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
118564690
label
California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Response to Federal Evaluation 04/29/1971, Vol. I (1 of 7)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564690
contentType
document
title
California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Response to Federal Evaluation 04/29/1971, Vol. I (1 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
118564690
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
1c83527e158711f4
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
- Response to Federal Evaluation 04/29/1971,
Vol. I (1 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/
INTRODUCTION TO SEOO RESPONSES
Inconsistencies in Federal Evaluation Report
I. There are many inconsistencies in the Federal Evaluation Report
on the California State Office of Economic Opportunity. These
contradictions in both fact and logical analysis cast grave
doubts on both the validity and "fairness" of the report as a
document of impartial evaluation.
1. Use of "tenure" beginning on page 5 of the report.
The report does not specify if the tenure is in the job
description at the time of the report or tenure with the
agency or tenure in the poverty program. For example,
at first glance, the tenure in the job of the SEOO
appears very short and inexperienced when compared to other
positions in the report. However, Mr. Barny Schur, Deputy
Director for Technical Assistance with only two months
on-the-job tenure has been in the poverty program directly
and indirectly since 1964 or for seven years. Mr. Bob
Frane who is listed at only one year has been in the
poverty program since 1966 or for five years; Mr. Ted
Carter is listed at three years on the job but has been
in the OEO programs for over five years. Thus, the use
of tenure is an analitical or comparative tool is mis-
leading and not relevant to the issues at hand. Some
of the CAP Directors listed and Board Chairmen, as well,
have been in the program as listed but not in the position
for the length of time listed, thus making tenure compari-
son difficult to parallel.
2. SEOO Organization and Management:
1. C. The conclusion of 1-c is inconsistent with OEO
Instruction 7501-1, page 1, paragraph 3, which states
in part: "OEO recognizes that states differ in
organizational patterns and that a Governer needs the
flexibility to use various administrative arrangement
in the organization and placement of his State Economic
Opportunity Office." Nowhere in 7501-1 is such a written
agreement required. Basic principles of management pro-
vide that public/every organization has its formal basis
in law and informal basis in operations.
3. C. This recommendation, too, is inconsistent with
7501-1, section 9-i, which provides that assignment
of staff will conform to basic OEO instruction and
that if areas of conflict arise, they will be resolved
by written agreement with Regional OEO. Regional OEO
was aware of the internal organization of SEOO and
having made no objection, it can be assumed that no
conflict in organization of the SEOO existed. All CAAs
in the state operate on a dual organizational system,
one for the formal grant and one to meet the day-to-day
needs of the organization and staff ability in the CAP
organization.
-2-
4. a. 1. The value judgement made in the conclusions that
OEO clerical personnel stayed past 5:00 p.m. on the days of the
evaluation was inappropriate and uncalled for. A check by the
maintenance staff would have revealed that as much as 50% of
the on-call staff work up to 6:00 or 9:00 p.m. many days
during the month not withstanding the evaluation period.
4. a. 2. Professionals show good general qualifications
but a "pronounced lack of OEO related experience." Nowhere
is this an OEO requirement that SEOO personnel have OEO
back ground, additionally it is the perpetuation of such
background that has created a maze of bureaucratic procedures
that inhibit OEO from maintaining its flexibility and
innovative qualities. Additionally, OEO suffers from a pro-
fusion of social workers, ministers, and other non-administrative
or business oriented personnel thus narrowing the sphere of
thought, creativity, exposure, and diversity needed in many
facets of the program.
Page 14, Section 1, is entirely out of order. No organization is
set up to have staff countermand the "boss" or run the organization
their way. Additionally, no one has ever been summarily fired for
disagreements with the operation of the SEOO. However, CAP directors
are expressing pressure to "sumarily fire" CPAs because the CAPs do
not agree with their approaches to OEO problems without regard for
the employees' rights, etc. This is inconsistent with OEO instruction
on personnel. OEO was not created as a permanent agency of government
and the Act is designed for renewal not perpetration. All employees
have the right of appeal through state channels, FEPC, and the courts
if arbitrarily fired without cause or justification. It should also
be pointed out that OEDCI staff have found a need to join a labor
union to secure their rights and appropriate protection from
executive personnel action. Poor people for years have complained
bitterly about the rigidity of civil service and how it has protected
incompetent staff from being replaced. Thus the whole statement is
inconsistent with the attitudes of the poor toward civil service and
with the desire of the CAPs to have some voice in the replacement
of CPAs or other staff they deem unsatisfactory. Without the exempt
classification neither the poor nor the CAPs would have any viable
influence over the staffing of the SEOO.
Page 15, Section c, desires more experience on OEO related fields.
It should be pointed out that OEO has job development as a primary
objective since 1964, yet because of its overall ineffective job
in this area, employment development nationwide has been given to
Model Cities, concentrated employment program, and OEO programs
that were shifted to the Department of Labor. Many OEO program
trained people do not possess the background necessary to assist
the poor in OEO programs. A survey of the CAL CAP Directors will
show most came from social service or ministerial backgrounds
without any technical background in housing development, economic
development, job development, educational program development,
management development, fiscal control including accounting and
budgeting. All of which are not necessarilty related to OEO
problems specifically and can be accomplished by intelligent,
creative and adaptive personnel who can learn the OEO acts, regu-
lations and forms but cannot quickly learn the expertise of the
area of specialization.
-3-
Page 17 - In Section 4a, the SEOO is criticized for not having
better qualified personnel, (page 15). A career ladder is suggested
in b.2. (page 15). Extensive field reports should be required
(page 16 d. 3.) and a proportionate number of minorities should
be hired (page 17 b.). If we were under civil service and not
exempt, none of the above could be successfully implemented because
of the inherent characteristics of civil service, yet the exempt
system is attacked in this report. These are inconsistent demands.
The evaluation team desires more poor people on the staff and more
minorities. Yet, no CAP in the state reflects minority proportional
distribution especially those in civil service with the protaction
desired on Page 15. OEDCI for example has a staff of almost 70%
black with no appreciable representation from the Indian, Filipino,
Chinese, Japanese, Samoan, Mexican-American communities. Yet this
has been proported to be a representative organization. No SEOO
in the nation can achieve this request.
Page 18 C. 2. The report as related to the newsclipping service
points out that this service is = of high cost", yet in
section 2. b. it is recommended that all of the clippings be
xeroxed for a cross-reference Dewey decimal file. This would
double the cost of the clipping service which is already considered
by the team to be of a high cost nature. The criticism is incompat-
ible with the recommendation if cost is of concern in this area of
critique.
Inconsistencies, recommendations in conflict with the OEO regulations,
unrealistic assumptions pervade this report. This is just a few of
the many that exist. Thus, the entire report should be viewed not
in the context of its expertise (which we feel it lacks) but as a
brief for potential areas of change as provided in 7501 and in
accord with the special needs of the State of California. Through-
out the report, the immense size, diversity, and complexity of Calif-
ornia was neglected; as was the size of the State's total program
in CAPs and money and number of poor. Because of these oversights
and inconsistencies, the report should not be viewed as a document
without faults or as a final solution to the organization and
administration of the SEOO.
INTRODUCTION TO SEOO RESPONSES
Inconsistencies in Federal Evaluation Report
I. There are many inconsistencies in the Federal Evaluation Report
on the California State Office of Economic Opportunity. These
contradictions in both fact and logical analysis cast grave
doubts on both the validity and "fairness" of the report as a
document of impartial evaluation.
1. Use of "tenure" beginning on page 5 of the report.
The report does not specify if the tenure is in the job
description at the time of the report or tenure with the
agency or tenure in the poverty program. For example,
at first glance, the tenure in the job of the SEOO
appears very short and inexperienced when compared to other
positions in the report. However, Mr. Barny Schur, Deputy
Director for Technical Assistance with only two months
on-the-job tenure has been in the poverty program directly
and indirectly since 1964 or for seven years. Mr. Bob
Frane who is listed at only one year has been in the
poverty program since 1966 or for five years; Mr. Ted
Carter is listed at three years on the job but has been
in the OEO programs for over five years. Thus, the use
of tenure is an analitical or comparative tool is mis-
leading and not relevant to the issues at hand. Some
of the CAP Directors listed and Board Chairmen, as well,
have been in the program as listed but not in the position
for the length of time listed, thus making tenure compari-
son difficult to parallel.
2. SEOO Organization and Management:
1. C. The conclusion of 1-c is inconsistent with OEO
Instruction 7501-1, page 1, paragraph 3, which states
in part: "OEO recognizes that states differ in
organizational patterns and that a Governer needs the
flexibility to use various administrative arrangement
in the organization and placement of his State Economic
Opportunity Office." Nowhere in 7501-1 is such a written
agreement required. Basic principles of management pro-
vide that public/every organization has its formal basis
in law and informal basis in operations.
