e. · I,f so, how were they involved? f. To what extent have planning concepts or methods been borroHed from other proposa1sz · g. What attempts have been made to adapt transplanted concepts to the neighborhood? I h. What is the role of tbe outside advisor iri the neighborhood planning? -· . i. 2. What opposition has there been? '·. Social and political environment a. How is the nei ghborhood defined? b. Wnat criteria were used to determine the limits of the neighborhood? -- phys ical geography? -- population to be served? --- service pr oposed? combination of above? / / I I .·· c. Has~ inventory been made? Geographic Historic. • . . . . . .. . . - • ... . • - ~ - _••• • - .. ... , • • 1. , . . . . . .. · -.- · \ �2 Demo~aphic (length of residence; population turnover; cot:II;J.uting patterns for work, play, health; education; etc·. ) Ethnic Health ?l..ental health Economic · (individual fa.mizy income; places of employment: Do dollars circulate in neighborhood or flow out, etc.) Housing · Social (num.oers and tYJ;)es of organizations, churches, neighborhood groups, etc.) F.ducation (education of people, ntl!llber and tsJl)es of schools, etc.) Power structure (fon:al and informal) . Values an.cl morale (e. g. suspicion; what ability does the · neighborhood have ,to cope with its proble:tS?) .. Mobile ability d. _ To what e..~tent is the neiehborhood dependent upon outside resources for jobs; medical care, welfare, education, recreation, inspiration? 3. What social services are now available to the neighborhood? a. What is the per capita ·dollar a.I:lount for social services? b. What is the ratio of social 'service · perso:r:i..."lel to the neighborhood population? ( B. Goal formation .... i- l. Hierarchy of goals a. What are the overriding goals .and how are lesser goals subordinated to them? b. What criteria were used to establish priorities of goals? c. · ·W'aa.t do the neighborhood people thi.Dk · their needs a.re? ., �~(J .. I ·. f· .: --::- - -·- -_,, __--· ..,., I' I I I 3 I- I d. What are the n~~ds for: Health I . F.ducation Work, jobs, inco~e . . "Skills-of-livi~" Social cohesiveness .Advocacy: .I 2. l ., legal and constl!!ler Have the neighborhood people been involved in establishing the . goals? 3. Are the programs intended to ma.~e the people less dependent and more able to cope, or are they merely hand-outs w~ich Will keep the people dependent? ' I- 4. Are long-range goals and purposes for the neighborhood specified? 5. How does this specific proposal fit into the long-rang objectives? .. , 6. Does it meet Federal criteria of desegregation? C. Decision-ma.~ing l. / I I / Institutional network a. Do neighborhood organizations already exist? b. Is there an identifiable central neighborhood authQrity · responsible f or this program? c. What is the relationship between this authority and the existing service agencies -- Federal, state, local, public and privete? d. Should this program be part of an already existing agency? / 2. Precess of decision-making a. What are the attitudes of the traditional agencies to this progra:n? b. ,Are. there ar.y institutional mechanisns for consulting other ___ .. _.... . .. age·n cies- and pressure groups ( traue unions, qhurches, business · organizations , poll ti cal pa.rties) ? What are the me·c hanisms? ·- .- . .. - -. .: ··· ·~--. -_.. -- ·- .. . . - - . - - . ·:. _ . --- -·- - - � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document OQUTLIVE Neighborhood Programs: Some Questions A. Social Framework _ de 2. Emergence of planning ae b. Co de ae f. Be h. i. In general, what conditions led to the emergence of this specific neighborhood plan? Who wrote the proposal? What is his (their) relation to the neighborhood? Were neighborhood people involved in the planning? If so, how were they involved? | \ To what extent have planning concepts or methods been borrowed from other proposals?’ ; What attempts have been made to adapt transplanted concepts to the neighborhood? ‘ What is the role of the outside advisor in the neighborhood planning? i What opposition has there been? Social and political environment Qe be Ceo How is the neighborhood defined? What criteria were used to determine the limits of the neighborhood? ; physical geography? population to be served? service proposed? a e-- combination of above? Has an inventory been made? Geographic oe gtagaete! “UML ahd a ciklad euak UCR eae ee i ly eae B. Demographic (length of residence; population turnover; commuting patterns for work, pley, health, education; etc.) Ethnic Health Mental health Economic: (individual family income; places of employment: | Do dollars circulate in neighborhood or flow out, etc.) Housing Social (nunibers and types of organizations, churches, neighborhood groups, etc.) [ Education (education of people, nuxber and types of schools, etc.) a Power structure (formal and informal) Values and morale (e.g. suspicion; what ability does the - neighborhood have to cope with its problems?) Mobile ability ee, d. To what extent is the neighborhood dependent upon outside re- sources for jobs, medical care, welfare, education, recreation, inspiration? 3. What social services are now available to the neighborhood? a. What is the per capita dollar amount for social services? b. What is the ratio of social service personnel to the neigh- borhood population? Goal formation 1. Hierarchy of goals a. What are the overriding goals and how are lesser goals sub- ordinated to them? + ob. What criteria were used to establish priorities of goals? cc. Waat do the neighborhood people think their needs are?  2. 3. 1. 26 d. What are the needs for: Health Education Work, jobs, tiene "Sd L1s-of-living" Social cohesiveness Advocacy: legal and consumer Have the neighborhood peonis been involved in establishing the | goals? Are the programs intended to make the people less dependent and more able to cope, or are they merely hand-outs which will keep the people dependent? Are long-range goals and purposes for the neighborhood specified? How does this specific ao as Tit into the long-rang SO ee na Does it nee Federal criteria of desegregation? C. Decision-making Institutional network a. Do neighborhood organizations already exist? b. Is there an identifiable central neighborhood saprecapei responsible for this program? ce. What is the relationship between this authority and the existing service agencies -- Federal, state, local, public and private? d. Should this program be part of an already existing agency? Process of decision-making a. What are the attitudes of the traditional agencies to this program? ' b. Are there any institutional mechanisms for consulting other _agenciés and pressure groups (trade unions, churches, business organizations, political parties)? What are the mechanisms?  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 22, Folder 17, Document 28 Box 22 Box 22 Folder 17 Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/2cc451449d549a181665be3764cd6341.pdf c2915e8ef0c4f7d6e973fe8e2163e341 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. } '-·__ ·_- _-_--·~-:::::::::::::::: '":::::: ·-:::: · :::::::~::::4,~ I· ====~-~-=-~ ~~ ._. .,_ ·=· ~~- :=::;::;±:::::: " =·· ·=·"":= ________ ------:---- = c;;... ·- 2Eb=~;;;;;;;;;;;:;~ ~ . ...... - . .. t ~- ,, - - - ~ - - - : . , _ _ _ , .,_,c.:;:-.;,,~------------,-.\..J-· .:_ ~ . ~· 4 6. Does it meet Federal criteria of desegregation? C• . Decision-~aking l. . .. ] Institutional network - a. ... Do neighborhood organizations already exist? . b. Is there an identifiable central neighborhood authority responsible for this program? c. What is the relationship between this authority and the existing service agencies-Federal, state, local, public and private? d. Should this program be ·part of an already existing agency? · 3, / /· . ./· ·/ 2. Process of decision-making . a.. What are the attitudes of · the traditional agencies to this progra=i.? b. A:re there any institutional mechanisms for • I ',1 consulting other agencies and pressure groups (trade unions, churches, business organization~, political parties)? What are the mechanisms? c. .- :. ·,. ·.. 