Ironies of urban reform: Professional turf battles in the planning of the mobilization for youth program precursor to the war on poverty

Journal of Urban History

Volumn 26, Issue 1, 1999, Pages 22-43

  Cazenave, Noel A ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GRASSROOTS LEVEL; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; PLANNING HISTORY; POVERTY ALLEVIATION; REFORM PROCESS; URBAN AREA;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 0033283166     PISSN: 00961442     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/009614429902600102     Document Type: Article

References (110)

1. While the production and application of scientific knowledge assumes a hierarchy of expertise, the exercise of democracy - consistent with its classical ideals - is predicated on the existence of effective mechanisms of mass-scale participation. Taking a pluralistic approach, Marris and Rein identified government, science, and citizen participation as countervailing forces in urban reform, while according to Brager et al., (citizen) participation, (scientific) expertise, and (executive) leadership are competing values in community organizing. Finally, Dickson notes that with the rise of science and its impact on public policy there are two competing approaches to decision making, the technocratic approach and the democratic approach. Peter Marris and Martin Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action in the United States (Chicago, 1982), 32. George Brager, Harry Specht, and James L. Torczyner, Community Organizing (New York, 1987), 4. David Dickson, The New Politics of Science (New York, 1984), 219.
2. While the production and application of scientific knowledge assumes a hierarchy of expertise, the exercise of democracy - consistent with its classical ideals - is predicated on the existence of effective mechanisms of mass-scale participation. Taking a pluralistic approach, Marris and Rein identified government, science, and citizen participation as countervailing forces in urban reform, while according to Brager et al., (citizen) participation, (scientific) expertise, and (executive) leadership are competing values in community organizing. Finally, Dickson notes that with the rise of science and its impact on public policy there are two competing approaches to decision making, the technocratic approach and the democratic approach. Peter Marris and Martin Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action in the United States (Chicago, 1982), 32. George Brager, Harry Specht, and James L. Torczyner, Community Organizing (New York, 1987), 4. David Dickson, The New Politics of Science (New York, 1984), 219.
3. While the production and application of scientific knowledge assumes a hierarchy of expertise, the exercise of democracy - consistent with its classical ideals - is predicated on the existence of effective mechanisms of mass-scale participation. Taking a pluralistic approach, Marris and Rein identified government, science, and citizen participation as countervailing forces in urban reform, while according to Brager et al., (citizen) participation, (scientific) expertise, and (executive) leadership are competing values in community organizing. Finally, Dickson notes that with the rise of science and its impact on public policy there are two competing approaches to decision making, the technocratic approach and the democratic approach. Peter Marris and Martin Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform: Poverty and Community Action in the United States (Chicago, 1982), 32. George Brager, Harry Specht, and James L. Torczyner, Community Organizing (New York, 1987), 4. David Dickson, The New Politics of Science (New York, 1984), 219.
4. Of course, the issue is not this simple. There is not now and has never been one theory of democracy or one model of applied social science. Instead, elite professionals with competing views of democracy and science have battled for dominance during different historic periods. The existence and consequences of such competition are a major focus of this study.
5. Random House Webster's College Dictionary (New York, 1992), 713.
6. Ironically, from the late 1950s through the late 1960s, American urban reform decision making was characterized by demands among top-level policy makers for both scientific expertise and mass-scale democratic participation. Social science experts seemed to have been caught at cross-currents. Some embraced a more activist, professional-reformer model of applied social science - one more compatible with their encroachment into traditional social work turf. For example, Cloward and Ohlin's Delinquency and Opportunity, the chief intellectual treatise of the War on Poverty and its immediate program precursors, legitimized the opportunity and community action focus of the increasingly politically contentious emergent postreform era of urban politics. Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (New York, 1960). However, the experiences of social scientists in the planning of urban reform movements like urban renewal was more in keeping with their customary professional interests and work habits. This tradition predisposed them to top-down planning styles characteristic of professionals as experts. Concurrent with the challenges of the professional reformers, influential American social scientists such as Robert Dahl, a Yale University political scientist, and Daniel Bell, a Harvard University sociology professor, crafted an antiparticipatory democratic theory. With its emphasis on the need to protect democratic stability and freedom, their revisionist view of democracy championed a very limited role for citizen participation in politics. See Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, CT, 1961), and Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties (Glencoe, IL, 1960).
7. Ironically, from the late 1950s through the late 1960s, American urban reform decision making was characterized by demands among top-level policy makers for both scientific expertise and mass-scale democratic participation. Social science experts seemed to have been caught at cross-currents. Some embraced a more activist, professional-reformer model of applied social science - one more compatible with their encroachment into traditional social work turf. For example, Cloward and Ohlin's Delinquency and Opportunity, the chief intellectual treatise of the War on Poverty and its immediate program precursors, legitimized the opportunity and community action focus of the increasingly politically contentious emergent postreform era of urban politics. Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (New York, 1960). However, the experiences of social scientists in the planning of urban reform movements like urban renewal was more in keeping with their customary professional interests and work habits. This tradition predisposed them to top-down planning styles characteristic of professionals as experts. Concurrent with the challenges of the professional reformers, influential American social scientists such as Robert Dahl, a Yale University political scientist, and Daniel Bell, a Harvard University sociology professor, crafted an antiparticipatory democratic theory. With its emphasis on the need to protect democratic stability and freedom, their revisionist view of democracy championed a very limited role for citizen participation in politics. See Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, CT, 1961), and Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties (Glencoe, IL, 1960).