3. C. This recommendation, too, is inconsistent with
7501-1, section 9-i, which provides that assignment
of staff will conform to basic OEO instruction and
that if areas of conflict arise, they will be resolved
by written agreement with Regional OEO. Regional OEO
was aware of the internal organization of SEOO and
having made no objection, it can be assumed that no
conflict in organization of the SEOO existed. All CAAs
in the state operate on a dual organizational system,
one for the formal grant and one to meet the day-to-day
needs of the organization and staff ability in the CAP
organization.
-2-
4. a. 1. The value judgement made in the conclusions that
OEO clerical personnel stayed past 5:00 p.m. on the days of the
evaluation was inappropriate and uncalled for. A check by the
maintenance staff would have revealed that as much as 50% of
the on-call staff work up to 6:00 or 9:00 p.m. many days
during the month not withstanding the evaluation period.
4. a. 2. Professionals show good general qualifications
but a "pronounced lack of OEO related experience." Nowhere
is this an OEO requirement that SEOO personnel have OEO
back ground, additionally it is the perpetuation of such
background that has created a maze of bureaucratic procedures
that inhibit OEO from maintaining its flexibility and
innovative qualities. Additionally, OEO suffers from a pro-
fusion of social workers, ministers, and other non-administrative
or business oriented personnel thus narrowing the sphere of
thought, creativity, exposure, and diversity needed in many
facets of the program.
Page 14, Section 1, is entirely out of order. No organization is
set up to have staff countermand the "boss" or run the organization
their way. Additionally, no one has ever been summarily fired for
disagreements with the operation of the SEOO. However, CAP directors
are expressing pressure to "sumarily fire" CPAs because the CAPs do
not agree with their approaches to OEO problems without regard for
the employees' rights, etc. This is inconsistent with OEO instruction
on personnel. OEO was not created as a permanent agency of government
and the Act is designed for renewal not perpetration. All employees
have the right of appeal through state channels, FEPC, and the courts
if arbitrarily fired without cause or justification. It should also
be pointed out that OEDCI staff have found a need to join a labor
union to secure their rights and appropriate protection from
executive personnel action. Poor people for years have complained
bitterly about the rigidity of civil service and how it has protected
incompetent staff from being replaced. Thus the whole statement is
inconsistent with the attitudes of the poor toward civil service and
with the desire of the CAPs to have some voice in the replacement
of CPAs or other staff they deem unsatisfactory. Without the exempt
classification neither the poor nor the CAPs would have any viable
influence over the staffing of the SEOO.
Page 15, Section c, desires more experience on OEO related fields.
It should be pointed out that OEO has job development as a primary
objective since 1964, yet because of its overall ineffective job
in this area, employment development nationwide has been given to
Model Cities, concentrated employment program, and OEO programs
that were shifted to the Department of Labor. Many OEO program
trained people do not possess the background necessary to assist
the poor in OEO programs. A survey of the CAL CAP Directors will
show most came from social service or ministerial backgrounds
without any technical background in housing development, economic
development, job development, educational program development,
management development, fiscal control including accounting and
budgeting. All of which are not necessarilty related to OEO
problems specifically and can be accomplished by intelligent,
creative and adaptive personnel who can learn the OEO acts, regu-
lations and forms but cannot quickly learn the expertise of the
area of specialization.
-3-
Page 17 - In Section 4a, the SEOO is criticized for not having
better qualified personnel, (page 15). A career ladder is suggested
in b.2. (page 15). Extensive field reports should be required
(page 16 d. 3.) and a proportionate number of minorities should
be hired (page 17 b.). If we were under civil service and not
exempt, none of the above could be successfully implemented because
of the inherent characteristics of civil service, yet the exempt
system is attacked in this report. These are inconsistent demands.
The evaluation team desires more poor people on the staff and more
minorities. Yet, no CAP in the state reflects minority proportional
distribution especially those in civil service with the protaction
desired on Page 15. OEDCI for example has a staff of almost 70%
black with no appreciable representation from the Indian, Filipino,
Chinese, Japanese, Samoan, Mexican-American communities. Yet this
has been proported to be a representative organization. No SEOO
in the nation can achieve this request.
Page 18 C. 2. The report as related to the newsclipping service
points out that this service is
"
of
high
cost",
yet
in
section 2. b. it is recommended that all of the clippings be
xeroxed for a cross-reference Dewey decimal file. This would
double the cost of the clipping service which is already considered
by the team to be of a high cost nature. The criticism is incompat-
ible with the recommendation if cost is of concern in this area of
critique.
Inconsistencies, recommendations in conflict with the OEO regulations,
unrealistic assumptions pervade this report. This is just a few of
the many that exist. Thus, the entire report should be viewed not
in the context of its expertise (which we feel it lacks) but as a
brief for potential areas of change as provided in 7501 and in
accord with the special needs of the State of California. Through-
out the report, the immense size, diversity, and complexity of Calif-
ornia was neglected; as was the size of the State's total program
in CAPs and money and number of poor. Because of these oversights
and inconsistencies, the report should not be viewed as a document
without faults or as a final solution to the organization and
administration of the SEOO.
CALIFORNIA STATE
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
EVALUATION REPORT
March 26, 1971
Report Date: March 26, 1971
Field Work Date: March 1-5, 1971
Submitted to H. Rodger Betts, Regional Director,
Region IX, OEO, by James L. Young, Deputy Regional
Director, Region X, OEO, for the evaluation team.
PREFACE
The following material is the evaluation of the
California State Office of Economic Opportunity by National
Office of Economic Opportunity, Washington, D.C. Because
we believe the reader of this document wishes to be apprised
of both the "charge" and the "response", each page of the
evaluation is followed by a page containing the appropriate
responses to the preceding charges.
The CAP directors, single purpose grantees, delegate
agencies and Head Start Programs in California administer
federal funds in the amount of 120 million dollars.
It is one of the responsibilities of SEOO to approve the
expenditure of these funds.
The following breakdown between July 1, 1970 and April 22,
1971 should demonstrate the work load and positive actions
taken by SEOO.
Between July 1, 1970 and April 22, 1971, California State
Office of Economic Opportunity has approved a total of 141 grants
with total federal funding of $52,484,957.00. During the same
period the State Office of Economic Opportunity allowed 126
projects to lapse with a total federal funding of $36,834,953.00.
However, of the 126 projects lapsed, 70 (55.5%) were lapsed
between July and September 30, 1970, a period during which SEOO
was grossly understaffed. Of the remaining 56 projects, 28 (50%)
were legal programs lapsed due to the continuing inadequate
level of staffing in our Legal Section, 9 (16.1%) were Head
Start, for which we had only one Early Childhood Development
Coordinator to cover the entire state, 12 (21.4%) were versatile
funds, which CPAs were unable to evaluate due to heavy work
schedules and 7 (12.5%) were miscellaneous (emergency food,
comprehensive health, etc.) which we were unable to evaluate
either due to lack of expertise, or lack of manpower. During
the same period, July 1, 1970 to April 22, 1971, a grand total
of 4 projects were vetoed out of 270 total projects (1.5%) and
1 of those vetoes was rescinded following CAA compliance with
SEOO considerations. This leaves a total of 3 projects vetoed
- 2 -
out of 270 projects which have come through our office (1.1%)
with a total federal funding of $4,185,841.00. The 270 projects'
figure does not include countless proposals and innovative
projects which were reviewed by our field men at the "information
package" stage, but were not given final consideration by WR/OEO
and consequently did not reach our office in the form of an
"action package."
In order to properly assess the "reliability of the
evidence used", one needs to put the California war on poverty
into perspective. The CAP directors in California administer
funds in the neighborhood of 120 million dollars. By contrast,
the budget of SEOO is approximately $716,000.00 (roughly 0.6%).
SEOO has the responsibility, in addition to providing technical
assistance throughout the state, of monitoring this 120 million
dollars' worth of programs in order to provide, among other
things, information to the Governor's office on the quality of
such programs so that the Governor may make enlightened
decisions with regard to his authority as outlined in Section 242
of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964. It is significant to
note here that there is no other governmental unit in California
concerned with and authorized to assess the effectiveness of
said programs with regard to the alleviation of poverty in the
State of California and their effect on the general welfare of
California. Were the CAL-CAP directors to be successful in
their campaign to eliminate SEOO, then they would in the future
be totally unencumbered by necessity to account.to the State of
California for the administration of this 120 million dollars.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
INTRODUCTION
1
EVALUATION MODEL AND QUESTIONNAIRE
2
INTRODUCTION TO NARRATIVE SECTION
12
SEOO ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
13
THE SEOO AND THE GOVERNOR
20
THE SEOO AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES
23
THE SEOO AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
26
THE SEOO AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY GROUPS
28
THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
30
SUPPORTIVE FUNCTIONS
34
Training and Technical Assistance
34
Mobilization of Resources
35
Coordination and Planning
36
Grant Review, Monitoring, and Evaluation
37
Advocacy for the Poor
39
THE SEOO GRANTS
41
Regular Grant
41
STAP Grant
43
Demonstration Grant
44
Oakland Grant
45
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
THE SEOO AND THE REGIONAL OFFICE
48
THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE SE00
52
OVERALL CONCLUSIONS
57
EVALUATION TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS
58
SUMMARY
60
ATTACHMENTS
62
TABULATIONS
ANALYSIS OF MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE IN ALLOCATION
OF STAFF MANPOWER RESOURCES
CALIFORNIA STATE
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
EVALUATION REPORT
March 26, 1971
CHARGES
&
Report Date: March 26, 1971
Field Work Date: March 1-5, 1971
SEOO ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
1. ORGANIZATION:
C. Recommendation: The relationship of the SEOO to the Governor and
the SEOO to the Director of DHRD should be made a matter of written record
(formal Delegation of Authority, etc.).
