Page images
PDF
EPUB

urban renewal concept and the specific program. When the LPA does finally start to work with the families to be relocated, it is often too late to start an adequate educational program about the rights and opportunities open to these families on the renewal site. It is evident that some provision must be made to launch at least the information-sharing aspect of the relocation process considerably before the current entrance into the LPA workload.

Relocation officials often confided that the concrete needs of the families to be relocated are rarely determined in advance of a project, but insisted that this resulted in part from the failure of the LPA to include them early enough in overall project planning. They also acknowledged that home-finding and rehousing were, at present, largely unplanned operations, totally dependent on "naturally developing" vacancies in the city's existing supply. Another weakness in the present situation emerged: The current staffing of most LPA's does not include personnel trained in meeting the problems unearthed in the course of relocation and dealing with them in a manner consistent with the goals of urban renewal. In all interviews except one, the LPA officials lamented the lack of adequate facilities and personnel for dealing with the manifest social problems. Most relocation officers stated that they would and did do whatever they could to ease or solve a pressing problem, but that any larger personal involvement would be destructive of their main task-physical relocation. Many of the officials interviewed said, in effect, "The relocation officer is not a social worker; nor should he become one." The interviewer repeatedly heard this refrain. Yet it is essential to analyze the needs of problem families and to see that they are put in touch with the proper social agencies, and this must be done in connection with the relocation process, and at its heart.5 In summary, the subcommittee has found that the LPA officials are, for the most part, struggling to do a satisfactory job, but that their guidelines and supports are woefully deficient. These gaps must be closed, as our recommendations in chapter V suggest.

4. WHAT HAPPENS TO RELOCATED FAMILIES

What happens to the families who have gone through the relocation process? This very general and deceptively simple question may well be the most vital and the most sensitive matter in the urban renewal program of any community. A family currently residing in a dwelling which must be evacuated because of renewal site clearance or rehabilitation has, within its means, the freedom of action or movement that characterizes our society. Such a family is under no obligation to make use of the local public agency's relocation service, and, as indicated in chapter III, many families do not use this service. The first question asked of relocated families was whether they had "found their own apartment or house or whether a representative of the relocation office (LPA) had found it for An unusually high proportion of the respondents, 83 percent of the whites, 64 percent of the Negroes, and 67 percent of the Puerto Ricans said that they had relocated themselves.1

The significance of the high-relocation rate is that there can be no "grand design" made and enforced for new residential patterns resulting from urban renewal. This maximum freedom of choice is most desirable. However, it is also true that several aspects of the currently critical urban crises may in fact be worsened by residential patterns which result from panicky self-relocation. To retain freedom of action while achieving some of the goals of an integrated community is at best a difficult task, but the importance of the task surely makes it worth attempting.

Since urban redevelopment in the larger metropolitan centers often involves the displacement of substantial numbers of nonwhite families living in segregated neighborhoods, the neighborhood patterns which emerge after relocation merit close observation. It is important to determine whether urban renewal produces any charges in the direction of breaking down the segregated pattern of nonwhite housing. This is of vital importance for the future of persons residing in these areas because of the now accepted belief that even de facto segregation can have adverse psychological and sociological effects upon nonwhite families. Also, residential segregation almost inevitably brings with it de facto segregation in schools and community life.

Thus we sought to determine the type of neighborhood racial pattern which emerges after relocation. To this end, we asked each respondent to tell us what the racial composition of his neighborhood had been before redevelopment and relocation and what the racial composition of his present neighborhood is after relocation. Each respondent was asked to classify the before and after neighborhoods in one of five alternative categories: all white, mostly white, half white and half Negro, mostly Negro, or all Negro.

Among our white respondents, we found that one-half were now living in all white neighborhoods, compared with only one-fifth

5 In fact it is Urban Renewal Administration policy to encourage and authorize the hiring of staff to coordinate social services available to displaced families.

