it provided a forum for individual citizens and organizational representatives from a broad range of groups to be heard and thereby open channels of communication between persons with common problems and concerns;

it provided a mechanism for local citizens
and groups to help plan and carry out the
Project in their area, and

it offered the nucleus of a continuing local effort pressing for the elimination of sex

discrimination.

Through the local efforts of local convenors [see Appendix C we established an ad hoc "commission" in each of the five cities. The duties of the "commissioners"

were:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

to become aware of the issues related to
discrimination against women in housing as
developed at the Hearing; and to transmit
such knowledge and proposed action, as de-
veloped in the Workshops, to their respec-
tive organizations and their community;

to attend three meetings prior to and one following the Hearing and Workshop; a Briefing meeting prior to the Hearing; the Hearing and two-day Workshop; and one evaluation meeting following the Workshop;

to help select 75 Workshop participants to review the problems as stated in the Hearing, and to develop action elements related to them for each community;

to submit an evaluation report on the Project, and

(5) to assist with publicity in each city.

The "commissions", representing a broad spectrum of individuals and organizations, functioned substantially as envisioned throughout the period of Project activities. Their meetings ran from October 20, 1974 in Atlanta to April 21, 1975 in New York City. "Commissioners" were present at a pre-Hearing Briefing in each City and primarily from their ranks came those who participated in the Workshops following each Hearing.

(2) Background Research and Preparation of Bibliography

To help identify local issues and to gather legal materials relative to women's rights in areas relating to housing, a Study Team under the direction of Ms. Dovey Roundtree, general counsel for the National Council of Negro Women (NCNW), (a) conducted a literature search and (b) engaged local counsel to provide analyses of state remedies for sex bias in housing.

The chief product of this aspect of the Project is the
Bibliography set out as Appendix M.

(3) Public Hearings

In each of the five cities, we conducted a Public Hearing on sex discrimination in housing. This Hearing was the culmination of a detailed Hearing Work Schedule which began with a preliminary site visit by the Hearing Team under the direction of Mr. Roy Littlejohn of Roy Littlejohn and Associates of Washington, D. C.

During the course of the Hearings, select Panels of out-of-state men and women heard from more than 140 witnesses. [See Appendix F] Many of the witnesses were themselves victims of sex discrimination. Many were representatives of the housing industry. Others, representing government and interested private organizations, offered background demographic data, opinions, observations and recommendations bearing on the Panels' inquiry. Thus, the witnesses represented a cross-section in each city: industry and consumers; male and female; old and young; black and white; tenants and home owners; single, married and divorced or widowed; lower income as well as middle-class.

In conducting the Hearings, we followed rules generally applicable to deliberations of this nature. Specifically, the following rules applied were:

1. Witnesses were not sworn.

2.

Witnesses could make a short prepared statement
and would be questioned by counsel and the hearing
panel.

3.

4.

5.

Documents or other exhibits would be accepted
for inclusion in the record.

To the maximum extent possible, persons in the audience who wished to testify would be afforded an opportunity to do so following the testimony of all scheduled witnesses. Persons who felt that they had important testimony to give could contact the hearing counsel.

The record would remain open for thirty days following the hearings for the receipt of other testimony or documentation.

(4) Workshops

The culminating activity of the Project in each city was the 2-day Workshop. Its major purpose was to encourage the development of a continuing private sector coalition of organizations and individuals to work toward identifying and eliminating sex discrimination in that locality. Hence, it was designed

to raise the level of consciousness of the participants to sexism in the housing market;

to seed the concept of coalition building directed against sexism in the housing market, and

to provide basic information and minimum
skills to engage in sustained collective
social action.

Many of the participants had attended one or more of the earlier meetings of the ad hoc Commissions. Some were present at the Hearings the day before. All however, were briefed on the purpose and design of the Project. A key part of the Workshop strategy was to assuage any fears among the participants that involvement in a coalition would encroach on the sovereignty of their respective organizations.

At the last plenary session of the Workshops, the participants would report their recommendations for local private sector action intended to overcome barriers to

women's access to equal housing choice in that housing market. Generally, the recommendations included the need for, and commitment on the part of those present, to the formation of a coalition to develop and implement a local strategy for dealing with the problem. Before adjourning, the assembled participants set a time, place, and date for an initial meeting. They also provided written workshop evaluations which we used in modifications of subsequent segments of this part of the Project.

Nearly 400 persons participated in the five Workshops. Like the witnesses, they represented a heterogeneous cross section of the city in which the workshop was held. And as a result of the Project activities, there are functioning coalitions in each of the five cities except Atlanta.

In commenting on the first Workshop in its self-assessment Report, BLS & Associates wrote:

"The major strategies of consciousness raising were developed and processed in the small groups by the team facilitators. As indicated in the participants' evaluations, more than 50 percent of the respondents found the small workgroups most helpful, not only as an opportunity to exchange more information, but also where unresolved issues and concerns raised in the plenary session could be pursued.

The workshop team found the irregular and part-
time participation of many of their small work-
groups unfortunate for maximum learning experi-
ences. It was for this reason that only 36
evaluation reports and demographic data sheets

were returned.

It was of interest to note that 99 percent of the returned evaluations reported that the workshop had been helpful as a mechanism for acquainting them with some of the problems of discrimination faced by women in the housing market. All 100 percent reported that they appreciated having an opportunity that allowed them to focus their concerns and test out the validity of certain of their own experiences with discrimination against women in housing and in employemnt."

Appendix B

WHO CONDUCTED THE PROJECT: NCNW AS PRIME CONTRACTOR

The Women and Housing Project was a "joint venture" of many persons and organizations working as teams (see Appendix C) or "Panels" or "Commissions" to carry out specific functions.

The staff of the National Council of Negro Women, Inc. (NCNW), however, was responsible as prime contractor for overall Project Design and coordination. Dr. Dorothy I. Height, President of NCNW, chaired the five hearings, and Ms. Dorothy Duke served as overall Project Coordinator.

The following pages summarize the background, goals and purposes of NCNW.