Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564688",
    "label": "California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Evaluation Report 03/26/1971 (7 of 7)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564688"
}

{
    "id": "118564688",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564688",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Evaluation Report 03/26/1971 (7 of 7)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564688",
    "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-P27-007-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-007-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-007-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564688",
    "naId": 118564688,
    "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-P27-007-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "d9d7e629aa77539e",
    "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 (7 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/\nIV. COMMUNITY ACCEPTABILITY\nFILL OUT IN DETAIL WITH MOST RECENT INFORMATION.\nINCLUDE NAMES, TITLES, AND AFFILIATIONS OF ALL\nCONTACTS.\nA. ATTACH RELEVANT NEWSPAPER ARTICLES OR OTHER PUBLICITY\nCIRCULATED ABOUT GRANTEE, DELEGATE AGENCY, PROGRAM OR\nPERSONNEL.\nB. ARE ELECTED OFFICIALS AWARE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES\nUNDER THE GREEN AMENDMENT? EXPLAIN\nC. HAS THERE BEEN A RECENT REVIEW OF THE GRANTEE UNDER THE\nPROVISIONS OF THE GREEN AMENDMENT?\nD. OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS OF ELECTED OFFICIALS:\nE. OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PRIVATE\nORGANIZATIONS, SOCIAL AND FRATERNAL GROUPS, ETC.\n-5--\nF. OPINIONS AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE INTENDED PARTICIPANTS\nAND/OR RECIPIENTS OF THE PROGRAM:\nG. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THIS PROGRAM MAY BE USED\nFOR POLITICAL PURPOSES? HAS IT BEEN IN THE PAST? FOR\nPARTISAN, NON-PARTISAN OR IN A THREATENING POLITICAL\nMANNER?\nH. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THIS PROGRAM MAY BE USED FOR\nCOMMUNITY AGITATION RATHER THAN THE OBJECTIVES STATED IN\nSECTION 201 OF EOA, SUCH AS ILLEGAL PICKETING AND BOY-\nCOTTING?\n:\nI. IS THERE ANY INDICATION OF PAST CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY THE\nGRANTEE/DELEGATE AGENCY OR ITS PERSONNEL?\n-6-\n7. FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY\nA. IS THERE A RECENT DOCUMENT ON FILE ATTESTING TO THE\nADEQUACY OF INTERNAL CONTROLS AND THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM?\nBY WHOM?\nB. WHEN WAS THE MOST RECENT OEO AUDIT?\nC. ARE THERE ANY UNRESOLVED AUDIT DISALLOWANCES? WHAT ARE\nTHEY? AMOUNT?\nVI. MANAGEMENT CAPABILITY\nA. ARE THERE ADEQUATE PERSONNEL POLICIES? ARE THEY DISTRI-\nBUTED TO ALL PERSONNEL?\n:\nB. ARE THERE ADEQUATE CONTROLS ON INVENTORY OF EQUIPMENT?\nBOTH PURCHASED AND EXCESS?\nVII. OEO COORDINATION\nNAME OF FIELD REPRESENTATIVE\nWAS HE CONTACTED? YES\nNO\n-7-\nAttachment #2\nShasta County Community Action Project\nP. O.DRAWER A.V.\n2704 so. MARKET STREET\nREDDING, CALIFORNIA 96001\n(916) 241-7631\nSeptember 22, 1970\nChick Tooker, Vista Program Manager\nRegional Office\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\n100 McAllister Street\nSan Francisco, California\nDear Chick:\nDuring the morning of September 22, 1970, I received a visit from\nMr. Sal Espana and Mrs. Terry McGinnis from State OEO. They stated\nthat the nature of their concern was to review OUT Vista problem\"\nand \"help in solving any problems which might exisus.\nVery soon in the process it was clear that they were here to \"in-\nvestigate\" our project and more specifically the Vista Indian component\nof that project 8.S it related to \"the Pit River Tribal movement\".\nI was quized as to how I thought that they could be of help and attempted\nto indicate that they could be of help in training and technical assist-\nance when new Vistas arrive. They wanted to know what problems existed\ncurrently with Vistas, and I indicated that I didn't believe we had any\nserious problems in that we were attempting to get closer working\n\"teams\" involving Vista with other staff personnel around priority\nprogram areas, such as education.\nI gave a historical review of my utilization of Vista which covered\nthe following points: (1) When I arrived, Vistas were \"doing their\nown thing\" which meant that they did what they wanted to do when they\nwanted to do it if they wanted to do it. (2) That I began immediately\nto attempt to develop a team approach and incorporate Vista personnel\nas staff persons with equal status within the total agency. (3) That\nat one point we had to let a Vista or two go because their needs and\nour needs could not be mutually dealt with. (4) That I felt during\nthe last program year we had good rapport with Vista OEO. (5) That\nI felt that our internal organization and utilization of Vistas was\ngood over the last year in that they were considered staff persons\nand operated as such within given work areas. (6) That the major\nproblem we had during the last year had to do with time and distance\nproblems relating to giving inadequate support to the Vista Indian\nAttachment #2\nShasta County Community Action Project\nP. O. DRAWER A.V.\n2507 so. MARKET STREET\nREDDING, CALIFORNIA 96001\n(916) 241-7631\nSeptember 22, 1970\nChick Tooker, Vista Program Manager\nRegional Office\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\n100 McAllister Street\nSan Francisco, California\nDear Chick:\nDuring the morning of September 22, 1970, I received a visit from\nMr. Sal Esnana and Mrs. Terry McGinnis from State OEO. They stated\nthat the nature of their concern was to review our Vista problem\"\nand \"help in solving any problems which night existit.\nVery soon in the process it was clear that they were here to \"in-\nvestigate\" our project and more specifically the Vista Indian component\nof that project as it related to \"the Pit River Tribal movement\".\nI was quized as to how I thought that they could be of help and attempted\nto indicate that they could be of help in training and technical assist-\nance when new Vistas arrive. They wanted to know what problems existed\ncurrently with Vistas, and I indicated that I didn't believe we had any\nserious problems in that we were attempting to get closer working\n\"teams\" involving Vista with other staff personnel around priority\nprogram areas, such as education.\nI gave a historical review of my utilization of Vista which covered\nthe following points: (1) When I arrived, Vistas were \"doing their\nown thing\" which meant that they did what they wanted to do when they\nwanted to do it if they wanted to do it. (2) That I began immediately\nto attempt to develop a team approach and incorporate Vista personnel\nas staff persons with equal status within the total agency. (3) That\nat one point we had to let a Vista or two go because their needs and\nour needs could not be mutually dealt with. (4) That I felt during\nthe last program year we had good rapport with Vista OEO. (5) That\nI felt that our internal organization and utilization of Vistas was\ngood over the last year in that they were considered staff persons\nand operated as such within given work areas. (6) That the major\nproblem we had during the last year had to do with time and distance\nproblems relating to giving inadequate support to the Vista Indian\n- 2 -\nProject. (7) That we had remidied this situation by going through\nthe Grent process with Vista Regional and typing up our proposal\nand intragrating Indian Vistas into the educational program. (8)\nThat the only problem this CAP had with the Vista proposal was that\nit was not practical to write one project for 25 Vistas. (9) That\nwe were able to submit three sub-project ideas in education, legal\naid, and economic development. (10) That education and legal aid\nwere approved by Vista. (11) That we were negociating on a sub--\nproject component dealing with economic development. (12) That\nI would recommend that our thinking about incorporating Vistas\ninto the staffing pattern of CAP be continued.\nAttention then focused on the Indian Vista Project and \"problems\"\nwhich may have been outside guidelines. In my response, I made\nthe following points: (1) That it was in fact, from the stand\npoint of the overall community, difficult to separate in the\nminds of the public at large the Vista Indian component from the\nPit River movement. (2) That in fact things could be separated\nas we made every effort to give direction and guidance so that\nactivities were within the guidelines. (3) That the major focus\nof activities were around educational needs, including tutorial\nprograms, dealing with the ESEA Title I Project where the school\ndistrict made commitments for involving Indian persons and had not,\nand establishing an Indian counseling program in the eastern end\nof the county. (3) That when we got wind that the movement was\noccurring, we took the following actions: (a) Removed all GSA and\nCAP cars, (o) Wrote Vista Legal Council so that we could clarify\nsome positions, more specifically around guidelines, (c) Communicated\nthis information both in writing and verbally to the Vistas so that\nthey could make personal decisions about whether or not they needed\nto resign if their activities were going to be outside OEO guidelines.\nMr. Sal Espana then brought up the matter of whether or not I thought\nour Board of Directors should \"review\" the Vista Indian Project. I\nindicated that I did not think it was necessary as the Board had been\ninformed, particularly the Executive Committee, about the Vista Indian\nProject matters.