Dublin Core
Title
Box 15, Folder 3, Document 49
Text Item Type Metadata
Text
- 12? =
The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and the Chairman of the
National Governors’ Conference should appoint a Joint Task Force to
prepare legislative and administrative proposals to meet the housing
needs of all persons receiving federal welfare and housing assistance.
Kee ie HR eg ek
The States and Model Cities: HEW and HUD
Recommendation 13: HEW-Model Cities Relations
As HEW begins to re-structure its programs to provide
that adequate attention is focused on urban areas and
Model Cities in particular, HEW should seek to renovate
existing HEW-State relations to accomplish this task
rather than trying to develop its own HEW delivery
system at the local level, as it is now doing in Model
Cities. The Secretary of HEW should require the con-
currence of the Governor for all HEW funds earmarked
and spent through state agencies in Model Cities.
HEW should seek to re-structure its relations with its own Regional Offices,
State Agencies and the Governors with a view to insuring that State machinery
is responding to the priority needs of urban areas. This method is preferred
over the alternative of direct HEW-local relations as is being undertaken
in the Model Cities Program. HEW already has 200 field people assigned to
work directly with Model Cities. A similar deployment of personnel to the
Governors' offices would produce an ability to coordinate and deliver most
HEW and State services needed for the orderly development of all local
communities. Direct Federal-local relations have no great record of achieve-
ment, except in food production. HEW has historically used the States to
deliver a good record of health, education, and social services to people
regardless of where they live. We recommend a modification of the existing
HEW-State system rather than direct HEW-local relations, to meet the priority
needs of urban America.
Recommendation 14: HUD-Model Cities Relations
Congress should amend the Model Cities legislation to
provide for a lesitimate and positive role for State
government in the operation of the program. Specifi-
cally, Section 105 of the "Model Cities and Metropoli-
tan Development Act of 1966 should be amended to
authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment to make matching grants to the States to provide
continuing planning, coordination, programming and
technical assistance services to model city agencies,
In those states where the state contributes a substan-
tial portion of the local non-federal financial share,
the program should provide for state concurrence in
the approval of the selection, program development and
funding of all model cities applications.
- 13-
HUD should immediately provide for State review and
comment on model city work programs and supplemental
grants .
The Model Cities Program should be re-evaluated with a
view toward its extension to the entire city and making
it the coordination and delivery system for all federal
grants coming into the model city, plus an appropriate
role for the State for the delivery of State programs.
The Model Cities program has reached the point where closer Federal-State
Community cooperation is essential. The program very shortly will be oper-
ating in over 40 States and in some 150 cities, both large and small, with
a total population of 50,000,000 people. Not only the 6,000,000 people in
the model neighborhood areas stand to benefit, but also the total city by
the emphasis upon local innovation and the development of more effective
and responsive procedures and policies at all levels of government. This
program could well become the prototype for a new federal assistance
delivery system.
HUD has invited Governors and other appropriate State officials to partici-
pate as partners with the cities in the development of Model Cities compre-
hensive program submissions, and to contribute to the review of these programs.
However, federal legislation provides no clearly defined role for State govern-
ment in the program, and the problems of coordination among the federal
departments involved remained unsolved.
The States continue to be concerned about the lack of communication between
HUD, model city applicants, and the Governor's office. The States have
repeatedly said that state budgets and programs cannot be suddenly changed
at some indefinite future date when the model city applicant comes to the
state for approval of project elements that are part of long-range state
development programs.
At the state level, the Governor's office should assume authority under
federal legislation to coordinate the program as it operates through line
agencies, to sychronize local Model Cities plans with state plans, and
(either directly or through an agency for community affairs) to provide
financial and technical assistance to the Model Cities.
Either through administrative change or by amending the Demonstration Cities
Act, supplemental federal funds should be made available to states which
appropriate funds for financial or technical assistance to Model Cities.
This, in turn, would provide the incentive of the "multiplier effect" to
State Legislatures and would encourage large appropriations. Where possi-
ble, both federal and state flexible funds should be earmarked for priority
use in Model Cities, as has been done with federal urban renewal funds.
