Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564702",
    "label": "California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Response to Federal Evaluation 04/29/1971, Vol. I (7 of 7)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564702"
}

{
    "id": "118564702",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564702",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Response to Federal Evaluation 04/29/1971, Vol. I (7 of 7)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564702",
    "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-P27-014-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-014-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-014-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564702",
    "naId": 118564702,
    "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-P27-014-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "416dca7203d09225",
    "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- Response to Federal Evaluation 04/29/1971,\nVol. I (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/\nPage 36--3 a. COORDINATION AND PLANNING--Findings (Charge)\n\"The SEOO considers planning for activities that affect the poor\nto be a function of other agencies of state government. This\nattitude is consistent with their perception of their role as\nadvocates of the poor\nThis attitude has resulted in a conflict\nbetween SEOO, CAAs and the Regional Office regarding the steps\nto be taken to achieve involvement of the poor in the planning\nprocess.\n11\nResponse:\nAny state plan to combat poverty within the State should\nstart with quantitative data. The Staff Assistant for Planning,\nSEOO, attempted to collate whatever data was available throughout\nthe State, but it was found that each state agency only collates\nand compiles statistics pertinent to its functions. As a result,\nthe Assistant for Planning visited Mr. Carl Shaw, WR/OEO, San\nFrancisco, who is in charge of budgeting and planning. There,\nhe (Assistant for Planning) was told that Western Regional, which\ndisperses $75,000,000 per year, had no specific, accurate,\nquantitative data, nor any type of module as described in the\nSEOO manual. His suggestion was that \"we wait\". By \"we\", he\nmeant SEOO and the other state agencies wait until such time as\nthe fourth census count data from 1970 was available late in the\nspring of 1972. Mr. Shaw agreed that no meaningful planning could\nbe accomplished or attempted until those fourth count census tapes\nbecame available and a clear idea of the demography of the\npoverty population in various areas of the State was determined.\nThe criticism in the above paragraph quotes that this attitude has\nresulted in a conflict between SEOO, CAAs and Western Regional\nregarding the steps to be taken to achieve involvement of the\npoor in the planning process.\n(2) Coordination of activities with state agencies whose\nactivities affect the poor is recognized as desirable by the SEOO,\nbut has not been emphasized as a priority objective. The priority\nwhich appears to be recognized by the SECO which overrides\ncoordination with other governmental units is its commitment that\npoverty programs would be better conducted and administered if they\nwere placed under the control of local government.\n(3) There is evidence that the SEOO has initiated some\ncoordination activities with state agencies whose activities affect\nthe poor. However, lack of proper follow-up by the SEOO has restricted\nthe effectiveness of these coordination activities.\n(4) There was no evidence that the SEOO has provided\ninformation to the state planning agency and/or CAAS to assist them\nin vertical or horizontal planning.\nb. Conclusion: The SEOO has made little impact on CAAS or other\nstate agencies in the area of program planning. It appears that\nhelping CAAS to better plan programmatically is not a priority.\nC. Rocommendation: Training should be provided to SEOO Technical\nAssistance personnel on:\n(1) Planning and Federal Grant Programs:\n(a) Role of state and local government\n(b) Role of CAAs\n(c) Role of CAMPs\n(2) BOB Circular A-95.\n4. GRANT REVIEW, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION:\na. Perception:\n(1) The perception of the performance of the California State\nOffice of Economic Opportunity in the area of grant review, monitoring,\nand evaluation is pivotal in terms of the office's commitment to meet\nits obligations, as stated in the EQA of 1964, as amended, and OEO\nInstruction 7501-1, to OEO funded agencies in the State of California.\nThere is a wide divergence between the undertaking of the SEOO, as\nstated in its own work program and grant application and its perceived\nand actual performance in this functional area.\n37\nPage 37 b. Conclusion (Charge)\n\"The SEOO has made little impact on CAAs or other state agencies\nin the area of program planning.\"\nRESPONSE:\nI consider this statement to be false at the outset.\nThere is no mention made of the coordination between the Model\nCities Liaison Group within the Lieutenant Governor's Office\nor some of the most recent and only available statistics that\nhave been mailed to the CAAs. It should be further emphasized\nthat many CAAs are in multiple-planning grant areas and have\nspecific funds to carry on their own planning. Unfortunately,\nthe information gathered by these people and what they have done\nhas been refused or there has been lack of cooperation with the\nSEOO in the sharing of the information they have gathered.\nPage 37--4 a. GRANT REVIEW, MONITORING, etc. -- Perception (Charge)\n\"\nThere is a wide divergence between the undertaking of the\nSEOO, as stated in its own work program and grant application,\nand its perceived and actual performance in this functional area. 11\nRESPONSE:\nPerhaps the evaluators should look at the introduction of\n7501-1, which allows a great deal of flexibility for SEOOs to\nmeet the particular needs of a state administration. If the\nflexibility had not been built into the work program, there\nwould have been something wrong with the evaluation of the work\nprogram and grant application as submitted.\n(2) The function of an SEOO is generally viewed as a supportive\none wherein information gathered by a Technical Assistance Specialist\nor \"Community Program Analyst\" should be used not only to measure the\nagency's performance but for the purpose of suggesting possible steps\nto improve the agency and suggesting available resources to implement\nimprovements. The SEOO's stated view of this function is consistent\nwith its grant refunding application and work program. However, a\nnew twist of an investigative nature, with little or no analyses and\ntechnical assistance follow up was perceived by many of the CAAs\ninterviewed. The qualifications and background as set forth in\nresumes of a significant number of individuals employed as Community\nProgram Analyst would also seem to support this perception inasmuch as\na large number of the Community Program Analysts on the SEOO staff have\nhad prior experience in law enforcement, as investigators or insurance\nadjusters. Information obtained from some of the CAAs interviewed\nwould indicate a heavy emphasis on investigation with little or no\non-site help or technical assistance follow up.\nb. Findings:\n(1) Consistent with 020 Instruction 7501-1, 7 (c) and (g),\nRegional 0E0 invited appropriate SECO staff members to participate\nin some evaluations and pre-reviews. In at least two instances as\nto the former, SE00 staff members invited did respond affirmatively\n(Berkeley and Oakland CAAs). However, with respect to the evaluation\nof Oakland, the SECO staff member reportedly withdrew prematurely.\nAs to pre-reviews, SEOO staff members were consistently involved but\nusually purely on a silent basis with little or no assistance being\noffered.\n(2) Considering grant review, monitoring, and evaluation\nfunctions as perceived by the SECO, the reports received by the\nevaluation team from respondents showed that the SEOO was extremely\nactive in this area. However, the CAA Directors interviewed indicated\nthat these functions were not performed in a positive or constructive\nmanner. In a number of situations, actions by the SEOO were clearly\naimed at gathering information to discredit the programs of the very\nagencies being subjected to grant review, monitoring or evaluation.\nThere was very little follow up in terms of analyses of problems,\nsharing the analyses with the agency under scrutiny, or suggesting\nsteps to remedy the problems discovered.\n(3) Broadly speaking, as a result of the investigative\nemphasis placed by the SE00 on the grant review, monitoring, and\nevaluation function, the SEOO's activity has a demoralizing effect\non OEO funded agencies in the State. Such demoralization gave way to\nincreased alienation and an isolationist attitude by the CAAs to the\npoint that the SEOO is no longer viewed as their advocate or as a\nprovider of moaningful technical assistance.\n38\nFederal Report\nPage 38\nCharge\n\"Consistent with OEO Instruction 7501-1, 7(c) and (g),\nRegional OEO invited appropriate SEOO staff members to\nparticipate in some evaluations and pre-reviews. In at\nleast two instances as to the former, SEOO staff members\ninvited did respond affirmatively (Berkeley and Oakland\nCAAs). However, with respect to the evaluation of Oakland,\nthe SEOO staff member reportedly withdrew prematurely. As\nto pre-reviews, SEOO staff members were consistently\ninvolved by usually purely on a silent basis with little\nor no assistance being offered.\nResponse:\nThe Oakland monitor and other members of the SEOO staff\ndid actively participate in the pre-reviews of the Oakland\nCAA. Significant input was made during the pre-review\nsessions and the Oakland monitor later assisted the\nRegional OEO field representative and the Regional Counsel\nin developing the \"Letter of Understanding\" to the agency.\nPage 38\nCharge:\n\"b. Findings: (1) Consistent with OEO Instruction 7501-1,\n7 (c) and (g), Regional OEO invited appropriate SEOO staff\nmembers to participate in some evaluations and pre-reviews.\nIn at least two instances as to the former, SEOO staff\nmembers invited did respond affirmatively (Berkeley and\nOakland CAAS). However, with respect to the evaluation\nof Oakland, the SEOO staff member reportedly withdrew\nprematurely. As to pre-reviews, SEOO staff members were\nconsistently involved but usually purely on a silent\nbasis with little or no assistance being offered.\"\nResponse:\nState OEO has attempted to attend pre-review sessions\nheld by Regional OEO. It is interesting to note that\nthis evaluation left out the fact that on three docu-\nmented occasions this office was notified one day in\nadvance of pre-reviews; hardly enough time to change\nstaff priorities.\nThe claim that our staff members have withdrawn pre-\nmaturely is erroneous and mis-placed.\nThe notion that pre-reviews should involve the active\nparticipation of our staff members in rhetorical de-\nbates misses the point of pre-reviews. Pre-reviews\nare sessions in which State and Regional offices come\nto listen to the progress that Community Action Agencies\nhave made, and their new plans and priorities. At\nthis time, Regional representatives, in their pater-\nnalistic and highly arrogant manner, dominate pre-\nreviews with the result being that pre-reviews\nbecome circuses in which low-income people receive\nlittle benefit in terms of their programs or in learn-\ning how to conduct their own personal lives.\nC. Conclusion: The performance of the grant review, monitoring,\nand evaluation function by the California SEOO is looked on by CAAs\nas investigative which in its context is neither positive nor con-\nstructive, as originally intended, and is interpreted as punitive.\nd. Recommendation:\n(1) The SEOO should employ Technical Assistants and Community\nProgram Analysts, if that title is retained, who have knowledge of\na CAA's functions and purposes and who are prepared to and committed\nto carrying out those functions and purposes.\n(2) Grant review, monitoring, and evaluation activities\nshould be followed up with in depth technical assistance.\n5. ADVOCACY FOR THE POOR:\na. Perception: Most SEOO staff members that were interviewed\nindicated by their responses to the questionnaire that they did not\nconsider advocacy for the poor a significant function of the SEOO.\nThe results of tabulating the questionnaire responses by SECO per-\nsonnel concerning the SEOO's role as advocate for the poor revealed\nthe following results: Only 27% of the SEOO staff felt it had per-\nformed specific tasks related to the advocacy function, 59% did not\nknow, and 14% said it had not. Only 2% of the CAAs responding felt\nthe SEOO performed specific tasks related to this function--84% said\nno (see Tabulation Section). Often the SEOO staff members interviewed\nstated that they did not know of any instances where the SEOO had\nattempted to make state-poverty-related programs more responsive to\nthe needs and desires of the poor and had no knowledge of any at-\ntempts to assess state administrative procedures nor of any efforts\nto make them more responsive to the needs and desires of the poor.