Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564680
label
California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Evaluation Report 03/26/1971 (3 of 7)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564680
contentType
document
title
California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Evaluation Report 03/26/1971 (3 of 7)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564680
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
bec131aefc14a55f
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: California State Office of Economic Opportunity
- Evaluation Report 03/26/1971 (3 of 7)
Box: P27
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # VII THE SE00 AND THE OEO REGIONAL OFFICE
QUESTION REFERENCE
#16.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO advised the Regional Office
6g.
on special problems in the state that might
develop as a result of the activities or presence
of VISTA Volunteers, and assisted the Regional
Office in resolving such problems?
LIST the special problems during the past
six months.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON'T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
24
#5
21 %
#0
0%
#19
79 %
#24
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
31
#1
3 % /(
# 13
42%
It
17
55%
31
100%
DI
15
%
#
%
It
%
of
3
#
%
#
%
#
%
It
%
Attachment #3
Page 20 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # VIII THE OEO REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE SEOO
QUESTION REFERENCE
#1.
7501-1
How well has the Regional Office worked jointly
7c.
with the SEOO to strengthen the SEOO staff capa-
bility to carry out its work programs and to
W.P.
overcome any weaknesses that may be revealed by
II-D
evaluations?
LIST joint training programs or workshops.
Identify number of SEOO-staff invited
and attending and their job levels during
the past year.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON' T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
29
# 1
3 %
# 20
69 %
#
8
28%
# 29
100 %
REGIONAL OFFICE
#
&
STAFF
31
7
23
11
# 11
35 °C
7
IL
13
42'
31
100
#
of
#
%
11-
%
If
00
#
%
#
%
4
2
#
$
Attachment #3
Page 21 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # VIII THE OEO REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE SEOO
QUESTION REFERENCE
#1.
7501-1
HOW well has the Regional Office worked jointly
7c.
with the SEOO to strengthen the SEOO staff capa-
bility to carry out its work programs and to
W.P.
overcome any weaknesses that may be revealed by
II-D
evaluations?
LIST joint training programs or workshops.
Identify number of SEOO-staff invited
and attending and their job levels during
the past year.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON' T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
29
#
1
3 %
#
20
69 %
#
8
28%
It.
29
100 %
REGIONAL OFFICE
#
of
STAFF
31
7
23
"
# 11
80
#
35
C
13
42
it
U
31
100
#
of
#:
%
#
of
If
20
#
%
#
%
#
LF
#:
3
Attachment #3
Page 21 of 30
SE00 EVALUATI
QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # VIII THE OEO REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE SEOO
QUESTION REFERENCE
#2.
7501-1
Has the Regional Office ensured that the SEOO
7d.
is consulted concerning OEO Regional Office
plans and priorities with regard to OEO grantees?
LIST joint staff meetings held during the
past six months. Identify number of SEOO
staff invited and attending and their job
levels.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DOEP T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
29
#1
3 %
# 20
69 %
#
8
28 %
#
29
100 %
REGIONAL OFFICE
%
in
#
STAFF
11.
4
%
If
%
31
14
45
5
16
12
39
31
100
=
EL
41:
of
41
%
-7
in
#
%
#
of
#
US
it
&
Attachment #3
Page 22 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # VIII THE OEO REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE SEOO
QUESTION REFERENCE
#7.
7501-1
Has the Regional Office invited with adequate
7g.
advance notice the SEOO to all "pre-reviews"
4b.
held with other OEO grantees in the state?
W.P.
LIST the pre-reviews during the past 6
III-A
months, with dates when notices were mailed.
DESCRIBE cases when the SEOO has been par-
ticularly helpful to the Regional Office
Field Representative.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DON'T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
#
%
#
%
#
6
21
12
41
38°
#
%
29
11
29
100
REGIONAL OFFICE
#
of
STAFF
19
61
#
of
#
31
1
11
36°F
#:
:
3
31
100
#
%
#
%
th
is
If
%
It
%
#
%
#
or
#
I
Attachment #3
Page 23 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # IX HEADQUARTERS/OEO AND THE SEOO
QUESTION REFERENCE
#4.
7501-1
How well has the Office of Operations assisted
8h.
the SEOO in its dealings with the Headquarters
offices or other federal agencies?
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON'T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
#
40%
#
%
#
5
2
1
40%
#
20
2
5
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
#0
0%
#
0%
#
4
0
4
106
#
4
106%
#
%
#
%
If
of
#
20
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Attachment #3
Page 24 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # X SEOO ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
QUESTION REFERENCE
#6.
B. STAFFING
Do personnel perform job functions contained in the
approved job descriptions.
DESCRIBE any departures of job function from approved
job descriptions.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DON'T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
5
#
5
100%
#
0
0%
#
0
0%
#
5
100 %
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
# o
0%
# 1
20%
#
5
4
80 %
#5
100%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
It
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Attachment #3
Page 25 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # X SEOO ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
QUESTION REFERENCE
#7.
Are staff personnel qualified for jobs?
LIST personnel job title and qualifications.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DON'T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
5
#
4
80
%
#
0
0 %
#1
20 %
#
of
5
100°
REGIONAL OFFICE
I
STAFF
5
#
0
%
0
#
4
#1
%
#
8
80
20
5
100
#
OF
#
%
#
of
If
¿
#
%
#
%
#
&
It
7
Attachment #3
Page 26 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # XI SEOO WORK PROGRAM - California
QUESTION REFERENCE
#1.
CAP 81
Has the SEOO reached the goal "To develop
...
