Box 22, Folder 17, Complete Folder

Box 22, Folder 17, Complete Folder

,
1fr
liSiP
£ST
WESTERN U NION.
M>V 23 e56
lJES2TtJ DE W.A034
lMff'
GOVT PD TRE WRITE 1DUSE VASHIMGTON DC 23
Nn
sma, J>ONT DD
ATllc
NEW YORK UMABlt.lTATtOM TOUi SET FOR SUMDAl', U/2T/.S. MElT
AT fflffE t>1 NI$• CAIOL HA t:fSD\\Jit ,IQ CDrrRA L PARE i · SOUl'H, PRO PIPTL.Y
AT f.lOO '·"· Kl:Ef IHG ON NOffftBD as, VlU. • IN WASlJI~TON
AT lOtOO .t.K.,. IDOM ~f.l, EIECUTl9.E OJ'rJCE BIJILJ>JNC:. SECRETARY
mvn TO l'ID:T 1JITH GIO'UP !l>NDAY EYllUN~, , TO «ioo p.,.
MON U'AN AWN,
d~EA~
1 270
( 1-5 1 )
/if~
�-LW ~ ATlMffA GA JIM 20 19$7
MR~ MIii 11!0~~
-exte·-~en
r- kX
F JT
TOUR TELECP..#>\ Jute
l"O MAYOR idt,LEk
ATLA
?.Q
TO Rt CHARD C LE.NE THE Wt TE ~~
VA"'-"fUft;TOH DC I~ U~l.tV.:REl). Wt; t-f~E BEEN UNABt! N LOCAT"E
flO'!)RI!.~~ COUL1'.t YOU Ary\ff~ ~AT nEJtAR™EtfT. t~ WiTH.
WE!fT'EfflJl UlH 'Jet JA. l ~100 EXT 266
.......::··...c.,
<" . -
()
' /
.
._,.;;r
1270
( 1·5 1 )
--:..~
~


.J'/' ;.,"' :....,.._..,


, •.
�ATLANTA, GEORGIA
PHONE 522- 4463
7
FORM 25-6
�Some addition8l inf ormation on t he
Ribicoff Hearings
From the Desk of
ArDee Ames
l
,,
·-··
...
-
---
- - -·.··
,_.
- - . . . .,.. - - ·
-··----
..
�From the Desk of
ArDee Ames
�From i::he Desk of
ArDee Ames
Some additional clippings on the
Rib icoff He arings.
�From the Desk of
Ardee Ames
�-
SENDING
CALL
LETTERS
FJT
11/16/ 66
CHARGE
rn
UNION
BLANK
Mayo r I s Office , 20 6 City Hall
'
Mr. Ardee Ames
The White House
Washington, D . C .
MAYOR IVAN ALLEN, JR . WILL ATTEND THE TASK
FORCE MEETING ON NOVEMBER 19th .AT 9:30 A . M.
Mrs. Ann Moses
E x ecutive Secretary
Send the above messa ge, subiecl lo the terms on back hereof, which are hereby agreed to
PL EASE TYPE OR WRITE PLAINLY W tT HIN BORDER-DO NOT FO LD
1269- (R 4-55)
�I
L:. MESSAGE
T KE
BY THIS COMPA IV A
ES
ECT T
T .E FOLLO
GT
MS:
CLASSES OF SEP.VICE
DOMESTIC SERVICES
INTERNAT!ONAL SERVICES
f'ULL RAT£ (FR)
TCLCGRAM
Tb •,. t :. J.Jm tic 1tn·1:-e.
Th r
I t o, f'na
rr< C"·I tu Htoro.w, lcttt-
iv r; t & r lowlJlfii: morn1n,.
tr, le
'.\1


r tie


t .,,_
'P."Ti:t o In c:O..!e, c!phrr. or In :tD)' ltma'UACO es,
�WESTERN
1'5P EST NOY 15 66 1F171·
OEA,'4 OE WA069
QOYT FD WUX THE WHITE MOUSE TfASHitGTON OC
1,- Pf'T
HON~BLE IVAH ALLEN,. DOMT DVR
IUYM ~ - A'ft.ANTA GA ATLA
,/
/
I
TM£ S.EC<WO rtt£T1~ OF TKC TASK F"ORC£ YIU. BE HEt.O ON NO'tfEMBER
19.19"-IN JlOON "44, UEauTIV£ CFF'_IC£S Wn.Dlflll• 1Tl"J~ &: PENNSYL¥A~IA
AYE• 8£Ql'NftINQ AT 91,0 AeKe
/
MO££ AIits l411f
..
-;
~:'al-
• -·
-
·
-
/.
�u
p ropc
TELEGRAM
R. W . Mc FA LL
PRESIDENT
14 lP EST DEC 12 66 AF1~7 SYB280
SY WA270 GOVT PD WUX THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON DC 12 1153A
EST
HON IVAN ALLEN, MAYOR, DONT DWR
ATLA
MEETING ON DECEMBER 15, WILL BE IN WASHINGTON AT 10100 A.M.,
ROOM 4.44, EXECUTivt OFFIC[ BUILDING
ARDEE AMES
(56)
SF120l(R2-65)
�19 0
.::0
0
c:,
~
- -·
__,
'
l>
I\) $
-f
"'O


s:


C)
"3


z


....
0
c-
8 14 4





)
�C.
Memorandum
TO :
Date:
November 17, 1966
Paul :1. 'lvisaker
Proj ect/No. :
Q\ ·
Ezr
- · re ·rant z
Subject: Area of emphasis f or _1\fhi t e House
Task Force on the Ci t y
In tryi ng to \ r ite a l et t er in response to your reques t at t he fi r s t tas k f or ce
meeting , I - ve 'ecome i mpress ed by t hee tent t o whic the maj ority of the problems
tat ,e tal · about today have be r evi wed over and over again in t he past. On
mos t of thes e I am r elatively inexperienced , and rathe_ t han t r ying t o s et out a
gra .d f rar.iewoT. on al l oft e proble. s that we shou l d t ry t o deal with , I would like
to co c nt te o. o, pa ti cul ar area whi ch I feel very str ongly about .
T·.e Federal GoverTu~ent spons o: s a great deal of research i n city pr oblems , s ome of
it a cade~ic, and the bul · of it practical . Neither benef its substanti al ly from t he
other . ~- eor i cal study o= t he city conc e. t ates various l y on urban growth and f or m,
soci al ecology, or the plani ng process, , aking litt l e cont r i bution to t he unders t andi ng of action pol i c ies . Proj ects are deve l oped on an ad hoc basis to meet a comproise a~o .g the exp essed eeds of t hei mor e voca l constituent s ; the out come i s
fre uently wide of t he first objective and t here i s seldom any attempt to show how it
got t .ere . Te z a Le o co tro led experim nt s i n t he f ield and l ittle cumulat i on of
evide ce .
4
Performance in both the academic and pr actical area s of urban s t udies could be
improved by p::-ov::.ding a bridge bet ween the t wo ki nds of work . I sugges t that a
portion--pos ibly 2%- 5%- - of eve_y Feder al progra directly or remot ely aff ect ing
t he city be cornm~tted for exp rimental work , and that thes e experi ment s be conducted
under t. e diTect·on of an interl ocking body whi ch wou l d repres ent and s erve all the
affett ed Federal agenc ies, State and local ofx icials where appr opriate and repre sent atives of industry , labor and the academi c communi t y . In addition to performing
( 1) res arch and (2) experi ent al projects, thi s body could:
·
(3) pTovide policy coordination between agencies,
(4) serve s a c learing hous e f or information on regu lar and exp erimental
programs of the linki ng agencies, and for consulting services i n r esearch
and planning ,
(5) direct cont act research fo r other publ ic and non-prof it bodies .
By:
120 Broadway
San Franc isco, Ca li fo rnia 94111
Phone 415 434 3830
�Page two
These _pe::i .1 e .ta l progrc:.1s Nould :. eviell the effect of possible changes in
codes, ~ or practices , ma:ket organizat i o and many other aspects of our work
in c.:.ties Khich affect cost and erJ..or-1ance of our physica l structures . We
would equa _ly be co .cer .ed with t he relation or people t o one another , t· ,e
i .troduct·on of social s ervices, and the development of nei ghborhoods . By
structu ing the -- eri : ental prog·ams, i t should be poss ible to develop a data
base which wou d enable future decis.:.ons to be made on major programs for the
city on bctte .:.. fo _ ation t han we ave today .
Givei. sue a means of coordina·~ion, Federally sponsored urban studies could
be st uctured .:.n a planned, cu ulative s equence, co. tribute reliable experimental
evide ce, ru~ p~ovide a sound bridge between a cademic and practical sttidy in the
fie d .
I hope that
a1.
.ot stressing a point of view on a single subject too strongly
fo _ t .e first go- r ou d .
Ezra Ehre ·rantz
�..,
EVtE
~VDl\Y U1 tEll}J:r' ,;~c; tr/~r; ,,, ·
life is a relentless. search for it." In
analyzing this coexistence of the
p a thological and the healthy, Lewis
gives considerable precision to a term
th.at he originated: the "culture of
poverty."
And he provides some im· ~:; JeH::HAEL HARRINGTON
portant · theoretical insights of con~
VIDA" is unquestiona bly one siderable relevance to some of the
.
of the most important books political debates going on in America
published in the United States today.
this year. It is a shat tering account
E ssentially w hat Lewis does is to
of three g ene rations of the Rios famincorporate two of the m<?st popular
ily in the slum!? of San Juan and the oversimplifications about the poor
Puerto Rican enclaves of New York.
into a complex idea. On the one hand,


