terms of such tangible yardsticks as the number of miles of road built or pieces of mail delivered. We recognize that it is essential that efforts be made to develop new yardsticks of effectiveness, to meet the needs of the Congress.

PLAN OF GAO REVIEW

Our examination of the OEO programs and activities was made over a period of 14 months. The examination was conducted on the basis of two closely related approaches.

1. Field examinations into the efficiency of administration and the achievement of objectives of the major programs at selected locations and a review of management functions of the administering Federal agencies as they pertained to the antipoverty programs. These examinations were made at field offices of the responsible Federal agencies and of grantees, contractors, and delegate agencies.

2. Statistical and economic analyses designed to broaden the geographical coverage of our field examinations pertaining to the achievement of objectives and studies of various aspects of the function of evaluating the antipoverty programs.

Of the programs authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act, the most significant, in monetary terms are the Job Corps, Community Action, Neighborhood Youth Corps, Work Experience and Training, Concentrated Employment, and Volunteers in Service to America programs. We conducted field examinations at various places, with respect to each of these programs and the economic opportunity loan program, the rural loan program, and the migrant and seasonal farmworkers program. Further information as to locations where our fieldwork was performed is included in appendix IV.

Our review of management functions of the administering Federal agencies as they pertain to the antipoverty programs was directed to their headquarters and field offices and included organizations, interagency coordination, recruiting and staff development, and past and current evaluation efforts by these agencies.

Although we concentrated principally on programs authorized under the Economic Opportunity Act, we also obtained data on similar programs authorized under other legislation for comparative purposes. These other programs included the preschool program under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (HEW), institutionalized training under the Manpower Development and Training Act (Labor), and the Vocational Rehabilitation program (HEW).

The statistical and economic analyses relating to achievement of objectives on a national basis were undertaken because of the difficulty of generalizing from conclusions based on detailed audit work performed at relatively few places. This difficulty stems from such factors as local variations in the characteristics of the people served, institutional environment, economic environment, and proximity to related non-Federal activities or to related non-OEO-sponsored Federal activities. Therefore we expanded our review work on achievement of objectives to obtain performance and accomplishment information from a large number of localities, for use in our effort to make assessments on a national basis.

In making evaluations as to the achievement of objectives, we expected that there would be shortcomings in the types of data available. Therefore in conducting our review, we performed extensive work to fill gaps in the available data and to check the validity of the data used in our evaluations.

To assist us in our examination, we engaged the services of three firms under contracts.

Research Management Corp., of Bethesda, Md.-To conduct independent economic and statistical studies of antipoverty programs, particularly those in the areas of health, manpower, and education.

Also, to conduct an across-the-board review of national statistical and economic evaluations that have been carried out at OEO and at other agencies.

In performing these services, the firm assessed (a) the usefulness of national data banks for evaluation, (b) available evaluation criteria and methods, and (c) numerous evaluation studies that have been conducted.

Peat, Marwick, Livingston & Co., of Washington, D.C.-To assist in reviewing the information systems relating to the antipoverty programs.

TransCentury Corp. of Washington, D.C.-To interview selected enrollees and former enrollees in the community action, education, and manpower programs as to their experience in the programs and their status thereafter. These interviews were made to obtain essential information, not generally available in the agencies in any complete form, regarding the status of enrollees several months after their leaving the programs. The completed questionnaires were turned over to us for analysis and use in our field examinations and national evaluation efforts.

We were also assisted in our examination by a number of individual consultants in specialized fields who advised us on various aspects of the programs we reviewed. These individuals included:

Benjamin Aaron: professor of law, University of California at Los Angeles.

Peter S. Bing, M.D., Los Angeles, Calif.; formerly, Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President.

Urie Bronfenbrenner: professor, Department of Child Development and Family Relations, the New York State College of Home Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.

Glen G. Cain: associate professor of economics, University of Wisconsin; on staff of Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.

John J. Corson: consultant, Washington, D.C.

Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J.

Roger O. Egeberg: dean, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif.

John Forrer: Bureau of the Budget, city of New York; formerly, Office of Economic Opportunity; formerly, Bureau of the Budget, Executive Office of the President.

Arthur M. Harkins: director, training center for community programs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.

Robert A. Levine: Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.; formerly, Office of Economic Opportunity.

Sar A. Levitan: Center for Manpower Policy Studies, the George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

Colin M. MacLeod: Commonwealth Fund, New York, N.Y.; formerly, Office of Science and Technology, Executive Office of the President. Garth L. Mangum: Center for Manpower Policy Studies, the George Washington University, Washington, D.C.; and professor of economics and director of Human Resources Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Rufus É. Miles: Princeton University, Princeton, N.J.; formerly, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Robert N. Moore: Robert N. Moore Co., management, marketing, and governmental consultants, Nashville, Tenn.