II-B
demonstration projects in the use of volunteer
services, excess property, and community college
resources, in programs of technical aid to
Indians, disadvantaged youth, and Head Start
day-care projects; and in other specialities
as indicated"?
LIST the demonstration projects and pro-
grams of technical aid which have been
developed during the past year.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DON' T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
#
%
25
12
#2
8 %
#11
%
48
44
#25
100 %
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
28
# 1
4 %
#16
57 %
#11
39 %
#28
100%
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
33
#
1
3 %
#26
79 %
# 6
18%
733
100%
CAA BOARD
CHAIRMEN
17
#
0
0 %
#13
77 %
# 4
23 %
#17
100%
Attachment #3
Page 27 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # XI SEOO WORK PROGRAM - California
QUESTION REFERENCE
#5.
CAP 81
Has the SEOO provided "review of and
II-B
assistance to grantees in greater depth
by an increased and better trained analyst
W.P.
staff "?
I-B
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DON' T
KNOW
TOTAL
4
SEOO STAFF
25
23
92 %
#
0
0 %
#
2
8%
#25
of
100/0
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
28
#0
0 %
#24
86 %
#
4
14%
28
100%
01
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
33
#2
6 %
#26
79 %
#5
15% %
733
100%
CAA BOARD
#4
17
72
12 %
#11
65 %
#
23 %
It
4
17
100
C.
CHAIRMEN
Attachment #3
Page 28 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # XI SEOO WORK PROGRAM - California
QUESTION REFERENCE
#6.
CAP 81
Has the SEOO provided "sufficient intensity
II-B
and continuity of state-CAA relationships
to resolve as many areas as possible of mutual
W.P.
concern about programs prior to the refunding
I-B
review stage. !!?
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DON' T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
25
# 18
72 %
#
1
4 %
#
6
24%
# 25
01
1000
REGIONAL OFFICE
0 %
#
#
07
STAFF
28
# o
# 22
79 %
6
21%
28
100
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
32
# 4
12 %
# 26
81 %
#
2
7%
#
%
32
100°
CAA BOARD
17
#
2
12
%
# 13
76 %
If
2
12%
#17
100%
CHAIRMEN
Attachment #3
Page 29 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # XI SEOO WORK PROGRAM - California
QUESTION REFERENCE
#7.
W.P.
Has the SEOO provided "higher quality multi-
IV-A
specialty technical assistance to CAAS" in this
program year through the "addition of four
management Specialists, eight Field Analysts,
and three Special Programs Coordinators"?
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DON' T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
25
# 18
72 %
# 0
0%
#
7
28 %
1
725
100 %
REGIONAL OFFICE
# 0
0 %
79%
#
STAFF
28
#22
6
21 %
#28
100 %
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
32
#
3 %
#20
63%
#11
%
34
2"
it
1
32
100%
CAA BOARD
CHAIRMEN
17
#
2
12
%
#
10
59%
#
5
29
%
#
17
100 %
Attachment #3
Page 30 of 30
V.
CALIFORNIA SEOO EVALUATION
ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE
IN ALLOCATION OF STAFF MANPOWER
RESOURCES
I - Purpose
II
- Procedures & Source Documents
III - Analysis Results
IV
-
Technical Recommendations
V - Summary
Attachments
-1-
ATTACHMENTS
#1.
SEOO Roster of Personnel by Grant
#2. Sample of Monthly Performance Report
#3. SEOO-Estimated Distribution of Manpower Resources by Function
#4.
Actual Distribution of Manhours by Function
#5.
Total Manhours/Overtime - September 1970 - January 1971
#6. Grant Review Function: Budget/Actual Manhours
#7. Coordination Function: Budget/Actual Manhours
#8. Technical Assistance Function: Budget/Actual Manhours
#9.
Technical Assistance Function: Budget/Actual Manhours by
Technical Assistance Specialty
#10. Grant Review Function: Manhours by Person, October - January
#11. Coordination Function: Manhours by Person, October - January
#12. Technical Assistance Function: Manhours by Person,
October - January
-2-
I. Purpose
The purpose of this analysis was to assess as well as possible
management performance of the SEOO in the control and application
of staff manpower resources and to provide the SEOO with analysis
data which might be helpful in the future management direction of
its operations.
The initial intent was to provide answers to these basic management
questions:
1. How much does it cost to perform each major task or function?
2. How much does it cost to service each grantee or project?
3. How much does it cost to get major results?
It was not possible to work on the second and third questions be-
cause in the SEOO reporting system, the relevant source documents
were the field trip reports. These trip reports were expected to
identify grantees served and results accomplished. The SEOO de-
clined to make these available to the evaluation team on the basis
that the field trip reports purportedly contained the names of
confidential contacts in the communities visited by SEOO staff.
II. Procedures & Source Documents
The procedures followed were to collect data source documents
made available at the SEOO from its system, to make an analysis
in the field, to confirm and expand the analysis after field work
was completed.
Three major types of source documents were used in this analysis.
1. Roster of SEOO Personnel (See Attachment #1) This document
listed staff personnel according to the various grants which
funded their positions and identified job title assignments.
We found, however, that SEOO personnel had been shifted from
some positions and others, while assigned to specific jobs,
were performing other duties. Tracing such shifts would
have made the analysis difficult and complex. Instead, we
used the roster and let the developed data show possible
shifts in assignments.
-3-
2. Monthly Performance Reports. (See Attachment #2 for sample.)
These monthly performance reports were the source for information
on actual manhours applied to various functions.
This analysis is based on MPR's for the following:
January, 1971
-
21 professional staff employees
December, 1970
-
20
IT
November, 1970
!