8. Ironically, from the late 1950s through the late 1960s, American urban reform decision making was characterized by demands among top-level policy makers for both scientific expertise and mass-scale democratic participation. Social science experts seemed to have been caught at cross-currents. Some embraced a more activist, professional-reformer model of applied social science - one more compatible with their encroachment into traditional social work turf. For example, Cloward and Ohlin's Delinquency and Opportunity, the chief intellectual treatise of the War on Poverty and its immediate program precursors, legitimized the opportunity and community action focus of the increasingly politically contentious emergent postreform era of urban politics. Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (New York, 1960). However, the experiences of social scientists in the planning of urban reform movements like urban renewal was more in keeping with their customary professional interests and work habits. This tradition predisposed them to top-down planning styles characteristic of professionals as experts. Concurrent with the challenges of the professional reformers, influential American social scientists such as Robert Dahl, a Yale University political scientist, and Daniel Bell, a Harvard University sociology professor, crafted an antiparticipatory democratic theory. With its emphasis on the need to protect democratic stability and freedom, their revisionist view of democracy championed a very limited role for citizen participation in politics. See Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, CT, 1961), and Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties (Glencoe, IL, 1960).
9. Ironically, from the late 1950s through the late 1960s, American urban reform decision making was characterized by demands among top-level policy makers for both scientific expertise and mass-scale democratic participation. Social science experts seemed to have been caught at cross-currents. Some embraced a more activist, professional-reformer model of applied social science - one more compatible with their encroachment into traditional social work turf. For example, Cloward and Ohlin's Delinquency and Opportunity, the chief intellectual treatise of the War on Poverty and its immediate program precursors, legitimized the opportunity and community action focus of the increasingly politically contentious emergent postreform era of urban politics. Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity: A Theory of Delinquent Gangs (New York, 1960). However, the experiences of social scientists in the planning of urban reform movements like urban renewal was more in keeping with their customary professional interests and work habits. This tradition predisposed them to top-down planning styles characteristic of professionals as experts. Concurrent with the challenges of the professional reformers, influential American social scientists such as Robert Dahl, a Yale University political scientist, and Daniel Bell, a Harvard University sociology professor, crafted an antiparticipatory democratic theory. With its emphasis on the need to protect democratic stability and freedom, their revisionist view of democracy championed a very limited role for citizen participation in politics. See Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, CT, 1961), and Daniel Bell, The End of Ideology: On the Exhaustion of Political Ideas in the Fifties (Glencoe, IL, 1960).
10. Clarence N. Stone, Robert K. Whelan, and William J. Murin, Urban Politics in a Bureaucratic Age (Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986), 172-3.
11. Helen Hall, Unfinished Business in Neighborhood and Nation (New York, 1971), 276.
12. Two of the most quoted studies of Mobilization for Youth (MFY) and other program precursors to the War on Poverty were insider reports in that the authors of the studies were chosen and funded by the programs' major sponsoring agencies. These studies are Marris and Rein's Dilemmas of Social Reform and Daniel Knapp and Kenneth Polk's Scouting the War on Poverty: Social Reform Politics in the Kennedy Administration (Lexington, 1971). Daniel P. Moynihan's Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty (New York, 1970) was written by a high-level employee of the U.S. Department of Labor who unsuccessfully battled for a jobs-versus-community-action strategy to dominate the War on Poverty. MFY staff published edited case studies of MFY programs and crises, which include George A. Brager and Frances P. Purcell's Community Action Against Poverty: Readings from the Mobilization Experience (New Haven, 1967) and Harold Weissman's (ed.) Community Development in the Mobilization for Youth Experience (New York, 1969). Richard Cloward, MFY research director, and Frances Fox Piven, its program historian, have published numerous articles about MFY. A good sampling of this work is contained in Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, The Politics of Turmoil: Essays on Poverty, Race and the Urban Crisis (New York, 1974). Henry Street Settlement House Director Helen Hall discusses the origins of MFY in her memoirs, Unfinished Business in Neighborhood and Nation. Finally, the best example of a study of MFY done by a program and sponsoring agencies outsider is Joseph Helfgot's Professional Reforming: Mobilization for Youth and the Failure of Social Science (Lexington, 1981).
