Box 22, Folder 18, Document 32

Box 22, Folder 18, Document 32

L
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
Letter of Transmittal
2.
Introduction
3.
Problem Statement
4.
Strategy for Meeting Problem
I.
(?)
Increasing our knowledge of
solutions to _urban problems
II.
Federal action to strengthen state
and local ability for meeting the
problem
III.
oi urban disparities
Focusing and increasing the level
of Federal. assistance directed at
urban disparities
IV.
Reforming the administration of
Federal urban pr?grams to provide
simplification fl e xibility and
decentralization
V.
Increasing the prospects for
integration in metropolitan areas
�-·· ·- --- - . . . . _., .· -· .... ·-· - L
11
.
- ..


_e::~2..·c11:., - ;


chc:::.~gc
it
rnc.ny
st:-ains a..::.d its f rce1y voiced. co::-,-,Jlrd..i7.ts
socie:ty.
i£ ~;~0s£::1:. prvo !.cr.:s
., .
~. -~·.:...::: -·
·.:.o
-:, · ,-.-,
4. • .l. V
·'-.--..
'-· '-'
of
s : ~l e.,
...
1 c.,.,
.J ._
tre::ds of
c:r.!.C.. o:-:-.1r1ot1s
fl ares
' . - ·- · ... t; .
�- - -----
---·----- - -·· - - - -·--- - -- - - -
11
2
· vr, .L
.
.
.
2.21C :."2 2.S l~g,
( · /"...).
-- '-'
..
..
""I
~·:2 J__:_
~ - :. ~- i., . ',:;.
-.___


-( , ;:,


,., . ./._
re l a:~ed
~c.
o',~--:-"'!· ~--,·· ·_·. ",.--.{
-
~ 1..1 -
-
-
-1·.'··-~:, 1__· r___1-, -,_ _,
-- .-=-.,
,-'.) -J."":-.,_- ,,c:
(="-1.. -1 _-:,;.;.~_' -:-i..!
_,·--::: ....,c:.:.,;_
..:::--r ··,--- .-..-,
.·- _;,_\..)~
.:: ,_ .. ..'_. ..:.._ .)\::
,... --,
_ _. _~
....
- ·""
_,, ....,_ ..
. . . c:::_,
.::'......


......;..,.>.:.:;


£:. :.:·_·.s
.sJ:c:.rply
CL:.:'.'
c: •-. ....


......._.


_._.,
._ ___
... -.
..•. -\,-. .., -,-.
- - -. ,,__ .... ~.!. ._ ....... ..:;
�-- :.--· ··--· . --~
...__

·---
--~------ -·
.. .
-- ----
.. _. ,. . · - - .. , ·- · ·- ·..
j
doing be~~t~r
~
Ou.Y
fccus -ss
•;- ;-... , '".,:
'-'~ .:.\.•
~-
�,. ..
-- -· - -- - ·- ----- ·· - -- -
'.
1:. c c-:.~2.
lhe:c e are no urb2.n solu ticns of ar...y va li2:.ty ,.~hicj:. c:i ~--..8t

'-- ---~'--------
deal d ~rec t ly w:th the que s tio~s pcsed by this se~re~ at ion.
7he racts are th2s e :
of th es e Negroes h ave i::·,,::.:::_~e:s
c 2~t ~~ 1 ci~ies is ~eg~o , and
o:: E.::1.2 liorE.tive pub l i c prog ra::is, th e prop ortion. of Negroes ·- -· _. __--.t::..-a l
city ~C)Llat ion wi ll rise to - - ---
, ,·,i t h
a _ _ _ _ _ percentag~
By 19'i8, be ::·__ pro :Jo:::-t i o;:1s will be
3y 1~33 our c e~trel city popula ti on wil:
j e
The se a re ? er c enta2;e s-o f the total po~ulatio~ of ail
By 1973
\_; •,:. .:.L.._



.i..:...




le ast ten of our ma jor citi es wil l be ?re~c~ 143.215.248.55 16:58, 29 December 2017 (EST)t!y
Xeg ro ; by 1983 , at l east t w2nty, inc l uding Chi c ago , Philad el143.215.248.55 16:58, 29 December 2017 (EST)
Clevc.~3:1.c, Detroit and Eel t i more .
s~~c e A=er 1can ~ i nori t y g r ou~s t r a ~itio~ally have sough t and won
I~ s c:-:".e cases their asc.er,_dency was


~ur ~2~o rt discuss e s this se g r2 sa tio~ as it affects Nesroes.




=ri_ -:·.2ny ci l.:i~s, of co:.: :::- s2, ·:.-:-2 c~-: .::. ~2.:: 2::.:-:- i :--:; to a p::.--01.) l c::-:1 \·~~-..ic~-:




~n~:cl2s N~ ~=ces and ~ex ~ca~ A~2~ ic 2~s c:~ ~egrc es a~d PL ~~to S~:~~s.
·.2 ~-:. 2..v2 i-::.cJ......:C:2:. ·:.:.'"i ese:. :;:: 0·0. :>:; :. __ c:.:.::-- cos ·.: c s..~~ :;-...:::..s.-c.:"..o:~s (s2e b2::..cr~~·?
.:.. :.:_:,2 -:::2--:-._y of t~:2::.r ?:: c·.)~2::-.s - =- J~., ~~--..cc.-:-:2> po.:.::- 2:c·.~c::.~i...J:12. ~
subst::.:iC.c..rcl hou s :.·_·_--· . · -._; :.1 bi::-t:Ci. ::- 2. :: es , s-::8 .. - a:-c2