\nFurther, they had no knowledge of any attempts to develop career\nopportunities for the poor within other state agencies and had no\nknowledge of the SECO consulting regularly with local CAAs and other\nrepresentatives of the poor on legislation that they felt should be\nrecommended to the Governor or the state legislature. In fact, the\nSenior Staff of the SEOO generally agreed that in the allocation of\nits staff resources advocacy for the poor received a low priority.\nOne Senior Staff member estimated that only 2% of the SEOO's staff\nresources were allocated to advocacy for the poor while other\nSenior Staff members estimated the allocation in the 10% range.\nb. Findings: Of the non-SEOO persons interviewed, few had any\nknowledge of the SEOO performing any advocacy role for the poor.\n39\nThe prevailing opinion was that the SEOO had not demonstrated by any\nof its actions that it felt any responsibility for the advocate role.\nNo poor persons were reported to have been appointed to any State\nboards or commissions. It is not felt that the SEOO would advocate\nmaking such appointments.\nC. Conclusion:\n(1) No evidence was discovered which would point to the SEOO\nas an advocate for the poor.\n(2) The SEOO could not show any state administration changes\ndirectly attributable to the SECO which would benefit the poor.\n(3) There was no evidence that career opportunities have\nbeen made available in other state agencies as the result of the ef-\nforts of the SEOO.\n(4) With perhaps one minor exception, the SEOO has not yet\nfound it possible to hire poor persons within its own office.\n(5) In short, the California SEOO has not fulfilled its role\nand responsibility of being an advocate for the poor.\na. Recommendation: Future grants to the SE00 should contain a\nspecial condition wherein the California SEOO specifically recognizes\nand accepts its role as an advocate for the poor. No future work\nprograms from the California SEOO should be accepted unless it spells\nout in detail specific objectives relating to its advocacy role to-\ngether with a detailed strategy of achieving the objectives stated.\n40\nPage 40 --Conclusions (Charge)\n\"5. ADVOCACY FOR THE POOR: C. Conclusion: (1) No evidence was dis-\ncovered which would point to the SEOO as an advocate for the poor. (2) The\nSEOO could not show any state administration changes directly attributable\nto the SEOO which would benefit the poor.\n(5) In short, the California\nSEOO has not fulfilled its role and responsibility of being an advocate for\nthe poor 11\nResponse\nIt is obviously the conclusion of individuals whose philosophical perspectives\nare much different than ours. It is hard for us to draw the conclusion from\nsuch comments that our evaluators are truly interested in solving the problems\nof poverty through responsible and legitimate actions.\nFurthermore, it would be interesting to compare the technical assistance\noffered by our new and growing staff, in both quality and quantity, with\nestablished technical assistance organizations, such as SDI and ATAC.\nFEDERAL REPORT, PAGE 40\nCHARGE:\nC. Conclusion:\n(1) No evidence was discovered which would point to the\nSEOO as an advocate for the poor.\n(5) In short, the California SEOO has not fulfilled its\nrole and responsibility of being an advocate for the poor.\nOne of the conditions set forth by this office in the matter\nof the Santa Clara Legal Aid Society VISTA proposal was that\n\"VISTA attorneys work on individual service cases only\".\nThis condition was set because of the following:\n1. On February 26, 1970, the Executive Director of the\nSanta Clara Legal Aid Society in a letter to Superior\nCourt Judge Kennedy, Santa Clara County, stated that\nthere was a \"change in direction\", and the Santa Clara\nLegal Aid Society \"programs under the existing under-\nfunding must move into law reform and away from every\nday cases. 11 On March 5, Judge Kennedy replied to Mr. Ono\nand stated that the matter had been discussed at the\nweekly conference of the Superior Court Judges, and\nthat the Judges expressed considerable concern over\nthe adverse effect it will have on indigent litigants.\nJudge Kennedy's letter further reads: \"Because of\nthe far reaching ramifications of your decision and\nbecause the need for legal services is so ever present\nand pressing, the Judges urge that you reconsider this\ndecision. 11\n2. In a letter to Robert Finch, then Secretary of HEW, on\nApril 21, 1970, O. Vincent Bruno, Presiding Judge of\nthe Superior Court, State of California, County of Santa\nClara, voiced his concern, as well as that of the 21\nSuperior Court Judges of that court, \"about the whole-\nsale withdrawal of the program\" from indigent litigants\nin these various fields where representation is\ndesperately needed.\n3. On January 6, 1971, the Santa Clara County United Fund,\nin a letter to the Santa Clara County Bar Association,\nvoiced its concern regarding the \"apparent diminishing\nlegal aid and assistance services to the indigent by the\nCommunity Legal Services organization\" and said that\na study on this matter had been ordered. The letter\nfurther states that, \"pending the results of the study,\nand in order to assure that indigents needing legal\nadvice and assistance receive said help, the United Fund\nBoard of Trustees has authorized the establishment for\n1971 of a \"drawing account\" against which the Community\nLegal Services can seek reimbursement for services\nactually certified as having been given to indigent\nindividuals and families.\n-2-\n4. Lengthy conversations with Superior Court Judge O. Vincent\nBruno in San Jose during January of 1971. Judge Bruno\nstated that he is continually concerned that the poor\nare not being represented and are in dire need of\nindividual representation.\n5. A statement made at the Board meeting of the Santa Clara\nCounty Legal Aid Society on January 12, 1971, by a Board\nmember, Mr. Richard Salaz from Gilroy, that individual legal\nservice was badly needed by the poor in his community.\nThus, the above-mentioned condition was an insistence by this\noffice that the poor receive all consideration and assistance\nthey need.\nTheresa McInnes\nVISTA Coordinator\nState Office of Economic\nOpportunity\nPage 40 5 d. ADVOCACY FOR THE POOR--Conclusion (Charge)\n\"Future grants to the SEOO should contain a special condition\nwherein the California SEOO specifically recognizes and accepts\nits role as an advocate for the poor. No future work programs\nfrom the California SEOO should be accepted unless it spells out\nin detail specific objectives relating to its advocacy role\ntogether with a detailed strategy of achieving the objectives\nstated.\nRESPONSE:\nHere again, there is an apparent problem with the meanings\nof advocacy as it is my belief that SEOO has in fact performed\nthe role of advocacy--but perhaps not in terms which are readily\nunderstandable by the evaluators. For example, constant\ncommunication between the Human Relations Agency Secretary and\nthe Department of Social Welfare is ongoing relating to the\nGovernor's new welfare reform program. A number of conversations\nand memorandums have been written in order to improve the particular\nprogram advocated by the Governor. Other forms of advocacy take\nplace when various groups who have been shunned or discouraged\nby their local CAAs have come to the SEOO requesting its help\nin devising, constructing, and funding worthwhile programs. Cer-\ntainly, this office initially evaluates each of these requests for\nits merits, and when it is proven that the CAA has been derelict\nin its duties to listen to these groups, the SEOO has expended\nits resources in developing such special programs, many of which\nmay be in divergence with existing state programs. This difference\nthat exists between the innovative programs brought to us and\nfor which we give technical assistance we consider to be instuti-\ntional changes which ultimately will benefit low-income persons.\nTHE SEOO GRANTS\nThe parts of the Narrative Section that follow depart in some in-\nstances from the format of the earlier parts of the Narrative Section\nwhich discussed the SEOO's performance in relation to other agencies\nand with respect to its priority functions. For the most part the\nparts that follow deal briefly with the plans and priorities estab-\nlished by the SEOO and more specifically with the quality of the\nwork programs submitted and with the SEOO's performance of those pro-\ngrams.\n1. REGULAR GRANT:\nThis section of the Evaluation Report addresses itself largely to\nthe CAP 81 and the work program submitted by the California SEOO.\nBoth documents are quite general in nature.\nThe CAP 81 contemplated improvement in information about local needs\nand grantee capabilities through an expanded, outstationed and better\ntrained field analyst staff. The SEOO has expanded its staff and has\noutstationed personnel in Southern California.\nThe plans and priorities also expected substantially increased capa-\ncity to the SEOO to create \"a poverty information module\" for SEOO,\ngrantee, and legislative use in assessing needs, assigning priorities,\nand allocating resources to decrease poverty. There is no evidence\nthat this has been achieved. Also, it does not appear that the SEOO\nhas been able to provide other state agencies with comprehensive and\ncurrent data on poverty \"to assure a coherent and unified multi-\nagency approach to interpretation and use of information on poverty\nand anti-poverty resources.'\nSEOO priorities listed in the CAP 81 are: (1) to increase the scope,\naccuracy, and reliability of information on conditions of poverty\nand on the availability and use of all anti-poverty resources in\nCalifornia, for state and local planning, funding, coordinative, and\nlegislative use, as well as in projects to stimulate public awareness\nof the conditions of poverty, (2) to provide, or arrange and coordi-\nnate the provision by other sources of, greatly improved multi-\nspeciality technical assistance to grantees and other appropriate\nagents in the California anti-poverty effort, (3) to encourage both\nthe already indicated trend of California governmental officials to-\nward more involvement in anti-poverty programs and their increasing\ninterest in the efficient, well-coordinated application of state\ngovernmental and private resources to the problems of poverty in\nCalifornia, and (4) to gain the capacity to mobilize business, vol-\nunteer, and foundation resources of a systematic consequential way\nto promote economic opportunity.\n41\nWhile it appears that the SEOO has made a start on these priorities,\nprogress has been slow. Other state agencies have not yet felt the\ncoordination efforts of the SEOO. It should be noted, however, that\nthe resources conference of last December referred to elsewhere in\nthis report does represent a major effort on the part of the SEOO.\nThe first goal listed in the CAP 81 is \"to provide review of and\nassistance to grantees in greater depth by an increased and better\ntrained analyst staff, with the object of providing sufficient in-\ntensity and continuity of State-CAA relationships to resolve as\nmany areas as possible of mutual concern about programs prior to the\nrefunding-review stage.\" The SEOO apparently has been unable to es-\ntablish a meaningful relationship with many of the CAAs. Their re-\nview of CAAs may be designed to resolve areas of mutual concern about\nprograms prior to refunding but it has not reached this goal in the\nview of many of the CAAs.\nThe third goal for the year starting July 1, 1970, was to develop\nassistance and demonstration projects in the use of volunteer ser-\nvices, excess property, and community college resources; in programs\nof technical aid to Indians, disadvantaged youth, and Headstart-Day\nCare projects. Little was learned about what the office has done\nregarding the use of volunteer services.\nLittle information was available on the other two goals for the year:\ncompletion of a systematic approach to SEOO planning and management by\nobjectives and creation of an information module in conjunction with DHRD\nto enable comprehensive and systematic collection, compilation, stor-\nage, retrieval, and dissemination of data on poverty and anti-poverty\nresources in California.\nThe work program is extremely vague. The office was able to increase\nits staff substantially, through the demonstration and STAP grants.\nConclusions:\n1. The SEOO has attempted to follow its vaguely-defined work\nprogram. In addition to adding the personnel provided by increased\nfunding, it has also filled other positions indicated in the work\nprogram. The addition of the Community Program Analysts was designed\nto satisfy the assistance and review requirements of the grantees in\nCalifornia. It appears that the emphasis has been on the review\nrather than on assistance.\n2. The SEOO has also, as called for in the work program, out-\nstationed Community Program Analysts. It also appears that there\nhas been some improvement in management of the office since last\nJuly.\n3. The improved working relationships with Regional represent-\natives, including participation in grantee pre-review, apparently\n42\nPage 42 -- 1. REGULAR GRANT (Charge)\nThe first goal listed in the CAP 81\n...