by-case basis and most recipients are on some form of public assistance. The program was essential for humanitarian reasons but probably will make no long-term difference in the lives of the recipients or the appearance of the neighborhoods. Housing and redevelopment activities are often justified by theories asserting the beneficial long-run effects of improved residential environment on individual and group behavior. According to such theories, peoples' feelings about themselves should be improved along with the environment, resulting in multiplier effects that will eventually pay social, psychological, and economic benefits to the community. Even if the theory is strongly supported and even if housing intervention of this type produces significant social and economic benefits, long-range community improvement objectives may prove difficult to reach owing to the insufficient size of the treatment relative to the scale of the problem. Substantial concentrations of poverty and poor housing exist in Phoenix. It is apparent from indicators such as overcrowding, excessive rent payments, and structural defects that between 17,000 and 25,000 households suffer from multiple problems of poverty, including inadequate housing. Even if the RRPP and neighborhood development program were completed and functioning perfectly, they would be directly treating fewer than 1,000 households in small corners of two census tracts.
Community development goals in Phoenix, indeed the definition of community development, shifted as the program progressed. There was no community development program, per se, in the first two years. The activities described on the CDBG applications were coordinated only at the application stage. After the applications were approved, the funds and implementation responsibility were distributed among the city's Housing Services Division, the Parks Department, the Booker T. Washington project, and the Streets and Engineering departments. Community development activity was centralized only for budget and reporting purposes. Except for informal communication among affected employees, different departments had little way of knowing about progress or lack of it toward the vague overall community development goals stated in the application.
The city's relative youth and inexperience with urban development