Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
118564678
label
California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Evaluation Report 03/26/1971 (2 of 7)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564678
contentType
document
title
California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Evaluation Report 03/26/1971 (2 of 7)
citationUrl
identifierLocal
840
collections
Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit
California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Files
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
118564678
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-12-31
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-01-01
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
7533e5d46d7625a7
ocrText
Ronald Reagan Presidential Library
Digital Library Collections
This is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.
Collection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,
1966-74: Press Unit
Folder Title: California State Office of Economic Opportunity
- Evaluation Report 03/26/1971 (2 of 7)
Box: P27
To see more digitized collections visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library
To see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:
https://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection
Contact a reference archivist at: [email protected]
Citation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing
National Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/
funds under this grant were used to support an investigation and
to find reasons to close OEDCI and were not used to assist OEDCI
with training and technical assistance.
b. Findings:
(1) The Executive Director reported that neither he nor the
OEDCI board were apprised of plans to fund this demonstration nor
were they sent a CAP Form 76 for comment at the time the application
was submitted or funded.
(2) The Region IX, OEDCI field representative, Rick Morada,
stated to an interviewer that he was not aware that the Oakland demon-
stration grant existed. Therefore, he could not comment on it.
Morada said that the only thing he perceived the SEOO doing in OEDCI
was investigation.
(3) There has been very little meaningful coordination be-
tween the appropriate Regional Office staff (field representative),
the CAA or the special technical assistance consultant funded under
this grant.
(4) The special technical assistance consultant has not
regularly attended OEDCI Board and Executive Committee meetings. It
was reported that the consultant attended only one such meeting.
(5) No quarterly diagnostic reports have been submitted to
the WR/OEO or OEDCI. Since August 1, 1970, there should have been
two quarterly reports submitted.
(6) The resume submitted for the person hired as the special
technical assistance consultant under the grant does not meet the
qualifications described in the grant.
(7) Mr. Espana, the special technical assistance consultant
hired, was not approved by Region IX, OEO, as required by the grant.
(8) There was no evidence that the SEOO had attempted to
administer or implement this grant as written at the Oakland CAA.
To date, there has been no meaningful technical assistance provided
to OEDCI staff, board, or low-income groups.
C. Conclusion:
(1) The SEOO has not performed the terms and conditions of
the grant.
(2) WR/OEO and SEOO both have neglected to fulfill their re-
sponsibility to inform the parties involved of the demonstration
grant.
46
(3) Thère was not proper monitoring of this grant to insure
that the conditions, goals, and objectives were being met by the
$000.
d. Recommendation:
(1) The grant should be terminated.
(2) An audit examination of the funds expended under this
grant should be conducted as soon as possible.
47
THE SEOO AND THE REGIONAL OFFICE
1. PERCEPTIONS:
The California SEOO perceives its relationship with Regional OEO to
be at best ambivalent and at worst founded on distrust and permeated
by mutual indifference. While the State and the Region got off to a
good start in their relationship, the situation rapidly deteriorated
until regular communication between the State and the Region became
almost non-existent.
The State has complained, among other things, of the following mat-
ters:
a. The state is not moutinely invited to participate in the pre-
reviews of all CAAs in the State. When the Region does extend an
invitation, it is often too late to allow the State to make the neces-
sary scheduling adjustments to enable their personnel to be in at-
tendance. Moreover, the State has also complained that once pre-
review dates have been set by the Region and the CAAS, these dates
are changed at the last moment producing a disruptive effect on the
deployment of State personnel.
b. The State complains that the Region is unwilling to supply
it with audit reports on the CAAS and that the State has been re-
quired, therefore, to seek out alternate sources to obtain such
reports and other financial information on the CAAs.
C. The State has not been brought into meaningful participation
in evaluations conducted by the Region on community action agencies.
Robert Hawkins, Director of Operations for the SEOO, described the
situation as follows:
(1) "The State Office of Economic Opportunity has
participated in a joint evaluation and review
of OEDCI. However, the outcome of this eval-
uation was most unsatisfactory, due to duplicity
on the part of the Regional Office.
(2) "We have also participated in a Task Force
Evaluation with WR/OEO on the Berkeley Com-
munity Action Agency. However, the State
Office has withdrawn from this Task Force,
and has sent a letter to Regional OEO request-
ing written guarantees that the powers enumerated
in OEO Instruction 7501-1 will be guaranteed to
the State Office (see Attachments) This action
48
was taken in light of the behavior of the
Regional Office in the Oakland area.
(3) "Simply stated, the State Office no longer
trusts the verbal agreements reached with
Regional OEO, feeling that whenever it is
to their advantage, they will double-cross
the State Office."
d. In the area of training and technical assistance, John Sawicki
reported that "This office has never been invited by Region IX to
participate in any contract formation or technical assistance plan-
ning."
e. An illustrative example of the breakdown of communication
between SEOO and the Regional Office, as perceived by Robert Hawkins,
Heals with a demonstration grant involving the concept of volunteer
action. It appears that a proposal by the State for the funding of
a demonstration grant was signed off by the Region but thereafter the
funds were not released. Hawkins described the situation as follows:
(1) "The funds for the demonstration program
have not been received by our office. The
ostensible reasons given by WR/OEO is that
the work program is unsatisfactory. How-
ever, in discussion with Joe Maldonado in
Washington, D. C., in December, 1970, it was
ascertained that National OEO was moving
away from volunteerism.
(2) "It appears to me that the real reason why
the volunteer grant has not been approved,
stems from differences between our office
and the Western Regional Office. The rea-
sons for the volunteer grant not being
funded by Regional OEO to the State Office
of Economic Opportunity are not known to
us. The following chain of events took
place regarding this grant:"
(a) "Rodger Betts formally signed the
CAP 14 with the original work
program.
(b) "Approximately two to three weeks
later, Rodger Betts, on the advice
of the Western Region staff, put a
freeze on releasing the monies to
us until we redesigned the work
program. It was his contention
49
that the work program did
not fulfill the conditions
of the grant.
(c) "It was then suggested by
Mr. Betts that Mr. Uhler and
Mr. Sawicki redesign the work
program, working with the Re-
gion staff. Mr. Uhler said
he would do this, but unless
Mr. Betts committed to release
monies after the redesigning,
Mr. Uhler felt it would be a
waste of time.
(d) "Mr. Uhler and Mr. Sawicki
went to WR/OEO after the com-
mitment was given to Mr. Uhler
by Mr. Betts that the monies
would be released after the re-
designing of the work program
had been accomplished by the
Region staff.
(e) "Mr. Uhler and Mr. Sawicki
spent eight hours at Regional
OEO designing everything the
way Region staff suggested. We
then returned to Sacramento and
wrote it according to their
terms.
(f) "Approximately a week later,
the new work program was sent
to WR/OEO, and to this day, as
far as I know, there has been
absolutely no word from Rodger
Betts as to why the money has
not been released.
(g) "Mr. Unler has talked with Mr.
Betts on several occasions re-
garding this grant, and also
has communicated several times
with Joe Casillas. The last
word we have from Mr. Cassillas
is that this grant is on ice un-
til our relationship with Re-
gional OEO is improved."
