Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1515970
label
Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee - Meeting with the President, July 21, 1976
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1515970
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization Committee - Meeting with the President, July 21, 1976
citationUrl
collections
James M. Cannon Files (Ford Administration)
James Cannon's Issues Files
subjects
Intergovernmental relations
Local government
Urban policy
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1515970
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-07-31
month
7
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1976-07-01
month
7
year
1976
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
12d3818010dda3d0
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 38, folder "Urban Development and
Neighborhood Revitalization Committee - Meeting with the President, July 21, 1976" of the
James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 38 of the James M. Cannon Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
MEETING ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
WITH PRESIDENT
Wednesday, July 21, 1976
11:30 a.m.
Cabinet Room
45 minutes
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 6, 1976
Kris;
Please put this on JMC schedule
thank you.
cameron
Wed.
stily 21 2'
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
CC: Lynn May
DEPARTMENT
OF
U.S.
HOUSING
*
THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
A
AND
WASHINGTON, D. C.. 20410
URBAN
MEMORANDUM FOR: James M. Cannon
Assistant to the President
for Domestic Affairs
SUBJECT
: The President's Committee on Urban Development
and Neighborhood Revitalization
The President has charged us to make our many programs
work more effectively in cities and their neighborhoods.
To begin our work, I ask that each Department prepare
concise summaries of its major program activities that
affect the quality of life in urban communities. I presented
a suggested form at the White House meeting on Tuesday. I
believe it is important that our representatives meet soon
to ensure that the form and substance of the summaries will
be useful to the Committee. Please name a representative at
a high level in your Department or Agency to attend the
meeting and work on this program review and future assign-
ments. Charles J. Orlebeke, HUD's Assistant Secretary for
Policy Development and Research, will serve as my repre-
sentative. The first meeting of our designees will be
July 7 at 10:00 a.m. in room 8202, Department of HUD.
Please notify Mr. Orlebeke's office, 755-5600, of the name
of your representative as soon as possible.
The success of the Committee depends on the strong,
serious and continuing personal participation of each
Committee member I intend to devote a major portion of my
time and energy to the challenge that it entails. I ask
that you reserve the Time of the next Committee meeting,
July 19, at 2:00, so that we can review the program analyses
and agree to a concrete work plan for the coming months.
Carla A. Hills
Attachment
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
The cities of this nation and the neighborhoods which
are their backbone today face increasingly difficult
problems of decay and decline.
Our society is one of constant change and movement.
This fact has both its positive and negative effects. The
areas most likely to suffer from technological, demographic,
and social change are our older cities.
In recent years, rapid changes in communications,
manufacturing, technology, transportation, and social
expectation have combined to cause migration from older
cities to the suburbs and to expanding areas in the South
and West.
These developments have produced severe strains on
older cities, forcing city governments to cope with the
potentially devastating pressures of a stagnant or declining
economic base coupled with a growing need for services which
are becoming more and more expensive. For some time my
Administration has been examining these problems, and I
have proposed major program consolidations in health,
education, and social services.
Some eight weeks ago, I had the pleasure of meeting
with representatives of many ethnic organizations that have
been holding periodic gatherings here at the White House.
In my remarks that day, I asked those leaders if they
would tell us what they think needs to be done to bring
new life and vitality to our urban neighborhood.
Their number one recommendation was that we should set
up a task force within the Government to review all major
Federal programs that have an dupact upon urban and
neighborhood life.
Today I am pleased to announce that I an appointing a
Cabinet-level task force to carry out that mission. This
new Presidential Committee on Urban Development and
Neighborhood Revitalization will be chaired by the Secretary
of Housing and Urban Development, Carla Hills.
Yesterday afternoon I met with Secretary Hills and other
members of the committee and asked them to begin an immediate
review of current Federal programs which have an impact upon
cities and their neighborhoods.
They are to seek the perspectives of local officials and
neighborhood groups on Federal programs which affect them and
to develop recommendations for improvements in Federal
policies and programs.
In setting up this committee, 123 premise is that many
Federal programs now on the books are worthwhile and should
be continued, especially those which encourage local initiative
more
GERALD
2
and local leadership. It is particularly urgent that the
Congress act soon to re-enact the General Revenue Sharing
Program.
At the same time, it is clear that the Federal Government
must find better ways to coordinate its many programs, that
some programs should be consolidated and that still other
programs should be phased out altogether. The commitment
to serving our cities and urban neighborhoods need not re-
quire massive new funding programs; a great deal of Federal
money is currently being spent. What is clearly required is
that we make better use of resources that are already
available.
In my discussions with ethnic leaders, I have also been
impressed that. the Federal Government can do more to encourage
a greater sense of community, a sense of belonging within our
urban centers. In this Bicentennial year, it is especially
important that we seek to enhance the values of family, of
community and of cultural diversity that have been the strength
and richness of America for many years.
The Presidential Committee I have appointed will perform
a great service for the country by helping to revitalize urban
and neighborhood life in America.
####
FOR INTEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 30, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
FACT SHEET
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
The President today announced the creation of his Committee
on Urban Development and Neighborhood Revitalization to examine
urban problems and to make recommendations to improve current
Federal programs in order to revitalize urban and neighborhood
areas. The Committee will be chaired by Carla A. Hills,
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and include 8
Cabinet members, 3 agency heads, 2 independent regulatory
agencies (by invitation), and members of the White House
staff.
