see how more of the services supported by HEW can be brought to public housing tenants. To date, task force activity has been focused in two directions. First, on the sponsorship of demonstration programs of "concerted services" in three communities (St. Louis, New Haven, and Contra Costa County, California). The purpose of these programs is to demonstrate the value of massive social services being brought to bear on difficult areas of need. The second direction of the task force effort is to see how best the existing services of HEW (there are over 100 separate service programs operating through HEW) can be made available to public housing tenants through existing assistance channels. A brochure has been prepared describing the services available and relating them to the areas of social service need existing in public housing. Now efforts will be made to make housing author. ities aware of services available.

One basic fact must be noted about the task force effort. To date, the thorny question has not been touched as to who will supply the funds for expanded social services. If the informational effort to acquaint local housing authorities of available HEW services should result in significant increased demand, the dilemma will be at hand. The question is whether demand for increased service can be handled through existing channels as expansions of HEW budget requests, or whether there is a financial obliga. tion for social services that should be attached to the housing program. In a bill submitted to the Congress on August 9 of this year by Senator Joseph S. Clark (D), Pennsylvania, (The Community Development Act of 1963, S. 2031), there is a provi. sion (Section 206) authorizing local housing authorities to undertake needed social services in relation to the low-income housing program, with reimbursement to come from the Public Housing Administration. However, there is a provision specify. ing that the costs PHA absorbs for such services shall be reimbursed under regulations established jointly by PHA and HEW and that such services shall be correlated with HEW programs. This provision of the new Clark bill may open up an avenue for meeting the financial problem, based on mutual agreements between local housing authorities, PHA, and HEW -and, of course, with the approval of the Congress.

Two other aspects of the task force

SOURCES OF HELP IN PROVIDING SOCIAL SERVICES Board of Education, Settlement House, Social Security Administration

Example: Philadelphia

In a program that has evolved through several stages over a 15 year period, the Philadelphia Housing Authority has worked with both the Board of Education and a neighborhood agency, the Friends Neighborhood Guild, to teach the basics of good housekeeping to low-income families living in public housing.

Originally, homemaking consultants were assigned to nine different communities within the city; given office space in a neighborhood public school; and, under the supervision of the staff of the public school's division of home economics and the school extension division, charged with the responsibility of helping when, where, and how they could to raise the level of homemaking practices of families who needed such help. Spark for the program was the request, 15 years back, from an active community council to the school system for help although it is pointed out that such help can be asked for by any community agency or by a family itself."

The program took a giant step forward when, in 1960, the housing authority turned to the neighborhood guild for additional help. This time, the set-up was more formal. The women were requested to attend once-a-week meetings for a period of 12 weeks and that period represented a time of grace: the families were on the brink of eviction due to impossible housekeeping habits; eviction was delayed for 90 days, during which this one last attempt to help the women bring their housekeeping habits up to satisfactory standards was to be made. The guild discussions covered "a vast range of housekeeping problems"; supplementing them visits to the women's homes during the rest of the week by a Board of Education homemaking consultant, who rolled up her sleeves and demonstrated such how-to-do-it's as taking a stove apart; washing walls; proper cleaning techniques and proper cleaning equipment. The success of the experiment-none of the families involved were evicted after the threemonth program-encouraged the neighborhood guild to apply for a research demonstration grant from the research division of the Social Security Administration of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. A $22,133 grant was made and, in June 1961, the guild got going, in cooperation with the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work, on a two-year demonstration program, based on the pilot project with about-to-be-evicted families.

Much more comprehensive than the original program, the demonstration was, nonetheless, aimed at a group of the same kind of families: those about to be evicted because of poor housekeeping habits. Personal interviews with families, in their homes, preceded a series of group discussion sessions where emphasis was on such basics of good home care as proper organization of work; involving all family members in housekeeping chores; sound budgeting; maintenance of equipment in good repair. Additional elements of the program included home visits, to bring the word to fathers and teenagers who did not attend the regular meetings; family-night get-togethers; and demonstration visits, in the home, by homemaking consultants. At the end of the 90-day period, only four of 20 families had made no improvement in caring for their public housing homes and had to be evicted.

Still further steps are planned by the neighborhood guild: next year, according to present schedules, families involved in this year's demonstration program will be followed up to find out whether the intensive services actually "took" and the changed homemaking pat terns have held up.

