Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "118564696",
    "label": "California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Response to Federal Evaluation 04/29/1971, Vol. I (4 of 7)",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564696"
}

{
    "id": "118564696",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564696",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Response to Federal Evaluation 04/29/1971, Vol. I (4 of 7)",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564696",
    "identifierLocal": "840",
    "collections": [
        "Ronald Reagan's Governor's Papers of the Press Unit",
        "California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA) Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-011-2017.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-011-2017.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-011-2017.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/118564696",
    "naId": 118564696,
    "coverageEndDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1975-12-31",
        "year": 1975
    },
    "coverageStartDate": {
        "logicalDate": "1967-01-01",
        "year": 1967
    },
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/reagan/7408627/40-840-7408627-P27-011-2017.pdf",
    "mediaId": "37280aee02687f58",
    "ocrText": "Ronald Reagan Presidential Library\nDigital Library Collections\nThis is a PDF of a folder from our textual collections.\nCollection: Reagan, Ronald: Gubernatorial Papers,\n1966-74: Press Unit\nFolder Title: California State Office of Economic Opportunity\n- Response to Federal Evaluation 04/29/1971,\nVol. I (4 of 7)\nBox: P27\nTo see more digitized collections visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/archives/digital-library\nTo see all Ronald Reagan Presidential Library inventories visit:\nhttps://reaganlibrary.gov/document-collection.\nContact a reference archivist at: [email protected]\nCitation Guidelines: https://reaganlibrary.gov/citing\nNational Archives Catalogue: https://catalog.archives.gov/\nvolume will decrease and the price of the service will level at\napproximately $100.00 per month.\n(2) Recommendation:\n(a) In view of high cost of the clipping service, it\nshould be evaluated as to relative cost-effectiveness and, if main-\ntained, should be shown as a specific item in the budget.\n(b) Clippings should be xeroxed for cross-references,\nand copies filed in the duo-decimal file grantee folders.\n10. MANPOWER ALLOCATION:\nSee \"Analysis of Management Performance in Allocation of Staff Man-\nPower Resources\" for an assessment of the performance of the SEOO\nin the control and application of staff manpower resources.\n11. GENERAL COMMENTS:\nOverall internal management of SEOO Office procedures to date has\nbeen good. There have been very apparent recent improvements in the\nmanagement of the office, in controls instituted over personnel, in\nthe provision of checklists for Community Program Analysts and in the\ndesign of forms and the requirements for periodic reports. A uo-decimal\nfile system has been installed. These improvements have been instituted\nduring the last few months, and can be expected to show tangible results\nin the foreseeable future. However, shortcomings in the qualifications\nof professionals, particularly lack of experience and previous exposure\nto the problems they are expected to solve or give advice on solving,\nhave had a deleterious effect on the quality of their work and their\neffectiveness in the field. Coupled with what is perceived as a\ncompletely opposite philosophical outlook, this further undermines\nwhatever remaining confidence grantees may have in the SEOO.\nThere still is no affirmative action plan in accordance with CAP\nForm 11; work goals and priorities are not quantified; there has\nbeen no self-evaluation report. Assurances have been made that\nthese shortcomings will be eliminated prior to the submission of\nthe next program year's application.\nAt least eight CAAS reported they had never received a CAP form 76.\nThe grant document showed eight CAP 76s; two contained adverse com-\nments. Although they were the subject of discussions in the office,\nno rebuttal was attempted. Plans and priorities as well as refunding\nrequests were, according to Regional and Headquarters personnel, sub-\nmitted late last year. This was prior to the appointment of the\npresent SEOO administration. A new budget for the next program year\nis under preparation and assurances have been made that all neces-\nsary documents will be submitted to Region IX on time, including a\nself-evaluation report.\n19\nPage 19 -- Paragraph 11 GENERAL COMMENTS (Charge)\nHowever, shortcomings in the qualifications of professionals,\nparticularly lack of experience and previous exposure to the\nproblems they are expected to solve or give advice on solving,\nhave had a deleterious effect on the quality of their work and\ntheir effectiveness in the field. Coupled with what is perceived\nas a completely opposite philosophical outlook, this further\nundermines whatever remaining confidence grantees may have in\nthe SEOO.\nThere still is no affirmative action plan in accordance with\nCAP Form 11; work goals and priorities are not quantified;\nthere has been no self-evaluation report. Assurances have\nbeen made that these shortcomings will be eliminated prior\nto the submission of the next program year's application.\nAt least eight CAAs reported they had never received a CAP\nForm 76. The grant document showed eight CAP 76s; two contained\nadverse comments.\nThis was prior to the appointment of\nthe present SEOO administration. A new budget for the next\nprogram year is under preparation and assurances have been\nmade that all necessary documents will be submitted to Region\nIX on time, including a self-evaluation report.\nRESPONSE:\nThis is a subjective evaluation! At no time did the federal\nevaluators ask any questions, whether verbal or written, which\nwould ascertain the philosophical attitude of any field\nrepresentative. Hence, without any specific documentation\nor statements to the contrary, federal evaluators have no\nway of determining the philosophy of SEOO representatives.\nProfessional qualifications have been mentioned above, however,\npractical experience is utilized toward the solving of problems\nof community action agencies by all professionals in SEOO.\nThis practical experience is the result of extensive experience\nin government operations and public agencies.\nPage 19\nCharge:\n\"11. General comments:\nHowever, shortcomings in\nthe qualifications of professionals, particularly lack\nof experience and previous exposure to the problems\nthey are expected to solve or give advice on solving,\nhave had a deleterious effect on the quality of their\nwork and their effectiveness in the field. Coupled\nwith what is perceived as a completely opposite philoso-\nphical outlook, this further undermines whatever remaining\nconfidence grantees may have in the SEOO.\"\nResponse:\nAgain the philosophical bias of the professional\nestablishment of OEO comes through, for they presume\nthat, out of arrogance, that only those who have been\nborn and nurtured in experience of OEO's labor pains\nare qualified to solve problems facing the poor. State\nOEO happens to disagree violently with this position,\nand feels that OEO needs not more sociologically-\noriented minds, but more hard-headed, practically-\noriented individuals. State OEO's philosophical\noutlook, in a nut shell can be stated as directing\nall OEO monies toward enabling poverty communities to\nbecome self-sustaining so that they are no longer\ncommitted to the paternalistic bureaucracies, such\nas OEO. Thus we are looking at all programs with one\nobjective in mind: Does this program produce indi-\nviduals and groups that are capable of standing on their\nown two feet and lead a meaningful life? It seems\nreasonable to infer then, that if this is an opposite\nphilosophical outlook, then the philosophical outlook\nof our evaluators is one of perpetuating monolithic\nbureaucratic structures that increase the costs to\nlow-incomed individuals in gaining meaningful responses\nfrom bureaucracies to insure a life of independence\nand fulfillment. We can only assume that if this is\ntheir outlook, that it is a repressive, exploitive,\nand in all probability a racist position, with which\nwe totally disagree.\nPage 19--2.b. Clippings (Charge)\n\"Clippings should be xeroxed for cross-references, and copies\nfiled in the duo-decimal file grantee folders.