BACKGROUND
The President has long been concerned about the difficulties
besetting many of our cities and the neighborhoods from which
the cities draw their vitality and stability. He is particu-
larly concerned that Federal efforts are not adequately dealing
with the problems of the cities despite the many Federal pro-
grams which are intended to meet urban needs and despite the
substantial amount of Federal funds channeled to the nation's
cities. He is convinced that by better using the resources
currently available the Federal Government can be a more
effective partner with State and local governments in
resolving urban problems.
The President is creating this Committee to analyze these
problems and to develop proposals for greater cooperation and
coordination among the Federal agencies administering programs
which have an impact on cities and their neighborhoods.
This Committee will also be a response to the recommendations
of a recent Conference on Ethnicity and Heighborhood Revitali-
zation held at the White House. That group recommended that
the President establish a committee to study urban problems as
they are perceived on the neighborhood level.
RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PRESIDENT'S CONMITTEE
The Committee is comprised of the heads of the Federal agencies
which have primary responsibility for programs affecting the
cities, including their neighborhoods and surrounding communi-
ties. The Committee will study the problems both from a broad
Federal policy perspective and from the perspective of those
who live in urban neighborhoods. Specifically, the Committee
will be responsible for:
more
2
1. Conducting a comprehensive review of all major
Federal programs which have an impact on the
cities and their neighborhoods and reporting
results to the President:
2. Seeking the perspectives of local officials
and neighborhood groups on Federal programs
which affect them;
3. Developing recommendations to the President
and the Congress for changes in Federal policies
and programs affecting cities and their neigh-
borhoods in order to place maximum decision-
making responsibility at the local level, to
remove legal and administrative obstacles to
exercise this authority, and to provide for
better coordination and delivery of Federal
programs.
MEMBERS OF THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Chairman)
The Secretary of the Treasury
The Attorney General
The Secretary of Agriculture
The Secretary of Commerce
The Secretary of Labor
The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
The Secretary of Transportation
Director, Office of Management and Budget
Administrator, Small Business Administration
Director, Community Services Administration
Executive Director, Domestic Council
Director, White House Office of Public Liaison
By invitation:
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Federal Home Loan Bank Board
####
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 30, 1976
Office of the White House Press Secretary
THE WHITE HOUSE
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE
THE SECRETARY OF CONTERCE
THE SECRETARY OF LABOR
THE SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION,
AND WELFARE
THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT
THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION
THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET
THE DIRECTOR, SHALL BUSINESS
ADMINISTRATION
THE DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY SERVICES
ADMINISTRATION
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DOMESTIC COUNCIL
THE ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR
PUBLIC LIAISON
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF GOVERNORS
OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FEDERAL HOME LOAN
BANK BOARD
SUBJECT:
President's Committee on Urban Development
and Neighborhood Revitalization
I an today establishing a Committee on Urban Development and
Neighborhood Revitalization to examine urban problems and to
make recommendations to improve current Federal programs in
order to revitalize urban and neighborhood areas. The
Committee will study the problems both from a broad Federal
policy perspective and from the perspective of those who live
in urban neighborhoods. Specifically, the Committee will be
responsible for:
1.
Conducting a comprehensive review of all major
Federal programs which have an impact on the
cities and their neighborhoods and reporting
results to the President;
2.
Seeking the perspectives of local officials
and neighborhood groups on Federal programs
which affect them;
more
FORD
2
3. Developing recommendations to the President
and the Congress for changes in Federal policies
and programs affecting cities and their neighbor-
hoods in order to place maximum decision-making
responsibility at the local level, to remove
legal and administrative obstacles to exercise
this authority, and to provide for better
coordination and delivery of Federal programs.
The Committee will be chaired by the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, and include the Secretary of the Treasury,
the Attorney General, the Secretary of Agriculture, the
Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Secretary of Transpor-
tation, the Director of Office of Management and Budget, the
Director of the Small Business Administration, the Director
of Community Services Administration, the Executive Director
of the Domestic Council, the Assistant to the President for
Public Liaison; and, by invitation, the Chairman of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Chairman
of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board.
GERALD R. FORD
####
FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
REQUEST
WASHINGTON
July 9, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR JIM CANNON
FROM:
LYNN MAY Lynn
SUBJECT:
President's Committee on Urban Development
and Neighborhood Revitalization
Attached is a summary of the first working group meeting
of the President's Committee on Urban Development and
Neighborhood Revitalization. Page 4 contains the projected
timetable.
Attachment
CC: Bill Baroody
Art Quern
Allen Moore
Steve McConahey
SUMMARY: Meeting of Liaison Committee, July 7, 1976
President's Committee on Urban Development and
Neighborhood Revitalization
The following agencies were represented:
Small Business Administration
Domestic Council
Transportation
Justice
Economic Development Administration
Community Services Administration
Health, Education and Welfare
Office of Management and Budget
Agriculture
Environmental Protection Agency
Labor
Treasury
White House
Federal Home Loan Board
I. Introduction
Secretary Hills opened the meeting with a short statement,
noting that the Committee should be looking at the impact of
Federal programs on the quality of life in our neighborhoods
and center cities.