\nAt one point he kept pressing the issue and 1 asked him outright if\nhe thought the CAP Board should again review it, and Mrs. Terry McGinnis\nindicated that she thought that it would be appropriate, Mr. Espana\ntook a middle of the road position without coming up with a recommendation.\nHowever, he indicated that if in their day in Shasta County, they had\nevidence that appropriate actions were not taken, it would propably\nbe appropriate for the Board to consider the matter.\n- 3 -\nBoth Mr. Espana and Mrs. McGinnis indicated that there were \"letters\ndirected towards the Governor's office\" about the concern of the project\nand the Pit River Movement. I asked if the letters came from any particular\ngeographical portion of the community, namely the eastern end of the county,\nor if it was wide spread, they indicated that it was wide spread they\nthought.\nA few words about my approach to the matter. I attempted to remain cool,\nco-operative, informative to the point of not adding any additional in-\nformation than they already had on the basis that I would react to what\nthey brought to me at the time that that information was made available.\nMy plan now is to push both Mr. Espana and Mrs. McGinnis for actual facts,\nfigures, and written documentation to any allegations that they make before\nI take action with the Board in '3 formal manner.\nSuch is the case, keep the peace, and we will work the matter out.\nSincerely yours,\nWin\nEd Forbes\nExecutive Director\nEF/PKB\ncc: Gaylyn Boone, Field Representative\nTHE REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE SEOO\nAttachments\nREF\nPAGE\n\"MURPHY TELEGRAM\"\n53\nTelegram\n) 51 35\nLA186 SCH575 L FFA495\n(SF ( 303FF130495) PDEWU MGR SAC\n0723P EST10/30/70 =\nZCZC 040 RR PDB SACRAMENTO CALIF 30 210P PST =\nT larence\nHaule\nNEIL BODINS-DLR DONT FONE DLY CHGS GNTEED =\nWC\n1717 \"1\" ST DODESTO CALIF =\nWE HAVE JUST RECEIVED A VITAL MESSAGE FROM SENATOR\nGEORGE MURPHY IN:RESPONSE TO OUR REQUEST THAT HE\nSPEARHEAD RESTORATION OF RECENT CUTBACKS IN CALIFORNIA'S\nHEAD START FUNDS. ==\nSERATOR MURPHY STATES: \"CITIZENS FROM ALL CORNERS\nOF CAL TFORMIATHAVE EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER, RECENT CUTS IN\nTHE HEAD START BUDGET. AS YOU MAY KNOW, I AM CO-SPONSOR\nOF LEGISLATION. S.3480 THE COMPREHENSIVE HEAD START AND\nWU 1201 (R 5-69)\n1970 ED PM 5 35\n1819P EST) =\nCHILD DEVELOPMENT ACT OF 1970. WHICHWOULD INCREASE HEAD\nSTART FUNDING DY 123 MILLION OVER THE FY 71-EXPENDITURE\nOH RECONVENING OF CONGRESS IN NOVEMBER I PLEDGE TO LEAD\nTHE FIGHT TO RESTORE HEAD START FUNDS FOR CALIFORNIA. MY\nTHANKS TOYOU AND CONCERNED CITIZENS THROUGHOUT CALIFORI\nFOR BRINGING THIS CRITICAL SITUATION so FORCEFULLY TO MY\nATTENTION. PLEASE CONVEY THIS IMPORTANT MESSAGE TO YOUR\nENTIRE STAFF AND TO INTERESTED CITIZENS 111 YOUR COMMUNIT\nLEWIS Ko UNLER. DIRECTOR =\nSTATE OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY ==\n0.34 17 FY 171 ALSO $1250\n10/30/20\nEVALUATION TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS\nAttachments\nREF.\nPAGE\nO. MEARL CUSTER ltr to LEWIS K. UHLER dtd 1/15/71\n58\nLEWIS K. UHLER ltr to O. MEARL CUSTER dtd 2/8/71\n58\nELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT\nELK GROVE, CALIFORNIA 95624\n1k Grove 685-4636\nO. MEARL CUSTER\nSacramento 421-7567\nJanuary 15, 1971\nDirector, Special Projects\nMr. Louis K. Uhler, Director\nState Economic Opportunity Office\nState Department of Human Resources Development\n800 Capital Mall\nSacramento, Califonria 95814\nDear Mr. Uhler:\nIt has been approximately five months since the last meeting of the\nState Economic Opportunity Advisory Committee. I believe it is ap-\npropriate that we call a meeting of this committee sometime in\nFebruary.\nI believe the Advisory Committee should hear progress reports on the\nimportant york your staff is accomplishing in its oversight of the\nWar on Poverty in California.\nAnother area of interest to us: to what extent are the C.A.P. Agencies\nusing the technical assistance which we (the committee) requested. You\ngave notice of the availability of this assistance in your memorandum\nof October 27, 1970. I am sure there are other areas or items you would\nlike to add to the agenda for this meeting.\nSince Thursday seems to be a good day for the committee members, I. sug-\ngest we set the date of February 11, 18 or 25.\nIf you will select a date convenient for your busy schedule and list\nitems for the agenda, I will send notices to the members of the committee.\nSincerely,\nO,\n0. Mearl Custer Custer\nOMC:jeh\ncc: Advisory Committee Members\nH. Rodger Betts, Regional O.E.O. Director\nRobert LaFosso, Interagency Coordinator\nReading File\nThis III\nER\nRONALD REAGAN\nGOVERNOR\nOffice of Erounmir Opportunity\nDEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT\n800 CAPITOL MALL. SACRAMENTO 95814\n916 445-9670 OR 445-7011\nFebruary 8, 1971\nO. Mearl Custer\nElk Grove Unified School District\nElk Grove, California 95624\nDear Mr. Custer:\nThank you for your recent letter regarding State OEO Advisory\nCommittee meetings.\nYou may recall that subsequent to the refunding of this office\nin late August, 1970, I mentioned to you that there was no\nprovision in the grant for an advisory committee. For this\nreason we indicated to you that there would be no further need\nfor the Advisory Committee to convene.\nWe have been studying the possibility of developing a State-\nwide commission or board that can not only assist our office\nin a continuing evaluation of poverty problems within the\nState but is in the position to mobilize independent and pri-\nvate sector resources to assist us in the accomplishment of\nour mission. We will inform you of the details, when finalized.\nThank you for your assistance to this office in the past.\nPlease convey our thanks to the other members of the former\nAdvisory Committee for their past efforts.\nSincerely yours\nLEWIS K. UHLER\nDirector\nLKU:dks\nRECEIVED\nFEB 1 71971\nDk Grove Unified School Dist.\nSpecial\nOEO, STAP And ATAC Sponsor 'Communication Interchange'\nNot many people have ever associated the National\npeople how they can get a job done locally and open a\nhard with the war on poverty, but in California the\nfew doors for them to get started.'\nGuard command is straining at the bit to employ their\nThe two-day conference included representatives from\nresources in any number of ways to help communities\nthe State Department of Commerce, the Business and\nand counties fight poverty.\nTransportation Agency, Industrial Relations Department,\nRural community action leaders were amazed to see\nthe Division of Forestry, Department of Agriculture, the\nColonel Wolf and Major Salcedo of the California Na-\nCalifornia National Guard, Fish and Game, the HRD\ntional Guard as principle speakers at a poverty con-\nFarm Labor Department, Department of Education, De-\nference. And they were more amazed when both officers\npartment of Corrections, Social Welfare, Youth Author-\noutlined what the California National Guard has done up\nity, Commission on Aging, Public Health, Mental\nto now in community poverty programs and what they are\nHygiene, Migrant Health Service and the California\nready, willing and able to do in the future if red tape\nMedical Association, with sub-departments of all agen-\nand confusion are eliminated.\ncies involved with rural poverty.\nMajor Salcedo pointed out that the National Guard has\nThe conference was highlighted by an extensive\nthe capability of everything from road building to mini-\nseminar on how rural communities can set up intern\nmal medical care, such as mass immunization programs\ntraining programs for the development of para-professional\nwithin their scope but the roadblock holding up their\nhousing advisors for rural areas.\npotential is red tape, bureaucratic ambiguities and illu-\nThe interns selected would train for para-professional\nsive \"guidelines\".\npositions with the ultimate objective of improving rural\nIt was the first in a series of conferences set up by\nhousing conditions in California. Many rural Californians\nOEO State Director Lewis K. Uhler and sponsored\nare eligible for low-cost loans for housing through the\njointly by the OEO, the State Technical Assistance Pro-\nFarmers Home Administration, but they are uninformed\ngram (STAP), and the American Technical Assistance\nas how to apply for loans.\nCorporation (ATAC), a private contract consultant firm\nThe rural housing interns would make known all pro-\nworking for the OEO.\nvisions for housing assistance in rural areas.\n\"We hope that our two-day seminar provided a com-\n\"What we want to do,\" Uhler said in his opening re-\nmunications forum for community leaders. If nothing\nmarks at the conference held in Sacramento on\nelse, they met State department heads, and now they\nDecember 15 and 16, \"is identify every resource avail-\nknow who to call about local programs,\" Uhler said at\nuble to people working at the local level SO that each of\nthe close of the session.\nyou knows who can help, how they can help and how to\nget in touch with assistance agencies.\"\nSixty-four community action agency leaders, repre-\nsenting twenty rural counties, attended the two-day\nAccording to Uhler, he views the primary role of his\nresources identification conference held at Sacramento's\nstaff as ombudsmen. \"We have to be able to tell local\nMansion Inn.