Improved educational and welfare programs seek to eliminate social problems. Yet these problems are only compounded when Negroes and other minority groups are confined by racial discrimination to a "ghettoized" environment of poor housing, crowded streets, discouragement, and defeat. Little is gained from elaborate programs of urban renewal if another slum is created on the borders of the old one because displaced families are merely shifted to a more confined area. Efforts and resources are especially wasted when many of these families are financially capable of securing good housing if only the market were open to them.

In 1957, New York City adopted the first city ordinance barring racial and religious discrimination in private housing. A number of other cities have since adopted similar ordinances. In addition, some 50 cities have enacted measures applicable to government-aided accommodations, such as those in public housing or urban redevelopment projects. Four cities have special legislation barring real estate brokers from engaging in certain practices designed to induce panic selling out of fear that persons of another racial or ethnic background will enter the neighborhood.

Adoption of antidiscrimination housing measures only in the central cities has obvious limitations, however, in terms of opening up the housing market of a metropolitan area. Moreover, fair housing laws limited to the core cities may accelerate the exodus of whites and result in greater segregation of Negroes. Statewide antidiscrimination legislation, on the other hand, can enlarge opportunities for minority groups by permitting freer metropolitan market conditions to operate. At last count, 18 States maintained such laws, varying in their coverage of publicly owned housing, housing supported to some degree by public funds, and private housing. Private housing was covered by the laws of 12 of these States.

The effectiveness of State laws against discrimination in housing depends on the cooperation of a number of governmental agencies having some responsibility for housing. In 1959, several States negotiated agreements with the Federal Housing Administration, Veterans' Administration, and Urban Renewal Administration. A typical agreement provided that FHA would attach a rider to applications for mortgage insurance spelling out the main provisions of the State's nondiscrimination legislation and indicating the Federal agency's requirement that the builder or developer seeking the insurance abide by the laws; and that FHA would provide the State administrative agency with regular listings of subdivision and project approvals by the Federal agency. Other agreements of a less formal nature were reached between State agencies enforcing antidiscrimination statutes and the Public Housing Administration. These permitted a close working relationship and exchange of information.

The Federal Government took direct action against discrimination in housing in November 1962 when President Kennedy issued Executive Order 11063 on equal opportunity in housing. The order applies to housing (1) owned or operated by the Federal Government; (2) provided in whole or in part with the aid of Federal loans, grants, advances, or contributions: (3) provided in whole or in part by loans insured, guaranteed, or otherwise secured by Federal credit; or (4) provided by development or redevelopment of real property made

available by a State or local public agency through Federal financial assistance for slum clearance or urban renewal.

After issuance of the Federal Executive order, steps were necessary to avoid duplication and inconsistency between the Federal order and State laws, and to assure maximum total effectiveness in barring housing discrimination. As a result, the States and the Federal Government have instituted negotiations to develop comprehensive agreements for coordination in administering fair housing laws of both levels of government. The first such agreement was concluded in late 1963 and early 1964 between the Minnesota State Commission Against Discrimination and the Urban Renewal Administration, Public Housing Administration, Federal Housing Administration, Community Facilities Administration, and Veterans' Administration. The "memorandum of understanding" provides, for example, that URA will furnish the Minnesota agency with copies of legislation, Executive orders, URA regulations, and other requirements involved in administration of URA nondiscrimination housing provisions; that the Housing and Urban Development Department's regional office and the local public agency will notify the State agency of any complaints alleging violation of the State antidiscrimination housing laws; and that the State agency will reciprocate vis-a-vis the Federal order.

In its role as coordinator, the President's Committee on Equal Opportunity in Housing, created by Executive order, has also acted to develop cooperation between Federal and State agencies. In May 1964, its Chairman, former Gov. David Lawrence of Pennsylvania, signed a memorandum of understanding with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination. The agreement provides that each Federal department and agency affected will designate an officer to be responsible for liaison between the State commission and the Federal department or agency. A subsequent agreement between the State agency and the Federal departments and agencies, as in Minnesota, would provide the procedure for more detailed cooperation. The President's Committee is urging other States to negotiate agreements similar to that in Minnesota.

