attempted, Affirmative Fair Marketing does not appear to have even a fighting chance of changing present practices and patterns and thus further increasing minority participation in HUD-processed housing programs located in nonminority areas." In relation to voluntary area-wide Affirmative Marketing Plans, the Evaluation Report advocated that HUD should not enter into such agreements unless they :

Were applied to a mangeable area,

Provided for adequate staff and budget on the part of the builder group to carry out the provisions,

Had a work plan with target dates and goals, enabling both HUD and the builders to monitor progress, and

The HUD field office involved had a system for providing necessary technical assistance and for monitoring progress.

At the same time there is impressive evidence that voluntary plans for affirmative action might be effective instruments, while not diluting the legal requirements for such action. At least one such plan, that of the Miami Valley Region (of Ohio), seems to be an acceptable prototype."

At this point it is interesting to review the origin and development of this voluntary agreement. It was initiated locally and, as far as I can discover, without the knowledge and participation of HUD. We discovered that for a long period, the Department disowned it on the basis of its failure to follow HUD format. This was at the time when the Department was pushing the Dallas and San Diego agreements as national models. In contrast, the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission conceived of a voluntary agreement which would supplement its "Dayton Plan" for planned allocation of subsidized housing units in the region. The agreement they developed was designed to reverse the trend toward occupancy of subsidized units in the suburbs by those already residing there, rather than providing opportunities for minority households living in Dayton. Thus, this agreement actually implemented the fair share plan in the region.

The principal elements in the Miami Valley plan, which render it unique ar the following:

1. Communitywide and industry-wide participation in it,

2. Identification of the existence of segregated housing patterns within the jurisdiction of the agreements,

3. Inclusion of specific action proposals,

4. Requirement for an affirmative marketing plan for each housing project, regardless of a sponsor's or broker's being a party to the area-wide voluntary agreement, and

5. Effective organization, staffing, and funding to facilitate meaningful monitoring and administration of the agreement.

In contrast, the Affirmative Marketing Agreement for Voluntary Use by Boards of Realtors, approved by the Board of Directors of the National Association of Realtors on November 11, 1975, falls short of these (and other) critical tests. Actually, it provides little in the nature of affirmative action, requiring instead simple pledges that those Boards which sign it will refrain from violating the law. I am not sure, however, that it actually accomplishes this since the signatories would avoid filing an individual affirmative marketing plan. An industry group which has made so many contributions toward racial residential segregation in tht past would, under the plan, become self-monitoring and self-policing to effect change. Its contacts with community organizations having a substantial interest in housing and equal opportunity would be through the Community Housing Resources Board; but the agreement fails to set criteria for such a board or provide it with either money or authority.

I regret to report that HUD approved the Agreement by action taken on December 16, 1975.'

An Affirmative Fair and Equal Housing Plan for the Miami Valley Region (Dayton, Ohio Miami Regional Planning Commission, July 16, 1974).

Memorandum to Lloyd Davis, Director, Office of Voluntary Compliance, EO, from Albert C. Ettinger, Division of Voluntary Plans, EVH, Status of Voluntary, AreaWide Agreements, Plans and Guidelines as of January 21, 1976 (undated).

At this point I wish to insert a chart (following page) which lists some 18 criteria (included in the Miami Valley Agreement) and the presence or absence of each such criterion in some 16 agreements either approved or considered by HUD as of January 21, 1976. This documents the inadequacy of such agreements and substantiates others' and my belief that voluntary Affirmative Marketing Agreements are generally ineffective and often relieve the industry participants and even HUD from complying with the requirements of recent civil rights legislation.

Y

N

N

N

N

N

L

N

Y

L

Y

IDENTIFICATION OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT SPONSORS

1. "An Affirmative Fair and Equal Housing Plan for the Miami Valley Region: A Voluntary Plan Developed by Representatives of Real Estate Related Organizations and Governmental Agencies to correct Racially Segregated Housing Patterns in the Region." July 16, 1974. Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission, Dayton, Ohio.

2. "Agreement between the Dallas Builder Group and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development", Dallas Builder Group, Dallas, Tx.

3. "Memorandum of Agreeemnt Between the Home Builders Association of the San Joaquin Valley, Inc. and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development," Home Builders Association of the San Joaquin Valley, Inc., San Joaquin, Ca.

4. "The Altus Group Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Agreement" The Area Builder/Developer/Marketing Group, Altus, Okla.

5. "Affirmative Marketing Agreement for Voluntary Use by Boards of Realtors," National Association of Realtors, Washington, D.C.

6. "Agreement between Cleveland Area Real Estate Board (hereinafter called "Realtors") and Cleveland Association of Real Estate Brokers (hereinafter called Realtists") and the Housing Offices of the cities of Shaker Heights and Cleveland Heights, Ohio." The Cuyahoga Plan, Cleveland, Ohio. 7. "Affirmative Action Plan For Advancing Fair and Open Housing in the Greater Hartford Area by Individual Lending Institutions of the Capital Region Lending Group as Endorsed by U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and Urban League of Greater Hartford, Inc., Greater Hartford Lenders Group, Hartford, Cn.

8. "Affirmative Marketing Plan," Lubbock Association of Builders, Lubbock, TX.

9. "Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan", The Home Builders Association of Alabama and their members.

10. "Affirmative Action Agreement, 1975 for Lane, County, HUD and Apartment Council of Lane County." Apartment Council of Lane County, Lane County, Oregon.

11. "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Home Builder's Association of Metro Denver and U.S. Hud." The HBA of Metro Denver, Denver, Colo. 12. "Houston Apartment Association's Affirmative Plan" Houston Apartment Association, Houston, Tx.

13. "Memorandum of Understanding between Minnesota Apartment Association and HUD," Minnesota Apartment Association,

14. "Clark County Fair Housing Plan", Southern Nevada Home Builders Association, Southern Nevada Mortgage Bankers Assoc., Nevada Apartment Assoc., HUD.

15. "San Diego County Affirmative Marketing Agreement Between the San Diego Building Contractors association and HUD." San Diego, Ca.

16. "Affirmative Marketing Agreement for Voluntary Endorsement by Local Home Builders Associations, as approved by the National Association of House Builders and HUD." Washington, D.C.

The legislative history of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 indicates that Congress intended that applications for community development would assure the use of such funds in a manner responsive to the needs of low- and moderate-income persons within an area-wide context. And, of course, because class and color are so intertwined in urban housing policies and practices, what affects lower-income persons has significant racial and civil rights implications. In order to understand what is involved, it is necessary to refer to pertinent provisions of the 1974 Act. Among the primary objectives of the Community Development title of the Act were:

Expansion and improvement of the quantity and quality of community services, principally for persons of low- and moderate-income. More rational utilization of land, and

Reduction of the isolation of economic groups within communities and geographic areas through spatial deconcentration of housing opportunities for lower income persons.

A unique feature of the Act was the Housing Assistance Plan (HAP) required from each locality desiring a community development block grant. HAP