13. Two of the most quoted studies of Mobilization for Youth (MFY) and other program precursors to the War on Poverty were insider reports in that the authors of the studies were chosen and funded by the programs' major sponsoring agencies. These studies are Marris and Rein's Dilemmas of Social Reform and Daniel Knapp and Kenneth Polk's Scouting the War on Poverty: Social Reform Politics in the Kennedy Administration (Lexington, 1971). Daniel P. Moynihan's Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty (New York, 1970) was written by a high-level employee of the U.S. Department of Labor who unsuccessfully battled for a jobs-versus-community-action strategy to dominate the War on Poverty. MFY staff published edited case studies of MFY programs and crises, which include George A. Brager and Frances P. Purcell's Community Action Against Poverty: Readings from the Mobilization Experience (New Haven, 1967) and Harold Weissman's (ed.) Community Development in the Mobilization for Youth Experience (New York, 1969). Richard Cloward, MFY research director, and Frances Fox Piven, its program historian, have published numerous articles about MFY. A good sampling of this work is contained in Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, The Politics of Turmoil: Essays on Poverty, Race and the Urban Crisis (New York, 1974). Henry Street Settlement House Director Helen Hall discusses the origins of MFY in her memoirs, Unfinished Business in Neighborhood and Nation. Finally, the best example of a study of MFY done by a program and sponsoring agencies outsider is Joseph Helfgot's Professional Reforming: Mobilization for Youth and the Failure of Social Science (Lexington, 1981).
14. Two of the most quoted studies of Mobilization for Youth (MFY) and other program precursors to the War on Poverty were insider reports in that the authors of the studies were chosen and funded by the programs' major sponsoring agencies. These studies are Marris and Rein's Dilemmas of Social Reform and Daniel Knapp and Kenneth Polk's Scouting the War on Poverty: Social Reform Politics in the Kennedy Administration (Lexington, 1971). Daniel P. Moynihan's Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty (New York, 1970) was written by a high-level employee of the U.S. Department of Labor who unsuccessfully battled for a jobs-versus-community-action strategy to dominate the War on Poverty. MFY staff published edited case studies of MFY programs and crises, which include George A. Brager and Frances P. Purcell's Community Action Against Poverty: Readings from the Mobilization Experience (New Haven, 1967) and Harold Weissman's (ed.) Community Development in the Mobilization for Youth Experience (New York, 1969). Richard Cloward, MFY research director, and Frances Fox Piven, its program historian, have published numerous articles about MFY. A good sampling of this work is contained in Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, The Politics of Turmoil: Essays on Poverty, Race and the Urban Crisis (New York, 1974). Henry Street Settlement House Director Helen Hall discusses the origins of MFY in her memoirs, Unfinished Business in Neighborhood and Nation. Finally, the best example of a study of MFY done by a program and sponsoring agencies outsider is Joseph Helfgot's Professional Reforming: Mobilization for Youth and the Failure of Social Science (Lexington, 1981).
15. Two of the most quoted studies of Mobilization for Youth (MFY) and other program precursors to the War on Poverty were insider reports in that the authors of the studies were chosen and funded by the programs' major sponsoring agencies. These studies are Marris and Rein's Dilemmas of Social Reform and Daniel Knapp and Kenneth Polk's Scouting the War on Poverty: Social Reform Politics in the Kennedy Administration (Lexington, 1971). Daniel P. Moynihan's Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty (New York, 1970) was written by a high-level employee of the U.S. Department of Labor who unsuccessfully battled for a jobs-versus-community-action strategy to dominate the War on Poverty. MFY staff published edited case studies of MFY programs and crises, which include George A. Brager and Frances P. Purcell's Community Action Against Poverty: Readings from the Mobilization Experience (New Haven, 1967) and Harold Weissman's (ed.) Community Development in the Mobilization for Youth Experience (New York, 1969). Richard Cloward, MFY research director, and Frances Fox Piven, its program historian, have published numerous articles about MFY. A good sampling of this work is contained in Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, The Politics of Turmoil: Essays on Poverty, Race and the Urban Crisis (New York, 1974). Henry Street Settlement House Director Helen Hall discusses the origins of MFY in her memoirs, Unfinished Business in Neighborhood and Nation. Finally, the best example of a study of MFY done by a program and sponsoring agencies outsider is Joseph Helfgot's Professional Reforming: Mobilization for Youth and the Failure of Social Science (Lexington, 1981).
16. Two of the most quoted studies of Mobilization for Youth (MFY) and other program precursors to the War on Poverty were insider reports in that the authors of the studies were chosen and funded by the programs' major sponsoring agencies. These studies are Marris and Rein's Dilemmas of Social Reform and Daniel Knapp and Kenneth Polk's Scouting the War on Poverty: Social Reform Politics in the Kennedy Administration (Lexington, 1971). Daniel P. Moynihan's Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty (New York, 1970) was written by a high-level employee of the U.S. Department of Labor who unsuccessfully battled for a jobs-versus-community-action strategy to dominate the War on Poverty. MFY staff published edited case studies of MFY programs and crises, which include George A. Brager and Frances P. Purcell's Community Action Against Poverty: Readings from the Mobilization Experience (New Haven, 1967) and Harold Weissman's (ed.) Community Development in the Mobilization for Youth Experience (New York, 1969). Richard Cloward, MFY research director, and Frances Fox Piven, its program historian, have published numerous articles about MFY. A good sampling of this work is contained in Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, The Politics of Turmoil: Essays on Poverty, Race and the Urban Crisis (New York, 1974). Henry Street Settlement House Director Helen Hall discusses the origins of MFY in her memoirs, Unfinished Business in Neighborhood and Nation. Finally, the best example of a study of MFY done by a program and sponsoring agencies outsider is Joseph Helfgot's Professional Reforming: Mobilization for Youth and the Failure of Social Science (Lexington, 1981).