50
The State reports that to date no training work programs or workshops
have been developed by the Regional OEO and the State to strengthen
the State's staff capabilities. It appears that the State and Local
Government Division, Headquarters, OEO, has recently interceded with
a request that such training programs and workshops take place. Re-
portedly, John Crutcher, Director, State and Local Government Division,
made a phone call to the California SEOO around the first of March
urging that such training programs and workshops be initiated.
The State reports that the Region Office has not informed the State
of the Region's funding plans for the State.
2. FINDINGS:
As far as the California SEOO is concerned, they believe that the
Regional Office has deliberately ignored them, has withheld informa-
tion which they believe they are entitled to have, has failed to
invite the State to participate jointly in such areas as evaluations
and development of the State funding plans, and have failed to in-
sure that the State has an adequate opportunity to attend pre-reviews.
There is a deep feeling of mistrust and a sense by the State that
they had been "double-crossed" and treated in a manner suggesting
duplicity.
3. CONCLUSIONS:
Whether the State's reaction to its relationship with the Re-
gion is misplaced or justifiable was difficult to determine
in the light of the charges and counter-charges which have been made.
The fact remains, however, that somehow the situation has been allowed
to deteriorate far beyond the point where it can be easily corrected.
Lines of communication have broken down; the effects of unproductive
confrontations have not been mended; the situation has fed upon it-
self; doubt and mistrust have been generated out of proportion.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Lines of communication between the State and the Regional Office
should be immediately reopened. An agreement of the kind described
in OEO Instruction 7501-1, Section 7.f. should be negotiated as soon
as possible and in no case should refunding occur without such an
agreement in force. Since an obvious impasse exists between WR/OEO
and the SEOO, a higher authority both in the Governor's office and
OEO should be called upon to assume the responsibility for resolv-
ing the impasse.
51
THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE SEOO
1. PERCEPTIONS:
Regional Office field teams believe they have expended sufficient of-
fort in their attempts to include SEOO staff in discussions and ac-
tivities relating to grantees, but report they have been turned down
by an unresponsive SEOO staff who either did not answer or failed to
appear at pre-arranged meetings. A District Supervisor provided
letters sent to the SEOO asking for meetings, one of which was held
on December 10, 1971. Another District Supervisor reported that his
attempts to arrange joint meetings were frustrating, e.g. it took
five months to get a roster of SECO personnel working in his area.
The Regional Office field teams and other Regional Office staff per-
ceive Regional Office performance in supporting the SEOO as a diffi-
cult job, particularly in light of their belief that much of what is
being decided is a result of unilateral decisions made by someone
else, higher-up in the Region or in OEO/Washington.
Failures by the Regional Office to work closely with the SEOO are
also explained by:
a. The belief that the SEOO lacks interest in working
on anything but investigating CAAs which disturb
the status quo.
b. The acceptance by Regional Office staff of the
SEOO as "the enemy". Hence, the staff's un-
willingness to provide support, share confidences,
or make agreements which they do not expect will
be kept.
C. The perception of lack of competence in the SEOO staff.
d.
The WR/OEO has not developed a clear-cut oper-
ational policy toward the SEOO which is under-
stood by all staff.
By not immediately obtaining resolution of SEOO complaints about OEO
staff, and vice versa, the Regional Office has left neither SEOO nor
Regional Office staff satisfied with working relationships. There
is the case where a Regional Office field representative was publicly
criticized by the SEOO, unfairly and inaccurately in her view, with
a resulting investigation of the field representative by the Regional
52
Office and the dropping of the case., The issues were apparently not
resolved. The SE00 still considers this case as an example of Re-
gional Office staff undermining the SECO.
2. FINDINGS:
Regional Office staff can document some efforts to include SEOO staff
in joint planning with regard to grantees. (See especially letters
from Frankie Jacobs, District Supervisor.) Regional Office staff
can document their notices and invitations to the SEOO regarding pre-
reviews, with adequate advance notice and with at least one instance
when dates were changed to accommodate the SEOO.
The Regional Office Grant Application Process does provide for appli-
cations to be sent to the SEOO and with written notice of Regional
Office receipt (by a carbon copy of the letter to the grantee acknowl-
edging reccipt).
The Regional Office included the SEOO in two out of the three CAA
evaluations it conducted, viz. in Berkeley and Oakland, but not in
San Bernardino.
The Regional Office does not consult with the SECO before committing
flexible or other funds. The SEOO is advised of the availability of
such funds only as a recipient of the general notice sent to all
CAAS. There is one instance, however, when the Plans, Budget, and
Evaluation Chief did consult with the SEOO regarding using carry-
over funds for innovative programs.
The Regional Office did not consult with the SEOO on the 1971 State
funding plan, explaining that it was a repeat of the 1970 plan which
had been discussed with the SEOO.
While the Regional Office did write for SEOO comments on the Regional
training and technical assistance plan and did receive a reply (con-
sidered not very helpful), it doesn't appear that SEOO, involvement
was really encouraged.
There are no joint written agreements between the Regional Office and
SEOO concerning activities which may overlap.
The Regional Office does deal directly with some state agencies with-
out a by-pass agreement with the SEOO, e.g. with State Health and
with Model Cities Coordinator in the Human Resources Department.
53
Key Regional Office staff who should relate to the SEOO and should
know what is going on concerning the SEOO are more often than not
left in the dark. The Planning Officer, the Training and Technical
Assistance Chief, the SEOO Coordinator, and District Supervisors are
not aware of what is transpiring beyond their own specific relations
with the SEOO. The field representatives also don't know what is
being done with the SEOO except in their direct concerns with grantee
pre-reviews and through newspaper reports.
3. CONCLUSIONS:
Since top officials of OEO/Washington and the Regional Office have
assumed some degree of responsibility for OEO relations with the Cal-
ifornia SEOO, very little Regional Office staff support for the SEOO
was initiated, directed or supported. The exceptions are in field
team planning, pre-reviews, and application processing, and while these
were initiated at the field team level there doesn't seem to have been
any direction or support from OEO Senior Staff.
As long as Regional Office staff feel that top OEO officials in OEO/
Washington and the Regional Director are personally handling the
California SEOO, they will be reluctant to initiate any actions
which may be out of line with policy about which they have little
knowledge and in the development of which they have not participated.
Since members of the Regional Office staff perceive the SEOO as the
antagonist of the poor and OEO, they perceive their responsibility to
support the SECO as incomprehensible.
4. RECOMMENDATION:
OEO must clearly define and assign the responsibilities for OEO sup-
port of the SEOO to the Regional Office without undue interference.
The Regional Office must exercise leadership in resolving working
relationships between the Regional Office and the SEOO and CAAS.
5. FINDINGS:
Performance of the SEOO in its role as advisor to the Governor is
perceived as "good" by Regional Office staff members only on the as-
sumption that the State administration's commitment is not aligned
with the interests of the poor and the CAAs and OEO. (See Cal Williams,
field representative, on why he answered "good".)
Members of the Regional Office staff do not believe the SEOO gives
significant emphasis to resource mobilization except in isolated
incidents.
54
There is no evidence of help to the OEO Regional Office in resource mo-
bilization although the SEOO has done some work independently.