6. The Commission recommends that the Congress remove existing limitations on nonresidential renewal from the Federal urban renewal program.

Urban renewal is a basic tool for meeting a variety of needs in urban communities. Decisions affecting the equitable allocation of housing types, tax base, employment locations, and public facility and service needs among various governments within a metropolitan area are often partially determined by renewal programs. The present limitation of 35 percent of the total Federal urban renewal appropriation which may be spent on commercial renewal projects is an arbitrary limitation which unnecessarily limits flexibility in renewal planning. Local communities which apply first may exhaust the funds available for nonresidential renewal, leaving other cities without similar possibilities. Removal of this limitation would allow closer attention to projects for improving the city tax base and providing employment centers close to population concentrations.

Unemployment among central city residents is proportionately 25 percent more serious than among suburban residents, even though 12

percent of the central city residents commute to suburban jobs (1960) data). Part of this unemployment differential is undoubtedly due to the higher proportions of low-income families, nonwhites, and household and service workers who live in the central cities. In many cases, nonresidential renewal may be able to create jobs for these people within the central cities and thus help to reduce central city unemployment. Arbitrary limitations on nonresidential projects can hobble unnecessarily the planning of renewal projects designed to meet social and economic needs of the metropolitan area as a whole. 7. The Commission recommends that Governors of the several States and the Secretary of Labor take steps to assure that public employment services are provided to all job applicants and employees within metropolitan area labor markets regardless of State lines. These steps should include interstate agreements and action by the Secretary to assure that such arrangements are being carried out effectively as a condition of Federal grants for employment security administration.

Under the Federal-State employment security program, maintenance of a public employment service is a joint responsibility of the State and Federal Governments. The U.S. Employment Service helps establish and maintain systems of public employment offices in the States, assists in staff training, develops and disseminates employment information, provides coordination of the State systems, develops and prescribes minimum standards of efficiency, and maintains a system for clearing labor among the States. The Federal Government pays all administrative costs of the State agencies and approves their staffing. State agencies submit detailed operating plans for approval of the Secretary of Labor and are subject to regulations of the Secretary in administering their employment service programs. In metropolitan areas covering parts of two or more States, problems of coordination are created by the existence of divided administrative responsibility within an essentially single labor market. These problems tend to obstruct the most effective matching of job applicants and job vacancies. In 1963, there were 32 such interstate standard metropolitan statistical areas, with a 1960 population of 40.9 million.

The U.S. Employment Service has taken a number of steps to overcome this arbitrary division of the labor market in interstate metropolitan areas. Most of these measures are directed toward improved coordination within metropolitan areas in general. The Federal agency is carrying on an educational campaign, for example, to persuade State employment agencies to establish employment offices in metropolitan areas on the basis of industry and occupation specialty rather than geography, mainly for the higher skills and professions. With this procedure, an applicant would register in just one office to be certain of being tapped for all jobs available in the area or at least within that portion of the area within his State. Under the older system of setting up numerous offices on a geographic basis and having each one responsible for all type of skills, the problems of coordinating job and personnel information were more complicated and uncertain. Forty-four of the fifty-five metropolitan areas over 500,000 had undergone this reorganization by the fall of 1964.

The problem of divided labor markets is likely to be most serious in metropolitan areas in which the nonwhite unemployed are concentrated in the central city, part or all of the suburbs are in another State or States, and job opportunities are in the suburbs. If there is discrimination against Negroes in the suburbs, there will be a tendency for less than full cooperation on the part of the suburban employment office, in spite of informal and formal procedures and organizational devices for assuring such cooperation.

In these circumstances, it might be expected that Negro applicants would register in all available employment offices regardless of their residence, since that is their right. Many of the unemployed, however, are also the undereducated, unskilled, and semiskilled who are not likely to seek additional contact points for employment in two or more different State employment offices. Thus, if the employment office in the place of their residence-for example, the central city--does not help them find a job, they are unlikely to look for help elsewhere. If there is less than full cooperation between the central city employment office and the suburban office, the unemployed person is, for practical purposes, out of reach of the registration service of the suburban office.