_.
;·=-- ~ ..;-r,_r ..,:::-:: c.:--..J~,


- •-..;, - V
�- - - -·- ··---- --·--··- --·--··- -

--·-- --- -- ·--- - --
- - -- -~- _,..:,.....
_'·::
2
e:--: peri2llce b.as bee::i a hea ltl1y 011e for ou:r- pluralis ;i :ic politic 2 l
·sys :: e:-;: .
G.ispers:ion
~e groes .
We therefore ~esr
ttEt
th e
____
r"\ ~--
2~1ci
CGETI 72 S
.! ::,
-
in c 1~v li~e a~d ~c ~i tical
pr ob&~i lity of this con f rontEtio~ is but we are c ertain that it is h i g~
2nou3h to b e a cause for concern.
Its pe;tential d an3 e rs li e· in t :,e follcw ing:
1.
The growin3 d is affection nnJ aliena tion o f Negro ghetto
r2.s ic 2nt s 2.nd incre as ing ..ii li tancy ,,nich r esLl ts, to gether with
i~crea sing viol ence in citi es .
2,
The still po:-1e rful fo:::- c e o f ot::t - rnigration by whit e :r,ic:c:..c-
fro:.:i
4.
city.
The in~b ility o~ raoderate ?O litica l l ea~ership t o respo~c
t o th e pressu~es o f larg e r a~d l a rger poor populations .
�__
- - -- -i- - - - ---·------ - - - -----_,,__ _____________ ____ -- -----·-
,.
!
3
Of t:.e ~ eg:r:oes ,-1ho live
ci~ies not only because it i s ~or&ily ri ght and not only because of
Th e c. e:-::.::..:-_-.:s o:E
uh ict-. u lt :;_ ,,i.s.te ly 1:-1i ll t est seve::.-ely t he_ v alu2s o f Ar:-.er_ic.sn s oe: i c.'.::y .
Integra tion> 1r it does notiing else, ~ay help to r educ e : 2nsions .
- ·-
l&rger integr a tion w~ich


-:.:.:st cc::ie i n. the futu:c2 .


~oce~s t e ll u s t ~a t s i ~ply h o l d~n~ the s i ze of c e n:~nl citv ~~e t:os
6JO,O0O ~egroes a year i ~to predcmi~an: l y ,~i~e su~urb s.
Ct..:.t --- ~~ g r- c.t i C:l .,
Cur c r~2e cost c a~c~lctio~s fo~ prov id i ng ev e~
rc1i2ir:-_;_.:_m .scce:_:,tabl e level
or
2
soci&l se:..-v ic s s 1n all centr-21 city g'.ic::t to s
i ·c.dica te f e deral expenditure:: ?at:t e:c11s cf georr:etric c..r:.d un l ike ly
Ev2~y avc il sb l e in~ic&t o r of


he deterio r2t in ; c o~~etitive posi~ion


_L
�1.
,
L·r
o~ tt e te~tr~I c~tv (th2r2 are o~ c ourse subst anti a l dif~er~nces
descriptive of Los Anse l cs ).
citi es are l agging beiind t~c rest of the nation by a
S pe ci fical ty:
~etail 2sta blish~ents
by 95% for th e rest of t he ~ation, b~t by only 41% i n citi~s .
- ?2r ca? ite inco2e chang es in city relativ2 to suburb.
- ?rcdict eC: joo
c--...- ...~1.:.
r. t. st :
~. 3 ~
~ r 143.215.248.55s
or public a ttitudes .
Su ch c t a~g e s , ho~ever , a r e b ot h u ~lii2 ly
~. :e
r e c: ogn.iz2
�5
It is a pparent tha t s egr esotion b; r a ce and inca~e i n our
to c ::'fset it .
sore than laws and fed e ril polici e s , but we suggest t~e place to
In sur;i:r.ary, t he Ta sk Force icec1t i fi2s 2.s n p::cob l e!:: of . th G
g ::- 22.test n2t icnai urgency U1 e :;rowt:::. a,1d ? Ove r 'c.y of c e:-,tral c:: ·.:;:



.)




W2 b eli e v e th.=-.t this situa tic1n al:::- cady p::-.· ovide s a driv in,;
=o::c e i n u rban dec l ine and t h at it s effect is - increased
0y t :.,e u:1~c,u2.l patteri'. o:: u r tm1 d2velo?cent .
2. )
'.,J2 E.::.- 2
co, ,vinced tha t e. d rc.r,,a t i c co:-if :cont at ion b et~veen
~ l r e e.dy i s bui lding in ~ost of ou r urb a n ar e as .
3)
~n the absence of st2. t 2; fec2ra i a~d loc a l 2.ct ion on a
th ~se prob l ems will grow l ~r~cr , mor e dangerou s to Arncr ic rn
soc i e t y 8~d i ~creas i ng ly c i ff ~cult to solv e .
·/.:
�6_
We therefore recommend a series of strategies designed
to:
1.
Increase individual access to jobs, education,
income, housing and other social services.
2.
Increase racial and income integration in
metropolitan areas.
3.
Increase the proportion of middle-class population,
especially Negro, in central cities.
4.
Increase the ability of new immigrants to adjust
to urban life.
5.
Increase the ability of all levels of governments
to deal with these problems.

