(Page 13)
2. INTERNAL ORGANIZATION:
a. Facts: An organization chart prepared in mid-February 1971 is in
existence (See Attachments). It is partially obsolete and confusing since
many key personnel "wear two hats". The chart also does not agree with the
grant breakdown shown on the personnel roster.
(Page 13)
b. Findings:
...
There are contradictory statements pertaining to
Chickering's (STAP) role as General Counsel.
(Page 13)
c. Recommendation: The organization chart should be simplified and
should show the Operations/Administration breakdown, with boxes for Special
Staff.
(Page 13)
3. STAFFING:
c. Recommendation: Performance of responsibilities for which individuals
were approved should be given precedence over additional special staff
duties and task force assignments which should be held to a minimum for
STAP personnel.
(Page 14)
4. QUALIFICATION OF PERSONNEL:
a. Facts:
(2)
but there is in many cases a pronounced lack of special
qualifications for the job for which they were hired, such as exposure to
and experience in OEO-related subjects. Many of the recently hired personnel
have some investigative experience. Access to Sawicki's and Uhler's resumes
were denied.
(Page 14)
b. Findings:
(1) Some of the professionals interviewed, e.g., McKee,
Fattorini, Schur, and Downs, appeared to be genuinely motivated and in
sympathy with OEO philosophy and goals. In others there seemed to be more
of a desire to get the job done as ordered. It must not be forgotten,
however, that there is no job protection, no status, no "bumping" rights,
etc., and anybody who displeases the "boss" can be summarily fired.
(Page 14)
(2)
Given the actual situation and SEOO philosophy
which places so much emphasis on the evaluation aspects of field work, it
is doubtful whether the Community Program Analysts can ever be as helpful
to the grantees as OEO Instruction 7501-1 envisions.
(Page 15)
c. Recommendation:
...
The special conditions pertaining to
accessions, e.g., approval of candidate by selection panels on which
regional and national OEO are represented (as specified, for example, in
the STAP grants) should be scrupulously observed.
(Page 15)
5. PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT:
b. Pay, Fringe Benefits, Leave, Career Development and Civil Rights:
(2) Recommendation: The possibility of a career ladder plan for
professionals should be considered.
(Page 15)
c. Training:
(2) Recommendation:
The SEOO should take fullest possible
advantage of Federal and other training opportunities.
(Page 16)
d. Supervision and Evaluation:
(1) Facts:
Field personnel are on the "honor" system; two
work out of their homes. There is no formal evaluation of professionals.
They are judged by the results of their labor.
(Page 16)
(2) Findings:
Some monthly reports of field personnel for
January were made available to the evaluation team.
Due to high
workloads during December and January, reports for this period have not yet
been prepared. A single report, covering December, January, and February
is now under preparation.
(Page 16)
(3) Recommendation: Field personnel should be required to file
trip reports with their supervisors immediately upon returning from a field
trip rather than at the end of the month. These reports should indicate
the actual time spent and the exact subjects discussed with each grantee or
person visited.
(Page 16)
6. CIVIL RIGHTS:
a. Facts:
(2) No affirmative action plan as required by CAP Form 11 has been
implemented.
(Page 17)
b. Recommendation: An affirmative action plan in accordance with CAP
Form 11 should be implemented. Attention should be given to whether the
minority composition of the staff fairly reflects the proportions of minority
persons in the State of California and, particularly, among the poverty
population of the State.
(Page 17)
8. FILES:
a. Facts:
There is a complete set of OEO instructions and CAP
directives which was recently received from OEO Headquarters. There is a
library of publications, which is in a state of disarray.
(Page 17)
b. Recommendation: Memoranda for record should be added to corres-
pondence in the chronological reading file to explain the nature of
correspondence. The library should be inventoried, obsolete material
discarded, and obsolete files retired or destroyed.
(Page 17)
9. OTHER FILES:
a. Personnel Folders:
(1) Facts:
(b)
None of the six files chosen at random contained
a position description.
(Page 18)
(2) Recommendation: All personnel files should contain resumes of
qualifications as well as position description for which employee is hired.
Folders should also contain name, address, and telephone number of persons
to be notified in case of emergency, and home telephone numbers should be
prominently displayed for emergency contact of employee. Further, CAP Memo 23A
requires that biographies of key personnel be submitted to the Regional Office
within seven days after appointment.
c. Newspaper Clipping File:
(2) Recommendation:
(a) In view of high cost of the clipping service, it should be
evaluated as to relative cost-effectiveness and, if maintained, should be
shown as a specific item in the budget.
(Page 19)
(b) Clippings should be xeroxed for cross-references, and copies
filed in the duo-decimal file grantee folders.
(Page 19)
11. GENERAL COMMENTS:
However, shortcomings in the qualifications of professionals,
particularly lack of experience and previous exposure to the problems they
are expected to solve or give advice on solving, have had a deleterious
effect on the quality of their work and their effectiveness in the field.
Coupled with what is perceived as a completely opposite philosophical outlook,
this further undermines whatever remaining confidence grantees may have in
the SEOO.
There still is no affirmative action plan in accordance with CAP Form 11;
work goals and priorities are not quantified; there has been no self-
evaluation report. Assurances have been made that these shortcomings will
be eliminated prior to the submission of the next program year's application.
At least eight CAAs reported they had never received a CAP Form 76. The
grant document showed eight CAP 76s; two contained adverse comments.
This was prior to the appointment of the present SEOO administration.
A new budget for the next program year is under preparation and assurances
have been made that all necessary documents will be submitted to Region IX
on time, including a self-evaluation report.
(Page 19)
THE SEOO AND THE GOVERNOR
1. FINDINGS:
Although the SEOO has not heretofore provided an annual written
analysis to the Governor highlighting the principal problems and causes of
poverty in the State and including recommended priorities and types of
programs to meet those problems, the SEOO, in response to instructions from
H. Rodger Betts, Regional Director, Region IX, is now in the process of
preparing such a written analysis. Assurances have been made that an annual
report of the type described in OEO Instruction 7501-1, 6a, will be submitted
to the Governor and to Region IX, OEO, prior to the end of the current
program year.
(Page 21)
2. CONCLUSIONS:
The quality of advice given to the Governor is a question which
is influenced by what the CAAs and WR/OEO staff believe the SEOO's philosophy
to be. This philosophy, while not articulated in any specific document or
statement is exemplified by the style of the actions taken by the SEOO with
respect to various OEO grantees.
(Page 21)
It can be summarily stated, however, that the conclusion of the
evaluation team was that the attitude of the SEOO was, for the most part,
one of antagonism toward the CAAs and the community action program, and that
SEOO personnel assigned to assist CAAs acted more investigative than helpful,
more as observers than as active participants assigned the job of aiding the
CAAs in program development and providing technical assitance. Presumably,
the attitudes displayed by the SEOO representatives had the approval of the
SEOO Director and those to whom he reported.
(Page 22)
THE SEOO AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES
1. PERCEPTIONS:
Most of the state officials interviewed knew little of what the SEOO had
done.
(Page 24)
2. FINDINGS:
The State Interagency Conference for rural CAAs was seen as excellent and
useful by most participants; however, follow up was apparently left to two
STAP consultants, one of whom left the SEOO soon thereafter. As a result,
there was very little follow up.
(Page 24)
It appears that the Regional Office of OEO was neither notified of
nor invited to the conference.
(Page 25)
3. CONCLUSION:
However, it has not performed this function to the extent that
state agencies themselves can report or comment on SEOO activities with their
agencies.
(Page 25)
4. RECOMMENDATIONS:
The SEOO should place major emphasis on its role with state agencies. Even
minimal accomplishments in this role will do much to gain respect for its
performance.
(Page 25)
THE SEOO AND FEDERAL AGENCIES
The agencies contacted were: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare;
Department of Housing and Urban Development; Small Business Administration;
Economic Development Administration; and Department of Labor. Primary
respondents and their advisors who participated in completion of the
questionnaire totaled 24 federal officials.
Only one of the 14 non-OEO federal officials interviewed felt he had seen
enough of the SEOO to have sufficient knowledge to take a position on how well
the SEOO had represented the Governor to federal agencies. He felt that the
SEOO had done a poor job of representing the Governor to federal agencies.
The others replied "don't know."