23
"
October, 1970
-
22
"
September, 1970
BUT
19
"
The reports (abbreviated to "MPR's") include those of four employees
who were on the SEOO staff during the period covered but are no longer
on the staff. Steele, Donaldson, Throne and Johnson.
The reports do not include the three top SEOO personnel: L. Uhler,
the director, J. Sawicki, the deputy director, L. Down, the Staff
Assistant for Planning. They also do not include MPR's for the
following staff: R. Hawkins, CPA- Supervisor-North; J. Fattorini,
Community Program Analyst; A. Chickering, Community Development STAP
Specialist; D. McKee, Inter-Governmental Coordinator.
We believe that if these missing MPR's were included they would change
the analysis results in detail but not significantly.
3. OEO Grant Budgets. These standard CAP Form 25s provided data on
approved professional positions funded under each grant (also re-
flected in the Roster of SEOO Personnel - see attachment #1.).
III. Analysis Results
1. Estimated and Actual Manpower Distribution by Functions.
(See Attachments #3 and #4.)
As a part of our field interviews, five of the senior SEOO
staff were asked to estimate the percentage of their
manpower resources and the number of staff allocated
to each function listed in question #5 of Section X
in the SEOO Evaluation questionnaire.
Mr. B. Schur added to his answer: "Object to this
question. It can easily be misinterpreted and %
allocation can be poorly used. Overlapping exists
in all areas."
Attachment #3 shows the results of the SEOO senior
staff estimates compared to the actual distribution
of manhours shown in attachment #4.
-4-
The average SEOO estimate of manhours in grant review
and monitoring was 33% Since the SEOO considers
the grant review and advice to the governor functions
as interrelated, another 4% may be added for a total
estimate of 37% for both functions.
Actual performance as reflected in this analysis was
57.4%.
The senior SEOO staff estimated an average of 26% allocated
to the Technical Assistance function. The actual per-
formance as reflected in this analysis was 13.1.
2. Total Manhours/overtime - September 1970 - January, 1971
(See Attachment #5)
The SEOO staff worked a considerable amount of overtime. For the
five-month period September, 1970, through January, 1971, the em-
ployees covered by the Monthly Performance Reports made available
to the team indicated they worked3, 782 hours of overtime. of
the 3,782 overtime hours, over one-half or 1,895 hours were compiled
in the months of December, 1970, and January, 1971.
3. Grant Review Function: On-site and report writing time (See
Attachment #10)
Professionals, such as auditors, who are required as part of
their duties to write reports usually work on a ratio of 67%
field or on-site work to 33% report writing time. We believe
that this is considered the lowest acceptable ratio by the General
Accounting Office.
This acceptable ratio was reflected in the SEOO Grant Review
manhours for the months of October and November, 1970 but
was reversed for the months of December, 1970, and January,
1971.
GRANT REVIEW:
On-Site
Reports
Hours
Percent
Hours
Percent
January, 1971
573
34.8%
1,070
65.2%
December, 1970
1,225
54.5%
1,025
45.5%
November, 1970
860
61.7%
534
38.3%
October, 1970
1,190
72.6%
448
27.4%
4. Grant Review, Monitoring and Evaluation Function (See Attachments
#6 and #10)
SEOO manhours applied to the Grant Review function exceeded the
budgeted amount by some 1300 manhours during the four month period
from October, 1970 through January, 1971. However, only 60% of
-5-
these manhours were provided by staff with normally assigned duties
in this function. The other 40% came from staff who should have
been performing other functions, primarily technical assistance.
5. Coordination Function (See Attachments #7 and #11)
The actual manhours applied to the coordination function decreased
from 773 or 110% of budget in October to 474 or 74% in January.
The percentage of actual manhours performed by personnel listed
on the roster with duties in these functions was constantly low.
This may be explained in that personnel shifts had been made
which were not reflected in the roster. However, the detailed
analysis done in attachment #11 is not very helpful to confirm
this.
6. Technical Assistance Function (See Attachments #8, #9, and #12.)
Actual performance in manhours for technical assistance was very
low compared to budget. Most of this was delivered by staff
funded by the STAP and Management/Demonstration Technical
Assistance grants.
Attachment #9 (Technical Assistance Function: Budget/Actual
Manhours by Technical Assistance Specialty) shows actual delivery
in specific specialties which were funded:
Housing
339 hours out of 664 budgeted or 50%
Community
188 hours out of 664 budgeted or 28%
Development
Economic
23 hours out of 664 budgeted or 3%
Development
Management
29 hours out of 3240 budgeted or 0.87%
The budgeted total for Management Technical Assistance includes
4 professionals hired under the Management Demonstration grant for
Personnel Management, Fiscal Management, Small Business Management,
and Systems Management. It also includes one professional hired under
the STAP grant for Management Technical Assistance.
IV. TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS
The OEO staff who have done the analysis recommend that the
Monthly Performance Report system be changed:
"We did not consider the Monthly Performance Report, format wise
to be a very well structured management tool for measuring the
work performance of an employee.
-6-
"1. WHERE the employee was performing could not be determined.
"2. Form was not structured to relate to budgeted performance.
Example: The Budget called for one full time expert STAP
Specialist-Economic Development but the Monthly Performance
Report did not provide for recording the performance. Further
time spent in a specialty might be incorrectly reported.
Example: Frane was a Housing expert. He reported a certain
amount of hours under Housing but also reported time at
meetings, training etc. If the meetings and training concerned
Housing then it perhaps should all be reported under Housing
to show the proper performance against budget.
"3. Time spent traveling should be charged to the major benefit-
ing function. On the report travel time was simply charged
as a separate function. It should be charged to either Tech-
nical Assistance, Grant Review or Coordination and Planning.