There has been either no SEOO coordination and planning with the
Regional Office or so little that it has gone unnoticed by almost all
Regional Office staff. The Regional Office Planning Officer reported
that the only information on causes and conditions of poverty in the
State received from the California SEOO arrived February 26, 1971.
Leonard Downs of the California SEOO brought a copy of a tabulation
showing welfare aid recipients by county in the State (see Attach-
ments) There is no indication that the SEOO has at any time dis-
cussed with the Regional Office any problems posed by the federal
and state statutory or administrative requirements that impede state
level coordination of OEO-related programs.
The Regional Office staff is unaware of any attempts by the SEOO to
act as an advocate for the poor.
Performance, especially as revealed by the style of most of the SEOO
staff field work is perceived as antagonistic toward the poor.
The Regional Office staff reports that some technical assistance has
been provided by the SEOO but rarely in consultation with the Re-
gional Office to determine OEO grantee's needs for technical assist-
ance, despite some attempts by Regional Office field staff to arrange
such consultation. The SEOO participation in the development of the
Regional Office training and technical assistance plan was reported
as not helpful. Regional Office staff also report that the SEOO has
not consulted with the Regional Office with respect to sponsoring or
participating in training programs and workshops for CAA staff and
board members. They identified the December, 1970, resource mobiliza-
tion workshop conducted by the SECO and state agencies in conjunction
with A.T.A.C. (American Technical Assistance Corporation) for rural
CAAs as the only example they know of where the SEOO has sponsored a
workshop. The SEOO has consulted with OEO to assist grantees in
taking corrective action recommended by OEO as a result of the eval-
uation of Oakland and Berkeley, but assistance from the SEOO to those
grantees has not resulted. The SEOO does not consult with OEO to
assist grantees in taking corrective actions recommended by OEO as a
result of audit reports but this is because OEO neither shares audit
reports with the SEOO nor encourages SEOO involvement.
Performance in grant pre-reviews is perceived as not helpful ranging
from no-attendance to "partial"attendance in an "observer" role.
Monitoring is viewed as at best performed incompetently and usually
destructively to CAAs and OEO. Very bitter feelings exist among
Regional Office staff concerning the style and methods used by SEOO
personnel.
55
SEOO monitoring reports are not shared with OEO Regional staff,
although Regional Office staff has requested that these be shared
and jointly reviewed prior to action by the SEOO. Usually the re-
sults of SEOO monitoring surface after a grant has been vetoed and
supportive justification is offered.
Few joint evaluations have taken place. Therefore, observation of
the SEOO in this area has been limited.
6. CONCLUSIONS:
The SEOO has not performed those functions which call for support to
the OEO Regional Office. Actual SEOO performance has resulted in very
little apparent help to OEO or OEO grantees when judged against the stand-
ards set by OEO Instruction 7501-1 or the SEOO grant work programs.
Given the premise that the State administration's views are not aligned
with those held by most of the CAAs and the OEO Regional staff, the
SEOO has done poorly in presenting those views in such a way as to
at best get respect and at worst still maintain working relationships.
Monitoring as performed by the SEOO is a perversion of the concept
of monitoring as it is performed by the staffs of other SEOOs and
OEO regions.
The quality of performance has been so poor that had OEO properly
monitored the grants made to the state, suspension for non-performance
could have been justifiably recommended. This non-performance by the
SEOO has been largely ignored by OEO. The California SEOO emphasis
on grantee investigation and the methods of investigation were known
to OEO but were not corrected. Accordingly, OEO has not performed
its function of advocating for the poor and for OEO grantees by re-
quiring the SEOO to perform its proper functions and grant work pro-
gram commitments.
No real improvements can be made in SEOO performance unless OEO en-
forces SEOO compliance with the intent and purpose of the Economic
Opportunity Act and the grant work program and redirects the SEOO's
thrust away from investigations to positive aid and assistance.
7.
RECOMMENDATION:
OEO must require SEOO conformance to the intent, and purposes of the
Economic Opportunity Act and require compliance with grant work pro-
grams and OEO instructions.
56
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
The overall conclusions of the evaluation team are as follows:
1.
The SEOO has potentially a very good senior level staff.
2. The SEOO is improving in internal management.
3. The SEOO has accomplished a number of special projects
mentioned in the body of the report.
4. The California SEOO has not sufficiently followed the work
programs agreed to as specified in its four grants.
5. The SEOO has not acted as an advocate for the poor in keeping
with OEO Instruction 7501-1.
6. The SEOO has made little impact on state and federal agencies,
private agencies, local government or the general public.
7. The SEOO is perceived to be antagonistic to the CAAs and the
poor.
8. The SEOO is using the majority of its staff to perform invest-
igative functions which are interpreted negatively by the CAAS.
9. The majority of the SEOO staff does not have sufficient tech-
nical background or experience to deliver quality technical assistance
to the CAAs.
10. The Oakland Demonstration Grant # CG-9093-A/1 to deal with in-
tensive management technical assistance has not been implemented in
accordance with its terms.
11. An impasse exists between the CAAs, the Regional Office, and
the SEOO.
57
EVALUATION TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS
3. Regular Grant
Refunding the regular California SEOO grant should be made contingent
upon acceptance by the SEOO of the fo'lowing conditions:
1. The California SEOO agrees to discontinue the Community Program
Analyst (CPA) type of investigations. The California SEOO can discharge
its responsibility under Section 242 of the Equal Opportunity Act of
1964, as amended, more effectively by concentrating the resources of
its office on assisting the CAAs in California by providing meaningful
technical assistance, mobilizing federal, state and local resources,
and insuring SEOO personnel are properly trained and have knowledge
of grantee needs.
2. The SEOO agrees to insure that technical assistance personnel
will have qualified backgrounds to allow them to deliver positive
and constructive technical assistance to CAAs.
3. The California SEOO agrees to train technical assistance per-
sonnel in the proper methods of delivering technical assistance to
CAAs.
4. The California SEOO agrees to implement the plan referred to
in Lewis K. Uhler's letter of February 8, 1971, addressed to O. Mearl
Custer of Elk Grove Unified School District (see Attachments), regard-
ing the establishment of an Advisory Council to SEOO, and further agrees
that the Advisory Council will include representatives of both the poor
and CAAs.
5. The California SEOO agrees to establish and maintain minimum
standards for experience and qualifications for staff consistent with
the functions of the position.
6. The California SEOO and Region IX, OEO, have negotiated a
memorandum of agreement in accordance with OEO Instruction 7501-1,
Section 7f.
7. The California SEOO agrees that it will undertake an infor-
mational program specifying how it will implement the provisions of
the Regional Office/SEOO memorandum of agreement and provisions of
OEO Instruction 7501-1.
8. The California SEOO agrees that it will perform its obliga-
tion to be an advocate for the poor and specifies the steps it will
take to meet this obligation.
58
STAP Grant:
Refunding for the STAP Grant should be made contingent on agreement by
the SEOO to immediately comply with existing STAP guidelines with
respect to:
1. Selection of Staff
2. Development of a STAP plan
3. Submission of STAP reports
4. Long-term, on-site field assignments
C. Management Demonstration Grant:
The management demonstration grant should not be refunded. The work
program for this grant should be integrated into the regular grant,
with qualified specialists transferred to the regular grants technical
assistance operations staff.