\"\nRESPONSE:\nClippings are filed by date sequence in county order. They\nare readily accessible to any individual that would like a\ncomplete picture of what is happening within the fifty counties\nwith which this office has contact. If clippings were filed in\ngrantee folders, they would be in nine different folders per\ncounty. Filed in such a manner, it would involve a greater amount\nof time to see a general view of the county. After a six-month\nperiod, the clippings may be included in the grantee folders.\nThey would then be available, if needed, for review of individual\ngrant packages.\nTHE SEOO AND THE GOVERNOR\n1. FINDINGS:\nThe SEOO has provided the Governor with information and advice with\nrespect to the policy and programs of OEO and other anti-poverty\nresources. This information and advice is ordinarily channeled\nthrough the Governor's Executive Assistant, Edwin Meese, III.\nLewis Uhler, Director of the California SEOO, stated that \"The Gov-\nernor has delegated his Section 242 (EOA of 1964, as amended) re-\nsponsibilities to his Executive Assistant, Edwin Meese, III, who has\nthe power to approve or disapprove funding grants. We have direct\nand regular access to Mr. Meese, as well as periodic access to the\nGovernor himself. For organizational symmetry and logistical sup-\nport, our office has been placed in the Department of Human Resources\nDevelopment.\" On especially serious matters, information and advice\nhave been provided directly to the Governor by the SEOO Director as\nin the case of the veto of the California Rural Legal Assistance pro-\ngram. Lewis Uhler cited the following occasions during the past\nthree months when advice was provided directly to the Governor:\n\"In December, 1971, we briefed the Governor on\ninformation we had received on California Rural\nLegal Assistance (CRLA) In January, 1971, we\nmet with the Governor to discuss the design of\nthe alternative program to CRLA-- Ajudicare\nIn February, 1971, we met with the Governor to\ndiscuss the status of legal services generally,\nas well as the progress of the private funding\nof an Ajudicare alternative, plus discussion\nof various community action agencies.\"\nUhler also cited the following instances when grants and contracts\nhave been disapproved by the Governor in the recent past. \"Grants\ndisapproved by the Governor since July 1, 1970, California Rural\nLegal Assistance; Oakland Economic Development Council, Inc.; Santa\nCruz (which was a conditional veto); and the Mafundi Institute.\n(We have approved, or allowed to lapse, approximately 140 programs\nsince July 1, 1970.)\"\nA recent example of an effort to develop information on the condi-\ntions of poverty within the State took place in Oakland. Uhler re-\nported that \"We have run on a contract basis with a well qualified,\nindependent contractor a motivational research study about the City\nof Oakland, with specific reference to OEDCI, to determine its ef-\nfectiveness as a deliverer of services and advocate for the poor,\n20\nas well as to determine its relationship to the community at large.\n(The cost was approximately $8,000 - $10,000.)\"\nThere is no question that the SEOO Director has direct input to the\nGovernor of California and is in almost daily contact with the Gov-\nernor's Executive Assistant. This relationship exists in spite of\nthe fact that in the formal table of organization the California\nSEOO is several structural layers below the Governor's Office. It\nis obvious, also, that the Governor holds the staff of the California\nSEOO in high esteem and has relied to a substantial degree on the\ninformation and recommendations which the SEOO staff has made in de-\nterming whether to veto, to approve, or to allow the time period to\napprove or veto a grant to elapse.\nAlthough the SEOO has not heretofore provided an annual written\nanalysis to the Governor highlighting the principal problems and\ncauses of poverty in the State and including recommended priorities\nand types of programs to meet those problems, the SEOO, in response\nto instructions from H. Rodger Betts, Regional Director, Region IX,\nis now in the process of preparing such a written analysis. Assur-\nances have been made that an annual report of the type described in\nOEO Instruction 7501-1, 6a, will be submitted to the Governor and\nto Region IX, OEO, prior to the end of the current program year.\nWhile the Governor reportedly has not exercised his authority to re-\nquest the termination of assignments of VISTA Volunteers, under\nSection 810 (b) of the EOA of 1964, as amended, the SEOO has in-\nformed the Governor of VISTA activities within the State. John\nSawicki, Ubler's Administrative Assistant, reported that \"concen-\ntrated VISTA reviews\" had taken place with respect to the following\nVISTA programs: Shasta, Oakland, Lawyers Committee, Santa Clara\nCounty, and Berkeley VISTA. The SEOO in a letter to Carl Ehmann,\nRegion IX, VISTA Chief, dated February 1, 1971, recommended a re-\nduction in the number of lawyers to be assigned to the Legal Aid\nSociety of Santa Clara County (see Attachments).\n2. CONCLUSIONS:\nThe SEOO plays a significant role in advising the Governor, usually\nthrough Edwin Meese, III, the Governor's Executive Assistant, on\nmatters affecting poverty programs and poverty program grantees\nwithin the State of California. The apparent low-ranking status of\nthe SEOO when viewed from a table of organization point of view is\ncounter-balanced by the direct line of communication which exists\nfrom the SEOO Director to the Governor's Executive Assistant.\nThe quality of advice given to the Governor is a question which is\ninfluenced by what the CAAs and WR/OEO staff believe the SEOO's\nphilosophy to be. This philosophy, while not articulated in any\nspecific document or statement is exemplified by the style of\nthe actions taken by the SEOO with respect to various OEO grantees\n21\nPage 21 -- THE SEOO AND THE GOVERNOR - Findings (Charge)\nAlthough the SEOO has not heretofore provided an annual\nwritten analysis to the Governor highlighting the principal\nproblems and causes of poverty in the State and including\nrecommended priorities and types of programs to meet those\nproblems, the SEOO, in response to instructions from H. Rodger\nBetts, Regional Director, Region IX, is now in the process of\npreparing such a written analysis. Assurances have been made\nthat an annual report of the type described in OEO Instruction\n7501-1 6a, will be submitted to the Governor and to Region IX,\nOEO, prior to the end of the current program year.\nRESPONSE:\nUnfortunately, the previous administration of SEOO did not\nprovide the Governor with an analysis of annual SEOO activities.\nMr. Uhler came on board in August, 1970, and the annual report\nto the Governor is not appropriately due until June of this\nyear, which is the end of the program and fiscal year for our\noffice. However, despite the fact that this is not due at\nthis time, an annual report to the Governor has been prepared\nand sent to the Regional Office as part of an addendum to\nthe CAP 7e. An additional annual report will be prepared at\na later date highlighting specific activities of our office.\nPage 21--1. FINDINGS (Charge)\n\"Although the SEOO has not heretofore provided an annual written\nanalysis to the Governor highlighting the principal problems\nand causes of poverty in the State and including recommended\npriorities and types of programs to meet those problems, the\nSEOO, in response to instructions from H. Rodger Betts, Regional\nDirector, Region IX, is now in the process of preparing such\na written analysis. Assurances have been made that an annual\nreport of the type described in OEO Instruction 7501-1, 6a, will\nbe submitted to the Governor and to Region IX, OEO, prior to the\nend of the current program year.\"\nResponse:\nThis comment or this paragraph requires no response, as it\nstates that a national plan is now in the process of being\nprepared.\nPage 21 --Conclusions (Charge)\n\"The quality of advice given to the Governor is a question which is\ninfluenced by what the CAAs and WR/OEO staff believe the SEOO's\nphilosophy to be. This philosophy, while not articulated in any specific\ndocument or statement is exemplified by the style of the actions taken by\nthe SEOO with respect to various OEO grantees.\"\nResponse\nThe philosophy of this office is precisely in line with the statutory\nand regulatory mandates of OEO.\nSection 201 of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, as amended, states,\nin part, that the objective of OEO is \"to stimulate a better focusing of all\navailable local, state, private and federal resources upon the goal of en-\nabling low-income families and low-income individuals of all ages in rural\nand urban areas to attain the skills, knowledge and motivations and secure\nthe opportunities needed for them to become self sufficient.