Meeting th e goals will be costly and difficult.
It will
require, in our judgment, a well 6rganized process of innovation,
focusing resources at scale , moving towards increased
flexibility and strengthening th e position of mayors, some
governors, urban universities and others who can be counted
as · urban alli e s.
Our strategy for urban chang e and the
recommendations which flow from it is designed to overcome
five critical limits or present abilities for meeting urban
goals.
�,
7
1)
Capacity is limited by difficulty of effecting
metropolitan integration directly.
2)
Capacity is limited by city and state fiscal
and administrative weakness.
3)
Capacity is limited by the dispersion and low
level of Federal assistance to cities.
4)
Capacity is limited by Federal procedures,
program practices, centra~ization, an~ inflexibility.
5)
Capacity is limited by the state of the art for
solving urban problems.
The five sets of reco~me ndations which follow are
intended to outline a strategy which will increase
significantly th e ability of Federal, state and local
governments to respond to the problems posed by urb an
segregation and disparities.
�L
,
I.
Increasing race and income integration in urban areas
The Problem
Of all the problems the Task Force has addressed, none is
more vexing than the question of devising effective strategies
to integrate metropolitan areas.
We nonetheless believe that
the highest priority must be given to integration.
Without it,
ghetto families will be denied the opportunities enjoyed by the
urban majority; they will be forced to live in the least attractive
housing at increasing distances from the growth sector of the
urban economy; and the problems of a disaffected minority
will be concentrated in the ceritral cities.
Although improving the standard of living is absolutely
essential if ghetto residents are to move into the mainstream
of _Americ an life, it is illusory to beli eve that enrichment
alone will guarantee int egra tion.
The residential patt e rns of
every American city and metropolitan area document the fact
that income does not provide Negroes with the sam e freedom of
choice . that other Ame ric ans enjoy in th e urban housing mark et .
Equally important, the dec entralized political system of the
metropoli s employs l and us e and ot he r public controls to limit
sev ere ly hou s ing opportuniti es in s uburbia for a ll lowe r income
families.
A prime imp ediment to the dispersion of th e ghetto is th e fact
th at larg e numb e rs of city dwell ers and s ubu rbanites are oppo se d
to resid en tial inte gration and integrat e d education.
In th e
�6
2
central cities, the opponents of integration usually have more
influence at City Hall than the residents of the ghetto.
In the
suburbs, the Negro has no political voice; and the local
political system employs a variety of devices to satisfy its
constituents' desire to exclude Negroes in particular, and
lower income families in general, from their neighborhoods.
As a practical matter, an integration strategy must encompass
the metropolitan area.
Given the projected ghetto growth rates
and the likelihood of Negro majorities in a number of major
cities, integration cannot be accomplishe d within the confines
of the central city.
In fact , an integration strategy which
excludes the suburbs would only serve to hasten the exodus of
white families from the centr a l cities.
Anothe r r eason for d ev e loping disp e rsion strat eg ies in a
me tropolit an context is th e fa ct th a t th e hou sing marke t f unc tions ove r an entire metropolitan area.
Operating within a
local rath e r th an me tropolitan cont ext, federal housing programs ,
especially tho se aimed at th e di sadv antaged, h ave don e littl e
to foster disp e rsion.
In fact, more oft en than not, these
programs hav e encoura ge d r es id enti a l s egrega tion.
· Few me tropolitan a r eas h av e governmental arrangements which
would permit th e dev e lopment and implementa tion o f a me t r opol itanwid e int eg ration strategy.
Ev en fewer are popul ated by a
significant numb e r of s ubu rban ites who have demonstrated a po s itive
interest in an integrat e d metropo l i s .
In s t ead, most metropol i t an
�3
areas are governed by highly decentralized political systems.
Local governments of small scale control the vital parameters
of community life - the schools, land use, and the tax base.
Highly responsive to their relatively homogenous clientele
and sensitive to threats to local autonomy or the tax base,
most suburban governments show little interest in assuming any .
responsibility for the general welfare problems of the metropolis.
Efforts to create metropolitan governments have been
spectacularly unsuccessful.
Moreover, political realities and
the procliviti es of white middle class reformers have led almost
all me tropolitan governme nt plans to focus on service and physical
resource problems.
The Task Force knows of no metro proposal
that gives s e rious attention to the problems of th e ghetto.
Nor is there any evidence that the few metropolitan governments
creat ed in the past two decades have used their broad e r jurisdiction s to attempt to foster th e integration of th e metropolis.
Federal efforts to encourage metropolitan planning and
coordination also have avoid e d the policy ar eas most like ly to
affect the pattern of residential segr ega tion.
Substantial
progress ha s b een ma d e during th e past few years tow ar d securing
regional approach es to transportation, air pollution, and
water s upply .
Con sp icuously absent fro m this
list are
l
p r o grams that mi ght b e u sed to promote integration, s uch as
publi c hou si n g, re nt s u p pl eme nt s, a nd a id to e duc a tion.
Th e
�4
sad truth is that the emerging metropolitan institutions are
concerned almost ~xclusively with the problems of suburban
development -and white middle class families in cities and suburbs.
Unless there is a radical change in the outlook of these planning
and review agencies, they are likely to widen the gap between
city and suburb.
Finally, open housing legislation has had minimal impact
on integration in the metropolis.
In the absence of nation al
legislation, there is a bewildering variety of state and local
fair housing codes .
These nearly always exempt the most common
form of suburban housing - the single fimily dwelling.
Another
major weakness is the cumb e rsome, case by case approach based on
.
individual complaints, a proc ess which requires l ega l sophistication
and/or support which usually
dweller.
is unavailable for the ghetto
The federal government 's r e cord in this area is also
unimpr essive - neither FHA nor VA have move d aggressively to
secure maximum impact from the 1962 executive orde r banning
discrimin ation in hou s ing financed by federally guaranteed
mortg ages.
Rec ommendations
1)
National performance standards (s ee Section IV) should
stress int ~g rationas an int eg ral aspect of general developm en t
programs.
2)
Inc entiv e gr ant s ( see Se ction IV) should be u se d to
to encourage genera l d eve lopment p rograms for e ntire
�5
metropolitan areas which would tie federal support for suburban
improvements to ~rogress toward ending the racial and income
imbalances between cities and suburbs.
3)
Some form of incentive grants, particularly for
metropolitan areas, should be tied specifically to housing and
education programs which foster integration, such as scattered
site public housing, educational parks, etc.
4)
Section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan
Development Act should be expanded . to cover programs that affect
housing.
5)
All federal hou si ng pro g r ams should place a strong
emphasis on disp er sion, including the relocation policies in
urban renewa l.
Federal mortgage policies should be developed
to e ncourag e the construction of lower cost housing units
through relating down payments, interest rates, and the repayment
periods to the cost of the unit.
Such a policy should includ e the
use of subsidi ze d ~ortgages where appropriate.
6)
A compr e hensiv e national fair hou s in g act with the
broad es t possibl e coverage should be e nacted.
An exe cutive
ord e r should b e is s ued prohibiting se g re ga tion in all forms o f
ho~ sing assisted dir ec tly or indir ec tly by a ny federal agency.
The order should b e positiv e ly enforced, using th e techniques
d e v e lop e d in the federa l government 's efforts to e liminat e job
dis c rimin a tion in al l
form s o f f e d e r a lly financ e d employm e nt.
�6
7)
The federal governme nt should stimulate the creation
of and provide fi~ancing for metropolitan development corporations which would undertake to provide integiated low-cost
housing outside of ghettos.
The federal government would pro-
vide initial working capital and extend long term credit from
a national revolving fund.
Such corporations would accumulate
land for integrated housing, provide assistance in job location
for out-migrants, and aid suburbs in preparing effective
education programs for new resid e nts.
8)
Because job opportunities are likely to open up faster
than hou s in g opportunities, we recomm e nd a pro g ram of transportation assist a nc e with the following ch a racteristics.
a)
Re sponsiv e to ch a n g in g loc a tions o f both jobs
and work e rs.
b)
Focused on initial p e riod o f "job findin g " and
"job holding."
c)
Tr a nsfer a bl e from on e individual to anoth e r
d e p e ndin g on n ee d .
d)
Non-co mp e titiv e with the private ma rk e t .
Wh e r e such tr a v e l is r e lativ e ly concentrat e d, this d emand can
be me t th r ou g h sub s idi ze d public transport a tion .
For mo r e
disp e rs ed tr a v e l from gh e tto r e sid e nc e s to suburb a n job s,
l
I
sho r t term pub licl y - ass i s t e d a utomobil e l ea sing ar r a n gem e n t s
will be ne e ded .
�7
9)
The Administration should realize that the greatest
potential fever for change in this area is the courts.
The Task Force urges the Administration to hasten the
inevitable Supreme Court rulings which will ban de facto school
. segregation and the employment of land use controls for social,
economic and racial discrimi~ation.
Given the revolutionary
impact of these anticipated rulings, it is not too early to
begin contingency planning to assure their speedy implementation
with a minimum of public disorder.
�II.
Federal action to strengthen city
for meeting the problem of urban disparities
Problem
Implementing the strategies for urban chan$e discussed in
this report depends ultimately upon actions taken by state and
local governments.
We assert that strengthening the positions
of governors and especially mayors will be of critical ·importance
in this process.
Their ability to deliver services is seriously
limited by administrative weakness and fiscal strain.
Yet they
are the only public officials with the potential authority
•1:I!
I:
necessary to effectively manage the large-scale attack on
I
I
urban problems which we believe is essential.
They too - and
I
our population projections indicate that this is certainly true
of mayors - will be under increasing pressures to respond to
.J 11,
the fre_quent, now almost steady state, urban crisis of :11;· J :~verty
.
an d segregation.
ll'l!'i
1,111
1"'
The administrative problem breaks along the follo wi ng lines :
- Fragmentation of program responsibility among semiautonomous .agencies, often -reinforced by their counterpart s at
the federal leve l, bypasses and weakens the position of mayors
and gove rn ors.
- State and l oca l officials are under di rect and close
pressures to deliver and their high political mortality rates
indicate that delivery is enormously difficult in the present
system.
I
•--
'
·t1;.
,11
r! 1,
11
·1,I
" I
I
I
�·1
2
- State and local government is in a disadvantageous
competitive position for directing talented, imaginative staffs .
The political executives management problems are compounded by
the lack of personal staff; there are few institutions analagous
to the executive office at the state and local level.
- Possibi l ities for a meaningful decentralization to
federal field offices are severely limited by the realities
of political authority in the federal system and by present
congressional-bureaucratic arrangements in Washington.
- Local officials must conduct an enormous numbe r of
negotiations with truncated federal agencies to receive any aid.
At the same time the cost of urban services is on the rise ..
We can expect increasing per capita costs for social services
and we ·can expect an increasing proportion of ci t y dwe l ler s
to require them.
The cities thus are caught in a process of
cumulative deterioration whic h can be r eve r sed on l y by s hif ts
,1
i n t he r esi dence o f poo r people or h i ghe r i ncome by city
r es i dent s.
The pr ob l em i s par ti cu l a rly a cu t e f or l arge cities.
During fi s cal year 19 65 , f or exampl e » muni c ipal expenditures
per capita were appr oximately three times as hi gh for cities
with populations exceeding 1 million as they were for communities
·I'
with populations under 50,00 0 .
In short, we see the following
as critical limits on cities t o pay their own bills:
- Cities are under increasing demands for social services
while their revenue capabilities are increasingly inadequate
to pay for even existing levels of serviceso
�,'I
'Ilji'
I
I