1 Did you find your own apartment or house, or did the man from the relocation office find it for you?

prior to relocation. The proportion of white families living in half white and half Negro neighborhoods was cut in half (from 29 percent down to 16 percent), and only 2 percent were now residing in mostly Negro neighborhoods in comparison with 19 percent prior to relocation. Thus there seems to be little doubt about the flight of white families into all white neighborhoods after relocation.2

Since we noted earlier that a majority of our families were "selfrelocated," a circumstance which involves some degree of choice in regard to neighborhood (though unquestionably a more limited range of choice where nonwhites are involved), the subcommittee felt that more detailed analysis of neighborhood changes according to whether the families were self-relocated or LPA relocated might disclose some interesting differences.

Among whites who were self-relocated, the flight to all-white neighborhoods is even more pronounced (57 percent after, and 23 percent before relocation). Only 1 percent of self-relocated whites wound up in mostly Negro neighborhoods. On the other hand, among LPA-relocated whites, the proportion residing in all-white neighborhoods after relocation was virtually the same as prior to relocation (18 and 17 percent, respectively). The greatest change occurred among whites in mostly Negro neighborhoods, which dropped from 28 to 7 percent, though still in excess of the proportion of self-relocated whites who moved into this type of neighborhood.4 It would appear that the relocated white family, even though it possesses the relatively limited economic means characteristic of those displaced from a redeveloped area, tends to gravitate toward all-white or predominantly white neighborhoods when left to its own devices (self-relocation). Being white equips them, of course, with an immensely greater freedom of choice, because of race, in regard to the racial character of the new neighborhood. The neighborhood pattern of Negro respondents after relocation presents an entirely different picture. The changes are, in fact, minor compared with those of whites. There was an increase of families moving into mostly white neighborhoods from 12 to 21 percent, accompanied by an equivalent reduction in families leaving half-white, half-Negro neighborhoods (49 to 41 percent). However, the proportion of Negro families living in mostly Negro or allNegro neighborhoods remained at 38 percent-virtually the same percentage which had been living in this type of neighborhood prior to relocation. Apart from a shift of 9 percent of the Negro families into mostly white neighborhoods, their neighborhood pattern showed relatively little change after relocation in comparison with whites. On the other hand, among self-relocated Negro families there appears to be some degree of polarization in regard to the racial

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

All white...

Mostly white..

Half white and half Negro.. Mostly Negro...

All Negro...

5 See note 2, supra.

Before After Before After Before After

[ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

character of the neighborhood after relocation. Negro families in Negro families in mostly white neighborhoods increased from 32 to 40 percent in those Negro families who entered mostly Negro neighborhoods. This increase in both directions, toward mostly white and mostly Negro neighborhoods, was at the expense of neighborhoods having halfwhite and half-Negro composition (reduced from 49 to 35 percent). Among those Negro families relocated by the LPA, there appears to be a similar movement toward mostly white neighborhoods (from 21 to 27 percent) but accompanied by an actual reduction in the proportion of Negro families living in all-Negro or predominantly Negro neighborhoods."

We are thus confronted with a situation in which it appears that the Negro family when left to his own devices tends to gravitate more toward the predominantly Negro neighborhood than when it is relocated by the LPA. However, the Negro family does not possess the same freedom of choice in selecting a new neighborhood as the white family. In addition to the primary limitation of racial status, there is often a second limitation of economic status.