M:uch of it is told in the tape-recoro.ed. there is the belief that the impoverwords of the s ubjects themselves. The ished h a ve been sp ared the corrupbook is iin large p a rt, as Oscar Le,,is


tions of a fflu ence and are ther efore
says, "a picture of family disruption,
a potential source of social r egeneraviolence, brutality; cheapness of life,
tion. The e..-xtreme version of this
lack of love, l a ck of education, la ck
thesis is the idealization by Frantz
of m edical facili-ties--in short, a picF anon (a uth.or of "The Wretched of
ture of incredible d eprivation the efthe E a rth") of the "people of the
f ects of w hich cannot be wip ed out s hanty t owns" as the creative and
in a s ingle gen eration. This Zolaesque
revolution ary force of the secon d h a lf
r eal1ty emerges from a Puerto R ica n
of t11c century. In America n terms,
society i n w hich -the is la nd average
tl1e B lack Power ideologis ts are makir.come per person -r ose from $120 to
ing a similar claim for the victimized
i1-<1 0 betv,een 1940 and 1963.
inhabitan ts of the N egro g h etto. And
The casual, m a tter- of-fa.ct des cripon the other h and, there is the view
tions of s oc ial h ell itha t -abound in
that p overty h olds only. rlegrada tion.
"La Vida" arc sometimes s o appalling T h e compassiona te p artisans of this
tha t t he m iddle-class r eader ·is in
view believe that they must h elp t he
d a nger of be ing overwhelm ed. How,
passive and defeated poor who ca nexactly, does h e assimilate t o his exnot h elp themselves, while the reacp erience the r eminiscence of a cript ionaries believe t hat the slum d wellpled child who tells of h aving played
ers " got tha t way" because they
the " game" of pros titution ? But ,then wanted to a nd lacked Goldwaterit e
three of the m a j or chara cters in this
virtu es of thrift and ent erprise.
book actually worked at the profesLewis's definition of the cul t u re of
sion for a period, and one mother
poverty r eveals t he h alf-truths and
ent ertains h er children by singing- la rge falsehoods behind these contra"dirty" songs. 1\.fo~ conventionally,
dictory myths. Those w ho dwell in
yet still not quite what the middlet his subculture d o not "belong·• to
class reader is u sed t o, t he five cen t ral any of the institutions of the larger
figures of "La Vida" have a lready h a d
socie ty. U n employment and unde ra t otal of 20 m a rriages (17 of t h em
employment make t hem mar ginal in
consensual unions, 3 of them legal)
t he la bor marke t ; they d o not j oin
and they are clearly not done y et.
political parties ; t hey spend rather
Nevertheless, in a probing introducthan save, and pay more for inferior
tion Lewis a r gues tha t ther e are in m erchandise s ince they do not have
t h ese lower depths certain strengths. access to cheap credit a nd don't shop
There is a fortitude and res ilience in in supermarkets ; am~ so on . N ow
the Rios family, and its members a re
there are, and have been, ·poor people
capable of great kindness despite the
who did "belong." There are prin1brutality of their circumstan ces. itive and utterly impoverished tribes
"Money and m a terial possessions," he w hich nevertheless possess an intewrites , "although important, do not grated and self-sufficient culture. And
motivate their major dccL<;ions. Their various American immigrant groups,
deepes t need is for love, and their mos t notably the Eastern Europe.an
J ews, came to tl1is country with inMR. HARRINGTON is the author of "The tact t raditions that protected them
Other America" and "The Accid ental
from the extreme social and spiritual
consequences of being poor.
c~ntury."
LA VIDk A Puerto Ri~ n Family in the
Culb.trc of Poverty-San Juan and New
Yorl By O scar Lewis. 669 PP· New Yori:
Random House. $10.
, LA
r
!
r
L
L
�EVERDAY HELL - NEW YORK TIMES - 11-20-66
Myrdal was thinking along these lines
when he said that the underclass of
the affluent society ls a "non-revolutionary proletariat"), and it v.ill disappoint all the romantic expectations
from Fanon to Black Power and back.
And yet, as Lewis emphasizes, the
very absence of regular institutions
v.ithln the culture of poverty forces
the people to crea te their own associations and values, in order to survive. The (Continu ed on Page 92)
Thus, Lewis's culture of poverty
a. very
specific and unique phe•
nomenon. It occurs in societies in
is
2.
which the cash economy and rapid
change subvert the old ways and a·
group is left behind without either
money or even a hungry solida1ity.
People .inhabiting the culture of
poverty. then, are "out of it," and
their life is the experience of a disintegration. This is the profoundly
egative side of being poor (Gunnar
r
I
l
•:!l
.
L__
.
' __ _.:,
·o .:.
·:'
--- - -


-.-


' _:,· --";r-:...... .:··-::~ ::,
- .
,•
i_. •
... .
. •• • t
/ -.;.
~
'1
!
r
L-~--,
r_.
,, ·
1\
i L,,_...._._..., -'----'.....,__,__
·-
-:, .
r _;;
... ~:-_~.:..: .. __;;
r--.....
. l
t