17. Two of the most quoted studies of Mobilization for Youth (MFY) and other program precursors to the War on Poverty were insider reports in that the authors of the studies were chosen and funded by the programs' major sponsoring agencies. These studies are Marris and Rein's Dilemmas of Social Reform and Daniel Knapp and Kenneth Polk's Scouting the War on Poverty: Social Reform Politics in the Kennedy Administration (Lexington, 1971). Daniel P. Moynihan's Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding: Community Action in the War on Poverty (New York, 1970) was written by a high-level employee of the U.S. Department of Labor who unsuccessfully battled for a jobs-versus-community-action strategy to dominate the War on Poverty. MFY staff published edited case studies of MFY programs and crises, which include George A. Brager and Frances P. Purcell's Community Action Against Poverty: Readings from the Mobilization Experience (New Haven, 1967) and Harold Weissman's (ed.) Community Development in the Mobilization for Youth Experience (New York, 1969). Richard Cloward, MFY research director, and Frances Fox Piven, its program historian, have published numerous articles about MFY. A good sampling of this work is contained in Richard A. Cloward and Frances Fox Piven, The Politics of Turmoil: Essays on Poverty, Race and the Urban Crisis (New York, 1974). Henry Street Settlement House Director Helen Hall discusses the origins of MFY in her memoirs, Unfinished Business in Neighborhood and Nation. Finally, the best example of a study of MFY done by a program and sponsoring agencies outsider is Joseph Helfgot's Professional Reforming: Mobilization for Youth and the Failure of Social Science (Lexington, 1981).
18. See, for example, Marris and Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform; Knapp and Polk, Scouting the War on Poverty; and Helfgot, Professional Reforming.
19. See, for example, Marris and Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform; Knapp and Polk, Scouting the War on Poverty; and Helfgot, Professional Reforming.
20. See, for example, Marris and Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform; Knapp and Polk, Scouting the War on Poverty; and Helfgot, Professional Reforming.
21. Noel A. Cazenave, "Chicago Influences on the War on Poverty" Journal of Policy History 5 (1993): 52-63.
22. Helfgot, Professional Reforming, 5.
23. Hall, Unfinished Business in Neighborhood and Nation, 269.
24. Judith Trolander, Professionalism and Social Change: From Settlement House Movement to Neighborhood Centers (New York, 1987).
25. Mobilization for Youth, Inc., A Proposal for the Prevention and Control of Delinquency by Expanding Opportunities (New York, 1961), 416-7.
26. Hall, Unfinished Business in Neighborhood and Nation, 271-2.
27. Marris and Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform, 20. Frances Piven, "Conceptual Themes in the Evolution of MFY," Training Department Publications, vol. IV, p. 3, Conference Papers, Mobilization for Youth Bound Documents, Columbia University School of Social Work Library.
28. Marris and Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform, 20. Frances Piven, "Conceptual Themes in the Evolution of MFY," Training Department Publications, vol. IV, p. 3, Conference Papers, Mobilization for Youth Bound Documents, Columbia University School of Social Work Library.
29. Interview with Winslow Carlton, conducted by Noel A. Cazenave on May 11, 1992, at the Harvard Club in Boston, Massachusetts, p. 9.
30. Helen Hall, "A Note on the Inception and Impact of Mobilization for Youth," Box 80, Folder 4, p. 5, Henry Street Settlement Records, Social Welfare History Archives Center, University of Minnesota Library.
31. Piven, "Conceptual Themes in the Evolution of MFY," pp. 4-5, Mobilization for Youth Bound Documents, Columbia University School of Social Work Library. One local leader said that they had gone "from being the sellers to being the buyers" (p. 5). That was to say that they could take it or leave it, meet the conditions or forfeit the opportunity for a grant. Piven also states that the Henry Street Settlement was pressured into accepting the National Institute of Mental Health's (NIMH) less-than-favorable terms because the settlement "had been running at a considerable deficit" and there was no other major funding source it could turn to for help (p. 5).
32. Ibid., 4-5.
33. Ibid., 3-4.
34. Trolander, Professionalism and Social Change, 169.
35. White and Radin, "Youth and Opportunity," p. 28, Richardson White Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.
36. Interview with Richard A. Cloward, conducted by Daniel Knapp on December 5, 1967, at the 42nd Street Cafeteria in Manhattan, Box 51, Folder 4, p. 2, Daniel Knapp Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.
37. White and Radin, "Youth and Opportunity," p. 28, Richardson White Papers, John F. Kennedy Library. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Daniel Knapp, p. 3, Daniel Knapp Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.
38. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Daniel Knapp, p. 3, Daniel Knapp Papers, John F. Kennedy Library. Interview with Lloyd Ohlin and Leonard Cottrell, February 21, 1969, Box 7, Subject Files, Notes: Misc, p. 4, Richardson White Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.
39. Interview with Lloyd Ohlin by Daniel Knapp. Conducted on December 11, 1967, at the Harvard University Law School, Box 51, p. 2, Working Files, Daniel Knapp Papers, John F. Kennedy Library. Indeed, White and Radin state that Ohlin was originally contacted by the settlements to develop their research design, but he referred them to Chein. White and Radin, "Youth and Opportunity," p. 28, Richardson White Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.
40. White and Radin, "Youth and Opportunity," p. 29, Richardson White Papers, John F. Kennedy Library. Interview with Richard A. Cloward, conducted by Noel A. Cazenave on May 28, 1992, at the Columbia University of Social Work, pp. 13-14.
41. Helen Hall, "A Note on the Inception and Impact of Mobilization for Youth," p. 7, Henry Street Settlement Records, Social Welfare History Archives Center, the University of Minnesota Library.
42. "At the Board level there was a great deal of conflict. An enormous amount of conflict." Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, pp. 8-9.
43. As Ohlin put it, "I have always been more optimistic about the possibilities of affecting change with the system through the political process and technical developments." Interview with Lloyd Ohlin in John H. Laub's Criminology in the Making: An Oral History (Boston, 1983), 215.
44. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, pp. 7-8.
45. Interview with George A. Brager, conducted by Noel A. Cazenave on May 19, 1992, in his office at the Columbia University School of Social Work, p. 3. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, p. 24.
46. For more on this approach and how it was challenged by the Chicago Area Project and Saul Alinsky-styled community organization methods, see Cazenave, "Chicago Influences on the War on Poverty."
47. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, pp. 26-7.
48. Marris and Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform, 177.
49. Knapp and Polk, Scouting the War on Poverty, 37.
50. Trolander, Professionalism and Social Change, 182, 240.
51. Interview with Winslow Carlton by Noel A. Cazenave, p. 10.
52. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, pp. 24-5. According to Trolander, Professionalism and Social Change, the settlements' goal of bridging social classes between the poor and the well-to-do made them inclined toward reform based on cooperation and consensus building (p. 18). Trolander also suggests that the consensus style of the settlements may have also been influenced by the fact that in their formative stages the culture of settlement houses tended to be dominated by women (pp. 63-4).
53. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, pp. 24-5. According to Trolander, Professionalism and Social Change, the settlements' goal of bridging social classes between the poor and the well-to-do made them inclined toward reform based on cooperation and consensus building (p. 18). Trolander also suggests that the consensus style of the settlements may have also been influenced by the fact that in their formative stages the culture of settlement houses tended to be dominated by women (pp. 63-4).
54. Interview with Richard Cloward by Daniel Knapp, p. 3, Daniel Knapp Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.
55. Daniel Bell, The Coming of Post Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting (New York, 1973), 365.
56. Helfgot, Professional Reforming, 34. Ohlin notes that his 1960 Ford Foundation paper on organizing indigenous movements was influenced by his experiences with the settlements and his belief that they were not successful in reaching area gangs. Ohlin also reports that Helen Hall accused the MFY administrators of splitting the community in two and only working with the bottom 20 percent. Interview with Lloyd Ohlin and Leonard Cottrell, p. 2, Richardson White Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.
57. Stone, Whelan, and Murin, Urban Policy and Politics in a Bureaucratic Age.
58. Ibid.
59. David P. Finks, The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky (New York, 1984), 95. According to Finks, Alinsky referred to the social workers who actively opposed the establishment of an organization of Alinsky's people in New York as the "Committee to Keep Alinsky out of New York."
60. Interview with Lloyd Ohlin and Leonard Cottrell, p. 3, Richardson White Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.
61. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, p. 27.
62. Interview with Richard Cloward by Daniel Knapp, p. 3, Daniel Knapp Papers, John F. Kennedy Library. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, p. 28.
63. Interview with Lloyd Ohlin and Leonard Cottrell, p. 1, Richardson White Papers, John F. Kennedy Library. This statement was made as Ohlin reflected on the President's Committee on Juvenile Delinquency programs and the conflict it had with members of Congress over whether it followed congressional intent. As I noted earlier, MFY was the first of those programs Ohlin was involved with.
64. Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding. Helfgot, Professional Reforming. While Helfgot traced the roots of professional reformers to the New Deal 1930s, Moynihan focused on the 1950s and factors such as the exponential growth of social science research and other knowledge and the rise of foundations. Mary Jo Deegan, in Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1988), stresses that an amateur model of applied social science preceded the scientific model of applied social science instituted by the Chicago school of sociology in the 1920s and 1930s. This suggests the possibility of at least three historic phases of social science expertise and the potential of both gender and professionalization as key variables.
65. Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding. Helfgot, Professional Reforming. While Helfgot traced the roots of professional reformers to the New Deal 1930s, Moynihan focused on the 1950s and factors such as the exponential growth of social science research and other knowledge and the rise of foundations. Mary Jo Deegan, in Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1988), stresses that an amateur model of applied social science preceded the scientific model of applied social science instituted by the Chicago school of sociology in the 1920s and 1930s. This suggests the possibility of at least three historic phases of social science expertise and the potential of both gender and professionalization as key variables.
66. Moynihan, Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding. Helfgot, Professional Reforming. While Helfgot traced the roots of professional reformers to the New Deal 1930s, Moynihan focused on the 1950s and factors such as the exponential growth of social science research and other knowledge and the rise of foundations. Mary Jo Deegan, in Jane Addams and the Men of the Chicago School, 1892-1918 (New Brunswick, NJ, 1988), stresses that an amateur model of applied social science preceded the scientific model of applied social science instituted by the Chicago school of sociology in the 1920s and 1930s. This suggests the possibility of at least three historic phases of social science expertise and the potential of both gender and professionalization as key variables.
67. Knapp and Polk, Scouting the War on Poverty, 5.
68. Interview with Lloyd Ohlin and Leonard Cottrell, p. 1, Richardson White Papers, John K. Kennedy Library.
69. Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler, The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics (Belmont, CA, 1996), 1.
70. Ibid.
71. Ibid., 12, 5.
72. Roger Alford and Robert A. Friedland, Powers of Theory: Capitalism, the State, and Democracy (Cambridge, 1985), 176-7.
73. In Professional Reforming, Helfgot argues that social control was the chief function served by the MFY and its social scientists (p. 2).
74. Stone, Whelan, and Murin, Urban Policy and Politics in a Bureaucratic Age, 134-5.
75. Ibid.
76. Knapp and Polk, Scouting the War on Poverty, 9-11.
77. I was able to gain a better understanding of this issue at a breakfast meeting in Chicago on November 11, 1995, with former Northwestern University Professor Charles Payne and community organizer Mike Miller. As a result of Miller's comments, I realized the importance of taking a more nuanced approach to the issue. That is, Alinsky's concerns were more practical than principled. Alinsky was not categorically opposed to community groups accepting federal funds as long as such funding did not constitute their core budgets.
78. Interview with George A. Brager by Noel A. Cazenave, pp. 29, 31-2.
79. Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee Held on Wednesday, May 3, 1961, Box 81, Folder 8, p. 2, Henry Street Settlement Records, Mobilization for Youth-Executive Committee, 1961-1964, Social Welfare History Archives Center, the University of Minnesota Library.
80. Helfgot, Professional Reforming, 19. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, p. 33.
81. Interview with George A. Brager by Noel A. Cazenave, pp. 22-3. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, p. 34.
82. Interview with Richard A. Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, p. 35. In advocating militant grassroots social action, the MFY administrators went much farther than the NIMH Review Panel Head Leonard Cottrell's emphasis on training people to function competently as citizens. Cottrell felt that it was the role of organizations to enable grassroots people to speak up for their own interests but not to encourage them to do so. Interview with Lloyd Ohlin and Leonard Cottrell, pp. 1-3, Richardson White Papers, John F. Kennedy Library.
83. Hugh Heclo, "The Sixties' False Dawn: Awakening, Movements, and Post-modern Policy-making," Journal of Policy History 8 (1996): 34-63, 44.
84. For example, in Poor Peoples Movements, two former MFY social scientists review the relevant social science literature and draw their pessimistic conclusion as to the poor's lack of the requisite resources to normally initiate and sustain social protests. These authors argued that macrohistorical changes in the social structure permits protest among the poor to happen, not their own actions. As they put it, "Only under exceptional conditions will the lower classes become defiant," and "protest wells up in response to momentous changes in the institutional order. It is not created by organizers and leaders." Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward, Poor Peoples' Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail (New York, 1979), 7, 36.
85. Marris and Rein, Dilemmas of Social Reform, 178.
86. David Finks, The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky (New York, 1984), 31-2. Numerous scholars have challenged Alinsky's claim to be radical. Among the most frequently cited criticisms of the Alinsky approach are (1) its limited scope, (2) the short duration of Alinsky organizations, (3) the lack of a critique of American society, (4) the absence of a radical program for large-scale institutional and national change, and (5) Alinsky's professed anti-ideology bias. See Harry C. Boyte, The Backyard Revolution: Understanding the New Citizen Movement (Philadelphia, 1980), 52; Richard Delgado, Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of Acorn (Philadelphia, 1986), 46; Frank Riessman, "The Myth of Saul Alinsky," Dissent, July 1965, 475; "Playboy Interview. Saul Alinsky: A Candid Conversation with the Feisty Radical Organizer," Playboy, March 1972, 150; Donald C. Reitzes and Dietrich C. Reitzes, The Alinsky Legacy: Alive and Kicking (Greenwich, CT, 1987), 25; and Joan E. Lancourt, Confront and Concede: The Alinsky Citizen-Action Organization (Lexington, MA, 1979), 46-53.