I
I
lj :, ,,, I
li
'jl
~
Social service costs are rising more rapidly than
costs in the economy.
- Some cities are already in danger of becoming
almost exclusively by peop l e who can simply not a ff ord to live
elsewhere and whose need f or services is very great.
- Problems of ra i sing additional revenue within juri sdictions such as cities are i mmense, due in part to the high
mobi l ity of resources between stat es and local it i es i n the
federal systems.
Cities are forced to rely heav ily on property
and consumption taxes, both of which are highly re gressive in
nature.
- The dependence on property· taxation on hous ing f or c i ty
revenue s may be a positive de t riment t o providing mo r e standard
unit s £ or the urban poo r.
Re commendati on s
1)
Re gard les s o f pas t fai lures t he popu l a t i on pro je c tions
and trends we fore s ee clear l y ind i c ate t hat most mayo rs and
ma ny urban governors, o f n ecessity, will be increasing ly
resp on sive t o the problems o f ci ty ghetto s.
Th ey can be the
11'
1
1,1
.I
Pr es i den t's mos t i mp ort ant al l ies i n fulfilling our nat i onal
urban go al s.
They mu s t be the f ocu s o f any mean i ng f u l
decen t rali zat i on of the f ederal s y stem .
2)
In add i t i on to the fi scal flex i b i lity and d e cent ralizati on
recommended below, we u r_ge that presen t aid programs operate
through the political executive and not semi -autonomous bureaucracies.
�4
3)
To build toward a capability similar to that of the
federal executive office, w~. recommend direct gr-ants to mayors
and governors for staff assistants o~ city problems.
4) _ To increase the competence of state and local govern-
ment personnel we recommend increased federal assistance for
training and continued efforts in the direction of inter-governmental
exchanges of personnel.
5)
Legislation should be promoted permittirig state and
local governments · to waiv·e . federal tax resumption of securities
,.
1· 11
•.
in return for a federal grant equivalent to the federal taxes
collected on the . interest from such securities.
Some estimates
indicate that this could result in an added .6 to 1 billion
dollars per year.
6) ·
iI',
Ii
Ji
I.,
Federal assistance to cities should be significantly
increased; and the existing impediments to the effective use
of federal aid at the local level should be eliminated.
The
components of this recommendation are presented in detail' in
.Parts 111, ·1v, .-and V .- below.
~-
1 I
'
...
,
., '
�DRAFT:LEONE:6/19/67
III.
Focusing and increasing the level of Federal
assistance to cities
The Problem
1.
Many of our present programs fail to reach
the central city poor with enough resources to make a
difference.
2.
Simple extension of present programs - leaving
effectiveness aside - to reach the central city poor would
cost in manpower, education, health, housing and legal
services ____ billion dollars a year.
3.
Unless we reach a scale of sufficient size we
will find as we have found in the past our efforts are
dis~ipated by trying to reach too many people, in too
many cities, with too many programs.
4.
Policy responsibility at the Federal level
must be focused in strengthened urban agencies.
Recommendations
The following programs are meant to focus resources
on increasing urban integration and enriching the lives
of those who remain in big city ghettos.
In each program
area, we have attempted to order our recommendations in
terms of some rough priorities and time phases with
employment having the highest overall priority .
�L
2
Our expertise in the following program areas is
limited.
We have listed only recommendations which
seem to us to be most relevant to an overall city
strategy.
Our suggestions are in no sense exhaustive.
We hope to:
Overhaul existing programs and redirect
existing resource commitments to
increase their impact on the ghetto.
Increase commitments in the most critical
program areas for implementing broad goals.
Develop new approaches to tackle those
aspects of ghetto enrichment and dispersion
not affected by existing programs.
Tie Federal assistance to disadvantaged
individuals where appriate.
1.
Employment
A.
The Task Force recommends the consolidation
of presently separated manpower programs into a single
comprehensive manpower grant.
This move would allow
development of sufficient local manpower programs under the
aegis of a single agency which would absorb the important
functions of recruitment, selection, and processing,
training, placem ent and follo w-up of the poor .
This st e p
�,,
3
would include consoli dati on of those programs administered
by the U. S. Department of Labor including institutional
training, on-the-job training, neighborhood youth corps,
concentrated employment program in the employment service
with the Vocational Rehabilitation and OEO employment
operations.
B.
In the absence of si gnificant
consolidation programs, the Task Force recommends an
expansion and refocusing of the on-the-job training
program to provide higher subsidies to private industry
for training of the poor.
Reimbursement for tr aining
costs should be doubled and perhaps quadrupl ed and the
26 weeks presently allowed should be expanded to a full
year.
OJT should b e provide d with a greater staff for
job developmen t and for counselin g and follow-up after
placement in a job training position.
C.
In order to compensate for the declin e
of manufacturing and commercia l jobs in the city, the
Task Force r e commends an expansion in public employment
throu gh the n ew car eers idea as emb odi e d in the Scheuer
Ame ndment to the Economic Opportunity Act.
New careers
provides entry level employment for the poor with
meaningful upgrading in work and profes~ional training.
�4·
D.
The Task Force recommends an increased
number of demonstration projects - of all types to test the important relationship between deficient
transportation to work sites and the willingness and
ability of city residents to accept training and employment.
E.
The Task Force recommends a joint effort
by HUD and the Department of Labor to negotiate a nation a l
mod e l ag r e ement for employme n t with th e build i n g tr a de
unions, which would permit lar ge -scale slum rebuilding
e xperiments to make gre a ter use of slum resid ents.
We
r e co gn ize th a t th e i mpl ement ati on of this r e comme nda tion
would not solve any signific ant proportion of the
employment problem but it would h ave useful symbolic
v a lu e i n the ghe tto s of ce ntr a l c ities.
The De p a rtm ent
of Commerce should be involv e d to reach similar agreemen t s
wi th employe r s in the c onst r uction industry.
F.
As a l on g-run possib i l i t y, we su ggest a
p r o gram whic h wou ld operate much like th e GI Bi ll of Rights
wh i ch would pl a ce e ntitl ements i n t h e ha nds of th e p oor t o
maximi xe persona l ch o i ce in selecting edu cational, t rainin g
and employment assistance.
Th e funds could be u sed by the
· ind i v i du a l to gain c ert ification in regul a r educat ion a l
institutions o r f or training on the j ob with the employer
receiving reimbu rsement f or hi s trai ning c os ts.
The great
�s
advant~ge of this approach is in avoidi~g the seemi~gly
endless tangle of referrals, delays, and insensitivity
encountered in the present, fragmented system.
