just point out one thing at the moment. What we are talking about is simply service centers in those three areas, the far Southeast, the far Northeast, and upper Cardozo.

Mr. NATCHER. And the 38 positions would be in these three service centers that appear on this chart?

Mr. ALEXANDER. Right. There will be 10 positions allied with each one of those sir. The eight remaining positions would be in the central office, with the responsibility for development, monitoring, changing, and making sure the program works.

COMPARABLE USE OF SERVICE CENTER CONCEPT

Mr. NATCHER. Ten each in the service centers, eight in the central office, making the total of 38 and, Mr. Alexander, you are sold on this program and this is a program that you sincerely believe should be approved? Can you cite to the committee, Mr. Alexander, any city comparable in size to the city of Washington where they have similar service centers in operation that are successfully operated at this time? Mr. ALEXANDER. San Francisco, if I recall correctly, sir, I know definitely has one. I think they actually have two more, a total of approximately three. Oakland has more than that. I don't recall the specific number. Boston, of course, is not quite similar in size but they have operated in a slightly different direction. If I recall correctly, they have approximately 19 what they call mini-city halls scattered throughout the area. There is quite a difference because their minicity halls are essentially, well, with some variation-places where people can come in and get licenses, can come in and get certain problems taken care of and can appeal to an advocate in the city hall to take care of them. I think the best example I could cite are Oakland and San Francisco. And Cleveland has several service centers.

The problem you have with saying service centers is that very often service centers are a title used for information centers where somebody walks in and simply says "Where is the Welfare Department?" or "Where is the Health Department?" or "How do I get employment help?" The ones I have been citing to you except for Boston are cases where they actually have service centers as such.

I should point out quite candidly that one of the points with this is that the research done on service centers developed over the period of the past 5 years has been as close to being inadequate as anything I can imagine. What really counts in analyzing a service center is this basic question: What did you have before you had a service center? What was that costing you in terms of money, in terms of application of resources, in terms of staff time? What effect was that having on people in the area? Then the second question deals with this new system, the service center, the single door center. What is the difference in terms of cost, of adequate use of resources, of doing something for people in the area with the same resources?

That question you don't find answered basically in much of the research. The research, unfortunately, is too often confined only to such questions as how many people flow through the doors; what kind of citizen involvement, which is important, is there in a program; what kind of relationship is there among the different players and different agencies in the center? The specific kind of blunt hard-nosed research

I am talking about simply doesn't exist, Mr. Chairman, and that is one of the things we need. If you ask me to be candid with you I am glad we are sitting here with a request for those three service centers and not for any more at this time because I think we really have to analyze that system a lot more effectively.

MODEL CITIES PROGRAM

Mr. NATCHER. Now, Mr. Alexander, if you would, provide a progress report on the model cities program for the record. You don't have to make it voluminous, but just state the essential facts and submit it to Mr. Silsby, please.

(The information follows:)

The District of Columbia's model cities program is in its first action year. The program entered its first action year April 17, 1970, has seven operational projects under contract, four others approved by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and awaits HUD action on 18 additional programs before May 21, 1970.

The projects in the first year action plan range from broad youth and juvenile delinquency prevention programs to efforts to provide improved training for jobs and new careers for model neighborhood residents.

A total of $3.2 million has been awarded to date by HUD; $6.4 million remains to be granted; approximately $1 million has been earmarked by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for educational, health and rehabilitation programs.

Staffing for the model cities action phase still is underway.

While planning for the model neighborhood initially centered around development of coordinated projects using the HUD $9.6 million is supplementary money, and the hoped-for earmarking from HEW and other agencies, planning for succeeding action years will increasingly be concerned also with more effective use of funds already flowing into the model neighborhood and adjacent areas. This will involve indepth inventories of programs, public and private, operational or planned in the area, also will involve analysis of the effectiveness of those programs and then steps to improve, expand or replace them, utilizing existing funds.

One example of such an effort is the review recently completed of urban renewal plans for the Shaw area. Model cities planners and representatives of other concerned agencies, MICCO, United Planning Organization, Peoples Involvement Corporaton, the Urban League, Redevelopment Land Agency and others pooled staff for a joint review of proposals, a Model Cities Commission appraisal and development of final recommendations for National Capital Planning Commission and City Council action.

