In addition to the Federal support shown, a number of programs received substantial financial support (generally in the form of services or other non-cash contributions) from non-Federal sources in the communities where the programs operated. CAP, for instance, is estimated by OEO to have received in excess of $200 million of such support in 1968.

To view fully the role of OEO in relation to the total antipoverty effort, one other perspective is relevant. That is the proportion of persons reached by each OEO program compared with the total persons believed to require the kinds of assistance being provided by the program (referred to as target population). Measures of the target populations are quite imprecise, and must be viewed as gross estimates. Based on OEO data, an indication of the program coverage as a percent of various target populations is given by the following examples: Headstart, for children aged 3 to 5 years, in 1968: About 29 percent. CAP parent and child centers, for families with children under 3 years of age, in 1969: Estimated about 1 percent.

CAP migrant day care, for seasonal and migratory farmworkers' children, in 1965: About 2 percent.

Upward Bound, for youths with college potential, in 1968: About 4 percent.

Neighborhood Youth Corps (in-school), for high school students, in 1969: About 6 percent.

Some of these same target populations are served by other programs not related to OEO, and estimates of the reach of the other programs have been included in OEO's planning. This fact itself reflects the character of OEO's own role in the antipoverty effort: A role of limited reach both in monetary terms and in terms of program operations, but a significant role in terms of the agency's responsibilities for planning, evaluation, coordination, and innovation.

Chapter 4

COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM

The Community Action Program (CAP) is the central means established by the Congress to "stimulate a better focusing of all available local, State, private, and Federal resources upon the goal of enabling low-income families, and low-income individuals of all ages, in rural and urban areas, to attain the skills, knowledge, and motivations and secure the opportunities needed for them to become fully self-sufficient." The Economic Opportunity Act further provided for the establishment and support of community action agencies (CAA's). These agencies were conceived of as the focal point in each community for the organization of community residents in a unified effort to combat poverty and to provide a line of communication between the poor and the programs which affect them. Specifically, the basic functions of a CAA are:

1. To plan, to give overall direction to, to coordinate, and to evaluate the antipoverty programs undertaken in the community.

2. To mobilize public and private resources in the community so that all such resources might be concentrated and thus bring about the maximum alleviation of poverty.

Closely related to these functions is the CAA's development and/or operation of programs to meet specific needs of the poor in the community.

CAP's are funded by OEO in the form of grants to the CAA's. Most component programs are administered by local public or private agencies (known as delegate agencies), generally under agreements with the CAA's.

This chapter summarizes the results of our examination into those aspects of the CAP 2 at 11 locations, which relate to the program as a whole; namely (1) the planning of the program, (2) the mobilization of resources, (3) the enlisting of the participation of the poor, (4) the evaluating of program accomplishments, (5) the determining of the eligibility of individuals assisted by poverty programs, (6) the functioning of the rural CAP's, and (7) the administering of Neighborhood Centers. This chapter also presents a factual summary of the

At February 1, 1969, there were 972 CAA's, a reduction of 40 from the total at June 30, 1968. (See later section on designation of CAA's.)

The Economic Opportunity Act, as amended in 1967, defines a CAP as "a community based and operated program:

(1) Which includes or is designed to include a sufficient number of projects or components to provide, in sum, a range of services and activities having a measurable and potentially major impact on causes of poverty in the community or those areas of the community where poverty is a particularly acute problem;

(2) Which has been developed, and which organizes and combines its component projects and activities, in a manner appropriate to carry out all the purposes of this title; and (3) Which conforms to such other supplementary criteria as the Director may prescribe consistent with the purposes and provisions of this title."

provisions of section 210(a) of the act in respect of the designation of CAA's, together with the actions taken pursuant to such provisions and the outcome of these actions.

The results of our examination of selected component programs are discussed in succeeding chapters of this report.

CONCLUSIONS

The concept of a community mechanism, exemplified by the CAP's and the CAA's, for focusing public attention on the conditions and needs of the poor, for determining the causes of poverty, and for developing and executing the approaches leading to the elimination of poverty has been tested and appears to have gained acceptance in most sectors of our present-day society.