\nThe SEOO apparently\nhas been unable to establish a meaningful relationship with\nmany of the CAAs. Their review of CAAs may be designed to\nresolve areas of mutual concern about programs prior to\nrefunding but it has not reached this goal in the view of\nmany of the CAAs.\nThe third goal for the year starting July 1, 1970, was to\ndevelop assistance and demonstration projects in the use of\nvolunteer services, excess property, and community college\nresources; in programs of technical aid to Indians, disadvantaged\nyouth, and Headstart-Day Care projects. Little was learned\nabout what the office has done regarding the use of volunteer\nservices.\nLittle information was available on the other two goals for\nthe year: completion of a systematic approach to SEOO\nplanning and management by objectives and creation of an\ninformation module in conjunction with DHRD to enable\ncomprehensive and systematic collection, compilation, storage,\nretrieval, and dissemination of data on poverty and anti-\npoverty resources in California.\nRESPONSE:\nThe first paragraph of the Sections listed in the CAP 81 has\nbeen answered throughout this document as concerns the\nmobilization of resources. The second one having to develop\nassistance of demonstration projects and voluntary services\nis now being met. An example of that was the efforts of this\noffice to mobilize PSA stewardesses to provide volunteer\nwork for the San Mateo Head Start programs. People were\nput in contact with the program and it is my understanding\nthat several stewardesses did go to work voluntarily in the\nEast Palo Alto program in San Mateo County. Other volunteer\nservice programs are being developed including one that\nwe are doing now between the unemployed engineers in aero-\nspace in the Sacramento area and other areas of the State,\nas well as the poor bringing both groups together so that\nthe technical skills of the engineers can be put to work\nwith the laboring skills of the low income people to the\nmutual benefit of economic development of both groups.\nThe problem of goal definition, planning and management by\ntechnical assistance in the last application was one that we\ninherited when we took over this office after the last grant\nin August 1970. This has been remedied by specification of\ngoals in the 1971-72 grant.\npage 42\nCharge:\n\"l. Regular grant: The first goal listed in the CAP 81\nThe SEOO apparently has been unable to establish a mean-\ningful relationship with many of the CAAS. Their review\nof CAAs may be designed to resolve areas of mutual concern\nabout programs prior to refunding but it has not reached\nthis goal in view of many of the CAAs.\nResponse:\nAgain the State Office of Economic Opportunity must\nask what it means to establish a \"meaningful relation-\nship with many of the CAAs. 11 Does this mean that we\nshould merely accept their rhetoric and inefficiencies\nin many instances rather than going in and taking a\nhard-headed no-nonsense approach to this area of\ngovernment. Assuming this position, one would have\nto say that all areas of government should behave\nin the same manner; this is hardly an acceptable\nposition for any agency of government.\nhas been spotty, although the office has been participating to an\nextent in pre-reviews.\n4. Only one poor person has been employed by the SEOO in a non-\nprofessional position as a kind of \"girl Friday\". The work plan\nindicates that \"the opportunity to employ poor people on the SEOO\nstaff does not exist. This is an area which State OEO expects to\nexplore.\" John Sawicki stated, \"This office has not undertaken to\nhire 'poor people' for one main reason, that nobody has ever ap-\nplied, nor have we made a concentrated effort to recruit 'poor people'.\n5. The work program also indicates that the increase in staff\nwill enable the SEOO to gain the capacity to encourage the actual\nemployment of poor people by other agencies and to participate\nin the development, implementation, and review of programs\nwhich serve them. If this capacity has been realized, the re-\nsults apparently have been minimal. The same is true with the develop-\nment of career opportunities for the poor in other state agencies.\n6. While it is not clearly spelled out, the work program indi-\ncates worthwhile objectives in the area of technical assistance to\ngrantees, mobilization of resources, and career development oppor-\ntunities for poor people in state government. During the eight\nmonths this grant has been in force, it appears that adequate results\nhave not yet been obtained.\n7. The principal achievement has been in the area of review of\ngrantees in order to help the Governor carry out his responsibilites\nunder Section 242 of the Economic Opportunity Act.\n2. STAP GRANT:\na. Facts: Effective May 1, 1970, OEO, Region IX, approved a\nSTAP grant for $114, 184 which authorized the California SEOO to hire\nfour specialists (management, low-cost housing, economic development,\nand community development) to provide long-range, on-site expert\ntechnical assistance to rural CAAs and poverty communities. The SEOO\nagreed as a special condition to the grant to operate within the pro-\nvisions of the STAP guidelines and to use an advisory panel--with OEO\nrepresentation--to review the qualifications of all candidates for\npositions under this grant.\nb. Positive Findings: One of the most constructive, valuable\nactivities of the SEOO in the past seven/eight months has been the\nperformance of their STAP specialists where they have had the oppor-\ntunity to work with a few rural CAAs. The STAP specialists were\nlargely instrumental in organizing the successful State Resources\nMobilization Conference in Sacramento in December, 1970. Valuable\nassistance, especially in the fields of management (Throne) and hous-\ning (Frane), was cited by several rural CAAs. In addition, the STAP\nhousing specialist organized five housing workshops throughout the\n43\nPage 43 -- CONCLUSIONS (Charge)\nWhile it is not clearly spelled out, the work program indicates\nworthwhile objectives in the area of technical assistance to\ngrantees, mobilization of resources, and career development\nopportunities for poor people in state government. During\nthe eight months this grant has been in force, it appears\nthat adequate results have not yet been obtained.\nRESPONSE:\nAgain, SEOO, the present SEOO administration, inherited the\ngrant under which it operated for the 1970-71 period and\nthe previous administration. The deficiencies in the\nprevious grant have been remedied in the grant of the 1971-\n72 period.\nstate to tap the resources of the Farmers' Home Administration loan\nprogram. He also developed a promising intern training program of\npara-professionals in rural housing. The economic development spe-\ncialist (Archer) has developed a Rural Transportation Cooperative\n(Placer County), has worked with minority contractors to develop a\nprofit-making corporation, and has helped create \"Indians Campground,\nInc.\" to help low-income Indians use their reservation lands as com-\nmercial camping facilities.\nC. Negative Findings:\n(1) Three vacancies in the four STAP positions. have occurred\nsince September, 1970 (one by firing, one left to work for another\nSEOO, and one was just recently transferred to another grant (Demon-\nstration) of the California SEOO). These vacancies were immediately\nfilled by the SEOO Director without the use of an advisory panel\nwhich is a violation of the grant conditions.\n(2) There is serious reservation on the part of the evaluation\nteam that two of the three STAP replacements meet the qualifications\nof their job descriptions (Carter and Chickering).\n(3) Two of the new people hired to fill STAP slots are not\nperforming STAP functions (according to STAP guidelines) for much of\ntheir time, but are being used for such SEOO staff position as General\nCounsel (chickering) and Technical Assistance Chief and \"Deputy Direc-\ntor for Program Analysis\" (Schur). The evaluation team observed that\nthese two people appear to be quite capable but that STAP personnel\nare not meant to be used for SEOO staff assignments.\nd. Results: The STAP program began in California with well-\nqualified people and the opportunity to provide valuable, needed\ntechnical assistance to rural poverty communities. Some useful tech-\nnical assistance and resource mobilization has taken place, but the\nSTAP program has not met its full potential because the STAP guide-\nlines have not been followed.\ne. Conclusion: Unless the SEOO uses qualified personnel for\nSTAP and has them out in the rural communities to provide long-range,\non-site technical assistance according to the STAP guidelines, the\nSTAP program in California will be a failure and should not be re-\nfunded.\n3. DEMONSTRATION GRANT:\na. Facts: Effective August 15, 1970, WR/OEO approved a demon-\nstration grant for $162,170 for a 10.5 month funding to allow the\nCalifornia SEOO to hire professionals (plus two clerical personnel)\nto provide special technical assistance to OEO grantees in manage-\nment speciality areas, in child development, and to develop and coord-\ninate programs for low-income Indians.\n'44\nPage 44 -- 2.c. STAP GRANT, NEGATIVE FINDINGS (Charge)\n(1) Three vacancies in the four STAP positions have occurred\nsince September, 1970 (one by firing, one left to work for\nanother SEOO, and one was just recently transferred to another\ngrant (Demonstration) of the California SEOO) . These\nvacancies were immediately filled by the SEOO Director without\nthe use of an advisory panel which is a violation of the grant\nconditions.\nRESPONSE:\nFuture vacancies for the STAP grant will be filled in compliance\nwith STAP grant guidelines. The previous ones were not followed\nbecause of the pressure of time and because of the lack of\nadequate personnel to be immediately on hand to do the job\nwhen it was needed.\nPage 44 -- 2.c. STAP GRANT, NEGATIVE FINDINGS (Charge)\n(2) There is serious reservation on the part of the evaluation\nteam that two of three STAP replacements meet the qualifications\nof their job descriptions (Carter and Chickering).\nRESPONSE:\nOne STAP replacement who did not meet the qualifications of\nthe position for which he was selected was transferred back\ninto the CPA section. The second STAP selection, Mr. Jim\nGordon, has an extensive economic development background\nincluding that in the anti-poverty program through SDI and\nhas developed over a million and a half dollars of programs\nin the areas in which he had responsibility. The third\nperson, Mr. Barny Schur, is both a professor of business\nand public administration at local Bay Area colleges and\nuniversities, and has had over seven years of program\nadministrative experience in both the food stamp program\nand anti-poverty programs.\nLawry Chickering was hired to work both as a general counsel\nand in community development. The general counsel was an\ninternal assignment outside of the normal STAP activities.\nHowever, under the STAP responsibility, Mr. Chickering\nhas devoted at least 60% of his time in the development of\ncommunity development programs including those on drugs,\non prisoners, housing, employment development, and other\nlegal problems that affect directly community development\nprograms. Mr. Chickering also served on the National\nAdvisory Council on Minority Business Enterprises before\njoining SEOO.\nPage 44 -- 2.c. STAP GRANT, NEGATIVE FINDINGS (Charge)\n(3) Two of the new people hired to fill STAP slots are not\nperforming STAP functions (according to STAP guidelines) for\nmuch of their time, but are being used for such SEOO staff\npositions as General Counsel (Chickering) and Technical\nAssistance Chief and \"Deputy Director for Program Analysis\"\n(Schur). The evaluation team observed that these two\npeople appear to be quite capable but that STAP personnel\nare not meant to be used for SEOO staff assignments.\nRESPONSE:\nIn order to run a STAP/TA section efficiently, one man has\nto be given overall management and administrative responsibilities\nfor that section. This is inherent in any kind of planning,\ndirection and control function in the management activities\nof any organization. Because of this problem, Barny Schur\nwith his extensive background in management and administration\nwas assigned these responsibilities for both STAP/TA section.\nAdditionally, a line functional authority must be assigned\nto somebody in SEOO in order to work cooperatively with CAPs,\ndepartment heads and Board Chairmen as well as other officials\nin the assessment, delivery and follow-up of TA activities.\nIt, therefore, is altogether appropriate and fitting, in\na management context, that one man be capable in performing\nthis function and is selected from the TA or STAP section to\noversee and supervise the entire TA program.\nStaff assignments are inherent in any kind of TA organization\nbe they engineers, doctors, dentists or any other kind of\nprofessional technician. Given the amount of funds in the\nSTAP grant and the TA grant, it is impossible to divide long\nrange onsite TA to CAPs throughout the State of California.