\" OEO Instruc-\ntion No. 6320-1, \"The Mission of the Community Action Agency,\" issued\nNovember 16, 1970, constitutes the new mission statement for community\naction agencies and is one with which this office is in total sympathy. It\nplaces emphasis upon the mobilization of local resources, upon the program\nas a positive voice for the poor, upon the delivery of services and upon\ndeveloping the kind of relationship within the community that will encourage\nthe community to assist the CAP in its mission. Frankly, we consider that\nconflict and confrontation policies are outmoded and clearly counter-\nproductive. We have carefully articulated this approach not only to our\nstaff but the community action agencies around the State.\nsince July 1, 1970. The section of this report dealing with\nthe 6500 and the CAAs best illustrates the attitude revealed\nby this style, It can be summarily stated, however, that\nthe conclusion of the evaluation team was that the attitude of the\nSEOO was, for the most part, one of antagonism toward the CAAS and the\ncommunity action program, and that SEOO personnel assigned to ansist\nCAAS acted more investigative than helpful, more as observers than\nas active participants assigned the job of aiding the CAAs in peo-\ngram development: and providing technical assistance. Presumably,\nthe attitudes displayed by the SEOO representatives had the approval\nof the SEOO Director and those to whom he reported.\n22\nPage 22--Conclusions (Charge)\n\"It can be summarily stated, however, that the conclusion of the evaluation\nteam was that the attitude of the SEOO was, for the most part, one of an-\ntagonism toward the CAAs and the community action program, and that SEOO\npersonnel assigned to assist CAAs acted more investigative than helpful,\nmore as observers than as active participants assigned the job of aiding\nthe CAAs in program development and providing technical assistance.\nPresumably, the attitudes displayed by the SEOO representatives had the\napproval of the SEOO Director and those to whom he reported.\"\nResponse\nThe claim that this office is antagonistic toward the CAA is false. There\nis no question but that we have been deeply concerned and, at times,\nirritated with the conduct of a few of the CAAs which do not appear to be\nfollowing the rules and guidelines. Our community program analysts must\nelicit the facts about program operation and performance if they are to\nfulfill their job assignments according to the grant conditions. They are\navailable to be helpful within their capabilities when so requested by the\nCAA. The no-nonsense attitude about program performance which we urge\non our community program analysts has the full approval and support of\nthe SEOO Director. We are ever mindful of the need to use effectively\nthe precious tax dollars used to fund these programs. We want to make\nsure that the poor receive some direct benefit from the expenditure of\nthese funds.\nFEDERAL REPORT, PAGE 22\nCHARGE:\n\"It can be summarily stated, however, that the conclusion\nof the evaluation team was that the attitude of the SEOO\nwas, for the most part, one of antagonism toward the CAAs\nand the community action program, and that SEOO personnel\nassigned to assist CAAs acted more investigative than\nhelpful, more as observers than active participants\nassigned the job of aiding the CAAs in program develop-\nment and providing technical assistance. Presumably,\nthe attitudes displayed by the SEOO representatives had\nthe approval of the SEOO Director and those to whom he\nreported.\"\nRESPONSE:\nThe following letter is on file from Myron H. Schussman,\nAssistant Superintendent, San Mateo County Board of Edu-\ncation, April 29, 1971, to the attention of the California\nState Legislature:\n\"This office was the applicant agency for a VISTA\nvolunteer project involving tutoring of county jail\ninmates.\n\"Mrs. Theresa McInnes, VISTA Coordinator for the State\nOffice of Economic Opportunity, reviewed this project\napplication during the time when it was being consid-\nered for funding. In the course of this review, she\ntook the time to visit the proposed project site\npersonally and conferred with the people who were to\nbe involved in administering the project.\n\"I found her to be most cooperative and at no time\ndid she offer any obstructions to the successful com-\nmencement of the project.\n\"This project is designed to provide assistance to\ninmates of the County Jail Honor Farm in learning\nbasic skills of reading, mathematics, etc. Since a\nlarge population of these inmates come from the lower\nsocial economic levels and minority groups, it is\nobvious that the entire purpose of this project is\nconsistent with the underlying motivation of the pro-\ngrams of the Office of Economic Opportunity.\n\"This project is now successfully underway and we are\nvery pleased to be involved with it.\" =\nTHE SEOO AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES\nState Egency Directors, or their designees, were interviewed from\nten agencies of the State of California. Staff present to advise\nthem in regard to their answers were an additional eight persons,\nfor a total of 18 state officials interviewed outside the SEOO staff\nitself.\nRepresentatives of the following agencies were interviewed:\na. Human Resources eloment Department\nDepartment of Social Welfare\nC. Department of ommerce\n4. Office of Intergovernmental Relations (Lieutenant Governor)\nC. State Personnel Board\nf. General Services Department\ng. Department of Education\nh. State Planning Office\ni. Department of Public Health\nAlso interviewed was a member of the staff of the California Legi-\nslative Analyst who supplied a copy of the recent budget analysis\nof the SEOO which is prepared for the California Legislature.\nThe officials interviewed were asked to report, to the best of their\nknowledge, on the SEOO's performance of the following functions in\nconnection with other state agencies:\na. Representing the Governor on matters related to the poor.\nb. Providing information on matters related to the poor and\npoverty.\nC. Mobilizing and coordinating state agency resources on behalf\nof the poor.\nd. Acting as a special advocate for the poor within state govern-\nment.\n23\n1. PERCEPTIONS:\nof the state officials interviewed knew little of what the in SEOO\nMost had done. Items mentioned by some of the officials responding\nrelationship to the functions referred above are as follows:\na. The SEOO sponsored a meeting in December, 1970, to which\nwere invited many state agency heads and rural CAA Executive Direc-\ntors. State agency programs and resources were explained.\nb. A written agreement was signed February 3, 1971, by SEOO\nDirector Lewis K. Uhler and Thomas Duffy, Office of Intergovernmental\nRelations (Lieutenant agreein to carry out joint studies\nleading to the pilot merging\nor\nCAAs (e.g., Fresno) with\nModel Cities agencies isce Attachments).\nC.\nIn\nearly\n1971,\nsubject of welfare reform was discussed\nbetween Mr. Uhler and en Welfare Department representatives.\nd. The California Air National Guard, State Wildlife and\nFisheries Department, and State Department of Forestry were con-\ntacted to see whether volunteer dentists could be flown into iso-\nlated Indian communities and be given special hunting and fishing\nprivileges as an incentive to provide dental care for the Indians.\ne. Lewis Uhler, California SEOO Director, described one example\nof the efforts of the SEOO to expedite state agency certification\nprocedures as follows:\n\"We have had significant coordination with the\nBusiness and Transportation Agency and their\nDepartment of Housing and Community Development,\nplacing them in contact with Dukor Modular Sys-\ntems, Inc., to help expedite the certification\nprocess for this factory-built housing company\nthat is meeting the low and moderate income\nhousing needs in the State. The RESULTS were\nthat within one week a certification came\nthrough which involved a process within the\nDepartment of Housing and Community Development\nwhereby, once certified, Dukor is seemed to have\nmet all local building codes or standards. \"\n2. FINDINGS:\nThe State Interagency Conference for rural CAAs was seen as excellent\nand useful by most participants; however, follow up was apparently\nleft to two STAP consultants, one of whom left the SEOO soon there-\nafter. As a result, there was very little follow up. The Farmers\nHome Administration apprenticeship (\"intern\") program discussed\n24\nPage 24-1. PERCEPTIONS (Charge)\n\"Most of the state officials interviewed knew little of what\nthe SEOO had done.\"\nRESPONSE:\nWithin the complexities of State Government, it is not\nuncommon for state officials to not know the complex programmatic\nfunctions of all state agencies. To accomplish this objective\nwould require a staff of public information specialists as well\nas special bulletins and regular meetings. This is not feasible\nwithin the budget for SEOO. Steps are being taken to solve this\nproblem.