\nSanta Cruz Community Action Agency Grant\nDisapproved By State Office\nState Office can \"Find no justification for continuance of Santa Cruz Program\"\nRobert Hawkins, Assistant Director for Northern Cali-\nSCASC\nthrough their democratically-selected\nfornia of the State Office of Economic Opportunity, com-\nrepresentatives.' Further evidence to be presented in-\nmenting on the veto recommendation sent to H. Rodger\ndicates that the program is poorly governed by its Board,\nBetts, OEO Western Regional Director, stated that\nlacks strong and consistent administration and has little\nSEOO's evaluation of the program indicated without a\nrelevance to the poor.\"\nshadow of a doubt that the poor of Santa Cruz \"are not\nparticipating in any significant manner in the poverty\nSEOO's evaluation revealed, among other things, that\nprogram and that this lack of participation is caused by\nrevolutionary literature and pamphlets were to be found\npolicy decisions at the Community Action Board and\nat the SCASC. OEO Regulation 6907-2 forbids this sort\nadministrative levels.\"\nof political material.\nSEOO was most critical of the management of the\nA conflict of interests exists, according to the recent\nSanta Cruz Area Service Center. In commenting on the\nevaluation, due to the fact that the Reverend C. C. Ellis,\nSCASC, Hawkins quoted from the veto message: \"The\nPresident of the Community Action Board (also a Board\nevidence compiled by this office and the lack of evidence\nmember of SCASC) is also a member of an allegedly re-\noffered by concerned parties indicates that the poor\nligious group called the \"Lillies of the Field, Inc.\"\nserved by the SCASC have been little affected by this\nthat rents the building occupied by SCASC. The SCASC\nprogram. We can find no evidence suggesting that the\ninturn rents the building from \"Lillies of the Field, Inc.\"\npoor have organized themselves into viable target area\nIt was further revealed that the \"Lillies of the Field\"\ngroups, that they have taken 'part in major policy de-\norganization is not now incorporated \"nor has it applied\ncisions regarding the planning and operation of the\nto the Secretary of State for incorporation.\"\nState agency representatives at the December resources identification conference\ndiscussing methods of cooperation for rural community action leaders.\nHousing Internship For Rural Areas\nThe State Office of Economic Opportunity announced a\nnate that only a few citizens in rural California are fa-\ncomprehensive rural housing internship program in De-\nmiliar with the benefits of these two important programs.\ncember to \"deliver homes to deserving rural applicants\n\"As with so many other government agencies which\nin California\".\nare mandated to implement these types of programs, the\nBob Frane, assigned to the State Office of Economic\nFarmers Home Administration does not have sufficient\nOpportunity under a grant which provides special techni-\npersonnel available to carry out the intent of Congress.\ncal assistance in the field of rural housing, and Mr. Doug-\nFor this reason, we have created our California Rural\nlas Young, State Director of the Farmers Home Adminis-\nHousing Internship Program,\" Frane continued. The\ntration, announced the program in December.\nHousing Internship Program, according to Frane, will be\nimplemented through rural Community Action Agencies\nThe new internship program will provide intensive\nfunctioning with the assistance of the State Office of\ntraining by the Farmers Home Administration to prepare\nEconomic Opportunity. Selected housing interns from the\nrural Community Action Agency staffs with expertise in\nlocal Community Action Agency staffs will be given in-\nthe utilization of Farmers Home Administration housing\ntensive training in Farmers Home Administration housing\nfunds which are presently available to rural Californians.\nprograms. These interns will then be under the direct\n\"Many rural Californians are totally unaware of such\nfield supervision of the Farmers Home Administration\nprograms as #502, #502 special and #504 of the Farmers\narea supervisors. The intern will act as liaison between\nthe Farmers Home Administration and the local Commun-\nHome Administration. These two programs are available\nto rural communities with a population of less than\nity Action Agency.\n5,500,\" Frane said. \"The 502 program will provide im-\n\"What our new internship program is intended to do is\nmediate funds for the construction of new homes or pur-\nprovide a means of communication and assistance for\nlow- and moderate-income families in California rural\nchase of existing houses. The 504 program can be used\nto rehabilitate substandard rural housing. It is unfortu-\n(Continued on Page 4)\nSEOO To Feature\nOEO Indian Dental Aid\nmbudsman Role For Local\nProgram Under Way\nAction Programs\nOne thing is painfully obvious in government-\nSeventy percent of the American Indians in California\nadministered programs, a general confusion because of\nhave never had dental care. There has never been a\nthe rigid guidelines that more often than not restrict (or\ncoordinated program to provide dental service to Indians\nconstrict) the problem-solving ability of governmental\non the Reservation until recently. Thanks to Bill Simp-\nunits. In short, it is hard to be creative in a tangle of\nson, employee of a dental supply house in Los Angeles.\nred tape.\nSEOO has thus instilled ombudsmanship as the order\nBill has become the volunteer coordinator of the\nof the day. The surprising tangle that seems to lead to\nIndian Dental Program-a resourceful marriage of the\nstatic administrative action is nourished by a lack of\npublic and private sector to provide dental care for\ncommunication between the various government agencies.\nReservation Indians.\nSEOO is bound and determined to open the doors of gov-\nBill, all on his own, managed to get almost $100,000\nernment SO department heads begin to ask fellow depart-\nworth of dental equipment donated to the program, but\nment heads for advice and counsel.\ngetting the equipment was just the first step. The equip-\nWhen government bureaus begin to communicate with\nment was stored in a warehouse in Van Nuys, and for a\nprivate enterprise, there is the basis for really creative\nwhile Bill thought it would remain there indefinitely.\nsocial economic planning. It is the intention of the SEOO\nto open as many doors as possible between government\nBill consulted with the State OEO office and staff\noffices and private enterprise.\nmembers sought the aid of the California Air National\nGuard. The Guard offered to take the equ pment to iso-\nHOUSING INTERNSHIP (Continued from Page 3)\nlated Indian Reservations by helicopter. The second\nareas thereby providing much needed housing. This is\nproblem was thus solved.\nthe first attempt, to my knowledge, to coordinate the\ngovernment program activities on an interagency level\nBut there was still the need for dentists and dental\nto utilize the resources of federal, state and local capa-\naides to administer dental care. Bill and the OEO office\nbilities,\" Frane concluded.\ncontacted volunteer dentists who would administer care,\nDue to the enthusiastic response from rural Community\nbut how were they to be transported to isolated Reser-\nAction Agencies to the Housing Internship Program, held\nvations? The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association\nat the Mansion Inn in Sacramento in December, Lewis\n(AOPA) offered to provide aircraft and pilots to fly the\nUhler, State Director of the Office of Economic Oppor-\ndentists in.\ntunity, stated that the recent conference of rural commun-\nity action leaders is only the first in a series of planned\nSo today, with the ingenuity of one man and the gen-\nconferences to identify resources available to local Com-\nerosity and cooperation of many, Indians on California\nmunity Action Agencies.\nReservations have dental care available.\nJoint Christmas Air Lift\nThe California State Office of Economic Opportunity\nthank our friends in the California National Guard. We\njoined with the California National Guard to carry out\nreceived wonderful cooperation from all concerned and\na \"Christmas air lift\" to the American Indians of\nparticularly from Col. Andrew Wolf and Major Frank\nNorthern California. The joint venture resulted from a\nSalcedo. The units participating were the Headquarters\nrequest from the Inter-tribal Council.\nand Headquarters Company of the Second Battalion,\nThe California Air National Guard delivered food,\n159th Infantry in San Jose, and the Headquarters and\ntoys, supplies, and equipment to the Redding and\nHeadquarters Detachment of the 1401st Engineer Bat-\nAlturas areas on December 23. The supplies were then\ntalion in Redding, California. These are units of the\ndistributed directly to the Indians who reside in the\nCalifornia Army National Guard.\nrural areas of Northern California.\n\"The aircraft was from the 129th Special Operations\nLewis K. Uhler, State Director, stated, \"The Office\nGroup, California Air National Guard, based in Hayward,\nof Economic Opportunity wishes to congratulate and\nCalifornia.\"\nnorendum\nDate : February 26, 1971\nSubject: Fund Raising Ideas\nfor Youth Programs\nLewis K. Unler, Director\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\nDuring the coming months, our office will be sending you ideas\nfor fund raising, alternate funding sources, and program develop-\nment. Along with such ideas would be a format to follow for\nemploying these ideas and thus making them a reality in your\ncommunity. I would appreciate your personal reaction to the\nmaterial we send you as well as any other ideas you have that\ncan be shared with CAAs and CAPs throughout the State. Please\ndiscuss these ideas and the accompanying material at your\nnext CAA Board Meeting and CAP Staff Meeting to maximize program\ncommunication.