area of high priority to VISTA. Midwest Academy does not meet these criteria. Midwest is a nonprofit corporation which is primarily involved in training and consulting. It is an independent entity and in no way is legally affiliated with any of the other sponsors in the grant. All sponsors visited stated they were independent entities and their only relationship with Midwest was for preservice training and occasional consultation with the Midwest advisor. There was no direct supervision by Midwest. When interviewed, Midwest's director told the Investigative Staff that the term "affiliate" had been loosely used during the early stages of applying for the grant. Although there were no direct relationships with the sponsors, Midwest was familiar with most of the supervisors and their organizations. The Investigative Staff feels that even this explanation of national affiliation is stretching the definition, as some of the sponsors were only recently formed and had no prior association with Midwest. 2. Lack of Uniform Training Program Midwest Academy has not provided uniform training for all VISTAs working under the grant. Some VISTAS have received an intensive 10 days of training in Chicago. Preservice training for other VISTAS was completed in only 2 to 5 days. Still other volunteers on the west coast had received no preservice training. Neither the grant agreement nor the project narrative was specific about the length of training to be provided by Midwest Academy. However, the budget submitted with the grant application included a line item for a living allowance for 10 days for each volunteer while in training. Each volunteer received this allowance upon entering service, indicating that Midwest, at least, intended to give all volunteers 10 days' training sometime during their year of service. The following schedule identifies the length and location of Midwest training sessions for VISTA volunteers. As the table shows, the amount of training given the volunteers varied widely according to which sponsors the volunteers were assigned. Midwest's director told the Investigative Staff that the optimum situation would have been for all VISTAS to have attended 10 days of training; however, because of extenuating circumstances, Midwest was forced to reduce its training program to less than 10-day sessions. The Investigative Staff brought this matter of possible overpayment of living allowance to the attention of the agency, which advised that it would determine if refunds from some volunteers were in order. All volunteers spoke well of the training provided by the Midwest Academy. They considered the trainers professional and the sessions instructive. The Investigative Staff attended a 2-day session in Boston and generally agreed with the volunteers' comments. The primary concern with the Midwest's training program is with some of the statements included in the training materials, as illustrated earlier in the report. Such language is intemperate and, if taken literally, could encourage VISTAS to take actions not contemplated by the Congress. 3. Poor Selection of Sponsors All of the local sponsors were independent entities. None had any affiliation with Midwest Academy; some had a loose affiliation with one another. Some of the organizations were newly formed, but the VISTA volunteers assigned to them had previously worked for a predecessor group in some capacity. A number of the organizations were not serving poverty constituencies, and the VISTAS assigned were not working with poor people. ACTION's State directors' comments were solicited on the sponsors' project narratives. State directors recommended disapproval of some four or five components. The Investigative Staff was advised by headquarters personnel that the projects were approved because additionally submitted material had convinced the State directors of the projects' appropriateness or the Project Review Board had overruled the State director for its own reasons. State directors advised the Staff that once they had disapproved the sponsors, they were never approached again until after the projects were approved. The Investigative Staff visited 11 of the local sponsors under the grant. Of these 11 projects, 5 had the objective of improving the lot of workingwomen. Several difficulties were found with the activities of these organizations. First, they had not established that the workingwomen were poor or the proposed VISTA assignments poverty related. After the grant had been in existence for 10 months, the strongest of these groups, the 9 to 5 Organization, was only then completing its survey to determine the income levels of the women in its target group. The Investigative Staff examined a copy of the results of the survey but found little of value in the data. It leaves the question of whether these organizations are serving a poverty constituency still largely unanswered. In other workingwomen organizations in Worcester, Massachusetts; Concord, New Hampshire; and Amherst, Massachusetts, the Investigative Staff found the groups to have primarily one-person staffs, with that one person being the VISTA volunteer. Most of these groups had total funds amounting to only enough to pay for the telephone and supplies. The job sites usually consisted of one or two small rooms which were on loan from another organization on a rent-free basis. In Chicago, the Investigative Staff was told that the West Town Community Center did not exist prior to the grant application, and even now it is a one-man organization, with five VISTA volunteers assisting him. The supervisor of the VISTA volunteer at the Green Island Community Center informed the Investigative Staff she had never heard of Midwest Academy and that she was not sure how she received her volunteer. She had applied to Massachusetts Fair Share for two volunteers and only received one. The one she received worked 50 percent of the time for her and 50 percent of the time for Massachusetts Fair Share. In the project narrative, Midwest stated that the local sponsors were selected on the basis of "a past history of success in selecting key issues and getting results; a tradition of good trainee supervision; solid prior funding or *** a realistic funding base on which to begin operations; roots in and skill at organizing in a poverty community and a demonstratable need for the volunteers." The Investigative Staff believes that these criteria were largely disregarded in selecting sponsors. Rather, it appears that sponsors were selected on the basis of Midwest's prior acquaintance with the supervisors of the local organizations, coupled with the agency's desire to support a workingwomen's program. 4. Questionable VISTA Activities Volunteers Serving in Staff Positions At three of the sponsors visited, the VISTA volunteer was the only full-time employee. All three of these volunteers had worked with the organizations prior to becoming VISTAS and were now performing identical functions as before, but they are now on the VISTA payroll. Saving a Community Center Two VISTAS are working full time to save the South Shore Community Center in Chicago. The center is a former private country club which is likely to be torn down unless enough money can be raised to convert it to a full-time community center. Although the project supervisor and volunteers insisted that this is a program designed to help the poor citizens of the South Shore community, the effort appears to the Investigative Staff to be more a community project to save a landmark and at the same time provide social services for a largely middle-income neighborhood. The two VISTAS assigned to the Rhode Island Workers Association (RIWA) in Providence were engaged substantially full time in proscribed union organizing related activity. Their target was the jewelry workers. As part of this effort, they were publishing a monthly newsletter entitled "Links and Chains," which, in its first issue, characterized itself as: "⭑ * the newsletter of the Jewelry Workers "We aim to change that, we can improve our Neither the VISTAS (both of whom were working for RIWA at the time they were picked up on the VISTA payroll) nor the project supervisor acknowledged doing anything improper. In their view, getting workers together is not necessarily union organizing activity; "confrontation" with the employer is the critical factor. The ACTION State director, who was aware of RIWA's union organizing activity, did not see fit to visit the project or make any effort to stop it. His disinterest reflected the attitude typical among State office officials that national grant projects were not their responsibility. Subsequent to the Investigative Staff's visit, the ACTION Office of Compliance reviewed the RIWA project and |