"4. The form too nearly approximated a daily time and attendance
card. This fact made the form too easily filled in long
after the fact. "
V. Summary
As stated earlier, the purpose of this analysis was to assess
performance by studying manhours applied to functions and to
provide the SEOO with helpful data in its management direction.
The analysis shows that SEOO personnel did not fully perform
in the functions for which technical assistance grants were made,
and staff manpower resources were diverted to the Grant Review and
Monitoring function.
-7-
SE00 ROSTER OF PERSONNEL BY GRANT
Extract from SE00
Roster of Personnel
REGULAR GRANT #CG-0364 E/4
Uhler, L.
Director
Sawicki, J.
Assistant Director
Down, L.
Staff Assistant for Planning
Hawkins, Jr., R.
CPA-Supervisor-North
Archuletta, Jr., G.
CPA-Supervisor-South
McInnes, T.
VISTA Coordinator
McKee, D.
Inter-Governmental Coordinator
Fattorini, Jr., J.
CPA
Gurule, A.
CPA
McGrath, D.
CPA
Thies, R.
CPA
Russo, K.
CPA
Trigger, K.
CPA
Kludjian, H.
CPA
Brown, H.
CPA
Petersen, E.
CPA
Charlton, B.
CPA
Goff, G.
CPA
Collins, M.
Senior Steno
Brockman, V.
Senior Steno
Gallion, C.
Steno II
Varela, C.
Clerk-Typist
Arnold, F.
Clerk-Typist
Pearson, M.
Senior Account Clerk
Elwell, W.
File Clerk
Singleton, J.
Senior Steno
Young, T.
Clerk
Fuller, L.
Steno II
Gray, P.
Steno II
MANAGEMENT/DEMO GRANT # CG-0364 E/3
Archer, Jr., S.
Spec. Programs Coordinator
Taylor, B.
Childhood Development Coordinator
Clark, G.
Personnel Management
Blaker, C.
Fiscal Management
Cunningham, H.
Small Business Management
Whiteley, G.
Systems Management
Davis, S.
Steno II
Brown, C.
Steno II
STAP GRANT # CG-0364 E/O
Frane, J.R.
Housing
Carter, T.
Economic Development
Schur, B.
Management
Chickering, A.
Community Development
OAKLAND GRANT # CG-9093 A/1 and A/2
Espana, S.
Consultant
Sekafetz, D.
Secretary
Attachment #1
Name
(7) CENKU
Month of
DEC
19 70
MONTHLY PERFORMANCE REPORT
G. Clark
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
TC
REVIEW
On-site
4667
8867
66777
AA
Reports
/ 12344122 :-
212218
8888
8888
Meetings
5 of 2
3
/
2
/
/
4+5
898
/
$
17
COORDINATION
State
Other
Meetings
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE (Detail Below)
No Community Services
B. Education
C. Fiscal Management
D. Health
E. Housing
F. Manpower
G. Program Development
H. Training
D. Meetings
J. Other
TRAVEL TIME
123 2
3
6½
0 3
37333
13 12 10 13
13% 9 10 0 10
11 10 12 13 12 8
12
12
13
8
-
16 17 16 8
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Date
Code
Source
Hours
Date
Code
Source
Hours
Attachment #
SEOO-ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF MANPOWER RESOURCES BY FUNCTION
Note: Section X, Question 5
Uhler
Sawicki
Down
Hawkins
Schur
Average
1. Advisor to Governor
3%-1 staff
5%
5%-1 staff
Combined
5%-1 staff
4%
with #6
2. Resource
10%-2 staff
15%
5%-1 staff
10%-2 staff
5%-4 staff
9%
Mobilization
3. Coordination
3%-1 staff
10%
10%-2 staff
5%1 staff
10%-2 staff
8%
& Planning
4. Advocacy for
3%-1 staff
10%
28-1 staff
5%-1 staff
10%-All
6%
the Poor
5. Technical
25%-8 staff
25%
25%-9 staff
30%-10 staff
25%-8 staff
26%
Assistance
6. Grants Review
40%-13 staff
30%
30%-13 staff
30%-10 staff
35%-12 staff
33%
Monitoring &
Evaluation
7. Management
3%-1 staff
5%
10%-1 staff
5%-1 staff
5%-2 staff
5%
8. Other
3%-1 staff
13%-1 staff
15%-5 staff
3%
7%
9. Innovative &
10%-2 staff
2%
2%
Creative Programs
(added by SEOO)
ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION OF MAN-HOURS BY FUNCTION
Note: Actual Results Man-Hours Reported Per MPR
by Functional Area Compared Against Budget
Requirements for Period October 1970 through
January 1971
ACTUAL
MAN
HOURS
ACTUAL
HOUR
REPORTED
PERCENT OF HOURS
FUNCTION
BASE *
PER MPR
DELIVERED (17,319)
Grant Review
8,632
9,939
57.4%
Coordination &
Planning
2,656
2,345
13.5%
Technical Assistance
5,312
2,264
13.1%
Travel
- -
2,771
16.0%
TOTALS
16,600
17,319
100.0%
* Man-Hour Base is determined by adding the totals from Attachments 6, 7, and 8.
Also the actual hours reported per Monthly Performance Reports is compiled from
totals shown on Attachments 6, 7, 8.
Travel is included in this table because it is shown as a separate item on the
Monthly Performance Report and must be included here to provide a true picture.
