Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564678",
    "label": "California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Evaluation Report 03/26/1971 (2 of 7)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564678"
}

{
    "id": "118564678",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564678",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Evaluation Report 03/26/1971 (2 of 7)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564678",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-002-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-002-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-002-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564678",
    "naId": 118564678,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-002-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "7533e5d46d7625a7",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: California State Office of Economic Opportunity\n- Evaluation Report 03/26/1971 (2 of 7)\nBox: P27\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nfunds under this grant were used to support an investigation and\nto find reasons to close OEDCI and were not used to assist OEDCI\nwith training and technical assistance.\nb. Findings:\n(1) The Executive Director reported that neither he nor the\nOEDCI board were apprised of plans to fund this demonstration nor\nwere they sent a CAP Form 76 for comment at the time the application\nwas submitted or funded.\n(2) The Region IX, OEDCI field representative, Rick Morada,\nstated to an interviewer that he was not aware that the Oakland demon-\nstration grant existed. Therefore, he could not comment on it.\nMorada said that the only thing he perceived the SEOO doing in OEDCI\nwas investigation.\n(3) There has been very little meaningful coordination be-\ntween the appropriate Regional Office staff (field representative),\nthe CAA or the special technical assistance consultant funded under\nthis grant.\n(4) The special technical assistance consultant has not\nregularly attended OEDCI Board and Executive Committee meetings. It\nwas reported that the consultant attended only one such meeting.\n(5) No quarterly diagnostic reports have been submitted to\nthe WR/OEO or OEDCI. Since August 1, 1970, there should have been\ntwo quarterly reports submitted.\n(6) The resume submitted for the person hired as the special\ntechnical assistance consultant under the grant does not meet the\nqualifications described in the grant.\n(7) Mr. Espana, the special technical assistance consultant\nhired, was not approved by Region IX, OEO, as required by the grant.\n(8) There was no evidence that the SEOO had attempted to\nadminister or implement this grant as written at the Oakland CAA.\nTo date, there has been no meaningful technical assistance provided\nto OEDCI staff, board, or low-income groups.\nC. Conclusion:\n(1) The SEOO has not performed the terms and conditions of\nthe grant.\n(2) WR/OEO and SEOO both have neglected to fulfill their re-\nsponsibility to inform the parties involved of the demonstration\ngrant.\n46\n(3) Thère was not proper monitoring of this grant to insure\nthat the conditions, goals, and objectives were being met by the\n$000.\nd. Recommendation:\n(1) The grant should be terminated.\n(2) An audit examination of the funds expended under this\ngrant should be conducted as soon as possible.\n47\nTHE SEOO AND THE REGIONAL OFFICE\n1. PERCEPTIONS:\nThe California SEOO perceives its relationship with Regional OEO to\nbe at best ambivalent and at worst founded on distrust and permeated\nby mutual indifference. While the State and the Region got off to a\ngood start in their relationship, the situation rapidly deteriorated\nuntil regular communication between the State and the Region became\nalmost non-existent.\nThe State has complained, among other things, of the following mat-\nters:\na. The state is not moutinely invited to participate in the pre-\nreviews of all CAAs in the State. When the Region does extend an\ninvitation, it is often too late to allow the State to make the neces-\nsary scheduling adjustments to enable their personnel to be in at-\ntendance. Moreover, the State has also complained that once pre-\nreview dates have been set by the Region and the CAAS, these dates\nare changed at the last moment producing a disruptive effect on the\ndeployment of State personnel.\nb. The State complains that the Region is unwilling to supply\nit with audit reports on the CAAS and that the State has been re-\nquired, therefore, to seek out alternate sources to obtain such\nreports and other financial information on the CAAs.\nC. The State has not been brought into meaningful participation\nin evaluations conducted by the Region on community action agencies.\nRobert Hawkins, Director of Operations for the SEOO, described the\nsituation as follows:\n(1) \"The State Office of Economic Opportunity has\nparticipated in a joint evaluation and review\nof OEDCI. However, the outcome of this eval-\nuation was most unsatisfactory, due to duplicity\non the part of the Regional Office.\n(2) \"We have also participated in a Task Force\nEvaluation with WR/OEO on the Berkeley Com-\nmunity Action Agency. However, the State\nOffice has withdrawn from this Task Force,\nand has sent a letter to Regional OEO request-\ning written guarantees that the powers enumerated\nin OEO Instruction 7501-1 will be guaranteed to\nthe State Office (see Attachments) This action\n48\nwas taken in light of the behavior of the\nRegional Office in the Oakland area.\n(3) \"Simply stated, the State Office no longer\ntrusts the verbal agreements reached with\nRegional OEO, feeling that whenever it is\nto their advantage, they will double-cross\nthe State Office.\"\nd. In the area of training and technical assistance, John Sawicki\nreported that \"This office has never been invited by Region IX to\nparticipate in any contract formation or technical assistance plan-\nning.\"\ne. An illustrative example of the breakdown of communication\nbetween SEOO and the Regional Office, as perceived by Robert Hawkins,\nHeals with a demonstration grant involving the concept of volunteer\naction. It appears that a proposal by the State for the funding of\na demonstration grant was signed off by the Region but thereafter the\nfunds were not released. Hawkins described the situation as follows:\n(1) \"The funds for the demonstration program\nhave not been received by our office. The\nostensible reasons given by WR/OEO is that\nthe work program is unsatisfactory. How-\never, in discussion with Joe Maldonado in\nWashington, D. C., in December, 1970, it was\nascertained that National OEO was moving\naway from volunteerism.\n(2) \"It appears to me that the real reason why\nthe volunteer grant has not been approved,\nstems from differences between our office\nand the Western Regional Office. The rea-\nsons for the volunteer grant not being\nfunded by Regional OEO to the State Office\nof Economic Opportunity are not known to\nus. The following chain of events took\nplace regarding this grant:\"\n(a) \"Rodger Betts formally signed the\nCAP 14 with the original work\nprogram.\n(b) \"Approximately two to three weeks\nlater, Rodger Betts, on the advice\nof the Western Region staff, put a\nfreeze on releasing the monies to\nus until we redesigned the work\nprogram. It was his contention\n49\nthat the work program did\nnot fulfill the conditions\nof the grant.\n(c) \"It was then suggested by\nMr. Betts that Mr. Uhler and\nMr. Sawicki redesign the work\nprogram, working with the Re-\ngion staff. Mr. Uhler said\nhe would do this, but unless\nMr. Betts committed to release\nmonies after the redesigning,\nMr. Uhler felt it would be a\nwaste of time.\n(d) \"Mr. Uhler and Mr. Sawicki\nwent to WR/OEO after the com-\nmitment was given to Mr. Uhler\nby Mr. Betts that the monies\nwould be released after the re-\ndesigning of the work program\nhad been accomplished by the\nRegion staff.\n(e) \"Mr. Uhler and Mr. Sawicki\nspent eight hours at Regional\nOEO designing everything the\nway Region staff suggested. We\nthen returned to Sacramento and\nwrote it according to their\nterms.\n(f) \"Approximately a week later,\nthe new work program was sent\nto WR/OEO, and to this day, as\nfar as I know, there has been\nabsolutely no word from Rodger\nBetts as to why the money has\nnot been released.\n(g) \"Mr. Unler has talked with Mr.