\nIt is too much to ask a man to stay onsite on a long range\nprogram to serve one or two CAPs when there is a need state-\nwide. Therefore, it is the premise of the SEOO to serve\nthose CAPs whose problems can be solved first. The indepth\ncomplicated problems that would require long term onsite\nexpensive services are not feasible for SEOO to undertake\nat this particular time and to a great degree these kinds\nof needs have been provided by ATAC and SDI for service.\nb. Positive Findings: Some of the professionals eventually\nhired for these positions appear to be reasonably well-qualified.\nSome useful technical assistance was provided by the Early Child-\nto )où Development Specialist.\nC. Negative Findings:\n(1) The SEOO has not used this grant, and most of the pro-\nfessionals hired by the grant, to carry out the demonstration goals\nand work program. Some of the professionals hired under the grant\nhave instead been used (see attached analysis section on manpower\nallocation on Blaker, Clark, Cunningham, Taylor, and Whitely) as\nCommunity Program Analysts (CPAs) for monitoring, investigating,\nand performing grant review functions for the greatest majority of\ntheir time. Even the latest organization chart of the SEOO (ap-\nproved by Director Lewis K. Uhler about mid-February, 1971) shows\nthat one professional (Clark - personnel management) is performing\na CPA-type (investigative) function.\n(2) As with the STAP grant, there has been no apparent at-\ntempt to isolate the functions of personnel under this grant from\nthe regular SEOO grant thus making it difficult to assess the effec-\ntiveness of the program as a demonstration.\n(3) The position of SEOO Indian (or \"Special Programs\")\nCoordinator was only filled on February 12, 1971, (six months after\neffective date of grant) and then by transferring a STAP Economic\nDevelopment Specialist (Archer) to this position.\n(4) Reports from grantee interviews show almost no positive\nreports on useful technical assistance provided by the specialists\nhired under this demonstration grant.\nd. Results: While there was a great need for the services--on\nthe part of OEO grantees--and the specialists hired seemed fairly\nwell-qualified, this demonstration has been a failure as the tech-\nnical assistance has not, in fact, been delivered except for a sig-\nnificant portion of the time of one specialists (Taylor - Early\nChildhood Development).\ne. Conclusion: The demonstration grant should not be refunded.\nThe most qualified specialists could be used by the SEOO in place of\nthe less qualified CPAs in the regular program.\n4. OAKLAND GRANT:\na. Perception: Although Oakland demonstration grant was written\nprimarily to \"support a technical assistance consultant to effect ex-\ntensive improvement in the management of OEDCI and to review compli-\nance with OEO regulations and special conditions,\" many believe the\n45\nPage 45 -- 3. C. DEMONSTRATION GRANT, NEGATIVE FINDINGS (Charge)\n(2) As with the STAP grant, there has been no apparent\nattempt to isolate the functions of personnel under this\ngrant from the regular SEOO grant thus making it difficult\nto assess the effectiveness of the program as a demonstration.\nRESPONSE:\nComments made in STAP grant and other TA sections are germaine\nto this whole thing and can be repeated as a summary.\nPage 45--Charge\n\"Although Oakland demonstration grant was written primarily to 'support a\ntechnical assistance consultant to effect extensive improvement in the\nmanagement of OEDCI and to review compliance with OEO regulations and\nspecial conditions', many believe the funds under this grant were used to\nsupport an investigation and to find reasons to close OEDCI and were not\nused to assist OEDCI with training and technical assistance.'\nResponse\nThe charge fails to mention the specific items in the State grant to which\nthe Oakland monitor is to address himself. The grant states, in Item I,\npage 2 of the work contract, that the monitor shall, at a minimum:\n(a) Review OEDCI compliance with OEO regulations and special conditions\non the OEDCI grant;\n(b) Review OEDCI management and program operations, diagnose areas of\nweakness, and submit recommendations for improved performance to the\nPresident, OEDCI, Executive Director of OEDCI and OEO;\n(c) Upon request by OEDCI, provide technical assistance to the grantee\nor mobilize technical assistance resources from the SEOO staff and/or\nappropriate state agencies to assist the community action agency;\n(d) To coordinate the participation of the SEOO in the joint federal-state-\ncity review of OEDCI programs to begin October 1, 1970;\n(e) Participate jointly with OEO staff in discussions with the CMIP\ncontractor chosen byOEO and OEDCI. Submit recommendations to OEDCI\nand OEO for effective use of the CMIP grant.\nThese items place major emphasis on monitoring, evaluation and coordin-\nation with the appropriate Regional Office staff. The compliance with this\npart of the grant is evidenced by a letter from the OEO Regional Director of\nDecember 23, 1970, commending SEOO staff members for their efforts in\nthe Oakland evaluation (attachment \"A\").\nCharge\n\"The Executive Director reported that neither he nor the OEDCI Board were\napprised of plans to fund this demonstration nor were they sent a CAP\nForm 76 for comment at the time the application was submitted or funded. II\nResponse\nDuring the refunding process of OEDCI in May, 1970, SEOO requested that\nWestern Regional OEO include, in the OEDCI grant, information about the\nSEOO monitor and the extent of his responsibilities in Oakland.\nWestern Regional OEO refused to make this information a part of the grant\nbut, instead, the Regional Director stated he would instruct a representa-\ntive to communicate the information gally to OEDCI.\nCharge\n\"The Regional IX, OEDCI field representative, Rick Morada, stated to an\ninterviewor that he was not aware that the Oakland demonstration grant\nexisted. Therefore, he could not comment on it. Morada said that the\nonly thing he perceived the SEOO doing in OEDCI was investigation.\"\nResponse\nThe fact that the Regional OEO representative assigned to OEDCI was un-\naware that the SEOO Oakland grant existed is no fault of SEOO. A primary\nresponsibility of the Regional representative is to be knowledgeable of all\nsuch grants in areas within his jurisdiction.\nCharge\n\"There has been very little meaningful coordination between the appropriate\nRegional Office staff (field representative), the CAA or the special technical\nassistance consultant funded under this (SEOO) grant. 11\nResponse\nIf a Regional OEO field representative did, in fact, make this statement, it\nwould contradict statements made in the letter of the Regional Director of\nDecember 23, 1970, where he speaks of the positive efforts of SEOO in the\nOakland eval uation (previous attachment \"A\").\nCharge\n\"The special technical assistance consultant has not regularly attended\nOEDCI Board and Executive Committee meetings. It was reported that the\nconsultant attended only one such meeting.'\nResponse\nThe field representative for the Western Regional OEO and Board Members of\nOEDCI can substantiate that SEOO monitor attended most OEDCI Board meet-\nings and several Executive Committee meetings.\nCharge\n\"No quarterly diagnostic reports have been submitted to the WR/OEO or OEDCI.\nSince August 1, 1970, there should have been two quarterly reports submitted.\"\nResponse\nSEOO, in cooperation with Western Regional OEO, the City of Oakland and\nBoard members of OEDCI, conducted an in-depth study of OEDCI, which\nlasted approximately two months. The findings, along with recommendations,\nwere submitted to OEDCI staff and the Board of Directors. As a result of these\nreports, a special committee of the OEDCI Board was assigned to review and\nsubmit recommendations concerning matters contained therein. A copy of the\nreport of the special committee is attached.\nCharge\n\"The resume submitted for the person hired as the special technical assistance\nconsultant under the grant does not meet the qualifications described in the\ngrant.\n\"Mr. Espana, the special technical assistance consultant hired, was not\napproved by Region IX, OEO, as required by the grant.\"\nResponse\nIn the opinion of the SEOO, the Oakland monitor had the qualifications to\nproperly discharge the SEOO responsibilities of the subject grant. Further-\nmore, the grant does not require SEOO to obtain approval from WR/OEO in\nthe selection of the Oakland monitor.\nThe effectiveness of the Oakland monitor and the other SEOO staff members\nwho assisted in the evaluation of OEDCI is evidenced by the letter of the\nRegional OEO Director of December 23, 1970, and the acceptance of the\nSEOO report by the special committee of OEDCI (attachment \"B\").\nCharge\n\"There was no evidence that the SEOO had attempted to administer or\nimplement this grant as written at the Oakland CAA. To date, there has\nbeen no meaningful technical assistance provided to OEDCI staff, Board\nor low-income groups.\"\nResponse\nThe terms of the grant stipulate that technical assistance will be pro-\nvided OEDCI upon request by the agency. Although no requests have been\nmade for TA, SEOO did provide assistance in various ways:\n(1) In a letter to the President of OEDCI, it was stated that major weak-\nnesses and questionable expenditures of funds existed in the Outreach\nprogram, and we offered the assistance of this office in rectifying these\nconditions.\n(2) In a letter to the President of OEDCI, we stated that irregularities\nhad taken place in the target area elections, which resulted in several\ntarget area delegates of OEDCI being invalidly seated. We offered to\nassist the agency in its review of the matter.\n(3) In a letter to the President of OEDCI, we informed him of incidents\nof unauthorized political actions in which staff members of OEDCI had\nengaged and requested that instruction on OEO regulations be provided\nto all staff and Board members.\n(4) In response to a request by the Chairman of the Outreach panel to\nprovide the panel with information about deficiencies in the Outreach\nprogram, the Oakland monitor attended a Saturday meeting in Oakland\nfor this purpose. However, because of a lack of quorum, no official\nmeeting was held.\n(5) In coordination with the Regional Office, staff members of SEOO\nassisted in monitoring the OEDCI target area elections of 1971. The\nOakland monitor did, previous to the elections, assist at least one\nOEDCI advisory committee in learning about the plans and procedures\nand special grant conditions affecting the elections.\n(6) During the course of our examination of the financial records of\nthe Neighborhood Service Program, a delegate agency of OEDCI,\nvarious methods relative to improving the internal controls were\nrecommended and discussed with the staff.\n(7) A detailed report was submitted to the Regional Auditor covering an\nanalysis and comments of various CPA audits of OEDCI. Included was a\nrecommendation that the report be discussed and reviewed with OEDCI\nin an effort to improve their accounting system and its internal controls.\n(8) An on-site evaluation involving the cooperative and collaborative\nefforts of (a) Office of Economic Opportunity, Region IX, (b) California\nState Office of Economic Opportunity, (c) City of Oakland and (d) the\nOakland Economic Development Council, Inc., was conducted of the\nOEDCI operations in November and December, 1970. Team members\nmet daily for orientation, assignments and consultations. Each team\nmember was required to submit a narrative report of his findings and\nopinions of each program evaluated. In an exit conference with OEDCI,\nit was mutually agreed that valuable technical assistance was derived\nfrom this evaluation. In addition, valuable technical assistance was\nprovided at the time of the evaluation team's on-site visits to OEDCI\nheadquarters, Area Service Centers, Teen-age Parent Participation\nProgram at Oakland YWCA, American Indian Service Center, Filipino\nInformation Service Center, Spanish-Speaking Community Action Center,\nChildren's Vision Center and the Legal Aid Program location.\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nWESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE\nOFFICE OF ECONOMIC\n100 McALLISTER STREET\nSAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102\nOPPORTUNITY\nAttachment\nDecember 23, 1970\nMr. Lewis Uhler\nDirector\nState Economic Opportunity\nOffice\n800 Capitol Mall\nSacramento, CA 95814\nDear Mr. Uhler:\nTransmitted herewith is the report of the OEDCI On-Site Evaluation Team.\nThe report represents the joint effort on the part of the Office of\nEconomic Opportunity, California State Economic Opportunity Office, the\nCity of Oakland, and Oakland Economic Development Council, Inc.\nI would like to commend the following members of your staff for their\ncontributions to a most difficult task:\n1. Mr. Sal Espana\n2. Mr. Jeff Clark\n3. Mr. Charles Blaker\n4. Mr. Robert Steele\n5. Mr. L. Chickering\nThis significant inter-agency effort in the Oakland community action\nprogram represents the kind of mutual effort between the State and\nFederal Government that can be most beneficial to the poor. I look\nforward to an expansion of our mutual efforts in the coming year.