An inquiry more in depth than the present study would be required in order to determine what proportion of Negro families-apart from limitations because of economic and racial factors-choose to move into predominantly Negro neighborhoods because of a racially motivated choice similar to that of the whites who gravitate toward predominantly white neighborhoods. From the evidence available in our comparison of self-relocated and LPA-relocated Negro families, it would appear that self-relocated, more frequently than LPA relocation, leads them to predominantly Negro neighborhoods. The limitations on freedom of neighborhood choice among Negro families are further illustrated in the replies to our next question, "In regard to the race of the people who live here, is this neighborhood the kind you wanted to move into?" While 71 percent of the whites said they were satisfied, only 52 percent of the Negroes voiced similar satisfaction." And among Negro families, the amount of dissatisfaction seems to be greater among LPA relocated than selfrelocated families.10 A noteworthy aspect of satisfaction with the racial character of the neighborhood is revealed when we compare replies to this question among respondents living in different types of neighborhoods." White respondents voiced increasing

[blocks in formation]

10 Breakdown of satisfactions expressed with relocation:

3034

dissatisfaction as we proceed from residence in all-white to residence in mostly Negro neighborhoods (from 1 percent to 50 percent). And a similar trend is noticeable among Negro respondents who also voiced increasing dissatisfaction as we proceed from residence in mostly white to residence in all-Negro neighborhoods (from 11 percent to 33 percent). This trend among relocated Negro families probably reflects increasing dissatisfaction with the whole complex of physical and psychological deterioration that usually characterizes segregated nonwhite neighborhoods.

The dissatisfaction felt by minority groups with their new homes is echoed in other statistics gathered by the subcommittee. In response to the question, "Are you planning to live here awhile, or do you want to move as as soon as you can find another place?" we found that white families were most satisfied (72 percent), Negro families were less well satisfied (58 percent), and Puerto Rican families were least satisfied (50 percent) with their new location.12 It is worth noting that white families who planned to stay in their present location were most satisfied, if they were living in all-white or mostly white neighborhoods, and least satisfied if they were living in neighborhoods having 50 or more percent Negroes. On the other hand, Negro families who planned to stay in their new location were more satisfied (69 percent), if they were living in neighborhoods that were half-Negro and half-white, and least satisfied in all-Negro neighborhoods.13

One can surmise that this large-scale dissatisfaction with the new neighborhood will probably prove harmful to the development of community roots, ties, and participation. It may breed a careless approach to new dwellings, local schools, etc., which might be more typical of a transient area than a supposedly permanent residential neighborhood. In many instances it may be said that one result of relocation is to introduce a new transient population into the community.

In response to criticism of its earlier policy-of encouraging wholesale demolition and site clearance-the Urban Renewal Administration has shifted much of its program emphasis to residential conservation and rehabilitation. Even in these programs, however, some degree of family relocation is inevitable. Dwellings must usually be vacated by rehabilitation and there are always some dwellings which are beyond saving by any known structural techniques. Since relocation is thus inescapable, the problem is really one of minimizing the hurt of the families involved, many of whom have long been neglected by the community agencies.

It appears to the subcommittee that the dissatisfaction of the relocated families arises not only from the racial patterns resulting from relocation but from a variety of accompanying social problems. In many instances relocation acts as a spotlight illuminating the grave problems of the hard-core urban families. The conference on relocation held at Wesleyan University (see Acknowledgments) demonstrated that urban renewal consistently performed this "spotlight" function, arousing indifferent communities to the social, economic, and other problems upon which existing community efforts have so little effect. Increasingly the complex of urban ills is being attacked on an overall basis by foundation-sponsored health, employment, education, and welfare organizations such as Community Progress, Inc., in New Haven.

In regard to the race of the people who live here, is this neighbor- only real contact with urban renewal through the LPA relocation hood the kind you wanted to move into?

[blocks in formation]

The need for new forms of help is also sensed, if poorly articulated, by the subject families themselves. Since these families have their service, we sought their reactions to the scope of this service. When respondents were asked whether the relocation office had been of any help to them in the process of moving into a new

12 Plans of the relocated families regarding staying in their new communities: Are you planning to live here awhile, or do you want to move as soon as you can find another place?

[blocks in formation]

White

Negro

Puerto

(147 fam- (90 fam

Rican

ilies)

ilies)

(20 fam

Negro ilies)

Puerto Rican (10 fam

ilies)

ilies)

73

14

1127

2746

51

19

23

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

11 Responses regarding satisfaction with the racial composition of neighborhood: In regard to the race of the people who live here, is this neighborhood the kind you wanted to move into?