D. Oakland Demonstration Grant:
(a) The Oakland grant should be immediately terminated.
(b) An audit examination of the funds expended under this grant should
be conducted as soon as possible.
E. Inter-communication
The California SEOO should jointly develop with the CAAs and Region
IX, OEO, a mutually acceptable means of inter-communication that will
guarantee that all parties work together on major issues of joint con-
cern. i
59
SUMMARY
The California SEOO is philosophically opposed to what it believes
the community action agencies advocate and practice on behalf of the
poor. Generally, the SEOO believes that CAAs subscribe to and foster
a "Sol Alinsky" confrontation approach. This approach usually re-
sults in embarrassing economic and political pressure being brought
to bear on local and state government officials. Further, the SEOO
believes that the Western Regional Office of Economic Opportunity
does nothing to discourage such an approach by the CAAS and is, there-
fore, not to be trusted as the CARS are not to be trusted. (Also, the
SEOO believes the CAAs and the Regional Office staff to be ultra liberal
and, therefore, antagonistic be the SECO.) Another contention of the
State Office is that current OEO programs are not reaching the poor and
that CAA officials are self-styled spokesmen who do not represent
the poor people. In essence, they believe that OEO supports a group
of highly paid self-appointed leaders whose views diverge widely
from the current State administration on key issues affecting the
poor.
Mr. Uhler, the Director, stated it is necessary that his staff perform
their present role because the Western Regional Office of OEO will not mon-
itor CAAs in a hard nosed, no nonsense, business-like and responsible
way and that the end result is the "Sol Alinsky" confrontation model
which he and his staff do not favor. Mr. Uhler further stated that
until the Regional Office did act more responsibly, he intended to
follow the present course of action. He also stated that he would
prefer to spend more time on mobilization of resources, innovative
approaches to solving the problems of poverty, performing an ombuds-
man role and in linking public and private agencies, but could not
because he had to spend an inordinate amount of time monitoring and
investigating OEO programs to discharge the office's Section 242
function under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended. He
would prefer that the Western Regional Office of Economic Opportunity
perform the monitoring function as the SEOO conceives it.
The CAAS and Regional Office believe that the SEOO is not an advocate
for the poor and does not intend to serve in a helpful manner as pre-
scribed in OEO Instruction 7501-1 to alleviate the conditions of pov-
erty in the State of California.
The Regional Office believes its own role to be one of monitoring and
guidance when working with CAAs. They further believe that boards
of directors are responsible for making their own decision concerning
the expenditure of funds with a minimum of dictation by the Regional
Office. Overall, the Regional Office perceives its role as monitor-
ing, interpreting guidelines, and providing helpful information to
locally controled non-profit corporations. They also feel that OEO
60
has increased the funds to SEOOs for the purposes outlined in
OEO Instruction 7501-1 and the money should be used for those pur-
poses. Further, OEO has encouraged governors to place the directors
of the SEOOs in a relative position to other social agencies so that
an advocacy role might be attained.
The situation is basically this: The State GEO is funded $792,636
to perform a number of helpful services on behalf of the poor in
partnerhip as a grantee with the WR/CEO and the CAAS under the
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended. The SEOO accepted the
money ostensibly to carry out OHO instructions and guidelines.
Clearly, with the number of staff and the amount of money being
spent the guidelines and instructions have not been carried out and
the results are negligible.
The evaluation team believes the intent and spirit of the Act to be
couched in OEO Instruction 7501-1 which clearly directs and encourages
State Offices to serve as a catalyst in support and in behalf of the
poor and CAAs in alleviating and eliminating poverty. The California
SEOO clearly has not served in this capacity.
The question which must be faced is this: "Should the SEOO be re-
funded by WR/OEO in view of the fact that,
a. there has been inadequate performance or compliance with the
SEOO grant work programs,
b. OEO Instruction 7501-1 has not been sufficiently implemented
and,
C. an impassse exists between the Regional Office, the CAAS,
and the SEOO. 11
It is unlikely that the SEOO can fulfill its responsibilities as
outlined in OEO Instruction 7501-1 if present attitudes continue
to exist. Since the SEOO is a grantee of the WR/OEO it is important
that the issues raised in this evaluation be resolved by the WR/OEO
by implementing the recommendations offered in this report.
61
CALIFORNIA SEOO EVALUATION
TABULATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE
ANSWERS
I
- Purpose
II - Procedures
III - Findings
Attachments
#1
- Questionnaire Summary by Section
#2
- Questionnaire Summaries by Function
#3
-
Tabulations of Individual Questions
-1-
CALIFORNIA SEOO EVALUATION
TABULATION OF QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERS
I. Purpose
The questionnaire was designed to collect data showing how different
groups perceive the performance of the California SEOO. This tabula-
tion reflects the results.
II. Procedures
A. Groups interviewed and Questionnaire sections
1. Twenty-four persons on the SEOO professional field staff
(community program analysts, coordinators, specialists) and
twenty-three OEO regional office field staff were asked to
complete Section III - The SEOO and CAAs; Section VII - The
SEOO and the Regional Office; Section VIII - The Regional
Office and the SEOO; Section XI - The California SE00 Work
Program.
2. Five of the senior SE00 personnel were asked to complete
selected sections of the questionnaire. (Accordingly, the
tabulation tables will show different numbers of SEOO staff
answering each section.)
Six OEO regional office staff personnel were asked to complete
all or selected sections of the questionnaire. Three other
regional office staff were asked to complete Sections I, II,
VII, VIII which deal with the SEOO as advisor to the governor,
with the SEOO and state agencies, with the SEOO and the Regional
Office. These nine regional office staff personnel were se-
lected from these divisions: Office of Governmental Relations;
Plans, Budget & Evaluation; Program Management Support, VISTA;
and Legal Services.
3. CAA executive directors and board chairmen were asked to com-
plete Section III - The SEOO and CAAs and Section XI - The
California SEOO Work Program.
Twenty-one CAA executive directors and 17 board chairmen were
personally interviewed by the evaluation team.
Another thirteen CAA executive directors and four board chair-
men submitted their questionnaires by mail in time for this
tabulation. The questionnaires from two CAA executive direc-
tors arrived too late to be included.
-2-
4. Nine state agency officials completed Section II - The SEOO
and Other State Agencies.
5. Fourteen staff personnel from other federal agencies completed
Section IV - The SEOO and Other Federal Agencies. The agencies
interviewed were:
Health, Education & Welfare - 2 (with four other staff
participating in the interview)
Housing & Urban Development - 6 (including five who gave
their answers by telephone)
Labor - 4
Small Business Administration - 1 (with six other staff
participating in the interview)
Economic Development Administration - 1
6. Eighteen representatives of local government were interviewed
and asked to complete Section V - The SEOO and Local Govern-
ment.
7. Twenty-eight representatives or members of community groups,
primarily organizations of poor people, were asked to com-
plete Section VI - The SEOO and Community Groups.
B. Total number of questionnaires
This tabulation includes data from 168 questionnaires from people
interviewed by the evaluation team plus 17 which were sent by
mail for a total of 185 questionnaires.