\nBetts on several occasions re-\ngarding this grant, and also\nhas communicated several times\nwith Joe Casillas. The last\nword we have from Mr. Cassillas\nis that this grant is on ice un-\ntil our relationship with Re-\ngional OEO is improved.\"\n50\nThe State reports that to date no training work programs or workshops\nhave been developed by the Regional OEO and the State to strengthen\nthe State's staff capabilities. It appears that the State and Local\nGovernment Division, Headquarters, OEO, has recently interceded with\na request that such training programs and workshops take place. Re-\nportedly, John Crutcher, Director, State and Local Government Division,\nmade a phone call to the California SEOO around the first of March\nurging that such training programs and workshops be initiated.\nThe State reports that the Region Office has not informed the State\nof the Region's funding plans for the State.\n2. FINDINGS:\nAs far as the California SEOO is concerned, they believe that the\nRegional Office has deliberately ignored them, has withheld informa-\ntion which they believe they are entitled to have, has failed to\ninvite the State to participate jointly in such areas as evaluations\nand development of the State funding plans, and have failed to in-\nsure that the State has an adequate opportunity to attend pre-reviews.\nThere is a deep feeling of mistrust and a sense by the State that\nthey had been \"double-crossed\" and treated in a manner suggesting\nduplicity.\n3. CONCLUSIONS:\nWhether the State's reaction to its relationship with the Re-\ngion is misplaced or justifiable was difficult to determine\nin the light of the charges and counter-charges which have been made.\nThe fact remains, however, that somehow the situation has been allowed\nto deteriorate far beyond the point where it can be easily corrected.\nLines of communication have broken down; the effects of unproductive\nconfrontations have not been mended; the situation has fed upon it-\nself; doubt and mistrust have been generated out of proportion.\n4. RECOMMENDATIONS:\nLines of communication between the State and the Regional Office\nshould be immediately reopened. An agreement of the kind described\nin OEO Instruction 7501-1, Section 7.f. should be negotiated as soon\nas possible and in no case should refunding occur without such an\nagreement in force. Since an obvious impasse exists between WR/OEO\nand the SEOO, a higher authority both in the Governor's office and\nOEO should be called upon to assume the responsibility for resolv-\ning the impasse.\n51\nTHE REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE SEOO\n1. PERCEPTIONS:\nRegional Office field teams believe they have expended sufficient of-\nfort in their attempts to include SEOO staff in discussions and ac-\ntivities relating to grantees, but report they have been turned down\nby an unresponsive SEOO staff who either did not answer or failed to\nappear at pre-arranged meetings. A District Supervisor provided\nletters sent to the SEOO asking for meetings, one of which was held\non December 10, 1971. Another District Supervisor reported that his\nattempts to arrange joint meetings were frustrating, e.g. it took\nfive months to get a roster of SECO personnel working in his area.\nThe Regional Office field teams and other Regional Office staff per-\nceive Regional Office performance in supporting the SEOO as a diffi-\ncult job, particularly in light of their belief that much of what is\nbeing decided is a result of unilateral decisions made by someone\nelse, higher-up in the Region or in OEO/Washington.\nFailures by the Regional Office to work closely with the SEOO are\nalso explained by:\na. The belief that the SEOO lacks interest in working\non anything but investigating CAAs which disturb\nthe status quo.\nb. The acceptance by Regional Office staff of the\nSEOO as \"the enemy\". Hence, the staff's un-\nwillingness to provide support, share confidences,\nor make agreements which they do not expect will\nbe kept.\nC. The perception of lack of competence in the SEOO staff.\nd.\nThe WR/OEO has not developed a clear-cut oper-\national policy toward the SEOO which is under-\nstood by all staff.\nBy not immediately obtaining resolution of SEOO complaints about OEO\nstaff, and vice versa, the Regional Office has left neither SEOO nor\nRegional Office staff satisfied with working relationships. There\nis the case where a Regional Office field representative was publicly\ncriticized by the SEOO, unfairly and inaccurately in her view, with\na resulting investigation of the field representative by the Regional\n52\nOffice and the dropping of the case., The issues were apparently not\nresolved. The SE00 still considers this case as an example of Re-\ngional Office staff undermining the SECO.\n2. FINDINGS:\nRegional Office staff can document some efforts to include SEOO staff\nin joint planning with regard to grantees. (See especially letters\nfrom Frankie Jacobs, District Supervisor.) Regional Office staff\ncan document their notices and invitations to the SEOO regarding pre-\nreviews, with adequate advance notice and with at least one instance\nwhen dates were changed to accommodate the SEOO.\nThe Regional Office Grant Application Process does provide for appli-\ncations to be sent to the SEOO and with written notice of Regional\nOffice receipt (by a carbon copy of the letter to the grantee acknowl-\nedging reccipt).\nThe Regional Office included the SEOO in two out of the three CAA\nevaluations it conducted, viz. in Berkeley and Oakland, but not in\nSan Bernardino.\nThe Regional Office does not consult with the SECO before committing\nflexible or other funds. The SEOO is advised of the availability of\nsuch funds only as a recipient of the general notice sent to all\nCAAS. There is one instance, however, when the Plans, Budget, and\nEvaluation Chief did consult with the SEOO regarding using carry-\nover funds for innovative programs.\nThe Regional Office did not consult with the SEOO on the 1971 State\nfunding plan, explaining that it was a repeat of the 1970 plan which\nhad been discussed with the SEOO.\nWhile the Regional Office did write for SEOO comments on the Regional\ntraining and technical assistance plan and did receive a reply (con-\nsidered not very helpful), it doesn't appear that SEOO, involvement\nwas really encouraged.\nThere are no joint written agreements between the Regional Office and\nSEOO concerning activities which may overlap.\nThe Regional Office does deal directly with some state agencies with-\nout a by-pass agreement with the SEOO, e.g. with State Health and\nwith Model Cities Coordinator in the Human Resources Department.\n53\nKey Regional Office staff who should relate to the SEOO and should\nknow what is going on concerning the SEOO are more often than not\nleft in the dark. The Planning Officer, the Training and Technical\nAssistance Chief, the SEOO Coordinator, and District Supervisors are\nnot aware of what is transpiring beyond their own specific relations\nwith the SEOO. The field representatives also don't know what is\nbeing done with the SEOO except in their direct concerns with grantee\npre-reviews and through newspaper reports.\n3. CONCLUSIONS:\nSince top officials of OEO/Washington and the Regional Office have\nassumed some degree of responsibility for OEO relations with the Cal-\nifornia SEOO, very little Regional Office staff support for the SEOO\nwas initiated, directed or supported. The exceptions are in field\nteam planning, pre-reviews, and application processing, and while these\nwere initiated at the field team level there doesn't seem to have been\nany direction or support from OEO Senior Staff.\nAs long as Regional Office staff feel that top OEO officials in OEO/\nWashington and the Regional Director are personally handling the\nCalifornia SEOO, they will be reluctant to initiate any actions\nwhich may be out of line with policy about which they have little\nknowledge and in the development of which they have not participated.\nSince members of the Regional Office staff perceive the SEOO as the\nantagonist of the poor and OEO, they perceive their responsibility to\nsupport the SECO as incomprehensible.\n4. RECOMMENDATION:\nOEO must clearly define and assign the responsibilities for OEO sup-\nport of the SEOO to the Regional Office without undue interference.\nThe Regional Office must exercise leadership in resolving working\nrelationships between the Regional Office and the SEOO and CAAS.