Racial composition of neighborhood

All Mostly Half Mostly All white white and Negro Negro half

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small]

13 This table suggests the relation between the community's racial composition and plans to remain:

Plans of relocated families to stay or move, by racial composition of neighborhood:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

neighborhood, only half of the whites answered in the affirmative, compared with 65 percent of the Negroes and 70 percent of the Puerto Rican respondents.14 However, in response to a second question, we found that 90 percent of the white respondents, 80 percent of the Negro, and 85 percent of the Puerto Rican respondents said that the relocation office had actually paid for their moving.15 We discovered the striking fact that 81 percent of the white and 58 percent of the Negro respondents who had answered "no" to the first question later told us that the relocation office had paid for their moving expenses.16 It may be that respondents in both racial groups were thinking of help from the relocation office in terms of other problems than merely helping to pay for moving. Clearly the assistance offered did not "feel" like help, or the assistance offered was not the kind of aid really sought.

A substantially higher proportion of white families (25 percent) than Negro families (9 percent) purchased their own relocated homes. Significantly enough, not one Puerto Rican family in our sample purchased a home. Three-fourths of the white families who purchased homes moved to all-white neighborhoods, and one-fourth to mostly white neighborhoods. On the other hand, among the few

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors]

Negro families who purchased homes, the majority moved into halfwhite and half-Negro neighborhoods.18

In regard to the value of purchased homes, it is most revealing that about half of the Negro purchasers paid $20,000 or more, whereas only slightly more than one-third of the white purchasers long standing complaint, that the Negro family when it buys-pays paid in excess of $20,000. This comparison tends to support a more than a white family for a house in a racially mixed neighborhood. Furthermore, a white family pays, on the average, less than a Negro family for a home in an all-white neighborhood.19

The rent paid by the majority of our respondents who did not purchase homes varied directly with their race. On the average, white respondents paid less for rentals than did Negroes, and Puerto Ricans averaged higher rentals than either of the other groups. As a striking example, only 19 percent of white families paid $80 or more per month, compared with 29 percent of the Negro families, and 45 percent of the Puerto Rican families.20 size 2 of Negroes and Puerto Ricans are not the primary reasons The comparative youthfulness 21 and larger average family for higher rents paid by them. When we examine the group of families which consisted of adults with children under 16, we find that only 6 percent of the whites paid $80 or more monthly, in comparison with 29 percent of the Negroes, and 42 percent of the Puerto Ricans. Among families having five to seven persons, only 15

[blocks in formation]

15 Breakdown of the forms of help:

How did the man from the relocation office help you?

[In percent]

All white... Mostly white. Half and half.. Mostly Negro. All Negro..

19 Cost of relocatees' purchased homes:

If owned, what is its value?

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Under $10,000

12

11

$10,000 to $14,900.-.

19

15

$15,000 to $19,000..

40

33

$20,000 to $24,900.

85

$25,000 or more..

10

11

4

20 If rented, what is the monthly rent?

2

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small]

[In percent]

[merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][subsumed]

22 See chapter I, note 4.

23 Value of rental, by composition of family:

Puerto Rican (29 families)

5

45

22

[ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

percent of the whites paid monthly rentals of $80 or more, in comparison with 38 percent of the Negroes, and 45 percent of the Puerto Ricans.24

Admittedly, a comparison of rental values by size of apartment (number of rooms) occupied by each racial group would be valuable, had such data been requested in the interview schedule. However, given the data that we have, with the recognition that larger proportions of Negro families were relocated in racially mixed neighborhoods it seems apparent that Negro and Puerto Rican families, size by size, and type by type, pay monthly rentals in excess of those paid by whites. It is surely an undesirable situation when minority groups have to pay, in effect, a "color tax" either to purchase or to rent a place to live. The situation becomes even less desirable when it is recalled that the relocated minority groups studied here were least able to afford such a “tax,” according to relative income levels.