· . • • ,_·_ ,'_
1
C
~
�.EVERDAY HELL - NEW YORK TIMES - 11-20-66
..
3.
..;
Kenneth Clark has described:
greater than his estimate; I
would not refer to the bureauproblem Is, the middle-class the police succeeded in break- cratic, collectivist system of
visitor from the l\Iars of the ing up the violent gangs, that Communism as "socialism"; I do
larger society will often not moment was the start of the not think that there is a "sorecognize this social ingenuity, narcotics plague. The comfortcial-work solution" to poverty
even ·when he comes face to able white could not underin America a ny more than irr
face with it.
stand that the gangs were a
the Third ·world. But I have
For example, the marriage social invention as well as a concentrated on my agreements
patterns - or more precisely, police problem. Their destruc- with Lewis (which fa r outthe endless succession of con- tion created a ',vacuum that was weigh the disagreements an:;,w ay) because I think "La
sensual unions - in the tRios partly filled by heroin.
In any case, Lewis is quite Vida" . is one more brilliant
family will strike most rea ' e rs ,
right to understand the culture demonstration of the validity
as cllaotic. Yet the m en, wit hof poverty as a dialectic of and profundity of the m ethod
out jobs, income or property to
pass on to their offspring, see strength and weakness in which L ewis has pioneer ed: the m eno point in getting involved in the desperate need to survive ticulous des cription, and t apesimultaneously brutalizes and recorded self-depiction, of the
legal entanglements. And the
women fear being tied to men provokes a certain dignity into daily life of a single yet archetypical family of the poor.
who are often immature a nd un- life. If these people a r e· not a
And finally, for all of the
reliable-a nd by r efusing to give fount of revolutionary purity,
Ule f a thers of their children the neither a r e they an inert m ass grea t interest of Lew is 's introduction, the emotional force of
legal status of h u..s'bands, ·they . to be m apipula ted, "s ocial-engin
eered"
or
nights
ticked
for
"La
Vida " comes, of course.
m a intain a s tronger cla'im on
their own good. For when po- from the Rios f amily itself.
the child ren if the col!ple sepa- litical and social hope pen e- The poor, I ha ve long f elt,
rates. From the p oint of view of
tra tes down into the culture needed a novelis t m ore than
the slwn there is a very real of poverty, as h appened with a statistician-and Lewis has
logic h er e; it is barely appa rent,
the Southern Negro dur ing the p roved once a gain tha t p erhaps
thnn'!h t o the 'OU ts rl~r w ho h :>..s last decade, the la tent nobility they are the ir own best novelists. The Rios f amily m akes
n ever h ad to cope wi th the k inds surfaces, a nd, if it cannot
of ,p roblems which confront the transform m odern society, it . the dialectical concep t of the
Rios fam ily every day.
still m akes a disproportiona te culture of p over ty unbea ra bly
It is f rom t h is va n tage p oint . contribu tion to social chan ge real; the world which they describe is intolerable and their
tha t Lewis can s ee the neigh- and the common goood.
r eminiscences should m ove a
borhood gang as a "considerI h ave, to be sure, some quesable advance" over t he m on! tions and r eserva tions about s tone to t ear s. Yet U:!ey have
n ot been overwhelm ed; they
r av.aging d espairs a n d anomie aspects of Lewis's discussion . I
tha t can be found in the cul- think t hat the number of Amer- h a ve a capa cit y t o a ct on t heir
t ure of poverty. One r emembers icans who live in the culture own behalf that demands libof p overty, and are poor, is eration, not n obles se oblige.
the fea r\ul case in point that
(Continued from Page 1)
in Harlem in the 1950's when
I
IL
r
\
�THE WALL STREET JOURt'l\JAL - NOVEMBER 18, 1966
GOP on the Offense
P\,evived Party Seeking ~1ore Positive In1age
\;\Tith. 'NeYV Fecieralisn1'
l\1ore Local, State Activity
With Federal I-Ielp Is Goal;
Beating LBJ to the Punch?
But Unity l\Jay Shatter by '68
By JOSEPH W.
B t a,ff R ep orter of
S ULLirA N
T H E "\\' ALT, STREET Jot:RN.\L
WASHINGTON - Congressional R epu blica ns are b eginni ng to fl ex thei r n,ew p ostelection muscles. And like th e ex-weakling in
the tra ditional beach scene, they're getting a n
exhila r a ting f eeling tha t they can outfight the
"big bully' ' - in t his case L yndon J ohnson.
This n ew optimism is not based on prospects
for r a mming through s pecifi c GOP-sponsor ed
· legisla ti on in a Congress s till dominated by
the D e m ocr a ts . R ather, t he R epublicam p la n
to seize the lniti a live in polit ical thinking fr om
their foes and bui ld a posit ive image for themselves.
At bottom, there's a sense tl1at momentum :
fro m last week's big elec.tion gains m ay en- ,
able the GOP to break loos e from its long
defensive s tance in Congress. By qui ckly advancing a n ew political motif of their own, R epublican lea de rs, especia ll y in the House , hope
to shift th e public focus away from the standard
_ meas ure of th e past generation: Na m ely , h ow
li beral or cons ervative is the GOP 's stand on
Democra tic we lfare prog rams .
With the l!l68 Presidential election in mind,
moreov er , th ese Republic;m strategis ts t hink
t hey ' ve hi t. on a theme th a t ca n uni te p arty
liber a ls such as New York's Sen. J acob J a vits ,
midd le-roaders such as Gov, Geo rge Romney
of · Michigan
and conserva ti ves such as
iroYernor-elect Rona ld R eagan of California,
Goldwa te r Goa ls , Re,·ers3 neasons
In capsule form, th e e m e rging strategy consis ts of pursuing m a ny of U1e goa ls Ba rry
Goldwa ter ad,·oca ted in his 1961 Presidentia l
bid but r evers ir.g th e reasons for doing so.
T he objec t w ill still b e a mu ch bigge r rol e
for stale and local goYernm ent and private
enterp rise in comba ting the country's. ills . But
Instead of invoking th e need "to pres eHe the
tried and t rue rnlutions of the p a st," the
stre~s will be on " mod ernizing ' ' and " energ izing" gove rnm enta l s tructure:, to cope with the
rohle m s of th e future. And ins lPad of leaving
a n Impression tha t they WOllld disman tl e pa rts
of th e F ede ra l Go,·ernment, the GOP s lrate-_
giE<ts in Cong r ess intend to project a vita l role
for Washi n;;ton-i n pumping ba ck ils re,· enu e.,
t o _the sb, te,, in prnmo li ng interslatP com pact,:;
to d e~ ! with r egio.nal problfm s a nd In fos tering " Com ~~ t-s tyJ,, ' corporations to enlis t p r ivate· ente rpr ise in the wa r on poverty.
. "We a im to turn . t he political frame of
referenc e in this country upside down, " dec l':1.res one of' the mos t act i\'e of th e youthful
H ouse GOP " acti vi:;ts" who helped inst;;J l Rep.
G erald F ord of j\Iichigan as House ::IIinori ty
L ea der two years ago. "CrNling n ew techn iq ue:; a nd p roviding ne w r esources for . local ities to take t he governmental lead is goi ng
to b e th e progressive course, and r eliance on
an eve r-growing F ederal bur eaucracy \\ill b e
the hid e bound, r eactionary approach."
SeYeral Possiblo ::'IIoves
To exploit th e election's stimulus, House
GOP lead ers hope to m ove r a pidly on several front3:
As the corner, tnn~ n( (l,Pi r ,jnme.,.ll2-..E!o·
ram, thev' r e toil in~ t0 prepare a blueprint
for a Ju mp-sum. nn -strin"~·~tt:Jche
<i1stribut ion of Fprlpp[ re,·P n11Li,Q_ thP ~t~tes. After
years of tal king 1,·islfully about such a sche m e
(along "
ormer J ohnson economic a dvi s er
Walte1 H eller ) they fin ally h ave in h and a
detail ed drait that was p repared on com m; ssion by a B rooking3 Imtitulion schola r, Rir'.h·
·arct Na tha n.
This plan would p;.imp out t o the states a
s pec ifi ed p ercenla ge of Federal income ta x
collections-perhaps 2',c. or 3% initia ll y. T he
distiioution for mula would b e weighted to
favor poorer· st:iles, pro,·ide bonu:; money fo r
state:; m a king the greatest reYe nu e-rais ing effor t of th eir own , and earmar k 5% of t he
· I fu nds for adm inistrative u ses to "i mproYe the
l eadership a nd o,·e rall policy form ula tion rol e
of slate go,·ernment. "
- As a way to get a n opi_nion-holding jump
on the D emocr a ts , there 's ta lk of p r esentin;,;
a R e publican ' !State of the Union" message
fn a dvance or i\[r . J ohn:son 's. Last· J anua ry
Mr. Fo rd and St'na te llrinority L ead.er Everett
D irksen or Ill inois man aged t o g et a h a lfnou r of na tional television t ime to r espond to
t he P r esid ent' s annual discourse. But several
top strategists now b elieve t he party's n ew ,
offensive postur e would best be drama tized by
going first. There's a lso strong , surprisingly
widespread se ntim ent in these Cong res sional
