Dublin Core
Title
Box 8, Folder 20, Document 22
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
Some Concerns Growing out of
Early Experience of the Model Cities Program
The Comprehensive City Demonstration Programs submitted to
date show that the Model Cities effort is off to a promising start.
The submissions reflect months of hard work, wide community
involvement and a strong commitment to attack the problems of the
model neighborhoods. . :
In a new program like this, however, we are all learning as
we go along. This is to share’ with you our sense of the importance
of the involvement of the Mayor in the local Model Cities program
together with some more specific ‘suggestions as to how submissions
might be improved:
1. City government responsibility. In general, we note a
very direct correlation between the quality of the plan and the
degree to which the city or county government as a whole has been
involved in the planning process and in hammering out the program
which is submitted to the Federal Government. We have characterized
the Model Cities program as a partnership between the local government
and the residents of the model neighborhood. But a partnership does
not function well if both partners do not fully participate. We hope
that you will share our concern for developing such a partnership
and making it work.
2. Program scope related to available resources. Your program
for the first action year, and each succeeding action year should be
based upon resources which can reasonably be expected to become
available. Each city has received a target for supplemental grant
funds. HUD regional offices are in a position to define for each
city other HUD resources which can be made available during the action
year for which planning is underway. HEW has set aside a limited
amount of funds for model cities; and cities should work with the HEW
regional offices with respect to potential HEW funds. Close contact
should be established and maintained with regional staffs of other
Departments. HUD staff will help you in this respect. As early as
possible in the planning process the staff of existing city agencies
in concert with the CDA should be working with appropriate State and
local agencies. to determine what State and locally controlled resources
can be made available from those sources for the action year. Indeed
the time is now in most cases to work with State departments and
agencies to arrange for allocation of funds they control for local
programs to start in FY 1970. Most states are now showing a willingness
- 2e
and desire to participate and assist, but they can most effectively
help only if included as a participant at the outset.
We strongly recommend against projecting expenditures during
.the first action year substantially beyond resources likely to
become available. In cases where an important project or activity
is clearly needed but funding seems unlikely during the first year,
the city should schedule "start up" during the second year but
indicate the desirability of an earlier start if funds become
available. Although some over-programming may make sense to provide
for contingencies and to identify the highest priority items, the
action plans for each year should reflect realizable goals.
3. Coordination of local institutions and resources. The
Model _Cities program depends heavily on the success you and other
local officials have in mobilizing: the resources of local, county,
State and private institutions and resources whose programs and
services affect model neighborhood residents. Our experience
indicates that the program submissions which have been least
satisfactory to date are those in which city government has not _
responded to this necessary administrative and policy making responsi-
bility. Where local institutions such as the school board, the police
Department or health, welfare, community action, renewal, housing,”
‘or manpower agencies have not been adequately involved in planning,
project proposals affecting these areas tend to be unrealistic or not
feasible of prompt implementation.
Local Model Cities plans are expected to ineiide experimental ©
approaches and activities. They should not represent simply an
expansion of traditional programs which in some cases have not been
fully effective in meeting needs and in which the people of the
target neighborhood lack confidence. Cities should strive for
institutional change wherever appropriate to make programs more
responsive to neighborhood needs; and, they can also include projects -
and activities to be carried out by new organizations such as neighbrir-
hood corporations. But cities must also take advantage of accumulated
competence and expertise, and therefore, should coordinate existing
_ services and rely on capable existing institutions, in most casés, for
new, changed or expanded projects or activities. Only the chief
executive officer of the city has the capacity to assure that this
mobilization of all available resources occurs. The creation of new
institutions for activities that existing institutions can perform
effectively and well tends to create unnecessary problems. Use of
supplementary funds to bargain out changes in policy and practice of
existing institutions could result in getting changes that will make
programs more effective and responsive to neighborhood needs.
an:
4, The CDA role in program execution. In a number of the
early comprehensive plan submissions the local Model Cities agency
and/or the citizen participation unit have been assigned major
roles as project operators. These roles have ranged from the job
of running a manpower program, which has traditionally been operated
by the State employment service, the local CAA or a voluntary agency
to the jobs of preparing comprehensive: physical development plans
or acquiring land for low-income housing -- tasks again that tra-
ditionally have been handled by local planning or renewal agencies.