Attachment #4
I 410-628
TOTAL MANHOURS/OVERTIME - SEPTEMBER 1970 - JANUARY 1971
Note: Total Manhours Worked -
Regular and Overtime
BASE PER MONTH
168
176
152
176
160
Total
Dec-Jan
Sep 1970
Oct 1970
Nov 1970
Dec 1970
Jan 1971
Overtime
Overtime
CPA
Archuletta
146
320
201
185
185
Gurule A
198
198
195
222
180.5
161.5
66.5
McGrath
173
245
195
199
204
184
67
Thies
153
213
171
229
175
124
68
Russo
203.5
43.5
43.5
Trigger
118.5
183
210
208
113
82
Kludjian
175
283
213
221
235
295
120
Brown
111
271.5
177
197
189
170
50
Peterson
176
220.5
182
217
214.5
178
95.5
Charlton
226
206.6
211
226
216.5
255
106.5
Goff
107.5
181
290
199
182
153
Steel
170
224.5
200
280
202
104
McInnes, Intergovt. Coord.
243
260.5
235
284
350
108
MANAGEMENT/DEMO
Archer
205
194
152
159.5
202.5
97.5
42.5
Taylor
175
219.5
236
239
259.5
297.5
162.5
Clark
211
229
179
267.5
169
223.5
100.5
Blaker
121
186
201
207
106
72.2
Cunningham
115
226.3
166
260
179
168.2
103.5
Whiteley
84
128
196
174
34
34
Donaldson
201
183
153
41
Johnson
145
STAP
Frane
191
196
152
203
179
89
46
Carter
129
182
169
179
209
75
52
Schur
143
Throne
195
220
127
71
OAKLAND GRANT
Espana
183
218
199
193
137
33
3375
4421.4
4136
4600
4141
3782.7
1895.2
GRANT REVIEW FUNCTION: BUDGET/ACTUAL MANHOURS
Note:
Comparison of Grant Review Results
Monthly Performance Reports compared
to Personnel and Assignment Roster &
to CAP 14 Budget Support Documents
Man
Actual Hours
Hours
Hour Performed
Month
Hour
Performance
Performed
by Other Staff
Base*
Reported Per MPR
By CPA's
Percent
STAP & Mgt/Demo's
Percent
January 1971
2,080
2,558
1,482
58%
1,076
42%
December 1970
2,288
3,060
1,854
61%
1,206
39%
November 1970
1,976
2,036
1,232
62%
804
39%
October 1970
2,288
2,285
1,314
58%
971
428
Total-
8,632
9,939
5,882
59%
4,057
41%
4-Month Period
*
Manhour base for each month is determined by multiplying the number of calendar 8 hour days
available in the applicable month by the number of staff budgeted, in this case 2 Community
Program Analyst Supervisors plus a staff of 11 Community Program Analysts. Leave time has
been ignored in above table. Travel has also been ignored because there is no way to de-
termine which activity should be credited.
January 1971
160 X 13
II
2,080
December 1970
176 X 13
=
2,288
November 1970
152 X 13
II
1,976
October 1970
176 X 13 = 2,288
Attachment #6
COORDINATION FUNCTION: BUDGET/ACTUAL MANHOURS
Note: Comparison of Coordination & Planning Results
Monthly Performance Reports Compared to
Personnel & Assignment Roster and to the
CAP 14 Budget Support Documents
Man
Actual Hours
Percent
Hours
Percent
Hours Perf.
Percent
Hour
Performance
Budget Perf.
Performed by
by
By Other
by
Month
Base *
Per MPR
Delivered
Coordinators
Coord.
Staff
Others
January 1971
640
474
74%
21
4%
453
96%
December 1970
704
548
78%
120
22%
428
78%
November 1970
608
550
90%
74
13%
476
87%
October 1970
704
773
110%
93
12%
680
88%
TOTAL
2656
2345
88%
308
12%
2037
88%
(4 mo. prd.)
* Man-hour base for each month is determined by multiplying the number of calendar 8 hour days available
in the applicable month by the number of staff budgeted - in this case 4 Coordinators (McInnes, McKee,
Archer and Taylor). Leave time has been ignored in this table. Travel is also ignored because there
is no way to determine which activity should be credited.
Jan. 1971
160 X 4 = 640
Dec. 1970
176 X 4 = 704
Nov. 1970
152 X 4 = 608
Oct. 1970
176 X 4 = 704
Attachment #7
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNCTION: BUDGET/ACTUAL MANHOURS
Note:
Comparison of Technical Assistance Results
Monthly Performance Reports compared to
Personnel and Assignment Roster and to the
CAP 14 Budget Support Documents
Hours
Hours
Man
Actual Hours
Percent
Performed
Percent of
Performed
Percent
Hour
Performance
Budget Perf.
by STAP's
Performance
Other
By
Month
Base*
Reported Per MPR
Delivered
Mgt/Demo's
By STAP's etc.
Staff
Others
January 1971
1,280
545
43%
471
86%
74
14%
December 1970
1,408
326
23%
326
100%
0
0
November 1970
1,216
762
62%
502
67%
260
34%
October 1970
1,408
631
46%
597
95%
31
5%
Total 4 Months
5,312
2,264
43%
1,896
84%
365
16%
*
Man hour base for each month is determined by multiplying the number of calendar 8 hour days
available in the applicable month by the number of staff budgeted - in this case 4 STAP's and
4 Management Demo's. Leave time has been ignored in above table. Travel has also been ig-
nored because there is no way to determine which activity should be credited.