\nPage 24--2. Findings (Charge)\n\"The State Interagency Conference for rural CAAs was seen as\nexcellent and useful by most participants; however, followup\nwas apparently left to two STAP consultants, one of whom left\nthe SEOO soon thereafter. As a result, there was very little\nfollowup.\"\nRESPONSE:\nThe concept of the State Interagency Conference was to\ndevelop for rural CAAs a direct pipeline or a liaison to the\nagencies from which they are seeking assistance. This office,\nalong with the cosponsors, stressed the importance of developing\na one-to-one relationship with the state agencies. Certain\ndocuments were distributed at the conference in December. One\nin particular, prepared by the Council on Intergovernmental\nRelations, which is similar to the catalog of federal\nagencies (well-known to CAAs), was distributed. This catalog\nwas explained by a staff member from the Council on Intergovernmen-\ntal Relations. The catalog contained the purpose, eligibility\ninformation on programs handled and a contact, here again allowing\nthe CAP the flexibility of developing its own state resources.\nThe SEOO has, however, responded to any requests to this office\nfor assistance or referral to other state and federal agencies.\nTwo resource mobilization conferences were held with parti-\ncipation of over 20 state agencies who have relationships that\ndirectly affect the poor. In housing, applications have been\ncompleted for Imperial, Riverside, Lake, Mendocino Counties.\nThese are examples of followup resulting in housing assistance.\nManagement technical assistance has been supplied on a con-\ncentrated basis to San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, and Merced\nCounties. Employment development supplied to Madera, Contra\nCosta, and other CAPs. The definition of the term \"very little\"\nis a subjective one, and, therefore, these are just a few\nexamples of many. If time and staff were available to do so,\nmore examples of what has been accomplished in followup to rural\nand other CAAs could be given.\nPage 24, Paragraph 2 (State interagency conference)\nCharge:\n\"The State Interagency Conference for rural CAAs was seen as\nexcellent and useful by most participants; however, follow up\nwas apparently left to two STAP consultants, one of whom left\nthe SEOO soon thereafter. As a result, there was very little\nfollow up.\"\nResponse:\nReport maintains: \"Follow-up was apparently left to two STAP\nconsultants\n\"\nSEOO field representative in Southern\nCalifornia personally delivered copies of materials distributed\nat state interagency conference to rural CAPs, when he discovered\nthe CAPs were unable to attend the conference. (E. M. Petersen -\nSanta Barbara and Ventura CAAS)\nPage 24 - 1. PERCEPTIONS:\n(Charge)\n\"Most of the state officials interviewed knew little of what the\nSEOO had done.\"\nRESPONSE\nField representatives of State OEO contact many field\nrepresentatives of other State agencies. Heads of departments\nwould not necessarily know of this contact, and, in this case\nobviously did not. State OEO representatives feel that it is\nmandatory that they work with the various state and federal\nagencies in their field operations, not only from a time saving\npoint of view, but for coordination of effort. SEOO field\nrepresentative sits on CAMPS Board in Los Angeles County.\nThis board consists of many and various state, county and\nlocal officials. See attached list of CAMP Board members.\nCooperative Area Manpower Planning System\nArea Manpower Coordinating Committees\nAlameda County, Bakersfield, Contra Costa County, Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange County,\nSacramento, San Bernardino/Riverside/Ontario, San Diego/Imperial Counties,\nSan Francisco, San Joaquin County, San Jose, Vallejo\nSALVADOR VELASQUEZ, Chairman\nLos Angeles Manpower Coordinating Committee\nPETER LADANY, Executive Secretary\n1525 So. Broadway, Los Angeles 90015\n(213) 744-2757\nMINUTES\nOF THE\nFORTIETH MEETING\nMARCH 10, 1971\nAT\n1525 South Broadway\nLos Angeles, California\nPage 24\nParagraph /\nArea Manpower Coordinating Committees\nAlameda County, Bakersfield, Contra Costa County, Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange County,\nSacramento, San Bernardino/Riverside/Ontario San Diego/Imperial Counties,\nSan Francisco, San Joaquin County, San Jose, Vallejo\nSALVADOR VELASQUEZ, Chairman\nLos Angeles Manpower Coordinating Committee\nPETER LADANY, Executive Secretary\n1525 So. Breadway, Los Angeles 90015\n(213) 744-2757\nMEMBERS PRESENT\nAGENCY\nJohn Caldoras\nHuman Resources Development Department-JTD & PI\nRobert Calvo\nCalif. Dept. of Education - Bureau of Adult\nEducation\nEursall Cordell\nU.S. Dept. of Agriculture\nWilliam Enright\nLong Beach Commission on Economic\nOpportunities and Community Relations\nJohanne Gaudioso\nCity of Los Angeles - Model Cities Program\nGilbert Gonzalez\nU.S. Civil Service Commission\nLowell Jones\nLos Angeles Urban League\nWilbur Lorbeer\nCalif. Community Colleges - Deans of\nVocational Education\nJerome Miller ( for Rockwell Ames )\nCity of Los Angeles - Office of the Mayor\nCharles Overholt\nU.S. Office of Economic Opportunity\nClinton Prentice\nLos Angeles County - Dopt. of Public\nSocial Services\nMartin Samaniogo ( for Ernest Sprinkles )\nEconomic and Youth Opportunities Agency\nlip Soto\nSER - Jobs for Progross\nalvador Velasquez\nRio Hondo Area Action Council, Inc.\nElmer Wirta\nCalif. Dept. of Education - Division of\nVocational Education\nMEMBERS ABSENT\nAGENCY\nRichard Amador\nL.A. Mexican-American Manpower Association\nRaymond Carrasco\nDept. of Housing and Urban Development\nCharles Flotcher\nCalif. Dept. of Rehabilitation\nRalph Goff\nCalif. Dept. of Social Welfare\nHarvey Howard\nCommunity Action Agency - Compton-Willowbrook-\nEnterprise\nLuanno Jamio\nU.S. Dept. of Commerce - Economic Development\nAdministration\nGordon Nesvig\nL.A. County Board of Supervisors\nWilliam Spencer\nHuman Resources Development Department -\nFarm Labor Service\nPhilip Wing\nPasadena Commission on Human Need and\nOpportunity, Inc.\nCONSULTANTS PRESENT\nAGENCY\nFred Baugh\nNAB - JOBS\nLarry Cooper\nNAB - JOBS\nGeorge Garland\nHuman Resources Development Institute - AFL-CI\nas Pedorson\nCalif. Dept. of Youth Authority\nJck Fenn ( for Marshall Lundsberg )\nCalif. Dopt. of Corrections\nJohn Vornay\nNAB - JOBS\nDavid Wobb\nU.S. Dept. of Labor - Job Corps Division\nEllsworth Woltz ( for Robert Reynolds )\nU.S. Dopt. of Labor and Manpower Administration\nRoy Zhe\nNAB - JOBS\nCooperative Area Manpower Planning System\nArea Manpower Coordinating Committees\nAlameda County, Bakersfield, Contra Costa County, Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange County,\nSacramento, San Bernardino/Riverside/Ontario San Diego/Imperial Counties,\nSan Francisco, San Joaquin County, San Jose, Vallejo\nSALVADOR VELASQUEZ, Chairman\nLos Angeles Manpower Coordinating Committee\nPETER LADANY, Executive Secretary\n1525 So. Broadway, Los Angeles 90015\n(213) 744-2757\nCONSULTANTS ABSENT\nAGENCY\nRalph April\nCalifornia Association for Privato Education\nPatrick Burke\nU.S. Dept. of Labor - Bureau of Apprenticoship\nOTHERS PRESENT\nAGENCY\nJohn Baca\nHuman Resources Development Dopt. - JTD & PD\nRalph Chadwick\nCalif. Community-Collogos ( Cerritos College )\nGono Davis\nCalif. Dept. of Education - Division of\nVocational Education\nJerry Fields\nHuman Resources Development Dopt. - JTD & PD\nJoo Goron\nStewards Training and Recreation, Inc.\nJim Hall\nBuilding Trades - AFL - CIO\nF-ank Honnessy\nHuman Resources Development Dopt. - JTD - PD\nHuffmon\nStowards Training and Recreation, Inc.\nnorbert Laffoon\nSkills, Training and Employment Program, Inc.\nMauroen O'Brien\nLong Beach Commission On Economic\nOpportunities and Community Relations\nManuel Palmarin\nRio Hondo Aroa Action Council, Inc.\nArthur Price\nSkills, Training and Employment Program, Inc.\nJohn Price\nLos Angoles Urban League\nPaul Regorz\nHuman Resources Development Dopt. - JTD & PD\nBon Rodriguez\nComputing and Software - Pre-Vocational Center\nFrank Seevers\nHuman Resources Development Dept. - JTD & PD\nEllen Sniadowski\nHuman Resources Development Dopt. que Research\nand Statistics\nIrwing Wenger\nHuman Resources Development Dopt. - JTD & PD\nDick Whitoman\nCalif. Community Colleges - ( Cerritos Colloge\nEarnestine Woods\nSkills, Training and Employment Program, Inc.\nAl Zaapata\nL.A. Mexican-American Manpower Association\nMyrtle Zooper\nSkills, Training and Employment Program, Inc.