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
118564702
label
California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Response to Federal Evaluation 04/29/1971, Vol. I (7 of 7)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
118564702
contentType
document
title
California State Office of Economic Opportunity - Response to Federal Evaluation 04/29/1971, Vol. I (7 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
118564702
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
416dca7203d09225
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 (7 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/
Page 36--3 a. COORDINATION AND PLANNING--Findings (Charge)
"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.
11
Response:
Any state plan to combat poverty within the State should
start with quantitative data. The Staff Assistant for Planning,
SEOO, attempted to collate whatever data was available throughout
the State, but it was found that each state agency only collates
and compiles statistics pertinent to its functions. As a result,
the Assistant for Planning visited Mr. Carl Shaw, WR/OEO, San
Francisco, who is in charge of budgeting and planning. There,
he (Assistant for Planning) was told that Western Regional, which
disperses $75,000,000 per year, had no specific, accurate,
quantitative data, nor any type of module as described in the
SEOO manual. His suggestion was that "we wait". By "we", he
meant SEOO and the other state agencies wait until such time as
the fourth census count data from 1970 was available late in the
spring of 1972. Mr. Shaw agreed that no meaningful planning could
be accomplished or attempted until those fourth count census tapes
became available and a clear idea of the demography of the
poverty population in various areas of the State was determined.
The criticism in the above paragraph quotes that this attitude has
resulted in a conflict between SEOO, CAAs and Western Regional
regarding the steps to be taken to achieve involvement of the
poor in the planning process.
(2) Coordination of activities with state agencies whose
activities affect the poor is recognized as desirable by the SEOO,
but has not been emphasized as a priority objective. The priority
which appears to be recognized by the SECO which overrides
coordination with other governmental units is its commitment that
poverty programs would be better conducted and administered if they
were placed under the control of local government.
(3) There is evidence that the SEOO has initiated some
coordination activities with state agencies whose activities affect
the poor. However, lack of proper follow-up by the SEOO has restricted
the effectiveness of these coordination activities.
(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.
b. Conclusion: The SEOO has made little impact on CAAS or other
state agencies in the area of program planning. It appears that
helping CAAS to better plan programmatically is not a priority.
C. Rocommendation: Training should be provided to SEOO Technical
Assistance personnel on:
(1) Planning and Federal Grant Programs:
(a) Role of state and local government
(b) Role of CAAs
(c) Role of CAMPs
(2) BOB Circular A-95.
4. GRANT REVIEW, MONITORING, AND EVALUATION:
a. Perception:
(1) The perception of the performance of the California State
Office of Economic Opportunity in the area of grant review, monitoring,
and evaluation is pivotal in terms of the office's commitment to meet
its obligations, as stated in the EQA of 1964, as amended, and OEO
Instruction 7501-1, to OEO funded agencies in the State of California.
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.
37
Page 37 b. Conclusion (Charge)
"The SEOO has made little impact on CAAs or other state agencies
in the area of program planning."
RESPONSE:
I consider this statement to be false at the outset.
There is no mention made of the coordination between the Model
Cities Liaison Group within the Lieutenant Governor's Office
or some of the most recent and only available statistics that
have been mailed to the CAAs. It should be further emphasized
that many CAAs are in multiple-planning grant areas and have
specific funds to carry on their own planning. Unfortunately,
the information gathered by these people and what they have done
has been refused or there has been lack of cooperation with the
SEOO in the sharing of the information they have gathered.
Page 37--4 a. GRANT REVIEW, MONITORING, etc. -- Perception (Charge)
"
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. 11
RESPONSE:
Perhaps the evaluators should look at the introduction of
7501-1, which allows a great deal of flexibility for SEOOs to
meet the particular needs of a state administration. If the
flexibility had not been built into the work program, there
would have been something wrong with the evaluation of the work
program and grant application as submitted.
(2) The function of an SEOO is generally viewed as a supportive
one wherein information gathered by a Technical Assistance Specialist
or "Community Program Analyst" should be used not only to measure the
agency's performance but for the purpose of suggesting possible steps
to improve the agency and suggesting available resources to implement
improvements. The SEOO's stated view of this function is consistent
with its grant refunding application and work program. 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. Information obtained from some of the CAAs interviewed
would indicate a heavy emphasis on investigation with little or no
on-site help or technical assistance follow up.
b. Findings:
(1) Consistent with 020 Instruction 7501-1, 7 (c) and (g),
Regional 0E0 invited appropriate SECO staff members to participate
in some evaluations and pre-reviews. In at least two instances as
to the former, SE00 staff members invited did respond affirmatively
(Berkeley and Oakland CAAs). However, with respect to the evaluation
of Oakland, the SECO staff member reportedly withdrew 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.
(2) Considering grant review, monitoring, and evaluation
functions as perceived by the SECO, 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. In a number of situations, actions by the SEOO were clearly
aimed at gathering information to discredit the programs of the very
agencies being subjected to grant review, monitoring or evaluation.
There was very little follow up in terms of analyses of problems,
sharing the analyses with the agency under scrutiny, or suggesting
steps to remedy the problems discovered.
(3) Broadly speaking, as a result of the investigative
emphasis placed by the SE00 on the grant review, monitoring, and
evaluation function, the SEOO's activity has a demoralizing effect
on OEO funded agencies in the State. Such demoralization gave way to
increased alienation and an isolationist attitude by the CAAs to the
point that the SEOO is no longer viewed as their advocate or as a
provider of moaningful technical assistance.
38
Federal Report
Page 38
Charge
"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 withdrew prematurely. As
to pre-reviews, SEOO staff members were consistently
involved by usually purely on a silent basis with little
or no assistance being offered.
Response:
The Oakland monitor and other members of the SEOO staff
did actively participate in the pre-reviews of the Oakland
CAA. Significant input was made during the pre-review
sessions and the Oakland monitor later assisted the
Regional OEO field representative and the Regional Counsel
in developing the "Letter of Understanding" to the agency.
Page 38
Charge:
"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 withdrew
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."
Response:
State OEO has attempted to attend pre-review sessions
held by Regional OEO. It is interesting to note that
this evaluation left out the fact that on three docu-
mented occasions this office was notified one day in
advance of pre-reviews; hardly enough time to change
staff priorities.
The claim that our staff members have withdrawn pre-
maturely is erroneous and mis-placed.
The notion that pre-reviews should involve the active
participation of our staff members in rhetorical de-
bates misses the point of pre-reviews. Pre-reviews
are sessions in which State and Regional offices come
to listen to the progress that Community Action Agencies
have made, and their new plans and priorities. At
this time, Regional representatives, in their pater-
nalistic and highly arrogant manner, dominate pre-
reviews with the result being that pre-reviews
become circuses in which low-income people receive
little benefit in terms of their programs or in learn-
ing how to conduct their own personal lives.
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 con-
structive, as originally intended, and is interpreted as punitive.
d. Recommendation:
(1) The SEOO should employ Technical Assistants and Community
Program Analysts, if that title is retained, who have knowledge of
a CAA's functions and purposes and who are prepared to and committed
to carrying out those functions and purposes.
(2) Grant review, monitoring, and evaluation activities
should be followed up with in depth technical assistance.
5. ADVOCACY FOR THE POOR:
a. Perception: Most SEOO staff members that were interviewed
indicated by their responses to the questionnaire that they did not
consider advocacy for the poor a significant function of the SEOO.
The results of tabulating the questionnaire responses by SECO per-
sonnel concerning the SEOO's role as advocate for the poor revealed
the following results: Only 27% of the SEOO staff felt it had per-
formed specific tasks related to the advocacy function, 59% did not
know, and 14% said it had not. Only 2% of the CAAs responding felt
the SEOO performed specific tasks related to this function--84% said
no (see Tabulation Section). Often the SEOO staff members interviewed
stated that they did not know of any instances where the SEOO had
attempted to make state-poverty-related programs more responsive to
the needs and desires of the poor and had no knowledge of any at-
tempts to assess state administrative procedures nor of any efforts
to make them more responsive to the needs and desires of the poor.
Further, they had no knowledge of any attempts to develop career
opportunities for the poor within other state agencies and had no
knowledge of the SECO consulting regularly with local CAAs and other
representatives of the poor on legislation that they felt should be
recommended to the Governor or the state legislature. In fact, the
Senior Staff of the SEOO generally agreed that in the allocation of
its staff resources advocacy for the poor received a low priority.
One Senior Staff member estimated that only 2% of the SEOO's staff
resources were allocated to advocacy for the poor while other
Senior Staff members estimated the allocation in the 10% range.
b. Findings: Of the non-SEOO persons interviewed, few had any
knowledge of the SEOO performing any advocacy role for the poor.
39
The prevailing opinion was that the SEOO had not demonstrated by any
of its actions that it felt any responsibility for the advocate role.
No poor persons were reported to have been appointed to any State
boards or commissions. It is not felt that the SEOO would advocate
making such appointments.
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 SECO which would benefit the poor.
(3) There was no evidence that career opportunities have
been made available in other state agencies as the result of the ef-
forts 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.
a. Recommendation: Future grants to the SE00 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 to-
gether with a detailed strategy of achieving the objectives stated.
40
Page 40 --Conclusions (Charge)
"5. ADVOCACY FOR THE POOR: C. Conclusion: (1) No evidence was dis-
covered 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.
(5) In short, the California
SEOO has not fulfilled its role and responsibility of being an advocate for
the poor 11
Response
It is obviously the conclusion of individuals whose philosophical perspectives
are much different than ours. It is hard for us to draw the conclusion from
such comments that our evaluators are truly interested in solving the problems
of poverty through responsible and legitimate actions.
Furthermore, it would be interesting to compare the technical assistance
offered by our new and growing staff, in both quality and quantity, with
established technical assistance organizations, such as SDI and ATAC.
FEDERAL REPORT, PAGE 40
CHARGE:
C. Conclusion:
(1) No evidence was discovered which would point to the
SEOO as an advocate for the poor.