c ircles fo r sharing the la Iking-ti me with one
of the GOP 's progre.ssiYe go,·ernors, p er haps
J ohn Love of Colorado or Dani el Eva ns nf
Washingto n, 11 s a 1-ym bol of a part y comm itm en t to greater state-level \'ita lity.
As a devic e to make th eir n ew th em e stick
in t he public mind, party hands are g roping
for a ca t chy s loga n. In a ta lk yesterd a y to t he
Nationa l Confrrcnce of Sta te Legislative Lea ders h ere, the Hous e GOP's No. 2 m a n, ?l[elvi n
L aird of Wisconsin, m a d e a tentative mo1·e to
preempt one of ::,.rr. J ohnson's 0\\11 concoctions :
"Crea tiv e federa lis m." I n urging the sta t e legislators to p romote " a clim a te in America
t hat enh ance:, and encour ages creat i1·ity and
s olution-finding a t the sta te and l ocal le,·el,"
h e procla imed th a t "history can yet r ecord
t hat th e d ecade of the 1960s was th e period
in which Am ericans r ededicated th emselves to
t he attainment of n ew heig hts . . . -t hroug h a
creative federalism that kept in step with mod ern t imes."
)Ir. Joh nson' s \ Yea pons
1 How m uch hea dway the GOP ca n m a l-:e
under a ny s logan r em a ins to be dete rm ined.
D espite D em ocra tic Cong r essiona l los~e.•, possession of the " 'hile Hou ·e still gi1·es Presid ent J ohnson abundant resources for blunting
the GOP th rus t.
He could s et a sombe r, wa rti me tone for
the coming Cong r essiona l session a nd ri dicule
any GOP re,· enue-~haping plan a s the he ight
·- -of fis ca l foll y a t a ti me of o,·erriding n eerl
. to finance Vietnam fi ght ing and to fi gh t infla-
!
[
�THE WALL STREET JOURNAL - NOVEMBER 18, 1966
GOP 011 the·Offense: Party H opes
-'New_F.ederalism' _Will Help .Image·
Conti1med From Pa.ge, 01111
lion- at home. Or he might str ive. to persuade
the· electorate tha t he's better at "creative federalism" tha n the GOP, by pointing to such
steps as a grant of broad latitud_e_ to the states
In · use of Federal public h ealth funds and efforts fo tailor the n ew "model cities" slumrebuilding program to each locality's special
needs. Or ll<fr . . Johnson could .deride the Repubffca.n . offensive·_ as warmed-over G·o ldwaterism, impradical for dealing v,ith today's complex urban problems.
·
· Within Congress, moreover, Democrats still
hold the seats of power; · by ·pushing bllls to
provide fund s for Great Society programs
which the GOP opposes, D emocratic leaders
could make the Republicans once a gain look
1lke ' '.aglnners."
·
Nor is there any certainty that GOP forces
wlll get or s tick together on the course now
projected. While 1\-Iichigan's Gov. R omney Is
currently jus t as bent as Congressional pa rty
leaders on enlarging the sphere of state and
local government, h e could well d ecide n ext
s pring that Immedi ate n eeds, say, !or F ederal
s chool construction funds outweigh any dis tant
commitment .to an alterna te, tax-reba te pla n
tha t can't be implemented until the GOP 1·egains control of Cong ress.
Jockeying for the GOP Presidential ·nomina tion . also could precipitate a. party spilt.
Romney m en akeady 1mspect Messrs. Ford and
0
Laird of private colla boration with form er Vice
President Richard Nixon, and at some point
this could provoke a Romney denunciation · of
their )egislative course. Within Cong r ess, ·too·,
the GOP's old -liberal vs. conse rva tive animosities could boil up at any point.
· For now, though, the Congression_a l GOP
appears more n ea rly united on a course of
action than at any· point in r ecent · years.
'When I ca me back to ·washing-ton after · the
election, I was fully res igned to hea r the conservatives ta lking up th e r eturns as a mandate
for· putting a )egisla tive blockade on everything," relates one self-styled House . GOP
moder ate. "To my delight, though, many of
them were just as r evved-up a s I am to launch
a .P,rogram ol our own...
'
"
.,.
-
'.
.
Commlltees nnd Cohesion
Organiza tiona l and s ta U build-ups la unched
two years ago have played a big part in fostering ,this cohesion. In the House , a GOP
planning and research committee has r eached
consensus on numerous ppsit!on papers, _m any
ol them developed with academic help. In addition, the new R epublica n Co-ordina ting Committee h as brought toge ther Congressional
leaders , fiv e G.OP governors, the party's form e1; Presidentia l nominees and National Cha irm an R a y Bliss for numeroi.1s s kull S(?sslons
a nd p os ition-charting.
"After t wo years of sitting n ext to George
R omney at the Co-ordina ting Committee m eetings, we find ourselves agr eeing on practically
everything tha t comes up," r em a rks R ep.
John Rhodes ol Arizona, cha irma n of the
House R epublican P olicy Committee , who's
generally considered a n ardent Goldwater conser.va tlve.
·
Moreover ,. the p ar ty's cap ture of 47 more
1 House s eats solidifies th o position ol Hous e
I GOP Leader Ford and gives him more !ree_dom for t aking the Initia tive ; incoming fresh·
· m en lawmakers, by all ·Initial s oundings of
' Ford m en, ·are mostly quite r eady to follow
· the leader who h as helped to brighten the
party's face.
"If we'd only picked u p 20 sea ts or so ,
J erry Ford would be looking over his shoulder
every tim e h e m ade a move, but now he's in
position to get together with Ev Dirksen on a
Sta te-of-the-Union plan, say, and then sail
_right ahead with it," calculates ·one senior
House R epublica n who opposed :Mr. Ford's
leadership bid two years ago.
The " Gener a tional Gap"
In the Senate, th e arrival of such engaging
fac es and articulate voices as those ol TIil·
nois' Charles P ercy, Oregon's 2\rark Hatiield
and Massa chusetts' Edward Brooke m a y be
worth more tha n all the organizational and
t actical Innovations combined. " Most o! the \
thlngs, we're ta lkit)g about are aimed in es-
2.
sence 1tt meeting the so-called ge1:era ti or.al
gap. And I , for one, think the big bloc of
younger, unaligned vote rs ls _g oing to Identify
just as much ,~ith a Percy or a. Hatfi eld as :
a Bobby Kennedy," · asserts one seasoned r
House hand.
1
·when it cori1es to legisla tion lnu;ediately :
at ha nd, the GOP probably ,~ill go strong for ;,
curtailing F ederal spending to deter Inflation. ·
Ma ny pa r ty liberals, as wen · as conse rvatives,
hit hard on ·tnis theme during their · ca mpaigns. There should be general agreem ent ·o n
curbing such "lower-priority" programs ·a s
r ent subsidies, the national teacher corp3 and
highway beautification as ,veil' as ·resis ti11g any
major expans ion o( school or antipoverty aid.
1
"I'm ecnfident I ca n Identify S5 billion or
so to ·cut 1:iy breakfas t-time the. morning a fter
Johnson's budget comes up," s ays a s enior
m ember of the House Appropriations C<;>mmittee.
·
·
-/
Aside from such bipartisa n un derlakings as
raising Social Security benefits or overhaulin;;
the cli-aft, GOP lawmakers don' t see much imm ediate chance of actually framing i-najor legis1acion. As various Grea t Society programs
come up for extens ion, though, there's _hope
for us ing the pa rty's added voting power to .
give s tates and localities a bigger rol e. In
the c·a se of F ede.r al s chool aid , which comes
u·p for r ene,,:al In · 1968, current thinkin;_;- is
lo press for · giving coi-n mun lties much more
leeway to s et iheir owa priorities.
As for r c\"enuc-sha ring with the states , ! ew
Republica ns entertain a ny serious hope of getting such a program .of: the ground in the
next two yea rs. "We'll hold out rcvenue-shar- ,
ing as the first order of bu~in ~~s a fter we 1\
r e;;ain control of Congress In 196 ', ·· s ays a
lop party planner.
.
..,..
�,~ uHHH uld HUI V0L0
THE NEW YORK TI MES - NOV. 19, 1966
W!DE_SCHOOL PLAN
.,
I 1/~o,1-a;-4ci(\-,
Seeks to Help the Poor by ·
Making Permanent the
Gains of Heaci Start
By HAROLD GAL
Sp~c lal to The
~ e·1-.·
York T!mes
WASHINGTON, Nov. 19Sa rge nt Shriver has proposed a
broa d program to help unde rprivileged child ren retain the
gains th ey make in the Government's H ead Start proj ec t.
The direc tor of th e Office of
Economic Oppo rtu nity, which
admin[sters the program for prekind ergar ten children, warned
th a t the p resen t elementary
school system was "critically
inadequate to mee t the needs
of children of pove rty." He .
urged educators across the ·
country to do the following: ·
l,iProvide one teacher for
every 15 children.
(]Utilize new sou rces of educational manpov:er, such as
teacher aides, "subprofession, als" and volunteers.
CjEstablish a program of t utorial assista nce in which older
' students from high schools and
college would take part.
GEs tablish neighborhood councils and community associations, outside of parent-te ac her
groups, Uiat would get paren ts
involved i n the activities of