Proper use of the urban renewal money is vital to the future of the inner city and to model neighborhood planning and development.

The approved and contracted projects in the first year action plan include: 1. Senior Citizen Center, $300,000, Family and Child Services, Inc., to provide comprehensive services to model neighborhood senior citizens: housing, feeding programs, homemakers services, health, transportation and recreation. 2. Northeast Neighborhood House, $218,000, Neighborhood Improvement Association, Inc., to provide recreation and cultural programs for Stanton Park Youth. Employment training and counseling. (Formerly directed by Robert Christian.)

3. Kingman Boys Club, $30,000, Kingman Boys Club, Inc., to give adult male guidance, workshop training, recreation opportunities-450 kids in lower Shaw. 4. Harrison Community School, $286,000, District of Columbia public schools, to involve 600 lower Shaw residents in Harrison Community School's activities: nighttime adult education, family living and cultural development, evening child care center.

5. Storefront libraries and bookmobile, $367,000, District of Columbia public libraries, to create five storefront libraries and one bookmobile to service model neighborhood residents. At present only one library serves the model area.

6. Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Corps. $180,000, Northwest Settlement House, UPO, John Layton Teen Center and Youth Corps, Inc., modeled after roving leader program. These 15 youth workers to channel model area youths

into on-going recreation and skill-a-training programs. Provide emergency assistance to youths in trouble with the law.

7. Rubella investigation program, $67,500, Department of Public Health, to vaccinate model area residents against german measles during expected peak year.

The approved projects pending contract in the first-year action plan include:

1. National Capital area daycare program, $215,000, National Capital Area Daycare Association, to set up 10 new daycare centers in the model area serving 213 children.

2. Dropout prevention program, $35,000, United Planning Organization, to enable 140 model neighborhood high school dropouts to complete their degrees through evening classes.

3. New Careers, $150,000, United Planning Organization, to take marginally employed and obtain new jobs which, with training, can provide career ladders. 4. Project Build, $674,000, Project Build, to train 140 17-24-year-old model area young men in building and construction trades.

Projects pending approval by DHUD include:

1. Economic Development Corp., $925,000, Neighborhood Corp. (incorporation in process).

2. Coordinated Consumer Protection Network, $450,000, United Planning Organization.

3. Education in Home living, $100,000, Homemaker Service of the District of Columbia.

4. Day Care, $285,000, Northwest Settlement House, Stanton Park Center, WCEP, Catholic Charities.

5. Health Outreach and Community Organization, $622,000, Health and Welfare Council and United Planning Organization.

6. Health services program, $801,000, George Washington University.

7. Roving teachers, $150,000, Federal City College. Truancy prevention, $130,000, Hospitality House.

8. Survey of citizen definition of crime, $20,000, Office of Criminal Justice Planning.

9. Citizen recreation program, $167,500, Junior Citizen Corps. Youth Mediators, $80,000, Youth Mediators. Recreation in Schools, $15,000, District of Columbia Department of Recreation.

10. Housing Development Corp., $820,000, Neighborhood Corp. (incorporation in process). Family Rehabilitation Center, $125,000, Neighborhood Corp. (incorporation in process).

11. Multipurpose Youth Center, $51,000, United Block Association. Multiservice Center, $138,000, Office of Program Development and Evaluation, unit-District Government.

12. Public Service Corp., $525,000, Neighborhood Corp. (incorporation in process).

Mr. NATCHER. I believe the model cities program involves only Federal funds; is that correct?

Mr. ALEXANDER. That is correct, sir, except for, obviously, some of my time and my division's time.

Mr. NATCHER. I understand. Now, Mr. Patten, suppose you go ahead.

Mr. PATTEN. With reference to "Student loan" and "Higher Education," I see you have that omitted.

Mr. ALEXANDER. They have been transferred to another office, sir. They were transferred to the Department of Human Resources. Mr. WATT. They will show up later in the budget again.

Mr. ALEXANDER. This was basically a grant with some matching funds from the District.

Mr. PATTEN. No other questions.

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Davis?

Mr. DAVIS. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. NATCHER. Mr. Alexander, thank you very much.

Mr. ALEXANDER. Thank you, sir.