ments offered. It is to be regretted that most of these schools are not used every night in the week, but merely at stated times-"one or two nights a week," it was advertised, "as the needs require." Think of it-seventeen schools in this whole city to be used, and yet they are open only one or two evenings a week!

What Other Cities Are Doing

This movement to use the schools as neighborhood centers is growing rapidly in many places. New York City, Buffalo, Rochester, Boston, Jersey City and Pittsburgh are among the eastern cities that are trying it out. In a few western cities, the school brings together all the cultural resources of the community, not only providing gymnastics and amusement but also controlling the libraries, museums and art galleries.

A Growing Demand for Neighborhood Meetings

It has been said that Philadelphia has one of the most autocratic governments of the cities in the United States; that we lack democratic atmosphere. This would be difficult indeed for Philadelphians to believe; but the absence of community meetings is certainly a usual manifestation of undemocratic atmosphere. Recently, however, the demand for neighborhood meetings has been growing, and with the increasing demand has come in many sections of the city the problem of finding a meeting place. To be sure there are schools, large, comfortable public buildings, but they are closed. In most cases it is impossible, even after going through with the usual amount of red tape, to have them opened; and

so the meeting has to go elsewhere, hire a hall, undergo an unnecessary expense and perhaps lose its enthusiasm.

The Solution of Many Community Problems

Recently the House of Representatives at Harrisburg passed an amendment to the school laws of Pennsylvania (House Bill 1238) to render possible the wider use of school buildings for community center activities. This amendment, now in the hands of the Senate Committee on Education, not only permits the use of school buildings and grounds at the discretion of the school board of each district, but goes further, making it mandatory upon these boards to equip the buildings and allow them to be used out of school hours, under school board direction, if a sufficient number of citizens demand it. A petition signed by a number of residents equal to onefifth the number of pupils enrolled in the school, presented to the school board compels the board to open and equip the school for such purposes as may be required. This amendment has been introduced in response to the interest in the development of the community center idea fostered by the Commission on Living Conditions of the Ú. S. Department of Labor. It would be a means of providing a substitute for the saloon, and would solve other community problems as well. Other cities are benefiting from such a system, why not Philadelphia?

"Municipal reform will not be permanent unless municipal functions are of increasing importance."-Zeublin, American Municipal Progress, P. 397.

Of course, the average man believes in clean streets, but if they're "too clean," it might cost too much (?)

Let's examine some costs!

The above costs are copied directly or computed from official city reports for the year 1917. Per capita costs are computed on estimated populations July 1, 1917, U. S. Census reports. Differences of topography and character of paving, together with differences in the frequency of cleaning, must be considered, but Philadelphia pays too much for the service rendered.

There are two systems in use for getting streets cleaned in cities. One is the contract system. The other method is to have the municipality do its own work. Philadelphia is a conspicuous example of the few remaining cities using the contract system.

In addition to the cities mentioned above,

Buffalo, Cincinnati, Columbus, Denver, Los Angeles, Louisville, Milwaukee, New York, New Orleans, Newark, Niagara Falls, St. Louis, San Francisco, Seattle and sixteen other cities clean their streets by municipal forces.

A FRANK ADMISSION

While it cannot be denied that cost figures are sometimes misleading and frequently fail to tell the WHOLE STORY, they are, after all, the only measuring device-the only basis of comparison-that we have. True, the work may be "slicked over" or a low standard may prevail. True, the cost per capita is not an absolute index. Some cities demand very frequent cleaning. This reduces the yardage cost and increases the per capita cost.

After all, the thing that counts-especially with us ordinary citizens-is satisfaction with results.

FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT

Let's assume that the citizens of Philadelphia are satisfied with street cleaning conditions-mark you, we are merely assuming. Then, if a way were found to do the same