(5) In short, the California SEOO has not fulfilled its
role and responsibility of being an advocate for the poor.
One of the conditions set forth by this office in the matter
of the Santa Clara Legal Aid Society VISTA proposal was that
"VISTA attorneys work on individual service cases only".
This condition was set because of the following:
1. On February 26, 1970, the Executive Director of the
Santa Clara Legal Aid Society in a letter to Superior
Court Judge Kennedy, Santa Clara County, stated that
there was a "change in direction", and the Santa Clara
Legal Aid Society "programs under the existing under-
funding must move into law reform and away from every
day cases. 11 On March 5, Judge Kennedy replied to Mr. Ono
and stated that the matter had been discussed at the
weekly conference of the Superior Court Judges, and
that the Judges expressed considerable concern over
the adverse effect it will have on indigent litigants.
Judge Kennedy's letter further reads: "Because of
the far reaching ramifications of your decision and
because the need for legal services is so ever present
and pressing, the Judges urge that you reconsider this
decision. 11
2. In a letter to Robert Finch, then Secretary of HEW, on
April 21, 1970, O. Vincent Bruno, Presiding Judge of
the Superior Court, State of California, County of Santa
Clara, voiced his concern, as well as that of the 21
Superior Court Judges of that court, "about the whole-
sale withdrawal of the program" from indigent litigants
in these various fields where representation is
desperately needed.
3. On January 6, 1971, the Santa Clara County United Fund,
in a letter to the Santa Clara County Bar Association,
voiced its concern regarding the "apparent diminishing
legal aid and assistance services to the indigent by the
Community Legal Services organization" and said that
a study on this matter had been ordered. The letter
further states that, "pending the results of the study,
and in order to assure that indigents needing legal
advice and assistance receive said help, the United Fund
Board of Trustees has authorized the establishment for
1971 of a "drawing account" against which the Community
Legal Services can seek reimbursement for services
actually certified as having been given to indigent
individuals and families.
-2-
4. Lengthy conversations with Superior Court Judge O. Vincent
Bruno in San Jose during January of 1971. Judge Bruno
stated that he is continually concerned that the poor
are not being represented and are in dire need of
individual representation.
5. A statement made at the Board meeting of the Santa Clara
County Legal Aid Society on January 12, 1971, by a Board
member, Mr. Richard Salaz from Gilroy, that individual legal
service was badly needed by the poor in his community.
Thus, the above-mentioned condition was an insistence by this
office that the poor receive all consideration and assistance
they need.
Theresa McInnes
VISTA Coordinator
State Office of Economic
Opportunity
Page 40 5 d. ADVOCACY FOR THE POOR--Conclusion (Charge)
"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.
RESPONSE:
Here again, there is an apparent problem with the meanings
of advocacy as it is my belief that SEOO has in fact performed
the role of advocacy--but perhaps not in terms which are readily
understandable by the evaluators. For example, constant
communication between the Human Relations Agency Secretary and
the Department of Social Welfare is ongoing relating to the
Governor's new welfare reform program. A number of conversations
and memorandums have been written in order to improve the particular
program advocated by the Governor. Other forms of advocacy take
place when various groups who have been shunned or discouraged
by their local CAAs have come to the SEOO requesting its help
in devising, constructing, and funding worthwhile programs. Cer-
tainly, this office initially evaluates each of these requests for
its merits, and when it is proven that the CAA has been derelict
in its duties to listen to these groups, the SEOO has expended
its resources in developing such special programs, many of which
may be in divergence with existing state programs. This difference
that exists between the innovative programs brought to us and
for which we give technical assistance we consider to be instuti-
tional changes which ultimately will benefit low-income persons.
THE SEOO GRANTS
The parts of the Narrative Section that follow depart in some in-
stances from the format of the earlier parts of the Narrative Section
which discussed the SEOO's performance in relation to other agencies
and with respect to its priority functions. For the most part the
parts that follow deal briefly with the plans and priorities estab-
lished by the SEOO and more specifically with the quality of the
work programs submitted and with the SEOO's performance of those pro-
grams.
1. REGULAR GRANT:
This section of the Evaluation Report addresses itself largely to
the CAP 81 and the work program submitted by the California SEOO.
Both documents are quite general in nature.
The CAP 81 contemplated improvement in information about local needs
and grantee capabilities through an expanded, outstationed and better
trained field analyst staff. The SEOO has expanded its staff and has
outstationed personnel in Southern California.
The plans and priorities also expected substantially increased capa-
city to the SEOO to create "a poverty information module" for SEOO,
grantee, and legislative use in assessing needs, assigning priorities,
and allocating resources to decrease poverty. There is no evidence
that this has been achieved. Also, it does not appear that the SEOO
has been able to provide other state agencies with comprehensive and
current data on poverty "to assure a coherent and unified multi-
agency approach to interpretation and use of information on poverty
and anti-poverty resources.'
SEOO priorities listed in the CAP 81 are: (1) to increase the scope,
accuracy, and reliability of information on conditions of poverty
and on the availability and use of all anti-poverty resources in
California, for state and local planning, funding, coordinative, and
legislative use, as well as in projects to stimulate public awareness
of the conditions of poverty, (2) to provide, or arrange and coordi-
nate the provision by other sources of, greatly improved multi-
speciality technical assistance to grantees and other appropriate
agents in the California anti-poverty effort, (3) to encourage both
the already indicated trend of California governmental officials to-
ward more involvement in anti-poverty programs and their increasing
interest in the efficient, well-coordinated application of state
governmental and private resources to the problems of poverty in
California, and (4) to gain the capacity to mobilize business, vol-
unteer, and foundation resources of a systematic consequential way
to promote economic opportunity.
41
While it appears that the SEOO has made a start on these priorities,
progress has been slow. Other state agencies have not yet felt the
coordination efforts of the SEOO. It should be noted, however, that
the resources conference of last December referred to elsewhere in
this report does represent a major effort on the part of the SEOO.
The first goal listed in the CAP 81 is "to provide review of and
assistance to grantees in greater depth by an increased and better
trained analyst staff, with the object of providing sufficient in-
tensity and continuity of State-CAA relationships to resolve as
many areas as possible of mutual concern about programs prior to the
refunding-review stage." The SEOO apparently has been unable to es-
tablish a meaningful relationship with many of the CAAs. Their re-
view 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 ser-
vices, 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, stor-
age, retrieval, and dissemination of data on poverty and anti-poverty
resources in California.
The work program is extremely vague. The office was able to increase
its staff substantially, through the demonstration and STAP grants.
Conclusions:
1. The SEOO has attempted to follow its vaguely-defined work
program. In addition to adding the personnel provided by increased
funding, it has also filled other positions indicated in the work
program. The addition of the Community Program Analysts was designed
to satisfy the assistance and review requirements of the grantees in
California. It appears that the emphasis has been on the review
rather than on assistance.
2. The SEOO has also, as called for in the work program, out-
stationed Community Program Analysts. It also appears that there
has been some improvement in management of the office since last
July.
3. The improved working relationships with Regional represent-
atives, including participation in grantee pre-review, apparently
42
Page 42 -- 1. REGULAR GRANT (Charge)
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.
RESPONSE:
The first paragraph of the Sections listed in the CAP 81 has
been answered throughout this document as concerns the
mobilization of resources. The second one having to develop
assistance of demonstration projects and voluntary services
is now being met. An example of that was the efforts of this
office to mobilize PSA stewardesses to provide volunteer
work for the San Mateo Head Start programs. People were
put in contact with the program and it is my understanding
that several stewardesses did go to work voluntarily in the
East Palo Alto program in San Mateo County. Other volunteer
service programs are being developed including one that
we are doing now between the unemployed engineers in aero-
space in the Sacramento area and other areas of the State,
as well as the poor bringing both groups together so that
the technical skills of the engineers can be put to work
with the laboring skills of the low income people to the
mutual benefit of economic development of both groups.
The problem of goal definition, planning and management by
technical assistance in the last application was one that we
inherited when we took over this office after the last grant
in August 1970. This has been remedied by specification of
goals in the 1971-72 grant.
page 42
Charge:
"l. Regular grant: The first goal listed in the CAP 81
The SEOO apparently has been unable to establish a mean-
ingful 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 view of many of the CAAs.
Response:
Again the State Office of Economic Opportunity must
ask what it means to establish a "meaningful relation-
ship with many of the CAAs. 11 Does this mean that we
should merely accept their rhetoric and inefficiencies
in many instances rather than going in and taking a
hard-headed no-nonsense approach to this area of
government. Assuming this position, one would have
to say that all areas of government should behave
in the same manner; this is hardly an acceptable
position for any agency of government.
has been spotty, although the office has been participating to an
extent in pre-reviews.
4. Only one poor person has been employed by the SEOO in a non-
professional position as a kind of "girl Friday". The work plan
indicates that "the opportunity to employ poor people on the SEOO
staff does not exist. This is an area which State OEO expects to
explore." John Sawicki stated, "This office has not undertaken to
hire 'poor people' for one main reason, that nobody has ever ap-
plied, nor have we made a concentrated effort to recruit 'poor people'.
5. The work program also indicates that the increase in staff
will enable the SEOO to gain the capacity to encourage the actual
employment of poor people by other agencies and to participate
in the development, implementation, and review of programs
which serve them. If this capacity has been realized, the re-
sults apparently have been minimal. The same is true with the develop-
ment of career opportunities for the poor in other state agencies.
6. While it is not clearly spelled out, the work program indi-
cates worthwhile objectives in the area of technical assistance to
grantees, mobilization of resources, and career development oppor-
tunities 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.
7. The principal achievement has been in the area of review of
grantees in order to help the Governor carry out his responsibilites
under Section 242 of the Economic Opportunity Act.