\nAttached to this memorandum, you will find a specific idea\ndeveloped by Contra Costa County in raising funds for summer\nyouth work programs to provide transportation for low-income\nyouth to employment. Your response to implementation of this\nidea and evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses would be\nappreciated by this office.\nLKU:plg\nI\nAttachments\nSKATING FAIR\nFUND RAISING PROJECT FOR YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM\nIDEA: Skating Pair\nWHO TO CONTACT: Local ice or roller skating rinks in your\ncommunity\nWHEN TO PLAN PROGRAM: Before spring vacation, summer vacation,\nor Christmas recess\nHOW TO ORGANIZE THIS IDEA:\n1. Contact local skating rinks in your area to see if\nthey would be interested in sponsoring a benefit fund\nraising fair. The proceeds from this fair would go to\nyour youth program to provide transportation or defray\nother costs raised by the funds.\nThe participating rink (ice or roller) may use the\nproceeds given you from this fund raising idea as a\ntax write-off while your local CAP project may use\nthe funds raised as additional local SHARE.\n2. If rinks in your area are interested in this approach,\nthen next contact the local superintendent of schools.\nPresent the idea of a fund raising program for low-\nincome youth through the distribution of fliers to\nall children in the entire school system.\n3. If the idea is approved by both the rink and the\ncounty school superintendent, then have fliers printed\nup similar to the one attached stating the type of\nfund raising project, date of the fair, donation cost,\nand sponsor. Separate the fliers into packets of\n30-35 each and deliver to schools with sufficient\npackets to be distributed to every classroom in each\nschool in the participating district or area. Thus,\neach school should have sufficient fliers for every\nstudent in the district. Pre-packaging of this\nmaterial by your CAP will expedite distribution and\nassure maximum disbursement of the fliers.\n- 2 -\nEGESTIONS:\n1. Plan such a fund raising fair for two consecutive\nFriday afternoons between the hours of 3:00 and\n8:00 p.m. These are low attendance times for most\nskating rinks and are good times [or parents to drop\noff their children while they shop.\n2. Plan the two skating fair days to be held at least\nthree weeks before each of the holiday periods.\nTry to get the rink to turn over 100 percent of the\nproceeds in return for the distribution of fliers\nthat will advertise their rink.\nCAUTION: Be sure the only advertising on the flier\nis a masthead of the rink but not a direct advertisement.\n3. Be sure to use radio, television and newspaper coverage\nabout the fair at least two weeks prior to when the\nskating day takes place.\n4. Upon completion of the fund raising fair, be sure to\nhave a photograph in the local newspaper with the rink\nowner, superintendent of schools, and a CAA representa-\ntive receiving the proceeds from this fund raising\nevent.\nPlease send us a copy of any publicity concerning this idea.\nA sample flier and letter to school principals are attached for\nyour information and use.\nIf you have any questions about this idea or desire more information,\nplease contact our office.\nMember Ice Stating Institute of America\nICE ARENA\nNEIL ROSE, MANAGER\nProject Summer Job\nBenefit\nIn cooperation with the County Department of Education, CAP Job Development\nand Training Project, the Sun Valley Ice Arena is sponsoring a benefit Ice Skating\nFair with proceeds going to the 1971 Summer Youth Employment Program.\nDONATION: $1.00 - Includes Skate Rental\nDATE:\nFriday, December 4th\nFriday, December 11th\nTIME:\n3:00 to 7:00 P.M.\nThis one sheet offer is good for all the family. This is a donation and will also be\na discount rate. A child, 11 & under will save 35c; C. teen, 12-17 will save 65c; an\nadult will save 85c.\nLET'S HELP A GOOD CAUSE AND ALL GO ICE SKATING !!!!\nLocated in the Fabulous Sun Valley Shopping Center\nBE SURE TO BRING THIS SHEET WITH YOU.\nIT IS YOUR DISCOUNT TICKET TO THE RINK\nDear Principal:\nYour district superintendent has authorized distribution of\nthese flyer There are 35 flyers to each package. Please\ndistribute to each classroom so each student receives one\ncopy.\nWe appreciate your cooperation in helping to raise funds\nfor the annual PROJECT SUMMERJOB. This project obtains\nsummer jobs for youth in Contra Costa County. The admini-\nstration of this project is handled jointly by the Contra\nCosta County Department of Education and by the CAP Job\nDevelopment and Training Project, 75 Santa Barbara Road,\nPleasant Hill, California.\nTHE SEOO AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES\nAttachments\nREF.\nPAGE\nNAPA REPORT\n31\nTULARE REPORT\n32\nSOLANO REPORT\n32\nFRESNO REPORT\n32\nROBERT B. HAWKINS Itr to REV. H. H. LUSK dtd 10/27/70\n32\nREV. H. H. LUSK ltr to LEWIS K. UHLER dtd 10/15/70\n32\nGIL ARCHULETTA ltr to ERNEST SPRINKLES dtd 2/9/71\n32\nED FORBES Itr to CHICK TOOKER dtd 9/22/70\n32\nArea:\nNapa\nDate:\nWednesday-Thursday, January 20-21, 1971\nContact:\nSteve Graham\nProblems:\nState is working county against city to oppose\nthe Napa program. Napa given veto and no\nconstructive suggestions made on program\nimprovement.\nCounty has opposition to OEO housing programs.\nCounty needs alternate funding sources and food\nresources for poor of the area.\nCity supports program; county fears the program;\ncounty is seeking to set up competing program\nthat OEO began in the area: health, housing,\nfamily assistance, etc.\nDiscussion: 1. Weak projects\n2. More direct cooperation\n3. Meeting between OEO, city, county people\n4. Evaluations based on performance both\ninternal (administrative) and external\n(programmatic).\nNeeds:\n1. Housing cooperation, food stamp and surplus foods\nin combination, alternate funding resources for\nrural CAP's.\n2. Lift veto by Governor even though Federal\nrefunded the program.\n3. Alternate funding specialist for new funding\nresources.\n4. Joint Regional and State OEO evaluation of\nprogram and its community relationship.\nI received your letter dated January 19, 1971 and appreciate\nthe correspondence and ideas. However, the last two sentence:\nof the first paragraph are both in error and out of context.\nMy point was that in my functioning with the State office\nand the CAP's, I would leave politics out and concentrate\non developing innovative and competent programs. OEO by\nits very nature is a political program, however, its internal\nadministration should be based on a functioning management\nprocess rather than purely political decisions.\nTulare County (Visalia)\nWednesday, January 13, 1971\nict:\nNat Unikel\nems:\nCAP asserted its organization and functioning\nproblems are minimal. Desire more alternate\nfunding sources and assistance from State in\nlocating such sources. SEOO fails to contact\nCAP before coming into area, operates quietly\nbehind the scenes then appears before Board of\nSupervisors to provide beacy to create CAP\nunder Board of Supervisor in accord with Green\nAmendments -- prefers to have this out in the\nopen.\nassion:\n1.\nElimination of weak projects, CAP not\ndisagreeing with State position, if State\nsincere.\n2.\nDevelopment of a San Joaquin Valley Inter-CAP\nAssistance Unit so that each CAP with like\nproblems would be able to assist one another\nto further serve the interests of the poor,\narea-wide.\n3. No real problem with State office because they\nhave been left alone without outside inter-\nference.\n4. Semi-annual evaluations would be cooperated\nwith if instituted.\n5. ATAC has been helpful to them, training\nconference okay.\nNeeds:\n1. Alternate funding.\n2. More general contact.\n3. Mobiliziation of State resources, education,\nHRD, Department of Agriculture, etc. on behalf\nof CAP.\nRecommendations:\n1.\nProvide a staff person with responsibility for\nlocating alternate funding sources, knowing\napplication requir ments, and assist CAP in\nsecuring such funding.\n2. Develop a San Joaquin area conference for or\nof CAP administrators to assist in solving their\ninternal and external regional problems.\nS. Dr. Bob Rothschild, my old boss at the Contra Costa County\nDepartment of Education, sends his greetings.\nArea:\nSolano County (Vallejo)\nite:\nWednesday-Thursday, January 20-21, 1971\ntact:\nJames Hulin\nProblems:\nCAP seeks alternate funding sources, duplication\nof grant guidelines and funding deadline for State\nand Federal OEO, bi-annual funding so that more\ntime can be devoted to program operations rather\nthan grant preparation, eliminate the \"bchind-\nthe-back\" surveilence of CAP's by State OEO, have\nrepresentatives inform CAP when in the area.\nDiscussion:\n1. Elimination of weak projects within CAP's.\n2. Mobilization of State resources.\n3. More personal contact within CAP's in Valley.\n4. More mobilization of experts within colleges in\nthe areas.\nNeeds:\n1. Alternate funding sources\n2. Two-year funding cycle\n3. State OEO to act as advocate for State\ndepartment needs: information on programs,\nforms for applications, technical assistance\non meeting assistance requirements, politics\nwith departments, and program administration\nby State as HRD, Agriculture, etc.\n4. More assistance from colleges and faculty who\nare experts in economic and other planning\nareas.\n5. Need direct assistance in having representative\nin the area for one to four weeks from the\ncreation of an idea until its implementation.\n6. State and Regional OEO should get together and\nprovide common areas of assistance and agree-\nment.\nRecommendations:\n1.\nWe take a position on two-year funding.\n2.\nWe hire a full time expert in alternate\nfunding to work with CAP's.