8 ai) eel Sy os
The Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare and the Chairman of the
National Governors’ Conference should appoint a Joint Task Force to
prepare legislative and administrative proposals to meet the housing
needs of all persons receiving federal welfare and housing assistance.
Kee ie HR eg ek
The States and Model Cities: HEW and HUD
Recommendation 13: HEW-Model Cities Relations
As HEW begins to re-structure its programs to provide
that adequate attention is focused on urban areas and
Model Cities in particular, HEW should seek to renovate
existing HEW-State relations to accomplish this task
rather than trying to develop its own HEW delivery
system at the local level, as it is now doing in Model
Cities. The Secretary of HEW should require the con-
currence of the Governor for all HEW funds earmarked
and spent through state agencies in Model Cities.
HEW should seek to re-structure its relations with its own Regional Offices,
State Agencies and the Governors with a view to insuring that State machinery
is responding to the priority needs of urban areas. This method is preferred
over the alternative of direct HEW-local relations as is being undertaken
in the Model Cities Program. HEW already has 200 field people assigned to
work directly with Model Cities. A similar deployment of personnel to the
Governors' offices would produce an ability to coordinate and deliver most
HEW and State services needed for the orderly development of all local
communities. Direct Federal-local relations have no great record of achieve-
ment, except in food production. HEW has historically used the States to
deliver a good record of health, education, and social services to people
regardless of where they live. We recommend a modification of the existing
HEW-State system rather than direct HEW-local relations, to meet the priority
needs of urban America.
Recommendation 14: HUD-Model Cities Relations
Congress should amend the Model Cities legislation to
provide for a lesitimate and positive role for State
government in the operation of the program. Specifi-
cally, Section 105 of the "Model Cities and Metropoli-
tan Development Act of 1966 should be amended to
authorize the Secretary of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment to make matching grants to the States to provide
continuing planning, coordination, programming and
technical assistance services to model city agencies,
In those states where the state contributes a substan-
tial portion of the local non-federal financial share,
the program should provide for state concurrence in
the approval of the selection, program development and
funding of all model cities applications.
- 13-
HUD should immediately provide for State review and
comment on model city work programs and supplemental
grants .
The Model Cities Program should be re-evaluated with a
view toward its extension to the entire city and making
it the coordination and delivery system for all federal
grants coming into the model city, plus an appropriate
role for the State for the delivery of State programs.
The Model Cities program has reached the point where closer Federal-State
Community cooperation is essential. The program very shortly will be oper-
ating in over 40 States and in some 150 cities, both large and small, with
a total population of 50,000,000 people. Not only the 6,000,000 people in
the model neighborhood areas stand to benefit, but also the total city by
the emphasis upon local innovation and the development of more effective
and responsive procedures and policies at all levels of government. This
program could well become the prototype for a new federal assistance
delivery system.
HUD has invited Governors and other appropriate State officials to partici-
pate as partners with the cities in the development of Model Cities compre-
hensive program submissions, and to contribute to the review of these programs.
However, federal legislation provides no clearly defined role for State govern-
ment in the program, and the problems of coordination among the federal
departments involved remained unsolved.
The States continue to be concerned about the lack of communication between
HUD, model city applicants, and the Governor's office. The States have
repeatedly said that state budgets and programs cannot be suddenly changed
at some indefinite future date when the model city applicant comes to the
state for approval of project elements that are part of long-range state
development programs.
At the state level, the Governor's office should assume authority under
federal legislation to coordinate the program as it operates through line
agencies, to sychronize local Model Cities plans with state plans, and
(either directly or through an agency for community affairs) to provide
financial and technical assistance to the Model Cities.
Either through administrative change or by amending the Demonstration Cities
Act, supplemental federal funds should be made available to states which
appropriate funds for financial or technical assistance to Model Cities.
This, in turn, would provide the incentive of the "multiplier effect" to
State Legislatures and would encourage large appropriations. Where possi-
ble, both federal and state flexible funds should be earmarked for priority
use in Model Cities, as has been done with federal urban renewal funds.
8 ai) eel Sy os
Comments