\n5. FINDINGS:\nPerformance of the SEOO in its role as advisor to the Governor is\nperceived as \"good\" by Regional Office staff members only on the as-\nsumption that the State administration's commitment is not aligned\nwith the interests of the poor and the CAAs and OEO. (See Cal Williams,\nfield representative, on why he answered \"good\".)\nMembers of the Regional Office staff do not believe the SEOO gives\nsignificant emphasis to resource mobilization except in isolated\nincidents.\n54\nThere is no evidence of help to the OEO Regional Office in resource mo-\nbilization although the SEOO has done some work independently.\nThere has been either no SEOO coordination and planning with the\nRegional Office or so little that it has gone unnoticed by almost all\nRegional Office staff. The Regional Office Planning Officer reported\nthat the only information on causes and conditions of poverty in the\nState received from the California SEOO arrived February 26, 1971.\nLeonard Downs of the California SEOO brought a copy of a tabulation\nshowing welfare aid recipients by county in the State (see Attach-\nments) There is no indication that the SEOO has at any time dis-\ncussed with the Regional Office any problems posed by the federal\nand state statutory or administrative requirements that impede state\nlevel coordination of OEO-related programs.\nThe Regional Office staff is unaware of any attempts by the SEOO to\nact as an advocate for the poor.\nPerformance, especially as revealed by the style of most of the SEOO\nstaff field work is perceived as antagonistic toward the poor.\nThe Regional Office staff reports that some technical assistance has\nbeen provided by the SEOO but rarely in consultation with the Re-\ngional Office to determine OEO grantee's needs for technical assist-\nance, despite some attempts by Regional Office field staff to arrange\nsuch consultation. The SEOO participation in the development of the\nRegional Office training and technical assistance plan was reported\nas not helpful. Regional Office staff also report that the SEOO has\nnot consulted with the Regional Office with respect to sponsoring or\nparticipating in training programs and workshops for CAA staff and\nboard members. They identified the December, 1970, resource mobiliza-\ntion workshop conducted by the SECO and state agencies in conjunction\nwith A.T.A.C. (American Technical Assistance Corporation) for rural\nCAAs as the only example they know of where the SEOO has sponsored a\nworkshop. The SEOO has consulted with OEO to assist grantees in\ntaking corrective action recommended by OEO as a result of the eval-\nuation of Oakland and Berkeley, but assistance from the SEOO to those\ngrantees has not resulted. The SEOO does not consult with OEO to\nassist grantees in taking corrective actions recommended by OEO as a\nresult of audit reports but this is because OEO neither shares audit\nreports with the SEOO nor encourages SEOO involvement.\nPerformance in grant pre-reviews is perceived as not helpful ranging\nfrom no-attendance to \"partial\"attendance in an \"observer\" role.\nMonitoring is viewed as at best performed incompetently and usually\ndestructively to CAAs and OEO. Very bitter feelings exist among\nRegional Office staff concerning the style and methods used by SEOO\npersonnel.\n55\nSEOO monitoring reports are not shared with OEO Regional staff,\nalthough Regional Office staff has requested that these be shared\nand jointly reviewed prior to action by the SEOO. Usually the re-\nsults of SEOO monitoring surface after a grant has been vetoed and\nsupportive justification is offered.\nFew joint evaluations have taken place. Therefore, observation of\nthe SEOO in this area has been limited.\n6. CONCLUSIONS:\nThe SEOO has not performed those functions which call for support to\nthe OEO Regional Office. Actual SEOO performance has resulted in very\nlittle apparent help to OEO or OEO grantees when judged against the stand-\nards set by OEO Instruction 7501-1 or the SEOO grant work programs.\nGiven the premise that the State administration's views are not aligned\nwith those held by most of the CAAs and the OEO Regional staff, the\nSEOO has done poorly in presenting those views in such a way as to\nat best get respect and at worst still maintain working relationships.\nMonitoring as performed by the SEOO is a perversion of the concept\nof monitoring as it is performed by the staffs of other SEOOs and\nOEO regions.\nThe quality of performance has been so poor that had OEO properly\nmonitored the grants made to the state, suspension for non-performance\ncould have been justifiably recommended. This non-performance by the\nSEOO has been largely ignored by OEO. The California SEOO emphasis\non grantee investigation and the methods of investigation were known\nto OEO but were not corrected. Accordingly, OEO has not performed\nits function of advocating for the poor and for OEO grantees by re-\nquiring the SEOO to perform its proper functions and grant work pro-\ngram commitments.\nNo real improvements can be made in SEOO performance unless OEO en-\nforces SEOO compliance with the intent and purpose of the Economic\nOpportunity Act and the grant work program and redirects the SEOO's\nthrust away from investigations to positive aid and assistance.\n7.\nRECOMMENDATION:\nOEO must require SEOO conformance to the intent, and purposes of the\nEconomic Opportunity Act and require compliance with grant work pro-\ngrams and OEO instructions.\n56\nGENERAL CONCLUSIONS\nThe overall conclusions of the evaluation team are as follows:\n1.\nThe SEOO has potentially a very good senior level staff.\n2. The SEOO is improving in internal management.\n3. The SEOO has accomplished a number of special projects\nmentioned in the body of the report.\n4. The California SEOO has not sufficiently followed the work\nprograms agreed to as specified in its four grants.\n5. The SEOO has not acted as an advocate for the poor in keeping\nwith OEO Instruction 7501-1.\n6. The SEOO has made little impact on state and federal agencies,\nprivate agencies, local government or the general public.\n7. The SEOO is perceived to be antagonistic to the CAAs and the\npoor.\n8. The SEOO is using the majority of its staff to perform invest-\nigative functions which are interpreted negatively by the CAAS.\n9. The majority of the SEOO staff does not have sufficient tech-\nnical background or experience to deliver quality technical assistance\nto the CAAs.\n10. The Oakland Demonstration Grant # CG-9093-A/1 to deal with in-\ntensive management technical assistance has not been implemented in\naccordance with its terms.\n11. An impasse exists between the CAAs, the Regional Office, and\nthe SEOO.\n57\nEVALUATION TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS\n3. Regular Grant\nRefunding the regular California SEOO grant should be made contingent\nupon acceptance by the SEOO of the fo'lowing conditions:\n1. The California SEOO agrees to discontinue the Community Program\nAnalyst (CPA) type of investigations. The California SEOO can discharge\nits responsibility under Section 242 of the Equal Opportunity Act of\n1964, as amended, more effectively by concentrating the resources of\nits office on assisting the CAAs in California by providing meaningful\ntechnical assistance, mobilizing federal, state and local resources,\nand insuring SEOO personnel are properly trained and have knowledge\nof grantee needs.\n2. The SEOO agrees to insure that technical assistance personnel\nwill have qualified backgrounds to allow them to deliver positive\nand constructive technical assistance to CAAs.\n3. The California SEOO agrees to train technical assistance per-\nsonnel in the proper methods of delivering technical assistance to\nCAAs.\n4. The California SEOO agrees to implement the plan referred to\nin Lewis K. Uhler's letter of February 8, 1971, addressed to O. Mearl\nCuster of Elk Grove Unified School District (see Attachments), regard-\ning the establishment of an Advisory Council to SEOO, and further agrees\nthat the Advisory Council will include representatives of both the poor\nand CAAs.\n5. The California SEOO agrees to establish and maintain minimum\nstandards for experience and qualifications for staff consistent with\nthe functions of the position.\n6. The California SEOO and Region IX, OEO, have negotiated a\nmemorandum of agreement in accordance with OEO Instruction 7501-1,\nSection 7f.\n7. The California SEOO agrees that it will undertake an infor-\nmational program specifying how it will implement the provisions of\nthe Regional Office/SEOO memorandum of agreement and provisions of\nOEO Instruction 7501-1.