Where these difficulties result from divided State administration, the Commission urges the State and Federal Governments to work more effectively in assuring coordinated action in the metropolitan As heads of State administration, Governors should see to it that their State employment agencies wholeheartedly support such coordination. Cooperative agreements, such as that now in effect in the Washington, DC. area, should be negotiated in interstate metropolitan areas. For these to be more than paper agreements, however, every effort should be made by responsible Federal and State officials to assure that they actually produce a full flow of information and service over State lines in the metropolitan area.

2. PROMOTING ADJUSTMENT OF GOVERNMENTAL JURISDICTIONS

Many basic recommendations of the Commission, described above, emphasize the need for adjusting local governmental boundaries, functions, and financial powers in metropolitan areas to meet changing needs. These measures would substantially reduce the impact of many factors that make it difficult for local government to cope with disparity problems. Recommendations seeking to ease local government boundary problems have urged: (1) simplified statutory requirements for municipal annexation of unincorporated territory; (2) stricter State standards for new incorporations; (3) control of the formation of new special districts; (4) authorization for interlocal contracting, joint performance of urban services, and voluntary transfer of functions among city and county governments; and (5) authorization and encouragement for the establishment of metropolitan councils of governments, metropolitan planning agencies, metropolitan study commissions, and metropolitan service corporations to perform governmental services that call for areawide handling.

Other Commission recommendations seeking to strengthen local governments functionally and financially have urged (1) that units of general local government-counties, cities, and towns-be given all

powers not expressly reserved to the State in its constitution nor preempted by the State through action of the legislature; (2) that State limitations on local government tax and debt powers be removed; and (3) that cities and adjoining jurisdictions in large metropolitan areas be given uniform authority for levying and cooperative administration of nonproperty taxes.

The Commission has also recommended that States assert their legislative authority so as to afford leadership, stimulation, and appropriate supervision with respect to metropolitan area problems, especially in metropolitan areas that invlove more than one county. States have also been urged to assume an active role in resolving disputes among local governments within metropolitan areas and lending their good offices for facilitating of interlocal contracting and for similar purposes within metropolitan areas.

Without structural and administrative adjustments in local government, it will be extremely difficult to deal with social and economic disparity problems.

In addition to these previous recommendations, the Commission proposes action to broaden political jurisdiction for the functions of urban renewal, public housing, vocational education, retraining, and for certain local tax powers.

8. The Commission recommends State legislation authorizing counties in metropolitan areas to provide urban renewal and public housing services to unincorporated areas and small municipalities; and providing financial and technical assistance to counties as well as municipalities for establishing such services and coordinating their administration, especially in multicounty metropolitan areas.35

Urban renewal and public housing programs are needed and should be carried out in all parts of most of our metropolitan areas. County responsibility for programs would tend to broaden the area of jurisdiction by including unincorporated areas and in some cases incorporated areas that do not have programs of their own. Cooperation between county and city renewal and housing agencies, and even joint city-county programs in certain cases, would be possible. The role of the county that is indispensable is the role of project sponsor and provider of workable program certification in unincorporated areas where there is no other government capable of performing this role.

Urban renewal and public housing are highly technical programs. They require qualified professional personnel, and they may also require an upgrading of many local programs in such fields as planning, code enforcement, and capital improvement programing. Federal "workable program" requirements are often difficult for small localities to meet without help. Recognizing these problems, the State of Kentucky has established a program (assisted by a Federal urban renewal demonstration grant) that provides localities with technical and staff assistance in preparing workable programs for Federal urban renewal and public housing grants. In addition, the State of Maine is considering establishment of a program to provide its locali

35 See "Urban Renewal and Public Housing," ACIR 1966 State Legislative Program (Washington, D.C.: October 1965), pp. 297-350. A model act providing authorization for public housing programs will be included in the Commission's 1967 State Legislative Program.