With respect to the second question, In all cases, the reason offered
was that the SEOO had not had any contact with them or their agencies in the
past year dealing with resource development or coordination.
With respect to the third question, two agencies said that the SEOO had not
assisted OEO with reference to problems covered by their regulations, and
three answered "don't know."
(Page 26)
CONCLUSION:
The SEOO has done very little with respect to non-OEO federal agencies insofar
as supporting poverty-related programs.
(Page 27)
THE SEOO AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY GROUPS
1. FINDINGS:
a. Local government representatives and representatives of neighborhood
councils and social service agencies were aware that the SEOO existed. However,
most local government representatives had no direct contact with the SEOO. A few
had seen a representative of the SEOO on one or two occasions--usually at a
CAA board meeting where the SEOO representative merely observed and seldom
offered comment.
b. Most of the individuals interviewed were unaware of the functions of
the SEOO from any first hand knowledge but had the impression that the SEOO
is an investigating office.
c. No visible attempt to mobilize resources around local problems or needs
was reported by any of the groups interviewed.
d. The provision of information and statistics to local governments on
problems of the poor and programs and efforts to overcome poverty within the
State of California is almost non-existent.
e. None of the community groups interviewed were aware of the technical
assistance that they can request from the SEOO.
One CAA Board Chairman,
Paul F. Clark of the SCCAC, Inc., stated, "It is significant that not until the
SEOO knew that they were being evaluated did any information come out of the
SEOO." Mr. Clark stated that the bulletins received were the first since he
had been on the board, which had been two years.
2. CONCLUSION:
a. Local government and community groups have had very little contact
with the California SEOO.
b. The groups interviewed had no knowledge of any efforts by the SEOO to
ascertain the problems or needs of the poor in local areas.
C. There is no indication that any efforts had been made to identify or
mobilize local government resources in support of CAAs.
(Page 28)
d. Very little information has been disseminated to local governments
and community groups by the SEOO.
(Page 29)
THE SEOO AND COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCIES
1. PERCEPTION OF CAA BOARD CHAIRMEN AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS:
The answers given by CAA Board Chairmen and Executive Directors in response
to the SEOO Evaluation Questionnaire were generally willingly given with a
minimal amount of "hedging." Where the interviewees were sure of their ground,
the response was strong.
(Page 30)
a. CAAs are limited in their knowledge of the scope of SEOO activities.
(Page 30)
b. With few exceptions, CAAs regard the California SEOO as their "enemy"
or "adversary" and are very guarded in their dealings with SEOO personnel.
Board Chairmen, particularly, were unaware of many services that the
SEOO can be requested to deliver. It was evident that Executive Directors in
many CAAs had ceased to be interested in utilizing SEOO services and were not
aware of the role of the SEOO as set out in OEO Instruction 7501-1.
The only contact with the SEOO that almost all CAAs shared was during pre-
review sessions. Even in these contacts, the majority of interviewees stated
that SEOO representatives participated only as observers.
Sometimes contact by SEOO staff with CAA staff and program participants has
reportedly occurred at odd hours. One Board Chairman, Mrs. Moore, Long Beach,
stated that although SEOO representatives remained silent at the pre-review
session, they visited her at her home until after midnight.
There is a strong feeling among many Executive Directors that the SEOO is
attempting to discredit or, at least, reduce the effectiveness of CAAs.
(Page 30)
Mr. Acosta further noted that "it appears to us that the (SEOO) staff
is hired because they have investigative backgrounds or because they are
political appointees."
(Page 31)
Reports were received of SEOO requests for lists of volunteers and staff
people together with their personnel files, payroll records, and resumes.
Monitoring functions such as review and evaluation have been referred to in
correspondence as "investigations" by the SEOO office.
These activities and tactics reflect an investigative attitude on the part of
the SEOO and have resulted in a mutual feeling of distrust and suspicion.
(Page 32)
2. FINDINGS:
a. The SEOO has apparently limited its contact with CAAs to pre-review
sessions and investigations.
(Page 32)
c. There is little knowledge on the part of the CAA Executive Directors
interviewed of the use and purpose of CAP Checkpoint Forms 76 and 77.
(Page 32)
d. The CAAs perceive the role of the SEOO as self-imposed and limited
to advising the Governor on best methods for reducing community action program
impact in the State.
(Page 32)
e. The technical assistance delivery system seems grossly ineffective
and in some respects non-existent.
(Page 33)
f. Many of the CAAs feel that the present situation is irreversible,
that is, the SEOO has lost all credibility as a constructive force in anti-
poverty efforts.
(Page 33)
3. CONCLUSIONS:
a. The majority of CAA Executive Directors believe the California SEOO
has failed to produce results in four major functional areas:
(1) Mobilization of state resources.
(2) Coordination of state agencies.
(3) Advocacy for the poor.
(4) Delivery of technical assistance.
(Page 33)
b. The SEOO has alienated the majority of the CAA Executive Directors by
using their staff as investigators rather than as deliverers of technical
assistance.
(Page 33)
c. The SEOO has not approached the majority of CAAs in a helpful manner.
(Page 33)
SUPPORTIVE FUNCTIONS
1. TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE:
C. Conclusions: The relationship between the SEOO and the CAAs is not
healthy. Little or no communication exists between the SEOO and CAAs relative
to available training and technical assistance resources and how to procure
them. Communications have deteriorated so completely and trust has become
so non-existent that reconstruction of the training and technical assistance
role may be beyond reach.
(Page 34)
d. Recommendations: All Training and Technical Assistance activities
of the SEOO should be reviewed for the purpose of opening adequate channels
of communication leading to the provision of realistic responses to the
Training and Technical Assistance needs of the CAAs in an atmosphere of mutual
trust.
(Page 35)
2. MOBILIZATION OF RESOURCES:
a. Perception: CAAs, federal agencies and local governmental agencies
had very little knowledge of the activities of the California SEOO in the area
of resource mobilization.
(Page 35)
b. Findings:
(1) It appears that the SEOO has not given priority to the mobilization
and coordination of anti-poverty resources, particularly at the state level.
Only 11% of state personnel interviewed answered in the affirmative concerning
this question, 22% replied negatively, and 67% said they didn't know.
(Page 35)
c. Conclusions: The SEOO has not been sufficiently effective in the
mobilization and coordination of state anti-poverty related resources nor have
they developed and assisted in the development of state resources to the
degree necessary to gain the respect of the CAAs.
(Page 36)
d. Recommendations:
(1) Since the SEOO has direct lines of communication to the Governor,
the agency should be able to influence policy and the delivery of state anti-
poverty related resources. The agency should make a concentrated effort to
mobilize and coordinate state resources in order to meet the needs of low-
income persons and CAAs.
(Page 36)
(2) Intensive follow-up on the Resource Mobilization Conference
should be made to insure the rendering of technical assistance and other
services from the state agencies that participated.
(Page 36)
(3) A delivery mechanism should be established to insure availability
and follow-up on available state resources.
(Page 36)
(4) A workshop for urban CAAs similar to the one held for rural CAAs
should be conducted.
(Page 36)
3. COORDINATION AND PLANNING:
a. Findings:
(1) The SEOO considers planning for activities that affect the poor
to be a function of other agencies of state government. This attitude is
consistent with their perception of their role as advocates of the poor.
This attitude has resulted in a conflict between SEOO, CAAs and the
Regional Office regarding the steps to be taken to achieve involvement of
the poor in the planning process.
(Page 36)
(4) There was no evidence that the SEOO has provided information to
the state planning agency and/or CAAs to assist them in vertical or
horizontal planning.
(Page 37)
b. Conclusion: The SEOO has made little impact on CAAs or other state
agencies in the area of program planning.
(Page 37)
4. GRANT REVIEW, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION:
a. Perception:
(1)
There is a wide divergence between the undertaking of the
SEOO, as stated in its own work program and grant application and its
perceived and actual performance in this functional area.
(Page 37)
(2)
However, a new twist of an investigative nature, with
little or no analyses and technical assistance follow up was perceived by
many of the CAAs interviewed. The qualifications and background as set forth
in resumes of a significant number of individuals employed as Community
Program Analyst would also seem to support this perception inasmuch as a
large number of the Community Program Analysts on the SEOO staff have had
prior experience in law enforcement, as investigators or insurance adjusters.
(Page 38)
b. Findings:
(1) Consistent with OEO Instruction 7501-1, 7(c) and (g), Regional
OEO invited appropriate SEOO staff members to participate in some evaluations
and pre-reviews. In at least two instances as to the former, SEOO staff
members invited did respond affirmatively (Berkeley and Oakland CAAs). However,
with respect to the evaluation of Oakland, the SEOO staff member reportedly with-
drew prematurely. As to pre-reviews, SEOO staff members were consistently
involved but usually purely on a silent basis with little or no assistance
being offered.