The first and minimal step to combat this situation would be an extensive investigation policy by LPA relocation officials before any of the families to be relocated begin the move.

In summary, the following highlights characterize our interviews of 351 relocated families in 5 of the larger Connecticut cities during January and February 1963. (It should be borne in mind, once more, that the number of Puerto Rican families interviewed is quite small and, therefore, of limited statistical significance.)

1. The majority of the families, whether white, Negro, or Puerto Rican, were self-relocated rather than relocated by the local redevelopment authority.

2. White families, considerably more than Negro or Puerto Rican families, were satisfied with their new location and planned to stay. 3. Although most families were relocated in rental accommodations, more whites than Negroes purchased relocation homes.

4. Of these relocated families who rented accommodations, Negroes and Puerto Ricans paid higher rents, even when the size of the families in each group were held constant.

5. Of the relocated families who purchased homes, Negro families paid a higher average purchase price to live in integrated neighborhoods than did whites-higher even than the average paid by whites who moved into all-white or mostly white neighborhoods.

6. The pattern of racial composition of neighborhoods before and after relocation changed much more for white than for Negro relocated families. Whites in fact fled from racially mixed neighborhoods into neighborhoods which were either all-white or mostly white in composition. On the other hand, only a fraction of the Negro families wound up in mostly white neighborhoods, the overwhelming majority being relocated in neighborhoods having 50 percent or more Negroes.

7. White families, if self-relocated, tended to move with greater frequency into all-white neighborhoods than those who were relocated by the LPA. Negro families, if self-relocated, also tended to move more frequently into mostly Negro neighborhoods than did those who were relocated by the LPA.

8. The great majority of all respondents received some help from relocation offices-usually in the form of payment for moving expenses, although their responses suggest that this was not the kind of help they had in mind.

The families interviewed have clearly told us an important story. On the basis of these findings and the studies in chapters II and III, we are prepared to make our major recommendations.

5. RECOMMENDATIONS

In recommending changes in Federal policy and practice with regard to family relocation, the Connecticut Advisory Committee has sought a level of generality applicable to relocation in communities of all sizes throughout the Nation. Since we have confined our study to relocation in connection with urban renewal programs, our recommendations, for the most part, will be directed and need transmitting to the Urban Renewal Administration.

Our study gives further concrete support to the recommendations made by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to the Urban Renewal Administration and the HHFA in 1961; namely, that new programs of rehabilitating and preserving existing housing

[blocks in formation]

8 or more
persons

rather than clearing every renewal site and dislocating its residents-ought increasingly to be supported; that the Administration should rigorously require communitywide participation, including minority groups, in the planning of projects from their outset; that when altogether new housing has to be constructed, it be open to all; that cities seeking support genuinely demonstrate the availability of adequate rehousing for the families to be relocated; and that, where possible, more than one project be in process simultaneously to keep housing supply open and facilitate the flow of families to be relocated.

New and more specific recommendations seem warranted by our study. We, therefore, recommend that the Urban Renewal Administration revise its policy and guidelines in the following ways:

1. The Local Public Agency must be committed (a) to encouraging and supporting all families in their efforts to live wherever they desire and are able; (b) to preventing the repetition of previously existing patterns of racially segregated housing; and (c) to making the maximum use of all Federal, State, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations to accomplish the purposes just stated.

Specifically, the LPA, like its sponsor, the Urban Renewal Administration, should recognize that it now has a mandate to implement affirmatively the overriding national policy enunciated by the President in his Executive Order No. 110631 in the provision on prevention of discrimination, because as stated in the preamble "discriminatory policies and practices result in segregated patterns of housing and necessarily produce other forms of discrimination and segregation which deprive many Americans of equal opportunity." A simple device for the Urban Renewal Administration with respect to this order, would be to amend the following section of its present guidelines: 2

"The objectives of relocation are that:

"(1) Families displaced by a title I project shall have the full opportunity of occupying housing that is decent, safe, and sanitary, that is within their financial means, and that is in reasonably convenient locations.