January 1971
160 X 8 = 1,280
December 1970
176 X 8 = 1,408
November 1970
152 X 8 = 1,216
October 1970
176 X 8 = 1,408
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNCTION: BUDGET/ACT VL MANHOURS BY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SPECIALTY
Note:
Comparison of Technical Assistance by Specialty
Monthly Performance Report compared to the
Personnel & Assignment Roster and to the CAP 14
Budget Documents
Total
Jan. 1971
Dec. 1970
Nov. 1970
Oct. 1970
4 Mo. Pd.
Per-
Per-
Per-
Per-
Per-
Hours
cent
Hours cent
Hours cent
Hours cent
Hours cent
HOUSING
Budget 1 expert
664
100%
160
100%
176
100%
152
100%
176
100%
Reported by Frane
270
40
97
61
82
47
69
45
22
12
Reported by Qther
69
10
15
9
1
1
28
18
25
14
Staff Members
Total Hours & %
339
50
112
70%
83
47%
97
63%
47
26%
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Budget 1 expert
664
100%
160
100%
176
100%
152
100%
176
100%
Reported by Chickering
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Reported by Other
Staff Members
188
28
91
57
-0-
-
23
15
74
42
Total Hours & %
188
28%
91
57
-0-
23
15%
74
42%
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Budget 1 expert
664
100%
160
100%
176
100%
152
100%
176
100%
Reported by Carter
23
3%
23
14%
-0-
-0-
-0-
Reported by Others
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Total Hours & %
23
3%
23
14%
-0-
-0-
-0-
MANAGEMENT
Budget 5 experts
3320
100%
800
100%
880
100%
760
100%
880
100%
Reported by 5
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
assigned experts
Reported by others
29
.87%
6
.75%
6
.68%
10
1.3%
7
.79%
All but 1 hr by Taylor
Total Hours & %
29
.87%
6
75%
6
.68%
10
1.3%
7
.79%
GRANT REVIEW FUNCTION: MANHOURS BY PERSON, JANUARY
e:
Grant Review Results
MPR's Compared to Personnel and Assignment Roster
Results Per MPR
Per Personnel &
Month of:
JANUARY
Assignment Roster
Unspec-
On
GR
Manhour
CPA/Sup. CAA Staff
ified
Site
Reports
Meetings
Total
Base
Hawkins CPA/Sup*
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
160
Archuletta CPA/Sup
105
72
177
160
Fattorini*
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
160
Gurule
76
21
97
160
McGrath
116
62
178
160
Thies
45
104
149
160
Russo
10.5
10.5
160
Trigger
33
4
37
160
Kludjian
55
3
117
175
160
Brown
58
57
35
150
160
Peterson
112
62
174
160
Charlton
51.5
98
149.5
160
Goff
186
186
160
Steele
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Sub-total
10.5
338
642.5
492
1482
2080
Mgt/Demo's
Clark
---
-
148
2
150
----
Blaker
163.2
-
-
--
163.2
-
Cunningham
-
-
122
38
160
Whitely
50
61
43
5
159
Sub-total
213.2
61
313
45
632.2
-
Consultant
**
Espana (Sub-total)
44
22
20
37
123
---
STAP's
Frane
--
-
2
-
2
-
Carter
-
64
52
28
144
Schur
-
1
15
5
21
Chickering *
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Throne
Donaldson
Sub-total
-0-
65
69
33
167
Coord.
Archer
-
-
---
-
-
--
Taylor
--
87
26
40
153
-
McInnes *
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
McKee
*
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
87
26
40
153
-
GRAND TOTALS
267
573
1070
647
2558
2080
it
No NPR's filed or av vilable 21 44-evaluation
Attachment #10
Page 1 of 4
GRANT REVIEW FUNCTION: MANHOURS BY PERSON, DECEMBER
Ste:
Grant Review Results
MPR's compared to Personnel and Assignment Roster
Results For MPR
Per Personnel &
Month of: DECEMBER
Assignment Roster
Unspec-
On
GR
Manhour
CPA/Sep.-Cak Staff
ified
Site
Reports
Meetings
Total
Base
Hawkins CPA/Sup*
-0-
-000
-0-
-0-
-0-
176
Archuletta CPA/Sup
2
162
99
263
176
Fattorini*
-0-
--0~
-0-
-0-
-0-
176
Gurule
102
67
169
176
McGrath
46
1
22
69
176
Thies
22
62
118
202
176
Russo
-
-
-
176
Trigger
15
93
108
176
Kludjian
23
3
70
96
176
Brown
71
79
31
181
176
Peterson
8
105
44
157
176
Charlton
29
74
75
178
176
Goff
15
157
42
214
176
Steele
164.5
28
25
217.5
Sub-total
15
575.5
738
526
1854.5
2288
Mgt/Demo's
Clark
85
95
57
237
Blaker
154.7
154.7
Cunningham
156
48
204
Whitely
88
69
8
165
Sub-total
88
464.7
151
57
760.7
Consultant
Espana (Sub-total) **
--
-
-
-
STAP's
Frane
12
8
20
Carter
74
32
38
144
Schur
Chickering*
Throne
Donaldson
Sub-total
86
40
38
164
Coord.