Paraphrase: If we were to start these programs anew, we
would not organize them as they are: The
objectives of different Federal programs
often conflict with one another; their
funding cycles conflict with each other.
More importantly, they often conflict with
State and local funding/budget cycles.
The classic example of Federal agencies
working at cross-purposes is HUD's funding
rehabilitation in a neighborhood being
undermined by highway construction.
The Committee must act quickly to convince
the public that the effort is a meaningful
one.
After introductions were made, Orlebeke summarized the
mandate of the Committee:
1. Review Federal programs.
2. Conduct public hearings.
3. Recommend changes.
He foresees three kinds of recommendations:
1. Reforms which can be implemented immediately
administratively.
2. Reforms which can be implemented through regulatory
modification.
3. Reforms which require legislative changes.
II. Preparation of Summary Sheets
Selection of Programs
Orlebeke called attention to the program summary sheets
which had been distributed to members of the Committee, noting
that each agency will need to use judgment in selecting the
programs to be included.
Discussion followed on the methods of categorizing programs,
and selecting ones for inclusion. HEW has 390 different
programs, many of which flow through the States to local
units of government. Orlebeke emphasized that we are looking
at impact, rather than the mechanics of administration.
Meeker of HUD suggested excluding from initial considera-
tion income maintenance programs, distinguishing between
physical revitalization efforts and other programs having to do
with personal welfare and well-being. Several disagreed,
indicating that those programs may have significant effects
on urban areas. The most obvious example is the welfare
cost carried by many local governments which has aggravated
serious fiscal problems. Other income maintenance programs
may have less immediately evident impacts caused by the way
they are administered. It was agreed that no program would
be arbitrarily excluded from consideration because the re-
cipients are not local governments, or because the funding
arrangement involved pass-throughs or administration by a
State or local level of government.
3
EDA suggested a typology of programs which might be used;
HEW indicated that they would probably be guided by it:
1. Funds flowing directly to local governments (or, in
limited cases, neighborhoods).
2. Funds flowing through other levels of government,
but eventually getting to the urban area.
3. Payments to individuals.
Treatment of each program on the summary sheet will be
handled on a case-by-case basis, depending on the Agency's
judgment as to its identifiable impact However, the exclu-
sion of any program must be accompanied by an explanation
or rationale for that exclusion, SO that important but less
obvious program relationships are not overlooked.
Modification to Summary Sheet
1. Add question 13: What major changes or modificatins
to this program are now being considered which would be rele-
vant to this Committee? Include proposed program terminations
or consolidations and FY 78 budget options.
2. Rephrase question 6: Is this program Luministered
or structured by population categories? If so, what are
they? What is the approximate distribution of funds among
these categories?
3. Provide rationale for exclusion of any program.
4. Add to question 9: Identify major public interest
groups or trade associations with whom you regularly deal
in administering this program. Note relevant hearings
already held.
5. Add to question 8: What has been the agency's response
to these criticisms? What restrictions (policy, administra-
tive, regulatory, legislative) affect your ability to respond?
6. As appropriate include anecdotal "horror stories"
which would be illustrative of program impacts.
4
III. Planning for Public Hearings
Orlebeke indicated that no plans had yet been made re-
garding the who, what, why, how and when of the public
hearings which are a part of the Committee's mandate.
Several agencies indicated that they have been holding
hearings relevant to this topic. Several others noted that
the White House hearings, the recent Congressional hearings
and the White House conference have aired the complaints
of neighborhood organizations. Nevertheless, Hamm of OMB
noted, those groups still do not believe they are being
heard. Orlebeke indicated that a member of his staff is
preparing an analysis of the Congressional testimony.
The difficulty of holding hearings in a very political
period preceding the election was acknowledged.
There appeared to be a consensus that any hearings would
have to have a focus which moved beyond an airing of grievances.
Consultation with public, whether in public hearings or
meetings with smaller groups, should focus on specific
remedies for the problems. Newman of CARF suggested that
hearings be held to review the alternatives the Committee
was proposing to the President. Alm of EPA emphasized the
importance of involving such groups early, so that it was
not simply public exercise with little substantive input.
Several expressed concern about the divergence of views
which would come from such different groups as local
officials, State officials, and neighborhood groups.
No decisions were reached regarding public hearings.
IV. Related Efforts Recent or Ongoing
A number of analytic products were identified which might
be useful to the Committee:
-DOT did an analysis of the Vice President's hearings
as they related to that agency.
-ACIR and OMB collaborated on study of flow of Federal
funds in 1970.
-ACIR study of "UMJO's" in 1973.
-HUD's study of Chief Executive Review and Comment
process in 16 cities
-HUD's evaluations of Model Cities program.
5
V. Timetable and Immediate Objectives
Agency summary sheets are due on July 14. By the July 19
meeting of the Committee, Orlebeke hopes to have synthesized a
picture of the Federal program structure as the liaison group
sees it impacting on urban areas. It must be in an "intellec-
tually accessible" form. Meeker suggested that the major
finding is likely to be that there is no obvious framework
for dealing with this subject: the Federal government cannot
coordinate its resources to a target group.