2. STAP GRANT:
a. Facts: Effective May 1, 1970, OEO, Region IX, approved a
STAP grant for $114, 184 which authorized the California SEOO to hire
four specialists (management, low-cost housing, economic development,
and community development) to provide long-range, on-site expert
technical assistance to rural CAAs and poverty communities. The SEOO
agreed as a special condition to the grant to operate within the pro-
visions of the STAP guidelines and to use an advisory panel--with OEO
representation--to review the qualifications of all candidates for
positions under this grant.
b. Positive Findings: One of the most constructive, valuable
activities of the SEOO in the past seven/eight months has been the
performance of their STAP specialists where they have had the oppor-
tunity to work with a few rural CAAs. The STAP specialists were
largely instrumental in organizing the successful State Resources
Mobilization Conference in Sacramento in December, 1970. Valuable
assistance, especially in the fields of management (Throne) and hous-
ing (Frane), was cited by several rural CAAs. In addition, the STAP
housing specialist organized five housing workshops throughout the
43
Page 43 -- CONCLUSIONS (Charge)
While it is not clearly spelled out, the work program indicates
worthwhile 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.
RESPONSE:
Again, SEOO, the present SEOO administration, inherited the
grant under which it operated for the 1970-71 period and
the previous administration. The deficiencies in the
previous grant have been remedied in the grant of the 1971-
72 period.
state to tap the resources of the Farmers' Home Administration loan
program. He also developed a promising intern training program of
para-professionals in rural housing. The economic development spe-
cialist (Archer) has developed a Rural Transportation Cooperative
(Placer County), has worked with minority contractors to develop a
profit-making corporation, and has helped create "Indians Campground,
Inc." to help low-income Indians use their reservation lands as com-
mercial camping facilities.
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 (Demon-
stration) 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 position as General
Counsel (chickering) and Technical Assistance Chief and "Deputy Direc-
tor 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.
d. Results: The STAP program began in California with well-
qualified people and the opportunity to provide valuable, needed
technical assistance to rural poverty communities. Some useful tech-
nical assistance and resource mobilization has taken place, but the
STAP program has not met its full potential because the STAP guide-
lines have not been followed.
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 re-
funded.
3. DEMONSTRATION GRANT:
a. Facts: Effective August 15, 1970, WR/OEO approved a demon-
stration grant for $162,170 for a 10.5 month funding to allow the
California SEOO to hire professionals (plus two clerical personnel)
to provide special technical assistance to OEO grantees in manage-
ment speciality areas, in child development, and to develop and coord-
inate programs for low-income Indians.
'44
Page 44 -- 2.c. STAP GRANT, NEGATIVE FINDINGS (Charge)
(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.
RESPONSE:
Future vacancies for the STAP grant will be filled in compliance
with STAP grant guidelines. The previous ones were not followed
because of the pressure of time and because of the lack of
adequate personnel to be immediately on hand to do the job
when it was needed.
Page 44 -- 2.c. STAP GRANT, NEGATIVE FINDINGS (Charge)
(2) There is serious reservation on the part of the evaluation
team that two of three STAP replacements meet the qualifications
of their job descriptions (Carter and Chickering).
RESPONSE:
One STAP replacement who did not meet the qualifications of
the position for which he was selected was transferred back
into the CPA section. The second STAP selection, Mr. Jim
Gordon, has an extensive economic development background
including that in the anti-poverty program through SDI and
has developed over a million and a half dollars of programs
in the areas in which he had responsibility. The third
person, Mr. Barny Schur, is both a professor of business
and public administration at local Bay Area colleges and
universities, and has had over seven years of program
administrative experience in both the food stamp program
and anti-poverty programs.
Lawry Chickering was hired to work both as a general counsel
and in community development. The general counsel was an
internal assignment outside of the normal STAP activities.
However, under the STAP responsibility, Mr. Chickering
has devoted at least 60% of his time in the development of
community development programs including those on drugs,
on prisoners, housing, employment development, and other
legal problems that affect directly community development
programs. Mr. Chickering also served on the National
Advisory Council on Minority Business Enterprises before
joining SEOO.
Page 44 -- 2.c. STAP GRANT, NEGATIVE FINDINGS (Charge)
(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.
RESPONSE:
In order to run a STAP/TA section efficiently, one man has
to be given overall management and administrative responsibilities
for that section. This is inherent in any kind of planning,
direction and control function in the management activities
of any organization. Because of this problem, Barny Schur
with his extensive background in management and administration
was assigned these responsibilities for both STAP/TA section.
Additionally, a line functional authority must be assigned
to somebody in SEOO in order to work cooperatively with CAPs,
department heads and Board Chairmen as well as other officials
in the assessment, delivery and follow-up of TA activities.
It, therefore, is altogether appropriate and fitting, in
a management context, that one man be capable in performing
this function and is selected from the TA or STAP section to
oversee and supervise the entire TA program.
Staff assignments are inherent in any kind of TA organization
be they engineers, doctors, dentists or any other kind of
professional technician. Given the amount of funds in the
STAP grant and the TA grant, it is impossible to divide long
range onsite TA to CAPs throughout the State of California.
It is too much to ask a man to stay onsite on a long range
program to serve one or two CAPs when there is a need state-
wide. Therefore, it is the premise of the SEOO to serve
those CAPs whose problems can be solved first. The indepth
complicated problems that would require long term onsite
expensive services are not feasible for SEOO to undertake
at this particular time and to a great degree these kinds
of needs have been provided by ATAC and SDI for service.
b. Positive Findings: Some of the professionals eventually
hired for these positions appear to be reasonably well-qualified.
Some useful technical assistance was provided by the Early Child-
to )où Development Specialist.
C. Negative Findings:
(1) The SEOO has not used this grant, and most of the pro-
fessionals hired by the grant, to carry out the demonstration goals
and work program. Some of the professionals hired under the grant
have instead been used (see attached analysis section on manpower
allocation on Blaker, Clark, Cunningham, Taylor, and Whitely) as
Community Program Analysts (CPAs) for monitoring, investigating,
and performing grant review functions for the greatest majority of
their time. Even the latest organization chart of the SEOO (ap-
proved by Director Lewis K. Uhler about mid-February, 1971) shows
that one professional (Clark - personnel management) is performing
a CPA-type (investigative) function.
(2) As with the STAP grant, there has been no apparent at-
tempt to isolate the functions of personnel under this grant from
the regular SEOO grant thus making it difficult to assess the effec-
tiveness of the program as a demonstration.
(3) The position of SEOO Indian (or "Special Programs")
Coordinator was only filled on February 12, 1971, (six months after
effective date of grant) and then by transferring a STAP Economic
Development Specialist (Archer) to this position.
(4) Reports from grantee interviews show almost no positive
reports on useful technical assistance provided by the specialists
hired under this demonstration grant.
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 tech-
nical assistance has not, in fact, been delivered except for a sig-
nificant portion of the time of one specialists (Taylor - Early
Childhood Development).
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.
4. OAKLAND GRANT:
a. Perception: Although Oakland demonstration grant was written
primarily to "support a technical assistance consultant to effect ex-
tensive improvement in the management of OEDCI and to review compli-
ance with OEO regulations and special conditions," many believe the
45
Page 45 -- 3. C. DEMONSTRATION GRANT, NEGATIVE FINDINGS (Charge)
(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.
RESPONSE:
Comments made in STAP grant and other TA sections are germaine
to this whole thing and can be repeated as a summary.
Page 45--Charge
"Although Oakland demonstration grant was written primarily to 'support a
technical assistance consultant to effect extensive improvement in the
management of OEDCI and to review compliance with OEO regulations and
special conditions', many believe the funds under this grant were used to
support an investigation and to find reasons to close OEDCI and were not
used to assist OEDCI with training and technical assistance.'
Response
The charge fails to mention the specific items in the State grant to which
the Oakland monitor is to address himself. The grant states, in Item I,
page 2 of the work contract, that the monitor shall, at a minimum:
(a) Review OEDCI compliance with OEO regulations and special conditions
on the OEDCI grant;
(b) Review OEDCI management and program operations, diagnose areas of
weakness, and submit recommendations for improved performance to the
President, OEDCI, Executive Director of OEDCI and OEO;
(c) Upon request by OEDCI, provide technical assistance to the grantee
or mobilize technical assistance resources from the SEOO staff and/or
appropriate state agencies to assist the community action agency;
(d) To coordinate the participation of the SEOO in the joint federal-state-
city review of OEDCI programs to begin October 1, 1970;
(e) Participate jointly with OEO staff in discussions with the CMIP
contractor chosen byOEO and OEDCI. Submit recommendations to OEDCI
and OEO for effective use of the CMIP grant.
These items place major emphasis on monitoring, evaluation and coordin-
ation with the appropriate Regional Office staff. The compliance with this
part of the grant is evidenced by a letter from the OEO Regional Director of
December 23, 1970, commending SEOO staff members for their efforts in
the Oakland evaluation (attachment "A").
Charge
"The Executive Director reported that neither he nor the OEDCI Board were
apprised of plans to fund this demonstration nor were they sent a CAP
Form 76 for comment at the time the application was submitted or funded. II
Response
During the refunding process of OEDCI in May, 1970, SEOO requested that
Western Regional OEO include, in the OEDCI grant, information about the
SEOO monitor and the extent of his responsibilities in Oakland.
Western Regional OEO refused to make this information a part of the grant
but, instead, the Regional Director stated he would instruct a representa-
tive to communicate the information gally to OEDCI.
Charge
"The Regional IX, OEDCI field representative, Rick Morada, stated to an
interviewor that he was not aware that the Oakland demonstration grant
existed. Therefore, he could not comment on it. Morada said that the
only thing he perceived the SEOO doing in OEDCI was investigation."
Response
The fact that the Regional OEO representative assigned to OEDCI was un-
aware that the SEOO Oakland grant existed is no fault of SEOO. A primary
responsibility of the Regional representative is to be knowledgeable of all
such grants in areas within his jurisdiction.