HUD's policy is that local City Demonstration Agencies (and their
Model Cities staff and citizen participation arms) are not intended
to serve as program operators... CDA Letter No. 6 specifically states
that "The CDA is not meant to be a multi-functional operating agency."
CDA's are expected to coordinate the activities of the various
existing agencies whose new or existing functions impact on the model
neighborhood. CDA's are expected to use their supplemental funds to_
influence and persuade these existing agencies to modify present
practices, priorities and programs and to undertake new efforts that
will deal effectively with the problems identified and goals established
as a result of Model Cities planning.
Where there is no appropriate existing agency to carry out a new
program which has been planned as part of the Model Cities effort,
the city can certainly organize a new operating agency - such as a
nonprofit corporation. The CDA or its citizen board should be a
program operator only as the last resort and then only as a transition
matter. If the CDA becomes a program operator, your Model Cities
program could easily become just another local program competing for
scarce resources and incapable of effectively performing the coordination,
resource allocation, and institutional change role for which it is
intended.
The Model Cities program is not intended to be a substitute for
local institutions. Rather it is intended to make them more responsive
to the needs of the community and to improve their capability. Insti-
tution building, not institution substitution is the rule.
5. Concentration on a few priority programs. Many first year
action programs include so many projects and activities that city
administrators may well have a difficult time managing the program.
In some cases it appears that the need to set priorities has not been
recognized. While the five-year program must be comprehensive in the
sense that it deal with all major problems, we suggest that the city's
attack on these problems may well be more efficient and more effective
LA
if the city concentrates first on a relatively few high priority
programs rather than spreading energies and available resources
over a large number of desirable but perhaps not quite so critical
projects and activities. ;
6. Length of submissions. Parts I and II of the program
submissions are too long. We believe the city would benefit by the
development of a concise statement that concentrates on the most
important matters rather than submitting what in some cases seems
like relatively raw, undigested material. A tightly organized 75
page problem analysis, goal statement, strategy, and five-year
forecast would probably be a much more effective document, locally
and for the Federal Government. 7
Early Experience of the Model Cities Program
The Comprehensive City Demonstration Programs submitted to
date show that the Model Cities effort is off to a promising start.
The submissions reflect months of hard work, wide community
involvement and a strong commitment to attack the problems of the
model neighborhoods. . :
In a new program like this, however, we are all learning as
we go along. This is to share’ with you our sense of the importance
of the involvement of the Mayor in the local Model Cities program
together with some more specific ‘suggestions as to how submissions
might be improved:
1. City government responsibility. In general, we note a
very direct correlation between the quality of the plan and the
degree to which the city or county government as a whole has been
involved in the planning process and in hammering out the program
which is submitted to the Federal Government. We have characterized
the Model Cities program as a partnership between the local government
and the residents of the model neighborhood. But a partnership does
not function well if both partners do not fully participate. We hope
that you will share our concern for developing such a partnership
and making it work.
2. Program scope related to available resources. Your program
for the first action year, and each succeeding action year should be
based upon resources which can reasonably be expected to become
available. Each city has received a target for supplemental grant
funds. HUD regional offices are in a position to define for each
city other HUD resources which can be made available during the action
year for which planning is underway. HEW has set aside a limited
amount of funds for model cities; and cities should work with the HEW
regional offices with respect to potential HEW funds. Close contact
should be established and maintained with regional staffs of other
Departments. HUD staff will help you in this respect. As early as
possible in the planning process the staff of existing city agencies
in concert with the CDA should be working with appropriate State and
local agencies. to determine what State and locally controlled resources
can be made available from those sources for the action year. Indeed
the time is now in most cases to work with State departments and
agencies to arrange for allocation of funds they control for local
programs to start in FY 1970. Most states are now showing a willingness
- 2e
and desire to participate and assist, but they can most effectively
help only if included as a participant at the outset.
We strongly recommend against projecting expenditures during
.the first action year substantially beyond resources likely to
become available. In cases where an important project or activity
is clearly needed but funding seems unlikely during the first year,
the city should schedule "start up" during the second year but
indicate the desirability of an earlier start if funds become
available. Although some over-programming may make sense to provide
for contingencies and to identify the highest priority items, the
action plans for each year should reflect realizable goals.