\n3.\nA mutual assistance agreement on both field\nwork and technical assistance be arrived at\nbetween State and Regional OEO offices.\n22\nArea:\nFresno\nDate:\nWednesday, January 13, 1971\nContact:\nJim Williams, Dick Price\nProblems:\nNo continuity of Field Representatives in Federal or\nState so that working relationships and confidence can\nbe achieved. Inadequate follow-through on State and\nFederal representative's recommendations, program\nobjectives, or evaluations. Sometimes, no communi-\ncations on these areas. Application decision should\nbe concurrent with Regional sign-off so that State\nveto is not last minute. Equal distribution of all\ncommunications and technical assistance, grant\nmaterials to rural as well as urban CAP's. San\nJoaquin area economic development is poor.\nDiscussion:\n1.\nAssistance in elimination of weak projects.\n2. San Joaquin inter-CAP assistance program.\n3. Semi-annual evaluations.\n4. More contact with State supervisors of programs\nin addition to representatives.\n5. More direct assistance from State with\nmobilizing educational, State office, and other\nsuch resources.\nI\nNeeds:\n1. With mechanization should come plan for what to\ndo with people displaced by such progress before\nthe machine is used in production.\n2. More housing and job development assistance to\nbalance the Valley economy.\n3. Help with placement of poor in new IRS facility.\n4. Constructive assistance from State office, help\nin implementing ideas of recommendations.\nRecommendations:\n1. Assist with IRS employment program.\n2. Get universities to develop program and plans\nfor providing the needs of those displaced by\nmechanization in agriculture.\n3.\nGet university and State college economics to\nwork more closely with CAP's where such educa-\ntional facilities exist.\nE OF CALIFORNIA\nRONALD REAGAN Genrer\nSPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVILOPMENT\nOFFORIUNITY\nCARDENIA 25514\nOctober 27, 1970\nReverend H. H. Lusk\nCEB\nEAB ON\nChairman of the oard\nTOTAL REGION\nMonterey County Anti-Poverty\nNOV 20 1070\nCoordinating C. uncil, Inc.\n700% Dox 1099\n8AN FRAI\nCALF\nSalinas, California, 93901\nDear Reverend Lusk:\nThis letter contirus the agreements with\nduring our visit on 22 October, 1970. However, let me\nfirst say that Mr. Charlton and I found ONE meeting most\nfruitful. We feel that your positive attloude, joined\nwith those of the County Board of Supervi will\ninsure that the coordinated investigation of the MCAPCC\nwill be productive in increasing the progr TO effective-\nness of your CAP, and also will increase community suggest.\nConcerning coordination, we have set up the following\nprocedures. First, all information will be shared with\nyour Board and the Regional Office. Second, we have\ninvited the Regional auditor to participate in our review.\nThird, we have requested that the Office of Inspection,\nOEO, send a person to participate in the Pourth,\nwe will coordinate and work with the Regional Field\nRepresentative for Monterey. Fifth, the State will issue\na final report to all parties concerned to insure that\nthis investigation has full public disclosure. However,\nany criminal negligence found during our investigation\nwill be turned over to the proper authorities and will\nnot be made public to guarantee the rights of the accused,\nAs per our discussion, our auditor. will need access to\nthe following records:\n1) Judith Ehrlich's personnel file.\n2) Personnel files of all employees, current and\nterminated.\n3) Payroll records.\n4) Time sheets.\n5) Telephone charge records.\n6) Casolina Signature of credit cards.\nverend H. H. Lusk\n-2-\nOctober 27, 1970\n7) CAP agency and program component expense records.\n3) Consultant records for firms and indj riduals to\ninclude record of reports, tocht cell\nand expenditures for services, by ore gram.\n9) Travel records for all employees, including vehicle\nrental, other credit cards, and other related records.\n10) Cancelled checks and bank records of MCAPCC's two\nchecking accounts (Bank of America, Main Branch,\nSalinas).\n11) Resumes of present personnel and past employees,\nand/or consultants.\n12) Sick-leave records.\n13) Personal vehicle authorization on OEO jobs by indi-\nviduals, and I icords of reimbursements.\nBecome\nTo insure that our inve tigation is thorough, it may be necessary\nto look at 1969 records, We anticipate that our inves tigation\nwill commence on Monday, 2 November, 1970. the also hc be\nthat ve can count on the cooperation of your accountanc, Mr. Ron.\nIt is our hope that this investigation can significantly\ndecrease the lack of trust and hosi ility among groups and\nindividuals of the poverty program in Montercy County, and\neffectiveness can be returned to i S proper position O pre-\neminence. We also hope that throu h this investigation we\nwill be able to develop a base for your Council through which\nconfidence and support of the full community can be gro itly\nincreased. You have stated publicly that this is your esired\ngoal, and we hope that we can assist you in the endeavo\nYou can rest assured that the State Office will do every thing\nwithin its power to maintain the spirit of cooperation hat\nwas developed during our meeting of 2 October, it was i pleasure\nto meet,you, and I hope that in the near ft are we can sit\ndown and talk about inc reasing the scepe and offectiveness of\neconomic development wi thin your CAP.\nSincerely yours\nRobert B. Hawkins, Jr.\nAssistant Director\nNorthern California\nRBH:sjd\ncopy: Monterey County Board of Supervisors\nSenator Donald L. Grunsky\nAssemblyman Robert Wood\nCongressman Burt L. Talcott\nBurt Young, District Attorney\nWilliam D. Curtis, District Attorney-Slect\nDonald 7. Schtta, DDS\nMexican American Political Action Assn.\nREDI Corporation\nMONTERST COUNTY\nANTI-POVERTY COGRDINATING COUNCIL, Inc.\nS WEST CABILAN STREET\nP. D. BOX 1097\nPHONE (400) 424-2001\nSALIMAS, CALIFORNIA 93901\n15 Cebober 1070\nWEST?\n007 19 1970\nMr. Lewis Uhler\nSLOO Director\nUSE\nState of California\nFRANCISCO,\nDepartment of Human Resources Development\nc/o $00 Capitol Mall\nSucramento, California\nDear Mr. Uhler:\nA matter has been brought to my attention regarding the State OEO\nTeld representative for this area, which I think is very serious\nand an action which cannot be accepted or condoned as part of the\negitimate functions of a SEOO field representative as funded by the\n*ffice of Economic Opportunity.\nUpon being introduced to Mr. Charlton, both the CAA Board Chairman\nand myself stated, and received an agreement from your representative,\nit when he was to be functioning in the area which this CAP serves\nthat he would call, write or otherwise let us know that he was in the\nmrea, and the purpose of his visit. We requested and received this agree-\nment mainly to try to avoid some of the problems that have occurred\nbetween CAA's and delegate or community groups as well as intra-program\nrelations. This promise has not been honored, and more than that we feel\nthat Mr. Charlton has hardly been our representative long enough to\n\"get his feet wet\" before he seems to be deeply involved in inter staff\nand intra-agency differences.\nMore serious than this however, is the fact that someone from the State\nOffice of Economic Opportunity, which for a variety of reasons we believe\nto be Mr. Charlton, called the Fiscal Officer of this agency at his home\nand urged him to take fiscal files out of this office to his home to be\nhanded over to the representative. Not only is this a very serious breech\nof ethics and propriety, but it seriously leads us to believe that the\npattern of using Economic Opportunity funds to provide salaries for\npolitical batchet men is net a thing of the past, as we had hoped.\nIt also indicates a very grave lack of knowledge and sophistication on\nthe part of your office's representative, since under the Public Access to\nInformation rule, which applies to CAA's and has since the early days\nof the program, any formal request from a legitimate group or organization\nfor such information would have to be honored. With this in mind, we can\nonly assume that the action of the representative shows a great deal of\nnaivety about the nature and legal requirements of this program; or worse,\nalleates\na\n020\nCAP DIV\nWESTERN REGION\nOCT21970\nW\n8AM PRANCISCO\n15.\nLewis Unler\n15 October 1970\nPage #2\nI hope you will see fit to investigate this matter and to offer proper\ntraining and guidance to your field representatives as to the vote and\nfunction of OEO funded SE00 representatives as called for by your\nOΓO contract and other appropriate documents.\nSincerely yours,\nREV. H. H. LUSK\nChairman of the Board\nJAMES N. BOYLSON\nExecutive Director\nce: H. Rodger Betts, Regional Director\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\nRobert LaFosso, Inter-Agency Coordinator\nChuck Stone, Field Representative\nPercy Moore, President, CAL CAP Directors Association\nMearle Custer, Chairman, State OEO Advisory Committee\nOF CALIFORNIA\nRONALD REAGAN, Gevernor\nMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT\nOF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY\nPITOL MALL\nENTO, CALIFORNIA 95314\n-1271\nRespond the\nICIA Cervice No\nTerrance 00501\nFebruary 9, 1071\nMr. Trnest Sprinkles\nExecutive Director\nEconomic and Youth Obsortunities\nAgency of Creater had Angeles\n314 Vent Sixch Street\nLes Augbles, Colifornia COVER\nDear Nr. Secintles:\nOn Dohnlf of Stand Office ON I\nwould Like to require a copy of all monitor reports for\nall EYOA programs for the last two years.