Archer
Taylor
84
15
57
156
McInnes *
15
81
29
125
McKee
*
99
96
86
281
GRAND TOTALS
103
1225
1025
707
3060
2288
Attachment #10
*
No MPR's filed or available
**
44-Evaluation
Page 2 of 4
GRANT REVIEW FUNCTION: MANHOURS BY PERSON, NOVEMBER
Note:
Grant Review Results
MPR's Compared to Personnel and Assignment Roster
Results Per MPR
Per Personnel &
Month of:
NOVEMBER
Assignment Roster
Unspec-
On
GR
Manhour
CPA/Sup. CAA Staff
ified
Site
Reports
Meetings
Total
Base
Hawkins CPA/Sup*
152
Archuletta CPA/Sup
-
152
Fattorini
*
-
-
152
Gurule
67
53
6
126
152
McGrath
116
116
152
Thics
24.5
40
79
143.5
152
Russo
152
Trigger
4
56
4
14
78
152
Kludjian
15
1
124
140
152
Brown
43.5
72
42.5
158
152
Peterson
2
19
103
29
153
152
Charlton
20
43.8
87.6
151.4
152
Goff
29
17
46
152
Steele
36
30.5
53.5
120
-
Sub-total
6
397
376.3
452
1232
1976
Mgt/Demo's
Clark
82
2
84
Blaker
142
6
148
Cunningham
104
40
2.5
146.5
Whitely
Sub-total
328
42
8.5
378.5
Consultant
Espana (Sub-total) **
12
16
8
36
STAP's
Frane
-
Carter
96
8
20
28
152
Schur
Chickering*
Throne
3
6
1
10
Donaldson
Sub-total
99
14
20
29
162
Coord.
Archer
Taylor
63
25
22
110
McInnes
*
46
55
17
118
McKee
*
109
80
39
228
GRAND TOTALS
105
860
534
536
2036
1976
*
No MPR's filed or available
**
44-Evaluation
Attachment #10
Page 3 of 4
GRANT REVIEW FUNCTION: MANHOURS BY PERSON, NOVEMBER
Note:
Grant Review Results
MPR's Compared to Personnel and Assignment Roster
Results Per MPR
Per Personnel &
Month of:
NOVEMBER
Assignment Roster
Unspec-
On
GR
Manhour
CPA/Sup.-CAA Staff
ified
Site
Reports
Meetings
Total
Base
Hawkins CPA/Sup*
-
152
Archuletta CPA/Sup
-
152
Fattorini
*
-
152
Gurule
67
53
6
126
152
McGrath
116
116
152
Thies
24.5
40
79
143.5
152
-
Russo
152
Trigger
4
56
4
14
78
152
Kludjian
15
1
124
140
152
Brown
43.5
72
42.5
158
152
Peterson
2
19
103
29
153
152
Charlton
20
43.8
87.6
151.4
152
Goff
29
17
46
152
Steele
36
30.5
53.5
120
-
Sub-total
6
397
376.3
452
1232
1976
Mgt/Demo's
Clark
82
2
84
Blaker
142
6
148
Cunningham
104
40
2.5
146.5
Whitely
Sub-total
328
42
8.5
378.5
Consultant
Espana (Sub-total) **
12
16
8
36
STAP's
Frane
-
Carter
96
8
20
28
152
Schur
Chickering*
Throne
3
6
1
10
Donaldson
Sub-total
99
14
20
29
162
Coord.
Archer
Taylor
&
63
25
22
110
*
46
55
17
118
McInnes
McKee
*
109
80
39
228
GRAND TOTALS
105
860
534
536
2036
1976
No MPR's filed or available
**
+
44-Evaluation
Attachment #10
Page 3 of 4
GRANT REVIEW FUNCTION: MANHOURS BY PERSON, OCTOBER
ote:
Grant Review Results
MPR's Compared to Personnel Roster
Results Per MPR
Per Personnel &
Month of: OCTOBER
Assignment Roster
Unspec-
On
GR
Manhour
CPA/Sup. CAA Staff
ified
Site
Reports
Meetings
Total
Base
Hawkins CPA/Sup*
176
Archuletta CPA/Sup
176
Pattorini
*
176
Gurule
23
71
9
103
176
McGrath
146
7
153
176
Thies
66
30
75
171
176
Russo
176
Trigger
2.5
71
2
75.5
176
Kludjian
69
16
90
175
176
Brown
52
45
97
194
176
Peterson
51
41.5
90.5
183
176
Charlton
7.5
25
----
32.5
176
Goff
-
63
-
63
176
Steele
152
6
6
164
-
Sub-total
2.5
637.5
299.5
374.5
1314
2288
Mgt/Demo's
Clark
98
-
40
138
Blaker
55
1
1
57
Cunningham
108
40
36
184
Whitely
Sub-total
261
41
77
379
Consultant
Espana (Sub-total) **
89
23
50
162
STAP's
Frane
3
3
Carter
104
6
55
165
Schur
Chickering*
Throne
18
3
6
27
Donaldson
Sub-total
122
9
64
195
Coord.