Following the President's Committee meeting, the liaison
group will meet to plan implementation of the Committee's
decisions. Probably during late July or early August, con-
sultation with public groups and officials will take place
in an as yet undefined framework. The liaison group and
subgroups of its members will meet periodically during
August and September or write a report, due to the President
on September 24.
Several persons expressed concern that the Committee's
objectives and final product needs more specific definition
before proceeding.
Halpern of DOT emphasized the need to ref me the Committee's
objectives so that it does more than reproduce the Catalog
of Federal Assistance.
Newman of CARF suggested that it be a matching of programs
with problems which have been identified.
Hamm saw a need for criteria with which to review the
program summaries.
Agreeing with all these comments, Orlebeke urged members
of the liaison group to forward their ideas on the public
meetings, the framework for analysis and possible categories
of recommendations. He indicated that he would be contacting
members of the liaison group for support.
U.S. DEPARTMENT * 0, KOUNING * AND
THE SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, D.C.. 20410
JUL 2 0 1975
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM:
Carla A. Hills
SUBJECT:
Briefing Paper for July 21, 1976 Meeting
of The President's Committee on Urban
Development and Neighborhood Revitalization
A. Purpose of Meeting
The purpose of the meeting is:
(1) To review and discuss the ways in which major
federal grant and loan programs flow into
urban areas. The review will be based on an
initial survey of programs submitted by the
member agencies of the Committee to
Secretary Hills.
(2) To adopt a plan to consult with local officials
and neighborhoods.
(3) To adopt a timetable for preparing and submitting
an initial report to the President.
B. Background
The President's Committee on Urban Development and
Neighborhood Revitalization was appointed on June 30, 1976,
and given a three-part charge:
(1) Review major federal programs which have an
impact on cities and their neighborhoods.
(2) Consult local officials and neighborhood groups
on federal programs which affect them.
(3) Recommend to the President and the Congress
changes in federal policies and programs
affecting cities and their neighborhoods in
order to place maximum decision-making respon-
sibility at the local level, to remove legal
and administrative obstacles to exercise of this
authority, and to provide for better coordination
and delivery of federal programs.
Appointment of the President's Committee resulted in
part from a White House Conference on Ethnicity and Neighbor-
hood Revitalization (May 5) co-sponsored by the Office of
Public Liaison and the National Center for Urban Ethnic
Affairs. Discussions with the Cabinet on June 29 led to
the decision to give the Committee a broader urban focus.
2
Legislation is currently pending in Congress to create
a two-year Presidentially-appointed National Commission
on Neighborhoods to study the impact of federal programs on
neighborhood problems and make recommendations. Chances
of early passage appear good.
C. Progress to Date
The Committee has formed a Liaison Committee consisting
of one representative, usually a sub-Cabinet officer, from
each agency. The Liaison Committee has prepared a quick
survey of major federal urban programs designed to provide
information on program objectives, structure, and flow of
dollars to various levels of government. The survey also
called for an initial assessment of program coordination
problems and of criticisms levelled by local officials and
neighborhoods.
Within HUD, Secretary Hills has developed a tentative
list of management principles for the delivery of federal
grant and loan programs based on the Administration's
philosophy of giving local elected officials maximum
responsibility and flexibility. These principles include:
(1) Preference for use of block grants, with broad
guidelines;
(2) Preference for funding through locally-elected
chief executive officers;
(3) Conformance of the grant-making cycle to local
budget cycles;
(4) Preference for providing funds to cover 100%
of costs rather than requiring matching;
(5) Preference for multi-year entitlement funding;
(6) Preference for enforcing Federal requirements
through monitoring rather than front-end review --
Davis-Bacon, environment, and EO; and
(7) Use of a "timeclock", or deadline for Federal
action on applications, preferably with automatic
approval at the end of the review period.
3
D. Proposed Objectives of the President's Committee
The Committee should deliver an interim report to the
President by October 1 with the following components:
(1) An outline of proposed principles governing
federal-state-local relationships which will
form the basis for long-term reform of the
federal delivery system.
(2) An assessment of federal program impacts on
cities and neighborhoods, based on extensive
consultation with state and local officials and
neighborhood groups.
(3) Immediate-effect initiatives which can be taken by
agencies to improve interagency coordination,
reduce application requirements, streamline
processing, and increase local discretion and
flexibility.
In the longer run, the Committee should develop a
proposed legislative program which could include additional
block grant proposals, tax incentives designed to stimulate
urban and neighborhood preservation, and changes in grant
distribution formulae designed to channel funds to declining
cities and/or regions.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 20, 1976
MEETING WITH THE PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE
ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND
NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
Wednesday, July 21, 1976
11:30 a.m.
Cabinet Room
From: Jim Cannon Sur
I.
PURPOSE
The purpose of the meeting is:
--
To review and discuss the ways in which major Federal
grant and loan programs flow into urban areas. The
review will be based on an initial survey of programs
submitted by the member agencies of the Committee to
Secretary Hills.
-- To adopt a plan to consult with local officials and
neighborhoods.
--
To adopt a timetable for preparing and submitting an
initial report to the President.
II. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS, AND PRESS PLAN
A.