\n8. The California SEOO agrees that it will perform its obliga-\ntion to be an advocate for the poor and specifies the steps it will\ntake to meet this obligation.\n58\nSTAP Grant:\nRefunding for the STAP Grant should be made contingent on agreement by\nthe SEOO to immediately comply with existing STAP guidelines with\nrespect to:\n1. Selection of Staff\n2. Development of a STAP plan\n3. Submission of STAP reports\n4. Long-term, on-site field assignments\nC. Management Demonstration Grant:\nThe management demonstration grant should not be refunded. The work\nprogram for this grant should be integrated into the regular grant,\nwith qualified specialists transferred to the regular grants technical\nassistance operations staff.\nD. Oakland Demonstration Grant:\n(a) The Oakland grant should be immediately terminated.\n(b) An audit examination of the funds expended under this grant should\nbe conducted as soon as possible.\nE. Inter-communication\nThe California SEOO should jointly develop with the CAAs and Region\nIX, OEO, a mutually acceptable means of inter-communication that will\nguarantee that all parties work together on major issues of joint con-\ncern. i\n59\nSUMMARY\nThe California SEOO is philosophically opposed to what it believes\nthe community action agencies advocate and practice on behalf of the\npoor. Generally, the SEOO believes that CAAs subscribe to and foster\na \"Sol Alinsky\" confrontation approach. This approach usually re-\nsults in embarrassing economic and political pressure being brought\nto bear on local and state government officials. Further, the SEOO\nbelieves that the Western Regional Office of Economic Opportunity\ndoes nothing to discourage such an approach by the CAAS and is, there-\nfore, not to be trusted as the CARS are not to be trusted. (Also, the\nSEOO believes the CAAs and the Regional Office staff to be ultra liberal\nand, therefore, antagonistic be the SECO.) Another contention of the\nState Office is that current OEO programs are not reaching the poor and\nthat CAA officials are self-styled spokesmen who do not represent\nthe poor people. In essence, they believe that OEO supports a group\nof highly paid self-appointed leaders whose views diverge widely\nfrom the current State administration on key issues affecting the\npoor.\nMr. Uhler, the Director, stated it is necessary that his staff perform\ntheir present role because the Western Regional Office of OEO will not mon-\nitor CAAs in a hard nosed, no nonsense, business-like and responsible\nway and that the end result is the \"Sol Alinsky\" confrontation model\nwhich he and his staff do not favor. Mr. Uhler further stated that\nuntil the Regional Office did act more responsibly, he intended to\nfollow the present course of action. He also stated that he would\nprefer to spend more time on mobilization of resources, innovative\napproaches to solving the problems of poverty, performing an ombuds-\nman role and in linking public and private agencies, but could not\nbecause he had to spend an inordinate amount of time monitoring and\ninvestigating OEO programs to discharge the office's Section 242\nfunction under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended. He\nwould prefer that the Western Regional Office of Economic Opportunity\nperform the monitoring function as the SEOO conceives it.\nThe CAAS and Regional Office believe that the SEOO is not an advocate\nfor the poor and does not intend to serve in a helpful manner as pre-\nscribed in OEO Instruction 7501-1 to alleviate the conditions of pov-\nerty in the State of California.\nThe Regional Office believes its own role to be one of monitoring and\nguidance when working with CAAs. They further believe that boards\nof directors are responsible for making their own decision concerning\nthe expenditure of funds with a minimum of dictation by the Regional\nOffice. Overall, the Regional Office perceives its role as monitor-\ning, interpreting guidelines, and providing helpful information to\nlocally controled non-profit corporations. They also feel that OEO\n60\nhas increased the funds to SEOOs for the purposes outlined in\nOEO Instruction 7501-1 and the money should be used for those pur-\nposes. Further, OEO has encouraged governors to place the directors\nof the SEOOs in a relative position to other social agencies so that\nan advocacy role might be attained.\nThe situation is basically this: The State GEO is funded $792,636\nto perform a number of helpful services on behalf of the poor in\npartnerhip as a grantee with the WR/CEO and the CAAS under the\nEconomic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended. The SEOO accepted the\nmoney ostensibly to carry out OHO instructions and guidelines.\nClearly, with the number of staff and the amount of money being\nspent the guidelines and instructions have not been carried out and\nthe results are negligible.\nThe evaluation team believes the intent and spirit of the Act to be\ncouched in OEO Instruction 7501-1 which clearly directs and encourages\nState Offices to serve as a catalyst in support and in behalf of the\npoor and CAAs in alleviating and eliminating poverty. The California\nSEOO clearly has not served in this capacity.\nThe question which must be faced is this: \"Should the SEOO be re-\nfunded by WR/OEO in view of the fact that,\na. there has been inadequate performance or compliance with the\nSEOO grant work programs,\nb. OEO Instruction 7501-1 has not been sufficiently implemented\nand,\nC. an impassse exists between the Regional Office, the CAAS,\nand the SEOO. 11\nIt is unlikely that the SEOO can fulfill its responsibilities as\noutlined in OEO Instruction 7501-1 if present attitudes continue\nto exist. Since the SEOO is a grantee of the WR/OEO it is important\nthat the issues raised in this evaluation be resolved by the WR/OEO\nby implementing the recommendations offered in this report.\n61\nCALIFORNIA SEOO EVALUATION\nTABULATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE\nANSWERS\nI\n- Purpose\nII - Procedures\nIII - Findings\nAttachments\n#1\n- Questionnaire Summary by Section\n#2\n- Questionnaire Summaries by Function\n#3\n-\nTabulations of Individual Questions\n-1-\nCALIFORNIA SEOO EVALUATION\nTABULATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERS\nI. Purpose\nThe questionnaire was designed to collect data showing how different\ngroups perceive the performance of the California SEOO. This tabula-\ntion reflects the results.\nII. Procedures\nA. Groups interviewed and Questionnaire sections\n1. Twenty-four persons on the SEOO professional field staff\n(community program analysts, coordinators, specialists) and\ntwenty-three OEO regional office field staff were asked to\ncomplete Section III - The SEOO and CAAs; Section VII - The\nSEOO and the Regional Office; Section VIII - The Regional\nOffice and the SEOO; Section XI - The California SE00 Work\nProgram.\n2. Five of the senior SE00 personnel were asked to complete\nselected sections of the questionnaire. (Accordingly, the\ntabulation tables will show different numbers of SEOO staff\nanswering each section.)\nSix OEO regional office staff personnel were asked to complete\nall or selected sections of the questionnaire. Three other\nregional office staff were asked to complete Sections I, II,\nVII, VIII which deal with the SEOO as advisor to the governor,\nwith the SEOO and state agencies, with the SEOO and the Regional\nOffice. These nine regional office staff personnel were se-\nlected from these divisions: Office of Governmental Relations;\nPlans, Budget & Evaluation; Program Management Support, VISTA;\nand Legal Services.\n3. CAA executive directors and board chairmen were asked to com-\nplete Section III - The SEOO and CAAs and Section XI - The\nCalifornia SEOO Work Program.\nTwenty-one CAA executive directors and 17 board chairmen were\npersonally interviewed by the evaluation team.\nAnother thirteen CAA executive directors and four board chair-\nmen submitted their questionnaires by mail in time for this\ntabulation. The questionnaires from two CAA executive direc-\ntors arrived too late to be included.\n-2-\n4. Nine state agency officials completed Section II - The SEOO\nand Other State Agencies.