every public sc!iool.


t;Provide an adequate supply
of all necessary supplies, including toys and film s, and make
broad use of electronic learnino- :
ai ds.
"' :
c:l l nitiate prog ra ms to "train :
"childhood development spe- :
cialists who wou ld work exclu- :
sively in ea rly primary grades,
diagnose obstacles to a child's
progress and p!·escribe help by
other professions, s uch a s psychologists, sociologists and reading specia li sts.
Mr. Shriver put his proposals
forward in an addre;;.s yester - 1
day before the opening session i
of the · annual meetino- of the '
Great Cities R esearch° Council ·
at the Pfister Hotel in :Milwa ukee.
The sessi on was a ttended bv i
top ed ucational officials and I
other leaders from . the 1 larg- ~
est cities in the lJnited States.
Mr. Shriver spoke from notes,
and the official text of his re- I
marks was made public in I
1
\\'ashington today.
T he Shriver program: which
he called Project Keep ::\Ioving,
I
teacher f or every 15 children;
?>Ir. S-hriver said that puttin<>
teacher's aides and other adult;
in to the class room could m a.t- e
1
J
foZ:. any. failure to achieve a
l-ta-1.:> ratio.
He urged that the neighbor- ·
Continued From Pa o-e 1 C 1 7 hood be dr3:wn into the school
0 •
____
,,
,
so that cluldren and parents
was Inspired by a major study a!ike coul~ feel tha t ed:tcation :
made publ ic on Oct. 23. T hat wa~ a basic pa rt of their total
study found tha t the education- environme~t.
.
al adva.,tages gained by a pre- M~. S_hn\·er said th at elecschool child in the h ead start tro1_1ic aids ~ad alrea~y proved
program tended , to disappear th en· effectiveness rn Hea d
sLx to eight m onths after the Start c_lassrooms..
.
child had started h is r eo-ula r
He did not say m h is address
0
schooling.
whe~e funds for Proj ect Keep
The study •was d irected b y l\~?vmg would .come from. A:t .
Dr. Max Wolff, senior r esearch ame m t~e Off~ce ?f Econo.mic :
sociologist at the Cente t· for Opportumty said m \?ashing- ,
Urban Educa tion in New York. t.on today that Mr. Shnver belt was sponsored by the F er- heved th.at fund s would be
Kauf Graduat e School of Ed- m ade .available ~hro.ugh F ederal :
ucation at Yeshiva University and Slate agencies if th ere wa.3 .
and supported by fu nds from c:1ough pressure from commun!- ,
the Office of Economic Op- ti.es throughout the country.
.
portunity.
Pointing to the Wolff study, :
Mr. Shriver said that "the .
'One Grade at a Time'
readiness and receptivity" that ·
Mr. Shriver conc~ded tha t his many children "gained in H ead i
proposals could not be accom- Start has been crushed by the
plished all at once. H e said. broken promises of first grade. 1
howeve r, th a t "any u rb:rn schooi Projec t Keep :Moving, he said, ~
system with imagination and a could stir "a r e\·olution in edu- ·
r easonable use of r e ·ources cation from preschool through 1
could t ack le the job one grade college."
at a time."
" Only if we maintain the :
H e called Projec t Head Sta rt pace of Hea d Sta rt throu ghout '
"a shor t-t enn experi ence, and a the school sys t.:!m," h e said, !
shot of educational adrena lin "ca n we create an educational
whose effects ca n w ear off in process whi ch \ Vill give every :
the grinding bor2dom a nd frus - disadvantaged child in our na- .
tration of s lum classrooms."
tion a chance t o obtain the h ighAckno\l'ledging th ?. t it would est educ2.tion level in h is ·
be d iffi cult to provide one pow:eri'
SHRIVER PROPOSES
WIDE SCHOOTiJ DI1 AN Ill!)
�..,
THE EVENING STAR
Washin.gtcin, b: c:; Frldoy/ Novem6rir .i8, 1966
\·• ·=--
' •\ '
~'
I
'
_,
~•
' ~ ~ . :
A-3
X
.,.c; ."' ,••
- - - - - - - P O I N T OF V I E V I - - - - - - -
GOP Bg]res
By MARY McGRORY
Star Staff Writer
Rep. 1\11elvin R. Laird, chairman of the House Republican
- Conference, has unveiled the
economlirl]L~
5ra1Q.iQP
I
·'s
e
Union" message, which the
_newly revivetrminority party
plans to repeat-January.
He expounded at length on a
federal-state tax2 h,l)~inf-n!an
~ ~ginallv pushed
bVTvafter1'ieller. wno ser ved
noTFi Tue New r."7cinticr and the
Great Society as chairman of
the President's Council of
Econom"ic Advisers.
Congressional Republicans
are putting a major effort into
their minority declaration this
year. With 47 new House
' members and a brilliant array
of new faces in the Seriate,
they hope their "State of the
Union" which was somewhat
facetiou_sly received i!i 1966,
will be taken seriously in 1957.
Laird told the press he
thinks the real action in the
coming year will be in the
House, where the swelling of
R epublican ranks means that
some of the legislative goals
might actually _be accomplished.
Jn drafting the "State of the
Union," the views of the newly
elected governors a·nd legislators will be consulted, but
L aird said he hoped the House
Republicans "would not get
involved in presidential politics."
He and House Minority
Leader Gerald E . Ford alr eady are involved to some
extent, since they ; ·aised the
money to fin ance the highly
·successful 30-staet campaign
tour of Richard M. Nixon.
They sought and received
clearaz:ice from Ford's governor, George W. Romney, the
leading contender. They said
they were working not for the
candidacy of Nixon but for the
congr essmen whom he was
boosting.
The drafters of the "State of
the Union" paper foresee little
difficulty with the domestic
proposals. The Republican
governors went on record in
July 1965 in favor of the taxsharing scheme.
But if .Senate Min;rity
Leader Everet t M. Dirksen
EconoR~uic Plan·
opposition were formed during ,
reserves for himself the right
to speak again on foreign the Eisenhower years, when ·
the then· Senate Minority ·
policy, as- he did in 1965, the
Republicans will find them- Leader Lyndorr B. Johnson ·
took the position that partisan·
selves in difficulties.
differences stopped at the
, Dirksen pleased neither
ha_wks nor doves of his party water's edge.
with his previous declaration.
The rule was observed,
He will again fail the hardexcept in 1954 when Johnson,
liners like Nixon and Rep.
in concert with several other
Ford, who favor increased air Democrats, took exceptio.n to
and sea power use and the
the Eisenhower policies in
soft-liners;
like Sen.-elect Viet Nam.
Charles H. Percy of Illinois
Dirksen initially made a few
and Sen.-elect Mark 0. Hat- noises about Viet Nam last
field of Oregon, who empha- · year, but refused the _langua ge
size negotiation.
, provided him by the Joint
The Senate minority leader Minority Conference and went
is a law unto himself, and
all the way with LBJ in his
none of the technicians in the
portion ot the ·'State of the
House leadership can appeal . Union."
to him to shape his views to
Romney is botll vulnerable
theirs.
·
and defensive on for eign
Dirksen's thinl-:ing on loyal policy. He r evealed in his first
post-election national television appearance s~mday that
he not only has no position but
no views he dares express.
It is this weakness that may
prove to be the opportun ity of
48-year-olcl Sen.-elect P ercy,
who proposed the all-Asia
peace conference, which he _
insists, despite the presidential trip to i\'Ianila, has never
occurred.
· Percy makes no secret to
fello w Republicans of his
feelin g that he is far more
informed on quesliohs of war
and peace than the governor
of Michigan.
·
He has one other adva ntage
over Romn ey. He supported
his party's nomi nee in 1964
and Romney did not, a circumstance for which the
. Goldwater wing of the par ty
has not yet for given him.
If P ercy- no matter what
. Dirksen s ays in the " State of .
the Union" message-forges
out. a peace position, then it
could mean problems, not only
· for Rom ney, but for President
J ohnson as ,1·ell in 1968.
r
�THE WASHINGTON POST - NOV. 19, 1966
·- ---
Teachers Seen Using Slunis as Excuse
By Henry W. Pierce
iwere among more than 2500 , excuse their own failure 1o ·I which is incorrect All the an. p IT '1: S ~UR G H, Nov.. rn Ipersons attending the four- 1jteach the youngsters properly. th~opologi.sts here ha Ye main'.
The Nat10n s schools are usmg day American Anthropogical c·t E
J tamed trac the culture of povI
.
1 es xamp e
·
erty on e t h b
·
d
1ower-c 1ass children's
"povcr- Association meetin" here.
'
,
c c P . as een m1sus~ .
ty culture" as an excuse for
.
hSe told about a New York . But perhaps it's our own pomt
not educatin" them adequate- ·An th ropologists, who tradi- City teacher in an underprivi- j of view that needs changing."
Jy a lead in.'.: social scientist tionally have studied such !edged school district who took . He charged that anthro polo- I
charged her; today.
things as tribal cultures and her students to the _airport as l?ists a_re "very ~rnch inrnlvedl
Dr. Estelle Fuchs, anthro- man's remo te past, have pa.~-t .of a class. proJ~ct.
th~,ir own middle-class culpologi;;t at New York's Hunter
.
.
It was the first time those , tures.
.
I
111
t
1
College and author of the shown . a spurt of i~te_reS
children had been out of their
·
.·
controversial "Pickets at the P_O~erty groups w1th 1_n the own neighborhood," she de- ! - - - - - - -- - - ~ ~ Gates," said schools tend to Umted States. A sc~s1qn on clared, adding:
i
freeze underprivileoed . chil- poverty drew a stand mg-room 1 "They were amazed when .
dren into a lower-;lass way crowd here, while sessions on I they got their first glimpse of 1
of life.
tribal .customs and on baboon I an escalator. One of them:
Washington schools arc a behav10r drew only scattered : asked_ whether it tickled if you 11
prime example of this, she attendance.
.
Irode 1t. That teacher used the :
said.
Dr. Fuchs, one of six speak- 1incident to prove her students
She also cited schools in Iers ~.n "'!~e Culture of Po\·· 1hadn'~, the intelligence to
Pittsburgh, Los Angeles, Bos- / rt_y, said _ schools a:e l~ard-1learn .
.
_I
ton and New York.
i emng many_ of the c!Jffe1ece_s i Dr. Fuchs called this att1- j
t
' between middle-class Amen- tude "typical" among many ·
. t n·
An th ropo 1og1s
1ssen .s
,
.
. ;, cans an d 1ower-c 1ass groups. teachers.
But a \\. ahs mgton University "School ad ministrators are .
anthropologist, Dr. Charles A. usinN the 'culture of poverty' ' 1'ot Scheduled
Valentine, di ~agreed with her. conc~pt to absolve themselves At the end of the session,
·Dr. Va!entme_ charf5cd an- from responsibility," she de- Dr. Valentine, who was not a
scheduled s peaker, stood up
t)1ropolog1sts with fa1_lurc to clared.
live among underprt\'lleged I Teachers, she said, often use and declar ed:
.
groups as a means of study- Iin such terms as "psycho lo Ni- "It seems to me ther e has
ing them.
Ically unready" and "~uturally been a common thread run"Anthropologists can sludy Iimpoverished home liie" to j ning through these discussions
a South Seas culture and find ·
·
,
order, hut they go into Harlem and find nothing but disorder .
They study our own slumdwellers with questionnaires
and interviews ; they are apparently too afraid lo go and
live as on e of them," he as- .
sertecl.
He -added: "It boils down to
this: we are good ,a nthropologists overseas and bad anthro-.
pologists at h ome."
Dr. Valentine said he intends to "live among the poor" ·
-as par t ·of a study h e is undertaking n ext year in the
Brownsville section of Brooklyn .
Four-Day Meeting
Dr. Fuchs and Dr. Valentine
0
r
!
•
Im