\nIn addition, we would like a list of the names, addresses\nand belephone numbers of all EYON and delegate agency\nboard members and staff as well as a current copy of the\nEYON organizational chart.\nIt in invortant that VK receive the above by Policuary 17,\n1971. Thank you, in advance, for your cooperation.\nSincerely,\nGil Archulotta\nAdminiotrative Assistant/Operations\nSouthern California\nGA:js\nCC: EYOA Doard Members\nC. Mack Hall\nWillian L. Smith\n/Calvin\nCOMMENTS INCLUDING DEGREE OF COOPERATION:\nNAME OF DISTRICT SUPERVISOR\nWAS HE CONTACTED? YES\nNO\nCOMMENTS\nVIII. ANALYSIS OF THE PROGRAM\nA. IF THIS IS A REFUNDING OF A CONTINUING PROGRAM, HAS IT\nWORKED TO DATE?\nB. IS THE PROGRAM NECESSARY? DOES IT MEET AN ACKNOWLEDGED\nNEED SUBSTANTIATED BY DEMOGRAPHIC POVERTY DATA?\nC. IS IT A DUPLICATION? (EXAMINE NON-OEO PROGRAMS IN THE\nAREA)\nD. IS IT A PROGRAM THAT CAN, AND SHOULD, BE OPERATED BY\nANOTHER AGENCY?\n-8-\nE. DOES THE PAST EXPERIENCE WITH THIS AGENCY OR THESE\nPEOPLE PROVIDE A BASIS FOR OPTIMISM REGARDING THE\nSUCCESSFUL OUTCOME OF THE PROGRAM?\nF. HAS THERE BEEN A CONCERTED, SINCERE EFFORT TO MOBILIZE\nPRIVATE SECTOR RESOURCES?\nG. DOES THE WORK PROGRAM SPELL OUT EXACTLY WHAT IS TO BE\nACCOMPLISHED?\nTHE ABOVE ARE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ANALYSIS. EXPAND AS\nNECESSARY ON CONTINUATION SHEET.\nX. SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACTIONS\nA. AREAS FOR NEGOTIATION WHICH COULD IMPROVE QUALITY OF\nPROGRAM. INCLUDE WORK PLAN, MANAGEMENT, PERSONNEL,\nBUDGET, TRAINING NEEDS, ETC.\n-9-\nB. CAN STATE OEO RESOURCES HELP IMPROVE THE PROGRAM? WHO?\nIN WHAT AREAS? HAS IT HELPED IN THE PAST?\nC. NON-NEGOTIABLE CHANGES REQUIRED TO PREVENT GOVERNOR'S\nVETO.\nD. RECOMMENDED GOVERNOR'S ACTION:\nAPPROVAL\nLAPSE\nVETO\nREASON FOR RECOMMENDATION:\nX. INSTRUCTIONS\nA. WORDING OF GOVERNOR'S LETTER.\nB. LETTER TO GRANTEE AND/OR OEO SUCH AS OFFERS OF TECHNI-\nCAL ASSISTANCE, TRAINING NEEDS, NEGOTIATION POINTS AS\nREQUIRED.\nC. MEMOS TO STATE OEO PERSONNEL. SPECIAL EMPHASIS TO\nCHAPTERS OF REPORT, REQUEST FOR TA OR STAP, ETC., AS\nREQUIRED.\n-10-\nACTION PACKAGE REVIEW\nANALYST\nDATE SUBMITTED\nDESCRIBE CHANGES FROM INFORMATION PACKAGE USING PARAGRAPH NUMBERS ON\nREVIEW FORM AS REFERENCED. USE AS CONTINUATION SHEET AS NEEDED.\nINTERENCE\nDESCRIPTION OF CHANGES\nTHE SEOO AND THE GOVERNOR\nAttachments\nREF.\nPAGE\nLEWIS K. UHLER Itr to CARL EHMANN dtd 2/9/71\n21\nI\nTHE SEOO AND THE GOVERNOR\nAttachments\nREF.\nPAGE\nLEWIS K. UHLER Itr to CARL EHMANN dtd 2/9/71\n21\nI\nState of Calitornia\nEXIS K. UHLER\nRONALD REAGA\nRECTOR\nGOVERNOR\nOffice of Erounnic Opportunity\nDEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT\n800 CAPITOL MALL, SACRAMENTO 95814\n910 445-9670 OR 445-7011\nFebruary 9, 1971\nMr. Carl Ehman\nRegional Administrator, VISTA\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\n100 McAllister Street\nSan Francisco, California 94102\nDear Mr. Ehman:\nThe State Office of Economic Opportunity has completed its\nreview of the VISTA Proposal CA-31-224-0, to assign twenty\n(20) VISTA volunteers to the Legal Aid Society of Santa\nClara County, San Jose, California.\nOur recommendations to the Governor are as follows:\nThat six (6) VISTA volunteers, all of them lawyers, be assigned\nto the Legal Aid Society, but only under the following conditions:\n1. That VISTA attorneys work on individual service cases\nonly and not engage in any other work described in the\nproject proposal.\n2. That no VISTAs be assigned to the Mexican-American Community\nService Agency (MACSA), and that they be assigned as\nfollows:\nModel Cities - 2\nEast Side - 2\nAlviso - 1\nGilroy - 1 (Location to be worked out\nbetween ourselves and Mr. Manley. )\n3. That VISTA volunteers refrain totally from draft counseling.\nMr. Carl Ehman\n-2-\nFebruary 9, 1971\n4. That no funding be granted for a VISTA Supervisor, and\nthat supervision of the VISTA attorneys be handled\nexclusively by 3 volunteer members of the Santa Clara\nCounty Bar Association, to be appointed by the President\nof that organization. An agreement to that effect has\nbeen reached with the President of SCCBA, Mr. Mark\nThomas, who will also instruct said volunteer super-\nvisors to screen any and all legal cases being considered\nby the VISTA attorneys and to meet with their assigned\nVISTA volunteers on a weekly basis.\nYou may submit the final letter for Governor's approval.\nSincerely,\nLEWIS K. UHLER\nDirector\nTHE SEOO AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES\nAttachments\nREF.\nPAGE\nTHOMAS DUFFY memo to LEWIS K. UHLER dtd 2/3/71\n24\nBUDGET ANALYSIS\n25\n1\nmorandum\nHonoroble Lewis K. Unler\nFebruary 3, 1971\nDirector\nState Office of Economic Opportunity\n800 Capitol Mall\nSubject:\nProject V\nModel Cities Liaison Group\nOn behalf of Lieutenant Governor Reinecke, I have held conversations with\nyou about the desirability and feasibility of a pilot project designed to\ndevelop and test concepts of merging Community Action Programs with the\nModel Cities program in selected localities. We have agreed, I believe,\nthat this idea, which we call \"Project V\", should be pursued. In our\ndiscussions, we have developed the understandings that: the commitment\nof the Model Cities Program and its participating citizens to act as part\nof and in cooperation with its duly elected local general government is\na desirable model on which to base the proposed project; Project V should\nbe under the general leadership of the Lieutenant Governor; the cooperation\nof the local government involved and the local citizen participation elements\nof both programs is necessary to the project's success; and we will each\nassign staff to conduct joint studies of Project V.\nAccordingly, Mr. Leonard Down from your office and Miss JoAnn Barrett of\nmine have begun to explore the areas of similarity and dissimilarity of\nthe OEO and Model Cities programs in the field, the possible obstacles\nwhich we may have to face, and methods of implementing Project V. These\nstudies, as far as they have gone, lead me to believe that Project V is\nboth desirable and feasible as a pilot project in one or two carefully\nselected locations. They also lead me to believe that the project will\nrequire the active support of the Federal Office of Economic Opportunity\nand Model Cities Administration, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban\nDevelopment. For these reasons, the Lieutenant Governor has directed me\nto discuss Project V with Mr. Carlucci, OEO, and Assistant Secretary Hyde,\nMCA/HUD, when I am in Washington next week, and to attempt to obtain their\nsupport.\nject V is apparently about to begin. In order to give it a firm foundation,\n1 an asking that you concur on the facts as stated and that you agree to this\nis a memo of understanding.\nSh\nTHOMAS N. DUFFY\nChief\nDate\nHuman Resources Development\nItems 231-237\nDepartment of Human Resources Development-Continued\nThe program will have 25 camps in operation during the current\nyear. It proposes to expand by two additional sites in fiscal year 1971-\n72 if the cooperation of local agencies in site acquisition and develop-\nment can be gained. Site selection is not firm at this time.\nThese camps will serve an estimated 2.687 families with 13,972 mem-\nbers in the current year. Contingent upon the establishment of two\nnew campsites, occupancy by 3,177 family units with 16,520 members\nis projected for fiscal year 1971-72.\nThe housing fabrication element, operated by a nonprofit organiza-\ntion, will annually provide vocational training and training in other\nskills for 100 migrant farm laborers. Day care services are provided\nat all campsite locations. Three campsites offer infant care services.\nAll such services are provided by local agencies.\nTECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, REVIEW, COORDINATION AND\nINNOVATIVE ANTIPOVERTY PROGRAM\nThis program is carried ont by the State Office of Economic Oppor-\nturity. The objectives of the program are (1) TO provide technical\nassistance to communities and local agencies in their operation of anti-\npoverty programs funded through O.E.O. grants. (2) to coordinate\nrelated state antipoverty programs, (3) to mobilize the state resources\nrelating to antipoverty problems and (4) to advise and assist the\nnational director of O.E.O. in these matters.\nIn addition to these objectives. the state O.E.O. office. as a condi-\ntion of its grant. is required to perform the following duties:\n(1) To act as the Governor's adviser on antipoverty matters in-\ncluding his approval or disapproval of 0.E.O. grants and contracts of\nassistance. In these cases. the Governor has three alternatives to fol-\nlow during the 30-day period following receipt OF the request:\nA. Acknowledge full approval. Qualified approvals are not ac-\ncepted by Regional O.E.O. headquarters.\nB. Allow the 30-day period to lapse without comment, in which\ncase the burden of approval rests with O.E.O. Washington.\nC. Disapprove. In this instance the director of O.E.O. Washing-\nton has the authority to reverse the Governor's disapproval\naction.\n(2) To give priority to the mobilization and coordination of anti-\npoverty resources, particularly at the state level. In this function the\noffice acts as special advocate for the participation of poor people in\nstate government.\n(3) To provide technical assistance to community action agencies\n(CAA) and other O.E.O. grantees.\n(4) Act in an advisory capacity to O.E.O. regional offices on the\nequitable distribution of assistance between urban and rural areas.