\n5. Fourteen staff personnel from other federal agencies completed\nSection IV - The SEOO and Other Federal Agencies. The agencies\ninterviewed were:\nHealth, Education & Welfare - 2 (with four other staff\nparticipating in the interview)\nHousing & Urban Development - 6 (including five who gave\ntheir answers by telephone)\nLabor - 4\nSmall Business Administration - 1 (with six other staff\nparticipating in the interview)\nEconomic Development Administration - 1\n6. Eighteen representatives of local government were interviewed\nand asked to complete Section V - The SEOO and Local Govern-\nment.\n7. Twenty-eight representatives or members of community groups,\nprimarily organizations of poor people, were asked to com-\nplete Section VI - The SEOO and Community Groups.\nB. Total number of questionnaires\nThis tabulation includes data from 168 questionnaires from people\ninterviewed by the evaluation team plus 17 which were sent by\nmail for a total of 185 questionnaires.\n(More than 168 people were interviewed, but some participated in\ninterviews but were not asked to fill out questionnaires, e.g.\nCAA director's staff.)\nC. Questions and Ratings\n1. The questions in the questionnaire were written in either one\nof two ways:\na. \"Has the SEOO\n\" which could be answered by a\n\"yes/no/don't know\" rating;\n-3-\nb. \"How well has the SE00\nII which could be answered\n...\nby a \"good/poor/don't know\" rating.\n(The SEOO Organization and Management section does not\nexactly follow the system.)\n2. The questions were drawn from OEO Instruction 7501-1, \"The\nRole of the SEOO\" and from the SEOO CAP 81 and work programs.\nThe scope of questions was deliberately designed to be com-\nprehensive in order to avoid bias in the selection of questions\nto be included.\nAltogether 119 questions appeared in the questionnaire.\nD. The Tabulation Tables\n1. Each Question\nTabulations of thirty questions (out of 119) are included in\nthis report. They were selected as a fair and significant\nrepresentation to show perceptions of SEOO performance.\n2. Questionnaire Summary by Section (in percentages)\nThe figures shown in this summary are the percentage of the\ntotal number of responses to all questions in the particular\nsection of the questionnaire.\n3. Questionnaire Summaries by Function (in percentages)\nThe figures shown in these tables are percentages of the total\nnumber of responses to questions which relate to the particu-\nlar function, e.g. Technical Assistance. These questions\nrelating to a particular function appeared in several sections\nof the questionnaire.\nIII. Questionnaire Tabulation Findings\n1. The most striking and obvious finding in the tabulation is the\nhigh percentage of answers in the \"don't know\" category.\nPeople in all groups and for almost all sections of the question-\nnaire don't know whether or not the SEOO has performed many of\nthe tasks it is supposed to do or how well it has performed them.\n-4-\nReviews of individual questionnaires revealed that this situation\nwas relatively the same with experienced personnel as well as\nwith new staff. Likewise, the interview experience confirmed that\nthe \"don't know\" answers came from lack of knowledge rather than\nan unwillingness to state an opinion affirmatively or negatively.\n2. The next most obvious finding is that while the SEOO perceives\nits performance positively no other group can agree. For ques-\ntions which people believed they could answer (taking out the\n\"don't knows\") the results were generally negative. In other\nwords, when people had knowledge of SEOO activities they thought\npoorly of the SEOO.\n3. The CAAs were more decisive in stating their negative perception\nof SEOO performance than were the regional office staff.\n4. The question asked concerning the SEOO's performance as advisor\nto the governor had mixed responses.\nSome people insisted on writing in that their rating of \"good\"\nmeant only that the SEOO performance carried out the governor's\nphilosophy.\n-5-\nQUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY BY SECTION\nIN PERCENTAGE\nSECTION I\nSECTION II\nSECTION III\nSECTION IV\nSECTION V\nSECTION VI\n(SECO AND THE\n(SE00 & OTHER\n(SEOO AND\n(SEOO & FEDERAL\n(SEOO & LOCAL\n(SEOO & COMTY\nGOVERNOR)\nSTATE AGENCIES)\nCAA's)\nAGENCIES)\nGOVERNMENT)\nGROUPS\nAF\nNEG\nDK\nT\nAF\nNEG\nDK\nT\nAF\nNEG\nDK\nT\nAF\nNEC\nDK\nT\nAF\nNEG\nDK\nT\nAF\nNEG\nDK\nT\nSEOO\n79\n21\n0\n100\n58\n20\n22\n100\n47\n9\n44\n100\n67\n11\n22\n100\n50\n0\n50\n100\n63\n13\n24\n100\nREGIONAL\nOFFICE\n7\n21\n72\n100\n0\n31\n69\n100\n7\n54\n39\n100\n0\n42\n58\n100\n8\n25\n67\n100\n0\n50\n50\n100\nCAN's\n10\n62\n28\n100\nSTATE\nAGENCIES\n3\n16\n81\n100\nFEDERAL\n0\n17\n83\nAGENCIES\n100\nLOCAL\nGOVERNMENT\n15\n35\n50\n100\nCOMMUNITY\nGROUPS\n2\n52\n46\n100\nSECTION VII\nSECTION VIII\nSECTION IX\nSECTION X\nSECTION XI\n(SEOO & OEO REG\n(OEO REGIONAL\n(HO/OEO AND\n(SEOO ORGANIZA-\n(SEOO WORK\nOFFICE)\nOFC. & SE00)\nTHE SECO)\nTION & MANAG.\nPROG. CALIF.)\nAF\nNEG\nDK\nT\nAF\nNEG\nDK\nT\nAF\nNEG\nDK\nT\nAF\nNEG\nDK\nT\nAF\nNEG\nDK\nT\nSE00\n30\n0\n61\n100\n8\n40\n52\n100\n32\n24\n44\n100\n89\n7\n4\n100\n55\n4\n41\n100\nREGIONAL\nOFFICE\n4\n47\n49\n100\n24\n16\n60\n100\n15\nn\n85\n100\n11\n25\n64\n100\n6\n61\n33\n100\nCAA's\n6\n61\n33\n100\nKEY\nAE\nII\nAFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE (\"Yes\" or \"Good\")\nNEG\n= NEGATIVE RESPONSE (\"No\" or \"Poor\")\nDK\nII\nDON'T KNOW\nAttachment #1\nT\nIf TOTAL\nFUNCTION:\nAdvisor to Governor\nSAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:\n\"How well has the SEOO assisted the governor\nconcerning the governor's authority to dis-\napprove OEO grants and contracts of assistance?\"\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nRESPONSE\n*YES/NO\nRESPONSE\n*GOOD/POOR\nRESPONDING\nDON'T\nRESPONDING\nDON'T\nYES\nNO\nKNOW\nGOOD\nPOOR\nGROUPS\nT\nGROUPS\nKNOW\nT\nSEOO\n100 %\n%\n%\n%\n0\n0\n100\nSEOO\n91 %\n0 %\n9 %\n%\n100\nREGIONAL\nOFFICE\n33 %\n22 %\n45 %\n100 %\nREGIONAL\nOFFICE\n27 %\n27 %\n46 %\n100 %\nCAAs\n%\n%.\n%\n%\nCAAs\n32 %\n32 %\n36 %\n100\nSTATE\nSTATE\n%\n%\n%\n%\nAGENCIES\nAGENCIES\n11 %\n33 %\n56 %\n100 %\nFEDERAL\nFEDERAL\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nAGENCIES\n0 %\n7 %\n93 %\n100 %\nLOCAL\nLOCAL\nGOVERNMENT\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGOVERNMENT\n23 %\n30 %\n47 %\n100 %\nCOMMUNITY\nCOMMUNITY\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\n%\n*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT\n*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE\nTHE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SE00 HAS\nQUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS\nOR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC\nPERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED\nTASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.\nTO THIS FUNCTION.\nAttachment #2\nPage 1 of 7\nFUNCTION: Resource Mobilization\nSAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:\n\"How well has the SE00 on its own initiative,\nsought out or assisted in the development of\nevery state, Federal, community and private\nagency resource (programs, expertise, funds,\netc.) that can be effectively marshalled and/or\ncoordinated to assist CAAs and other anti-poverty\nefforts within the state?\"\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nRESPONSE\n*YES/NO\nRESPONSE *GOOD/POOR\nRESPONDING\nDON 'T\nRESPONDING\nDON'T\nYES\nNO\nT\nGOOD\nPOOR\nGROUPS\nKNOW\nGROUPS\nKNOW\nT\nSEOO\n100 %\n%\n%\n%\n0\n0\n100\nSEOO\n81 %\n0 %\n%\n%\n19\n100\nREGIONAL\n0 %\n50 %\n50 %\n100 %\nREGIONAL\nOFFICE\nOFFICE\n4 %\n65 %\n31 %\n100 %\nCAAs\n%\n%\n%\n%\nCAAs\n8 %\n72%\n20 %\n100 10\nI\nSTATE\nSTATE\nAGENCIES\n11%\n22 %\n67 %\n100 %\nAGENCIES\n22 %\n33%\n45 %\n100\n%\nFEDERAL\nFEDERAL\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nAGENCIES\n0 %\n21 %\n79 %\n100\n%\nLOCAL\nLOCAL\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGOVERNMENT\n6 %\nGOVERNMENT\n44%\n50 %\n100\n%\nCOMMUNITY\nCOMMUNITY\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\n%\n*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT\n*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE\nTHE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SE00 HAS\nQUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS\nOR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC\nPERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED\nTASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.\nTO THIS FUNCTION.