Charge
"There has been very little meaningful coordination between the appropriate
Regional Office staff (field representative), the CAA or the special technical
assistance consultant funded under this (SEOO) grant. 11
Response
If a Regional OEO field representative did, in fact, make this statement, it
would contradict statements made in the letter of the Regional Director of
December 23, 1970, where he speaks of the positive efforts of SEOO in the
Oakland eval uation (previous attachment "A").
Charge
"The special technical assistance consultant has not regularly attended
OEDCI Board and Executive Committee meetings. It was reported that the
consultant attended only one such meeting.'
Response
The field representative for the Western Regional OEO and Board Members of
OEDCI can substantiate that SEOO monitor attended most OEDCI Board meet-
ings and several Executive Committee meetings.
Charge
"No quarterly diagnostic reports have been submitted to the WR/OEO or OEDCI.
Since August 1, 1970, there should have been two quarterly reports submitted."
Response
SEOO, in cooperation with Western Regional OEO, the City of Oakland and
Board members of OEDCI, conducted an in-depth study of OEDCI, which
lasted approximately two months. The findings, along with recommendations,
were submitted to OEDCI staff and the Board of Directors. As a result of these
reports, a special committee of the OEDCI Board was assigned to review and
submit recommendations concerning matters contained therein. A copy of the
report of the special committee is attached.
Charge
"The resume submitted for the person hired as the special technical assistance
consultant under the grant does not meet the qualifications described in the
grant.
"Mr. Espana, the special technical assistance consultant hired, was not
approved by Region IX, OEO, as required by the grant."
Response
In the opinion of the SEOO, the Oakland monitor had the qualifications to
properly discharge the SEOO responsibilities of the subject grant. Further-
more, the grant does not require SEOO to obtain approval from WR/OEO in
the selection of the Oakland monitor.
The effectiveness of the Oakland monitor and the other SEOO staff members
who assisted in the evaluation of OEDCI is evidenced by the letter of the
Regional OEO Director of December 23, 1970, and the acceptance of the
SEOO report by the special committee of OEDCI (attachment "B").
Charge
"There was no evidence that the SEOO had attempted to administer or
implement this grant as written at the Oakland CAA. To date, there has
been no meaningful technical assistance provided to OEDCI staff, Board
or low-income groups."
Response
The terms of the grant stipulate that technical assistance will be pro-
vided OEDCI upon request by the agency. Although no requests have been
made for TA, SEOO did provide assistance in various ways:
(1) In a letter to the President of OEDCI, it was stated that major weak-
nesses and questionable expenditures of funds existed in the Outreach
program, and we offered the assistance of this office in rectifying these
conditions.
(2) In a letter to the President of OEDCI, we stated that irregularities
had taken place in the target area elections, which resulted in several
target area delegates of OEDCI being invalidly seated. We offered to
assist the agency in its review of the matter.
(3) In a letter to the President of OEDCI, we informed him of incidents
of unauthorized political actions in which staff members of OEDCI had
engaged and requested that instruction on OEO regulations be provided
to all staff and Board members.
(4) In response to a request by the Chairman of the Outreach panel to
provide the panel with information about deficiencies in the Outreach
program, the Oakland monitor attended a Saturday meeting in Oakland
for this purpose. However, because of a lack of quorum, no official
meeting was held.
(5) In coordination with the Regional Office, staff members of SEOO
assisted in monitoring the OEDCI target area elections of 1971. The
Oakland monitor did, previous to the elections, assist at least one
OEDCI advisory committee in learning about the plans and procedures
and special grant conditions affecting the elections.
(6) During the course of our examination of the financial records of
the Neighborhood Service Program, a delegate agency of OEDCI,
various methods relative to improving the internal controls were
recommended and discussed with the staff.
(7) A detailed report was submitted to the Regional Auditor covering an
analysis and comments of various CPA audits of OEDCI. Included was a
recommendation that the report be discussed and reviewed with OEDCI
in an effort to improve their accounting system and its internal controls.
(8) An on-site evaluation involving the cooperative and collaborative
efforts of (a) Office of Economic Opportunity, Region IX, (b) California
State Office of Economic Opportunity, (c) City of Oakland and (d) the
Oakland Economic Development Council, Inc., was conducted of the
OEDCI operations in November and December, 1970. Team members
met daily for orientation, assignments and consultations. Each team
member was required to submit a narrative report of his findings and
opinions of each program evaluated. In an exit conference with OEDCI,
it was mutually agreed that valuable technical assistance was derived
from this evaluation. In addition, valuable technical assistance was
provided at the time of the evaluation team's on-site visits to OEDCI
headquarters, Area Service Centers, Teen-age Parent Participation
Program at Oakland YWCA, American Indian Service Center, Filipino
Information Service Center, Spanish-Speaking Community Action Center,
Children's Vision Center and the Legal Aid Program location.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
WESTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
100 McALLISTER STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
OPPORTUNITY
Attachment
December 23, 1970
Mr. Lewis Uhler
Director
State Economic Opportunity
Office
800 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Uhler:
Transmitted herewith is the report of the OEDCI On-Site Evaluation Team.
The report represents the joint effort on the part of the Office of
Economic Opportunity, California State Economic Opportunity Office, the
City of Oakland, and Oakland Economic Development Council, Inc.
I would like to commend the following members of your staff for their
contributions to a most difficult task:
1. Mr. Sal Espana
2. Mr. Jeff Clark
3. Mr. Charles Blaker
4. Mr. Robert Steele
5. Mr. L. Chickering
This significant inter-agency effort in the Oakland community action
program represents the kind of mutual effort between the State and
Federal Government that can be most beneficial to the poor. I look
forward to an expansion of our mutual efforts in the coming year.
My best wishes to you and your family for a Merry Christmas and happy
and properous New Year.
Sincerely,
Rodger
H. RODGER BETTS
Regional Director
Attachment
FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE
(OEDCI Committing
In accordance with the mandate of the Council of OEDCI, an Investigating
Committee was formed.
This Committee is composed of Mr. Willie Rock, Mrs. Louise Albritten,
Mr. Christopher Martin, Mr. Howard Ransom, Mr. Jim Flores,
Mrs. Josephine Jiminez, Mrs. Lillian Love, Atty. John George, Mr. James
Medina, Atty. Clinton White, and Rev. Thomas P. Grissom, Jr.
We had three meetings; January 4th, 8th, & 13th. At the first meeting,
ten Committee Members were present, and three State and one Regional
Resourse Persons; the second meeting, eight Committee Members were
present, and three State Resourse Representative Persons; at the third
meeting, seven Committee Members were present.
We were charged with the responsibility of investigating and determining
the validity of the "On Site Evaluation Report", Part II of "The Oakland
Economic Development Council, Inc., Community Action Program, from
January 1, 1970 through December 31, 1970". We hereby submit the
following findings as directed by the Council.
They are: In order of their sequence in the original report;
Number 1, page 3 was unanimcusly agreed upon by the Committee
Members.
Number 2, page 3 is basically true.
Number 3, page 4 is true and verified by OEO's special con-
ditions. It has since been corrected.
Number 4, page 4 is true. Inadequacies of previous years
have been corrected, and the audit of June 1970 verifies
this audit.
Number 5, page 4 is true. This is documented by OEC's letter
of December 12, 1969. This has been corrected.
Number 6, page 4 is true.
Number 7, page Lᵢ is true. It is documented by CEO communi-
cations of November , 1969, and December 10, 1969 MET
DATES.
Number 8, page 4 involving Program Funds, we questioned
the work "unauthorized". We support the fact it was dis-
allowed.
CONTINUED
Number 9, page 5 is true. It is documented by OFC.
Number 10, page 5 is true, and documented by District
Attorney indictments.
Number 11, page 5 is true. It is supportied) by 050 st
special conditions.
Number 12, page 5 is true. Prohibited by By-Laws Sec. 6,
Subdivision 6, and letter of August 3, and 26, 1970.
Number 13, page 5 is true, supported by minutes.
Number 14, page 5 is true, supported by letter from State
OEC. It was voted upon by the Council not to take any
action until we received directions from Regional OEO.
Number 15, page 5 is true.
The second phase of this report, pages 6 through 9, Items 1 through 6,
are true. Item 7, and Section A, recognizes the fact that we did not
comply with Special Condition No. 7. There was a difference of opinion
within the Committee regarding the time. Target area committees were
informed about the plans and the procedures for the elections.
Item 7B is true.
Item 70 regards Special Condition No. 21. The Council did approve the
direct actions of November 10, 1970. The Council did not approve the actions
of December 15, 1970. Items further documented by the minutes of OEDCI.
Item 8, page 10 documented two meetings only without legal quorum,
Section A is false. There are some Council Members who have not lost con--
fidence in CEDCI; however, there are some members who have lost confidence
in the Administration Staff and, some Council Members.
8B. In view of the serious allegations of 85, which are further docu-
mented by Judge Wilsons' letter dated October 21, 1969 to Mr. Ronald
Rumsfeld, after serious study and discussion, we recommend that the
Personnel Committee take appropriate disciplinary action.
Item 9. (i) We recommend that there be an ethnic balance within the staff.
(2) We recommend that the staff be residents of Oakland. (3) We further
recommend that all ethnic groups (see Atty. John George).
Item 10, Sections A and B are true, documented by letter of August 3, 1970.
Section C is true, supported by the Executive Board's minutes of
November 19, 1969. We further recommend that the newly appointed com-
mittee to meet with the Spanish Action Center Board and the Spanish
Advisory Committee, report to this Council immediately with their
findings and recommendations. Section D is true.
In conclusion, we are in agreement that the following is true:
1. The Board of Directors is lax in carrying out its functions
as a policy-making body.
2. We have allowed and relied upon the staff to assume Council
powers.
3. We have been remiss in examining progress, and monitoring
the operation of this corporation in accordance with regu-
lations.
