non-viable units of local governments, on the one hand, and multipurpose and viable local jurisdictions, on the other. The results, in turn, might be applied to Federal assistance as well as State fiscal and servicing assignment policies.

A focusing of certain existing Federal intergovernmental efforts on State and local modernization efforts would provide still another way that a complementary Federal program could be developed. Numerous activities could be included in such a Federal venture. Among the more obvious would be the exchange program under the Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970; the discretionary research grant activities of HUD, HEW, and NSF - to cite only the more obvious of those Federal departments and agencies that have exhibited a keen interest in the State-local reorganization and reassignment efforts; the work of advisory committees to the Bureau of the Census, especially its Governments division; and the liaison and technical assistance functions of individual Federal Regional Councils. These and other Federal undertakings-too numerous and varied to describe - could provide valuable assistance to boundary commissions, State ACIR's, and other State-local bodies involved directly in monitoring, studying, and recommending changes in Stateareawide-local relations and institutions.

In some instances, the basic problem here is a Federal unawareness that such commissions exist. In others, Federal fear of assisting bodies involved in policy proposing has been a factor-despite the record of HUD's Section 701 planning assistance program, the 1969 Presidential directive making State legislative committees and related bodies eligible for certain project grants, and examples of technical assistance to States and localities engaged in reorganization.

This proposal, then, would simply place boundary commissions, State ACIR's, and other comparable units in a preferred or at least recognized position in terms of certain Federal financial, technical, and personnel assistance programs. These programs already exist, already are involved directly in intergovernmental relations, and already affect one or another of the many facets of State-local modernization. Moreover, the commissions involved would all be duly established official bodies, in most instances with a broadly representative make-up and with a statutory mandate that would be fully protective of State-local concerns. The relationship between these bodies and the assisting Federal agencies, then, would be a cooperative one, based on mutual interests - with no possibility of Federal direction or dominance.

To sum up, the Commission believes that the Federal government should adopt policies that accommodate State and local actions to reorganize governments at the areawide and local levels. Such efforts should be complementary, not controlling; supportive, not supplanting; and responsive to Statelocal undertakings, not reactive to Federal program pressures. The specifics advanced here are merely suggestions. But they do point to ways and means launching at an early date a clear-cut Federal policy in this area. To get such an effort under way, however, will require full State and local support for it. It is the Commission's hope that this recommendation and its possible implementing components will help generate such support. Without it, the development of a genuinely accommodating Federal role will be difficult to achieve.

Footnotes

See ACIR, Regional Decision-Making: New Strategies for Substate Districts, Vol. 1, Substate Regionalism and the Federal System, 1973.

2An UMJO would work largely through and with existing local governments. Hence, the fewer and more capable these units are, the earlier it will be for the umbrella unit and the fewer coordinative problems it will face.

3See ACIR, Governmental Functions and Processes: Local and Areawide, Vol. IV, Substate Regionalism and the Federal System, 1974, for a fuller treatment of the research material on which these findings are based.

4Combines, parallels and slightly modifies separate recommendations adopted in Commission Report Nos. A-5 and A-11, pp. 21 and 64, respectively.

5See Report No. A-22, pp. 75-76, 77 and 80, and Report No.

A-31, Vol. II, p. 14.

"Recommended in Report No. A-12, p. 71.

7

Recommended in Report Nos. A-12, pp. 67-68, and A-22, pp. 82-83, respectively.

Urban functions may include: fire protection, basic police protection, parking, sewer constructions, refuse collection, animal control, parks and recreation, planning, zoning, code enforcement, subdivision control, public housing, urban renewal, industrial development, water supply, and manpower.

9See ACIR, The Problems of Special Districts in American Government, No. A-22, pp. 75 and 77.

10See ACIR, The Problems of Special Districts in American Government, No. A-22, p. 80.

11A method of developing these standards is set forth in Rec

ommendation I of Volume IV in this series; see Chapter 2 of Governmental Functions and Processes: Local and Areawide.

12ACIR, Report No. A-5, pp. 19-20.

13Ibid..

p. 39.