2.
Education
A.
Any program of Federal aid for elementary
and secondary school construction should offer in_c entives
for facilities designed to increase the integration of
students.
"Bonus" funds could be available for
educational parks within cities, suburban exchange schools
and for consolidated school districts.
Funds should also
be included for the modernization and replacement of older
school plants in central cities.
B.
We recommend a program of educational
subsidies for low-income children which would be
administered as scholarships for use at any approved
elementary and secondary educational institution.
"Bonus" funds could be available for schools which are
integrated or are experimental.
C.
3.
Sizer recommendations (see paper)
Special recommendations for urban veterans
A.
We give the strongest endorsement to
Department of Defense Manpower programs, such as
. "Proj e ct 100,000" and "Project Transition" .
�l,
6
B.
We recommend a stepped-up outreach
activities in the Veterans Administration to trace
those with the greatest need for assistance at the
point of separation and especially after separation.
C.
We urge FHA and VA loans to servicemen
and veterans to finance proposed or existing individually
owned on e -family units in pr~ects containing five or
more units.
D.
We recommend that VA be given a special
mandate and the capacity to assist ghetto v e terans in
obtainin g such urban skills as planning, social service
work and community developm e nts.
4.
Incom e mainten a nce and we lf a re
A.
Any well conceived strategy for the city
requires substantial increases in consumer demand.
City dwe llers ne e d a sustain e d and substantial upward
movement in payme nt lev e ls for
(1)
unemployment compensation
(2)
we lf a re p ayme nts
(3)
minimum wa ge
B.
The present welf a re syst e m must be
alt ere d t o make i t a mo re e ffe ctive instrume nt in de ali n g
with gh ett o depe nd e nc e .
�7
(1)
Altering AFDC man in the house
requirements to permit
(2)
Altering outside income requirements
to eliminate the in-effect 100%
income tax rate and thus encourage
C.
We should move towards having a l~rger
proportion and perhaps all welfare payments at the
Federal level.
Continued reliance on localities and
states for a share places an added strain on their
frequently regressive tax systems and inhibts the
development of more r e asonable national standards for
welfare.
S.
Public Facilities
A.
We urge greater use of the location of
public facilities - both Federal and Fede rally support e d as a lev e r in s e curin g a ctu a l int eg ration, op e n housin g
and employment opportunities.
Those facilities which can
be located in cities, especially community colleges and
hospitals, should b e consid e r e d a part of overall
dev e lopm e nt and city enrichme nt pl a ns .
Public employ me nt
for low-income groups should be related to any n e w
facilit y - includin g those in th e suburbs .
This n ew f ocus
o f re spo ns ibili ty s h oul d b e come a ma jo r conc ern d f t he
Se c re t aries o f HEW an d HUD .
�-,,
8
B.
The Department of Housing and Urban
Development should be given a primary role in
coordinating all Federal urban capital investment as
part of national integration and enrichment strategies:
6.
Housing
A.
To achieve integration there must be
continued emphasis on compliance with desegregation
guidelines in housing financed through the Federal
mortgage programs.
This is especially important in
suburban developments which will account for 90% of the
new housing ov e r the next 25 years.
The flow of resources into financing
housing is affected by interest rates, alternative
investment opportunities, and oth e r forces, some of which
are greatly influenced by Feder a l policy.
B.
Lower interest rates to stimulate a ~inimum
annu a l construction rate in housin g should be a national
objective.
Th e eff e cts of low interest rates on the
supply of low- and moderate-housing "swamps" the effects
of Federal "housing progr ams" as such .
C.
Investme nt inc e ntiv es such as t a x credits
and d e pr e ci a tion sch e dul es should b e a p pli e d t o hou s in g
in th e s ame way th a t th e y a r e a pp li e d to oth er c a pit a l
goo d s.
�9
Every mechanism for maintaining a constant flow of
investment into housing should be explored by the
Administration.
These might include the issuance of
longer term certificates at higher interest rates to
attract the investing power of pension funds and
insurance companies.
Certificates-should be issued
by the Federal National Mortgage Association.
D~
The Task Force recommends expanded use of
devices such as leased,scattered site public housing
rehabilitated through use of the "turnkey" approach with
purchase options for the tenants.
E.
Homeownership incentives for central city
ghetto resid ents simil ar to the Veterans' Administration's
no-down payment programs should be offer ed .
F.
The Task-Force recommends that the multi-
family mort gage operations be separated ;·from the present
Federal Housing Administration which would then b e
charged with insuring only single-family mortgages.
In the absence of such surgery, we believ e th a t the age
and inflexibility of most FHA officials renders any
alternative recommendation unworkable.
�10
7.
Special Recommenda tions on the Community Action Program_
a)
The Task Forc e believes the community action idea
is a major innovation in Federal programming and reflects
the emphasis on demonstration and experimentation which
is critical for increasing our problem-solving capacity.
The Community Action Program should be retained within
an independent OEO with its charter for flexible and
innovative programs.
b)
A first step toward employing performance criteria
in distributing scarce CAP funds should be taken.
These crit e ria should include the CAP's innovative
capacity, its ability to coordin a te other relevant agencies
and to op e rate its own programs.
c)
Demonstration funds should be incre a sed accomp anied
by ti ghter research controls applied to projects.
d)
Guid e lines to insur e CAP participation in Mod e l Cities
plannin g and execution should be promulgat e d.
~)
Th e dev e lopment of commun i ty action agencies as parts
of th e local politic a l and gove rnm ent a l s y st em should be
encour age d .
�n
-
IV.
Reforming the administration of federal urban programs to
provide simplification, flexibility and decentralization
The Problem
The American federal system is being slowly strangled by
the complexity of contemporary intergovernmental relations.
Cities and states are fighting a losing battle to extract ·
maximum advantage from a bewildering variety of federal assistance
programs.
Administrative shortcomings seriously compromise the
prospects of many of the imaginative federal programs developed
in recent years.
The Task Force has grave doubts about the
capacity of this over-burd ened system to manage the new efforts
needed to move th e ghetto resident into the mainstream of
American society.
By accident rath er than design, th e federal governmen t has
created an extremely categorical, fragm ented, and complic ate d
approach to urb an programming.
Each program area t ends to
develop its own set of sp ec ific program goals and controls, a
