打印

作者

John Gaber

来源

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION,Vol.85,Issue3,P.188-201

语言

英文

关键字

citizen participation,Housing and Urban Development (HUD),Johnson administration,Model Cities Program,Sherry Arnstein

作者单位

摘要

AbstractProblem, research strategy, and findings: Sherry Arnstein’s “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” is the cornerstone for planners thinking about citizen participation. Arnstein wrote the article based on her experiences working at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) from 1967 to 1968 as the chief advisor on citizen participation in the Model Cities Program. Despite the article’s substantial influence on the planning field, very little has been published about Arnstein herself and the contributing factors that influenced her writing. In this article, I draw on life history and archival research to place “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” and its author in their historical context, offering new insights into the politics behind the emphasis on citizen involvement in the Model Cities Program and Arnstein’s call to action for a new “partnership” interpretation of citizen participation. I conclude with Arnstein’s broader partnership model as a new point of departure for the emerging dialogue about the equalizing relationship between local government and community groups among the next generation of planners and scholars.Takeaway for practice: There are two takeaways that practicing planners can learn from following Arnstein’s journey in building “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” First, Arnstein’s career is a blueprint that shows how community advocacy planners can be pragmatic instigators for change. Her professional working model in establishing shared understandings while working within institutional constraints is an important strategy Arnstein used to tackle nationwide injustices ranging from juvenile delinquency, to segregation of hospitals, to inequitable citizen participation practices. Second, Arstein only discusses half of her HUD citizen participation work in “A Ladder.” The other half of her citizen participation work looked at local governments taking the lead for creating equitable citizen participation processes through the building of long-term “partnerships” with local community groups.Keywords: citizen participation, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Johnson administration, Model Cities Program, Sherry ArnsteinAdditional informationAuthor informationJohn GaberJOHN GABER, AICP (jgaber@clemson.edu), is department chair and professor of city planning and real estate development at Clemson University.AcknowledgmentsI thank the anonymous reviewers for their detailed and insightful suggestions. The co–guest editors for this special JAPA issue were very encouraging and positive. I am deeply indebted to George Arnstein and Dan Fox for their time, guidance, and encouragement.Research SupportArchival research into the Model Cities Program was supported by a Moody Research Grant from the LBJ Presidential Library.Notes1 Operating through the Public Health Service, the Hill-Burton Act provided funding to states for planning and expanding their health care facilities, especially in rural areas. “State health departments had to arrange a survey to bring out unmet needs in various areas of the state and various medical specialties, and establish a broad-based advisory board to determine priorities” (Leiby, 1978 Leiby, J. (1978). A history of social welfare and social work in the United States. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. [Google Scholar], p. 288). The Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital in North Carolina was a segregated hospital that used Hill-Burton funds to expand its facilities. When dentist Dr. George Simkins and a handful of Black dentists, doctors, and patients were denied admissions to the hospital, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund pursued a discrimination suit against the hospital on grounds that the Hill-Burton statue of “separate-but-equal…(was) unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” (Reynolds, 1997 Reynolds, P. P. (1997). Hospitals and civil rights, 1945–1963: The case of Simkins v. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126(11), 898–906. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-126-11-199706010-[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar], p. 902).2 The Guerrillas advocated a more aggressive redistribution of resources and “bottom-up” policymaking, controlled by local poor residents (Raymor, 1999 Raymor, G. (1999). The Ford Foundation’s war on poverty: Private philanthropy and race relations in New York City, 1948–1969. In E. Lagemann (Ed.), Philanthropic Foundations: New scholarship, new positions (pp. 195–228). Bloomington: Indiana University Press. [Google Scholar], p. 214). The group was first called “Hackett’s Guerrillas” after PCJD member David Hackett, Robert Kennedy’s aide in the Justice Department, who first championed their cause (Wood, 1993 Wood, R. (1993). Whatever possessed the President: Academic experts and presidential policy, 1960–1988. Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press. [Google Scholar], p. 64). Hackett’s Guerrillas became “Bobby’s Guerrillas” following the assassination of President Kennedy, when Robert Kennedy began to aggressively push a bottom-up, community action approach to urban change, in contrast to President Johnson’s more restrained, Gray Areas–style vision (Stossel, 2004 Stossel, S. (2004). Sarge: The life and times of Sargent Shriver. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Books. [Google Scholar], p. 366). As soon as community action became a national policy, it quickly ran into trouble both internally and externally. Internally, the Office of Economic Opportunity staff, filled with former PCJD “Bobby’s Guerrillas” staff members who operated using a less-than-orthodox approach to government and were commonly derided as “space cadets” by non–Office of Economic Opportunity White House staff (Lemann, 1991 Lemann, N. (1991). The promised land: The great Black migration and how it changed America. New York, NY: Vintage Press. [Google Scholar], p. 119). Externally, the provision of federal dollars funneled to local community action agencies for the delivery of social services in low-income communities was immediately seen as a threat by local governments who thought it was their “moral responsibility” to take care of their own residents (Marris & Rein, 1967 Marris, P., & Rein, M. (1967). Dilemmas of social reform. New York, NY: Atherton Press. [Google Scholar], p. 221).3 Using the findings published in the 1964 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations annual report (Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1964 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1964). [Federal action needed to improve intergovernmental relations in metropolitan areas, in reports prepared for the consideration of the National Commission on Urban Problems]. Office Files of James Gaither (Box 337). Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. [Google Scholar]), Johnson launched his creative federalism initiative and made Model Cities the case study for his creative federalism vision. The spirit of creative federalism was based on a cooperative effort of state, county, and local governments, working together on innovative new programs put forward by the federal government to address pressing domestic problems. Creative federalism was part of a long line of federal centralizing practices, beginning with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s via the Public Works Administration and later with the National Resource Planning Board; President Harry Truman continued the practice with the National Housing Act of 1949 (Wood, 1993 Wood, R. (1993). Whatever possessed the President: Academic experts and presidential policy, 1960–1988. Amherst, MA: The University of Massachusetts Press. [Google Scholar]). The report concluded that based on the “paucity of (local) political leadership…[f]ederal action is needed to improve intergovernmental relations in metropolitan areas” (Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1964 Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. (1964). [Federal action needed to improve intergovernmental relations in metropolitan areas, in reports prepared for the consideration of the National Commission on Urban Problems]. Office Files of James Gaither (Box 337). Austin, TX: LBJ Presidential Library. [Google Scholar], p. 2).4 The Rafsky Committee produced an unpublished document, “Report to the Secretary on Proposed City Demonstration Program,” and presented it to HUD Secretary Weaver in September 1966 (Brown & Frieden, 1976 Brown, L., & Frieden, B. (1976). Rulemaking by improvisation: Guidelines and goals in the Model Cities Program. Policy Sciences, 7(4), 455–488. doi:10.1007/BF00139941[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]).5 Arnstein recruited Len Duhl and Dan Fox as independent consultants to help her develop an independent understanding of citizen participation from what was currently held by HUD staffers. At the time, Len Duhl was a young community health planning professor at UC Berkeley, and Dan Fox was a nationally recognized local community organizer.