Background:
The President's Committee on Urban Development and
Neighborhood Revitalization was appointed on June 30,
1976, and given a three-part charge:
--
Review major Federal programs which have an
impact on cities and their neighborhoods.
-- Consult local officials and neighborhood groups on
Federal programs which affect them.
--
Recommend to the President and the Congress changes
in Federal policies and programs affecting cities
and their neighborhoods in order to place maximum
decision-making responsibility at the local level,
to remove legal and administrative obstacles to
exercise of this authority, and to provide for
better coordination and delivery of Federal programs.
-2-
Appointment of the President's Committee resulted in part
from a White House Conference on Ethnicity and Neighborhood
Revitalization (May 5) co-sponsored by the Office of Public
Liaison and the National Center for Urban Ethnic Affairs.
Discussions with the Cabinet on June 29 led to the decision
to give the Committee a broader urban focus.
Legislation is currently pending in Congress to create a
two-year Presidentially-appointed National Commission on
Neighborhoods to study the impact of Federal programs on
neighborhood problems and make recommendations. Chances of
early passage appear good.
Progress to Date
The Committee has formed a Liaison Committee consisting of
one representative, usually a sub-Cabinet officer, from each
agency. The Liaison Committee has prepared a quick survey
of major Federal urban programs designed to provide in-
formation on program objectives, structure, and flow of
dollars to various levels of government. The survey also
called for an initial assessment of program coordination
problems and of criticisms levelled by local officials and
neighborhoods.
Within HUD, Secretary Hills has developed a tentative list
of management principles for the delivery of Federal grant
and loan programs based on the Administration's philosophy
of giving local elected officials maximum responsibility and
flexibility. These principles include:
--
Preference for use of block grants, with broad guidelines;
--
Preference for funding through locally-elected chief
executive officers;
Conformance of the grant-making cycle to local budget
cycles;
--
Preference for providing funds to cover 100% of costs
rather than requiring matching;
--
Preference for multi-year entitlement funding;
Preference for enforcing Federal requirements through
monitoring rather than front-end review -- David-Bacon,
environment, and EO; and
--
Use of "timeclock", or deadline for Federal action on
applications, preferably with automatic approval at the
end of the review period.
-3-
Proposed Objectives of the President's Committee
The Committee should deliver an interim report to the
President by October 1 with the following components:
---
An outline of proposed principles governing Federal
State-local relationships which will form the basis for
long-term reform of the Federal delivery system.
--
An assessment of Federal program impacts on cities and
neighborhoods, based on extensive consultation with
State and local officials and neighborhood groups.
--
Immediate-effect initiatives which can be taken by
agencies to improve interagency coordination, reduce
application requirements, streamline processing, and
increase local discretion and flexibility.
In the longer run, the Committee should develop a proposed
legislative program which could include additional block
grant proposals, tax incentives designed to stimulate urban
and neighborhood preservation, and changes in grant distribution
formulae designed to channel funds to declining cities
and/or regions.
B.
Participants
See Tab A.
C.
Press Plan
To be determined during the meeting.
PARTICIPANTS:
Secretary Carla A. Hills (Chairman)
Jerry Thomas, Under Secretary, Department of the Treasury,
for Secretary Simon
Henry F. McQuade, Deputy Administrator for Policy Division,
LEAA, Department of Justice, for the Attorney General
William Walker, Assistant Secretary for Rural Development,
Department of Agriculture, for Secretary Butz
Secretary Elliot L. Richardson
Richard Darman, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department
of Commerce
Secretary W. J. Usery
William Morrill, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation,
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, for Secretary
Mathews
Secretary William T. Coleman, Jr.
Mitchell P. Kobelinski, Administrator, Small Business
Administration
Michael P. Balzano, Jr., Director, ACTION
Samuel Martinez, Director, Community Services Administration
Jim Cannon, Director, Domestic Council
Bill Baroody, Director, White House Office of Public Liaison
AGENDA
July 21, 1976
PRESIDENT'S COMMITTEE ON URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AND NEIGHBORHOOD REVITALIZATION
1. Discussion of Initial Survey of Federal Programs
2. Discussion of Organizing Principles
3.. Discussion of Proposed Meetings with State and
Local Officials, and Neighborhood Groups
4. Discussion of Proposed Work Plan and Timetable
5. Discussion of Possible Early Initiatives
PROGRAM SURVEY
SUMMARY
SUMMARY RESULTS OF INITIAL PROGRAM SURVEY
An initial survey of federal program relating to the
President's Committee's interests was conducted July 7-14.
The survey consisted of agency responses to a Program
Summary Sheet (attached). Thirteen agencies responded
with information on 103 programs.
In spite of the quick turnaround time for agency
responses, the survey produced a useful first look at the
range and variety of federal programs impacting on urban
areas and neighborhoods. The survey also contained items
of information on program evaluations, on problems and
criticisms relating to program operation and coordination,
and on the job impact of some programs. However, because
of the variety of programs, there was a lack of uniformity
and comparability in the information submitted, and
therefore further collection and analysis of program
information will be necessary.