i
,
.
.
I
~
-
�..
THE EVENING STAR
.
.,
Washington, D. C., Saturday, November 19, 1966
CHARLES BARTLETT
,-
·Poverty Program to
The
available
insights
indicate that President Johnson bas been . more than
slightly surprised and discomfited by the election returns.
Predictions are rife within the
bureaucracy that he will
"bunker up" and play a more
cautious lead for the next two
years.
Johnson has conjectured to
associates that they all may
have erred in bragging excessively about their legislative
triumphs. He balked even
before the election of beiug
finished with the Great Society
because its legislative foundations had been enacted.
Such hints of an intention to
embark on a new tack of
leadership are bolstered by
polls, which show that a significant segment of the voters,
about 48 percent in one Republican survey, would prefer him
to be more conservative. A·
much smaller group, 19 percent in the Republican poll,
wants a more liberal President.
One crucial test of the
President's dlrection will be
the anti-poverty program,
.·. which is certain to founder in
the next Congress unless he
wraps a strong, protective
_arm around it. Johnson applied the Gavin plan to the
war against poverty 0t the
same time that he rejected it
for the war in South Viet Nam.
The domestic war bas been a
holding operation and · its
enclaves are on the verge of
being overrun.
,
Tl-ie · tenbative guidelines on
which the Budget Bureau has
shaped its hearings foreshadow no significant change in
next year's poverty package.
The total appropriation will be
approximately the same and
the Office of Economic Opportunity will not be stripped of
any of its progriams, as the
Republicans proposed last
spring.
But this in itself is not
enough to save a program so
close to being destroyed by its
enemies . The poverty warriors
have been left almost defenseless by the President's failure
to translate the enthusiasm
with which he declared war on
poverty in 1964 into the funds 1
and support needed to sustain
an offensive.
Johnson did almost nothing
to help Sargent Shriver and.
f
.
bis associates in the past
Congress and he may well
intend to let them be devoured
by the next Congress. The
blood will not be on his hands ·
but he will be rid of a Pandora's box of embarrassments. ·
The President may have
underestimated the implications of his promise to stamp
out poverty in 1964. He probably did not realize that he was
launching a social revolution
that would cause old-line
social workers, bureaucrats,
mayors, governors, senators,
congressmen and the poor
themselves to rise up in noisy,
intermittent indignation. As an
old New Dealer who likes
programs that kindle gratitude, Johnson may well be
mystified by a welfare program capable of causing so
much dissent.
The trou bles. arise because
Shriver and his cohorts have
unflinchingly declared war
against all the forces which
submerge the poor. Convinced
that this was more than a
matter of putting federal
money in poor men's hands,
they have poked their way
deep into the subterranean
caverns of the social structure, roused all kinds of bats,
and raised new questions.
Johnson undoubtedly envisioned something more like
the
Labor
Department's
Neighborhood 'Youth Corps.
which is a simple, almost a
leaf-raking type of program
that funnels more than onequarler of a billion dollars into
kids' pockets withou t teaching
them much or raising man~'
- --
-
('-.
issues. It is a safe, unimagi.na~
tive welfare program and it is.
extremely popular with Con:
! • ·
gress.
The war on poverty will
settle into this comfortable
pattern if Congress abolishes
the OEO. The bureaucrats.'
know the New Deal techniques
well and they will back away
from contentions like · the ,
current one that sandwiches
Shriver between the liberals
who advocate sterilization and .
the Catholics who oppose birth,
control.
-.
George Bernard Shaw wrote_
that "nothing is ever done in
this world until men are
prepared to kill one another if
it is not done." The kind of allout war that the President
declared and Shriver ha~
waged may involve too manr
basic changes to be accomplished in a tepid political
climate.
a\
But P ar.dora's box has been
opened . "The rich man thinks
of the future," according to an
old proverb, "but the poor_
m an thinks of today." Johnson
has raised hopes that are
unlikely to subside because of
a conservative tinge in the
election re turns.
© 1966
l
I
I
l
Ir
t .
L _
.rI
I
�TH~ NEW