CONTINUED
4. It is incumbent that we have Administration that can
efficiently carry out the poverty program as laid down by
CEO, Secondly, we further state, Administration must not
usurp the powers of the Council. Thirdly, the staff must
pass on to the Council, all communication and information
that falls within the Council's jurisdiction.
5, We recommend that the staff shall set up work shops,
seminars, etc., utilizing State and Federal expertise.
6, No public statements reflecting upon the Council shall be
given to the news media, institutions or persons without
prior approval of our Public Relations Committee. We
recommend the immediate formulization of this committee.
funds under this grant were used to support an Investigation and
to find reasons to close OEDCI and were not used to assist OEDCI
with training and technical assistance.
b. Findings:
(1) The Executive Director reported that neither he nor the
OEDCI board were apprised of plans to fund this demonstration nor
were they sent a CAP Form 76 for comment at the time the application
was submitted or funded.
(2) The Region IX, OEDCI field representative, Rick Morada,
stated to an interviewer that he was not aware that the Oakland demon-
stration grant existed. Therefore, he could not comment on it.
Morada said that the only thing he perceived the SEOO doing in OEDCI
was investigation.
(3) There has been very little meaningful coordination be-
tween the appropriate Regional Office staff (field representative),
the CAA or the special technical assistance consultant funded under
this grant.
(4) The special technical assistance consultant has not
regularly attended OEDCI Board and Executive Committee meetings. It
was reported that the consultant attended only one such meeting.
(5) No quarterly diagnostic reports have been submitted to
the WR/CEO or OEDCI. Since August 1, 1970, there should have been
two quarterly reports submitted.
(6) The resume submitted for the person hired as the special
technical assistance consultant under the grant does not meet the
qualifications described in the grant.
(7) Mr. Espana, the special technical assistance consultant
hired, was not approved by Region IX, OEO, as required by the grant.
(8) There was no evidence that the SEOO had attempted to
administer or implement this grant as written at the Oakland CAA.
To date, there has been no meaningful technical assistance provided
to OEDCI staff, board, or low-income groups.
C. Conclusion:
(1) The SEOO has not performed the terms and conditions of
the grant.
(2) WR/OEO and SEOO both have neglected to fulfill their re-
sponsibility to inform the parties involved of the demonstration
grant.
46
(3) There was not proper monitoring of this grant to insure
that the conditions, goals, and objectives were being met by the
d. Recommendation:
(1) The grant should be terminated.
(2) An audit examination of the funds expended under this
grant should be conducted as soon as possible.
47
SE00 AND THE REGIONAL OFFICE
1. PERCEPTIONS:
The California SEOO perceives its relationship with Regional OEO to
be at best ambivalent and at worst founded on distrust and permeated
by mutual indifference. While the State and the Region got off to a
good start in their relationship, the situation rapidly deteriorated
until regular communication between the State and the Region became
almost non-existent.
The State has complained, among other things, of the following mat-
ters:
a. The state is not inely invited to participate in the pre-
reviews of all CAAs in the state. When the Region does extend an
invitation, it is often too late to allow the State to make the neces-
sary scheduling adjustments to enable their personnel to be in at-
tendance. Moreover, the State has also complained that once pre-
review dates have been set by the Region and the CAAS, these dates
are changed at the last moment producing a disruptive effect on the
deployment of State personnel.
b. The State complains that the Region is unwilling to supply
it with audit reports on the CAAs and that the State has been re-
quired, therefore, to seek out alternate sources to obtain such
reports and other financial information on the CAAs.
C. The State has not been brought into meaningful participation
in evaluations conducted by the Region on community action agencies.
Robert Hawkins, Director of Operations for the SEOO, described the
situation as follows:
(1) "The State Office of Economic Opportunity has
participated in a joint evaluation and review
of OEDCI. However, the outcome of this eval-
uation was most unsatisfactory, due to duplicity
on the part of the Regional Office.
(2) "We have also participated in a Task Force
Evaluation with WR/OEO on the Berkeley Com-
munity Action Agency. However, the State
Office has withdrawn from this Task Force,
and has sent a letter to Regional OEO request-
ing written guarantees that the powers enumerated
in OEO Instruction 7501-1 will be guaranteed to
the State Office (see Attachments). This action
48
was taken in light of the behavior of the
Regional Office in the Oakland area.
(3) "Simply stated, the State Office no longer
trusts the verbal agreements reached with
Regional OEO, feeling that whenever it is
to their advantage, they will double-cross
the State Office."
d. In the area of training and technical assistance, John Sawicki
reported that "This office has never been invited by Region IX to
participate in any contract formation or technical assistance plan-
ning."
e. An illustrative example of the breakdown of communication
etween SEOO and the Regional Office, as perceived by Robert Hawkins,
eals with a demonstration grant involving the concept of volunteer
:tion. It appears that a proposal by the State for the funding of
demonstration grant was signed off by the Region but thereafter the
funds were not released. Hawkins described the situation as follows:
(1) "The funds for the demonstration program
have not been received by our office. The
ostensible reasons given by WR/OEO is that
the work program is unsatisfactory. How-
ever, in discussion with Joe Maldonado in
Washington, D. C., in December, 1970, it was
ascertained that National OEO was moving
away from volunteerism.
(2) "It appears to me that the real reason why
the volunteer grant has not been approved,
stems from differences between our office
and the Western Regional Office. The rea-
sons for the volunteer grant not being
funded by Regional OEO to the State Office
of Economic Opportunity are not known to
us. The following chain of events took
place regarding this grant: "
(a) "Rodger Betts formally signed the
CAP 14 with the original work
program.
(b) "Approximately two to three weeks
later, Rodger Betts, on the advice
of the Western Region staff, put a
freeze on releasing the monies to
us until we redesigned the work
program. It was his contention
49
that the work program did
not fulfill the conditions
of the grant.
(c) "It was then suggested by
Mr. Betts that Mr. Uhler and
Mr. Sawicki redesign the work
program, working with the Re-
gion staff. Mr. Uhler said
he would do this, but unless
Mr. Betts committed to release
monies after the redesigning,
Mr. Uhler felt it would be a
waste of time.
(d) "Mr. Uhler and Mr. Sawicki
went to WR/OEO after the com-
mitment was given to Mr. Uhler
by Mr. Betts that the monies
would be released after the re-
designing of the work program
had been accomplished by the
Region staff.
(e) "Mr. Uhler and Mr. Sawicki
spent eight hours at Regional
OEO designing everything the
way Region staff suggested. We
then returned to Sacramento and
wrote it according to their
terms.
(f) "Approximately a week later,
the new work program was sent
to WR/OEO, and to this day, as
far as I know, there has been
absolutely no word from Rodger
Betts as to why the money has
not been released.
(g) "Mr. Unler has talked with Mr.
Betts on several occasions re-
garding this grant, and also
has communicated several times
with Joe Casillas. The last
word we have from Mr. Cassillas
is that this grant is on ice un-
til our relationship with Re-
gional OEO is improved.'
50
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
Region IX
OPPORTUNITY
100 McAllister Street
San Francisco, California 94102
April 7, 1971
Mr. Lewis K. Uhler
Director
Office of Economic Opportunity
Department of Human Resources Development
800 Capitol Mall, Sacramento 95814
Dear Lew:
Thank you for your letter of March 26 relative to your Resources Mobilization
and Technical Assistance Conference.
I regret that I will be out of the State during the Conference and thus will
not be able to accept your invitation to speak on April 13. I have asked
Joe Casillas to represent the Regional Office as your luncheon speaker on
that date.
My best wishes for a successful Conference.
Sincerely,
H. Rodger Betts
Regional Director
APR 114 1971
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
Region IX
100 McAllister Street
OPPORTUNITY
San Francisco, California 94102
March 31, 1971
Mr. Lewis K. Uhler
Director
Office of Economic Opportunity
Department of Human Resources Development
800 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Lew:
I have received your letter of March 18 discussing activities within the
Community Action Commission of Santa Barbara County, Inc.
Your description of circumstances surrounding the recent refunding of that
agency contains substantial inaccuracies. Allow me to reconstruct those
circumstances and to bring you up to date on our understanding of the current
situation in Santa Barbara.
First, your office has frequently been informed that the Federal Office of
Economic Opportunity does not hire or fire the staff of local Community
Action Agencies. Our authority in this regard is limited to insuring that
Community Action Agencies, through their Boards of Directors, conduct their
personnel affairs in compliance with the Economic Opportunity Act, OEO regu-
lations and their grant work program.
Second, there was no agreement to see that "two individuals would be elimin-
ated from the program" in Santa Barbara as you contend. As stated above, we
have no authority to make such an agreement. Further, at no time did you
ask for such an agreement and at no time did we assent to such an agreement.
Third, we appreciated your bringing to our attention some confusion on the
part of the Community Action Commission of Santa Barbara County, Inc., relating
tc a special condition on one of their grants. We subsequently issued a
clarifying letter to the agency, a copy of which was sent to you. Refer to
the letter of January 13 from our former Regional Counsel, Mr. James Deasy,
to the CAC of Santa Barbara County, Inc. (Exhibit A).
Fourth, the following is a description of events relating to the two individuals
mentioned in your letter:
On December 23, 1970, this office took the initial action to inform the
Santa Barbara CAC of possible violations by the two persons of personnel
policies of both the CAC and OEO. In the same letter, we requested that
the Board take appropriate disciplinary action if such violations did
actually take place (refer to Exhibit B).
2
-- On December 24, 1970, the Executive Director of the Santa Barbara CAC
officially reprimanded both Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Compos as a result of
our letter (refer to Exhibits C and D).
-- On January 13, 1971, our then Regional Counsel (Mr. James E. Deasy)
informed the Chairman of the Santa Barbara CAC that the Commission
has final and complete authority as to the hiring and firing of any
program coordinator (refer to Exhibit A).
