Model Cities Program

The Model Cities Program was an element of U.S. President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society and War on Poverty. In 1966, new legislation led to the more than 150 five-year-long, Model Cities experiments to develop new antipoverty programs and alternative forms of municipal government. The ambitious federal urban aid program succeeded in fostering a new generation of mostly black urban leaders. However, the nation moved to the right after the urban riots of the late 1960s. This led to a shift in goals to bricks and mortar housing and building projects. The program ended in 1974.

Authorized November 3, 1966 by the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, the program ended in 1974. Model Cities originated in response to several concerns of the mid-1960s. Widespread urban violence, disillusionment with existing urban renewal programmes, and bureaucratic difficulties in the first years of the War on Poverty led to calls for reform of federal programmes. The Model Cities initiative created a new program at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) intended to improve coordination of existing urban programs. Several cities including Detroit, Oakland, Newark and Camden received funding. The program's initial goals emphasized comprehensive planning, involving not just rebuilding but also rehabilitation, social service delivery, and citizen participation. In 1969 the Nixon administration officially changed course; however in the majority of cities, citizen participation mechanisms continued to play an important role in local decision-making. Detroit, is argued, has gotten much worse since the program's inception.

According to Christopher DeMuth, the Model Cities program received just under $3 billion by the end of 1974, and was "the most unequivocal failure of all the 'Great Society' programs." This evaluation was obviously written by someone who has no first hand knowledge of the Model Cities program. It was extremely well conceived and should be a model for urban American local government today. I served as Director of Research and Evaluation in three cities- Reading, Pa, Atlanta Ga and San Jose, Ca. As an example of the far sightedness of Model Cities, it had a built in objective evaluation component requiring each funded program to develop written measurable goals and objectives. Achievement of these measures was evaluated, usually yearly. City and county personnel operating programs were aghast at being actually measured on what they promised at initial budget time. Some objected vigorously at being asked to show what they had done with money given them. Imagine local and federal governments being asked today to be measured against their wild promises! I personally know many low income minorities whose lives were greatly improved by either working in the program or benefitting from enrollment in programs. ref>http://www.ccdemuth.com/deregulating-the-cities.html</ref> Other evaluations have identified both failures and success in the Model Cities program, with its limited effectiveness attributed to a combination of complicated bureaucracy, inadequate funding, and competing agendas at the local level.

...
Wikipedia