\nThe State Office of Economic Opportunity proposes a total expendi-\nture of $989.625. in increase of $25,912 OVE. the current years estimate\nand $585,165 over the amount originally budgeted last year. The entire\nincrease in the 1971-72 request over 1970-71 occurs in the state fund-\ning of the office as federal funding remains at current-year levels. The\n584\nItems 231-237\nHuman Resources Development\nstate funding is proposal to be increased from $43,977 in the current\nyear 10 $69,889 in time hudget year. all increase of 58 pereent. This\nincrease made Juring the current year was made administratively.\nThe Stafe allie of Economic Opportunity das not. under the present\nfederal funding and regulations process; become involved with direct\nassistance to the individual poor. This responsibility rests with the 42\nCommunity Action Program grantees and the 32 single purpose O.E.O.\ngrantees throughout the state. The state O.E.O. does have the authority\nand responsibility under Section 242 of the Economic Opportunity Act\nto monitor and evaluate the programs of the grantees. Its operations\nrepresent administrative costs.\nIt is in this evaluative area that the main thrust of the state office\nwill be directed in fiscal year 1971-72. The office was granted addi-\ntional funds by the federal O.E.O. in September of 1970. These funds\nwere used to increase the office staff by eight new positions in the cur-\nrent year. These positions are carried over into the budget year. Thir-\nteen professional positions are now assigned to the evaluation of this\nfunction The state's level of funding has been increated by $25912\nThis amount. plus an in-kind mateli of $52,232 is required to make up\nthe total state funding requirement of the $122.141.\nThe increase in staff was accompanied by a reorganization of the\nstaff with an emphasis on in-depth analysis of the grantees' perform-\nance in meeting their stated goals. This analysis occupies a period of\n105 days under ideal circumstances. It begins with the office staff par-\nticipating in the 'prereview\" of the grant in company with the re-\ngional O.E.O. representatives and the grantee and ends with submis-\nsion of the staff analysis and recommendation to the State Director of\nO.E.O. The director then has 15 days to review the staff analysis and\nforward his recommendations to the Governor. This process is com-\nplicated by the fact that each grant is reviewed as a separate entity.\nEach grant to a single agency usually has an expiration date not cor-\nrelated with others. For instance. the Economic and Youth Opportuni-\nties Agency of Greater Los Angeles has 13 grants totaling $19,740.461,\nexpiring on five different dates in 1971. while the Lassen-Modoc-Plumas-\nTehama Community Action Agency. Inc., has two grants totaling 4221.-\n001 expiring in 1971 on the same date. We understand that the office\nis endeavoring to seek the cooperation of the regional O.E.O. in adjust-\ning expiration dates of grants to permit orderly processing at an even\nlevel throughout the year.\nThe evaluations of the community action programs by the state office\nare intended to cover every aspect of the grantee's program. such as\nbudgeting, accountability for expenditures, management. etc., with the\nend view of improving the capability and efficiency of the grantee in\nmeeting the goals stated in their grant. In essence, the purpose of the\nevaluations is to insure that these publicly funded tivities are in fact\nreaching the poor for whom the programs are intended and are achiev-\ning the overall goal of breaking the cycle of poverty which afflicts a\nportion of the citizenry of the state.\n585\nHuman Resources Development\nItems 231-237\nDepartment of Human Resources Development-Continued\nThe office also has the responsibility of review and recommendation\nfor the Governor's consideration on the Volunteers in Service to\nAmerica (VISTA) programs (of which there were 23 in calendar 1970)\nwithin the state. The office actimg for the Governor in this instance is\nauthorized to structure such programs and assistance in the manner\nthat it believes will achieve the best results.\nIn addition to the eight positions discussed above. the state O.E.O.\nhas the authority, by way of four 100 percent federal funded grants.\nto establish 21 other new positions in the current year. The total federal\ngrant for these special projects is $431.442 (no matching funds re-\nquired). The purposes for which the four grants were made are as\nfollows:\n1. A management demonstration grant to assist local community ac-\ntion agencies in increasing their management capabilities. Authorizes\nsix professional and two clerical positions.\n2. A grant to provide for the monitoring of the Oakland Community\nAction Agency. Authorizes one professional and one elerical position.\n3. A special technical assistance program for housing. economic de-\nvelopment and local agency management. Authorizes four professional\npositions.\n4. A volunteer coordinating grant. This grant has not been funded\nas yet and will authorize four professional and three clerical positions.\nTable 6\nO.E.O.-Staff and Worklead Data\n1969-70\n1970-71\n1971-72\nGrant review, O.E.O. grants\n440\n450\n460\nGrant totals in millions of dollars\n$74.5\n$75\n$75\nMan-years of technical asst.\n1.6\n6.5\n6.5\nNumber of agencies asst'd.\n5\n15\n38\nAssigned staff\n15.2\n25\n25\nTable 7\nO.E.O.-Funded Grants Expiring in 1971 for 74 Agencies\nGrants\nDollar value\nMultiple component grants 1\n81\n$41,227.505\nFamily planning\n16\n835,246\nHead start\n65\n30,665,124\nEducation\n7\n2,324,430\nLegal services\n45\n9,270,238\nYouth programs\n4\n1,209,294\nIndian\n1\n267,146\nSummer programs\n3\n117,589\nNarcotics program\n1\n689.220\nComprehensive health programs\n8\n5,834,530\nAlcoholic program\n7\n1.027,811\nEmergency food and medical services\n24\n16,942,716\nPilot programs\n9\n1,814,523\nResources mobilization\n10\n1,071,755\n281\n$113,297,127\n1 15 percent of the total grant is allowed for administration.\n586\nItems 231-237\nHuman Resources Development\nTable 8 indicates the proposed funding of the state O.E.O. activities\nfor fiscal year 1971-72.\nTable 8\nState Office of Economic Opportunity\nSource of Proposed Funding and Staffing Fiscal Year 1971-72\nState-appropriated funds\nGeneral Fund (20% state match including in kind) 1\n$69,889\nFederal funds\nFive O.E.O. grants\n919.736\nTotal Support\n$989,625\nAdministration management program COSES prorated back to\nprogram\n($29,684)\nMan-years\nStaffing and Funding by Grant\n25 State O.E.O. office grant (80% federal)\n$488,564\n8 Management demonstration grant (100% federal)\n162,170\n2 Oakland monitor grant (100% federal)\n27.718\n4 Special technical assistance grant (100% federal)\n114.814\n7 Volunteer resources grant (100% federal)\n126,740\n-\n46\n$919,736\nThe total 20 process STATE match is 8102.141. Thus an in kind match of But less than $52,252 is required to\nassure the federal APAIN of $488,501.\nIn view of the fact that this office has been more than doubled by\nadministrative action since the last legislative approval and is providing\nreview and approval over programs totaling $113 million. we believe\nI\nthe review reports rendered on these diverse local projects should be\ncarefully examined to determine whether the reports are effective and\nwhether the projects are effective. Pending this fuller review, we with-\nhold any recommendation.\nCOMMISSION ON AGING PROGRAM\nThe State Commission on Aging Program expenditure request is\n$545,054, a reduction of 10.7 percent or $65,265. The reduction is totally\nwithin the state funding. This results in a 30.6 percent reduction in\ncommission support funds and a staff reduction of six positions or 54.5\npercent.\nThe commission's program objective is the mobilization of the ap-\npropriate resources of all local communities within the state to meet\nthe total needs of the approximately 12 million older citizens of the\nstate. The commission, through its staff, accomplishes this objective\nby administering the Older American Act grants to communities spon-\nsoring local programs for their senior citizens. Table 9 reflects the\nfunding and staffing of the program for a five-year period.\nThe commission (12 members, of whom eight are Governor's ap-\npointees. and four are legislative members) approves all federal grants\nto local senior citizens programs on the basis of two criteria, the value\nand viability of the project and the availability of funds. All projects\nare funded and approved on an annual basis. The commission staff\nreviews the proposed programs. insures that an accounting system is\ninstalled, trains the local personnel, and aids in the conduct of seminars\nand other statewide activities pertinent to the program.\n507\nTHE SEOO AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT\nAND COMMUNITY GROUPS\nAttachments\nREF.\nPAGE\nWELFARE STATISTICS\n28\nAGING INFORMATION REQUEST\n28\nGOLDEN OPPORTUNITIES\n28\nFUND RAISING IDEAS\n28\nINA\nSARIN 111\n5. WILLER\nBOHALD 1.' AGAN\n108\nCOVEREDOR\nOffice of Remunts Opmotimity\nDEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT\n800 CAPITOL MALL SACRAMENTTO 55014\n910 445-3670 OR 445-7011\nFebruary 24, 1971\nTO:\nCAA Directors or Planners\nMr. Charles Wilson\nPlanning\nOffice of Economic Opportunity Region IX\nFROM:\nLeonard H. Down\nStaff Assistant for Planning\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\nSUBJECT: Aid Recipients in California\nThe attached represent the latest figures available for\naid recipients by counties in California. You may find\nthen useful in your planning activities.\nI\nLHD:mc\nAttachments\n16\nTABLE 3a. ADULT PROGRAMS\nCAS! HOADS 1.\\ RAG STATUS\nNavember 1970\nAged 11/15/2015\nPotentially s-11-\nBlind persons\nsupporting Lind persons\nDeabled presons\nCounty\nMedical\nMedical\nCash\nMedical\nMedical\nTotal\nCash\nCash\nassist.