87. David Finks, The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky (New York, 1984), 31-2. Numerous scholars have challenged Alinsky's claim to be radical. Among the most frequently cited criticisms of the Alinsky approach are (1) its limited scope, (2) the short duration of Alinsky organizations, (3) the lack of a critique of American society, (4) the absence of a radical program for large-scale institutional and national change, and (5) Alinsky's professed anti-ideology bias. See Harry C. Boyte, The Backyard Revolution: Understanding the New Citizen Movement (Philadelphia, 1980), 52; Richard Delgado, Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of Acorn (Philadelphia, 1986), 46; Frank Riessman, "The Myth of Saul Alinsky," Dissent, July 1965, 475; "Playboy Interview. Saul Alinsky: A Candid Conversation with the Feisty Radical Organizer," Playboy, March 1972, 150; Donald C. Reitzes and Dietrich C. Reitzes, The Alinsky Legacy: Alive and Kicking (Greenwich, CT, 1987), 25; and Joan E. Lancourt, Confront and Concede: The Alinsky Citizen-Action Organization (Lexington, MA, 1979), 46-53.
88. David Finks, The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky (New York, 1984), 31-2. Numerous scholars have challenged Alinsky's claim to be radical. Among the most frequently cited criticisms of the Alinsky approach are (1) its limited scope, (2) the short duration of Alinsky organizations, (3) the lack of a critique of American society, (4) the absence of a radical program for large-scale institutional and national change, and (5) Alinsky's professed anti-ideology bias. See Harry C. Boyte, The Backyard Revolution: Understanding the New Citizen Movement (Philadelphia, 1980), 52; Richard Delgado, Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of Acorn (Philadelphia, 1986), 46; Frank Riessman, "The Myth of Saul Alinsky," Dissent, July 1965, 475; "Playboy Interview. Saul Alinsky: A Candid Conversation with the Feisty Radical Organizer," Playboy, March 1972, 150; Donald C. Reitzes and Dietrich C. Reitzes, The Alinsky Legacy: Alive and Kicking (Greenwich, CT, 1987), 25; and Joan E. Lancourt, Confront and Concede: The Alinsky Citizen-Action Organization (Lexington, MA, 1979), 46-53.
89. David Finks, The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky (New York, 1984), 31-2. Numerous scholars have challenged Alinsky's claim to be radical. Among the most frequently cited criticisms of the Alinsky approach are (1) its limited scope, (2) the short duration of Alinsky organizations, (3) the lack of a critique of American society, (4) the absence of a radical program for large-scale institutional and national change, and (5) Alinsky's professed anti-ideology bias. See Harry C. Boyte, The Backyard Revolution: Understanding the New Citizen Movement (Philadelphia, 1980), 52; Richard Delgado, Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of Acorn (Philadelphia, 1986), 46; Frank Riessman, "The Myth of Saul Alinsky," Dissent, July 1965, 475; "Playboy Interview. Saul Alinsky: A Candid Conversation with the Feisty Radical Organizer," Playboy, March 1972, 150; Donald C. Reitzes and Dietrich C. Reitzes, The Alinsky Legacy: Alive and Kicking (Greenwich, CT, 1987), 25; and Joan E. Lancourt, Confront and Concede: The Alinsky Citizen-Action Organization (Lexington, MA, 1979), 46-53.
90. David Finks, The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky (New York, 1984), 31-2. Numerous scholars have challenged Alinsky's claim to be radical. Among the most frequently cited criticisms of the Alinsky approach are (1) its limited scope, (2) the short duration of Alinsky organizations, (3) the lack of a critique of American society, (4) the absence of a radical program for large-scale institutional and national change, and (5) Alinsky's professed anti-ideology bias. See Harry C. Boyte, The Backyard Revolution: Understanding the New Citizen Movement (Philadelphia, 1980), 52; Richard Delgado, Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of Acorn (Philadelphia, 1986), 46; Frank Riessman, "The Myth of Saul Alinsky," Dissent, July 1965, 475; "Playboy Interview. Saul Alinsky: A Candid Conversation with the Feisty Radical Organizer," Playboy, March 1972, 150; Donald C. Reitzes and Dietrich C. Reitzes, The Alinsky Legacy: Alive and Kicking (Greenwich, CT, 1987), 25; and Joan E. Lancourt, Confront and Concede: The Alinsky Citizen-Action Organization (Lexington, MA, 1979), 46-53.
