1 / 13

Governance, Participation and Community Dev.

Governance, Participation and Community Dev. 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

george
Télécharger la présentation

Governance, Participation and Community Dev.

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Governance, Participation and Community Dev. From the EOA (1964) to the Present

  2. 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)

  3. 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?

  4. What type do activists want? • Surveyed community board members in New York City 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

  5. What factors explain these differences? • 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?

  6. 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Reduction Efforts (cont’d.) • Hatch Act extensions • 1975 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

  10. 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

  11. 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

More Related