YORK 1BIES, SUN'rJAY, NOVEMBER 20, __1966.
Lawyers Begin Drive Agai11st Poverty
lea-al · profession-the fasioning were U1. e deserving poor and the
By SIDXEY E. ZION
0 {' legal remedies to achieve undeserving poor."
Speclu to The :Sew York Times
human r ights through the ap- "As a practical reality," he
CHICAGO, Nov. 19;;--A major plication of imagination schol- continued, "we are still living
~ffort t? .~evelop
new_ and arship."
.
with that today."
imaginative legal remed ies to For example, he said that He pointed to states that deny
combat _:poverty was started class actions by slum tenants aid to dep endent children because
here this weekend by the could succeed eYen in states the moU1.er, whose husband has
N.A.A.C.P. Legal Denense and where there was no legislation deserted her, is suspected of
Educational Fund, Inc.
providing for this right. The having sexual relations with an"\.Ve are mo ving into an era class action, which is a lawsuit other man.
of pove_rty Jaw which in some bro_ughl by a nun:be;; of persons
Compilation of Cases
sense 1s com parable to the actmg t ogether, 1s a descendcivil rights law· of the mid- ant of the 17th century," Pro- A 246-page book, p repared by
1930's," Ja ck Greenberg, direc- fessor Levi said.
·
Cl_le- Legal Defense Fund, was
tor-counsel of the fund, said.
Similarly, he suggested, a dis tributed to all the la'_vyers
Mr. Greenbern- called on tha tenant could force a landlord t o here. The book, which will be
200 lawyers g~thered at th e rehabilita te an . apartment on expand ed_ ~eriodically, contains
University of Chica go Law the basis of "the ancient doc- court decisions, legal essays and
School to benefit .from t he trine of abatement of a nui- forms that lawyers can use in
Mbes t thinking" on the legal sance."
preparing cases. The subj ects
aspects of slum housing, we!A Char o-e to Lawyers
covered 11:re consumer credit,
O
fare, consumer fraud, and the
•
• slum housmg, problems of farm
farm and migratory workers.
I_n most s~ates, Profes~or 1;:_~~1 and migratory workers, and
"Those of us who years ago said, there 1s n_o effec tl\•e leo1"- welfare laws.
were concerned solely with lation to reqmre la ndl ord s t o "If we could mobilice the
orthodox issues of civil rights," repair ruridown apartments. people h ere," said :Michael
he sa id, "have little by little B_u~. he said, by th~ use
t ra - :\Ieltsncr, a lawyer for the legal
and for a time not fully realiz- d1tional legal d oct1 ines, fa sh- de fens e fund, "there would be
ino- lt been dea ino- more and ioncd with skill," the goal can a t remendous exposure of the
·m;re with ques ti on; of poverty be accomplished,
_
problems of th e poor to the Ap- :
and issues affecting all ·Amer- "The cha:ge" to la\\ y ers in pella te Court and to th e people :
icans.
our generation. he concluded . of the country."
·
_ .
is t o throw open the door s of H e continu ed: "The trouble ·
1-ie\\ Techniques Sought
the courtroom where t radition - now is th a t th ere is not a genVirtually all of the lawyers ally w ehave sea r ched fo·r truth era! undcrs ta ndin " as to how
h~re for th e week end confe1:ence and eq_u ity, so th a t r ights Ion?. people li\"e in slu nZs, what hap- :
on la w a nd poverty are act1\"ely rec ogm Zed can be effectua ted. pens t o the m io- ratory work er,
enga ged in r epresenting poor :Mr. Levi is profes sor of urba n th e credit ab ufes that afflic t ·
persons, either through f ederal- studies a t Chicago.
o-he tt o people, anci the way t he
ly funded organiza tions such as This morning a welfare law poo r are trea ted in the lower
the Office of Economic Oppor - expert, Edwa rd V. Spa rer, crim inal courts."
Mr. Greenberg said that the
. t~ni_ty or throu gh_ legal a id so- wa rned the. Ia wye:s tha t. there
c1eties, or as priva te Iav,ryers was m creas mg resis tance m th e confer ence here was "the first


cooperating with the Legal De- co untry t? t~e "bas ic prem ise" of its kind in the country" and


fense Fund.
that the mdi gent have a nght th a t h e hoped it could be set up
. E ssentia lly, t he purpose of th e to assistan ce.
on a na tion a l and rco-ional basis
· conference is to expose th e Mr. Sparer, \\"l'io is legal ?i- in th e futu re.
"'
lawyers to new thinking on old r ector of the Center of Social The Leo-aJ Defense Fund is
subjects, and to explore various Welfa re ai:id. Pu~lic P olicy at not a pa rt of t he National Asnovel legal techniques tha t Columbia limver si ty, n oted th a t socia ti on fo r the Ad\·ancement
mig ht be used on behalf of the some ·welfa re depa rtmen ts an d ·of Colored P eople. It is an in' disadva ntaged._
cou~t_s had recently t a l~e n th e ldcpendcn t, non profit corpora' In the ope ning address yes- pos1_t ion ~hat persons m ight b~ ti on \;,ith its ow11 boa rd, budge t,


t erday on ~! um housi ng, Pr_of.jdemed aid _e\·en thou ? h th e) a ncl a staff of a ttorn eys devo ted