1· . What are the mechanisms used to rec·o gnize and handle frictions among the agencies, groups and this program? ,I I d. What are the differences ·in goals and methods between this program and other agencies and groul)s? e. A:re the people involved to whom the program is addressed? t. Is the factual material on which the plan is based accessible to the public~ g. To what extent is pJ.annixig and decisionmaking public? ·, • ·. · ~ .- ·---· ·- ... - . -.-.,. .. . ·-..., . . ........ ·~ l _ ·.. I. \ . . . . . . . .... ... ~._... .., . . ,. ., ... _- · :·. - ·-,. ~ ·. - . , .,... .... . - - --- _j_ � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 6. Does it meet Federal criteria of desegregation? Gel Decision-making bea 2. Institutional network Be d. Do neighborhood organizations already exist? Is there an identifiable central neighborhood authority responsible for this program? 3 Whet is the relationship between this authority and the existing service agencies== Federal, state, local, public and private? Should this program be! oe of an already existing agency? Process of decision-making . Be b. de Ge f. What are the attitudes of the traditional agencies to this program? Are there any institutional mechanisms for consulting other agencies and pressure groups (trade unions, churches, business organizations, political parties)? What are the mechanisms? What are the mechanisms used to recognize and handle frictions emong the agencies, groups and this program? # What are the differences in goals and methods . between this program and other agencies and ' groups? Are the people involved to whom the program is aiarene est . ‘ Is the factual material on which the muah is based accessible to the public? To what extent is plesning and Secision, making public? ce er i nee one pei onan te pet f  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 22, Folder 17, Document 29 Box 22 Box 22 Folder 17 Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/b568dbcd5d6057abb4795530ea8e51e6.pdf 014b87cb59d1276adc6b455c4e85d484 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. -- - . ·- - ·- ~'.: ·- - - '!: ..___ : U ~ J :. ,> . ·:·.' ·,~- . . -~-~ ::.__ ) I ' .. · ·.. •: -- c c:.-~r::-t·:~""tr1·:CE Gi·J !IOr5I(,iG FO~ THF; P00I{ EUD n:1d o::o i:m ulcl invite t w.:.n ty of the 1.i.oct kno;.;ledgct1.ble pc.opl_e in the fi eld c,Z hou3in3 the p oor , to .:a. t •.10- day C O'.'l:::°C;'.'~ncc . The c.ceting is for c o:·,t.ul t.o.tio::i. ead the public "1 i ll not be i'cw:l.t:ucl, althou zh oth.:-:r Fcdcrel 1,:g2ncf. es '!:tc purpose of this c01:i.fo:.:-r.cncc i s t o evaluate . tho fccsibi li ty of provici i~~-t~ y c:lr.:; , .::t ~rices tt,lo poor C'.:.n ~ffo:-d . 1-J ~ er-~ secl-d113 from this confcren.(..e (l) eco:10.ni-: .:nd :.-:;ucial tc:i:w ; and (2) identif ication of il lte;..1Et ivc pt·ogr.:1.ms o~ housing o·.r.: il.r,blc f or the 3.3 r.1illion r,,o or · househo l d:3 b 1.<, t i1ould otherw i r;e occU?Y substand~rd or overcrowded u~it ~ cy 1970 . }!-::re specifi cally thcr~ will be c.n idcntifica.tioa oi the obstucies involved cutU:v:d . Tbe c onf f~ rencc will i::,(;! c entered nrott-id f:l.ve issues: '"rd/or cle,n ~nce arc n.,::;cds;:d; the cozl.:.s involved ; capjb ility of occup~~tt:: to r,sy; present locc1t1ons of subct~nd.1rd c:nits; oo-.uposition o:Z occupcnts by l"c.1c ~, avtil ilClbility of lsrd; .nr<:l1it ,i ctural end city planning concerna; th-3 t e -::rmolo.;- ica l problem~ and opportunities of a lar~e-Dcale buildins and ~ebuil<lin3 �. " ()(I ,.:' .. V • · ..... ___. • . , .... .. _. ·) p:C,J2;i•o:n; t t~ d1i1it:i C:S nf C,,i;;ting er prO?OS·~ d inGtitutions (fii.,,.:nc:e, (1) to achtc.J(.! die c r:,nccrr.plrlted voh.n~ in five ye~n:·s , ,m<l (2 ) indus try .nnd conrit::ructicn cost:, ; t ht:i effect on the v.:i lues end c o~·~d il: icn of 8Ci sti~'l.~ houGin3 c.nd n,3i2,hb orhoods; cfficie.ncies thti.t might r esult frc::.1 a iinZtnc ing the; prosr~mn . 4. Th:~ Soc 1;:i 1 Issues . The questions of gh~tl:oizing or de c ent.re lizin3 t he counseling .:ind bnck-up scr.v ic0:; i-cquircci; t he proble1':'\S of inst~ 1.U.n::, .n n,c :-;n:::; to this housing . o f pro gra;.