With respect to the delivery of services, the CAA's at the locations. covered in our review have generally been successful in initiating or expanding and continuing a variety of programs and activities which have brought new or additional services and benefits to the poor that previously were unavailable or available only on a limited basis.

Certain of these services are, by their nature and intent, calculated to gradually bring about changes in community social standards and institutional practices whereby such services will become generally available from existing or newly created institutions. There is evidence that some changes have already begun. Studies made by OEO indicate that many CAA's have exercised significant influence in effecting changes in the policies or programs of one or more local agencies and that these changes have better oriented the services of these agencies toward the poor. (See chapter 9 for further discussion of these studies.) However, the results of our examination, as summarized in this and other chapters of this report, evidence that much remains to be done if the CAP is to more fully achieve the objectives for which it was instituted.

On the basis of our examination, we offer the following more specific conclusions:

1. The 1967 amendments to the act (section 221 (d) of the amended act) require that each CAA adopt a systematic approach to the planning and implementation of programs. Prior thereto, the act authorized grants to pay the costs of developing programs and OEO guidelines permitted such grants to be used to investigate the incidence of poverty.

Most CAA's which we reviewed had done research in varying degrees to gather data on poverty in their communities. They had not, however, made studies in sufficient depth to identify the most acute needs of the poor and the causes of poverty in their communities. Such studies and programing based thereon are necessary if there is to be reasonable assurance that available resources are used most effectively by the CAA's in combating poverty in their communities. The programs established by the CAA's were generally those which responded to the historically known needs of the poor. OEO has advised us of certain actions which it has taken recently to assist the CAA's in response to section 221 (d).

1 New federally financed programs introduced by OEO into the sphere of community action include the Headstart, Legal Services, Comprehensive Health Services, and Upward Bound programs, as well as several smaller programs.

2. The act, as enacted in 1964, designated the mobilization of resources as one of the basic requisites of a CAP. The 1967 amendments reiterated this requisite in more specific terms. Most CAA's had been reasonably successful in bringing various kinds of community resources into the antipoverty effort. However, at the majority of locations covered in our review, the antipoverty activities of most of the public and private social, welfare, educational, and civic groups were not being coordinated with the CAP.

The CAA's are not likely to achieve their potential effectiveness unless cooperative arrangements can be worked out between these CAA's (generally through the neighborhood centers which have this responsibility within their designated boundaries) and the local agencies to bring about such coordination. Since the CAA is relatively new both in concept and in age and is an advocate of one segment of a community-the poor-and since it cannot control programs operated by other agencies but can only try to influence them, the task of marshaling the support of local agencies to bring about a common focus and the assembly of public and private resources is likely to be a gradual

process.

3. The CAA's covered in our review had generally employed the poor in carrying out the nonprofessional functions of the various activities of the CAP. On the other hand in many of the CAA's we reviewed, representatives of the poor, particularly those on the CAA boards of directors, had been elected by a very small percentage of the eligible voters and attendance at meetings of some advisory councils and neighborhood area councils by representatives of the poor on these councils and by residents of the areas was infrequent.

Appropriate representation of, and active participation by, the poor are logical followthroughs of the thesis of self-help which is the underpinning of the CAP. At the neighborhood level, the promotion of resident interest in voting and in participation in neighborhood activities is part of the functions of the neighborhood centers under the overall direction of the CAA's. The relatively limited participation reflects an apparent apathy of the poor, which may be attributable, in part, to the brief experience of the centers in a difficult task.

4. Since February 1965, OEO guidelines have provided for evaluations by the CAA's in order to appraise program effectiveness and management efficiency. The 1967 amendments to the act require OEO to establish standards and continually evaluate the effectiveness of CAP's in achieving their objectives. Most CAA's had not made systematic evaluations of the effectiveness of their programs or developed criteria for use in measuring program effectiveness. Until recently little effort was devoted by OEO to such types of evaluation on a national scale. Although evaluations of themselves do not make programs better, evaluations if properly made, should apprise the management of what the programs have achieved and should pinpoint those elements of the programs which would increase their potential effectiveness. OEO has advised us of certain actions it has taken to help insure more and better evaluations of CAP's.

5. OEO has not prescribed income eligibility requirements for certain component programs of the CAP. Hence any resident of a designated poverty area who meets other eligibility requirements, such as