NPCs did not go without criticism. In an editorial published in 1971 by Curbstone, a newspaper for DC youth news, an author explored the productiveness of the youth programs, specifically for Black young people in the city. Titled, “A Question of Viewpoints,” the author argued that some people feel the programs are useless if they are only “keeping kids off the street” (Finucane 1971). Along these lines, there were issues with the allocation of funding and debates about where it should go. After talking to Tony Sarmiento, who worked closely with NPC #2 and the Mayor's Office on Youth Opportunity Services, it is clear that funding was central to the success of NPCs. 

​

In Sarmiento’s words, the money was not used as a “token,” it provided concrete sources of funding for beautiful projects within the community such as the Fort Reno Concert series or the numerous neighborhood history projects (Sarmiento 2024). NPC #3, at today's price level, had $800,000 in funding that went towards paying teenagers to put on punk shows and fostering a community asset and gathering place (Sarmiento 2024). NPC #18, which had a large number of poor children and young people in its borders, had four million dollars (Sarmiento 2024). Sarmiento explained that the amount of funding made it especially important to ensure that the money was going towards effective and loving projects, which did spark some controversy. However, with that amount of funding for a single NPC and with a board of 50% young people, there was a real capacity for meaningful and impactful work that did not keep kids off the streets, but helped make the streets beautiful, loving, and safe. The young people that participated in NPCs wanted to protect and uphold the participatory values of NPCs and ensure that funding went to important and valuable projects. 

​

Sarmiento made the connection of NPCs to a similar program in DC: Advisory Neighborhood Councils (ANCs). ANCs were created so hyperlocal concerns were accounted for in the DC government structure and is composed of a board of residents in the neighborhood. However, ANCs have significantly less funding and are purely advisory. Therefore, ANCs real power lies in stopping things from happening instead of fostering meaningful projects and work. For example, in 1975 an ANC imposed a curfew on the young people in the community. Jean Hoffman, a youth member of the NPC in this neighborhood, said in a testimony in response to the curfew, “the opportunity for youth to ‘plan, staff, implement and evaluate community based youth programs’ is unique and should not be lost in the initial rush of ANC power or delegated to an institutionalized citizens association” (Hoffman 1975). The young people involved in NPCs loved being a part of this program and worked hard to uphold their voices and values. 

​

However, funding for NPCs eventually dried up and each one was disbanded around the late 1980s (Schwartz 2016). Today, the location of NPC #3 sits abandoned on the corner of Fort Reno covered in graffiti. Funding for youth development shifted away from the NPC structure and ANCs overtook the primary form of citizen involvement. Today, DC invests millions of dollars in youth development and engagement primarily in the form of grants. DC invested $22 million alone in community organizations that provide after school programs to “more than 15,000 DC youth” (Executive Office of the Mayor 2024). Just recently, 11 non-profits were awarded nine hundred thousand dollars to prevent youth violence, including the beloved organization Horton’s Kids (Hamburg 2024). In response to a “public emergency” to the large increase in youth violence in the city funding for youth organizing increased and was redistributed to local organizations (Executive Office of the Mayor 2024). 

​

A 2023 report from Fair Chance detailed current issues in DC’s youth organizing by facilitating different discussions and panels with DC Public School students. Through these discussions they found that young people need more safe, accepting, and open environments where they can express themselves “without judgment” and “decide for themselves what they want to do” (Van der Veer et al. 2023). For their final finding, they emphasized the importance of embedding young peoples’ voices in organizing and providing opportunities to “participate at the Board level as well as organizational leadership sessions, and events” (Van der Veer et al. 2023). These characteristics sound familiar to the 1966 conference that laid the groundwork for NPCs and the 1968 law outlining NPC’s structure.