-- On January 19, 1971, the Executive Committee of the Santa Barbara CAC
dismissed both Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Compos (refer to Exhibits E and F).
-- On January 21, 1971, both Mr. Alvarez and Mr. Compos exercised their
rights of appeal directly to the Board of Directors of the Santa Barbara
CAC. The Board held an executive session that evening to discuss these
appeals. They reversed the actions of their Executive Committee, and
both employees were retained on a six-month probationary basis. On
February 10, 1971, Mr. Mario Vasquez, Division Chief for North Coast
California, met with the Board's Executive Committee to again discuss
these two individuals. It was ascertained that both employees, at the
end of their six-month probationary periods, would be fully evaluated
by the Santa Barbara CAC. Appropriate personnel actions would then
be taken by the CAC based on their performance evaluations (refer to
Exhibit G).
-- On March 18, 1971, the Commission suspended without pay Mr. Carlos Compos,
as a result of recent conduct charges (refer to Exhibit H).
Regarding your statement that the Board of Directors of the Santa Barbara CAC
has requested a thorough review of their agency by OEO, we are unaware of
their taking any official action on this matter. The only request for any
investigation was received by my office on January 28, 1971, by the former
Commission Chairman, Mr. Cres De Alba. Mr. Vasquez met with the Executive
Committee of the Commission on February 10, 1971, to discuss Mr. De Alba's
request and concerns. As a result of that meeting, it was agreed by the
Executive Committee that no further investigation was warranted over and
beyond our regular on-going monitoring activities (refer to Exhibit G).
Regarding the last issue raised in your letter, OEO will definitely participate
with your office in the monitoring of elections for target area represent-
atives as soon as the CAC finalizes the election plans.
Sincerely,
H. Rodger Betts
Regional Director
EXHIBIT A
TIVE
IE PRESIDENT
WESTLRN REGIONAL UNICE
100 McALLISTER STREET
C. FICE OF ECONOMIC
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102
OPPORTUNITY
January 13, 1971
Mr. Cres De Alba, Chairman
Community Action Commission
of Santa Barbara County
232 East Montecito Street
Santa Barbara, California
Dear Mr. De Alba:
I have just been advised of a letter received by your
Executive Director dated August 31, 1970 relative to
a change of work program for your Emergency Food and
Medical Services grant, said letter being under the
signature of your Regional OEO Field Representative.
Clarification has been requested as to the last sentence
t' reof which ostensibly gives the right to hire the
I S Coordinator to the policy advisory council. It
should be made perfectly clear that said statement does
not abrogate your commissions responsibility for the
administration of the total CAC program in Santa
Barbara County. Your commission has final and complete
authority as to the hiring and firing of a program
coordinator. What our Field Representative intended
by her comment was only that EFMS guidelines provided
that the policy advisory council shall assist in the
selection of a project coordinator.
Should you have any further questions in this matter,
please contact my office.
Sincerely,
geg
one CIV
WESTERN REGION
James E. Deasy
Regional Counsel
CC: H. Rodger Betts
Lewis Uhler
Pete Peterson, SEOO Analyst
Jim Duerr, Executive Director
Apolinar Alvarez, EFMS Coordinator
Louis Rodriquez, Chairman PAC
Mario Vasquez
Marguerite Mendoza
EXHIBIT B
December 23, 1970
Mr. James Duerr
Executive Director
Comunity Action Commission
of Santa Barbara County, Inc.
232 East Montecito Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93102
Dear Mr. Duerr:
You are no doubt avare that at the 17th December, 1970 board meeting of
the Community Action Commission of Santa Barbara County, two (2) project
directors; Mr. Apolinar Alvarez, Director of the Emergency Food and
Medical Services Project, and Mr. Carlos Compos, Director of the Youth
Development Program: provided leadership for disruptive cotion together
with the Sonta Maria Neighborhood Acca Council residents.
Inseauchas this type of activity by staff violates the personnel policies
of both the CAA community action agency and OEO, please advise us as to
what disciplinary action you plan to take against these two (2) individuals.
Response to the above is due in this office by close of business on Monday,
4 January, 1971. If you have any questions regarding the above, please
contact the Acting Division Chief, as both Mrs. Mendoza and Mr. Vasquez are
on Leave.
Sincerely,
MARIA L. FORT
Acting Division Chief
CC: sal Aparicio, Chairman
EXHIBIT C
MEMORANDUM:
December 24, 1970
050
CAP DIV
WESTERN REGION
TO:
Carlos Campos, Youth CoordinatorAN 181971
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIE,
FROM:
E
James Duerr, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
ACTIONS AT COMMISSION MEETING
I must warn you against further disruptive actions such as
occured at the CAC Commission Meeting of December 17, 1970.
When personnel of the CAC engage in such activities it is
improper professional conduct and violates specific instruc-
tions of OEO (Memo 6907-2.)
Specifically you were out of line in using a loud voice and
abusive language toward board members and marching out of
the meeting with a disruptive group. Actions such as these
only encourage such actions by others, and have the potential
of making a bad situation worse. As an employee of the
Community Action Commission you must remember that you are
to respect the decisions of the commission although you might
not agree with them.
I do understand that during the meeting and after the walk-out
you actively discouraged the people involved. This was
proper and is in full accordance with OEO Instructions. How-
ever you must remember that the public actions of a person
carry a weight of influence often much stronger than what he
may do behind the scenes.
At this time I intend no further disciplinary action other
than this warning (although you may expect my action to be
reviewed by the Executive Committee.) A copy of this memorandum
will be placed in your personnel file. However, any repetition
will result in suspension of employment and possible dismissal.
If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to
talk with me about it.
JD/ej
EXHIBIT D
MEMORANDUM:
December 24, 1970
DED
SAP DIV
WESTERN REGION
JAN 1 81971
TO:
Apolinar Alvarez, Emergency Food and
FRAE
CALIF
Medical Services Coordinator
FROM:
James Duerr, Executive Director
SUBJECT:
ACTION AT COMMISSION MEETING
I must warn you against further disruptive actions such
as occured at the meeting of December 17, 1970. When
personnel of the CAC engage in such actions it is improper
professional conduct, and violates specific instruction
€ OEO (Memo 6907-2.)
Specifically you were out of line in using a loud voice
and marching out of the meeting with disruptive group in
a situation that was disruptive and had potential to be-
come worse.
As an employee of the Community Action Commission you must
remember that you are to respect their decisions although
you may not agree with them. However, in your situation
I understand that you walked out with the group in order
to maintain contact with these people and after leaving
the meeting actively discouraged the people involved from
engaging in further disruptive action. This was proper and
is in full accordance with the OEO Instruction and the
standards of professional conduct expected by the Commission.
At this time I intend to take no further disciplinary action
other than this warning (although you may expect my action
to be reviewed by the Executive Committee.) A copy of this
memorandum will be placed in your personnel file. However,
any repetition will result in suspension of employment and
possible dismissal.
If you have any questions regarding this please feel free to
alk with me about it.
JD/ei
EXHIBIT E
COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION
of Santa Barbara County
348 93102
232 EAST MONTECITO STREET
805 965-1035
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
93101
EMORANDUM:
January 19, 1971
O:
Carlos Campos
ROM:
James Duerr, Executive Director
UBJECT:
DISMISSAL
regret to inform you that the Executive Committee has voted to
SS you from your position as Youth Coordinator of the Youth
am. Since two weeks notice is required by the personnel
olicies, the effective date of your dismissal will be February
1971. However, you are suspended from your duties effective
mmediately and shall immediately turn over all equipment,
aterials, records, and keys to the Business Manager, Mr. Rudd
Martin.
'he reasons for your dismissal are those previously placed in
our personnel file and those outlined in the attached letter to
from the Commission President.
our rights of appeal are outlined in the personnel policies of
the Community Action Commission. In addition, the Office of
conomic Opportunity Western Region has a special appeals officer
o whom you may direct any complaint you might have.
personally wish to thank you for the past assistance you have
jiven to the Community Action Commission and regret that these
instances of poor judgment have made it impossible for the Com-
ission to continue you in its employment.
D/aq
chment
Mr. Cres De Alba
Members of Executive Committee
Personnel File
Office of Economic Opportunity
State Office of Economic Opportunity
EXHIBIT F
COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION
of Santa Barbara County
1348 93102
232 EAST MONTECITO STREET
805 965-1035
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
93101
IEMORANDUM:
January 20, 1971
Apolinar Alvarez
'ROM:
James Duerr, Executive Director
UBJECT:
DISMISSAL
regret to inform you that the Executive Committee has voted to
iss you from your position as Coordinator of the Emergency
'O
and Medical Services Program. Since two weeks notice is
required by the personnel policies, the effective date of your
ismissal will be February 3, 1971. However, you are suspended
from your duties effective immediately and shall immediately
turn over all equipment, materials, records, and keys to the
Business Manager, Mr. Rudd Martin.
The reasons for your dismissal are those previously placed in
our personnel file and those outlined in the attached letter to
from the Commission President.
Your rights of appeal are outlined in the personnel policies of
the Community Action Commission. In addition, the Office of
Economic Opportunity Western Region has a special appeals officer
to whom you may direct any complaint you might have.
personally wish to thank you for the past assistance you have
jiven to the Community Action Commission and regret that these
instances of poor judgment have made it impossible for the Com-
mission to continue you in its employment.
ID/aq
Attachment
Mr. Cres De Alba
Members of Executive Committee
Personnel File
Office of Economic Opportunity
State Office of Economic Opportunity
EXHIBIT G
22 February 1971
Hr. Cres De Alba
7074 Casites Pass Road
Corpinteria, Celifornia 93013
Dear Kr. De Alba:
Acting Director Frank Carlucci has asked me to respond to your recent
telegram concerning complaints about the Santa Barbara County Community
Action Commission. I regret the delay in responding to you; however,
my staff had to make on extensive review of your list of complaints
including several visits to Santa Barbara.