More community agencies, says Mildred W. Guinessy, director of the guild's housekeeping staff, can, and should, be involved in meeting the problem of chronic poor housekeeping. The essential fact, she says, is that such agencies-which have the ability and the knowhow to help admit, as does the staff of the housing authority, that poor housekeeping is an important social problem.

operation should be noted. The personnel involved is already heavily committed to responsibilities in their respective agencies and the coordination effort between housing and social welfare interests has not gone beyond the regional level. The importance of the housing-social serv ices relationship, particularly in view of the new provision in the Clark bill makes it essential that the task force be given permanent status. In addition, a grass-roots coordination must be established in local communities between local housing authorities and potential public agency recipients of HEW assistance. This is not to overlook the meaningful role that state housing and welfare agen. cies might take in expediting help through established assistance channels.

Recommendation 4(a) The declaration of purpose of the 1949 housing act contains considerable detail on the relationship of the housing programs to national economic policy. It also points out the necessity to achieve "good housing in a suitable living environment for every American family." However, it does not contain any language that expresses the role of federally-assisted housing programs in a national effort to eliminate dependence and poverty in American life. Nor does this declaration of purpose of the housing act stress the inter-dependence of housing assistance programs for lowincome families and other federallyaided programs to assist low-income families, programs focused on unemployment, training, health, education, home management, family adjustment. The NAHRO recommendation is directed toward correcting this omission and providing a broad housing policy framework that would justify giving attention to the social service needs of the low-income family when working to serve its housing needs.

How to stretch the food budget dollar of low-income families and, at the same time, increase the nutritional value of meals-that's what's behind a six-week course presented during the summer at the Parkside Homes project of the Detroit Housing Commission. Instructors are volunteers and the course is offered by the Detroit Consumer Marketing Information Service-with the whole thing underwritten by the city department of welfare. Although the program is designed with public assistance families in mind, it is open to all low-income families.

Under the category of how to buy food, such points as seasonal buying and possible deceptive labeling are included; once the food is bought, the course teaches how, through proper preparation, to create tasty and nutritional meals.

In the picture above, instructor Marjorie Gibbs and four of the "students" give the taste test to a low-cost meal prepared during one session. Tenant participation in this, and other, elements of Detroit's social services coordination program has been characterized as "encouraging. It is their acceptance of the program and active participation," says one Detroit official, "which convinces us of the need for expanded social services within our low-rent housing projects."

For another example of social services in Detroit-and another source of help in providing it-see below.

Recommendation 4(b)

This recommendation is for the establishment of a PHA-HEW Task Force on a permanent basis, with a new title of "Coordinated Services Office." A permanent status for the task force would assure personnel resources to formulate a concentrated program, aimed at making a break-through in services to families in low-income housing. It could also be the administrative vehicle for carrying out Section 206 of the Clark

bill. It is the intent that, with permanent status and financing, the assignment of fulltime trained personnel would be arranged, at both national and regional levels, in both agencies. In addition, it is hoped that this "Coordinated Services Office" would be the spot where work could begin on the prime goal of effectively involving housing and social welfare agencies at both the state and local level.

Goal 5-
Organization

A careful reading of Goals 1-4 of the NAHRO program, and the 19 recommendations aimed at achieving these goals, highlights the scope and complex inter-relationship of a lowincome housing effort with a wide range of urban, social, and economic forces. It also highlights the need to provide an organizational structure that can unite the various goals under cohesive policy direction. None of these goals can be achieved singly; they require coordinated action.

On the federal level, within the structure of the Housing and Home Finance Agency, there are a number of programs providing assistance to families who cannot afford housing on the private market. Included are the low-income program of the Public Housing Administration, the direct loan program for housing the elderly of the Community Facilities Administration, and the moderate-income housing program of the Federal Housing Administration. The families served by these three programs are not mutually exclusive; in fact, there is evidence of overlap among the families served by each program. In addition, architectural and construction standards are being developed for these three programs independently-or through a loose coordinating effort. In determining the structure of a low-income housing program within the framework of a proposed Department of Community Development, special attention should be given to how these related programs can be best administered. A careful analysis should be made of program goals and assistance methods, with the objective of arriving at the most effective organizational structure. One point is clear: a program of housing assistance for lowincome families should have an important place in the structure of any proposed Department of Community Development.

At the federal level, also, there are a number of non-housing departments and agencies charged with providing services for low-income families in the areas of housing, health, education, employment, and social adjustment. In the future, a fuller degree of coordination between these agencies will be required: a counterpart to the kind of coordination of these services that is needed on the local community level. This need for co

ordination makes it important that the low-income housing program have the status and structure to work with other federal agencies on an equal basis.