\nMy best wishes to you and your family for a Merry Christmas and happy\nand properous New Year.\nSincerely,\nRodger\nH. RODGER BETTS\nRegional Director\nAttachment\nFINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE\n(OEDCI Committing\nIn accordance with the mandate of the Council of OEDCI, an Investigating\nCommittee was formed.\nThis Committee is composed of Mr. Willie Rock, Mrs. Louise Albritten,\nMr. Christopher Martin, Mr. Howard Ransom, Mr. Jim Flores,\nMrs. Josephine Jiminez, Mrs. Lillian Love, Atty. John George, Mr. James\nMedina, Atty. Clinton White, and Rev. Thomas P. Grissom, Jr.\nWe had three meetings; January 4th, 8th, & 13th. At the first meeting,\nten Committee Members were present, and three State and one Regional\nResourse Persons; the second meeting, eight Committee Members were\npresent, and three State Resourse Representative Persons; at the third\nmeeting, seven Committee Members were present.\nWe were charged with the responsibility of investigating and determining\nthe validity of the \"On Site Evaluation Report\", Part II of \"The Oakland\nEconomic Development Council, Inc., Community Action Program, from\nJanuary 1, 1970 through December 31, 1970\". We hereby submit the\nfollowing findings as directed by the Council.\nThey are: In order of their sequence in the original report;\nNumber 1, page 3 was unanimcusly agreed upon by the Committee\nMembers.\nNumber 2, page 3 is basically true.\nNumber 3, page 4 is true and verified by OEO's special con-\nditions. It has since been corrected.\nNumber 4, page 4 is true. Inadequacies of previous years\nhave been corrected, and the audit of June 1970 verifies\nthis audit.\nNumber 5, page 4 is true. This is documented by OEC's letter\nof December 12, 1969. This has been corrected.\nNumber 6, page 4 is true.\nNumber 7, page Lᵢ is true. It is documented by CEO communi-\ncations of November , 1969, and December 10, 1969 MET\nDATES.\nNumber 8, page 4 involving Program Funds, we questioned\nthe work \"unauthorized\". We support the fact it was dis-\nallowed.\nCONTINUED\nNumber 9, page 5 is true. It is documented by OFC.\nNumber 10, page 5 is true, and documented by District\nAttorney indictments.\nNumber 11, page 5 is true. It is supportied) by 050 st\nspecial conditions.\nNumber 12, page 5 is true. Prohibited by By-Laws Sec. 6,\nSubdivision 6, and letter of August 3, and 26, 1970.\nNumber 13, page 5 is true, supported by minutes.\nNumber 14, page 5 is true, supported by letter from State\nOEC. It was voted upon by the Council not to take any\naction until we received directions from Regional OEO.\nNumber 15, page 5 is true.\nThe second phase of this report, pages 6 through 9, Items 1 through 6,\nare true. Item 7, and Section A, recognizes the fact that we did not\ncomply with Special Condition No. 7. There was a difference of opinion\nwithin the Committee regarding the time. Target area committees were\ninformed about the plans and the procedures for the elections.\nItem 7B is true.\nItem 70 regards Special Condition No. 21. The Council did approve the\ndirect actions of November 10, 1970. The Council did not approve the actions\nof December 15, 1970. Items further documented by the minutes of OEDCI.\nItem 8, page 10 documented two meetings only without legal quorum,\nSection A is false. There are some Council Members who have not lost con--\nfidence in CEDCI; however, there are some members who have lost confidence\nin the Administration Staff and, some Council Members.\n8B. In view of the serious allegations of 85, which are further docu-\nmented by Judge Wilsons' letter dated October 21, 1969 to Mr. Ronald\nRumsfeld, after serious study and discussion, we recommend that the\nPersonnel Committee take appropriate disciplinary action.\nItem 9. (i) We recommend that there be an ethnic balance within the staff.\n(2) We recommend that the staff be residents of Oakland. (3) We further\nrecommend that all ethnic groups (see Atty. John George).\nItem 10, Sections A and B are true, documented by letter of August 3, 1970.\nSection C is true, supported by the Executive Board's minutes of\nNovember 19, 1969. We further recommend that the newly appointed com-\nmittee to meet with the Spanish Action Center Board and the Spanish\nAdvisory Committee, report to this Council immediately with their\nfindings and recommendations. Section D is true.\nIn conclusion, we are in agreement that the following is true:\n1. The Board of Directors is lax in carrying out its functions\nas a policy-making body.\n2. We have allowed and relied upon the staff to assume Council\npowers.\n3. We have been remiss in examining progress, and monitoring\nthe operation of this corporation in accordance with regu-\nlations.\nCONTINUED\n4. It is incumbent that we have Administration that can\nefficiently carry out the poverty program as laid down by\nCEO, Secondly, we further state, Administration must not\nusurp the powers of the Council. Thirdly, the staff must\npass on to the Council, all communication and information\nthat falls within the Council's jurisdiction.\n5, We recommend that the staff shall set up work shops,\nseminars, etc., utilizing State and Federal expertise.\n6, No public statements reflecting upon the Council shall be\ngiven to the news media, institutions or persons without\nprior approval of our Public Relations Committee. We\nrecommend the immediate formulization of this committee.\nfunds under this grant were used to support an Investigation and\nto find reasons to close OEDCI and were not used to assist OEDCI\nwith training and technical assistance.\nb. Findings:\n(1) The Executive Director reported that neither he nor the\nOEDCI board were apprised of plans to fund this demonstration nor\nwere they sent a CAP Form 76 for comment at the time the application\nwas submitted or funded.\n(2) The Region IX, OEDCI field representative, Rick Morada,\nstated to an interviewer that he was not aware that the Oakland demon-\nstration grant existed. Therefore, he could not comment on it.\nMorada said that the only thing he perceived the SEOO doing in OEDCI\nwas investigation.\n(3) There has been very little meaningful coordination be-\ntween the appropriate Regional Office staff (field representative),\nthe CAA or the special technical assistance consultant funded under\nthis grant.\n(4) The special technical assistance consultant has not\nregularly attended OEDCI Board and Executive Committee meetings. It\nwas reported that the consultant attended only one such meeting.\n(5) No quarterly diagnostic reports have been submitted to\nthe WR/CEO or OEDCI. Since August 1, 1970, there should have been\ntwo quarterly reports submitted.\n(6) The resume submitted for the person hired as the special\ntechnical assistance consultant under the grant does not meet the\nqualifications described in the grant.\n(7) Mr. Espana, the special technical assistance consultant\nhired, was not approved by Region IX, OEO, as required by the grant.\n(8) There was no evidence that the SEOO had attempted to\nadminister or implement this grant as written at the Oakland CAA.\nTo date, there has been no meaningful technical assistance provided\nto OEDCI staff, board, or low-income groups.\nC. Conclusion:\n(1) The SEOO has not performed the terms and conditions of\nthe grant.\n(2) WR/OEO and SEOO both have neglected to fulfill their re-\nsponsibility to inform the parties involved of the demonstration\ngrant.\n46\n(3) There was not proper monitoring of this grant to insure\nthat the conditions, goals, and objectives were being met by the\nd. Recommendation:\n(1) The grant should be terminated.\n(2) An audit examination of the funds expended under this\ngrant should be conducted as soon as possible.\n47\nSE00 AND THE REGIONAL OFFICE\n1. PERCEPTIONS:\nThe California SEOO perceives its relationship with Regional OEO to\nbe at best ambivalent and at worst founded on distrust and permeated\nby mutual indifference. While the State and the Region got off to a\ngood start in their relationship, the situation rapidly deteriorated\nuntil regular communication between the State and the Region became\nalmost non-existent.\nThe State has complained, among other things, of the following mat-\nters:\na. The state is not inely invited to participate in the pre-\nreviews of all CAAs in the state. When the Region does extend an\ninvitation, it is often too late to allow the State to make the neces-\nsary scheduling adjustments to enable their personnel to be in at-\ntendance. Moreover, the State has also complained that once pre-\nreview dates have been set by the Region and the CAAS, these dates\nare changed at the last moment producing a disruptive effect on the\ndeployment of State personnel.\nb. The State complains that the Region is unwilling to supply\nit with audit reports on the CAAs and that the State has been re-\nquired, therefore, to seek out alternate sources to obtain such\nreports and other financial information on the CAAs.\nC. The State has not been brought into meaningful participation\nin evaluations conducted by the Region on community action agencies.\nRobert Hawkins, Director of Operations for the SEOO, described the\nsituation as follows:\n(1) \"The State Office of Economic Opportunity has\nparticipated in a joint evaluation and review\nof OEDCI. However, the outcome of this eval-\nuation was most unsatisfactory, due to duplicity\non the part of the Regional Office.\n(2) \"We have also participated in a Task Force\nEvaluation with WR/OEO on the Berkeley Com-\nmunity Action Agency. However, the State\nOffice has withdrawn from this Task Force,\nand has sent a letter to Regional OEO request-\ning written guarantees that the powers enumerated\nin OEO Instruction 7501-1 will be guaranteed to\nthe State Office (see Attachments). This action\n48\nwas taken in light of the behavior of the\nRegional Office in the Oakland area.\n(3) \"Simply stated, the State Office no longer\ntrusts the verbal agreements reached with\nRegional OEO, feeling that whenever it is\nto their advantage, they will double-cross\nthe State Office.\"\nd. In the area of training and technical assistance, John Sawicki\nreported that \"This office has never been invited by Region IX to\nparticipate in any contract formation or technical assistance plan-\nning.\"\ne. An illustrative example of the breakdown of communication\netween SEOO and the Regional Office, as perceived by Robert Hawkins,\neals with a demonstration grant involving the concept of volunteer\n:tion. It appears that a proposal by the State for the funding of\ndemonstration grant was signed off by the Region but thereafter the\nfunds were not released. Hawkins described the situation as follows:\n(1) \"The funds for the demonstration program\nhave not been received by our office. The\nostensible reasons given by WR/OEO is that\nthe work program is unsatisfactory. How-\never, in discussion with Joe Maldonado in\nWashington, D. C., in December, 1970, it was\nascertained that National OEO was moving\naway from volunteerism.\n(2) \"It appears to me that the real reason why\nthe volunteer grant has not been approved,\nstems from differences between our office\nand the Western Regional Office. The rea-\nsons for the volunteer grant not being\nfunded by Regional OEO to the State Office\nof Economic Opportunity are not known to\nus. The following chain of events took\nplace regarding this grant: \"\n(a) \"Rodger Betts formally signed the\nCAP 14 with the original work\nprogram.\n(b) \"Approximately two to three weeks\nlater, Rodger Betts, on the advice\nof the Western Region staff, put a\nfreeze on releasing the monies to\nus until we redesigned the work\nprogram. It was his contention\n49\nthat the work program did\nnot fulfill the conditions\nof the grant.\n(c) \"It was then suggested by\nMr. Betts that Mr. Uhler and\nMr. Sawicki redesign the work\nprogram, working with the Re-\ngion staff. Mr. Uhler said\nhe would do this, but unless\nMr. Betts committed to release\nmonies after the redesigning,\nMr. Uhler felt it would be a\nwaste of time.\n(d) \"Mr. Uhler and Mr. Sawicki\nwent to WR/OEO after the com-\nmitment was given to Mr. Uhler\nby Mr. Betts that the monies\nwould be released after the re-\ndesigning of the work program\nhad been accomplished by the\nRegion staff.\n(e) \"Mr. Uhler and Mr. Sawicki\nspent eight hours at Regional\nOEO designing everything the\nway Region staff suggested. We\nthen returned to Sacramento and\nwrote it according to their\nterms.\n(f) \"Approximately a week later,\nthe new work program was sent\nto WR/OEO, and to this day, as\nfar as I know, there has been\nabsolutely no word from Rodger\nBetts as to why the money has\nnot been released.\n(g) \"Mr. Unler has talked with Mr.\nBetts on several occasions re-\ngarding this grant, and also\nhas communicated several times\nwith Joe Casillas. The last\nword we have from Mr. Cassillas\nis that this grant is on ice un-\ntil our relationship with Re-\ngional OEO is improved.'