clos e r e lationship wi th a specialized clientei"e, and a narro w
perspectiv e on th e problems of cities and suburbs.
Because the
feder a l government seeks to achieve general policy objectiv es
through highly detai led pro gram controls, most federal programs
are characterized by an ov ercen tr aliza tion of detai l , administrative rigidity, long delays in processing applications, a multiplication of required cons ents , a failure to inno vate , and a
lack of responsiv e ness to speciali zed loc a l ne ed s.
Cities
L
�2
confront delay and confusion in the funding of their programs;
they witness an inability of federal agencies to work with
one another in making sense of federal programs in urban areas.
The burdens of an already overloaded system of intergoverrimental relations have been multiplied by the rapid expansion of
federal domestic prqgrams during the past seven years.
Most of
the new programs are categorical and involve detailed federal
program controls.
In an effort to advance laudable national
policy goals, such as metropolitan coordination and highway
safety, additional detailed requirements have been imposed on
existing programs.
The net effect has been to complicate further
the bureaucratic maze that stands between federal resources and
.urban problems.
The Task Force is especially concerned about the failure
of the federal government to build sufficient flexibility and
opportunities for state and local discretion and innovation into
the federal aid system.
Many of the problems of large city
ghettos are quantitativ e ly and qualitatively different from
those of the poorer neighborhoods of smaller cities .
Solutions
to many of our most vexing urban problems are neither obvious
nor universally applicable.
Yet relatively few fed e ral progr ams
permit the d eve lopmen t of locally-determined str ateg ies for
cities and metropolitan areas.
In its str ess on local innovation and flexibility, the
Model Citi es Program represents a welcome departure from the
�L
6
3
rigid programmatic approach.
By emphasizing systematic planning
and coordination of federal categorical grant programs, Model
Cities seeks to reduce overlap and dupl{cation of effort.
But
constituent-agency relations, formula grants, inflexible requirements, and specialized administrative practices tax the
ability of any city to tie these many disparate strands into
an effective program.
In addition, Model Cities program standards
are added to those required by the component programs without
any compensating simplication of the process whereby a~plications
for assistance are approved.
Innovation, flexibility, and
coordination are easily stymied by a process whose practical
effect is to pyr am id requirements, multiply consents, and
increase the time lag in bringing r e sources to bear against
problems.
The Task Force is impressed with neither the record nor the
potential of existing instruments for securing interagency
coordination of grant programs, such as Bureau of the Budget
intervention to resolve interagency conflict, interagency
committ ee s, the me tropolitan expediter, and HUD's convenor
order.
Th e Administration's experience with the community
action program and the neighborhood centers unhappily indic ates
that substantial coordination cannot b e achi eved at th e federal
level withou t substantial ch anges in the grant-in-aid me chanism .
The massive effort need ed to overcome the problems pos ed
by the ghetto will be financed l argely by some form of federal
�,,
4
grant-in~aid.
To the degree that such grants are programmatic,
the Task Force is convinced that it is absolutely essential to
streamline and simplify the distributivi mechanisms.
Instead
of extending and expanding categorical aids, the Administration
should stress consolidation, decentralization, and flexibility.
In the opinion of the Task Force, however, fragmentation,
administrative complexity and rigidity, overcentralization of
de tail, inadequate coordination, and lack of innovation are
endemic to the programmatic approach.
Even the most imaginative
reforms are likely to have only a marginal impact if grant
programs continue to multiply at th e ir present rate.
Of course,
this growth rate would be accelerated if all the Task Force's
recommenda tions were transl ated into ind ividual grant programs.
An increased fed er al commitment to urban problems and a
national effort focused on ghetto def iciencies requires a
substanti al reorientation o f roles and responsibilities in th e
federal system.
The Admini s tration b egan this task with th e
development of th e Poverty and Mode l Citi es progr ams .
The Task
Force believes th e time has come to expand the application of
these conc ep ts through th e developme nt of a highly fl ex ibl e ,
loc~lly - based s yst em of grants-in - aid which substitutes general
purpos e assistance for progr amma tic gr ant s and n a tiona l p er formance standards for detailed program c ont ro l s.
It should a l s o b e not e d that the r ec ommend a tions h av e b een
design e d to p e rmit th e partial applic a tion of th e s e concepts.
�s
Thus, the implementation of these proposals may be staged over
time, with the most promising program areas selected for initial
treatment.
It also will be possible to retain _federal program
standards in those areas where such controls are deemed in the
national interest.
Recommendations
1)
Application, processing, and revi ew procedures should
be streamlined in all non-formula grant-in-aid programs.
The
goals of internal program reform should be: (a) to simplify
application procedures through the development of standardized
methods; (b) to r e duce sh~rply the time between application and
approval or rejection of a grant request; (c) to reduce multiple
cons ents; (d) to check the trend toward pyramiding requireme nts;
and ( e ) to employ standardized revi ew and audit procedures .
Responsibility for the implementation of this recommendation
should be lodg e d in th e Bureau of th e Budget.
2)
Gr ea ter u se s hould be made o f earmarking of grants to
facilitate the fundin g of programs lik e Mode l Cities and
community action which cut across pro gram and agency lines .
This dev ice should be u sed to enh ance the focu sing of fed e ral
res ou rces on ghetto problems.
3)
Whenever possible, new grant programs should b e merg e d
with exist ing programs .
Con so lidation of r e lat ed grant pro grams,
along the lin es of the Partnership in Health Act of 1966 , s hould
be giv en high priority.
Gr ant consolida tion reduc es the numb er
�L
6
of separate negotiations which any jurisdiction would have to
carry on in order to design relatively comprehensive local programs.
4)
Provision should be made for consolidated
applications
for two or more related grants administered within a single
department.
Such intra-agency grants would permit a state or
local agency to deal with a single representative of the
appropriate department wh en applyin g for r e lated gr ants.
Impl ement a t io n o f this r e comme nd a t ion r e qui res the e s tabli s hmen t
of an intra-agency grant office within each department, prefe r a bly
in the off ic e of the s e cret ary.
The intra-agency gr ant off i ce
woul d r e c eiv e and p roc ess the a ppli cati on for an i n tr a-age n cy
grant, coordinate th e revi ew of the application with th e