\nPeter Ladany\nLos Angeles CAMPS Executive Secretary\nnica manpower rianning\nArea Manpower Coordinating Committees\nAlameda County, Bakersfield, Contra Costa County, Fresno, Los Angeles, Orange County,\nSacramento, San Bernardino/Riverside/Ontario San Diego/Imperial Counties,\nSan Francisco, San Joaquin County, San Jose, Vallejo\nSALVADOR VELASQUEZ, Chairman\nLos Angeles Manpower Coordinating Committee\nPETER LADANY, Executive Secretary\n1525 So. Broadway, Los Angeles 90015\n(213) 744-2757\nMINUTES OF THE MARCH 10, 1971 MEETING\nI. Introduction and Approval of the Minutes of the February 17, 1971 Meeting\nChairman Salvador Velasquez opened the meeting at 9:05 a.m. and requested\nself-introduction of those present. Following the introductions, the\nChairman welcomed Mr. Gene Davis from Vocational Education and Mr. Joe\nGoren from the Stewards Training and Recreation, Inc., who were present\nto address the committee.\nThe Chairman asked for the approval of the minutes of the February 17, 1971,\nmeeting and on a motion by Mr. Enright, seconded by Mr. Cordell the\nminutes were unanimously approved.\nII. Chairman's Report\nMr. Velasquez reported on the numerous actions taken by the Executive Sub-\nCommittee and himself on behalf of the Los Angeles CAMPS Committee. He\nstated, that We have accepted a change in the membership status of the\nDepartment of Labor from \"voting membership' to 'consultant' status. Then\nMr. Velasquez commented on a number of seminars and conferences on man-\npower and manpower related issues in the Los Angeles area, including the\nIndustrial Relations Conference at U.C.L.A. and the Human Resource\nAllocation Symposium to be hold on April 14, 15, 16, 1971, at the Airport\nMarina Hotel. The Chairman mentioned, that Mr. Amador and Mr. Ladany\nwill both be speaking on April 15, 1971.\nMr. Velasquez discussed the continued efforts of our committee to move\ninto a more meaningful and effective posture on manpower planning and\ncommented on the favorable responses, letters, etc. which have been reaching\nus from other CAMPS Committees in the State and the Region regarding our\nmanpower planning concepts.\nThe Chairman called upon Mr. Miller, from the Mayor's Office, who reported\non the approval of the Mayor's Planning Grant by the Los Angeles City Council,\nMr. Miller stated, that they expect to receive their final go-ahead on the\n$136,000.00 grant in the next few days and plan to initiate their operation\non or about April 1, 1971. Mr. Miller gave a short outline of their goals\nand responsibilities under this grant, re-emphasizing the interest and\ncommitment of the Mayor for cooperation with the CAMPS Committee. He\nindicated, that in Los Angeles the Mayor decided to utilize this grant to\nconduct both general and specific studies on Manpower Planning and that they\nproposed, that the Los Angeles CAMPS shall be maintained during this twelve\nmonth planning period under the same terms and conditions currently in\noperation.\n2\nMr. Velasquez thanked the Mayor's representative for his support of the\nCAMPS Committee and commented on the number of cooperative meetings that\nhe and Mr. Ladany had, with both Mr. Ames and Mr. Miller. The Chairman\nnoted that it is the consensus of the Committee to link and coordinate\nour efforts with the Mayor's planning endeavors to the maximum extent\npossible and for the optimal common good.\nThe Chairman then called upon the Executive Secretary for his report.\nIII. Executive Secretary's Report\nMr. Ladany reported on various correspondence received from State and\nother CAMPS Committees and touched briefly on the HRD administered Displaced\nWorkers Program. He again requested members input into the information-\ndistribution system of the Secretariat so that there could be D. maximum\nsharing of information and manpower related data.\nHe noted, that Mr. Blacher, Chairman of State CAMPS, requested the\nconsideration of the Regional Manpower Administration for funding on an\nareawide basis, similar to the approach used with the Displaced Workers\nProgram, penmitting maximum participation of the Committee and the general\ncommunity in the allocation of resources ( Mr. Blacher's letter distributed\nto all members ).\nMr. Ladany commented on the recently released employment and unemployment\nfigures and on the continuous and still growing rate of unemployed in Los\nAngeles. He suggested, that the committe may wish to take a strong position\non this critical and acute problem to bring the special issues of this\nlarge metropolitan area to the attention of those at the highost level of\ngovernment. The Executive Secretary noted, that some labor market analysts\nprodict an unemploymont rate reaching oight percont in the coming months\nand that it was his view, that unemployment in the Los Angeles CAMPS area\nwill remain twenty-five to thirty-five percent higher than the national\naverage.\nMr. Soto commented that CAMPS should take a strong position on this still\ngrowing problem and not 'tip-toe' around sending 'nice letters', but\nassume a role of advocacy offering specific suggestions for consideration.\nA short but spirited discussion ensued in which various comments were offered\nby Miss Gaudioso, Mr. Price, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. Calvo. Mr. Enright\nsuggested that the matter should be referred to the Executive Sub-Committee\nfor specific recommendations, to be brought before the Committee at the\nnext meeting. \"I\"o Enright's motion was seconded by Mr. Miller and unanimously\napproved.\nThe Executive Secretary reported on his attendance at. the Department of Labor\nplanning meeting in San Mateo and discussed the need for input by all man-\npower and manpower related agencies into the Abbreviated CAMPS Plan for Fiscal\nYear 1972. Mr. Velasquez joined in emphasizing the importance of this effort\nwhich, allegedly, will influence the decisions of the Manpower Administrator\nin allocating funds for our community. Mr. Velasquez and Mr. Ladany emphasized\nthat this process. cannot be considered, in any sense of the word, a 'planning'\neffort, but it is the best we can do under the extremely limited staff\ncapabilities of the committee. Mr. Valesquez asked for and received unanimous\nconsent to sign off on this CAMPS document.\nMr. Ladany called upon Nr. Goren to make a presentation on his project proposal\nfor seventy-five disadvantaged residents for maritime occupations.\n3\nMr. Goren discussed the history and current status of the Stewards\nTraining and Recreation, Inc. program for which the request is in the\nsum of $110,439.00 ( training program prospectus and budget has been\nmailod to all members ).\nMr. Goren's presentation was followed by many questions and comments\nregarding the average cost factor, employability and long range results.\nFollowing the comments of Mr. Cooper, Mr. Enright, Mr. Wirta and Mr. Ladany,\nit was suggested, that future proposals should be first presented to the\nExecutive Sub-Committee and complete proposals should reach members before\nthey are presented at the committee meeting. Mr. Miller asked what would\nhappen if the CAMPS did not endorse a request for MDTA funding. Mr. Calderas\nresponded, that HRD would be influenced by any CAMPS action and may not\nconsider a proposal without such endorsement. Mr. Velasquez, Mr. Miller\nand others again brought out the need to have the capability for systematically\nreviewing proposals, including their history, accomplishments, etc. and\nthat this need, currently unmet, further emphasizes the importance of our\nefforts to obtain technical staff support. A motion was offerred by Mr. Wirta\nto endorse the proposal and to so inform the sponsor and HRD. Motion\nseconded by Mr. Cordell and unanimously approved.\nMr. Calvo stated that the mailings, that are received from the Executive\nSecretary have proven to be informative and of conserable interst, but\nwould be improved if a point by point summary could be included, highlighting\nthe materials for easier reading.\nMr. Ladany thanked Mr. Calvo for his comments and indicated that he would\nattempt to tollow his suggestion. In completing his report, he again\nthanked those members that have expressed, through letters and telephone\ncalls, special support and commendations for the work of the Secretariat.\nIV. Area Vocational Education Planning Council Report\nMr. Velasquez announced a change in the Agenda and called upon Mr. Davis\nfor a report on the Area Vocational Education Council.\nMr. Davis discussed the recent history of his council in developing the\nAdvisory Committee for Area IX ( a copy of the progress report of March,\n1971, has been distributed to members ). Mr. Davis stated, that in his\ndistrict (i.e. Area IX) the planning will take account of 162 high schools,\n49 continuation high schools, 63 adult schools, 20 community colleges, and\nup to 600 private post-secondary schools. This area has the largest student\napportionment in the state of California with 1,653,000 for 1969-1970.