\n50\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF ECONOMIC\nRegion IX\nOPPORTUNITY\n100 McAllister Street\nSan Francisco, California 94102\nApril 7, 1971\nMr. Lewis K. Uhler\nDirector\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\nDepartment of Human Resources Development\n800 Capitol Mall, Sacramento 95814\nDear Lew:\nThank you for your letter of March 26 relative to your Resources Mobilization\nand Technical Assistance Conference.\nI regret that I will be out of the State during the Conference and thus will\nnot be able to accept your invitation to speak on April 13. I have asked\nJoe Casillas to represent the Regional Office as your luncheon speaker on\nthat date.\nMy best wishes for a successful Conference.\nSincerely,\nH. Rodger Betts\nRegional Director\nAPR 114 1971\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF ECONOMIC\nRegion IX\n100 McAllister Street\nOPPORTUNITY\nSan Francisco, California 94102\nMarch 31, 1971\nMr. Lewis K. Uhler\nDirector\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\nDepartment of Human Resources Development\n800 Capitol Mall\nSacramento, California 95814\nDear Lew:\nI have received your letter of March 18 discussing activities within the\nCommunity Action Commission of Santa Barbara County, Inc.\nYour description of circumstances surrounding the recent refunding of that\nagency contains substantial inaccuracies. Allow me to reconstruct those\ncircumstances and to bring you up to date on our understanding of the current\nsituation in Santa Barbara.\nFirst, your office has frequently been informed that the Federal Office of\nEconomic Opportunity does not hire or fire the staff of local Community\nAction Agencies. Our authority in this regard is limited to insuring that\nCommunity Action Agencies, through their Boards of Directors, conduct their\npersonnel affairs in compliance with the Economic Opportunity Act, OEO regu-\nlations and their grant work program.\nSecond, there was no agreement to see that \"two individuals would be elimin-\nated from the program\" in Santa Barbara as you contend. As stated above, we\nhave no authority to make such an agreement. Further, at no time did you\nask for such an agreement and at no time did we assent to such an agreement.\nThird, we appreciated your bringing to our attention some confusion on the\npart of the Community Action Commission of Santa Barbara County, Inc., relating\ntc a special condition on one of their grants. We subsequently issued a\nclarifying letter to the agency, a copy of which was sent to you. Refer to\nthe letter of January 13 from our former Regional Counsel, Mr. James Deasy,\nto the CAC of Santa Barbara County, Inc. (Exhibit A).\nFourth, the following is a description of events relating to the two individuals\nmentioned in your letter:\nOn December 23, 1970, this office took the initial action to inform the\nSanta Barbara CAC of possible violations by the two persons of personnel\npolicies of both the CAC and OEO. In the same letter, we requested that\nthe Board take appropriate disciplinary action if such violations did\nactually take place (refer to Exhibit B).\n2\n-- On December 24, 1970, the Executive Director of the Santa Barbara CAC\nofficially reprimanded both Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Compos as a result of\nour letter (refer to Exhibits C and D).\n-- On January 13, 1971, our then Regional Counsel (Mr. James E. Deasy)\ninformed the Chairman of the Santa Barbara CAC that the Commission\nhas final and complete authority as to the hiring and firing of any\nprogram coordinator (refer to Exhibit A).\n-- On January 19, 1971, the Executive Committee of the Santa Barbara CAC\ndismissed both Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Compos (refer to Exhibits E and F).\n-- On January 21, 1971, both Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Compos exercised their\nrights of appeal directly to the Board of Directors of the Santa Barbara\nCAC. The Board held an executive session that evening to discuss these\nappeals. They reversed the actions of their Executive Committee, and\nboth employees were retained on a six-month probationary basis. On\nFebruary 10, 1971, Mr. Mario Vasquez, Division Chief for North Coast\nCalifornia, met with the Board's Executive Committee to again discuss\nthese two individuals. It was ascertained that both employees, at the\nend of their six-month probationary periods, would be fully evaluated\nby the Santa Barbara CAC. Appropriate personnel actions would then\nbe taken by the CAC based on their performance evaluations (refer to\nExhibit G).\n-- On March 18, 1971, the Commission suspended without pay Mr. Carlos Compos,\nas a result of recent conduct charges (refer to Exhibit H).\nRegarding your statement that the Board of Directors of the Santa Barbara CAC\nhas requested a thorough review of their agency by OEO, we are unaware of\ntheir taking any official action on this matter. The only request for any\ninvestigation was received by my office on January 28, 1971, by the former\nCommission Chairman, Mr. Cres De Alba. Mr. Vasquez met with the Executive\nCommittee of the Commission on February 10, 1971, to discuss Mr. De Alba's\nrequest and concerns. As a result of that meeting, it was agreed by the\nExecutive Committee that no further investigation was warranted over and\nbeyond our regular on-going monitoring activities (refer to Exhibit G).\nRegarding the last issue raised in your letter, OEO will definitely participate\nwith your office in the monitoring of elections for target area represent-\natives as soon as the CAC finalizes the election plans.\nSincerely,\nH. Rodger Betts\nRegional Director\nEXHIBIT A\nTIVE\nIE PRESIDENT\nWESTLRN REGIONAL UNICE\n100 McALLISTER STREET\nC. FICE OF ECONOMIC\nSAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102\nOPPORTUNITY\nJanuary 13, 1971\nMr. Cres De Alba, Chairman\nCommunity Action Commission\nof Santa Barbara County\n232 East Montecito Street\nSanta Barbara, California\nDear Mr. De Alba:\nI have just been advised of a letter received by your\nExecutive Director dated August 31, 1970 relative to\na change of work program for your Emergency Food and\nMedical Services grant, said letter being under the\nsignature of your Regional OEO Field Representative.\nClarification has been requested as to the last sentence\nt' reof which ostensibly gives the right to hire the\nI S Coordinator to the policy advisory council. It\nshould be made perfectly clear that said statement does\nnot abrogate your commissions responsibility for the\nadministration of the total CAC program in Santa\nBarbara County. Your commission has final and complete\nauthority as to the hiring and firing of a program\ncoordinator. What our Field Representative intended\nby her comment was only that EFMS guidelines provided\nthat the policy advisory council shall assist in the\nselection of a project coordinator.\nShould you have any further questions in this matter,\nplease contact my office.\nSincerely,\ngeg\none CIV\nWESTERN REGION\nJames E. Deasy\nRegional Counsel\nCC: H. Rodger Betts\nLewis Uhler\nPete Peterson, SEOO Analyst\nJim Duerr, Executive Director\nApolinar Alvarez, EFMS Coordinator\nLouis Rodriquez, Chairman PAC\nMario Vasquez\nMarguerite Mendoza\nEXHIBIT B\nDecember 23, 1970\nMr. James Duerr\nExecutive Director\nComunity Action Commission\nof Santa Barbara County, Inc.\n232 East Montecito Street\nSanta Barbara, CA 93102\nDear Mr. Duerr:\nYou are no doubt avare that at the 17th December, 1970 board meeting of\nthe Community Action Commission of Santa Barbara County, two (2) project\ndirectors; Mr. Apolinar Alvarez, Director of the Emergency Food and\nMedical Services Project, and Mr. Carlos Compos, Director of the Youth\nDevelopment Program: provided leadership for disruptive cotion together\nwith the Sonta Maria Neighborhood Acca Council residents.\nInseauchas this type of activity by staff violates the personnel policies\nof both the CAA community action agency and OEO, please advise us as to\nwhat disciplinary action you plan to take against these two (2) individuals.\nResponse to the above is due in this office by close of business on Monday,\n4 January, 1971. If you have any questions regarding the above, please\ncontact the Acting Division Chief, as both Mrs. Mendoza and Mr. Vasquez are\non Leave.\nSincerely,\nMARIA L. FORT\nActing Division Chief\nCC: sal Aparicio, Chairman\nEXHIBIT C\nMEMORANDUM:\nDecember 24, 1970\n050\nCAP DIV\nWESTERN REGION\nTO:\nCarlos Campos, Youth CoordinatorAN 181971\nSAN FRANCISCO\nCALIE,\nFROM:\nE\nJames Duerr, Executive Director\nSUBJECT:\nACTIONS AT COMMISSION MEETING\nI must warn you against further disruptive actions such as\noccured at the CAC Commission Meeting of December 17, 1970.\nWhen personnel of the CAC engage in such activities it is\nimproper professional conduct and violates specific instruc-\ntions of OEO (Memo 6907-2.)\nSpecifically you were out of line in using a loud voice and\nabusive language toward board members and marching out of\nthe meeting with a disruptive group. Actions such as these\nonly encourage such actions by others, and have the potential\nof making a bad situation worse. As an employee of the\nCommunity Action Commission you must remember that you are\nto respect the decisions of the commission although you might\nnot agree with them.\nI do understand that during the meeting and after the walk-out\nyou actively discouraged the people involved. This was\nproper and is in full accordance with OEO Instructions. How-\never you must remember that the public actions of a person\ncarry a weight of influence often much stronger than what he\nmay do behind the scenes.\nAt this time I intend no further disciplinary action other\nthan this warning (although you may expect my action to be\nreviewed by the Executive Committee.) A copy of this memorandum\nwill be placed in your personnel file. However, any repetition\nwill result in suspension of employment and possible dismissal.\nIf you have any questions regarding this please feel free to\ntalk with me about it.\nJD/ej\nEXHIBIT D\nMEMORANDUM:\nDecember 24, 1970\nDED\nSAP DIV\nWESTERN REGION\nJAN 1 81971\nTO:\nApolinar Alvarez, Emergency Food and\nFRAE\nCALIF\nMedical Services Coordinator\nFROM:\nJames Duerr, Executive Director\nSUBJECT:\nACTION AT COMMISSION MEETING\nI must warn you against further disruptive actions such\nas occured at the meeting of December 17, 1970. When\npersonnel of the CAC engage in such actions it is improper\nprofessional conduct, and violates specific instruction\n€ OEO (Memo 6907-2.)\nSpecifically you were out of line in using a loud voice\nand marching out of the meeting with disruptive group in\na situation that was disruptive and had potential to be-\ncome worse.\nAs an employee of the Community Action Commission you must\nremember that you are to respect their decisions although\nyou may not agree with them. However, in your situation\nI understand that you walked out with the group in order\nto maintain contact with these people and after leaving\nthe meeting actively discouraged the people involved from\nengaging in further disruptive action. This was proper and\nis in full accordance with the OEO Instruction and the\nstandards of professional conduct expected by the Commission.\nAt this time I intend to take no further disciplinary action\nother than this warning (although you may expect my action\nto be reviewed by the Executive Committee.) A copy of this\nmemorandum will be placed in your personnel file. However,\nany repetition will result in suspension of employment and\npossible dismissal.\nIf you have any questions regarding this please feel free to\nalk with me about it.\nJD/ei\nEXHIBIT E\nCOMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION\nof Santa Barbara County\n348 93102\n232 EAST MONTECITO STREET\n805 965-1035\nSANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA\n93101\nEMORANDUM:\nJanuary 19, 1971\nO:\nCarlos Campos\nROM:\nJames Duerr, Executive Director\nUBJECT:\nDISMISSAL\nregret to inform you that the Executive Committee has voted to\nSS you from your position as Youth Coordinator of the Youth\nam. Since two weeks notice is required by the personnel\nolicies, the effective date of your dismissal will be February\n1971. However, you are suspended from your duties effective\nmmediately and shall immediately turn over all equipment,\naterials, records, and keys to the Business Manager, Mr. Rudd\nMartin.\n'he reasons for your dismissal are those previously placed in\nour personnel file and those outlined in the attached letter to\nfrom the Commission President.\nour rights of appeal are outlined in the personnel policies of\nthe Community Action Commission. In addition, the Office of\nconomic Opportunity Western Region has a special appeals officer\no whom you may direct any complaint you might have.\npersonally wish to thank you for the past assistance you have\njiven to the Community Action Commission and regret that these\ninstances of poor judgment have made it impossible for the Com-\nission to continue you in its employment.