\nAttachment #2\nPage 2 of 7\nFUNCTION:\nCoordination & Planning\nSAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:\n\"Has the SEOO Director provided other state\nagencies with information and statistics on\nthe causes and conditions of poverty in the\nstate, on the problems and needs of the poor,\nand the programs and efforts to overcome poverty\nwithin the state?\"\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nRESPONSE\n*YES/NO\nRESPONSE\nGOOD/POOR\nRESPONDING\nDON'T\nRESPONDING\nDON'T\nYES\nNO\nKNOW\nT\nGOOD\nPOOR\nGROUPS\nGROUPS\nKNOW\nT\nSEOO\n31 %\n%\n%\n%\n8\n61\n100\nSEOO\n27 %\n1 %\n%\n%\n72\n100\nREGIONAL\n1 %\n42%\n57 %\n100 %\nREGIONAL\nOFFICE\nOFFICE\n1 %\n49 %\n50 %\n100\n%\nCAAs\n5 %\n64%\n31 %\n100 %\nCAAs\n%\n%\n%\n10/0\nSTATE\nSTATE\nAGENCIES\n8 %\n30 %\n62 %\n100\n%\nAGENCIES\n12 %\n44 %\n44 %\n100\n%\nFEDERAL\nFEDERAL\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nAGENCIES\n0 %\n21 %\n79 %\n100\n%\nLOCAL\nLOCAL\nGOVERNMENT\n31 %\n44%\n25 %\n100 %\nGOVERNMENT\n%\n%\n%\n%\nCOMMUNITY\nCOMMUNITY\nGROUPS\n4 %\n56 %\n40 %\n100 %\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\n%\n*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT\n*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE\nTHE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SEOO HAS\nQUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS\nOR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC\nPERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED\nTASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.\nTO THIS FUNCTION.\nAttachment #2\nPage 3 of 7\nFUNCTION: Advocacy for the Poor\nSAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:\n\"How well has the SEOO acted as a special advocate\nfor the poor in state government by such activi-\nties as:\na. Working for representation of the poor on\nstate committees which operate programs\naffecting the poor?\nb. Assessing state-poverty-related programs\nc. Assessing state administrative procedures and\nworking to make them more responsive to the\nneeds and desires of the poor\nd. Developing career opportunities for the poor\nwithin other state agencies\n\"\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nRESPONSE\n*YES/NO\nRESPONSE\n*GOOD/POOR\nRESPONDING\nDON\nRESPONDING\nDON'T\nYES\nNO\nKNOW\nT\nCOOD\nPOOR\nGROUPS\nGROUPS\nKNOW\nT\nSEOO\n27 %\n%\n%\n%\n14\n59\n100\nSEOO\n38 %\n4 %\n%\n%\n58\n100\nREGIONAL\n0 %\n47 %\n53 %\nOFFICE\n100 %\nREGIONAL\nOFFICE\n1 %\n54 %\n45 %\n100\n%\nCAAs\n2 %\n84%\n14 %\n100 %\nCAAs\n3%\n56 %\n41 %\n100 %\nSTATE\nSTATE\n0 %\nAGENCIES\n26 %\n74 %\n100\n%\nAGENCIES\n0 %\n33 %\n67 %\n100\n%\nFEDERAL\nFEDERAL\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nLOCAL\nLOCAL\nGOVERNMENT\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGOVERNMENT\n%\n%\n%\n%\nCOMMUNITY\nCOMMUNITY\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\n%\n*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT\n*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE\nTHE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SE00 HAS\nQUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS\nOR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC\nPERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED\nTASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.\nTO THIS FUNCTION.\nAttachment #2\nPage 4 of 7\nFUNCTION:\nTechnical Assistance\nSAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:\n\"How well has the SEOO provided special technical\nassistance where needed to Community Action Agencies,\ncommunity groups, and other grantees or potential\ngrantees, in developing, conducting and administering\nprograms to alleviate poverty?\"\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nRESPONSE\n*YES/NO\nRESPONSE *GOOD/POOR\nRESPONDING\nDON T\nRESPONDING\nDON\nYES\nNO\nT\nGOOD\nPOOR\nGROUPS\nKNOW\nGROUPS\nKNOW\nT\n46 %\n%\n%\n%\nSEOO\n13\n41\n100\nSEOO\n39%\n11 %\n50 %\n100 %\nREGIONAL\n5 %\n50 %\n45%\n100 %\nREGIONAL\nOFFICE\n0%\n62 %\n38 %\n100 %\nOFFICE\nCAAs\n8 %\n69 %\n23%\n100 %\nCAAs\n6%\n77 %\n17 %\n100%\nI\nSTATE\nSTATE\nAGENCIES\n0 %\n22 %\n78%\n100 %\n11%\n22 %\n%\nAGENCIES\n67\n100 %\nFEDERAL\nFEDERAL\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nLOCAL\nLOCAL\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGOVERNMENT\n0%\n20%\n80%\n100 %\nGOVERNMENT\nCOMMUNITY\nCOMMUNITY\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGROUPS\n0%\n48%\n52 %\n100 %\n*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT\n*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE\nTHE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SEOO HAS\nQUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS\nOR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC\nPERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED\nTASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.\nTO THIS FUNCTION.\nAttachment #2\nPage 5 of 7\nGrant Review, Monitoring &\nFUNCTION:\nEvaluation\nSAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:\n\"How well has the SE00 provided advice and assis-\ntance at an early or pre-review stage in the de-\nvelopment of program proposals by CAAs and other\nOEO grantees?\"\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nRESPONSE\n*YES/NO\nRESPONSE\n*GOOD/POOR\nRESPONDING\nDON 'T\nRESPONDING\nDON 'T\nYES\nNO\nGROUPS\nKNOW\nT\nGOOD\nPOOR\nGROUPS\nKNOW\nT\nSEOO\n65%\n8 %\n27 %\n%\n100\nSEOO\n55 %\n10 %\n%\n%\n35\n100\nREGIONAL\n14%\n58 %\n28%\n100 %\nREGIONAL\nOFFICE\nOFFICE\n%\n49 %\n51\n%\n100 %\nCAAs\n23%\n56 %\n21%\n100 %\nCAAs\n38 %\n10/\n7%\n55 %\n100 K\nSTATE\nSTATE\n1\n%\n%\n%\nAGENCIES\n%\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nFEDERAL\nFEDERAL\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nLOCAL\nLOCAL\nGOVERNMENT\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGOVERNMENT\n%\n%\n%\n%\nCOMMUNITY\nCOMMUNITY\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\nof\n*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT\n*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE\nTHE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SEOO HAS\nQUALITY WITH WHICH THE SE00 HAS\nOR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC\nPERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED\nTASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.\nTO THIS FUNCTION.\nAttachment #2\nPage 6 of 7\nFUNCTION:\nManagement\nSAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:\n\"How well is the SE00 organized to effectively\nutilize staff and financial resources?\"\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nFUNCTION BY GROUP AND\nRESPONSE\n*YES/NO\nRESPONSE\n*GOOD/POOR\nRESPONDING\nDON 'T\nRESPONDING\nDON'T\nYES\nNO\nT\nGOOD\nKNOW\nPOOR\nT\nGROUPS\nGROUPS\nKNOW\nSEOO\n90 %\n4%\n6 %\n%\n100\nSEOO\n98 %\n2 %\n0 %\n%\n100\nREGIONAL\n13 %\n20%\n67 %\n100\n%\nREGIONAL\nOFFICE\nOFFICE\n17 %\n33%\n50%\n100 %\nCAAs\n18 %\n10%\n72 %\n100\n%\nCAAs\n%\n%\n%\n101\n%,\n10\n1\nSTATE\nSTATE\n%\n%\n%\n%\nAGENCIES\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nFEDERAL\nFEDERAL\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nAGENCIES\n%\n%\n%\n%\nLOCAL\nLOCAL\nGOVERNMENT\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGOVERNMENT\n%\n%\n%\n%\nCOMMUNITY\nCOMMUNITY\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\n%\nGROUPS\n%\n%\n%\n%\n*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT\n*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE\nTHE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SEOO HAS\nQUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS\nOR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC\nPERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED\nTASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.\nTO THIS FUNCTION.\nAttachment #2\nPage 7 of 7\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION #I THE SEOO AND THE GOVERNOR\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#2.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SE00 assisted the Governor\n2a.\nconcerning the Governor's authority to disapprove\nOEO grants and contracts of assistance?\nLIST grants or contracts which have been\ndisapproved by the Governor in the past\n12 months.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\nDON'T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nTOTAL\nKNOW\nSEOO STAFF\n2\n# 2\n%\n#\n%\n#\n100\n0\n0\n0\n0%\n#\n2\n%\n100\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n#1\n%\n8\n13\n#\n1\n13%\n#\n6\n74%\n#\n8\n100%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\nAttachment #3\n1 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # II THE SE00 AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#6.