(Page 38)
(2) Considering grant review, monitoring, and evaluation functions
as perceived by the SEOO, the reports received by the evaluation team from
respondents showed that the SEOO was extremely active in this area. However,
the CAA Directors interviewed indicated that these functions were not performed
in a positive or constructive manner.
(Page 38)
(3) Broadly speaking, as a result of the investigative emphasis
placed by the SEOO on the grant review, monitoring, and evaluation function,
the SEOO's activity has a demoralizing effect on OEO funded agencies in the
state.
(Page 38)
c. Conclusion: The performance of the grant review, monitoring, and
evaluation function by the California SEOO is looked on by CAAs as
investigative which in its context is neither positive nor constructive, as
originally intended, and is interpreted aspunitive.
(Page 39)
5. ADVOCACY FOR THE POOR:
C. Conclusion:
(1) No evidence was discovered which would point to the SEOO as an
advocate for the poor.
(2) The SEOO could not show any state administration changes directly
attributable to the SEOO which would benefit the poor.
(Page 40)
(3) There was no evidence that career opportunities have been made
available in other state agencies as the result of the efforts of the SEOO.
(4) With perhaps one minor exception, the SEOO has not yet found it
possible to hire poor persons within its own office.
(5) In short, the California SEOO has not fulfilled its role and
responsibility of being an advocate for the poor.
(Page 40)
d. Recommendation: Future grants to the SEOO should contain a special
condition wherein the California SEOO specifically recognizes and accepts
its role as an advocate for the poor. No future work programs from the
California SEOO should be accepted unless it spells out in detail specific
objectives relating to its advocacy role together with a detailed strategy
of achieving the objectives stated.
(Page 40)
THE SEOO GRANTS
1. REGULAR GRANT:
The first goal listed in the CAP 81
The SEOO apparently has been
unable to establish a meaningful relationship with many of the CAAs. Their
review of CAAs may be designed to resolve areas of mutual concern about
programs prior to refunding but it has not reached this goal in the view of
many of the CAAs.
The third goal for the year starting July 1, 1970, was to develop assistance
and demonstration projects in the use of volunteer services, excess property,
and community college resources; in programs of technical aid to Indians,
disadvantaged youth, and Headstart-Day Care projects. Little was learned
about what the office has done regarding the use of volunteer services.
Little information was available on the other two goals for the year:
completion of a systematic approach to SEOO planning and management by
objectives and creation of an information module in conjunction with DHRD to
enable comprehensive and systematic collection, compilation, storage,
retrieval, and dissemination of data on poverty and anti-poverty resources
in California.
(Page 42)
Conclusions:
6. While it is not clearly spelled out, the work program indicates worth-
while objectives in the area of technical assistance to grantees, mobilization
of resources, and career development opportunities for poor people in state
government. During the eight months this grant has been in force, it appears
that adequate results have not yet been obtained.
(Page 43)
2. STAP GRANT:
c. Negative Findings:
(1) Three vacancies in the four STAP positions have occurred since
September, 1970 (one by firing, one left to work for another SEOO, and one was
just recently transferred to another grant (Demonstration) of the California SEOO).
These vacancies were immediately filled by the SEOO Director without the use of
an advisory panel which is a violation of the grant conditions.
(2) There is serious reservation on the part of the evaluation team
that two of the three STAP replacements meet the qualifications of their job
descriptions (Carter and Chickering).
(3) Two of the new people hired to fill STAP slots are not performing
STAP functions (according to STAP guidelines) for much of their time, but are
being used for such SEOO staff positions as General Counsel (Chickering) and
Technical Assistance Chief and "Deputy Director for Program Analysis" (Schur).
The evaluation team observed that these two people appear to be quite capable
but that STAP personnel are not meant to be used for SEOO staff assignments.
(Page 44)
e. Conclusion: Unless the SEOO uses qualified personnel for STAP and
has them out in the rural communities to provide long-range, on-site technical
assistance according to the STAP guidelines, the STAP program in California
will be a failure and should not be refunded.
(Page 44)
3. DEMONSTRATION GRANT:
C. Negative Findings:
(2) As with the STAP grant, there has been no apparent attempt to
isolate the functions of personnel under this grant from the regular SEOO
grant thus making it difficult to assess the effectiveness of the program as
a demonstration.
(Page 45)
(4) Reports from grantee interviews show almost no positive reports
on useful technical assistance provided by the specialists hired under this
demonstration grant.
(Page 45)
d. Results: While there was a great need for the services=-on the part
of OEO grantees--and the specialists hired seemed fairly well-qualified, this
demonstration has been a failure as the technical assistance has not, in fact,
been delivered except for a significant portion of the time of one specialist
(Taylor - Early Childhood Development).
(Page 45)
e. Conclusion: The demonstration grant should not be refunded. The
most qualified specialists could be used by the SEOO in place of the less
qualified CPAs in the regular program.
(Page 45)
THE SEOO AND THE REGIONAL OFFICE
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 resolving the impasse.
(Page 51)
THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE SECO
2. FINDINGS:
The regional Office does not consult with the SEOO 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.
(Page 53)
5. FINDINGS:
There is no indication that the SEOO has at any time discussed 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 reports that some technical assistance has been
provided by the SEOO but rarely in consultation with the Regional Office to
determine OEO grantee's needs for technical assistance, despite some attempts
by Regional Office field staff to arrange such consultation.
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.
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.
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.
(Page 55)
6. CONCLUSIONS:
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.
(Page 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 investigative
functions which are interpreted negatively by the CAAs.
9. The majority of the SEOO staff does not have sufficient technical
background or experience to deliver quality technical assistance to the CAAs.
10. The Oakland Demonstration Grant # CG-9093-A/1 to deal with intensive
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.
(Page 57)
EVALUATION TEAM RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Regular Grant
Refunding the regular California SEOO grant should be made contingent
upon acceptance by the SEOO of the following 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 personnel
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), regarding 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 informational
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 obligation
to be an advocate for the poor and specifies the steps it will take to
meet this obligation.
(Page 58)
B. 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 concern.
(Page 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 results 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, therefore, not to be trusted as the CAAs are not to be
trusted. (Also, the SEOO believes the CAAs and the Regional Office staff to
be ultra liberal and, therefore, antagonistic to the SEOO.) 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 monitor
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 ombudsman
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 prescribed in OEO
Instruction 7501-1 to alleviate the conditions of poverty 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 monitoring, interpreting guidelines, and providing
helpful information to locally controlled non-profit corporations. They also
feel that OEO has increased the funds to SEOOs for the purposes outlined in
(Page 60)
OEO Instruction 7501-1 and the money should be used for those purposes.
Further, OEO has encouraged governors to place the directors of the SEOOs in
a relative position to other social agencies 80 that an advocacy role might
be attained.
(Page 61)
The situation is basically this: The State OEO is funded $792,636 to
perform a number of helpful services on behalf of the poor in partnership
as a grantee with the WR/OEO and the CAAs under the Economic Opportunity Act
of 1964, as amended. The SEOO accepted the money ostensibly to carry out
OEO 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 refunded 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 impasse exists between the Regional Office, the CAAs, and the SEOO."
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.
(Page 61)
INTRODUCTION
H. Rodger Betts, Regional Director, Region IX, OEO, in a letter ad-
dressed to Thomas H. Mercer, Regional Director, Region X, OEO,
dated January 22, 1971, requested that James L. Young, Deputy
Regional Director, Region X, lead an evaluation team to evaluate
the California State Office of Economic Opportunity (see Attach-
ments). Mr. Mercer agreed with Mr. Betts' request.
The evaluation was conducted under the authority of the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, Section 233, which provides,
for "continuing evaluation of programs under this title..." as well
as General Grant Condition #9 and OEO Instruction 7501-1. Further,
the California State Office of Economic Opportunity was advised of
the forthcoming evaluation in H. Rodger Betts' letter to Lewis K.
Uhler, California SEOO Director, dated February 1, 1971 (see Attach-
ments). Mr. Uhler offered to cooperate fully with the evaluation
team in a telephone call between Mr. Uhler and Mr. Young, leader of
the evaluation team.
1
EVALUATION MODEL AND QUESTIONNAIRE
The evaluation model was based on obtaining personal interviews
with persons having or expected to have direct knowledge of the
activities of the California State Office of Economic Opportunity
To insure that a valid sampling of qualified opinions would be ob-
tained it was determined that the following groups of persons
would be interviewed:
a. The California SEOO Director and his professional staff
b. OEO, Region IX, professional staff
C. As many CAA Executive Directors and Board Chairmen as
feasible and practical within the limits of the time and geography
d. Representatives of local governments and state and federal
agencies who are involved in poverty-related matters or whose ac-
tivities could reasonably be expected to include the need for coord-
ination and planning with the California State Office of Economic
Opportunity.
e. Private local community groups whose activities are related
to efforts to eliminate poverty.