appropri a t e ag enci e s within th e d e p a rtmen t to insu re th a t
pro gram s t and a r ds we r e be ing me t, and a ct as the f ina l gr a n t in g
authority, subj e ct to appropri a te r ev i ew at the d ep a rtm e nt a l
leve l .
5)
Pr ov i sions s h ould b e made f o r c on so li dated app l ications
for two or mor e related grants administered by agencies in two
or mo re de p a rtments.
Such in ter- a ge n c y grants woul d p ermi t a
state or local agency ~o deal wit h a sing l e federal agency when t he
federal grants needed to finance a compreh ensive project are
adminis t ered by t wo or more depa rtm en ts.
Imp l emen t ation o f
this recommendation requires the d es ignation o f an agency to
rec eive application s for inter-ag ency grants, to coor din ate th e
review of the application with the appropriate agencies to insure
�~
- -
-
If
7
that program standards are being met, and to act as the final
granting authority, subject to appeal by the appropriate
departmental heads.
The Task Force believes that the inter-
agency grant coordinating function should be assigned to the
same agency which is designated as the principal federal urban
agency, as recommended in Part III above.
Legislation to
implement this recommendation would not authorize the waiver
of statutory provisions such as eligibility for -grants, matching
ratios, or program duration.
6)
Performance standards should be substituted for detailed
program standards wherever feasible.
Standards should be simple,
general, quantifiable where possible, and applicable to a wide
variety of contexts.
Performance standards should relate to
general societal goals rather than to specific program objectives.
Thus, a housing performance standard might be the proportion of
substandard dwelling units, not the number of public housing
units.
National performance standards should focus on the
urban goals of integration and enrichment.
7)
The substitution of performance standards for program
controls should be accompanied by the pooling of funds in existing
grant programs.
An essential first step in pooling is the
establishment of functional pooling arrangements which permit
L
�8
the unrestricted use of funds in a general functional area, such
as housing, manpower training, health, or transportation.
In
housing, for example,public housing, urban renewal, and rent
supplement funds would be pooled, to be employed by the
appropriate local or state agency to implement a comprehensive
housing program.
All programmatic restrictions would be removed.
from the use of pooled funds; thus, funds derived from the
public housing program might be used to finance .rent supplements,
rehabilitation, code enforcement, or some other locally devised
strategy designed to overcome housing deficiencies.
8)
Where federal funds are functionally pooled, the basic
requirement for eligibility should be a comprehensive program 1n
the functional area which relates local deficiencies and needs to
the ~ppropriate national performance standards.
Comprehensive
housing, manpower, health, or transportation programs should be
developed by the appropriate local or state agency.
Comprehensive
programs would specify local deficiencies in terms of national
standards, set forth program goals to meet the national standards,
and indicate in a general way the projects to be undertaken to
reach the program goals during the life of the comprehensive
program.
When all funds functionally pooled are from programs
within a single agency or departm ent, th a t agency or departm e nt
should approve the comprehensiv e program and monitor its impl e mentation .
When functional l y pooled funds are drawn from two
or more departm ents, the principal federal urban agency recommended
�,, .
9
in Part III should approve the comprehensive program and monitor
its implementation.
9)
Provision should also be made for the pooling of federal
funds across functional lines.
Unde r this type of arrangement, some
or all of the federal aid flowing into a neighborhood, municipality,
county, metropolitan area, or state would be pooled, with all
programmati c restrictions removed from the use of the pool ed
funds.
Eligibility for general pooling should be based on the
preparation by the appropriate local or state unit of a general
development program based on national performance standards.
General development programs would be similar to the comprehensive functional programs discussed in the previous recommenda tion, except that their scope would be substantially bro ader .
General dev e lopment programs would b e approved by the principal
federal urban agency recommended in Part III, which would also
monitor the implementation of the general development program.
10)
To facilitate the preparation of compr e hensive functional
programs and general development pro grams, federal technical
assistance and pl a nning aid should be expanded.
In the case o f
compr ehens iv e function a l progr ams involving two or more a ge nci es ,
and in all instances of general development program prep a ration,
technic a l assist an c e and planning aid should be funn e l e d throu gh
th e p r incip a l fe de r a l urb an age ncy a s r e commend e d in Pa rt III.
As a first step toward implemen tin g t he previou s recomme nd a tions,
t he federa l governmen t s houl d f ina nce the prepar a t io n of a
�,
10
number of comprehensive functional programs and general development programs by a variety of local and state units.
11)
The federal government should initiate a program of
. general purpose assistance to local and state governments.
We
recommend that two types of general purpose grants be developed
deficiency grants and incentive grants.
a)
Deficiency grants are general purpose formula
grants designed to provide supplemental federal assistance
for local units, the ma gnitud e of which would be related
to need and capability.
An equalization formula to
accomplish this purpose would be based on population, per
capita incom e , tax bas e , tax effort, and perhaps other
measur e s of social, economic, and infr as tructure d ef iciencies.
Defici en cy grants could be used by the r e cipi e nt local or
state unit for any public purpose consistent with a general
developm ent program.
Eligibility for deficiency grants
would be det e rmin e d by the princip a l f ede ral agency recommended
in Part III through its approval of a general development
progr am.
Given th e magnitud e of th e gh e tto probl em , th e
Task Force r e comme nds an initial outlay of$
for defici ency grants, which would provide$
billion
per gh et to
dwell er.
b)
Inc en tiv e grants are gen e ral purpose grants
distributed by the principal federal agency recommended in
Part III.
Incenti ve grants could be used to suppl eme nt pool ed
�,
11
funds ·or interagency grants.
The availability of general
purpose agency grants should enhance the ability of the
principal federal agency to promote inter-agency grants,
pooling arrangements, and comprehensive functional and
. general development programs.
A significant proportion
of incentive grants should be used to stimulate the prepara- ·
tion and implementation of general development programs which
give high priority to ghetto problems, especially integration.
�1
L
I