In reviewing the survey, we also attempt to assess
the program against a tentative list of management
principles for the delivery of federal grant and loan
programs based on the Administration's philosophy of
giving local elected officials maximum responsibility
and flexibility. These principles include:
(1) Preference for use of block grants, with
broad guidelines;
(2) Preference for funding through locally-
elected chief executive officers;
(3) Conformance of the grant-making cycle to
local budget cycles;
(4) Preference for providing funds to cover 100%
of costs rather than requiring matching;
(5) Preference for multi-year entitlement funding;
(6) Preference for enforcing Federal requirements
through monitoring rather than front-end review--
Davis-Bacon, environment, and EO; and
(7) Use of a "timeclock", or deadline for Federal
action on applications, preferably with
automatic approval at the end of the review
period.
-2-
Since these specific program characteristics were
not asked of the agencies, it was not possible during the
first review to get precise answers to each question.
Generally, however, the review confirmed in some detail
that which was largely known: few funds flowing to urban
areas are in any form other than the categorical grants-in-
aid.
Of the 103 programs summarized, 63 were grant programs,
of which four were block grants and 59 were categoricals. The
remaining 40 varied from direct provision of services to loans
and loan guarantees. A rough estimation of the Federal funds
covered by the 103 programs is $43 billion, of which
$19 billion are categorical grants, $16.9 billion block
grants, and $7 billion other types of assistance
(including value of insurance and loan guarantees).
In about one-fourth of the programs, local governments
are eligible . direct applicants, but in many of these they
are not the only eligible group, and must compete with
States and local organizations. In other programs, funds
are allocated on a formula basis to States, who then
allocate them on a grant basis among local jurisdictions,
or to local agencies other than general purpose governments.
Matching funds are generally required from State and
local governments; often they are not required from non-
profit organizations.
As categorical grant programs, virtually all have
extensive application review requirements, with few limits
on the time a Federal agency can review an application,
nor any assurance of approval after lengthy delay.
The exceptions to these comments are few. General
Revenue Sharing, of course, is the prototype in most respects.
HUD's Community Development Block Grant program generally
meets the seven characteristics. Labor's CETA program is
also a block grant going to local governments ("prime
sponsor") based on a formula. However, it is not an entitle-
ment, and has more extensive planning and application review
procedures. Finally, LEAA provides block grants to States
based on population for criminal justice planning, of which
at least 40 percent must pass through to local governments.
PROGRAM SUMMARY SHEET
1. Program name and statute.
2. Relevant background information, including date
program began.
3. Objectives.
4. Program description.
5. Eligible grantees, funding level, timing and
mechanism.
6. Is this program administered or structured by
population categories of recipients? If so, what
are they? For FY '76, what is the approximate
distribution of funds among these categories?
7. Summary of any evaluations done of the program.
8. What criticisms or questions have been raised by
public officials or citizens groups as to the
programs impact of effectiveness?
What has been the agency's response to these
criticisms? What restrictions (policy, adminis-
trative, regulatory, legislative) affect your
ability to respond?
9. To whom would we talk at hearings, workships and
interviews to obtain the perspectives of local
officials and neighborhood groups on this program
as it affects them? Identify major public interest
groups or trade associations with whom you regularly
deal in administering this program. Note any
relevant hearings already held.
10. As currently administered by your agency and
operated at the local level, does the program take
into account, relate positively, or possibly
conflict with, other federal or local programs
related to urban and neighborhood development?
Please summarize.
-2-
11. How does (or could) the program fit into a
strategy for neighborhood preservation or
revitalization?
12. If the program is or can be analyzed in terms of
its job impact, please describe.
13. What major changes or modifications to this program
are now being considered which would be relevant
to this Committee? Include proposed program
terminations or consolidations and FY '78 budget
options.
Fund Commitments to Aid
Urban Development and Neighborhood
Revitalization
CATEGORICAL
BLOCK
OTHER
TOTAL
(in millions of dollars)
Action
$58.6
$22.3
$80.9
Agriculture
2,390.2
...
5,426.6
7,816.8
Commerce
75.1
...
38.7
113.8
Community Service
Administration
76.1
...
...
76.1
Environmental Protection
Agency
152.6
...
152.6
Federal Home Loan Bank
Board
4.8
...
4.8
Health, Education and Welfare:
Health
652.2
652.2
Education
932.4
...
932.4
Social Services
9,415.7
9,415.7
Housing and Urban Development:
Housing
1,025.8
1,240.5
2,266.3
Community Development
75.0
$2,802.0
50.0
2,927.0
Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration
6.8
513.0
...
519.8
Small Business Administration.
288.7
288.7
Department of Transportation
3,772.9
...
3,772.9
Treasury
6,354.8
6,354.8
Department of Labor
495.9
7,228.5
...
7,724.4
Total
19,134.1
16,898.3
7,066.8
43,099.2
1/
Represents estimated annual contract authority to be used in 1976. Budget
Authority in 1976 for Assisted Housing is $18.6 billion.