On 10 February 1971, Mr. Mario Vasquez, Division Chief for North Coast
California which includes Senta Barbara County, met with the Executive
Committee of the CAC to discuss the issues raised In your telegrous
1. Currently the CAC is operating in RY E. PY D for the CAC
ended on 30 November 1970 and as required by 020 regulations,
an sudit was performed on the CAC operations and activities.
The sudit WGS completed 1sst week and will to presented within
the next two weeks to the CAC. This audit report will enable
us to receive an independent assessment of the financial opera-
tions and controls of the CAC. Until the sudit report is TE-
coived, we are unable to sike any additional comments regarding
the financial operations of the CAC. However, we con comment
that we are unsware of any financial irregularities to date.
2. The entire CAC program operations were just evaluated by a
special evaluation committee established by the CAC. The total
ovaluation report USE presenced to the CAC at its monthly January
1971 CAC board meeting for review and appropriate action.
3. In regard to the recent selection of the Director of the Youth
Program and Director of Emergency Food and Medical Services,
the employment of all strif is the sole responsibility of the
CAC, Both of these staff people are currently employed by the
GAC on a six months probationary period. At the end of this time
period, the CAC will fully evaluate the performance of these two
employees and will then take the appropriate action based on
the performance evaluations. Ve concur that both employees
selected for these two programs did not fully seet the job quali-
fications 23 advertised. However, both employees are also not
-2-
receiving the salaries advertised for these positions due to
lack of thair full qualifications.
As a result of the above statements, it is our feeling that no further
investigation as requested in your telegram is warrented over and
boyond our regular, on-going monitoring activities.
We appreciate your past services A3 the board chairman and regret
your decision to resign from the CAC Board. Additionally, we
appreciate your continuous interest and concern for the Senta Berbara
CAC and Program Operations. You CED rest onsured that we will
continue to provide all the necessary assistance to Santa Barbara
in order to achieve a MOSE effective program for the poor in your
ares.
Sincerely,
JOE D. CASILLAS
H. RODGER BETTS
Regional Director
WR/FO/NC/AEIVASQUEZ/ja1
22 February 1971
Control No: 40913-964
Clearance:
cc: CR
EXSECV2 2)
Division
mmv
CR/OEO
Official File
Read File
RD
C
Teleg
- To EXSEC BD10
1958 JAN 25 PM 6 10
ZVA2"0 (28)LA 177 177
L SUA 10 1 PE PCF 5 EXTRA CARPINTERIA CALIF 25 143P PST
DIRECTOR OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
HEW WASHDC 1200 19
I HAVE RESIGNED AS CHAIRMAN OF THE SANTA BARBARA COUNTY COMMUNITY
ACTION COMMISSION AFTER 5 YEARS WORKING TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM
FOR THE LOW INCOME PEOPLE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT IS NOT WORKING.
TWO BROWN BERET WERE HIRED BY THE CAC 6 MONTHS AGO ONE IN
DIRECTOR OF THE YOUTH PROGRAM AND THE OTHER DIRECTS HEALTH
AND FOOD STAMPS THEY WERE NOT QUALIFIED AND HAVE USED THEIR
POSITION AND THE FUNDS FOR THEIR OWN PURPOSES THEY HAVE ALIENATED
HE BLACKS. THE WHITE COMMUNITY AND HAVE STIRRED RADICAL PREJUDICES
AND USED GOVERNMENT MATERIALS AND TIME ILLEGALLY THEY CONTROL
HE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND HAVE MADE A LAUGHING STOCK OF SOME
0
SF-1201 EACH WORTHWHILE PROJECTS NO ONE RADICAL GROUP SHOULD CONTROL
THE POVERTY PROGRAM AND I ENCOURAGE AN IMEDIATE INVESTIGATION
CRES DE ALBA 7074 CASITAS PASS RD CARHINERIA.
7074.
DIRECTOR'S CONTROLLED MAIL
EnSec Control No: 40913
Action Office:
#9 #
ND,
For Signature of: Betts
Dispatch Due: 2/11
pies: $9,0,ES
'201 (R5-50)
22 MAR 1971
EXHIBIT H
COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION
of Santa Barbara County
X 1348 93102
232 EAST MONTECITO STREET
805 965-1035
SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA
93101
March 19, 1971
Mr. Mario Vasquez
Office of Economic Opportunity
100 McAllister Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Dear Mr. Vasquez:
Special Conditions
The Community Action Commission held its regular meeting on
March 18, 1971. All the Special Conditions have been implemented
and the Commission voted upon them. The minutes of the meeting
and documentation will be forwarded the early part of next week.
The Commission has also suspended, without pay, Mr. Carlos Campos
until that time where Mr. Campos can meet with the Commission
to explain his actions. At that time, a final decision will be
made.
Sincerely,
Roga E. Heroup
ROGER E. HEROUX
ACTING EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
REH/ej
cc Pete Peterson
MAR 29 1971
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF ECONOMIC
Region IX
OPPORTUNITY
100 McAllister Street
San Francisco, California 94102
Mr. Lewis K. Uhler
Director
Office of Economic Opportunity
Department of Human Resources Development
800 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Uhler:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter of March 9, reviewing funding problems
and special needs of rural CAAs. I agree that many of the items you have
listed are very real problems and they lend themselves to joint planning
and strategies.
First: We believe that rural CAAs do receive proportionately less funding
than urban CAAs. The main reason for this was that urban areas were quicker
to get their CAAs organized than rural areas during the initial years of the
Economic Opportunity Act. Subsequently, there has been a leveling off of
Federal appropriations under the Economic Opportunity Act, and it has been
an extremely difficult task to remedy this imbalance short of major cutbacks
n urban CAAs.
However, we have pursued two policies at the regional level aimed at reducing
the imbalance: (A) We have given priority consideration to rural areas when-
ever additional funds for special programs have become available; and (B) when-
ever there have been funding cutbacks, we have excluded rural CAAs, or at least
in most cases, required a more limited reduction than that required of large
urban CAAs. Next year, the projected appropriation under- the EOA will again
result in a cut of community action funds by up to 10% in this region. In
working out options on how to absorb that cut, the assistance of regional
SEOOs will be invaluable. We hope that we will have some indication of the
actual funding level of the region by May or early June, and we will confer
with you further at that time.
Also in this regard, a new tool will soon be available to us with the 1970
Census analysis, that will be forthcoming beginning in the spring. We and the
SEOOs will have the capacity, unlike that of the past, to analyze the various
ramifications and elements of poverty in each county in each state in our
region. As you know, Mr. Leonard Downs, of your staff, met recently with
Carl W. Shaw, Chief, Plans, Budget and Evaluation Division, at which time
Mr. Shaw briefed Mr. Downs on the type of statistical analyses that will be
available. It is our hope that a poverty analysis of each county will be
prepared as a substitute for the present CAP Form 5, and that through this
poverty profile we, in the Federal and State OEOs, will have a better base
for reviewing program proposals and program results. In addition, this
information, will give us an opportunity to be far more specific in our
xpectations of grantee performance, and as a corollary, I think grantees
will be enabled to develop programs more relevant to their local problems.
The Regional Office looks forward to a collaborative effort with your office,
in utilizing this tool to the benefit of CAAs in California.
2
Finally, I would like to see your Community Program Analysts working with
rural CAAs to help them mobilize additional resources. As you know, such
activity is part of your OEO grant and is discussed in OEO Instruction
7501-1. This is an area where your office can, and should, make a positive
contribution to the effective functioning of all CAAs. We stand ready to
help you in this regard.
Second: To speed up the funding of all CAAs, your recommendation to inform
the Regional Office and CAAs of the Governor's contemplated action on CAA
refunding is most appreciated. I would, however, recommend that such noti-
fication from you be taken after the pre-review, rather than before it, SO
that your staff has had a full opportunity to review a CAA's operations
with the formal participation of both the CAA and the Regional Office. I
am looking forward to the immediate implementation of this procedure.
From the Regional Office end, we are proceeding with our plan to move into
a two year grant application and funding program, as opposed to the current
annual program. Also, we will soon be issuing instructions which very
significantly reduce the amount of paperwork required of CAAs during the
refunding process. Both of these steps should be of particular benefit to
rural CAAs where the refunding process has been especially taxing on their
limited staff resources. We will be discussing these changes with you
further at our next Regional SEOO conference.
Third: Regarding generalization of model programs, I would agree that
joint efforts should be made to disseminate such information to rural CAAs;
however, I should point out that our experience thus far is that the local
differences from one community to another are such that we have yet to come
across a model which seems to have universal applicability. Of course, not
finding such a model, or models, to date does not mean we should not continue
the search, and I believe this is a potentially fruitful area for us to
jointly explore.
we
I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and ideas on how Lcan improve anti-
poverty activities in rural areas. I look forward to the California SEOO
and the Regional Office working together in their implementation.
Sincerely,
H. Rodger Betts
Regional Director
The State reports that to date no training work programs or workshops
have been developed by the Regional OEO and the State to strengthen
the State's staff capabilities. It appears that the State and Local
Government Division, lleadquarters, DEO, has recently interceded with
a request that such training programs and workshops take place. Re-
portedly, John Crutcher, Director, State and Local Government Division,
made a phone call to the California SEOO around the first of March
urging that such training programs and workshops be initiated.
The State reports that the Region Office has not informed the State
of the Region's funding plans for the State.
2. FINDINGS:
As far as the Celifornia SECO is concerned, they believe that the
Regional Office has deliberately ignored them, has withheld informa-
tion which they bolieve they are entitled to have, has failed to
invite the State to participate jointly in such areas as evaluations
and development of the State funding plans, and have failed to in-
sure that the State has an adequate opportunity to attend pre-reviews.
There is a deep feeling of mistrust and a sense by the State that
they had been "double-crossed" and treated in a manner suggesting
duplicity.
