Origins of Community Action as a Form of Citizen Participation

Federal Legislative Efforts

Constellation of Forces Emerge

Urban Renewal was not workingFord Foundation was interested in

funding programs that would address urban decay

Grey Area Projects: Grants to SchoolsPublic Affairs Dept. of Ford

Foundation: became interested in juvenile delinquency

A New Theory to Support Policy

Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin: Columbia School of Social Work

“Opportunity Theory of Delinquency”Structural cause as opposed to an

Individual causeBecame consultants to Ford FoundationHenry Settlement House in Lower

Manhattan--Mobilization for Youth

1960 Election Campaign: Rural Poverty Moved JFK

President’s Committee on Juvenile Delinquency Justice Department: Bobby Kennedy David Hackett: Develop a New Program Ohlin was invited to help develop it

Grass-Roots, Mass Participation

Community Action Programs of Ford Foundation

1964 Economic Opportunity Act Established the Community Action Program as

a Federal Government Initiative Community Action Agencies: Outside City Hall “maximum feasible participation” by the poor

Community Development and Participation:

From the EOA (1964) to the Present

Stuart Langton: 2 Types of Citizen Participation

Citizen Action: Activities initiated and controlled by citizens primarily designed to influence governing decisions

Citizen Involvement: Activities initiated and controlled by government for adm. purposes (e.g., improve decision-making, develop consensus, enhance legitimacy)

Robert Pecorella: 2 Types of Citizen Participation

Community Control: Citizens would have some actual decision-making power over resource allocations.

Community Integration: Citizens would have advisory power over resource allocations

How do these relate to Langton’s types?

Key ?: What type did activists in NY want?

Surveyed community board members and asked whether they favored advisory or decision-making power over 12 urban policy matters.

Responses were used to create a “community empowerment scale.”

Those who favored advisory power were “moderates” as opposed to “reformers” who wanted actual decision-making power

What factors explain these differences?

Good example of how research is conducted in the social sciences.

Variables: race, ideology, trust in government, type of appointment to community board.

Hypotheses? What do you think?

Community Action Programs? What type?

Key point: Although CAA’s could have been set up to operate within city hall, about 75% chose to remain outside as independently run, not-for-profit agencies.

Yet, “maximum feasible participation” by the poor was mandated.

Pressure for Reform

Big City Mayors pressed Congress for changes

1966 Model Cities Program: Key aspects “widespread participation” Programs were placed directly in city hall Citizen’s Advisory Board was required to

provide input to proposed projects. Final approval for projects resided with city

government

Further Federal Efforts to Reduce Citizen Action

1967 Green Amendment to the EOA (Edith Green of Oregon) Deleted the MFP clause Prohibited CAA personnel from clashing

with city hall via protests and demonstrations

Guaranteed city government could have at least 1/3 of the membership on CAA boards

Reduction Efforts (cont’d.)

Hatch Act extensions1975 OEO, became Community

Services Adm., and then when Reagan came to power it was eliminated altogether

Model Cities program saw reduced funding, and in 1973 Nixon impounded its funding

Nixon’s New Federalism

Prior to Nixon, federal programs had become heavily centralized and categorical in nature.

Nixon proposed a “New Federalism” Decentralization More flexibility and choice for cities Block Grants instead of Categorical Grants Revenue Sharing

The Housing and CD Act of 1974

Consolidated 7 cats into 1 block grant

Called for “maximum feasible priority” for low-mod income benefit

Gave cities lots of leeway in how to spend federal CD money

2 classes of cities: 1) entitlement, 2) small