(More than 168 people were interviewed, but some participated in
interviews but were not asked to fill out questionnaires, e.g.
CAA director's staff.)
C. Questions and Ratings
1. The questions in the questionnaire were written in either one
of two ways:
a. "Has the SEOO
" which could be answered by a
"yes/no/don't know" rating;
-3-
b. "How well has the SE00
II which could be answered
...
by a "good/poor/don't know" rating.
(The SEOO Organization and Management section does not
exactly follow the system.)
2. The questions were drawn from OEO Instruction 7501-1, "The
Role of the SEOO" and from the SEOO CAP 81 and work programs.
The scope of questions was deliberately designed to be com-
prehensive in order to avoid bias in the selection of questions
to be included.
Altogether 119 questions appeared in the questionnaire.
D. The Tabulation Tables
1. Each Question
Tabulations of thirty questions (out of 119) are included in
this report. They were selected as a fair and significant
representation to show perceptions of SEOO performance.
2. Questionnaire Summary by Section (in percentages)
The figures shown in this summary are the percentage of the
total number of responses to all questions in the particular
section of the questionnaire.
3. Questionnaire Summaries by Function (in percentages)
The figures shown in these tables are percentages of the total
number of responses to questions which relate to the particu-
lar function, e.g. Technical Assistance. These questions
relating to a particular function appeared in several sections
of the questionnaire.
III. Questionnaire Tabulation Findings
1. The most striking and obvious finding in the tabulation is the
high percentage of answers in the "don't know" category.
People in all groups and for almost all sections of the question-
naire don't know whether or not the SEOO has performed many of
the tasks it is supposed to do or how well it has performed them.
-4-
Reviews of individual questionnaires revealed that this situation
was relatively the same with experienced personnel as well as
with new staff. Likewise, the interview experience confirmed that
the "don't know" answers came from lack of knowledge rather than
an unwillingness to state an opinion affirmatively or negatively.
2. The next most obvious finding is that while the SEOO perceives
its performance positively no other group can agree. For ques-
tions which people believed they could answer (taking out the
"don't knows") the results were generally negative. In other
words, when people had knowledge of SEOO activities they thought
poorly of the SEOO.
3. The CAAs were more decisive in stating their negative perception
of SEOO performance than were the regional office staff.
4. The question asked concerning the SEOO's performance as advisor
to the governor had mixed responses.
Some people insisted on writing in that their rating of "good"
meant only that the SEOO performance carried out the governor's
philosophy.
-5-
QUESTIONNAIRE SUMMARY BY SECTION
IN PERCENTAGE
SECTION I
SECTION II
SECTION III
SECTION IV
SECTION V
SECTION VI
(SECO AND THE
(SE00 & OTHER
(SEOO AND
(SEOO & FEDERAL
(SEOO & LOCAL
(SEOO & COMTY
GOVERNOR)
STATE AGENCIES)
CAA's)
AGENCIES)
GOVERNMENT)
GROUPS
AF
NEG
DK
T
AF
NEG
DK
T
AF
NEG
DK
T
AF
NEC
DK
T
AF
NEG
DK
T
AF
NEG
DK
T
SEOO
79
21
0
100
58
20
22
100
47
9
44
100
67
11
22
100
50
0
50
100
63
13
24
100
REGIONAL
OFFICE
7
21
72
100
0
31
69
100
7
54
39
100
0
42
58
100
8
25
67
100
0
50
50
100
CAN's
10
62
28
100
STATE
AGENCIES
3
16
81
100
FEDERAL
0
17
83
AGENCIES
100
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
15
35
50
100
COMMUNITY
GROUPS
2
52
46
100
SECTION VII
SECTION VIII
SECTION IX
SECTION X
SECTION XI
(SEOO & OEO REG
(OEO REGIONAL
(HO/OEO AND
(SEOO ORGANIZA-
(SEOO WORK
OFFICE)
OFC. & SE00)
THE SECO)
TION & MANAG.
PROG. CALIF.)
AF
NEG
DK
T
AF
NEG
DK
T
AF
NEG
DK
T
AF
NEG
DK
T
AF
NEG
DK
T
SE00
30
0
61
100
8
40
52
100
32
24
44
100
89
7
4
100
55
4
41
100
REGIONAL
OFFICE
4
47
49
100
24
16
60
100
15
n
85
100
11
25
64
100
6
61
33
100
CAA's
6
61
33
100
KEY
AE
II
AFFIRMATIVE RESPONSE ("Yes" or "Good")
NEG
= NEGATIVE RESPONSE ("No" or "Poor")
DK
II
DON'T KNOW
Attachment #1
T
If TOTAL
FUNCTION:
Advisor to Governor
SAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:
"How well has the SEOO assisted the governor
concerning the governor's authority to dis-
approve OEO grants and contracts of assistance?"
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
RESPONSE
*YES/NO
RESPONSE
*GOOD/POOR
RESPONDING
DON'T
RESPONDING
DON'T
YES
NO
KNOW
GOOD
POOR
GROUPS
T
GROUPS
KNOW
T
SEOO
100 %
%
%
%
0
0
100
SEOO
91 %
0 %
9 %
%
100
REGIONAL
OFFICE
33 %
22 %
45 %
100 %
REGIONAL
OFFICE
27 %
27 %
46 %
100 %
CAAs
%
%.
%
%
CAAs
32 %
32 %
36 %
100
STATE
STATE
%
%
%
%
AGENCIES
AGENCIES
11 %
33 %
56 %
100 %
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
AGENCIES
0 %
7 %
93 %
100 %
LOCAL
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
%
%
%
%
GOVERNMENT
23 %
30 %
47 %
100 %
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
GROUPS
%
%
%
%
GROUPS
%
%
%
%
*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT
*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE
THE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SE00 HAS
QUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS
OR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC
PERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED
TASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.
TO THIS FUNCTION.
Attachment #2
Page 1 of 7
FUNCTION: Resource Mobilization
SAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:
"How well has the SE00 on its own initiative,
sought out or assisted in the development of
every state, Federal, community and private
agency resource (programs, expertise, funds,
etc.) that can be effectively marshalled and/or
coordinated to assist CAAs and other anti-poverty
efforts within the state?"
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
RESPONSE
*YES/NO
RESPONSE *GOOD/POOR
RESPONDING
DON 'T
RESPONDING
DON'T
YES
NO
T
GOOD
POOR
GROUPS
KNOW
GROUPS
KNOW
T
SEOO
100 %
%
%
%
0
0
100
SEOO
81 %
0 %
%
%
19
100
REGIONAL
0 %
50 %
50 %
100 %
REGIONAL
OFFICE
OFFICE
4 %
65 %
31 %
100 %
CAAs
%
%
%
%
CAAs
8 %
72%
20 %
100 10
I
STATE
STATE
AGENCIES
11%
22 %
67 %
100 %
AGENCIES
22 %
33%
45 %
100
%
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
AGENCIES
0 %
21 %
79 %
100
%
LOCAL
LOCAL
%
%
%
%
GOVERNMENT
6 %
GOVERNMENT
44%
50 %
100
%
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
GROUPS
%
%
%
%
GROUPS
%
%
%
%
*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT
*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE
THE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SE00 HAS
QUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS
OR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC
PERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED
TASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.