\nD/aq\nchment\nMr. Cres De Alba\nMembers of Executive Committee\nPersonnel File\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\nState Office of Economic Opportunity\nEXHIBIT F\nCOMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION\nof Santa Barbara County\n1348 93102\n232 EAST MONTECITO STREET\n805 965-1035\nSANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA\n93101\nIEMORANDUM:\nJanuary 20, 1971\nApolinar Alvarez\n'ROM:\nJames Duerr, Executive Director\nUBJECT:\nDISMISSAL\nregret to inform you that the Executive Committee has voted to\niss you from your position as Coordinator of the Emergency\n'O\nand Medical Services Program. Since two weeks notice is\nrequired by the personnel policies, the effective date of your\nismissal will be February 3, 1971. However, you are suspended\nfrom your duties effective immediately and shall immediately\nturn over all equipment, materials, records, and keys to the\nBusiness Manager, Mr. Rudd Martin.\nThe reasons for your dismissal are those previously placed in\nour personnel file and those outlined in the attached letter to\nfrom the Commission President.\nYour rights of appeal are outlined in the personnel policies of\nthe Community Action Commission. In addition, the Office of\nEconomic Opportunity Western Region has a special appeals officer\nto whom you may direct any complaint you might have.\npersonally wish to thank you for the past assistance you have\njiven to the Community Action Commission and regret that these\ninstances of poor judgment have made it impossible for the Com-\nmission to continue you in its employment.\nID/aq\nAttachment\nMr. Cres De Alba\nMembers of Executive Committee\nPersonnel File\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\nState Office of Economic Opportunity\nEXHIBIT G\n22 February 1971\nHr. Cres De Alba\n7074 Casites Pass Road\nCorpinteria, Celifornia 93013\nDear Kr. De Alba:\nActing Director Frank Carlucci has asked me to respond to your recent\ntelegram concerning complaints about the Santa Barbara County Community\nAction Commission. I regret the delay in responding to you; however,\nmy staff had to make on extensive review of your list of complaints\nincluding several visits to Santa Barbara.\nOn 10 February 1971, Mr. Mario Vasquez, Division Chief for North Coast\nCalifornia which includes Senta Barbara County, met with the Executive\nCommittee of the CAC to discuss the issues raised In your telegrous\n1. Currently the CAC is operating in RY E. PY D for the CAC\nended on 30 November 1970 and as required by 020 regulations,\nan sudit was performed on the CAC operations and activities.\nThe sudit WGS completed 1sst week and will to presented within\nthe next two weeks to the CAC. This audit report will enable\nus to receive an independent assessment of the financial opera-\ntions and controls of the CAC. Until the sudit report is TE-\ncoived, we are unable to sike any additional comments regarding\nthe financial operations of the CAC. However, we con comment\nthat we are unsware of any financial irregularities to date.\n2. The entire CAC program operations were just evaluated by a\nspecial evaluation committee established by the CAC. The total\novaluation report USE presenced to the CAC at its monthly January\n1971 CAC board meeting for review and appropriate action.\n3. In regard to the recent selection of the Director of the Youth\nProgram and Director of Emergency Food and Medical Services,\nthe employment of all strif is the sole responsibility of the\nCAC, Both of these staff people are currently employed by the\nGAC on a six months probationary period. At the end of this time\nperiod, the CAC will fully evaluate the performance of these two\nemployees and will then take the appropriate action based on\nthe performance evaluations. Ve concur that both employees\nselected for these two programs did not fully seet the job quali-\nfications 23 advertised. However, both employees are also not\n-2-\nreceiving the salaries advertised for these positions due to\nlack of thair full qualifications.\nAs a result of the above statements, it is our feeling that no further\ninvestigation as requested in your telegram is warrented over and\nboyond our regular, on-going monitoring activities.\nWe appreciate your past services A3 the board chairman and regret\nyour decision to resign from the CAC Board. Additionally, we\nappreciate your continuous interest and concern for the Senta Berbara\nCAC and Program Operations. You CED rest onsured that we will\ncontinue to provide all the necessary assistance to Santa Barbara\nin order to achieve a MOSE effective program for the poor in your\nares.\nSincerely,\nJOE D. CASILLAS\nH. RODGER BETTS\nRegional Director\nWR/FO/NC/AEIVASQUEZ/ja1\n22 February 1971\nControl No: 40913-964\nClearance:\ncc: CR\nEXSECV2 2)\nDivision\nmmv\nCR/OEO\nOfficial File\nRead File\nRD\nC\nTeleg\n- To EXSEC BD10\n1958 JAN 25 PM 6 10\nZVA2\"0 (28)LA 177 177\nL SUA 10 1 PE PCF 5 EXTRA CARPINTERIA CALIF 25 143P PST\nDIRECTOR OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY\nHEW WASHDC 1200 19\nI HAVE RESIGNED AS CHAIRMAN OF THE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COMMUNITY\nACTION COMMISSION AFTER 5 YEARS WORKING TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM\nFOR THE LOW INCOME PEOPLE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT WORKING.\nTWO BROWN BERET WERE HIRED BY THE CAC 6 MONTHS AGO ONE IN\nDIRECTOR OF THE YOUTH PROGRAM AND THE OTHER DIRECTS HEALTH\nAND FOOD STAMPS THEY WERE NOT QUALIFIED AND HAVE USED THEIR\nPOSITION AND THE FUNDS FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES THEY HAVE ALIENATED\nHE BLACKS. THE WHITE COMMUNITY AND HAVE STIRRED RADICAL PREJUDICES\nAND USED GOVERNMENT MATERIALS AND TIME ILLEGALLY THEY CONTROL\nHE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND HAVE MADE A LAUGHING STOCK OF SOME\n0\nSF-1201 EACH WORTHWHILE PROJECTS NO ONE RADICAL GROUP SHOULD CONTROL\nTHE POVERTY PROGRAM AND I ENCOURAGE AN IMEDIATE INVESTIGATION\nCRES DE ALBA 7074 CASITAS PASS RD CARHINERIA.\n7074.\nDIRECTOR'S CONTROLLED MAIL\nEnSec Control No: 40913\nAction Office:\n#9 #\nND,\nFor Signature of: Betts\nDispatch Due: 2/11\npies: $9,0,ES\n'201 (R5-50)\n22 MAR 1971\nEXHIBIT H\nCOMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION\nof Santa Barbara County\nX 1348 93102\n232 EAST MONTECITO STREET\n805 965-1035\nSANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA\n93101\nMarch 19, 1971\nMr. Mario Vasquez\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\n100 McAllister Street\nSan Francisco, California 94102\nDear Mr. Vasquez:\nSpecial Conditions\nThe Community Action Commission held its regular meeting on\nMarch 18, 1971. All the Special Conditions have been implemented\nand the Commission voted upon them. The minutes of the meeting\nand documentation will be forwarded the early part of next week.\nThe Commission has also suspended, without pay, Mr. Carlos Campos\nuntil that time where Mr. Campos can meet with the Commission\nto explain his actions. At that time, a final decision will be\nmade.\nSincerely,\nRoga E. Heroup\nROGER E. HEROUX\nACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR\nREH/ej\ncc Pete Peterson\nMAR 29 1971\nEXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT\nOFFICE OF ECONOMIC\nRegion IX\nOPPORTUNITY\n100 McAllister Street\nSan Francisco, California 94102\nMr. Lewis K. Uhler\nDirector\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\nDepartment of Human Resources Development\n800 Capitol Mall\nSacramento, CA 95814\nDear Mr. Uhler:\nThank you for your thoughtful letter of March 9, reviewing funding problems\nand special needs of rural CAAs. I agree that many of the items you have\nlisted are very real problems and they lend themselves to joint planning\nand strategies.\nFirst: We believe that rural CAAs do receive proportionately less funding\nthan urban CAAs. The main reason for this was that urban areas were quicker\nto get their CAAs organized than rural areas during the initial years of the\nEconomic Opportunity Act. Subsequently, there has been a leveling off of\nFederal appropriations under the Economic Opportunity Act, and it has been\nan extremely difficult task to remedy this imbalance short of major cutbacks\nn urban CAAs.\nHowever, we have pursued two policies at the regional level aimed at reducing\nthe imbalance: (A) We have given priority consideration to rural areas when-\never additional funds for special programs have become available; and (B) when-\never there have been funding cutbacks, we have excluded rural CAAs, or at least\nin most cases, required a more limited reduction than that required of large\nurban CAAs. Next year, the projected appropriation under- the EOA will again\nresult in a cut of community action funds by up to 10% in this region. In\nworking out options on how to absorb that cut, the assistance of regional\nSEOOs will be invaluable. We hope that we will have some indication of the\nactual funding level of the region by May or early June, and we will confer\nwith you further at that time.\nAlso in this regard, a new tool will soon be available to us with the 1970\nCensus analysis, that will be forthcoming beginning in the spring. We and the\nSEOOs will have the capacity, unlike that of the past, to analyze the various\nramifications and elements of poverty in each county in each state in our\nregion. As you know, Mr. Leonard Downs, of your staff, met recently with\nCarl W. Shaw, Chief, Plans, Budget and Evaluation Division, at which time\nMr. Shaw briefed Mr. Downs on the type of statistical analyses that will be\navailable. It is our hope that a poverty analysis of each county will be\nprepared as a substitute for the present CAP Form 5, and that through this\npoverty profile we, in the Federal and State OEOs, will have a better base\nfor reviewing program proposals and program results. In addition, this\ninformation, will give us an opportunity to be far more specific in our\nxpectations of grantee performance, and as a corollary, I think grantees\nwill be enabled to develop programs more relevant to their local problems.\nThe Regional Office looks forward to a collaborative effort with your office,\nin utilizing this tool to the benefit of CAAs in California.\n2\nFinally, I would like to see your Community Program Analysts working with\nrural CAAs to help them mobilize additional resources. As you know, such\nactivity is part of your OEO grant and is discussed in OEO Instruction\n7501-1. This is an area where your office can, and should, make a positive\ncontribution to the effective functioning of all CAAs. We stand ready to\nhelp you in this regard.\nSecond: To speed up the funding of all CAAs, your recommendation to inform\nthe Regional Office and CAAs of the Governor's contemplated action on CAA\nrefunding is most appreciated. I would, however, recommend that such noti-\nfication from you be taken after the pre-review, rather than before it, SO\nthat your staff has had a full opportunity to review a CAA's operations\nwith the formal participation of both the CAA and the Regional Office. I\nam looking forward to the immediate implementation of this procedure.\nFrom the Regional Office end, we are proceeding with our plan to move into\na two year grant application and funding program, as opposed to the current\nannual program. Also, we will soon be issuing instructions which very\nsignificantly reduce the amount of paperwork required of CAAs during the\nrefunding process. Both of these steps should be of particular benefit to\nrural CAAs where the refunding process has been especially taxing on their\nlimited staff resources. We will be discussing these changes with you\nfurther at our next Regional SEOO conference.\nThird: Regarding generalization of model programs, I would agree that\njoint efforts should be made to disseminate such information to rural CAAs;\nhowever, I should point out that our experience thus far is that the local\ndifferences from one community to another are such that we have yet to come\nacross a model which seems to have universal applicability. Of course, not\nfinding such a model, or models, to date does not mean we should not continue\nthe search, and I believe this is a potentially fruitful area for us to\njointly explore.\nwe\nI sincerely appreciate your thoughts and ideas on how Lcan improve anti-\npoverty activities in rural areas. I look forward to the California SEOO\nand the Regional Office working together in their implementation.\nSincerely,\nH. Rodger Betts\nRegional Director\nThe State reports that to date no training work programs or workshops\nhave been developed by the Regional OEO and the State to strengthen\nthe State's staff capabilities. It appears that the State and Local\nGovernment Division, lleadquarters, DEO, has recently interceded with\na request that such training programs and workshops take place. Re-\nportedly, John Crutcher, Director, State and Local Government Division,\nmade a phone call to the California SEOO around the first of March\nurging that such training programs and workshops be initiated.\nThe State reports that the Region Office has not informed the State\nof the Region's funding plans for the State.\n2. FINDINGS:\nAs far as the Celifornia SECO is concerned, they believe that the\nRegional Office has deliberately ignored them, has withheld informa-\ntion which they bolieve they are entitled to have, has failed to\ninvite the State to participate jointly in such areas as evaluations\nand development of the State funding plans, and have failed to in-\nsure that the State has an adequate opportunity to attend pre-reviews.