"(2) Displacement shall be carried out with a minimum of hardship to site occupants."

By rewording paragraph (2) as follows:

"(2) Displacement shall be carried out with a minimum of hardship to site occupants, and without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin."

2. Homefinding and rehousing must not continue as an unplanned operation. It must be central in the urban renewal process. URA policy should condition approval of grants to projects on the prior availability of standard housing, physically verified, or on firm plans to suppy sufficient housing through new construction or rehabilitation. At present the Administration's guidelines encourage project planners to lean too heavily on existing records and materials, and gross, generalized data for determining demands and resources. Often the LPA discovers in midsteam that there is not enough alternative housing available. We urge, therefore, the adoption by the Administration of more sensitive and more accurate devices for determining accurately and early in the renewal process the housing needs and housing supply, not the least of which will be more personal contact by LPA with the families themselves.

3. Relocation officers should be directly involved in the LPA's project planning from the outset, and their direct relationship to the families involved should commence at the time of site acquisition, long before relocation itself begins.

4. The families to be affected by the project should be informed in their native language, if necessary, at the outset of launching a project and before relocation actually begins: (a) of the scope of the project and its residential implications for them; (b) of the aid available to them from the LPA; (c) of the existing State statutes on discrimination in housing and the related procedures (see appendix C for Connecticut's statutes preventing discrimination in housing and urban renewal operations); (d) of the housing possibilities already known to be available from the prior supply study. Furthermore, the preference and needs of the families as to location, kind, and cost of housing should be determined, if possible, at this initial conversation, and should guide the LPA so that it can meet specific housing needs. These initial interviews at the first survey of site occupants may prove very helpful in avoiding the panic reaction we have described.

5. The LPA should include a trained staff member to insure that community support will be given during and after relocation in those situations which stand in the way of successful rehousingsuch as poor health, inadequate income, insufficient furniture, ignorance of urban standards of homemaking, and other family or social problems. Because relocation creates a crisis for most families, it offers a uniquely advantageous occasion and opportunity for bringing constructive services into direct use. This trained staff (4) member should be charged with the responsibility for enlisting and coordinating the assistance of the social agencies within the community and encouraging the families to use the services available. He might well be the staff member responsible for maintaining formal contact with displaced families following their relocation for a longer period than at present.

1 person

2 to 4 persons

5 to 7 persons

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][merged small]

25

[blocks in formation]

25

[blocks in formation]

50

[blocks in formation]

(11)

Under $40..

[blocks in formation]

9

$40 to $59.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]
[merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

6. The pace of projects should whenever necessary be slowed down to assure longer time for the counseling and assistance of families to be relocated. It is now recognized that relocation is the most critical single factor in urban renewal, and it should, therefore, be the key factor in determining the timetable.

1 27 Fed. Reg. 11527 (1962).

2 Urban Renewal Administration, HHFA, "Urban Renewal Manual: Policies and Requirements for Local Public Agencies," pt. 16, Relocation.

7. Analysis and assessment by the Urban Renewal Administration of all projects should be required more frequently than every 2 years and in more depth than at present, and LPA directors should be required to make such modifications as are shown to be necessary in order to achieve the maximum benefits from the projects.

8. Since public housing is an important resource for rehousing, its image and actual operation must be significantly improved. Without such changes, public housing will continue to make only a negligible contribution to relocation. The scheduling of additional public housing construction by the Public Housing Authority and the selection of sites for it should be closely coordinated with all other renewal activities of a given city. To make public housing a desirable goal for families requiring relocation, there must be considerable improvement in the administration of public housing projects.

9. Federal grants should be awarded to only those cities which demonstrate commitment to codifying, strengthening, and enforcing standard housing and health and building codes.