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO developed effective inter-\n3a.\nagency mechanisms to assure good communication be-\ntween state agencies and offices whose activities\nCAP 81\naffect the poor?\nIV-D\nDESCRIBE those inter-agency mechanisms which\nhave had significant success.\n\\\nTABULATION RESULTS\nGOOD\nPOOR\nDON' T\nRESPONDING GROUPS\nTOTAL\nKNOW\nSEOO STAFF\n3\n# 3\n100 %\n#\n0\n0 %\n#\n0\n0 %\n#\n3\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\n8\n#0\n0%\n#3\n38%\nIt\n5\n62%\n#\nSTAFF\n8\n100%\nSTATE AGENCIES\n9\n#1\n11 %\n#\n4\n44%\n#\n%\n#\n4\n45\n9\n100%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\nAttachment #3\nPage 2 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # Il THE SEOO AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#7.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO, on its own initiative,\n3a.\nsought out and developed or assisted in the devel-\n4d.\nopment of every state resource (programs, expertise,\n6h.\nfunds, etc.) that can be effectively marshalled\nand/or coordinated to assist CAAs and other anti-\nCAP 81\npoverty efforts within the state?\nI-C\nII-A\nLIST agencies and resources mobilized during\nIV-C\nthe past 6 months.\nW.P.\nDESCRIBE significant successes.\nIII-C\nIV-A/C\nTABULATION  RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nPOOR\nDON'T\nGOOD\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n3\n# 3\n100 %\n#\n%\n#\n%\n0\n0\n0\n0\n#3\n190%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n#0\n0%\n# 3\n38 %\n#\n8\n5\n62%\n#3\n100% %\nSTATE AGENCIES\n9\n# 2\n22%\n# 3\n33%\n# 4\n45%\n#:\n100%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n7c\nAttachment #3\nPage 3 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # II THE SE00 AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#9.\n7501-1\nHas the SEOO provided information and assis-\n3c.\ntance with the objective of enacting and\namending legislation and developing programs\nCAP 81\nfor the benefit of the poor -\nII-A\nC. to other state agencies?\nLIST proposed legislative actions or\nprograms during the past year.\nDESCRIBE significant successes or fail-\nures.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nYES\nNO\nDON'T\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n3\n# 2\n66%\n# 0\n0%\n#1\n34%\n#\n3\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n7\n# 0\n0 %\n# 2\n29%\n#5\n71%\n#\n7\n100%\nSTATE AGENCIES\n9\n# 0\n0 %\n# 2\n22%\n#7\n78 %\n#\n9\n100%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\nAttachment #3\nPage 4 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # III THE SE00 AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#1\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO represented the Governor\n2b.\nwith respect to CAAs?\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nGOOD\nPOOR\nDON'T\nTOTAL\nKNOW\nSEOO STAFF\n28\n#26\n93%\n#0\n0%\n#2\n7%\n# 28\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n28\n#14\n46 %\n#9\n32%\n#7\n22%\n#\n28\n100%\nCAA EXECUTIVE\nDIRECTORS\n33\n#11\n33 %\n#11\n33%\n#11\n34%\n# 33\n100%\nCAA BOARD\n#\n6\n%\n#\nCHAIRMEN\n19\n32\n5\n26%\n#8\n42\n%\n#\n19\n100%\n2\nAttachment #3\nPage 5 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # III THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#3.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO acted as a special advocate\n3b.\nfor the poor in state government by such activi-\nties as:\nW.P.\nb.\nAssessing state-poverty-related programs and\nIII-D\nworking to make them more responsive to the\nneeds and desires of the poor?\nLIST the state-operated programs which the\nCAAs have asked the SEOO to assist to\nmake more responsive during the past\nyear.\nDESCRIBE significant successes or failures.\nTABULATION  RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nDON'T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n28\n#13\n46 %\n#0\n0%\n#15\n54%\n#28\n100 %\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n28\n#1\n4 %\n# 18\n64 %\nIt\n9\n32%\n#28\n100%\nCAA EXECUTIVE\nDIRECTORS\n34\n#1\n3%\n# 20\n%\n#\n38%\n#34\n59\n13\n100%\nCAA BOARD\nCHAIRMEN\n#1\n%\n#\n%\n#\n20\n5\n11\n55\n8\n40%\n#\n20\n100%\nAttachment #3\nPage 6 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION #III THE SE00 AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#8.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO provided special technical\n4a.\nassistance where needed to Community Action Agen-\ncies, community groups, and other grantees or po-\nCAP 81\ntential grantees, in developing, conducting and\nII-A/B\nadministering programs to alleviate poverty?\nW.P.\nLIST occasions when special Technical Assis-\nI-B\ntance has been provided, identifying sub-\nIV-A/D\nject and who provided the Technical Assis-\ntance during the past 6 months.\nDESCRIBE significant successes or failures.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nDON'T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n28\n22\n79 %\n#0\n%\n#\n21%\n#\n6\n28\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\n# Q\n0%\n#19\n70%\n#\n8\n30%\n#\nSTAFF\n27\n27\n100%\nCAA EXECUTIVE\nDIRECTORS\n33\n# 4\n12%\n#26\n79%\n#3\n9%\n#\n33\n100%\nCAA BOARD\nCHAIRMEN\n21\n#\n5%\n#\n1\n15\n71%\n#5\n24%\n#\n21\n100%\nAttachment #3\nPage 7 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # III THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#9.\n7501-1\nHas the SEOO consulted with the CAAs using\n4a.\nCheckpoint Form 76 - at the time of grantee pre-\nreview and when developing its own annual re-\nCAP 81\nfunding request to determine OEO grantee needs\nII-B\nfor specialized technical assistance and to get\nadvice on how the SEOO can assist in meeting\nW.P.\nthese needs?\nI-B\nLIST the occasions when the SEOO has consulted\nwith the CAAs on their needs for specialized\ntechnical assistance during the past 6 months.\nIdentify how this was done -- by letter,\nfield visit, meeting, telephone.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nYES\nNO\nDON' T\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n27\n#12\n44 %\n#1\n4%\n#14\n52%\n# 27\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n28\n# 2\n7 %\n#12\n43%\n#\n14\n50%\n# 28\n100 %\nCAA EXECUTIVE\nDIRECTORS\n34\n# 5\n15%\n#26\n76%\n#3\n9%\n# 34\n100%\nCAA BOARD\nCHAIRMEN\n21\n#\n3\n14%\n#₁₂\n57%\n#6\n29 %\n# 21\n100%\nAttachment #3\nPage 8 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # III THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#11.\n7501-1\nHas the SEOO participated in the annual field\n4b.\npre-review of an OEO grantee, along with an OEO\nrepresentative (Regional or Headquarters)?\nW.P.\nIII-A\nLIST the grantee pre-reviews attended by the\nSEOO in the past 6 months.\nDESCRIBE pre-reviews when the SEOO has been\nhelpful to the CAA Board in exercising\nits policy decision-making responsibilities.\nTABULATION  RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nYES\nNO\nDON' T\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n28\n#23\n82%\n# 1\n4%\n# 4\n14%\n#28\n10%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n28\n#16\n57%\n#6\n21 %\n#6\n22%\n#28\n100%\nCAA EXECUTIVE\nDIRECTORS\n34\n#17\n50%\n# 16\n47%\n#1\n3%\n#34\n100%\nCAA BOARD\nCHAIRMEN\n21\n#13\n62%\n#\n7\n33%\n#1\n5%\n#21\n100%\nAttachment #3\nPage 9 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # III THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#12.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO provided advice and assis-\n4b.\ntance at an early or pre-review stage in the de--\nvelopment of program proposals by CAAs and other\nCAP 81\nOEO grantees?\nII-B\nLIST the occasions when the CAAS and grantees\nW.P.\nwere assisted by the SEOO in the past 6 months\nI-B/C\nat an early or pre-review stage.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nDON'T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nKNOW\nTOTAL\n4\nSEOO STAFF\n27\n#13\n48%\n#3\n11%\n#\n11\n41%\n#27\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n#0\n0 %\n#16\n59%\n#\n27\n11\n41%\n#27\n100%\nCAA EXECUTIVE\nDIRECTORS\n34\n#2\n6 %\n#26\n76%\n#6\n18%\n#\n34\n100%\nCAA BOARD\nCHAIRMEN\n21\n#3\n14%\n#\n15\n71%\n#3\n15%\n#21\n100%\nAttachment #3\nPage 10 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION III THE SE00 AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#13.\n7501-1\nDid the SEOO sign the Form 77 (Checkpoint Pro-\n4b.