3. Coordination of local institutions and resources. The
Model _Cities program depends heavily on the success you and other
local officials have in mobilizing: the resources of local, county,
State and private institutions and resources whose programs and
services affect model neighborhood residents. Our experience
indicates that the program submissions which have been least
satisfactory to date are those in which city government has not _
responded to this necessary administrative and policy making responsi-
bility. Where local institutions such as the school board, the police
Department or health, welfare, community action, renewal, housing,”
‘or manpower agencies have not been adequately involved in planning,
project proposals affecting these areas tend to be unrealistic or not
feasible of prompt implementation.
Local Model Cities plans are expected to ineiide experimental ©
approaches and activities. They should not represent simply an
expansion of traditional programs which in some cases have not been
fully effective in meeting needs and in which the people of the
target neighborhood lack confidence. Cities should strive for
institutional change wherever appropriate to make programs more
responsive to neighborhood needs; and, they can also include projects -
and activities to be carried out by new organizations such as neighbrir-
hood corporations. But cities must also take advantage of accumulated
competence and expertise, and therefore, should coordinate existing
_ services and rely on capable existing institutions, in most casés, for
new, changed or expanded projects or activities. Only the chief
executive officer of the city has the capacity to assure that this
mobilization of all available resources occurs. The creation of new
institutions for activities that existing institutions can perform
effectively and well tends to create unnecessary problems. Use of
supplementary funds to bargain out changes in policy and practice of
existing institutions could result in getting changes that will make
programs more effective and responsive to neighborhood needs.
an:
4, The CDA role in program execution. In a number of the
early comprehensive plan submissions the local Model Cities agency
and/or the citizen participation unit have been assigned major
roles as project operators. These roles have ranged from the job
of running a manpower program, which has traditionally been operated
by the State employment service, the local CAA or a voluntary agency
to the jobs of preparing comprehensive: physical development plans
or acquiring land for low-income housing -- tasks again that tra-
ditionally have been handled by local planning or renewal agencies.
HUD's policy is that local City Demonstration Agencies (and their
Model Cities staff and citizen participation arms) are not intended
to serve as program operators... CDA Letter No. 6 specifically states
that "The CDA is not meant to be a multi-functional operating agency."
CDA's are expected to coordinate the activities of the various
existing agencies whose new or existing functions impact on the model
neighborhood. CDA's are expected to use their supplemental funds to_
influence and persuade these existing agencies to modify present
practices, priorities and programs and to undertake new efforts that
will deal effectively with the problems identified and goals established
as a result of Model Cities planning.
Where there is no appropriate existing agency to carry out a new
program which has been planned as part of the Model Cities effort,
the city can certainly organize a new operating agency - such as a
nonprofit corporation. The CDA or its citizen board should be a
program operator only as the last resort and then only as a transition
matter. If the CDA becomes a program operator, your Model Cities
program could easily become just another local program competing for
scarce resources and incapable of effectively performing the coordination,
resource allocation, and institutional change role for which it is
intended.
The Model Cities program is not intended to be a substitute for
local institutions. Rather it is intended to make them more responsive
to the needs of the community and to improve their capability. Insti-
tution building, not institution substitution is the rule.
5. Concentration on a few priority programs. Many first year
action programs include so many projects and activities that city
administrators may well have a difficult time managing the program.
In some cases it appears that the need to set priorities has not been
recognized. While the five-year program must be comprehensive in the
sense that it deal with all major problems, we suggest that the city's
attack on these problems may well be more efficient and more effective
LA
if the city concentrates first on a relatively few high priority
programs rather than spreading energies and available resources
over a large number of desirable but perhaps not quite so critical
projects and activities. ;
6. Length of submissions. Parts I and II of the program
submissions are too long. We believe the city would benefit by the
development of a concise statement that concentrates on the most
important matters rather than submitting what in some cases seems
like relatively raw, undigested material. A tightly organized 75
page problem analysis, goal statement, strategy, and five-year
forecast would probably be a much more effective document, locally
and for the Federal Government. 7
Comments