A uniform information gathering questionnaire was prepared which
could be used for personal interviews as well as for the gathering
of information by mail. The questionnaire was based upon OEO
Instruction 7501-1 entitled "The Role of the SEOO", the plans and
priorities stated by the California SEOO in its most recent CAP
Form 81, and the California SEOO work programs prepared following
the format set out in CAP Form 7e (see Attachments) OEO Instruction
7501-1 is applicable to all State Offices of Economic Opportunity and
is incorporated by reference into the grant as a grant condition by
virtue of the preamble to the General Conditions governing the SEOO
grant which state that "Program funds expended under authority of
this grant are subject to the provisions of
OEO directives. "
OEO directives are defined in grant condition 1. (c) as "Statements
of policy and procedure published in the OEO publication system,
"
OEO instructions are part of the OEO publication system.
The questionnaire (see Attachments) was divided into eleven sections:
a. SECTION I
The SEOO and the Governor
b. SECTION II
The SEOO and Other State Agencies
2
C. SECTION III
The SEOO and Community Action Agencies
d. SECTION IV
The SEOO and Other Federal Agencies
e. SECTION V
The SEOO and Local Government
f. SECTION VI
The SEOO and Community Groups, Private
Agencies, and General Public
g. SECTION VII
The SEOO and the OEO Regional Office
h. SECTION VIII
The OEO Regional Office and the SEOO
i. SECTION IX
Headquarters/OEO and the SEOO
j. SECTION X
SEOO Organization and Management
k. SECTION XI
SEOO Work Program - California
The evaluation team selected by Mr. Young, Deputy Regional Director,
Region X, included the following:
a. James L. Young, Region X, OEO, Deputy Regional Director
b. James Coffee, SEOO Director, New Jersey
C. Robert Tyson, SEOO Director, Iowa
d. William Walker, former SEOO Director, Arkansas
e. Michael Zainhofsky, SEOO Director, North Dakota
f. Anthony Augustine, former CAA Director, Colorado
g. Raymond Meliza, CAA Director, Oregon
h. Hector Morales, CAA Director, Arizona
i. Wallace Webster, II, CAA Director, Washington
j. Richard White, Region IX, OEO, Chief, Governmental and
Private Sector Relations
k. Robert Bryan, Headquarters, OEO, Office of State and Local
Government
1. John Moller, Headquarters, OEO, Office of Administration,
Systems Division
m. John Kent, Region X, OEO, Regional Counsel
3
n. Charles Chong, Region X, OEO, District Supervisor, Oregon/
Alaska Field Team
O. Harold Whitehead, Region X, OEO, Senior Field Representative,
Or Non/Alaska Field Team
A methodology and interviewing policy was established for the eval-
uation. Basically, the evaluation was to be an assessment of per-
formance based on the collective judgment of all members of the
evaluation team, relying on their background and experience and
applying that background and experience to the results of the num-
erous interviews which were to be conducted. Greater emphasis was
to be placed on accomplishments than was to be placed on projects
in process or ideas in the design stage. Good intentions were to
be recognized, but measurable results were to be given priority. In
addition to the information derived from the interviews through
direct exchange between the person interviewed and the evaluation
team member, additional information was derived from questionnaires
which were sent to all those CAAs in the State of California which
were not personally interviewed.
Monday, March 1, 1971, the team met in the San Francisco Regional
Office and was given an extensive briefing on its mission by Mr.
Young in which it was emphasized the evaluation was to be an objec-
tive assessment of performance and not an investigation. An in-
tensive training session followed. Teams were assigned to Los
Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento. The Sacramento Team was to
interview the SEOO staff, CAA Directors and Board Chairmen in the
Sacramento and Northern California area, the San Francisco Team was
to conduct interviews with the Region IX staff, federal and state
agencies, and CAA Directors and Board Chairmen in the San Francisco
area, and the Los Angeles Team was to do the same in Southern Cali-
fornia. It was emphasized that the Following policies were to be
observed throughout the evaluation:
a. No one was to be led to believe that their answers could be
treated confidentially. No confidential information was desired.
All answers, many of which might be statements of opinion, had to
be what the interviewee could and would be willing to state
publicly.
b. The evaluation would be fair, honest, and helpful
C. Evaluators were to show the interviewee any notes taken
during the interviews.
d. Interviewees were to be asked to review and initial the
interview documents to insure accuracy.
4
Beginning Tuesday, March 2, 1971, and concluding Friday. March 5.
1971, personal interviews with at least 168 persons were conducted.
The complete list of prime respondents include:
NAME
AGENCY
POSITION
TENURE
SEOO Senior Staff
Lewis K. Uhler
SE00-California
Director
8 mos
John G. Sawicki
(1
Asst. Director
8 mos
11
Barny Shur
Dep. Director for TA
2 mos
"
Robert B. Hawkins
Asst. Director for Ops
7 mos
Leonard H. Down
11
Staff Asst.-Planning
6 mos
SEOO Field Staff
Kenneth M. Trigger
SE00-California
Comm.Prog. Analyst
4 mos
11
B. L. Carlton
Comm.Prog. Analyst
6 mos
D. McKee
"
Asst.Director-Legal
2 mos
John R. Frane
11
STAP Housing Spec.
1 yr
11
Stephen M. Archer
Spec.Project Coord.
6 mos
Theresa McInnes
"
VISTA Coordinator
6 mos
"
A. Chickering
Comm.Dev.-Gen.Counsel
6 mos
T. Carter
"
Econ. Dev. Spec.
3 yrs
"
B. Taylor
Child Dev. Coord.
6 mos
George E. Goff
Program Analyst
5 mos
Geoffrey L. Clark
"
CPA
6 mos
John Fattorini
"
Asst.Dir.-Legal Svcs
1 mo
Karen Russo
"
Legal Svcs Staff Asst.
3 mos
Dean McGrath
"
CPA
6 mos
E. M. Peterson
11
Comm. Prog. Analyst
2 yrs
Hubert L. Cunningham
"
Technical Assistant
5 mos
Anthony P. Gurule
"
CPA
1½ yrs
H. Kludjian
"
CPA
6 mos
H. Brown
11
CPA
2½ yrs
Richard W. Thies
11
CPA
6 mos
Charles E. Blaker
11
Spec. TA Counselor
4 mos
Glenn R. Whiteley
11
Systems Evaluator
4 mos
Sal J. Espana
"
Intergov't Coord.
3 yrs
Gil Archuletta
"
Supervisor - CPA's
4 mos
Regional Office Staff
William L. Smith
OEO Region IX
Chief PM&S Division
6 yrs
Charles A. Wilson
11
Planning Officer
3 yrs
Joseph Rowell
11
Chief T/PS Branch
7 mos
Carl F. Ehman
11
Chief VISTA
4 yrs
5
NAME
AGENCY
POSITION
TENURE
Regional Office Staff (Continued)
Paul Katz
OEO Region IX
SE00 Coordinator
5 yrs
11
Raymond B. Auker
Health Svcs Coord.
3 yrs
Naomi Mitchell
"
Gov't Rel. Coord.
4 yrs
"
Nathan Mitzman
Model Cities Coord.
6 yrs
Tom Mack
11
Legal Svcs Director
11/2 yrs
Regional Office Field Staff
Richard Morton
OFC Region IX
Field Rep
3 yrs
Calvin Williams
11
Senior Field Rep
4 yrs
11
Joan Lenihan
Field Rep
4 yrs
C.Mack Hall
11
Chief, Fld Ops Div.
3 yrs
Charles Overhalt
11
Field Rep
3 yrs
11
Barbara Salinas
Field Rep
1 mo
11
Francisco Camplis
Field Rep
3 yrs
11
Gregorio Coronado
Field Rep
1 mo
"
Harry M. Berberian
Admin Officer
3 yrs
il
Frankie W. Jacobs
Division Chief
3 yrs
Carlton Dias
11
Field Rep
3 yrs
David Garcia
11
Field Rep
1 mo
"
Daphne T. Lyckman
Field Rep
2 yrs
Sue Oliver
11
Field Rep
3 yrs
11
Gaylyn N. Boone
Field Rep
4½ yrs
Olympio S. Galon
11
Field Rep
3½ yrs
"
Douglas Peterson
Field Rep
2½ yrs
"
David Cooper
Field Rep
2 yrs
11
Marguerite Mendoza
Field Rep
3 yrs
Charles Stone
"
Field Rep
3 yrs
Willie G. Hall
11
Program Officer VISTA
4 yrs
11
Mike Aguirre
Program Officer VISTA
3 mos
Charles J. Tooker
11
Program Manager VISTA
2½ yrs
CAA Directors - Personal Interviews
Dick Brown
Santa Cruz CAA
Executive Director
2 yrs
* Minnus
11
Admin Assistant)
* (R. Shapiro
11
Dir. of Svc Center
2 yrs)
* (D. Alvaugh
"I)
Carlos Ramos
Orange Co CAA
Executive Director
1 yr
Philip Wing
PCHNO
Executive Director
4 mos
Harvey Howard
Compton-Willwbk
Deputy Director
3 yrs
Ernie Sprinkles
EYOA
Executive Director
5 yrs
David A. Pollard
Placer Co CAC
Executive Director
2 yrs
Neil Bodine
Stanislaus Co.