·,s ; the nu·::Dcr of units to be ck:vclopcd :E::o~.i er.ch pro2,r::.:·::1; th.:: To t~kc tl11s .a wor.::;.:h ile cc..-1 £crcnce., so t h!l t ell p.:lrt1 cipc..i.t;5 ,-:. re t •. 11:i.:~c •, 0~o t 1Jo• b.our scosi on r.11 ll oe. dcv·:.:tcd to f'...;';.Ch cf. the fi r s t fou r p:;t"t icipont 1n each :Held \JO'~ll cl out line .nnd chair e zdt s e.::;s ion . each punel ~ill ~a C~'PC~tcd to cubsequontly prepare a suri:;;.iary. c.11-c.c?.rj o.: Tb.:1 i~~o -·1:;:..ato4-· ct � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document i einer: ee ae yoke pol om mest —— AC ws 12837) COREORENCE Ga YOUSING FOR THE POOR MUS end O50 would invite twenty of the most imteaLecgaabte people in tie ! £icid of housing the poor, to = twoeday conference. The meeting is for coucultetion aad the public will not be invited, although other Federal ezencies will scud observers. The purpose of this conference is to evaluate the feasibility of providing éa cstimated 3.35 million additional standard housing units within the next five years, st prices the peor can afford. we are secking from this conference (1) & sumnation of what we do and do not know about how the poor ara housed, in physical, economic and social terma; and (2) identification of alternetiva programs or coupination of programs and hiploscntation strategies, that might make decont housing available for the 3.5 million poor households that would otherwise encusy substandard or overcrowded units by 1970, mora specifically there will be en identification of the obatacles involved with mounting a total housing program for the poor, and advice on hew to overcoma -4 these problems. Ismediate and longeranze vesearch and their priority will be tf] cuilincd. The conference will be centered around five issues: 1. Present housing conditions of the poor. The extent to which rehabilitation end/or clearance are necded; the costs involved; ca pantry of occupants to . r pays; present Locations of subaotandard units; somposition of oncupents by TACa, 2. Technical Issues. The type of housing required, its location and the . availability of land; architactural end city planning concerns; the technolog- ical problema and opportunities of a largeescale building and rebuilding epee SS sehees Aetennsnend SESH “ 4 ve 7 5 progz ain} the abilitics of existing or proposed institutions (finsuce, construction, building, dovelonment, govermuent) to implement the programs. : meq t ~ a £2 3. Reenenic Issues, ‘The effect ta program: (1) to achieve the contemplated volume in five years, and (2) who the progyam begins to phase outs the effect om the total housing a the economy of a multi-billicn dolisr ndustry and construction costs; the effect on the values and condition of existing housing and neighborhoods; efficiencies that might result from 4. veevaluation of the economics of the housing industry; alternative imecas of financing thea progrems. 4. The Social fssues. The questions of ghecttoizing or decentralizing the 4 poor and particularly tne nonewhite poor; the supplemental educational, counseling and backeup scrvices required; the probloms of installing a menns ao bhoe toast and establishing priority eriteria} the attitudes of poor end non-poor to this housing. 4, 5. Program Issues. The types of programs required to meat the cbjfectiv Li expansion or redirection of oxieting programs and the invention of new kir of progranis; the tumber of units to be developad from enca program; the phasing and the mix of progvase over the Fiveeyear period. * 5 ats To make this a worticvhile conference, so that all participants are talking from knowledge of the situation te be deslt with, background papers should b pressred and distributed in edvance on the first four issues. Ung twoehour session will be deveted to each of the first four aresg of conacrn, and a half-day wilt be left fer the Program Issues discussion, Cae porticipant an cach fteld would outline and chair ezch session. The woderator each penel vill be expested to subsequently prepare a summary. ~ &  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 22, Folder 17, Document 30 Box 22 Box 22 Folder 17 Folder topic: Task Force on Cities | 1966