\nThe committee meets monthly on the fourth Wednesday and the meetins are\nopen to all interested parties. So far there have been two meetings,\nbasically of organizational and priority determination nature. Mr. Davis\nnoted, that the appointment of community representatives has, at yet, been\nunresolved and that there has been some delay in the appointment of full\nmembership.\nMr. Soto asked to have a. clarification on the purpose of the advisory\ncondities and inquired whether or not there has been a consideration for\ninout from the disadvantaged community. Further questions and comments were\npresented by Mr. Calvo, Mr. Enright, and Mr. Wirta and it was suggested,\nthat the CAMPS Committee should take a definite position in nominating\nreprosentatives from the Black and Chicano communities, which according\nto Mr. Davis, would have to be approved by the State Committee. On a motion\nby Mr. Soto, seconded by Mr. Calvo, it was unanimously approved to nominate\n4\nsuch persons and to have the Chairman inform the appropriate officers\nof the Vocational Education Planning Program of this action.\nMr. Volasquoz asked for nominations from the floor. Mr. Soto was selected\nto represent the Chicano community and Mr. Laffoon to be the Black\nCommunity Representative by acclamation.\nThe Chairman expressed his appreciation to Mr. Davis for his cooperation\nand interest in our committee and requested that he maintain continuous\ncontact with our committee through the Secretariat office. At the\nsuggestion of Mr. Davis, the Chairman indicated that a letter of CAMPS\nsupport and nomination will be sent to Directors Sheffield (HRD),\nSmith (Vocational Education), Dr. Brossman (Community Colleges), and\nState Coordinator Larry Harrington.\nV.\nHRD Status Report on the Displaced Workers Program\nMr. Baca, Mr. Hennessy, Mr. Regorz and Mr. Seevers reported on the\ndifferent phases and implementation status of the HRD administered program.\nTo date 176 members of Experience Unlimited have been hired as consultants\nwho assist with job development, application preparation, and resumes.\nOver 200 consultants have been employed to conduct job finding workshops\nand to develop job opportunities. Most of the contracts have been signed\nand approved with the Community agencies participating in this program\nand it is expected that the last two (Urban League and SER) will be also\napproved within the next fow days.\nA contract has been approved with the Community and Human Resources\nDevelopment Agency to provide supportive services for 88 disadvantaged OJT\nTrainees. Another contract has been signed with the California Society of\nProfessional Engineers to develop high impact communication relating to\nthe problems of the professional displaced worker.\nMr. Seevers highlighted some of the institutional training efforts,\nincluding those for bio-medical engineers, electro-medical service engineers,\npollution management engineers and others, totalling 113 training slots.\nThrough March 10, 1971 the Los Angeles County Program reached over 10,500\npersons, of whom 305 were enrolled in job finding workshops, 511 in orientation\nsessions, 50 in institutional training, 39 in on-the-job training and 2,500\nin job placement, job development activities ( Status Report on Displaced\nWorker Program has boen mailed to all members ).\nMr. Calderas and the HRD Representatives again emphasized the appreciation\nof that agency for the continuous involvement of members of tho Committee\nin the program and restated the commitment of HRD to utilize this\nestablished positive relationship in future endeavors. Mr. Velasquez\nexpressed the thanks of the Committee to the officials of HRD and called on\nMiss Gaudioso, Vice-Chaiman, for the Executive Sub-Committee report.\nVI. Executive Sub-Committon Report\nMiss Gaudioso informed the Committee that six recommendations would be\npresented for the Committee's consideration and requested the approval of\neach.\n1. The membership of the representatives of the Department of Labor shall\nbe changed from 'voting membership' to 'consultants'. The representatives\nof the Department of Labor will be so informed and a letter shall be\nprepared by the Chairman, addressed to the Regional Manpower Administrator\nand the National Manpower Administrator, expressing our continuous concern\n5\nwith the unilateral action by the Department of Labor. Miss Gaudioso\nmade a motion to accept recommendation #1, seconded by Martin Samaniego\nand approved unanimously.\n2. Engage the TYOA-offerred technical assistance organization ( cost\nto be absorbed by EYOA ) to prepare a proposal for funding for a Man-\npower Planning Staff to assist in the implementation of the revised\nrules and goals of the committee. Miss Gaudioso made a motion to accept\nrecommendation #2, seconded by Mr. Samaniego and unanimously approved.\n3. To have a representative, i.e. - the Chairman or his designee,\nparticipate and attend the State CAMPS Meetings and servo as a liason\nbetween the two committees and provide information on the work of the\nState CAMPS directly to our Committee. Miss Gaudioso made a motion to\napprove recommendation 13, seconded by Phil Soto and unanimously approved.\n4. The Executive Secretary is to explore the availability of any CAMPS\nmonies for travel reimbursement for the Chairman or CAMPS members for this\nFiscal Year and for the coming 1972 Fiscal Year. Miss Gaudioso made a motion\nto approve recommendation Hr, seconded by Gil Gonzalez and unanimously approved.\n5. Considered the request of the representative of Vocational Education\nto extend membership to the four skill center Directors in the Los Angeles\nArea and it was agreed that such voting membership would be & precedent\nfor potential dilution and controversy in membership and recommended the\ntabling of this request.\n6, Considered the request of the Southern California Community College\nDeans of Vocational Education for voting membership and recommended one\nvoting membership to the representative of this organization. Miss Gaudioso\nmade a motion to approve recommendation #6, seconded by Mr. Overholt and\nunanimously approved.\nMr. Velasquez, in behalf of the committee welcomed Mr. Lorbeer as a voting\nmember and stated, that he was looking forward to a profitable and fruitful\nparticipation from the Deans of Vocational Education Committee.\nMiss Gaudioso asked the Executive Secretary to report on the development\nof the planning proposal. Mr. Ladany discussed various contacts with\nFederal agencies regarding funding and the underlying concepts, goals,\nobjectivos of the Proposal ( copy of Proposal mailed to all members ). He\nasked for comments and suggestions to further strengthen our determined\nefforts to vitalize our Committee and to provide the technical capabilities\nin order to fulfill the very mandate of CAMPS.\nVII. Vew Business\nMr. Samaniego stated that EYOA received a communication from Herbert Laffoon,\nDirector, STEP-YTEP asking for an opportunity to present his proposal for\nMDTA Stipends.\nMr. Laffoon briefly discussed the history of his organization and the\nfunding of MDTA Stipends in the last few years. He noted, that it would\nbe necessary to obtain approximately 600,000 in onder to continue with\nhis program and that without such input, the other funded segments of his\nproject (050, etc.) would be greatly endangered. Mr. Laffoon's remarks\nwore followed by an emphatic discussion in which among others, Mr. Miller,\nMr. Prontice, Mr. Calderas and Mr. Samaniego participated. As a result\nof this discussion, a motion was offered by Mr. Samaniego, seconded by\nMr. Miller, to urge EYOA-STEP, Inc. and HRD to engage in direct, face-to-face\n6\ndialogue and have the Executive-Secretary report to the Committee regarding\nthese negotiations. The motion was passed unanimously.\nIn the absence of any other new business and due to the lateness of the\nhour, Mr. Velasquez adjourned the meeting at approximately 1 P.M. and\nannounced that the next regular CAMPS Meeting will be held on April 14, 1971.\nMemo\nApril 15, 1971\nTo Robert Hawkinss\nFrom Herbert T. Brown\nSubject : Sos Angeles CAMPS meeting held April 14, 1971.\nMeeting called to order at 0910. By my presence\nState oeo was represented to CAMPS Committee at 0916 hrs.\nLetter was read tomembers that Mr Calvinvillims of Regional\nO.E.O. will be replaced by MT Overholt of Regional G.E.O.\nThe Executive Secretary Mr. Peter Ladany reported that there\nare at present 7 counties that have formed Job Banks. They are\nXXXX\nSan Diego\nSanta Ana\nBakersfiled\nSacreme nto\nSan Jose\nLos Angles\nrresno.\nit was also mentioned /that a grant of about $100,000\nwas awrded to the urban League andthe Mayor's office to find jobs\nfor the returning viet Nam veterans.