TO THIS FUNCTION.
Attachment #2
Page 2 of 7
FUNCTION:
Coordination & Planning
SAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:
"Has the SEOO Director provided other state
agencies with information and statistics on
the causes and conditions of poverty in the
state, on the problems and needs of the poor,
and the programs and efforts to overcome poverty
within the state?"
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
RESPONSE
*YES/NO
RESPONSE
GOOD/POOR
RESPONDING
DON'T
RESPONDING
DON'T
YES
NO
KNOW
T
GOOD
POOR
GROUPS
GROUPS
KNOW
T
SEOO
31 %
%
%
%
8
61
100
SEOO
27 %
1 %
%
%
72
100
REGIONAL
1 %
42%
57 %
100 %
REGIONAL
OFFICE
OFFICE
1 %
49 %
50 %
100
%
CAAs
5 %
64%
31 %
100 %
CAAs
%
%
%
10/0
STATE
STATE
AGENCIES
8 %
30 %
62 %
100
%
AGENCIES
12 %
44 %
44 %
100
%
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
AGENCIES
0 %
21 %
79 %
100
%
LOCAL
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
31 %
44%
25 %
100 %
GOVERNMENT
%
%
%
%
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
GROUPS
4 %
56 %
40 %
100 %
GROUPS
%
%
%
%
*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT
*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE
THE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SEOO HAS
QUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS
OR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC
PERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED
TASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.
TO THIS FUNCTION.
Attachment #2
Page 3 of 7
FUNCTION: Advocacy for the Poor
SAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:
"How well has the SEOO acted as a special advocate
for the poor in state government by such activi-
ties as:
a. Working for representation of the poor on
state committees which operate programs
affecting the poor?
b. Assessing state-poverty-related programs
c. Assessing state administrative procedures and
working to make them more responsive to the
needs and desires of the poor
d. Developing career opportunities for the poor
within other state agencies
"
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
RESPONSE
*YES/NO
RESPONSE
*GOOD/POOR
RESPONDING
DON
RESPONDING
DON'T
YES
NO
KNOW
T
COOD
POOR
GROUPS
GROUPS
KNOW
T
SEOO
27 %
%
%
%
14
59
100
SEOO
38 %
4 %
%
%
58
100
REGIONAL
0 %
47 %
53 %
OFFICE
100 %
REGIONAL
OFFICE
1 %
54 %
45 %
100
%
CAAs
2 %
84%
14 %
100 %
CAAs
3%
56 %
41 %
100 %
STATE
STATE
0 %
AGENCIES
26 %
74 %
100
%
AGENCIES
0 %
33 %
67 %
100
%
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
LOCAL
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
%
%
%
%
GOVERNMENT
%
%
%
%
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
GROUPS
%
%
%
%
GROUPS
%
%
%
%
*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT
*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE
THE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SE00 HAS
QUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS
OR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC
PERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED
TASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.
TO THIS FUNCTION.
Attachment #2
Page 4 of 7
FUNCTION:
Technical Assistance
SAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:
"How well has the SEOO provided special technical
assistance where needed to Community Action Agencies,
community groups, and other grantees or potential
grantees, in developing, conducting and administering
programs to alleviate poverty?"
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
RESPONSE
*YES/NO
RESPONSE *GOOD/POOR
RESPONDING
DON T
RESPONDING
DON
YES
NO
T
GOOD
POOR
GROUPS
KNOW
GROUPS
KNOW
T
46 %
%
%
%
SEOO
13
41
100
SEOO
39%
11 %
50 %
100 %
REGIONAL
5 %
50 %
45%
100 %
REGIONAL
OFFICE
0%
62 %
38 %
100 %
OFFICE
CAAs
8 %
69 %
23%
100 %
CAAs
6%
77 %
17 %
100%
I
STATE
STATE
AGENCIES
0 %
22 %
78%
100 %
11%
22 %
%
AGENCIES
67
100 %
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
LOCAL
LOCAL
%
%
%
%
GOVERNMENT
0%
20%
80%
100 %
GOVERNMENT
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
GROUPS
%
%
%
%
GROUPS
0%
48%
52 %
100 %
*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT
*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE
THE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SEOO HAS
QUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS
OR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC
PERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED
TASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.
TO THIS FUNCTION.
Attachment #2
Page 5 of 7
Grant Review, Monitoring &
FUNCTION:
Evaluation
SAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:
"How well has the SE00 provided advice and assis-
tance at an early or pre-review stage in the de-
velopment of program proposals by CAAs and other
OEO grantees?"
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
RESPONSE
*YES/NO
RESPONSE
*GOOD/POOR
RESPONDING
DON 'T
RESPONDING
DON 'T
YES
NO
GROUPS
KNOW
T
GOOD
POOR
GROUPS
KNOW
T
SEOO
65%
8 %
27 %
%
100
SEOO
55 %
10 %
%
%
35
100
REGIONAL
14%
58 %
28%
100 %
REGIONAL
OFFICE
OFFICE
%
49 %
51
%
100 %
CAAs
23%
56 %
21%
100 %
CAAs
38 %
10/
7%
55 %
100 K
STATE
STATE
1
%
%
%
AGENCIES
%
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
LOCAL
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
%
%
%
%
GOVERNMENT
%
%
%
%
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
GROUPS
%
%
%
%
GROUPS
%
%
%
of
*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT
*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE
THE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SEOO HAS
QUALITY WITH WHICH THE SE00 HAS
OR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC
PERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED
TASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.
TO THIS FUNCTION.
Attachment #2
Page 6 of 7
FUNCTION:
Management
SAMPLE OF A QUESTION RELATING TO FUNCTION:
"How well is the SE00 organized to effectively
utilize staff and financial resources?"
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
FUNCTION BY GROUP AND
RESPONSE
*YES/NO
RESPONSE
*GOOD/POOR
RESPONDING
DON 'T
RESPONDING
DON'T
YES
NO
T
GOOD
KNOW
POOR
T
GROUPS
GROUPS
KNOW
SEOO
90 %
4%
6 %
%
100
SEOO
98 %
2 %
0 %
%
100
REGIONAL
13 %
20%
67 %
100
%
REGIONAL
OFFICE
OFFICE
17 %
33%
50%
100 %
CAAs
18 %
10%
72 %
100
%
CAAs
%
%
%
101
%,
10
1
STATE
STATE
%
%
%
%
AGENCIES
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
FEDERAL
FEDERAL
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
AGENCIES
%
%
%
%
LOCAL
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
%
%
%
%
GOVERNMENT
%
%
%
%
COMMUNITY
COMMUNITY
GROUPS
%
%
%
%
GROUPS
%
%
%
%
*YES/NO RESPONSE INDICATES THAT
*GOOD/POOR RESPONSE INDICATES THE
THE RESPONDENT FEELS THE SEOO HAS
QUALITY WITH WHICH THE SEOO HAS
OR HAS NOT PERFORMED SPECIFIC
PERFORMED SPECIFIC TASKS RELATED
TASKS RELATED TO THIS FUNCTION.
TO THIS FUNCTION.