Executive Director
2½ yrs
Salvador Velasquez
Rio Hondo AAC
Executive Director
1½ yrs
*Participated in interview
6
NAME
AGENCY
POSITION
TENURE
CAA Directors - (Continued)
Richard H. Flint
Merced Co CAA
Executive Director
2 yrs
Seale Fuller
EOA of Yolo Co
Executive Director
3½ yrs
Naaman Brown
Sacramento EOC
Executive Director
4 yrs
F. S. Kennedy
DPC SanBernadino
Acting Exec. Director
11, mos
Donald Handly
Madera Co AC
Acting Exec. Director
2 mos
Mario Guzman
EOC San Diego
Executive Director
4½ yrs
Anthony Gutierrez
CAC San Joaquin
Executive Director
1 yr
*(G. Beyer
11
Prog. Planning Coord.)
Carl P. Wallace
LongBeach Comm.
Executive Director
4 yrs
Cameron Hendry
EOC Imperial Co
Executive Director
3½ yrs
John Dukes
EOC SanFrancisco
Executive Director
3½ yrs
George Johnson
Contra Costa Co
Executive Director
1 yr
L. A. Johnson
EOB Riverside
Executive Director
6 yrs
Percy Moore
OEDCI
Executive Director
3 yrs
CAA Directors - (interviewed by mail)
William F. Nicholas
L.A. Reg. Family
Executive Director
1½ yrs
Planning Cncl
E.Del Hyde
Butte Co EOC
Executive Director
1½ yrs
Joe Williams
Fresno Co EOC
Executive Director
3 mos
Robert W. Amburn
ElDorado CAA
Executive Director
8 mos
Edward R. Becks
San Mateo EOC
Executive Director
3 yrs
Edward D. Taylor
Kern Co EOC
Executive Director
8 mos
Arthur Collins
Lassen-Modoc-
Executive Director
9 mos
Plumas&Tehaina
Roberto Acosta
So. Alameda EOA
Executive Director
3½ yrs
.Robert Lomax
Marin Co EOC
Executive Director
2 yrs
Nathan Unikel
Tulare Co CAA
Executive Director
David W. Hermon
Ventura Co CAA
Deputy Director
Stephen Graham
Napa Co CEO
Executive Director
4 yrs
Bill Gooch
Sonoma Co People
Grant Mgr (for the
for Econ. Opp.
acting director)
CAA Directors - Not Tabulated, (questionnaires)
Edde Marrufo
EOC S. LuisObispo Executive Director
3 yrs
Paul Forbes
Shasta Co CAP
Executive Director
2½ yrs
*Participated in interview
7
NAME
AGENCY
POSITION
TENURE
Board Chairman - (personal interviews)
Leo Giobetti
Merced Co CAA
Chairman
2½ yrs
Willie R. Hausey
Sacramento EOC
Chairman
5 yrs
O.M. Custer
Sacramento EOC
Vice Chairman
3½1/2 yrs
William Venturi
Madera Co CAC
Chairman
1 yr
L. D. Hines
Placer Co CAC
Chairman
2 yrs
Paul F. Clark
Stanislaus CAC
Chairman
2 yrs
Joseph Bacarro
CAC SanJoaquin
Pres-Bd of Directors
2 yrs
Juanita Morales
EYGA
Chairman
3 yrs
J. J. Thompson
Orange Co CAC
Pres of Board
2 yrs
Audry M. Rhoads
Compton-Wllwbrk
Chairman
3 yrs
Adolpho Hernandez
Rio Hondo AAC
Chairman
2 mos
William H. Moreno
EOC Imperial Co
Chairman
3 yrs
Elizabeth Moore
Lon Beach Comm
Chairman
5 yrs
Fred Martinez
EOC Jan Diego
Chairman
5 yrs
Delfino Segovia
DPC SanBernadino
Acting Achirman
3 yrs
Nick Rodriquez
ContraCosta Co
Chairman
1 yr
Father Williams
CAP Chmn Assoc
Chairman
6 yrs
Board Chairman (interviewed by mail)
Ralph Sanson
CAB Santa Cruz
Chairman
2½ yrs
John V.Albright
Shasta Co CAP
Chairman
2½ yrs
Jose Garcia
So Alameda Co
Chairman
Gerald Monroe
San Mateo Co
Chairman
3 yrs
State Agencies
Samuel J.Cullers
Governor's Ofc
Director
5 yrs
Plnng/Research
John A. Svatin
Public Welfare
Asst. Director
2 mos
Gordon Finley
Dpt of Commerce
Ch-Econ Dev Div
12 yrs
Jack Baker
Dpt of Gen Svcs
Planning Officer
1 mo
* (E.Christensen
"
Personnel Analyst)
* (R.McDonald
"
Personnel Officer)
Jeanada Nolan
Dpt of Educ.
Chmn-Comp PreSchool
4½ yrs
Educ. Programs
* (R.Reyes
"
Chmn-CmnSvc-Migrants)
* (J.Jordan
"
Follow-Thru Coord.)
* (L.Lopez
"
Dir - Comp. Educ)
* (E.D.Graf
"
Ch-Prog,Plnng-VE)
R. A. Bernheimer
State Pers. Bd
Supvr-Career Oppors.
3 yrs
Dr. Louis Hertz
Public Health
6 yrs
John Saulsberry
Dpt of Educ VE/MDT Asst Reg Supvr
7 yrs
Thomas N. Duffy
Ofc of Lt Gov.
Ch-Intergov' t Mgmt
1½ yrs
8
* participated in interview
NAME
AGENCY
POSITION
TENURE
Federal Agencies
F. A. Zimmerman
HEW
Asst. Dir. for Inter-
24 yrs
gov't Op & CommAffrs
Earl Singer
HUD
Advisor - Plng, Eval
& Public Admin
Reno Kramer
HUD
Intergov't Rel Ofcr
Keith Axtell
HUD
Human Res. Advisor
Andrew Corcoran
HUD
Ofc of Equal Oppor
Tad Masaoka
HUD
Inter-agency Coord.
William N. Brown
HUD
Citzns Partic. Advisor 41/2 yrs
Arthur Douglas
DOL
Dep Assoc Reg'1 Mnpwr
10 yrs
Administrator
"
Robert E. Reynolds
DOL
6 yrs
Ruben Avelar
"
DOL
10 yrs
Philip T. Lawton
DOL
Assoc Reg Mnpwr Adm.
8 yrs
Donald McLarnan
SBA
Regional Director
9 yrs
*(C.D.Ryan
11
Ch-Procuremnt & Mgt)
*(R.S.Garrett
"
Econ Dev Spec)
*(R.J.Koester
"
Asst Ch - Finance)
*(C.P. Blackledge
"
Chmn-Comm Econ Dev)
*(G.A.Rands
"
Deputy Director)
"
Sweeney
Ch - Admin Division)
Hugh Taylor
Dpt of Commerce
Econ Dev Rep
2 yrs
George Monica
HEW
Chief - Operations
1½ yrs
Stern)
*(B.0'Hara)
*(G.Beford)
(H.Tharpe)
Local Government
Randy W. Harrison
League of Calif
4 yrs
Cities
J. P. McBrien
Ofc of Co Admin
Co Administrator
13 yrs
Reveles Cayton
City/Co of San
DepDir-Social Progs.
3 yrs
Francisco
Frank Gonzalez
Mayor's Ofc
Dir - Manpower Dev
6 mos
San Bernadino
Elmer Keshka
Co of San Diego
Asst to Chairman -
11 yrs
Admin Officer
M.Earl Chapin
Probation Dept
Delinquency Prev Coord 1½ yrs
Riverside
Emil Lubick
Longbeach CC
Dean of College
-31/2 yrs
DuBois McGee
City of ElCentro
Rep of Mayor
5 yrs
Elder Gunter
City of Stockton
City Manager
2 yrs
9
* participated in interview
NAME
AGENCY
POSITION
TENURE
Local Government (Continued)
Clifford Wisdom
San Joaquin Co
Chmn - Bd of Supvrs
8 yrs
Mayor Maclaskey
Rocklin, Calif
Mayor
10 mos
Lee Davies
Modesta, Calif
Mayor
4 yrs
J. B. Poolini
Placer Co
County Supervisor
14 yrs
Felton Mailes
Ofc - Co Exec
Admin Analyst
7 yrs
Sacramento
*(G.W.Sparrow
"
Admin Analyst)
*(E.T.Gualco
"
Chmn - Bd of Supvrs)
#(C.L.Strauch
11
Admin Asst.)
Johnnie Ramondini
Merced Co
Chmn - Bd of Supvrs
7 yrs
11. E. Haggan
Co Supvr Assoc
Ch - Asst Gen Mgr
3 yrs
of Calif
Lionel B. Cade
City of Compton
Councilman
7 yrs
Ray Villa
Santa Ana City
Councilman
2 yrs
Community Groups
Ron Rhone
Richmond Model
Director C.E.P.