\ncedure) on site at the conclusion of the field\npre-review or no later than 15 days after re-\nceipt of the form?\nTABULATION  RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nYES\nNO\nDON'T\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n28\n#15\n54%\n#2\n7%\n#11\n39%\n#28\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n28\n#2\n7%\n#13\n47%\n#13\n46%\n#28\n100%\n%\nCAA EXECUTIVE\nDIRECTORS\n34\n#11\n32 %\n#14\n41%\n#9\n27%\n34\n100%\nCAA BOARD\n-\nCHAIRMEN\n20\n#4\n20 %\n#4\n20%\n#12\n60%\n720\n100%\nAttachment #3\nPage 11 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # III THE SE00 AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#21.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO monitored some or all of\n6f.\nthe OEO-funded programs within the state if\nit has the staff capability and if this activity\nis part of the approved SEOO Work Program, which\nincludes arrangements for periodic written re-\nports plus other reporting of special activity\nor problems, to the appropriate OEO grant office.\nLIST grantees where significant monitoring\nwas done during the past 6 months.\nDESCRIBE circumstances and results.\ni\nTABULATION  RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nDON'T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n27\n#18\n67 %\n#1\n4 %\n#8\n29%\n#27\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\n0 %\n#\nSTAFF\n27\n#0\n# 16\n59%\n11\n41%\n#27\n100%\nCAA EXECUTIVE\nDIRECTORS\n34\n#3\n9 %\n# 20\n59%\n#11\n32%\n#34\nIt\n100%\nCAA BOARD\n21\n#\n1\n4 %\n#\n10\n48%\n#\n10\n48%\n#\n21\n100%\nCHAIRMEN\nAttachment #3\nPage 12 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # III THE SE00 AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#21.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO monitored some or all of\n6f.\nthe OEO-funded programs within the state if\nit has the staff capability and if this activity\nis part of the approved SEOO Work Program, which\nincludes arrangements for periodic written re-\nports plus other reporting of special activity\nor problems, to the appropriate OEO grant office.\nLIST grantees where significant monitoring\nwas done during the past 6 months.\nDESCRIBE circumstances and results.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nDON' T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nKNOW\nTOTAL\n4\nSEOO STAFF\n27\n#18\n67 %\n#1\n4 %\n#8\n29%\n#\n27\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\n27\n#0\n0 %\n#16\n59%\n#\nSTAFF\n11\n41 %\n#27\n190%\nCAA EXECUTIVE\nDIRECTORS\n34\n#3\n9 %\n#20\n59%\n#11\n32%\n#34\nIt\n100%\nCAA BOARD\n21\n#\n4 %\n#\nCHAIRMEN\n1\n10\n48%\n#10\n48 %\n#\n21\n100%\nAttachment #3\nPage 12 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION #IV THE SEOO AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#2.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO, on its own initiative,\n3a.\nsought out and developed or assisted in the\n4d.\ndevelopment of Federal resources (programs,\nexpertise, funds, etc.) that can be effectively\nCAP 81\nmarshalled and/or coordinated to assist CAAS and\nIV-E\nother anti-poverty efforts within the state?\nW.P.\nLIST federal resources mobilized during the\nIV-C\npast 6 months.\nDESCRIBE significant successes.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nDON'T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n3\n# 2\n67 %\n#\n0\n0%\n#1\n33%\n#\n3\n100 %\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n4\n#0\n0 %\n# 2\n50%\n#2\n50%\n# 4\n100%\nFEDERAL AGENCIES\n14\n#0\n0 %\n# 3\n21%\n#11\n79%\n#14\n100%\n#\n%\n#\n%\nIf\n%\n#\n%\nAttachment #3\nPage 13 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION #V SE00 AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#1.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO represented the Governor\n2h.\nwith respect to local units of government?\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nDON' T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n1\n#1\n100%\n#0\n0%\n# Q\n0%\n#1\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n3\n#1\n33%\n# 0\n0%\n#\n2\n67%\n#3\n100 %\nLOCAL\nGOVERNMENT\n17\n#4\n24%\n#5\n29%\n#8\n47%\nthe\n717\n100 %\nCAA BOARD\nCHAIRMEN\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\nAttachment #3\nPage 14 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION #V THE SE00 AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#4.\n7501-1\nHOW well has the SEOO provided special technical\n4a.\nassistance where needed to local government\nagencies, in developing, conducting and ad-\nCAP 81\nministering programs to alleviate poverty?\nII-A\nLIST occasions during the past six months when\nspecial technical assistance was provided.\nIdentify subject and who provided the tech-\nnical assistance.\nDESCRIBE significant successes or failures.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nDON'T T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n1\n# 0\n0%\n#0\n0%\n#1\n#\n%\n100%\n1\n100\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n3\n# 0\n0%\n#1\n33 %\n#2\n67%\n#3\n100%\nLOCAL\nGOVERNMENT\n15\n# o\n0%\n#3\n20%\n#12\n80%\n# 15\n100 %\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\nAttachment #3\nPage 15 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # VI THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY GROUPS, PRIVATE AGENCIES\nAND GENERAL PUBLIC\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#1.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO provided special technical\n4a.\nassistance where needed to community groups in\ndeveloping, conducting and administering pro-\nCAP 81\ngrams to alleviate poverty?\nII-A\nLIST occasions during the past six months when\nW.P.\nspecial technical assistance was provided.\nI-B\nIdentify subject and who provided the tech-\nnical assistance.\nDESCRIBE significant successes or failures.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nDON' T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n# 2\n50 %\n44\n4\n#0\n0%\n#2\n50%\n#\n4\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n3\n# 0\n0 %\n#2\n67%\n#1\n33%\n# 3\n100%\nCOMMUNITY GROUPS\n27\n#0\n0 %\n# 13\n48%\n#14\n52%\n727\n100%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\nAttachment #3\nPage 16 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION #VII THE SE00 AND THE OEO REGIONAL OFFICE\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#7.\n7501-1\nHow well has the SEOO advised OEO on funding\n6d.\nrequests for all applicants within the state or\nwho will operate within the state with written\ncomments on these applications.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nDON'T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n24\n# 10\n42%\n#\n4\n16%\n#10\n42%\n#24\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n30\n# 0\n0%\n#12\n40%\n#18\n60%\n#30\n100%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\nAttachment #3\nPage 17 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION # VII THE SEOO AND THE OEO REGIONAL OFFICE\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#8.\n7501-1\nHOW well has the SEOO consulted with the Regional\n4a.\nOffice to determine OEO grantee needs for special-\nized technical assistance and to get advice on how\nW.P.\nthe SEOO can assist in meeting these needs?\nIV-D\nLIST occasions and grantees during the past\n6 months when this was done.\nDESCRIBE significant occasions when the SEOO\nresponded to Regional Office requests.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nDON' T\nGOOD\nPOOR\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n24\n# 5\n21%\n#\n21%\n44\n5\n14\n58%\n#24\n100%\nREGIONAL OFFICE\nSTAFF\n32\n# 0\n0%\n#24\n75%\n#8\n25%\n#32\n100%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\n%\nAttachment #3\nPage 18 of 30\nSEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION\nSECTION #VII THE SEOO AND THE OEO REGIONAL OFFICE\nQUESTION REFERENCE\n#13.\n7501-1\nHas the SEOO provided the Regional Office with\n6f.\nperiodic written reports on its monitoring\nactivities plus other reporting of special\nactivity or problems to the appropriate OEO\nGrant office?\nLIST grantees where significant monitoring\nwas done during the past 6 months.\nDESCRIBE circumstances and results.\nTABULATION RESULTS\nRESPONDING GROUPS\n#\nYES\nNO\nDOW T\nKNOW\nTOTAL\nSEOO STAFF\n24\n#\n10\n42%\n76\nTT\nQ %\n#\n14\n58%\n#\n%\n0\n24\n100\nREGIONAL OFFICE\n31\n# 1\n3%\n=\nSTAFF\n-19\n61 %\n711\n36%\nit\n31\n100\n#\nof\n#\n%\n1b\n%\n41\n%\n#\nc/o\n#\n%\n#\n%\n#\nI\nAttachment #3\nPage 19 of 30"
}