91. David Finks, The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky (New York, 1984), 31-2. Numerous scholars have challenged Alinsky's claim to be radical. Among the most frequently cited criticisms of the Alinsky approach are (1) its limited scope, (2) the short duration of Alinsky organizations, (3) the lack of a critique of American society, (4) the absence of a radical program for large-scale institutional and national change, and (5) Alinsky's professed anti-ideology bias. See Harry C. Boyte, The Backyard Revolution: Understanding the New Citizen Movement (Philadelphia, 1980), 52; Richard Delgado, Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of Acorn (Philadelphia, 1986), 46; Frank Riessman, "The Myth of Saul Alinsky," Dissent, July 1965, 475; "Playboy Interview. Saul Alinsky: A Candid Conversation with the Feisty Radical Organizer," Playboy, March 1972, 150; Donald C. Reitzes and Dietrich C. Reitzes, The Alinsky Legacy: Alive and Kicking (Greenwich, CT, 1987), 25; and Joan E. Lancourt, Confront and Concede: The Alinsky Citizen-Action Organization (Lexington, MA, 1979), 46-53.
92. David Finks, The Radical Vision of Saul Alinsky (New York, 1984), 31-2. Numerous scholars have challenged Alinsky's claim to be radical. Among the most frequently cited criticisms of the Alinsky approach are (1) its limited scope, (2) the short duration of Alinsky organizations, (3) the lack of a critique of American society, (4) the absence of a radical program for large-scale institutional and national change, and (5) Alinsky's professed anti-ideology bias. See Harry C. Boyte, The Backyard Revolution: Understanding the New Citizen Movement (Philadelphia, 1980), 52; Richard Delgado, Organizing the Movement: The Roots and Growth of Acorn (Philadelphia, 1986), 46; Frank Riessman, "The Myth of Saul Alinsky," Dissent, July 1965, 475; "Playboy Interview. Saul Alinsky: A Candid Conversation with the Feisty Radical Organizer," Playboy, March 1972, 150; Donald C. Reitzes and Dietrich C. Reitzes, The Alinsky Legacy: Alive and Kicking (Greenwich, CT, 1987), 25; and Joan E. Lancourt, Confront and Concede: The Alinsky Citizen-Action Organization (Lexington, MA, 1979), 46-53.
93. James L. Sundquist, Politics and Policy: The Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson Years (Washington, DC, 1968), 118.
94. Sanford D. Horwitt, Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky - His Life and Legacy (New York, 1989), 11-15, 104.
95. Helfgot, Professional Reforming, 51, 64.
96. A Proposal for the Prevention and Control of Delinquency by Expanding Opportunities. A Demonstration Project Conceived and Developed by Mobilization for Youth, Inc., December 9, 1961; 2d ed., August 1962, v, vii.
97. Ibid., 136-7.
98. Interview with Lloyd Ohlin and Leonard Cottrell, p. 1, Richardson White Papers, John F. Kennedy Library. See Cottrell's comments on the influence of the civil rights movement. Also see interview with George Brager by Noel A. Cazenave, pp. 18-19.
99. Interview with Richard Cloward by Noel A. Cazenave, pp. 36, 42.
100. Helfgot, Professional Reforming, 103. Bertram Beck, the man appointed to head MFY after its 1964 crisis later became head of the Henry Street Settlement. Trolander, Professionalism and Social Change, 41. Beck agreed that it was his job to control MFY's controversial social action protests and to make the program more acceptable to its funding agencies. In comparing his leadership of the program to that of its previous leaders, Beck stated, I think that I was committed to the same values to which they were committed. I believe, however, that I was less interested in ideological issues, and more interested in organizational issues in the maintenance and furtherance of the organization, and relationship with government, with foundations. Interview with Bertram Beck, conducted by Noel A. Cazenave on May 18, 1992, in his office at Fordham University, pp. 6-7.
101. Helfgot, Professional Reforming, 103. Bertram Beck, the man appointed to head MFY after its 1964 crisis later became head of the Henry Street Settlement. Trolander, Professionalism and Social Change, 41. Beck agreed that it was his job to control MFY's controversial social action protests and to make the program more acceptable to its funding agencies. In comparing his leadership of the program to that of its previous leaders, Beck stated, I think that I was committed to the same values to which they were committed. I believe, however, that I was less interested in ideological issues, and more interested in organizational issues in the maintenance and furtherance of the organization, and relationship with government, with foundations. Interview with Bertram Beck, conducted by Noel A. Cazenave on May 18, 1992, in his office at Fordham University, pp. 6-7.
102. Helfgot, Professional Reforming, 102. William McFadden and Ara Piastro, "Harlem Anti-Poverty Staff to be Screened for Reds" New York Journal-American, August 27, 1964, 3.
103. Helfgot, Professional Reforming, 102. William McFadden and Ara Piastro, "Harlem Anti-Poverty Staff to be Screened for Reds" New York Journal-American, August 27, 1964, 3.
104. Trolander, Professionalism and Social Change, 152-3, 184.
105. Ibid., 175, 241.
106. Ibid., 175, 240.
107. Interview with Bertram Beck by Noel A. Cazenave, pp. 23-4.
108. Helfgot, Professional Reforming, 100-1.
109. Piven, "Conceptual Themes in the Evolution of MFY," p. 6, Mobilization for Youth Bound Documents, Columbia University School of Social Work Library.
110. "Unfinished business" is part of the title of Helen Hall's memoirs, Unfinished Business in Neighborhood and Nation.