Attachment #2
Page 7 of 7
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION #I THE SEOO AND THE GOVERNOR
QUESTION REFERENCE
#2.
7501-1
How well has the SE00 assisted the Governor
2a.
concerning the Governor's authority to disapprove
OEO grants and contracts of assistance?
LIST grants or contracts which have been
disapproved by the Governor in the past
12 months.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
DON'T
GOOD
POOR
TOTAL
KNOW
SEOO STAFF
2
# 2
%
#
%
#
100
0
0
0
0%
#
2
%
100
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
#1
%
8
13
#
1
13%
#
6
74%
#
8
100%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Attachment #3
1 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # II THE SE00 AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#6.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO developed effective inter-
3a.
agency mechanisms to assure good communication be-
tween state agencies and offices whose activities
CAP 81
affect the poor?
IV-D
DESCRIBE those inter-agency mechanisms which
have had significant success.
\
TABULATION RESULTS
GOOD
POOR
DON' T
RESPONDING GROUPS
TOTAL
KNOW
SEOO STAFF
3
# 3
100 %
#
0
0 %
#
0
0 %
#
3
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
8
#0
0%
#3
38%
It
5
62%
#
STAFF
8
100%
STATE AGENCIES
9
#1
11 %
#
4
44%
#
%
#
4
45
9
100%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Attachment #3
Page 2 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # Il THE SEOO AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#7.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO, on its own initiative,
3a.
sought out and developed or assisted in the devel-
4d.
opment of every state resource (programs, expertise,
6h.
funds, etc.) that can be effectively marshalled
and/or coordinated to assist CAAs and other anti-
CAP 81
poverty efforts within the state?
I-C
II-A
LIST agencies and resources mobilized during
IV-C
the past 6 months.
W.P.
DESCRIBE significant successes.
III-C
IV-A/C
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
POOR
DON'T
GOOD
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
3
# 3
100 %
#
%
#
%
0
0
0
0
#3
190%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
#0
0%
# 3
38 %
#
8
5
62%
#3
100% %
STATE AGENCIES
9
# 2
22%
# 3
33%
# 4
45%
#:
100%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
7c
Attachment #3
Page 3 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # II THE SE00 AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#9.
7501-1
Has the SEOO provided information and assis-
3c.
tance with the objective of enacting and
amending legislation and developing programs
CAP 81
for the benefit of the poor -
II-A
C. to other state agencies?
LIST proposed legislative actions or
programs during the past year.
DESCRIBE significant successes or fail-
ures.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DON'T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
3
# 2
66%
# 0
0%
#1
34%
#
3
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
7
# 0
0 %
# 2
29%
#5
71%
#
7
100%
STATE AGENCIES
9
# 0
0 %
# 2
22%
#7
78 %
#
9
100%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Attachment #3
Page 4 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # III THE SE00 AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#1
7501-1
How well has the SEOO represented the Governor
2b.
with respect to CAAs?
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
GOOD
POOR
DON'T
TOTAL
KNOW
SEOO STAFF
28
#26
93%
#0
0%
#2
7%
# 28
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
28
#14
46 %
#9
32%
#7
22%
#
28
100%
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
33
#11
33 %
#11
33%
#11
34%
# 33
100%
CAA BOARD
#
6
%
#
CHAIRMEN
19
32
5
26%
#8
42
%
#
19
100%
2
Attachment #3
Page 5 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # III THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#3.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO acted as a special advocate
3b.
for the poor in state government by such activi-
ties as:
W.P.
b.
Assessing state-poverty-related programs and
III-D
working to make them more responsive to the
needs and desires of the poor?
LIST the state-operated programs which the
CAAs have asked the SEOO to assist to
make more responsive during the past
year.
DESCRIBE significant successes or failures.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON'T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
28
#13
46 %
#0
0%
#15
54%
#28
100 %
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
28
#1
4 %
# 18
64 %
It
9
32%
#28
100%
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
34
#1
3%
# 20
%
#
38%
#34
59
13
100%
CAA BOARD
CHAIRMEN
#1
%
#
%
#
20
5
11
55
8
40%
#
20
100%
Attachment #3
Page 6 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION #III THE SE00 AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#8.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO provided special technical
4a.
assistance where needed to Community Action Agen-
cies, community groups, and other grantees or po-
CAP 81
tential grantees, in developing, conducting and
II-A/B
administering programs to alleviate poverty?
W.P.
LIST occasions when special Technical Assis-
I-B
tance has been provided, identifying sub-
IV-A/D
ject and who provided the Technical Assis-
tance during the past 6 months.
DESCRIBE significant successes or failures.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON'T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
28
22
79 %
#0
%
#
21%
#
6
28
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
# Q
0%
#19
70%
#
8
30%
#
STAFF
27
27
100%
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
33
# 4
12%
#26
79%
#3
9%
#
33
100%
CAA BOARD
CHAIRMEN
21
#
5%
#
1
15
71%
#5
24%
#
21
100%
Attachment #3
Page 7 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # III THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#9.
7501-1
Has the SEOO consulted with the CAAs using
4a.
Checkpoint Form 76 - at the time of grantee pre-
review and when developing its own annual re-
CAP 81
funding request to determine OEO grantee needs
II-B
for specialized technical assistance and to get
advice on how the SEOO can assist in meeting
W.P.
these needs?
I-B
LIST the occasions when the SEOO has consulted
with the CAAs on their needs for specialized
technical assistance during the past 6 months.
Identify how this was done -- by letter,
field visit, meeting, telephone.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DON' T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
27
#12
44 %
#1
4%
#14
52%
# 27
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
28
# 2
7 %
#12
43%
#
14
50%
# 28
100 %
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
34
# 5
15%
#26
76%
#3
9%
# 34
100%
CAA BOARD
CHAIRMEN
21
#
3
14%
#₁₂
57%
#6
29 %
# 21
100%
Attachment #3
Page 8 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # III THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#11.
7501-1
Has the SEOO participated in the annual field
4b.
pre-review of an OEO grantee, along with an OEO
representative (Regional or Headquarters)?
W.P.
III-A
LIST the grantee pre-reviews attended by the
SEOO in the past 6 months.
DESCRIBE pre-reviews when the SEOO has been
helpful to the CAA Board in exercising
its policy decision-making responsibilities.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DON' T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
28
#23
82%
# 1
4%
# 4
14%
#28
10%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
28
#16
57%
#6
21 %
#6
22%
#28
100%
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
34
#17
50%
# 16
47%
#1
3%
#34
100%
CAA BOARD
CHAIRMEN
21
#13
62%
#
7
33%
#1
5%
#21
100%
Attachment #3
Page 9 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # III THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#12.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO provided advice and assis-
4b.
tance at an early or pre-review stage in the de--
velopment of program proposals by CAAs and other
CAP 81
OEO grantees?
II-B
LIST the occasions when the CAAS and grantees
W.P.
were assisted by the SEOO in the past 6 months
I-B/C
at an early or pre-review stage.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON'T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
4
SEOO STAFF
27
#13
48%
#3
11%
#
11
41%
#27
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
#0
0 %
#16
59%
#
27
11
41%
#27
100%
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
34
#2
6 %
#26
76%
#6
18%
#
34
100%
CAA BOARD
CHAIRMEN
21
#3
14%
#
15
71%
#3
15%
#21
100%
Attachment #3
Page 10 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION III THE SE00 AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#13.