V.
Increasing knowledge of solutions to urban problems
The Problem
The Task Force believes that if this society were
ready to commit the resources required for its cities,
new technologies and knowledge could make our efforts
more effective and relevant than is presently possible.
We emphasize the advantages of the Federal government
as a funder, controller and evaluater of demonstrations
and experiments - an advantage which is readily apparent
in the aerospace industry.
This advantage is presently
being dissipated by fragmentation of problems by agency
mission, lack of long-term financing of experimentation
and basence of sensitive feedback mechanisms to influence
policy-making.
In addition, the efficiency of our
efforts to solve urban problems may be limited by . the
small scale of our programs and even demonstrations.
Recommendations
1.
The flexibility and emphasis on innovation
characteristic of the Model Cities Program should be
exploited by conc e ntrating resources - as far as possible on 4 or 5 cities and/or metropolitan areas capable of
implementing we ll-structured and cont r olled experiments.
To achieve this wo uld require at least the following:
�- -
2
-- Assignment of responsibility for the design
and evaluation of the experiments to the new Assistant
Secretary for Research and Development in DHUD.
-- Informal allocation of resources from a ge ncies
other than HUD, (for example, project demonstration
monies in HEW and Labor) for use in the selected cities.
-- An aggressive Federal role in providing
technical assistance to thes e. "key" cities'.
2.
The creation and fundin g of an institute for
basic urb an r e search, along the lines of RAND or IDA in
th e de fense area.
The institute should be Federally
funded, independent of day-to-day departmental control
and able to und e rt a ke long-term research projects.
· Initially, the institute would not undertake operation
or fundin g of action projects, but would concentrate on
basic rese a rch into urban economics, data collection and
analysis, etc.
3.
A stren gthen e d and be t t e r-financed demonstration
and exp e ri me nta t ion rol e for DHUD and its Assist a nt
Secr e tary for Re se a rch and Deve lopment .
This should
includ e th e abilit y to fin anc e long-t e rm proj e cts
ind ep enden t of f isc a l year r es trictio n s and deve lo pmen t
an d a c ti on p ro j ec t s in fi e lds other than h ousi ng.
A h i gh
premium should be p l aced on j oint funding with o ther
agencies for projects cutting across several service
sectors.
-
-
L.
�L
3
4.
The evolution of a developmental orgariization
which can undertake large-scale investments in new
systems, such as new housing ideas.
This institution
might be developed by the Assistant Secretary for Research
and Development in DHUD.
It should have the funds,
flexibility and authority to underwrite construction of
new types of schools or hospitals or houses on a scale
large enough to make a difference.
This agency also
could expend the developmental work done by OEO in basic
manpower and health iystems, or combine them with the
physical elements of a sector.
The first target of
large-scale development should be constructing more
efficient and flexible low-and moderate-income housing.
5.
The capacity of local and state governments to
undertake research and development should be increased
with the aid of positive Fed era l action.
Subsidies to
regional or urban universities are one means of achieving
this; financing of research staffs for governors and
mayors is another.
Federal programs, such as Model Cities
and Community Action, which stimulate innovative and
experimental action projects should be expanded as the
best hope ' for building local development capacity.
�L
I -
4
6.
We believe the natural advantage enjoyed by
the Federal government for financing and evaluating
research and development should be strengthened in
all departments.
Within department, R&D otitputs
should feedback to the Secretary to insure that R&D
projects affect on-going programs and policies and open
new directions.
Responsibility for monitoring government ~
wide urban R&D activity should be centralized either in
the Executive Office or in HUD.
Without centralizat i on,
th e r e sults of r e sear ch in one a ge ncy are not like ly to
become inputs in the policy-making of another.