3 yrs
Cities
Cynthia Williams
NCNW ContraCosta
Mildred J. Germany
Nat'l Cncl of
Representative
Negro Women
Ralph Petry
San Pablo Comm
General Manager
4 yrs
Change Found.
Ernest Salwen
Social Welfare
Voc Svcs Supvr
5 yrs
Mary L. Miller
League of Women
Member at Large
3 mos
Voters
Clarice Bean
Co Neighborhood
Counselor
3 yrs
Youth Corp.
Lillie Mae Jones
Dpt of Educ.
Voc. Specialist
3 yrs
John R. Garside
ContraCosta Coll. Supvr - MDTA
3 yrs
Richard R. Lower
DOL (On loan fm Manpwr Admin's Rep
25 yrs
Calif ES Agency)
Virtual Murrell
OEDCI (Oakland)
Vice President
1½ yrs
Ben J. Aitemon
SE Poverty Comm
Chairman
2½ yrs
Josephine Marcus
DPC SanBernadino
Board Member
1½ yrs
Jose Casares
Longbeach Comm
Board Member
6 mos
Latarska Graham
SE Anti-Poverty
Rep to OEC Board
2½ yrs
Council
Bernard M. Ruedas
E1 Rancho - Pico
Member
6 mos
Rivera Kiwanis
Joe Romero
Headstart
President
6 mos
Advisory Cncl
Fannie M. Leonard
StMartin's Sr.
Chairman
2 yrs
Citizens
10
* participated in interview
NAME
AGENCY
POSITION
TENURE
Community Groups (Continued)
Lewis W. Perry
Poverty Cncl
Chairman
3½ yrs
PCHNO
William Harmel
HRD-Stockton
Manager
10 yrs
Laverne Adams
NE Neighborhood
Vice Chmn of Bd
3 yrs
Center
*(C.Marsicano)
* .Wydner)
David Echols
Dpt of Welfare
Director
7.5 yrs
W. J. Waillett
WRO
President
6 yrs
J. Creason
Airport Dist.
Chairman
3 mos
NeighborhoodCncl
Joe Sanders
Neighborhood Cncl Chairman
3 yrs
Sacramento
Virginia Darling
PCAC - Rocklin
Vice Chairman
4 yrs
Janet McGrew
Ofc - Headstart
Parents Adv Cncl
Gilbert Macias
Merced Co Coop
President
1 yr
Casiam)
*(A. Gardner)
Other
Pat Vogel
Madera Co AC
Admin Officer
2½ yrs
Robert L. Minnus
Santa Cruz CoCAA
Admin Asst.
2 yrs
Kermit G. Bailer
Social Dynamics
Vice Pres-Prog Admin
8 mos
Gerald Wilson
Control Systems
Regional Manager
1 yr
Research
Steven Levine
Westinghouse
T/A Coordinator
1 yr
Learning Corp
Albert Kennefick
American Tech
Manager
Asst Corp
Chris Latham
Peat, Marwick &
Consultant in Mgmt
6 mos
Mitchell
Robert Shapiro
Santa Cruz CoCAA
Svc Center Director
2 yrs
Alfred G. Edmonds
Marin Co EOC
Admin Director
9 mos
11
* participated in interview
INTRODUCTION TO NARRATIVE SECTION
The Narrative Section is divided into four parts. The first part
deals with the SEOO organization and internal management. The
second part deals with the SEOO in its relationship with various
entities such as state agencies, community action agencies, and fed-
eral agencies. The third part deals with the SEOO's performance of
certain functions such as resource mobilization, coordination and
planning, advocacy for the poor, etc. The final section deals with
the SEOO's performance under the four grants which it has received
from the Office of Economic Opportunity which are: (1) its regular
Grant # CG-0364-E/2/4 in the amount of $488,564, (2) a STAP Grant
# CG-0364-E for the provision of special technical assistance to
rural community action agencies in California in the amount of
$114,184, (3) a special Demonstration Grant # CG-9093-A/2 to provide
"administrative technical assistance" in the amount of $162,170, and
(4) the "Oakland" Demonstration Grant # CG-9093-A/1 in the amount of
$27,718 which allowed the SEOO to place a special technical assist-
ance consultant in Oakland Economic Development Council, Inc.
The Narrative Section represents the best efforts of the evaluation
team to achieve a concensus and provide a collective assessment of
how the California SECO was perceived by the persons interviewed.
Each Narrative Section is divided according to findings, conclusions,
and where appropriate, recommendations.
12
SEOO ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT
1. ORGANIZATION:
a. Facts: The California SEOO is part of the Department of
Human Resource Development (DHRD) which in turn is part of the
Human Relations Agency headed by a Secretary who is a member of
the Governor's Cabinet.
b. Findings: Although the SEOO is placed within Human Rela-
tions Agency under the DHRD for administrative and logistical sup-
port, the SEOO's placement does not represent the actual command
line. The SEOO has direct contact and access to the Governor's
Executive Assistant. This appears to be a verbal agreement
for no documentation for it could be found.
C. Recommendation: The relationship of the SEOO to the Gover-
nor and the SEOO to the Director of DHRD should be made a matter of
written record (formal Delegation of Authority, etc.).
2. INTERNAL ORGANIZATION:
a. Facts: An organization chart prepared in mid-February 1971
is in existence (see Attachments). It is partially obsolete and
confusing since many key personnel "wear two hats". The chart
also does not agree with the grant breakdown shown on the personnel
roster.
b. Findings: While apparently still in a state of flux, the
internal organization seems to have moved toward the principle of
division into Operations and Administration, with a special staff
(General Counsel, Planning, Finance/Budget, and Program Analysis).
Special staff functions are dual and additional, but not necessarily
secondary functions of Line Supervisors (Sawicki, McKee, Hawkins,
Downs, and Schur). There are contradictory statements pertaining to
Chickering's (STAP) role as General Counsel.
C. Recommendation: The organization chart should be simplified and
should show the Operations/Administration breakdown, with boxes for
Special Staff.
13
Page 13, Item 1, Paragraph C
Wanda should have a copy of Executive Order #1 signed
by Gil Sheffield, Director of HRD, re: Relationships
Page 13, Item 2, Paragraph A
Organizational chart prepared by grant breakdown before we
came in - impossible situation, was like 4 agencies -
construct internal administrative organizational chart.
Page 13, Item 2, Paragraph B
As far as Lawrence Chickering is concerned, in the community
development area, it is important to have legal background.
Page 13, Item 2, Paragraph C
Refer to new refunding package, corrects all mistakes
Page 16 Paragraph C, Subsection 2 - Recommendation:
Memos within the office, either by telephone or in writing
directly requesting all announcements of tranining sessions
and conferences.
Page 19, Paragraph C, Subsection 2 - Recommendation:
First paragraph (a)
We have done so in next year's refunding package
paragraph (b)
It is done, not as exactly as they want; grant files.
Cost of xeroxing is too costly; not that important a
resource to expend that kind of money.
3.
STAFFING:
a. Facts: Including ti.e Director, the office consists of 29
professionals and 14 clerical support persons, for a total of 43
personnel. Professionals are exempt from Civil Service requirements,
although a small number who transferred into SEOO from other state
agencies have permanent State Civil Service status. Clerical per-
sonnel are under State Civil Service.
b. Findings: The staff appears adequate to perform the work
program. Utilization of individual professionals is usually accord-
ing to plan, but there are exceptions (e.g., Chickering). Clerical
staff will probably be more than adequate (one for each two pro-
fessionals) when they have caught up with the current backlog.
C. Recommendation: Performance of responsibilities for which
individuals were approved should be given precedence over additional
special staff duties and task force assignments which should be held
to a minimum for STAP personnel.
4. QUALIFICATION OF PERSONNEL:
a. Facts:
(1) Clerical personnel are well qualified; speed, quality,
and appearance of work, cooperativeness, etc., compare favorably
with normal standards. Phones are answered promptly and politely.
Appearance is neat. They are punctual in the morning, and there
appeared (at least while the evaluation team was present) to be no
rush to get out of the office at quitting time.
(2) Professionals show good general qualifications such as
education, intelligence, supervisory abilities, etc., but there is
in many cases a pronounced lack of special qualifications for the
job for which they were hired, such as exposure to and experience in
OEO-related subjects. Many of the recently hired personnel have
some investigative experience. Access to Sawicki's and Uhler's
resumes was denied.
b. Findings:
(1) Some of the professionals interviewed, e.g., McKee,
Fattorini, Schur, and Downs, appeared to be genuinely motivated and
in sympathy with OEO philosophy and goals. In others there seemed
to be more of a desire to get the job done as ordered. It must not
be forgotten, however, that there is no job protection, no status,
no "bumping" rights, etc., and anybody who displeases the "boss"
can be summarily fired.
(2) Although newly assigned personnel are given pre-service
and on-the-job training, the lack of experience in OEO-related
14