Office of the Secretary
Office of Budget
July 20, 1976
ACTION
1. Program for Local Service (PLS)
2. ACTION Mini Grants
3. Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA)
4. Retired Senior Volunteer Program (RSVP)
5. Senior Companion Program (SCP)
6. Foster Grandparent Program (FGP)
7. Youth Challenge Program (YCP)
8. University Year for ACTION (UYA)
TOTAL:
$80,900,000
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
1. Extension Service
2. Food and Nutrition Service
Child Nutrition Support
3. Food and Nutrition Service
Special Supplemental Food Program
4. Food and Nutrition Service
Food Stamps
5. RDS Rural Development Leadership and Coordination, RDSY 1972
TOTAL:
$7,816,800,000
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
1. Economic Development Administration (EDA)
Public Works and Development Facilities Program
2. EDA Business Development Program
3. EDA Technical Assistance Program
4. EDA Economic Development District Program
5. EDA Section 302(a) State and Local Planning Assistance Program
6. EDA Special Economic Development and Adjustment Assistance Program
7. Office of Minority Business Enterprise
TOTAL:
$113,800,000
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
1. Community Action "Local Initiative"
Title II of CS Act of 1974 PL 93-644
2. Emergency Energy Conservation Program
Section 222 of CSA
3. Community Economic Development
Special Impact Program
TOTAL:
$76,100,000
DOT
1. Federal Aid Highway Program
Title 23 USC
2. Capital of Operative Formula Grants
Section 5 of UMTA of 1964
3. Transportation System Management TSM
Sect. 3,4,5 of UMTA
4. Paratransit
3,5416(b)(2) of UMTA
5. New Systems Starts 3 of UMTA
6. UMTA Downtown People Mover Project
3 of UMTA
7. Northeast Corridor Project Implementation Title VII
of RR Revitalization and Reg. Reform Act
PL 91-258
8. Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970
PL 91-258
9. Airway Development Aid Program
10. State and Community Highway Traffic Safety Program
TOTAL:
$3,772,900,000
EPA
1. State Air Quality Implementation Plans
2. Construction Grants Program
3. Water Quality Management Planning or Areawide Waste Treatment
Management
TOTAL:
$152,600,000
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
BOARD
1. Neighborhood Housing Services
2. Neighborhood Preservation Projects
TOTAL:
$4,800,000
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
A. Education Program - TOTAL: $932,400,000
1. University Community Services Projects
2. Head Start
3. Bilingual Education
4. Follow Through
5. Handicapped Early Childhood Education
6. Emergency School Aid
7. Right-To-Read
8. Indian Education
B. Health Formula Grants - TOTAL: $652,200,000
1. Comprehensive Public Health Service - Formula Grants
2. Maternal and Child Health Services
3. Alcohol Formula Grants
4. Drug Abuse Prevention Formula Grants
5. Limitation on Federal Participation for Capital
Expenditures
6. School of Public Health - Grants
7. Nursing Capitation Grants
8. Medical Assistance Program
TOTAL:
C. Social Services/Human Development Formula Grants - $9,415,700,000
1. Rehabilitation Services and Facilities - Basic Support
2. Developmental Disabilities - Basic Support
3. Special Programs for the Aging - Nutrition Programs
4. Child Welfare Services
5. Public Assistance - State and Local Training
6. Work Incentive Program - Child Care - Employment Related
Supported Services
7. Public Assistance - Maintenance Assistance
8. Public Assistance - Social Services
HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
A. Housing Program 1 TOTAL: $2,266,300,000
1. Disposition of Acquired Properties
2. Housing Counseling
3. Low-Income Public Housing (Acquisition with or
without rehab)
4. Section 8
5. Section 221 (d) (4) - mortgage insurance on rental
housing for moderate income families
6. Section 221 (d) (3) - mortgage insurance for rental
housing for low and moderate income families
7. Section 220 (h) - insured improvement loans in urban
renewal areas
8. Section 235 (revised)
9. Section 203 (k)
10. Title I, Section 2
11. Section 223 (e)
12. Section 223 (f)
13. Coinsurance - Section 244
14. Target Projects Program
15. Public Housing Modernization Program
16. Community and Tenant Services Program
B. Community Planning and Development Program - TOTAL: $2,927,000,000
1. Community Development Block Grant
2. Section 312 Rehab. Loan Program
3. Section 701 - Comprehensive Assistance Program
JUSTICE
1. LEAA Citizen's Initiative Program
2. LEAA Comprehensive Planning Grants
3. LEAA Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Grants
TOTAL: $519,800,000
LABOR
1. Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA)
2. Unemployment Insurance (UI)
3. Employment Service (ES)
TOTAL: $6,237,700,000
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
1. 7(a) Business Loan Program
2. Displaced Business Loans
3. Secondary Market for SBA Guaranteed Loans
4. Local Development Company Loans
5. State Development Company Loans
6. Bond Guarantees for Surety Companies
7. Lease Guarantees for Small Businesses
8. Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) Program
9. Section 301(d) Small Business Investment Company Program
("MESBIC" Program)
10. Small Business Lending Company Program
11. 8(a) Business Development Program
12. University Business Development Center (UBDC)
13. SBI Small Business Institute Program
14. 406 Call Contract Program
15. SCORE and ACE
16. Training Programs
TOTAL:
$288,700,000
TREASURY
1. General Revenue Sharing
TOTAL:
$6,354,800,000
PROPOSED MEETINGS
MEETINGS WITH LOCAL OFFICIALS AND
NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS
I.
New Coalition
(Leaders of National Associations of State and
Local Elected Officials)
II.