The general purpose of our recommendations is to make relocation an integral part of the renewal process; to assure an optimum relationship between the processes of displacement and housing production; to permit the rate of housing production or volume of available housing to modify the pace of relocation and of the entire project; to shift the emphasis in urban renewal from site clearance and place it on improving the housing and neighborhoods for the people to be rehoused; to make relocation an occasion for providing equal housing opportunities for all citizens, regardless of race, and for preventing the recurrence of previous patterns of segregated housing; and to convert it into a process which, by minimizing hurt and maximizing help, assists people in human rebuilding.

If these recommendations are adopted and implemented, family relocation need no longer to be an obstacle to urban renewal; it will become its key constructive and positive element. By achieving the rehabilitation of people along with the rehabilitation of structure, and by encouraging diversity throughout the community, relocation will no longer be a painful process, the price paid for progress, it will be a fundamental part of progress itself.

to:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Subcommittee I of the Connecticut Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights is especially indebted The Connecticut Commission on Civil Rights: Thomas F. Henry, the commission's executive secretary, met with our subcommittee several times at the outset of the study. Through his good offices, the chairman of the commission, Elmo Roper, and deputy chairman, Ralph Goglia, and the full commission authorized its research director, Dr. Henry G. Stetler, to assist us in analyzing relocation practices in some selected Connecticut cities.

Dr. Henry G. Stetler: Dr. Stetler's contribution in training the interviewers required for our study, tabulating and interpreting their results, and superintending the entire process has been al

together indispensable.

Robert Feldman: Mr. Feldman, a senior in the Yale Law School, was instrumental in drafting the interview schedule for relocation officials in Connecticut. In addition to supervising its administration to 14 officials, he has served throughout the study in a variety of invaluable capacities. Frank Logue: Mr. Logue, consultant to the U.S. Commission for New England, assisted our subcommittee in ways beyond his formal responsibilities. A resident of Trumbull, Conn., he took a special interest in this project and contributed his time and himself in an exceptional way.

Mrs. Arthur Dillingham and Mrs. Martin Weitzler: Mrs. Dillingham, of Meriden, Professor Maguire's secretary, and Mrs. Weitzler, of Oxford, Professor Pollak's secretary, provided exceedingly helpful clerical assistance to the group. Indeed, without their unusual contributions this report and the work of our subcommittee could

not have been done.

Wesleyan University: The university's Institute of Ethics and Folitics, which periodically holds weekend conferences of faculty, and political, professional, and business leaders, convened a meeting or urban renewal directors and relocation officers on February 15-16, 1963, to discuss various aspects of their responsibility for public policy and its execution. In addition, the university several times provided a meeting place for our subcommittee and gave various kinds of assistance throughout the study to our Chairman, Professor John David Maguire.

APPENDIX A-THE RESEARCH PROBLEM AND PROCEDURE

The tabulated material throughout this report, and especially the core of chapter IV, involved the gathering and analysis of data secured through field interviews with recently relocated families. It is the outgrowth of a request for research assistance made in August 1962 to the Connecticut Commission on Civil Rights by the Connecticut Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights. The Connecticut Advisory Committee was concerned with "the impact of the Urban Renewal Program on racial discrimination in housing."

With the limited time available, a project was designed to determine the policies and practices of Urban Renewal Administration authorities in Connecticut in regard to the relocation of minority group families, i.e., whether they assumed any responsibility

CXI-1416

for preventing the recurrence of racially segregated neighborhoods among relocated families. It was felt that interviews with a representative cross section of relocated families would provide some clues as to whether the recurrence of segregated neighborhoods represented the preference of relocated families or was imposed upon them by circumstances beyond their control.