\nThere is a deep feeling of mistrust and a sense by the State that\nthey had been \"double-crossed\" and treated in a manner suggesting\nduplicity.\n3. CONCLUSIONS:\nWhether the State's reaction to its relationship with the Re--\ngion is misplaced or justifiable VRS difficult to determine\nin the light of the charges and counter-charges which have been made.\nThe fact remains, however, that somehow the situation has been allowed\nto deteriorate far beyond the point where it can be easily corrected.\nLines of communication have broken down; the effects of unproductive\nconfrontations have not been mended; the situation has fed upon it-\nself; doubt and mistrust have been generated out of proportion.\n4. RECOMMENDATIONS:\nLines of communication between the State and the Regional Office\nshould be immediately recpened. An agreement of the kind described\nin OEO Instruction 7501-1, Section 7.f. should be negotiated as soon\nas possible and in no case should refunding occur without such an\nagreement in force. Since an obvious impasse exists between WR/OEO\nand the SEOO, a higher authority both in the Governor's office and\nOEO should be called upon to assume the responsibility for resolv-\ning the impasse.\nJ\n51\nPage 51 - 4. RECOMMENDATIONS: (Charge)\n\"Lines of communication between the State and the Regional Office\nshould be immediately reopened. An agreement of the kind described\nin OEO Instruction 7501-1, Section 7.f. should be negotiated as\nsoon as possible and in no case should refunding occur without\nsuch an agreement in force. Since an obvious impasse exists\nbetween WR/OEO and the SEOO, a higher authority both in the\nGovernor's office and OEO should be called upon to assume the\nresponsibility for resolving the impasse.\"\nRESPONSE\nSouthern California SEOO maintains regularly scheduled meetings\nwith representatives of WR/OEO. These meetings include discussions\nof mutual concern relative to Community Action Agencies in Southern\nCalifornia and how we might work together to provide viable\nprograms to service the needs of the poor. Southern California\nSEOO maintains liaison with WR/OEO through Mr. Calvin Williams,\nSouth Coast Supervisor WR/OEO. Meetings are usually held after\nEYOA Board meetings so that discussion pertinent to EYOA can be\nmade. Both SEOO and WR/OEO maintain that their staff is not\nlarge enough to do a job separately in servicing EYOA; conse-\nquently, they are working in concert to provide service to EYOA,\nthe largest CAA in the State of California.\nPage 51-- 4. RECOMMENDATIONS (Charge)\n\"Lines of communication between the State and the Regional Office\nshould be immediately reopened. An agreement of the kind described\nin OEO Instruction 7501-1, Section 7.f. should be negotiated as\nsoon as possible and in no case should refunding occur without\nsuch an agreement in force. Since an obvious passe exists\nbetween WR/OEO and the SEOO, a higher authority both in the Gov-\nernor's Office and OEO should be called upon to assume the\nresponsibility for resolving the impasse.\n11\nRESPONSE:\nReference should be made to the current SEOO Coordinator,\nMr. Paul Katz, who will testify to the fact that such an agree-\nment is currently being devised prior to negotiations and\nimplementations.\nTHE REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE SEOO\n1. PERCEPTIONS:\nRegional Office field teams believe they have expended sufficient of-\nfort in their attempts to include SECO staff in discussions and ac-\ntivities relating to grantees, but report they have been turned down\nby an unresponsive SE00 staff who either did not answer or failed to\nappear at pre-arranged meetings. A District Supervisor provided\nletters sent to the SECO asking for meetings, one of which was held\non December 10, 1971. Another District Supervisor reported that his\nattempts to arrange joint meetings vere frustrating, e.g. it took\nfive months to get a roster of SEIOO personnel working in his area.\nThe Regional Office field teams and other Regional Office staff per-\nceive Regional Office performance in supporting the SEOO P.S a ciffi-\ncult job, particularly in light OF their belief that much of what is\nbeing decided is a result of unilatoral decisions made by someone\nelse, higher-up in the Region or in oro/Vashington.\nFailures by the Regional Office to work closely with the SEOO are\nalso explained by:\na. The belief that the SEOO lacks interest in working\non anything but investigating CAAs which disturb\nthe status quo.\nb. The acceptance by Regional Office staff of the\nSEOO as \"the enemy\". Hence, the staff's un-\nwillingness to provide support, share confidences,\nor make agreements which they do not expect will\nbe kept.\nC. The perception of lack of competence in the SEOO staff.\nd. The WR/OEO has not developed a clear-cut oper-\national policy toward the SEOO which is under-\nstood by all staff.\nBy not immediately obtaining resolution of SEOO complaints about OEO\nstaff, and vice versa, the Regional Office has left neither SEOO not\nRegional Office staff satisfied with working relationships. There\nis the case where a Regional Office field representative was publicly\ncriticized by the SEOO, unfairly and inaccurately in her view, with\na resulting investigation of the field representative by the Regional\n52\nOffice and the dropping of the case., The issues were apparently not\nresolved. The $500 still considers this case as an example of Re-\ngional Office staff undermining the SEOO.\n2. FINDTIGS:\nRegional Office staff can document some efforts to include SEOO staff\nin joint planning with regard to grantees. (See especially letters\nfrom Frankie Jacobs, District Supervisor.) Regional Office staff\ncan document their notices and invitations to the SEOO regarding pre-\nreviews, with adequate advance notice and with at least one instance\nwhen dates were changed to accommodate the SECO.\nThe Regional Office Grant Application Process does provide for appli-\ncations to be sent to the SECO and with written notice of Regional\nOffice receipt Chz a carbon copy of the letter to the grantee acknowl-\nedging receipt).\nThe Regional Office included the SECO in two out of the three CAA\nevaluations it conducted, viz. in Berkeley and Oakland, but not in\nSan Bernardino.\nThe Regional Office dobb not consult with the SECO before committing\nflexible or other funds. The SE00 is advised of the availability of\nsuch funds only as a recipient of the general notice sent to all\nCAAS. There is one instance, however, when the Plans, Budget, and\nEvaluation Chief did consult with the SEOO regarding using carry-\nover funds for innovative programs.\nThe Regional Office did not consult with the SE00 on the 1971 State\nfunding plan, explaining that it was a repeat of the 1970 plan which\nhad been discussed with the SECO.\nWhile the Regional Office did write for SEOO comments on the Regional\ntraining and technical assistance plan and did receive a reply (con-\nsidered not very helpful), it doesn't appear that SEOO involvement\nwas really encouraged.\nThere are no joint written agreements between the Regional Office and\nSEOO concerning activities which may overlap.\nThe Regional Office does deal directly with some state agencies with-\nout a by-pass agreement with the SECO, e.g. with State Health and\nwith Model Cities Coordinator in the Human Resources Department.\n53\nKey Regional Office staff who should relate to the SEOO and should\nknow what is going on concerning the SEOO are more often than not\nleft in the dark. The Planning Officer, the Training and Technical\nAssistance Chief, the SEOO Coordinator, and District Supervisors are\nnot aware of what is transpiring beyond their own specific relations\nwith the SECO. The field representatives also don't know what is\nbeing done with the SECO except in their direct concerns with grantee\npre-reviews and through newspaper reports.\n3. CONCLUSIONS:\nSince top officials of OEO/Washington and the Regional Office have\nassumed some degree of responsibility for OEO relations with the Cal-\nifornia SECO, very little Regional Office staff support for the SEOO\nwas initiated, directed or supported. The exceptions are in field\nteam planning, pre-reviews, and application processing, and while these\nwere initiated at the field team level there doesn't seem to have been\nany direction or support from OEO Senior Staff.\nAs long as Regional Office staff feel that top OEO officials in OEO/\nWashington and the Regional Director are personally handling the\nCalifornia SEOO, they will be reluctant to initiate any actions\nwhich may be out of line with policy about which they have little\nknowledge and in the development of which they have not participated.\nSince members of the Regional Office staff perceive the SEOO as the\nantagonist of the poor and OEO, they perceive their responsibility to\nsupport the SEOO as incomprehensible.\n4. RECOMMENDATION:\nOEO must clearly define and assign the responsibilities for OEO sup-\nport of the SEOO to the Regional Office without undue interference.\nThe Regional Office must exercise leadership in resolving working\nrelationships between the Regional Office and the SEOO and CAAs.\n5. FINDINGS:\nPerformance of the SEOO in its role as advisor to the Governor is\nperceived as \"good\" by Regional Office staff members only on the as-\nsumption that the State administration's commitment is not aligned\nwith the interests of the poor and the CAAs and OEO. (See Cal Williams,\nfield representative, on why he answered \"good\".)\nMembers of the Regional Office staff do not believe the SEOO gives\nsignificant emphasis to resource mobilization except in isolated\nincidents.\n54\nThere is no evidence of help to the OEO Regional Office in resource mo-\nbilization although the SECO has done some work independently.\nThere has been either no SEOO coordination and planning with the\nRegional Office or so little that it has gone unnoticed by almost all\nRegional Office staff. The Regional Office Planning Officer reported\nthat the only information on causes and conditions of poverty in the\nState received from the California SEOO arrived February 26, 1971.\nLeonard Downs of the California SEOO brought a copy of a tabulation\nshowing welfare aid recipients by county in the State (see Attach-\nments) There is no indication that the SEOO has at any time dis-\ncussed with the Regional Office any problems posed by the federal\nand state statutory or administrative requirements that impede state\nlevel coordination of OEC-related programs.\nThe Regional Office staff is unaware of any attempts by the SEOO to\nact as an advocate for the poor.\nPerformance, especially as revealed by the style of most of the SEOO\nstaff field work is perceived as antagonistic toward the poor.\nThe Regional Office staff reports that some technical assistance has\nbeen provided by the SEOO but rarely in consultation with the Re-\ngional Office to determine CEO grantee's needs for technical assist-\nance, despite some attempts by Regional Office field staff to arrange\nsuch consultation. The SECO participation in the development of the\nRegional Office training and technical assistance plan was reported\nas not helpful. Regional Office staff also report that the SEOO has\nnot consulted with the Regional Office with respect to sponsoring or\nparticipating in training programs and workshops for CAA staff and\nboard members. They identified the December, 1970, resource mobiliza-\ntion workshop conducted by the SECO and state agencies in conjunction\nwith A.T.A.C. (American Technical Assistance Corporation) for rural\nCAAs as the only example they know of where the SEOO has sponsored a\nworkshop. The SEOO has consulted with OEO to assist grantees in\ntaking corrective action recommended by OEO as a result of the eval-\nuation of Oakland and Berkeley, but assistance from the SEOO to those\ngrantees has not resulted. The SEOO does not consult with OEO to\nassist grantees in taking corrective actions recommended by OEO as a\nresult of audit reports but this is because OEO neither shares audit\nreports with the SEOO nor encourages SEOO involvement.\nPerformance in grant pre-reviews is perceived as not helpful ranging\nfrom no-attendance to \"partial\"attendance in an \"observer\" role.\nMonitoring is viewed as at best performed incompetently and usually\ndestructively to CAAs and OEO. Very bitter feelings exist among\nRegional Office staff concerning the style and methods used by SEOO\npersonnel.\n55\nPage 55, paragraph 5\nCharge:\n\"The SEOO has consulted with OEO to assist grantees in\ntaking corrective action recommended by OEO as a result\nof the evaluation of Oakland and Berkeley, but assistance\nfrom the SEOO to those grantees has not resulted.\nResponse:\nThe federal evaluators state that we have not pro-\nvided technical assistance to the Berkeley CAP as\na follow-up to the joint WR/OEO-SEOO Task Force\nReview. This is simply not true. Our records show\nthat Charlie Blaker and Ted Carter have spent many\nhours providing technical assistance to the CAP\nin the areas of management and fiscal controls. We\nstill have a long-term TA committment that we are\nworking on.\n(\n:-\n."
}