On the local level, an effective housing program requires the vehicle of an agency that represents the public interest, and has a long-term commitment to a low-income housing effort. Such an agency must be prepared to: conduct a continuing appraisal of the low-income housing need in the community; determine how best a variety of low-income housing aids can be used in conjunction with opportunities in the private market; implement appropriate standards of good architecture and design; work in coordination with local plan. ning and renewal agencies to achieve total community planning objectives; and participate in a cooperative effort to bring needed social services of all kinds to low-income families. Moreover, if a local community is to effectively use the federal assistance aids now available to it in the areas of moderate-income housing and housing for the elderly, there must be a source of responsible nonprofit sponsorship. When there is no such source, and a community is faced with critical housing needs that must be met if broader renewal and develop ment plans are to be realized, the local low-income housing administrative agency should be in a position

to assist.

The initial article on NAHRO's recommendations, in JOURNAL No. 5, gave some indication of the location of deficient housing in the United States; this article pointed out that 55 per cent of deficient housing is located outside standard metropolitan areas. Recent tabulations of housing census data by the Urban Renewal Administration give detail on the incidence of deficient housing in smaller communities and in nonurban locations. These facts are shown in Tables 1 and 2. Some highlights from these tables on housing located outside places over 1000 population (rural and semi-rural areas):

-These areas account for 31 per cent of the total housing units of the nation but contain 40 per cent of the housing listed as deteriorated and 48 per cent of the housing listed as dilapidated.

-In these same areas, 18 per cent of the housing is deteriorating and 8 per cent is dilapidated: the highest

proportions of deficient housing for any population class.

These facts indicate that a more definitive look should be taken of the adequacy of the administrative organization in state and county areas to bring needed housing assistance to low-income families. Most local housing authorities are in urban centers, although a great many are located in small communities. Table 3 shows the breakdown of the location of housing authorities by population class. As of March 31, 1963, there were 1423 housing authorities in the United States located in 1917 places. Eighty per cent of the localities served by local housing authorities had populations of 25,000 or less. However, of the more than 15,000 places in the population class of less than 5000, only 6 per cent were served by local housing authorities. This is in contrast to much higher coverage for places of larger popula

tion.

A recent circular by the Public Housing Administration, dated June 19, 1963, points out a reason, other than needed coverage, to take a closer look at administrative organization of housing authorities in small population centers. This circular notes advantages in both administrative efficiency and economy that might be achieved by the consolidation of smaller authorities into a county or regional authority. Some local authorities are now organized on a county, metropolitan, or regional basis but the number is small. There would seem to be obvious advantages, both from the point of view of serving a greater proportion of the low-income housing need, and of achieving good administration, to move further in the direction of these organizational consolidations.

Recommendation 5(a)

It is the conclusion of NAHRO that the Public Housing Administration, under a more appropriate name, should be the agency to administer low-income housing assistance on the federal level. This recommendation can be supported for a great many reasons. One over-riding reason is that the core of housing assistance for low-income families is contained in the combination of aids under the public housing financial formula and the various ways in which these aids can be utilized. The other methods of providing low-income housing assistance, as administered under other programs, are peripheral. Also, the

Public Housing Administration has the advantage of 25 years of administrative experience in dispensing financial assistance and the framework of this structure, which can be adjusted or expanded to serve the broader purposes outlined for a total low-income housing effort. Because of the wider role required of a lowincome housing program, as NAHRO sees it, in contrast to the narrower role of public housing in the past, it is recommended that a new name be given to PHA to accommodate this change.

Recommendation 5(b)

Local housing authorities have broad powers under state law to undertake slum clearance and housing assistance activities. They also have 25 years of experience in working with low-income families. Such authorities are now located in over 1900 places of all sizes throughout the United States. They are in a strategic position, because of both

powers and experience, to undertake the function of across-the-board lowincome housing assistance in a local community. For these reasons, the NAHRO recommendation is that the local housing authority be the key local agency to receive federal lowincome housing assistance and to serve as the community resource in the area of housing assistance. To serve more effectively as a community housing resource, it is recommended that local housing authorities be made eligible sponsors of housing under the FHA moderate-income housing program (221-d-3) and the CFA direct loan program for the elderly (202).

Recommendation 5(c)

While the local housing authority should be the key agency to receive low-income housing assistance, another avenue of effective federal aid might well be local nonprofit organizations. Making low-income housing assistance available to such

organizations should be fully explored, with due consideration for the responsibility involved in both developing and managing low-income housing and for the necessity to view all low-income housing efforts as part of a total community plan to serve low-income families.

Recommendation 5(d)

It is recommended that the whole area of the administrative organization on the local level be examined, with the end in view of providing the structure necessary to serve those families living in deficient housing in all geographical areas of the nation, and in all-sized locations. Such a review should bear in mind the possible advantages in administrative organization and economy that might be achieved by combining small housing authorities into county, metropolitan, or regional agencies.