Archer
Taylor
42
13
40
95
McInnes
*
39
63
38
140
McKee
*
81
76
78
235
GRAND TOTALS
2.5
1190.5
448.5
643.5
2285
2288
*
No MPR's filed or available ** 44-Evaluation
Attachment #10
Page 4 of 4
COORDINATION FUNCTION: MANHOURS BY PERSON,
JANUARY
Man
Meet-
Hour
State
Other
ings
Total
Base
Coordinators
McInnes
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
160
McKee
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
160
Archer
-0--
-0-
-0-
-0-
160
Taylor
-0-
3
18
21
160
CPAs
Brown
15
13
28
Clark
7
7
Espana (consult)
3
8
11
Goff
5
5
Gurule
8
7
]
16
Kludjian
32
32
McGrath
2
2
Russo
193
193
Schur
16
6
22
Trigger
85
28
20
133
Whitely
4
4
453
Grand Total
21
474
Attachment #11
Page 1 of 4
COORDINATION FUNCTION: MANHOURS BY PERSON,
DECEMBER
Man
Meet-
Hour
State
Other
ings
Total
Base
Coordinators
McInnes
61
19
27
107
176
McKee
176
Archer
176
Taylor
7
6
13
176
120
Others
Carter
8
8
Cunningham
25
25
Frane
4
4
8
Goff
35
24
59
Gurule
8
11
2
21
Kludjian
67
22
14
103
McGrath
105
12
117
Peterson
17
17
Trigger
54
11
5
70
428
Grand Total
548
Attachment #11
Page 2 of 4
COORDINATION FUNCTION: MANHOURS BY PERSON,
NOVEMBER
Man
Meet-
Hour
State
Other
ings
Total
Base
Coordinators
McInnes
20
13
25
58
152
McKee
152
Archer
152
Taylor
8
3
5
16
152
74
608
Other Staff
CPAs
Brown
2
3
5
Charlton
4
4
Clark
59
7
66
Donaldson STAP
3
6
12
21
Espana
2
8
10
Goff
82
39
121
Gurule
13
9
3
25
Kludjian
6
30
36
McGrath
56
56
Steele
44.5
8
52.5
Trigger
10
34
24
68
Whitely
12
12
476
Grand Total
550
Attachment #11
Page 3 of 4
COORDINATION FUNCTION: MANHOURS BY PERSON,
OCTOBER
Man
Meet-
Hour
State
Other
ings
Total
Base
Coordinators
McInnes
23
27
8
58
176
McKee
176
Archer
176
Taylor
8
18
9
35
176
704
93
Other Staff
CPAs
Blaker
24.5
3
8
35.5
Brown
18
29
47
Charlton
30.5
31.3
39
100.8
Carter
2
2
Clark
43
33
76
Donaldson STAP
18
22
24
64
Espana
1
1
13
15
Frane
2
17
23
42
Gaff
11
25
36.3
Gurule
11
16
11
38
Kludjian
31
2
16
49
McGrath
57
57
Steele
2
15
4
21
Thies
5.5
5.5
Throne
11
11
Trigger
21
3
24
Cunningham
10
10
Whitely
44
44
678
678
93
771
Attachment #11
Page 4 of 4
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNCTION
MANHOURS BY PERSON
Note: Technical Assistance Man-Hours
Worked MPR's Compared Against
P&A Roster and CAP 14-Budget
DECEMBER
From Personnel
ABCDEFGHIJ
TOTAL
MAN
and Assignment
Comm
Educ
Mgt
HlthHous
[Mpr
Prog
Tr
Meet Other
HOUR
Roster
Svs
ing
Dev
BASE
STAP
Frane (Housing)
82
26
36
4
148
176
Carter (Econ Dev)
-0-
176
Schur (Mgt)
176
Chickering (Comm Dev)
176
Subtotal
82
26
36
4
148
704
MGT/DEMO
Archer
62.5
50
17
129.5
B. Taylor
10
6
1.
1
15
33
Clark (Mgt)
176
Blaker (Mgt)
-0- 176
Cunningham(Mgt)
176
Whitely (Mgt)
16
16
176
Subtotal
10
6
17.5
50
33
178.5
704
CONSULTANT
Espana
CPA
Gurule
Grand Total
10
6
83
1
103.5
86
37
326.5
1408
Attachment #12
Page 2 of 4
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNCTION
MANHOURS BY PERSON
Note: Technical Assistance Man-Hours
Worked MPR's Compared Against
P&A Roster and CAP 14-Budget
JANUARY
A
B
C
D
E
F
From Personnel
G
H
I
J
TOTAL
MAN
and Assignment
Comm
Educ
Mgt
H1th
lous
Mpr
Prog
Tr
Meet
Other
HOUR
Roster
Svs
ing
Dev
BASE
STAP
Frane (Housing)
97
15
4
29
3
148
160
Carter (Econ Dev)
13
1
1
10
4
8
6
5
48
160
Schur (Ngt)
63
63
160
Chickering (Comm Dev)
-0-
160
Subtotal
76
1
1
107
4
23
10
29
8
259
640
MGT/DEMO
Archer
20
2
23
126
171
B. Taylor
6
21
5
1
2
35
Clark (Mgt)
6
Blaker (Mgt)
6
160
Cunningham (Mgt)
-0- 160
Whitely (Ngt)
160
160
Subtotal
6
21
5
1
22
2
23
132
212
640
CONSULTANT
Espana
15
44
59
-0-
CPA
Gurule
9
4
2
15
-0-
Grand Total
91
22
6
112
4
47
12
67
184
545
1280
Attachment #12
Page 1 of 4
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FUNCTION
MANPOWER BY PERSON
Note: Technical Assistance Man-Hours
Worked MPR's Compared Against
P&A Roster and CAP 14-Budget
NOVEMBER
ABCDEFGHIJ
From Personnel
TOTAL
and Assignment
Comm
Educ
Mgt
HlthHous
Mor
Prog
Tr
Meet
Other
HOUR
Roster
Svs
in
BASE
STAP
Frane.
69
--+
38
24
131
152
Carter
152
Schur
152
Chickering
152
Donaldson
15
4
27
2
28
19
9
6
110
Throne
17
27
41
85
Subtotal
15
4
96
2
28
36
74
71
326
608
MGT/DEMO
Archer
47
26
53
126
152
Taylor
8
16
10
4
1
9
2
50
152
Clark
152
Blaker
152
Cunningham
Whitely
Subtotal
8
16
10
4
1
56
28
53
176
608
CPA'S
Archulletta
101.5
29.5
131
-0-
Gurule
7
7
-0-
Charlton
Goff
McInnes
Subtotal
101.5
29.5
7
138
CONSULTANT
5
117
122
Espana
Grand Total
23
16
10
8
97
2
84
137.5
136.5
248
762
1216
Attachment #12
Page 3 of 4