\nit was reported that job placements for the past six months\nbeginnning in October lof 1970 totalled 17,000.\nThe ethnic breakdown was as follows:\n4,000 Megroes or blacks\n@ 22%\n105 indians\n@ 05%\n3,671 mexican/ Americans\n@ 21%\n9,225 White\n@ 56.95,\nMr. Ladany alos announced that 80 million dollars per\nmonth is the average cost for unemployment at the present time. ne\naddded if this cycle prersist at the present rate theuemployment funds\nwill be depleted wihtin two years.\nDiscussion ensued as to the continued existence 01 CAMPS.\nReference was made to the body to follow senate Bill1243 and House\nbill 6181 to get an indicationof the trends of continued exictonon\nDr. Gaylord Pitts of MRD made the glommy report that since march 1,\nthrough March 31, 1971, that 10,0000 people were ladd off work in\nLos Angeles County.\nHe enumerated the causes for the decline of employment as:\n1) The Earthquake of February 1971- whereby\n52% of the Business District of San Fernando Valley was\nwiped out or temporaryily uninhabitable.\n2) The Lockheed/ Rolls Koyce financial crisis.\n3) The termination of the SST aerospace contract.\nne stated that the average job placement had a growth of\n70,000 per year. Last year thisgrowth was down 50,000. The state of\ncalifronia is no longer faced with a problem of immigration but now\none of.immigration.\nL971 with its projected 8p unemployment is ththighest since 1961.\nThe State avergae is now 7.1 unemployed\nLos Angeles is now 7.5\n\"\nOrange County is now 7.5\n\"\nDr. anthony rascal of Hand Corporation gave a talk on menpower needs.\nhe divided up the result of his firmss resegrch into three categories\n1 Anvestigation of local programs - re duplication\n2Labor market works - National Policy;\n3 nacial Disparity of incomes. (it was noted by members of\nthe CAMES committee that the racial disparity report left out the\nmexican/ American or spanish surname.\nand of memo -\nelsewhere in this report was a product of the December conference.\nIt appears that the Regional Office of OEO was neither notified of\nnor invited to the conference.\nThe dentist project mentioned above reportedly fell through later be-\ncause regulations did not permit the Air National Guard to transport\nthe dentists as planned. (The California Private Pilots' Association\nwas then contacted in effort to provide transportation for the den-\ntists to the reservation.)\nThe California Legislative Analyst is withholding a recommendation\nfor an increase in funding to the SEOO pending a review of the \"re-\nview reports\" rendered (by the SEOO) on these diverse local projects\nto determine whether the reports are accurate and whether the\nprojects are effective.\"\nen\nsttached Budget Analysis.)\n3. CONCLUSION:\nThe SEOO has done some work with state agencies, more than is\napparently known by CAAs and the OEO Regional office. However,\nit has not performed this function to the extent that state agencies\nthemselves can report or comment on SEOO activities with their\nagencies.\n4. RECOMMENDATIONS:\nThe SEOO should place major emphasis on its role with state agencies.\nEven minimal accomplishments in this role will do much to gain respect\nfor its performance.\nThe Regional Office and other OEO grantees should establish a formal\nsystem for requesting SEOO assistance with other state agencies.\nThis system should be structured to evaluate follow-up performance.\n25\nPage 25--CONCLUSION (Charge)\n\"\nHowever, it has not performed this function to the extent\nthat state agencies themselves can report or comment on SEOO\nactivities with their agencies. \"\nRESPONSE:\nSEOO is endeavoring at the present time to develop a contact\nliaison person within each state agency or agencies for the\npurpose of having a responsible person to communicate programmatic\nproblems of CAAs; the same person being responsible for the\ndelivery of technical assistance and information to the CAAs.\nWe are in the process of establishing a technical assistance\nclearinghouse or \"order desk\" by which to endeavor to serve CAAs\ntechnical assistance needs more effectively and promptly, and\nalso give us feedback as to the effectiveness of technical assis-\ntance delivered by state agencies.\nPage 25, Paragraph 3:\nCharge:\nHowever, it has not performed this function to the\nextent that state agencies themselves can report or comment on\nSEOO activities with their agencies.\nResponse:\nSEOO field representatives during the course of their duties\nhave contacted the following State representatives and agencies:\nAssemblyman Leon Ralph's Office, Assemblyman Bill Green's office,\nJay Lane McCune, Manpower Research Specialist, Community and\nHuman Resources Agency, W. Whitehead, Model Cities, William\nJones, Model Cities, Assemblyman William Ketchum, Assemblyman\nKent Stacey, State Senator Lagomarsino, Assemblyman Ken Mc-\nDonald, Assemblyman Don MacGillivray, Dr. Schmidthause, Bureau\nof Preschool Educational Programs. The above names show but\na few contacts with State agencies, additional names will be\nsupplied upon request. (See attachment)\nSTATE OF CALIFORNIA\nRONALD REAGAN, Governor\nDEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT\nOFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY\nAPITOL MALL\nAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814\nSouthern California Office of Economic Opportunity\n1314 Cravens Avenue\nTorrance, California 90501\nOctober 8, 1970\nDr. Schmidthause\nBureau of Preschool Educational Programs\n721 Capitol Mall\nSacramento, California 95814\nC\nDear Dr. Schmidthause:\nIt was nice talking to you on the telephone earlier this\nweek and I appreciate your sending us the evaluation\nreport for the State Compensatory Preschool Education\nO\nProgram.\nAs we discussed, evaluating the effectiveness of Head\nStart Programs is a sophisticated business and inasmuch\nas we are charged with the role of evaluating such\nprograms we will be gathering all of the material and\nP\ntechniques currently employed by your office in an\nattempt to provide a realistic and objective evaluation.\nIn talking with Mrs. Lois Richard, the Project Director,\nfor the Pasadena area Head Start program, she indicated\nthat she had received a \"Joint Report for Joint Funding\nY\nPrograms - State Preschool Educational Programs\", put\nout in May 1970 for the year 1968-69 by the State\nDepartment of Education and the State Department of\nSocial Welfare.\nThis report allegedly places Head Start children in the\n90 percentile based on some form of post-testing. I\nhave not seen this report and if it is available through\nyour office I would appreciate receiving a copy.\nI will look forward to working with you and receiving\nany additional information which you feel would be of\nvalue to us.\nMost Sincerely,\nRichard Thies\nPage 25, paragraph 3\nPage 25 -- 4 - RECOMMENDATIONS (Charge).\nThe SEOO should place major emphasis on its role with state\nagencies. Even minimal accomplishments in this role will do\nmuch to gain respect for its performance.\nRESPONSE:\nSEOO is placing major emphasis on its roll with State agencies.\nNot only do our resource mobilization conferences point this\nout, but Mr. Uhler was recently responsible for speeding up\nthe process of securing over 50 jobs at the Madera Glass Company\nfor the Madera CAP by advocating for that CAP with NABs,\nDepartment of Labor and Department of Human Resources Develop-\nment. The same was done for the Fresno CAP as concerns contact-\ning the IRS for job placements in that facility. State resources\nhave been mobilized and services rendered for Santa Cruz, San\nLuis Obispo, Contra Costa (Richmond Southwide Center MDTA\nprogram), and other programs too lengthy to mention at this\ntime.\nPage 25--4. RECOMMENDATIONS (Charge)\n\"The SEOO should place major emphasis on its role with state\nagencies. Even minimal accomplishments in this role will do\nmuch to gain respect for its performance.\"\nRESPONSE:\nIn the 1971 application, every attempt is being made to\nprovide an ombudsman type position, as well as an alternate\nfunding specialist, to both mobilize and locate financial\nresources to help poor people. This, unfortunately, takes\nthe type of staff and funds that are not presently available\nto the SEOO. This will be eliminated in the next application.\nIn the meantime, strong contacts and extensive liaison is\ntaking place through resource mobilization activities and the\nfollowing up or \"spin off\" that resulted from these conferences.\nTHE SEOO AND FEDERAL AGENCIES\nFederal Agency Regional Directors, or their designees, were inter-\nviewed at five federal agencies in addition to the Office of Economic\nOpportunity.