7501-1
Did the SEOO sign the Form 77 (Checkpoint Pro-
4b.
cedure) on site at the conclusion of the field
pre-review or no later than 15 days after re-
ceipt of the form?
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DON'T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
28
#15
54%
#2
7%
#11
39%
#28
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
28
#2
7%
#13
47%
#13
46%
#28
100%
%
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
34
#11
32 %
#14
41%
#9
27%
34
100%
CAA BOARD
-
CHAIRMEN
20
#4
20 %
#4
20%
#12
60%
720
100%
Attachment #3
Page 11 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # III THE SE00 AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#21.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO monitored some or all of
6f.
the OEO-funded programs within the state if
it has the staff capability and if this activity
is part of the approved SEOO Work Program, which
includes arrangements for periodic written re-
ports plus other reporting of special activity
or problems, to the appropriate OEO grant office.
LIST grantees where significant monitoring
was done during the past 6 months.
DESCRIBE circumstances and results.
i
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON'T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
27
#18
67 %
#1
4 %
#8
29%
#27
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
0 %
#
STAFF
27
#0
# 16
59%
11
41%
#27
100%
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
34
#3
9 %
# 20
59%
#11
32%
#34
It
100%
CAA BOARD
21
#
1
4 %
#
10
48%
#
10
48%
#
21
100%
CHAIRMEN
Attachment #3
Page 12 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # III THE SE00 AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#21.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO monitored some or all of
6f.
the OEO-funded programs within the state if
it has the staff capability and if this activity
is part of the approved SEOO Work Program, which
includes arrangements for periodic written re-
ports plus other reporting of special activity
or problems, to the appropriate OEO grant office.
LIST grantees where significant monitoring
was done during the past 6 months.
DESCRIBE circumstances and results.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON' T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
4
SEOO STAFF
27
#18
67 %
#1
4 %
#8
29%
#
27
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
27
#0
0 %
#16
59%
#
STAFF
11
41 %
#27
190%
CAA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTORS
34
#3
9 %
#20
59%
#11
32%
#34
It
100%
CAA BOARD
21
#
4 %
#
CHAIRMEN
1
10
48%
#10
48 %
#
21
100%
Attachment #3
Page 12 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION #IV THE SEOO AND OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
QUESTION REFERENCE
#2.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO, on its own initiative,
3a.
sought out and developed or assisted in the
4d.
development of Federal resources (programs,
expertise, funds, etc.) that can be effectively
CAP 81
marshalled and/or coordinated to assist CAAS and
IV-E
other anti-poverty efforts within the state?
W.P.
LIST federal resources mobilized during the
IV-C
past 6 months.
DESCRIBE significant successes.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON'T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
3
# 2
67 %
#
0
0%
#1
33%
#
3
100 %
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
4
#0
0 %
# 2
50%
#2
50%
# 4
100%
FEDERAL AGENCIES
14
#0
0 %
# 3
21%
#11
79%
#14
100%
#
%
#
%
If
%
#
%
Attachment #3
Page 13 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION #V SE00 AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
QUESTION REFERENCE
#1.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO represented the Governor
2h.
with respect to local units of government?
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON' T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
1
#1
100%
#0
0%
# Q
0%
#1
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
3
#1
33%
# 0
0%
#
2
67%
#3
100 %
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
17
#4
24%
#5
29%
#8
47%
the
717
100 %
CAA BOARD
CHAIRMEN
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Attachment #3
Page 14 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION #V THE SE00 AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
QUESTION REFERENCE
#4.
7501-1
HOW well has the SEOO provided special technical
4a.
assistance where needed to local government
agencies, in developing, conducting and ad-
CAP 81
ministering programs to alleviate poverty?
II-A
LIST occasions during the past six months when
special technical assistance was provided.
Identify subject and who provided the tech-
nical assistance.
DESCRIBE significant successes or failures.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON'T T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
1
# 0
0%
#0
0%
#1
#
%
100%
1
100
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
3
# 0
0%
#1
33 %
#2
67%
#3
100%
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
15
# o
0%
#3
20%
#12
80%
# 15
100 %
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Attachment #3
Page 15 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # VI THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY GROUPS, PRIVATE AGENCIES
AND GENERAL PUBLIC
QUESTION REFERENCE
#1.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO provided special technical
4a.
assistance where needed to community groups in
developing, conducting and administering pro-
CAP 81
grams to alleviate poverty?
II-A
LIST occasions during the past six months when
W.P.
special technical assistance was provided.
I-B
Identify subject and who provided the tech-
nical assistance.
DESCRIBE significant successes or failures.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON' T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
# 2
50 %
44
4
#0
0%
#2
50%
#
4
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
3
# 0
0 %
#2
67%
#1
33%
# 3
100%
COMMUNITY GROUPS
27
#0
0 %
# 13
48%
#14
52%
727
100%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Attachment #3
Page 16 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION #VII THE SE00 AND THE OEO REGIONAL OFFICE
QUESTION REFERENCE
#7.
7501-1
How well has the SEOO advised OEO on funding
6d.
requests for all applicants within the state or
who will operate within the state with written
comments on these applications.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON'T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
24
# 10
42%
#
4
16%
#10
42%
#24
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
30
# 0
0%
#12
40%
#18
60%
#30
100%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Attachment #3
Page 17 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION # VII THE SEOO AND THE OEO REGIONAL OFFICE
QUESTION REFERENCE
#8.
7501-1
HOW well has the SEOO consulted with the Regional
4a.
Office to determine OEO grantee needs for special-
ized technical assistance and to get advice on how
W.P.
the SEOO can assist in meeting these needs?
IV-D
LIST occasions and grantees during the past
6 months when this was done.
DESCRIBE significant occasions when the SEOO
responded to Regional Office requests.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
DON' T
GOOD
POOR
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
24
# 5
21%
#
21%
44
5
14
58%
#24
100%
REGIONAL OFFICE
STAFF
32
# 0
0%
#24
75%
#8
25%
#32
100%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
#
%
Attachment #3
Page 18 of 30
SEOO EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE TABULATION
SECTION #VII THE SEOO AND THE OEO REGIONAL OFFICE
QUESTION REFERENCE
#13.
7501-1
Has the SEOO provided the Regional Office with
6f.
periodic written reports on its monitoring
activities plus other reporting of special
activity or problems to the appropriate OEO
Grant office?
LIST grantees where significant monitoring
was done during the past 6 months.
DESCRIBE circumstances and results.
TABULATION RESULTS
RESPONDING GROUPS
#
YES
NO
DOW T
KNOW
TOTAL
SEOO STAFF
24
#
10
42%
76
TT
Q %
#
14
58%
#
%
0
24
100
REGIONAL OFFICE
31
# 1
3%
=
STAFF
-19
61 %
711
36%
it
31
100
#
of
#
%
1b
%
41
%
#
c/o
#
%
#
%
#
I
Attachment #3
Page 19 of 30