Twenty-nine cities in Connecticut had urban redevelopment projects at the time this study was initiated in the fall of 1962. Of these, 14 cities were initially selected for the purpose of interviewing the project officials who were in charge of the relocation of families. The questions asked in the course of these interviews are reproduced in appendix B (schedule I) and the results are discussed in chapter III. These 14 cities include approximately three-fourths of the total nonwhite population of Connecticut, and were chosen because one of the basic purposes of our inquiry was to make a comparison between the relocation of white and nonwhite families. In order to supplement the information secured from the relocation officers, the decision was made to interview a representative cross section of families involved in the relocation process. For this purpose we selected 5 of the 14 cities-Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Norwalk, and New Britain. Since the nonwhite population of Connecticut is concentrated in the larger metropolitan areas, these five cities included approximately four-fifths of all nonwhite families to be displaced, and approximately nine-tenths of all nonwhite families that had already been relocated at the time we started our inquiry. (See Introduction, note 5.)

The sample of families to be interviewed in the five cities was selected by us in cooperation with the relocation officers in each of the cities. The names and addresses of the sample of relocated families were taken from the most recently completed project in each of the cities. The total sample included slightly more than 700 families, which represented about a third of the 2,000 families that had been relocated in this group of projects. (See Introduction, note 8, and chapter I, note 2.)

The sample of Negro families selected in each city was roughly proportionate to the percentage of Negro families in the population. It is felt that the total Negro sample is representative of Negro families relocated in these cities, as well as of Negro families relocated in the State inasmuch as at least two-thirds of the State's Negro popula

tion is concentrated in the five cities. The sample of relocated white

families was chosen to match the number of relocated Negro families

in each city and may be considered to be representative of relocated

white families in the larger metropolitan areas.

make contact with them at the relocated addresses provided by Having selected a total sample of 720 families, we proceeded to the relocation offices. For this purpose, we utilized a corps of volunteer interviewers recruited in each of the cities through the cooperation of colleges, universities, churches, private intergroup agencies, These volunteers received professional and other civic groups. instruction and direction from members of the Research Division of the State Civil Rights Commission in order to insure uniformity in completing the interviews.

The schedule to be administered included a variety of questions on matters such as types of assistance received from the relocation offices, self-relocation (if any), satisfaction with the new location and plans to move or stay, ownership or rental values, racial composition of the neighborhood before and after relocation, satisfaction with the racial composition of the new neighborhood, and race, sex, age, occupation, and type and size of family of each respondent. (See schedule III, app. B.)

interviews with a total of 351 or 49 percent of the total. (See InOf the sample of families selected, we succeeded in completing troduction, note 8.) These included 179 white, 142 Negro, and 30 the process of field interviewing, and was not identified as such in Puerto Rican families. The Puerto Rican category emerged during the original sample. Although data on Puerto Rican families are analyzed separately in this report, the small number of cases does not give it the validity comparable to the white or Negro categories.

It is worth noting that of the 720 families in our sample we were not successful in completing interviews with 26 percent because they had moved from the address furnished us by the relocation office. Another 18 percent were not at home even after repeated visits by our field interviewers. Only 1 percent refused outright to be interviewed after they became aware of the nature of the interrogation. We must recognize that the universe of families involved in relocation includes a substantial proportion of families characterized by low income and relative instability, and hence more likely to move even after they had been relocated at a new address.

One indication of the representativeness of our white and nonwhite sample of relocated families is found in the consistency between the replies of our respondents and LPA records in regard to the "self-relocation" of families. In our sample 83 percent of the whites, 64 percent of the Negroes, and 67 percent of the Puerto Ricans said that they had relocated themselves. The records in the LPA offices in the cities from which the sample was drawn indicated that 73 percent of the whites and 68 percent of the nonwhites had relocated themselves. The slightly higher proportion of "selfrelocation" in our study resulted in part from our grouping of home purchasers and renters, whereas the LPA records refer only to the self-relocation of rental families. In fact, our study reveals that 90 percent of home purchasers, whether white or Negro, were selfrelocated.

« PreviousContinue »