\nThe agencies contacted were: Department of Health, Education, and\nWelfare; Department of Housing and Urban Development; Small Business\nAdministration; Economic Development Administration; and Department\nof Labor. Primary respondents and their advisors who participated\nin completion of the questionnaire totaled 24 federal officials.\nThree questions were asked to elicit information on the performance\nof the SEOO with respect to:\na. Representation of the Governor with respect to federal\nagencies.\nb. Development by the SEOO of federal resources to assist CAAs\nand other anti-poverty efforts.\nC. Helping OEO overcome problems at the state level caused by\nfederal and state requirements.\nOnly one of the 14 non-OEO federal officials interviewed felt he had\nseen enough of the SEOO to have sufficient knowledge to take a position\non how well the SEOO had represented the Governor to federal agencies.\nHe felt that the SEOO had done a poor job of representing the Governor\nto federal agencies. The others replied \"don't know\".\nWith respect to the second question, the respondents at two agencies\nsaid \"poor\", and at the other three agencies the answer was \"don't\nknow\". In all cases, the reason offered was that the SEOO had not\nhad any contact with them or their agencies in the past year dealing\nwith resource development or coordination.\nWith respect to the third question, two agencies said that the SEOO\nhad not assisted OEO with reference to problems covered by their\nregulations, and three answered \"don't know\".\nAt the national level the SEOO has used the influence of its office\nin the following efforts as described by Lewis K. Uhler, California\nSEOO Director:\na. \"I have personally coordinated with Dr. Aguirre's\nassistant as required to make sure that they have\nfull confidence that their Department of Labor\n26\nPage 26 -- THE SEOO AND FEDERAL AGENCIES (Charge)\nThe agencies contacted were: Department of Health, Education,\nand Welfare; Department of Housing and Urban Development; Small\nBusiness Administration; Economic Development Administration;\nand Department of Labor. Primary respondents and their\nadvisors who participated in completion of the questionnaire\ntotaled 24 federal officials.\nOnly one of the 14 non-OEO federal officials interviewed felt\nhe had seen enough of the SEOO to have sufficient knowledge to\ntake a position on how well the SEOO had represented the\nGovernor to federal agencies. He felt that the SEOO had done\na poor job of representing the Governor to federal agencies.\nThe others replied \"don't know.\"\nWith respect to the second question,\nIn all cases, the\nreason offered was that the SEOO had not had any contact with\nthem or their agencies in the past year dealing with resource\ndevelopment or coordination.\nWith respect to the third question, two agencies said that the\nSEOO had not assisted OEO with reference to problems covered\nby their regulations, and three answered \"don't know.'\nRESPONSE:\nUnfortunately, in many federal and state departments, it is\nnot possible for subordinate employees of Mr. Uhler to deal\ndirectly with department heads in many agencies. Thus,\ncoordinated, cooperative liaison activities and joint ventures\nare often carried on at a subordinate level without department\nheads being completely informed or aware of the extent of\nextensiveness of such activities. This is now the case with\nSEOO and is now being changed by having all employees in the\nTA Section contact department heads and the number one man\nin the organization with whom we work directly. Keep them\nup-to-date on our activities.\nmonies are being spent effectively wherever some\nconcern has been raised (for example, OEDCI). We\nsought for a long time to obtain the right to\naudit DOL-funded programs in OEDCI. Our requests\nwent right to the Secretary of Labor, himself.\nSubsequent to the appointment of Dr. Aguirre, this\nauthority was given to our office so that they\ncould have and have had on-going assurances that\nat least from our viewpoint we will take pains to\nassure them that their funds are being well spent.\nb. \"With the Department of Health, Education, and\nWelfare, we have become directly involved in the\ncut in Headstart fur ds. We interceded on behalf\nof the San Joaquin Readstart program (and through\nthem all of the others), suggesting that a review\nbe made and if cuts were absolutely necessary, that\nthey be made not on the basis of an across-the-\nboard cut, but on the basis that the less effective\nprograms could be eliminated entirely, leaving the\ngood programs to function with sufficient funds.\nC. \"We became embroiled in the issue of three alleged\nmigrant health centers in the State, worked with\nRobert Coop (Director of HEW) and sent a message\nto HEW in Washington in coordination with the State\nDepartment of Public Health and the Migrant Labor\nServices that function under DHRD's Farm Labor Ser-\nvices. We became concerned that there was not adequate\nthought or planning given in the location of the mi-\ngrant health clinics--that they were not placed in the\narea of greatest need for the health of migrant\nworkers. We were successful in getting HEW to review\nthe matter. As a result of our involvement, Mr.\nCoop indicated that he recognized the need in the\nfuture for the coordination with appropriate migrant\nhealth services in the State and with the communities\nwhere such facilities might be initiated.\"\nCONCLUSION:\nThe SEOO has done very little with respect to non-OEO federal agencies\ninsofar as supporting poverty-related programs.\n27\nPage 27 - CONCLUSION - (Charge)\nThe SEOO has done very little with respect to non-OEO federal\nagencies insofar as supporting poverty-related programs.\nRESPONSE:\nThe federal representatives totally overlooked our roll in\nsecuring jobs at the Madera Glass Company. Our roll in getting\na greater awareness by the IRS for employment of poor in\nFresno, all of the FHA home programs including those in Riverside\nKern, Madera and other counties; the housing intern program\nin at least 7 counties statewide; application processing\nthrough HRD, DOL, HEW, HUD and the Department of Education\nfor many agencies statewide; Forestry proposal for the\nBakersfield area, Strawberry Cooperative for Santa Cruz.\nIt is hard to believe that all of these programs which are\ndocumented in our files were inadvertently overlooked by the\nFederal evaluators in our office.\nPage 27:\nCharge:\n\"The SEOO has done very little with respect to non-OEO\nfederal agencies insofar as supporting poverty-related\nprograms.\nResponse:\nSEOO staff agrees that federal officials have not seen enough\nof SEOO and, as indicated above, this is primarily due to the\nfact that there has been inadequate funding and as a conse-\nquence, a lack of manpower to cover all of the areas necessary\nto present a viable SEOO operation. At present SEOO is\nworking with DOL and HUD in developing an insurance program for\nthe disadvantaged in Southern California. It is also developing\na factory site in San Bernardino and Los Angeles under EDA,\na housing facility (Section 23) in coordination with Model\nCities in South Central Los Angeles, a training facility in\nSouth Central Los Angeles with DOL. (See attachment)\nBob Hawkins\nMarch 17, 1971\nHerb Brown\nGil Archuletta\nI have authorized Herb Brown to sit on the Los Angeles County\nCAMPS Board as a representative of SEOO.\nIn addition, he will be the SEOO representative for Assemblyman\nBill Greene's Los Angeles County Manpower Planning Committee.\nGA:js\nPage 27\nOF SOUTH SAN\nOFFICE OF\nTHE CITY MANAGER\nApril 1, 1971.\nCALIFORNIA\nMr. Lewis K. Uhler, Director,\nState of California, Dept. of Human Resources,\nOffice of Economic Opportunity,\n800 Capitol Mall,\nSacramento, California 95814.\nDear Mr. Uhler:\nThe City of South San Francisco has for the past several years\nallocated $5,000 per year towards the South San Francisco Information\nCenter, an agency of the County E.O.C., to subsidize the Center's\nannual budget of approximately $30, 000. The original responsibility\nof the Center was the War on Poverty, expecting to service some three\nto five thousand persons in such areas of English instruction, jobs,\nchurch groups, sociology and an initial day center for young persons.\nThe Center has run into apparent difficulties administratively\nand also is publically criticized profusely by several local groups.\nThe efficiency, consistency and value of the Center is questionable in\nmy mind now, and I hesitate to recommend to City Council to continue\nthe customary funding with such doubts.\nOur Chief of Police, Sal Rosano, has suggested I write you and\nrequest your assistance. Is it possible for you or your representative\nto conduct a review of the Information Center operation and so advise\nof its capabilities ?\nVery truly yours,\nRoss,\nAssistant City Manager.\nLLR/cm"
}