Proposed List of Cities for Visits by Individual
Committee Members
III.
Some Topics for Discussion with Local Officials
and Neighborhood Groups
I.
New Coalition (Leaders of National Associations of
State and Local Elected Officials)
Chairman
Governor Cecil Andrus - Idaho
Governors
Dan Evans - Washington
Calvin L. Rampton - Utah
Robert D. Ray - Iowa
State Legislators
Tom Jensen - Nashville
Martin Sabo - St. Paul
Herbert Fineman - Harrisburg, Pa.
Mayors
Hans Tanzler - Jacksonville, Fla.
John Poelker - St. Louis, Mo.
Moon Landrieu - New Orleans, La
Kenneth Gibson - Newark, N.J.
County Officials
Charlotte Williams - Flint, Mich.
Vance Webb - Taft, Calif.
Jack Walsh - San Diego, Calif.
II. Proposed List of Cities for Visits by Individual Committee
Members
REGION 1
REGION II
Boston, Massachusetts
Newark, New Jersey
Hartford, Connecticut
New York, New York
Paterson, New Jersey
Syracuse, New York
REGION III
Baltimore, Maryland
REGION IV
Norfolk, Virginia
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Atlanta, Georgia
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Charlotte, North Carolina
Jacksonville, Florida
Louisville, Kentucky
Region V
Chicago, Illinois
Cleveland, Ohio
REGION VI
Detroit, Michigan
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
Houston, Texas
Toledo, Ohio
New Orleans, Louisiana
Tulsa, Oklahoma
REGION VIII
REGION IX
Kansas City, Missouri
St. Louis, Missouri
Compton, California
Los Angeles, California
San Diego, California
REGION X
San Francisco, California
San Jose, California
Portland, Oregon
Seattle, Washington
III. Draft Topics for Discussion with Local Officials
and Neighborhood Groups
1. What federal programs do you feel have been the
most successful in providing tools for community
development and neighborhood revitalization?
2. What federal programs have hindered community
development and neighborhood revitalization?
How can they be improved?
3. What federal programs are operating in your
community which you believe should be brought
under local government control?
4. What program requirements do you regard as
unnecessary or particularly burdensome?
5. To what extent do neighborhood groups participate
in major decisions relating to federal programs
in their neighborhoods?
6. Do neighborhood organizations receive some direct
funding or technical assistance to assist them in
planning? Do neighborhood organizations operate
some programs directly?
7. Have there been efforts to involve local financial
institutions in efforts to revitalize neighborhoods?
Have they been responsive?
LIAISON COMMITTEE
LIAISON COMMITTEE
ACTION
Mr. John L. Ganley
254-8060
Deputy Director
Action
Room 513
806 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20525
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Honorable William H. Walker III
447-4581
Assistant Secretary for Rural Development
Department of Agriculture
Room 219-A
Washington, D. C. 20250
(Alternate: Dr. James E. Bostic
447-5277
Deputy A/S for Rural
Development - Room 219-A)
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Honorable Richard G. Darman
377-5201
Assistant Secretary for Policy
Room 5527
Department of Commerce
Washington, D. C. 20036
COMMUNITY SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Jack Ramsey
254-5280
Chief, Special Programs Division
Community Services Administration
Room 300
1200 19th Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
2
DOMESTIC COUNCIL
Mr. F. Lynn May
456-6437
Associate Director
Domestic Council
Room 224- Old EOB
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20500
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Alvin L. Alm
755-2900
Assistant Administrator for
Planning and Management
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1037D - Waterside
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK BOARD
Mr. Robert S. Warwick
376-3262
Acting Director, Office of Housing
and Urban Affairs
Federal Home Loan Bank Board
Room 638 - 320 First Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20552
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Honorable William A. Morrill
245-1858
Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation
Room 5039
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Washington, D. C. 20201
(Alternate: Mr. Jerry Britten
245-9774
Acting Deputy A/S for Program Systems
Room 4477-D - South Portal Bldg.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare
Washington, D. C. 20201)
3
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Honorable Charles J. Orlebeke
755-5600
Assistant Secretary for Policy
Development and Research
Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Room 8100
451 7th Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20410
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Irving Jaffee
739-3306
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
Room 3607 Department of Justice
10th and Constitution Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20530
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Mr. Ben Burdetsky
376-6722
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Employment and Training
Department of Labor
Room 10000 - Patrick Henry Building
601 D Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20213
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Dan L. McGurk
395-4844
Associate Director
Office of Management and Budget
Room 260 - Old EOB
Washington, D. C. 20503
4
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Peter McNeish
653-6854
Director, Office of Program Management
Room 800 - Small Business Administration
1441 L Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20416
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Dr. Irwin P. (Pete) Halpern
426-4540
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Policy Plans and International Affairs
Room 10228
Department of Transportation
Washington, D. C. 20590
Department of Treasury
Honorable Jerry Thomas
964-5363
Under Secretary
Department of Treasury
Room 3430
Washington, D. C. 20220
WHITE HOUSE - ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT FOR PUBLIC LIAISON
Dr. Myron B. Kuropas
456-6262
Office of Public Liaison
The White House
Room 190 - Old EOB
Washington, D. C. 20500