3. CONCLUSIONS:
Whether the State's reaction to its relationship with the Re--
gion is misplaced or justifiable VRS difficult to determine
in the light of the charges and counter-charges which have been made.
The fact remains, however, that somehow the situation has been allowed
to deteriorate far beyond the point where it can be easily corrected.
Lines of communication have broken down; the effects of unproductive
confrontations have not been mended; the situation has fed upon it-
self; doubt and mistrust have been generated out of proportion.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS:
Lines of communication between the State and the Regional Office
should be immediately recpened. An agreement of the kind described
in OEO Instruction 7501-1, Section 7.f. should be negotiated as soon
as possible and in no case should refunding occur without such an
agreement in force. Since an obvious impasse exists between WR/OEO
and the SEOO, a higher authority both in the Governor's office and
OEO should be called upon to assume the responsibility for resolv-
ing the impasse.
J
51
Page 51 - 4. RECOMMENDATIONS: (Charge)
"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."
RESPONSE
Southern California SEOO maintains regularly scheduled meetings
with representatives of WR/OEO. These meetings include discussions
of mutual concern relative to Community Action Agencies in Southern
California and how we might work together to provide viable
programs to service the needs of the poor. Southern California
SEOO maintains liaison with WR/OEO through Mr. Calvin Williams,
South Coast Supervisor WR/OEO. Meetings are usually held after
EYOA Board meetings so that discussion pertinent to EYOA can be
made. Both SEOO and WR/OEO maintain that their staff is not
large enough to do a job separately in servicing EYOA; conse-
quently, they are working in concert to provide service to EYOA,
the largest CAA in the State of California.
Page 51-- 4. RECOMMENDATIONS (Charge)
"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 passe exists
between WR/OEO and the SEOO, a higher authority both in the Gov-
ernor's Office and OEO should be called upon to assume the
responsibility for resolving the impasse.
11
RESPONSE:
Reference should be made to the current SEOO Coordinator,
Mr. Paul Katz, who will testify to the fact that such an agree-
ment is currently being devised prior to negotiations and
implementations.
THE REGIONAL OFFICE AND THE SEOO
1. PERCEPTIONS:
Regional Office field teams believe they have expended sufficient of-
fort in their attempts to include SECO staff in discussions and ac-
tivities relating to grantees, but report they have been turned down
by an unresponsive SE00 staff who either did not answer or failed to
appear at pre-arranged meetings. A District Supervisor provided
letters sent to the SECO asking for meetings, one of which was held
on December 10, 1971. Another District Supervisor reported that his
attempts to arrange joint meetings vere frustrating, e.g. it took
five months to get a roster of SEIOO personnel working in his area.
The Regional Office field teams and other Regional Office staff per-
ceive Regional Office performance in supporting the SEOO P.S a ciffi-
cult job, particularly in light OF their belief that much of what is
being decided is a result of unilatoral decisions made by someone
else, higher-up in the Region or in oro/Vashington.
Failures by the Regional Office to work closely with the SEOO are
also explained by:
a. The belief that the SEOO lacks interest in working
on anything but investigating CAAs which disturb
the status quo.
b. The acceptance by Regional Office staff of the
SEOO as "the enemy". Hence, the staff's un-
willingness to provide support, share confidences,
or make agreements which they do not expect will
be kept.
C. The perception of lack of competence in the SEOO staff.
d. The WR/OEO has not developed a clear-cut oper-
ational policy toward the SEOO which is under-
stood by all staff.
By not immediately obtaining resolution of SEOO complaints about OEO
staff, and vice versa, the Regional Office has left neither SEOO not
Regional Office staff satisfied with working relationships. There
is the case where a Regional Office field representative was publicly
criticized by the SEOO, unfairly and inaccurately in her view, with
a resulting investigation of the field representative by the Regional
52
Office and the dropping of the case., The issues were apparently not
resolved. The $500 still considers this case as an example of Re-
gional Office staff undermining the SEOO.
2. FINDTIGS:
Regional Office staff can document some efforts to include SEOO staff
in joint planning with regard to grantees. (See especially letters
from Frankie Jacobs, District Supervisor.) Regional Office staff
can document their notices and invitations to the SEOO regarding pre-
reviews, with adequate advance notice and with at least one instance
when dates were changed to accommodate the SECO.
The Regional Office Grant Application Process does provide for appli-
cations to be sent to the SECO and with written notice of Regional
Office receipt Chz a carbon copy of the letter to the grantee acknowl-
edging receipt).
The Regional Office included the SECO in two out of the three CAA
evaluations it conducted, viz. in Berkeley and Oakland, but not in
San Bernardino.
The Regional Office dobb not consult with the SECO before committing
flexible or other funds. The SE00 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 SE00 on the 1971 State
funding plan, explaining that it was a repeat of the 1970 plan which
had been discussed with the SECO.
While the Regional Office did write for SEOO comments on the Regional
training and technical assistance plan and did receive a reply (con-
sidered not very helpful), it doesn't appear that SEOO involvement
was really encouraged.
There are no joint written agreements between the Regional Office and
SEOO concerning activities which may overlap.
The Regional Office does deal directly with some state agencies with-
out a by-pass agreement with the SECO, e.g. with State Health and
with Model Cities Coordinator in the Human Resources Department.
53
Key Regional Office staff who should relate to the SEOO and should
know what is going on concerning the SEOO are more often than not
left in the dark. The Planning Officer, the Training and Technical
Assistance Chief, the SEOO Coordinator, and District Supervisors are
not aware of what is transpiring beyond their own specific relations
with the SECO. The field representatives also don't know what is
being done with the SECO except in their direct concerns with grantee
pre-reviews and through newspaper reports.
3. CONCLUSIONS:
Since top officials of OEO/Washington and the Regional Office have
assumed some degree of responsibility for OEO relations with the Cal-
ifornia SECO, very little Regional Office staff support for the SEOO
was initiated, directed or supported. The exceptions are in field
team planning, pre-reviews, and application processing, and while these
were initiated at the field team level there doesn't seem to have been
any direction or support from OEO Senior Staff.
As long as Regional Office staff feel that top OEO officials in OEO/
Washington and the Regional Director are personally handling the
California SEOO, they will be reluctant to initiate any actions
which may be out of line with policy about which they have little
knowledge and in the development of which they have not participated.
Since members of the Regional Office staff perceive the SEOO as the
antagonist of the poor and OEO, they perceive their responsibility to
support the SEOO as incomprehensible.
4. RECOMMENDATION:
OEO must clearly define and assign the responsibilities for OEO sup-
port of the SEOO to the Regional Office without undue interference.
The Regional Office must exercise leadership in resolving working
relationships between the Regional Office and the SEOO and CAAs.
5. FINDINGS:
Performance of the SEOO in its role as advisor to the Governor is
perceived as "good" by Regional Office staff members only on the as-
sumption that the State administration's commitment is not aligned
with the interests of the poor and the CAAs and OEO. (See Cal Williams,
field representative, on why he answered "good".)
Members of the Regional Office staff do not believe the SEOO gives
significant emphasis to resource mobilization except in isolated
incidents.
54
There is no evidence of help to the OEO Regional Office in resource mo-
bilization although the SECO has done some work independently.
There has been either no SEOO coordination and planning with the
Regional Office or so little that it has gone unnoticed by almost all
Regional Office staff. The Regional Office Planning Officer reported
that the only information on causes and conditions of poverty in the
State received from the California SEOO arrived February 26, 1971.
Leonard Downs of the California SEOO brought a copy of a tabulation
showing welfare aid recipients by county in the State (see Attach-
ments) There is no indication that the SEOO has at any time dis-
cussed with the Regional Office any problems posed by the federal
and state statutory or administrative requirements that impede state
level coordination of OEC-related programs.
The Regional Office staff is unaware of any attempts by the SEOO to
act as an advocate for the poor.
Performance, especially as revealed by the style of most of the SEOO
staff field work is perceived as antagonistic toward the poor.
The Regional Office staff reports that some technical assistance has
been provided by the SEOO but rarely in consultation with the Re-
gional Office to determine CEO grantee's needs for technical assist-
ance, despite some attempts by Regional Office field staff to arrange
such consultation. The SECO participation in the development of the
Regional Office training and technical assistance plan was reported
as not helpful. Regional Office staff also report that the SEOO has
not consulted with the Regional Office with respect to sponsoring or
participating in training programs and workshops for CAA staff and
board members. They identified the December, 1970, resource mobiliza-
tion workshop conducted by the SECO and state agencies in conjunction
with A.T.A.C. (American Technical Assistance Corporation) for rural
CAAs as the only example they know of where the SEOO has sponsored a
workshop. The SEOO has consulted with OEO to assist grantees in
taking corrective action recommended by OEO as a result of the eval-
uation of Oakland and Berkeley, but assistance from the SEOO to those
grantees has not resulted. The SEOO does not consult with OEO to
assist grantees in taking corrective actions recommended by OEO as a
result of audit reports but this is because OEO neither shares audit
reports with the SEOO nor encourages SEOO involvement.
Performance in grant pre-reviews is perceived as not helpful ranging
from no-attendance to "partial"attendance in an "observer" role.
Monitoring is viewed as at best performed incompetently and usually
destructively to CAAs and OEO. Very bitter feelings exist among
Regional Office staff concerning the style and methods used by SEOO
personnel.
55
Page 55, paragraph 5
Charge:
"The SEOO has consulted with OEO to assist grantees in
taking corrective action recommended by OEO as a result
of the evaluation of Oakland and Berkeley, but assistance
from the SEOO to those grantees has not resulted.
Response:
The federal evaluators state that we have not pro-
vided technical assistance to the Berkeley CAP as
a follow-up to the joint WR/OEO-SEOO Task Force
Review. This is simply not true. Our records show
that Charlie Blaker and Ted Carter have spent many
hours providing technical assistance to the CAP
in the areas of management and fiscal controls. We
still have a long-term TA committment that we are
working on.
(
:-
.