\nTotal\nCash\nassist.\nTotal\nassist.\nTotal\ngrent.\nassist\nStant\ngrant\nonly\nonly\ngrant\nonly\nonly\nAll counties\n373,543\n319,775\n53,768\n14.005\n13,642\n963\n217\n210\n1\n195,721\n182.337\n13,364\nneda\n17,690\n14,647\n3,043\n1,042\n974\n68\n9\n9\n0\n11,603\n10,780\n823\nr.e\n9\n9\n0\n2\n2\n0\n0\n0\no\n&\n6\n0\nidea\n305\n259\n46\n12\n10\n?\n0\n0\n0\n80\n73\n7\ne\n3,609\n3,222\n387\n114\n106\n8\n0\n0\n0\n1,266\n1,200\n57\nveras\n391\n320\n71\n11\n9\n2\nO\n0\no\n126\n115\n13\nisa\n332\n263\n49\n4\n4\n0\n0\n0\n0\n135\n119\n16\ntra Coste\n7,271\n5,940\n1,331\n382\n344\n38\n11\n11\no\n5,272\n4,936\n336\nNorte\n339\n317\n22\n19\n19\n.0\n0\n0\n0\n251\n244\n7\nlorado\n992\n884\n108\n24\n24\n0\n2\n2\n0\n436\n390\n37\nno\n12,157\n10,681\n1,476\n433\n410\n23\n2\n2\n0\n6,286\n5,870\n416\nin\n490\n386\n102\n14\n13\n1\n0\nO\n0\n153\n127\n26\naboidt\n2,146\n1,882\n204\n80\n78\n2\n1\n1\n0\n1,294\n1,232\n62\ncrial\n2,283\n2,110\n167\n94\n79\n5\n0\n0\no\n1,009\n966\n43\n,\n413\n358\n55\n5\n8\n1\nI\n1\n0\n151\n145\n6\n,\n8,209\n7,628\n6:11\n268\n276\n10\n0\n0\n0\n4,340\n4,120\n220\nVS\n1,661\n1,453\n208\nE.9\n62\n7\n2\n2\n0\n808\n754\n54\ne\n1.024\n938\n86\n27\n23\n4\n1\n1\n0\n371\n358\n13\nen\n390\n328\n62\n26\n22\n4\n0\n0\n0\n172\n155\n17\nAngeles\n138,539\n118,26$\n20,271\n5,08:\n4,783\n301\n5]\n51\n0\n74,010\n68,757\n5,253\nlera\n1,837\n1,687\n150\n67\nGG\n1\nO\no\no\n1,059\n1,020\n39\n1,714\n1,293\n421\n53\n42\n11\nO\n0\n0\n886\n781\n105\n205\n182\n24\n7\n5\n2\no\n0\no\n49\n42\n7\nidocino\n1,379\n1,216\n163\n36\n34\n2\n0\no\n0\n609\n572\n30\nced\n2,630\n2,301\n329\n125\n118\n7\nO\n0\n0\n1,403\n1,330\n73\n100\n209\n181\n28\n11\n10\n1\no\no\n0\n67\n62\n5\n10\n50\n48\n2\no\n0\n0\n0\n0\no\n28\n28\no\niterey\n3,255\n2,686\n569\n142\n129\n13\n2\nI\n1\n1,813\n1,613\n200\na\n1,684\n1,357\n327\n73\n64\n9\n0\no\nO\n728\n667\n61\nads\n938\n803\n135\n30\n25\n5\n0\no\n0\n348\n330\n18\nage\n12,037\n9,670\n2,367\n405\n377\n28\n9\n9\n0\n4,077\n4,203\n474\n:er\n1,599\n1,337\n252\n51\n49\n2\n0\n0\nO\n686\n663\n23\nmas\n307\n310\n57\n13\n13\n0\n0\n0\nO\n151\n140\n11\nerside\n11,568\n10,329\n1,239\n406\n381\n25\n0\n0\n0\n5,172\n4,928\n244\nramento\n12,193\n10,390\n1,797\n543\n501\n42\n20\n20\n0\n7,588\n7,001\n527\nBenito\n437\n332\n54\n18\n16\n2\no\nU\n0\n149\n131\n18\nBernardino\n15,279\n13,240\n2,039\n680\n640\n40\n1\n1\nO\n6,507\n5,977\n530\nDiego\n18,953\n10,032\n2,921\n807\n758\n49\n39\n39\nO\n9,182\n8,530\n602\nFrancisco\n18,653\n15,529\n3,124\n805\n750\n55\n14\n14\n0\n13,025\n12,240\n785\nJozquin\n5.680\n7,642\n1,033\n353\n335\n18\n3\n3\no\n4,426\n4,122\n304\nLuis Obispo\n2,723\n2,451\n277\n67\n58\n9\n2\n2\no\n1,110\n1,017\n53\nMateo\n5,401\n4,372\n1,028\n208\n196\n12\n7\n7\n0\n3,118\n2,926\n190\nta Barbara\n3,542\n3,050\n476\n123\n116\n7\n9\n9\n0\n1,737\n1,487\n250\nto Clara\n12,251\n10,261\n1,990\n499\n450\n49\n23\n23\n0\n6,921\n6,396\n525\nto Cruz\n3,713\n3,152\n5C6\n143\n122\n21\n0\no\nO\n1,195\n1,112\n83\nista\n2,18?\n1,961\n221\n80\n71\n9\n1\n1\nO\n1,036\n990\n45\nrra\n50\n47\n3\n0\n0\no\n0\no\n0\n21\n20\n1\nkiyou\n886\n763\n123\n25\n22\n3\n0\nO\n0\n376\n350\n26\nano\n2,000\n1,650\n342\n84\n79\n5\n3\n3\nO\n1,134\n1032\n102\nrome\n4,699\n3,976\n723\n184\n175\n9\n0\n0\n0\n2,09S\n1,864\n224\nnisters\n6,400\n5,805\n001\n203\n200\n6\n1\n1\nO\n2,973\n2,870\n100\nter\n855\n850\n0\n33\n30\n3\n0\n0\n0\n371\n3/7\no\nrama\n600\n778\n82\n27\n23\n4\n0\n0\n0\n339\n320\n10\nnity\n180\n163\n23\n8\n7\n1\n0\n0\no\n60\n57\n12\nlare\n7,203\n6,700\n497\n272\n257\n15\n1\n1\n0\n3,353\n3,127\n166\nJurine\n654\n569\n65\n7\n6\n1\n0\n0\n0\n253\n244\n9\n5,00%\n4,170\n899\n176\n164\n12\nC)\n0\no\n1,953\n1,925\n18\n1.7%\n1,524\n264\nSo\n49\n7\n2\n2\no\n815\n789\n00\nas\n1,000\n901\n5:\n++\n0\n0\n::\nNTA\n12\nDats estimated, report(s) not received\nTABLE 3b. FAMILY AND CHILDRE N PROGRAMS\nCASELOADS BY PROGRAM STATUS\nNovel 1970\nFamilies with dependent children - family groups and unemployed CASOS\nChildren in boarding\nCash grant\nCash grant\nCertified for medical\nhomes and institutions\nTotal\nCounty\nfamily groups?\nunemployed cases\nassistance only\nTotal\nchildren\nfamilies\nin\nMedic\nfamilies\nFamilies\nChildren\nFamilies\nChildren\nFamilies\nChildren\nTotal\nCash grent\nasset.\nonl,\nAll counties\n442,675\n1,081,140\n356,545\n871,400\n54,206\n156,875\n31,924\n55,871\n43,574\n33,659\n9,015\nAlameda\n30,219\n69,562\n23,038\n53,306\n4,000\n10,398\n3,121\n5,768\n1,819\n1,393\n426\nAlpine\n12\n38\n12\n38\n0\n0\n0\n0\n2\n2\nC\nAmador\n80\n204\n68\n156\n1\n4\n1)\n44\n10\n8\n2\nButte\n1,905\n4,866\n1,567\n3,837\n237\n715\n161\n334\n198\n161\n37\nCalaveras\n196\n459\n146\n346\n26\n07\n24\n46\n7\n6\n1\nColusa\n146\n305\n126\n310\n0\n0\n20\n55\n18\n12\nC\nContra Costa\n13,267\n30,203\n10,714\n24,957\n1,836\n4,015\n715\n1,231\n1,112\n601\n311\nDel Norte\n3C7\n709\n264\n623\n28\n65\n15\n21\n44\n41\n3\nEI Dorado\n911\n2,093\n703\n1,655\n136\n314\n72\n124\n76\n72\n4\nFresno\n12,768\n37,491\n10,551\n29,464\n1,358\n6,167\n879\n1,860\n802\n622\n1EC\nGlenn\n237\n559\n171\n421\n21\n43\n45\n95\n47\n45\n2\nHumboldt\n2,290\n5,383\n1,093\n3,996\n341\n882\n256\n505\n213\n175\n33\nImperial\n1,954\n5,603\n1,616\n4,776\n214\n624\n124\n263\n170\n150\n20\nInyo\n186\n437\n160\n359\n15\n51\n11\n^7\n39\n35\n4.\nKein\n7,316\n19,798\n6,379\n17,759\n260\n1,124\n668\n915\n831\n769\nE 2\nKings\n1,893\n5,453\n1,333\n3,500\n468\n1,677\n97\n276\n124\n101\n23\nLake\n459\n1,071\n358\n821\n80\n203\n21\n47\n28\n25\n3\nLassen\n267\n597\n20S\n463\n32\n,64\n27\n70\n16\n14\n2\nLos Angeles\n170,025\n430,495\n147,272\n300,705\n17,679\n52,453\n11,075\n17,277\n20,720\n15,195\n5,525\nMe\n1,249\n3,617\n968\n2,678\n222\n841\n59\n98\n85\n77\n8\nrin\n2,437\n4,776\n1,776\n3,384\n308\n626\n353\n756\n339\n180\n153\nriposa\n49\n111\n30\n95\n8\n14\n2\n2\n&\nE\n(\nndocino\n1,250\n2,752\n955\n2,004\n204\n501\n91\n187\n207\n184\n23\nMerced\n3,161\n8,593\n2,582\n6,799\n403\n1,468\n171\n326\n171\n152\nIf\nModoc\n125\n208\n101\n225\n18\n60\n6\n13\n7\n7\n0\nMono\n40\n100\n31\n71\n2\n10\n7\n19\n3\n3\nC\nMonterey\n4,200\n9,710\n3,386\n8,146\n316\n917\n496\n653\n374\n282\n92\nNapa\n1,082\n2,405\n957\n2,067\n28\n90\n97\n251\n134\n*110\n24\nNevada\n459\n1,053\n359\n828\n51\n119\n49\n106\n38\n35\n3\nOrange\n15,668\n36,743\n12,051\n28,869\n1,755\n5,064\n1,862\n2,810\n1,190\n681\n503\nPlacer\n1,708\n3,924\n1,321\n3,021\n303\n761\n84\n142\n129\n120\n=\nPlumas\n237\n568\n183\n431\n31\n74\n23\n63\n18\n18\nC\nRiverside\n9,549\n26,387\n7,777\n21,155\n1,059\n3,920\n713\n1,312\n968\n805\n163\nSacramento\n16,545\n40,390\n12,242\n29,181\n2,956\n7,709\n1,347\n3,506\n1,212\n952\n200\nSan Benito\n333\n897\n264\n703\n17\n71\n52\n123\n17\n13\n=\nSon Bernardino\n15,443\n40,410\n12,552\n32,757\n1,790\n5,385\n1,101\n2,268\n1,053\n1,043\n10\nSan Diego\n22,707\n52,040\n17,412\n40,579\n3,325\n6,792\n1,970\n2,609\n2,241\n1,825\n416\nSan Francisco\n19,000\n42,256\n15,914\n35,950\n1,683\n3,892\n1,403\n2,416\n2,575\n2,295\n279\nSan Joaquin\n8,08:\n19,890\n6,365\n15,187\n1,177\n3,700\n542\n1,003\n569\n425\n141\nSan Luis Obispo\n1,720\n4,243\n1,334\n3,154\n264\n814\n12S\n275\n186\n159\n27\nSan Mateo\n6,685\n15,297\n5,494\n12,600\n750\n1,873\n431\n824\n918\n502\n410\nSanta Barbara\n4,333\n10,553\n3,413\n8,403\n477\n1,306\n448\n844\n252\n247\nin\nSanta Clara\n19,647\n48,867\n14,943\n36,354\n4,074\n11,345\n630\n1,188\n1,714\n1,416\n275\nSenta Cruz\n2,230\n4,761\n1,839\n3,963\n125\n231\n266\n567\n221\n191\n30\nShasta\n2,587\n6,032\n1,887\n4,324\n35\n1,370\n165\n338\n149\n118\n3;\nSierra\n14\n23\n14\n23\n0\n0\n0\n0\n4\n4\n0\nSiskiyou\n427\n1,010\n339\n797\n53\n141\n35\n72\n45\n40\n5\nSolano\n3,947\n9,335\n3,004\n7,265\n719\n1,834\n164\n236\n342\n298\n44\nSonoma\n5,240\n12,401\n3,600\n8,395\n1,153\n3,108\n427\n807\n444\n397\n47\nStanislaus\n5,783\n15,134\n4,482\n11,196\n1,098\n3,666\n200\n272\n518\n443\n75\nSutter\n780\n1,878\n542\n1,317\n188\n482\n58\n79\n44\n33\ni\nTehama\n456\n1,205\n371\n991\n29\n87\n56\n127\n41\n40\n1\nTrinity\n138\n351\n80\n190\n39\n109\n20\n46\n8\n3\n5\nTu\n6,381\n18,921\n4,973\n13,894\n1,100\n4,322\n302\n755\n360\n312\n43\nnoe\n357\n792\n280\n640\n28\n72\n43\n80\n57\n51\n5\n4,733\n12,867\n3,693\n10,607\n336\n1,250\n514\n1,001\n382\n331\n45\nroto\n1,817\n4,516\n1,335\n3,038\n294\n879\n212\n409\n100\n141\nVuta\n1,4%\n3,497\n930\n2,200\n415\n1,10)\n47\n147\n95\n8.2\nIncludes all Cash grant families except those engible because of unemployment of a parent.\nData estimated, report(s) not ceived.\nmoroncom\nMr. Neil Bodine\nDate : February 24, 1971\ncutive Director\nStanislaus County Community\nAction Commission\n1317 \"I\" Street\nSubject: National Council on\nModesto, California 95354\nAging Conference ---\nUpdate OF Information\nLewis K. Unler, Director\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\nThe National Council on Aging has requested the assistance of\nthe California CAPS in updating their current files. Their\npurpose is a current contact list for their March 27, 1971,\nannual conference in Washington, D.C.\nPlease send an updated list of all programs for the elderly\n(age 60 or over) to the following:\nNational Council on Aging, Inc.\n1828 L Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nAn information format is attached for your reforence.\nLKU:plg\nAttachment\nCC: Mrs. Beatrice Schiffman\nGOLDEN STATE\nOPPORTUNITY\nREPORT\nCalifornia State Office of Economic Opportunity\nLewis K. Uhler, Director\nSacramento, California - January, 1971\nPLEASE\n10-LIBRAW\nRural County Community Action Program\nDirectors Attend State Resources Conference\nSee story on Page 2\nLewis K. Uhler, State Director of OEO, addressing rural community action program leaders at the Mansion Inn in Sacramento."
}