, Juli an_ ~ o~ the .Umvers1ty 1m et the ehg1bihty requ1 rem cntsl to p rovi ding a ssistan ce in legal
of Chicago, sa id:
of the law.
action.
'·
·
· "In cs ence our task ls as ' "It all s ta rted," he said , "in
, an cient - ~nd hon orable as th e th e Eliza betha n days when th ere
r
~!
I
L
,-,---
I
r
�THE NEW YORK THIES - NOVEMBER 2l, l966
WIDER UREA:-NROLE
•
•
•
.
• -. :: :
.....
. . ~-
...
...,
.,
•
•
',iii •
-
-
--
•
•
•
•
.
governn'ient · \v"iL~in m etropol_i- .been lagging fa t'. behind both Ag ricu_lture, Robert c. W eaver
tan . areas, and innova tions m local and Federal a ctivity." . of .Housing and Urba n De\·eI.
·
' rela tions between the · Federal
"Yet," it- wen t on, "the s ta.tes opment ; Senators Sam J . Ervin
Government, the sta tes and occupy_ :critical position within··fr{in1~ North c a:·olina:· Ka rl E.


i


.
, . ,.
.
Joe~~ C0!lJm)-_tnities a re . __needed the . American F ederal sys tems lEdmundofS S. ~t\_Dakota,' ~n~
!i
.
·· • ·
, · · · to overcome these obstacl es," a nr! possess ,t he power a nd ·res
· . : us_,ie °,,f ll[ci.ine,41
'I ·
_._;' • ,. ~-. - ·c,.· . ,··· -- ; · it sajd.
.- _-_- -· · . ·· . · , . . , . . sou:<:es ~o. s tre~gthen l9cal ca - ~ :P~';- enta t_1\ es , Euoene
J.
U.S. Report Scores Lao- 1n The r eport was prepared for pac1ties and stimulate greater Fou00n 11ta·no_f NNe,\thYCork ,1. L. _ Hd.
·.
.
. "'
th
. .
b B
J
. r
r th·
t
rt
i o i or
a roma an
Facin& ,·Cities'" P(ciblem Fr1e~~;n~~ss~~fat/ pro~116:57, 29 December 2017 (EST) of 143.215.248.55 16:57, 29 December 2017 (EST)!~,f ion '\ 1 · m me ropo 1 a_n Florence P. Dwyer of N ew Jer.
0
.__.
·
,
·
.
""
·
·
••
sey;
·and


i\fayors


Neal
S. Bla is1
- - - - -.- ..- .- . . i " . ,, c1L_y . pla nning at Massachusetts
. _ Specific Proposals
dell of Hon 0 I I H .
G Id;.
..
·
· · , !. t nst1tute. of ·T echnology, . a n_d
. . .
·
u u, e1m~n o
WASHINGTON,
Nov.
20 issued ' b·y- the House Go\'ern- Many ·of the. comm1ss10n s n~r of St. Peters~ur g , Fla.,
(AP)-A report issued toni o-ht m ent Ope·rations Committee.
spe_cific_ pror.iosals, _s u~h a s st~te Ri~ha rd , C. Lee of N ew H an n,
.
.
'.'
Much of the r eport was de- leg1sla t10n t o l!m1t · zoning a n A:tnur A. Na fta lm of Mmby _a House committee predict_- voted to. the need for st a te powers of smaller suburbs and neapol!s.
ed_ tha t the F edera l sys t em legislation providing g r eater to limit_ incorpo_ration of s~pa - - - -- might be g ravely weaken_ed ui:i- home rule, m etropolita n plan- ra t e umts w1th11:_ m etro?ohtan
less states increased their ro1e nin o- and s tren o- thenin o- of a-en- area s, have been issued m earin so)ving the problems of ;-net- eral·go\'ernmen"'ta l units, a t op- lier reports.
·. . . .
(
ropohta n area s..
pos ed to school dis trict s wa ter
l\'fembcrs of the comm1ss1on R
·' It said states ha d !ag ged far a nd sewera o-e boa rd s a n~! other include Govs. John N. Dempsey n
behind F ederal and ;,;~:11 gov- s in o-le-purpt se o-roups. .
jof Connecticut , Nelson A. 2
ernments in dealing wi.h s uch / But it noted° tha t the vas t -Rockefeller of New York, Ca rl c
p_r?blems and that, a s a re5Ult. increase in ·Federal program s F . S':.nders o_f Georg ia a nd Rob- ~
cities had bypassed ~ta tes :, ml ,a imed at metropolita n areas ert _E. Smylie of Ida ho ; Secre- JJg one directly to \\ a slrn1g tL·,: · should serve as a basis fo r en- t;i. n es H enry H . Fowler of the '
for h elp. ·
couraging m etropolita n pla n- Treasury, Orville L. F reeman of .1
.., .~ ·
·. "l\I!nimizin g state pa r~iripa - ning for both the centra l city
tion m u rban a ffa irs 1~ t:111ta - a nd surrou ndi ng suburbs.
mount to r emo\'ing s t~ ce in fl u- "The Cong ress a nd executive
ence from a critica l n 11ge ~f agencies should a uthorize a nd
domesti c iss ues," th e r epor t encou rag e r esponsible j oint pa r said, adding tha t withou t st.ate ticipa tion in urba n development
part icipa tion it is doubtfu l programs b.y local g overnments
whether local g overnment can having common p rog ra m objecbe r eorganized t o meet its tives in m et ropo li ta n a reas tha t
g rowing r espons ibilities."
everla p politica l bounda ries,"
\Vha t is seen a s a n urgen t the repor t said.
need t o re-establish a role for . Willia m G. Colman, th e comthe sta tes is a · p rincipa l theme mission's executive di rector,
of the 168-pag e r eport, a prod- said in a st a tement a ccompanyuce of seven yea rs of work by ing the r eport tha t "the soluthe bipar t isa n Commi s,jnu_ on tions to metropolita n problems
Inter.£"o\·ernmenta f R 0 l 0 ion~.
can be de\·e1oped by the states,
notes t a t with metropoli- b y the F edera l Government, or
t a n areas g rowing so fa st that by both."
some 75 per cen t of the naAl though the . r epor t mil.de it
tion·s -popula t ion would live clear that the commission fa.
there by 1980, the Governmen t vo·red ·such . developmen t a t a ll
would have to pro\·ide man:r of levels, l\Ir . Colman said tha t
the services· indivi duals could "the decis ion as to wh ich it will
furnish themselves in a p re- be res ts · to a considerable exdomi nan tly rura l economy.
t ent wi th the sta te · governBut the repor t a sser ted tha t ments, becaus e it they choose
· "poor coordin a tion a nd conflicts not ot a ct , th e m etropoli tan
. of interest among governmen ts problem by default, becomes
often block effec ti\·e action to la rgely a Federal problem."
1 deal
w ith metropolita n prob- The report suggest ed th a t
· !ems." .
this had a lrea dy ha ppened, a nd
"Chan·g es in th e structure of said t::a t " the s ta te rol e ha s'
(~U-RG-ED--FOR:STAT-ES
r
I
·f
'l
--
�.
___
\
....._.,... .
. 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
~.
�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••
�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.











�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 "


·


�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
~
�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.
�=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
�.
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
.
. . . ... , • .,..
·-
·- · ·· ·
•• •
�' 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?
·- .-
. ..
- -.
.: ···
·~--. -_.. -- ·- .. . . - - . - - .
·:. _ . ---
-·- - -
�}
'-·__
·_- _-_--·~-::::::::::::::::
'"::::::
·-::::
· :::::::~::::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_
�-- -
. ·- - ·- ~'.:
·- - - '!: ..___ :
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