Joseph N. Reid: Child Welfare League of America, New York, N.Y. Rosemary C. Sarri: School of Social Work, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

James L. Sundquist: The Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.; formerly, Department of Agriculture.

Sidney E. Zimbalist: Welfare Council of Metropolitan Chicago, Chicago, Ill.

STRUCTURE AND CONTENT OF THE REPORT

This report summarizes the results of our examination. A summary of our principal findings and recommendations is included in chapter 2. Succeeding chapters describe the dimensions of poverty and the antipoverty effort and OEO's role therein (ch. 3); our evaluation of each category of current programs (chs. 4-8); planning and coordination of antipoverty programs (ch. 9); proposals for improving the organization and management of antipoverty programs (ch. 10); improving the evaluation function (ch. 11); and financial management and related administrative matters (ch. 12).

Supplementary reports on our examination will be submitted as they are completed (a) on our field examinations where such work was performed, (b) on our review of management functions of the administering Federal agencies, (c) on our program evaluation work on a national basis, and (d) on the special studies performed for us under

contract.

Several reports on OEO programs, undertaken prior to this overall review, have already been submitted to the Congress or committees or Members of Congress. These are listed in appendix V.

Chapter 2

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Our examination has yielded a large body of information from which we have drawn conclusions and developed recommendations. Our overall findings are summarized in this chapter under the following broad categories:

1. The financial dimensions of the total Federal antipoverty effort and the part played by the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO).

2. The extent to which the objectives set forth in the act have been achieved.

3. The efficiency with which the programs authorized by the act have been administered.

4. The actions which should be taken to realize more effective and economical use of the resources available for reducing poverty.

TOTAL FEDERAL ANTIPOVERTY EFFORT

Passage of the act which became known as the "War on Poverty," may seem to many to have been the beginning of Federal antipoverty efforts. In terms of the Federal budget, the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 represented a relatively small increment to the already existing programs which have aided the poor.

The aggregate of all Federal programs for assistance to the poor (see ch. 3 for the nature of assistance) amounted to $22.1 billion in fiscal year 1968 and will amount to an estimated $24.4 billion in fiscal year 1969. The projection for fiscal year 1970 is $27.2 billion. Increases in Federal programs in recent years have been accompanied by a reduction in the number of the poor, based upon the definition used by the Social Security Administration, from about 34 million in 1964 to 22 million in 1968. Although Federal programs for assistance to the poor undoubtedly contributed importantly to this reduction, much of the reduction can be attributed to the expansion of the national economy in recent years.

In monetary terms, the funds appropriated for programs authorized by the Economic Opportunity Act ($1.8 billion in 1968 and $1.9 billion in 1969) are small in relation to the total Federal effort. In other terms the role of OEO is significant-it is the only Federal agency exclusively devoted to antipoverty; its programs are for the most part innovative in one or more aspects; and it shares with the Economic Opportunity Council the responsibility for coordinating antipoverty activities of other Federal agencies, at least nine of which in addition to OEO administer significant programs directed to assisting the poor.

26-849 O-692

OVERALL PERSPECTIVE

The accomplishments achieved under the Economic Opportunity Act should be appraised in the light of the difficulties encountered by the agency (OEO) created to carry out the purposes of the act. These difficulties include

The urgency of getting programs underway as quickly as possible.

Problems in the development of a new organization and in obtaining experienced personnel.

Problems involved in establishing new or modified organizational arrangements at the local level.

The delays and uncertainties in obtaining congressional authorizations and appropriations.

The problems of working out relationships with other agencies and with State and local governments.

Lack of consensus as to the meaning of poverty, that is, who are the poor for purposes of receiving assistance.

Our review properly and inevitably focuses on problems, shortcomings, and recommended improvements. OEO and other participating agencies are in agreement with many of our conclusions and recommendations. Agency actions to deal with certain of these problems are underway or are in the process of being initiated. This report notes these actions to the extent practicable. Also, we are including as a part of this chapter the OEO comments on our summary of principal findings and recommendations.

Achievements of the programs authorized by the act can be assessed only in judgmental terms. This is so for several reasons: The programs are new; they deal with such intangible concepts as the economic and social levels of disadvantaged people; they impose requirements and are subject to conditions which are not amenable to reliable, and in some cases, any quantitative, measurement. More specifically:

Criteria is lacking by which to determine at what level of accomplishment a program is considered acceptably successful. The methods for determining program accomplishments have not yet been developed to the point of assured reliability.

The large volume and variety of pertinent data necessary to ascertain program results have been and still are either not available or not reliable.

Program results may not be fully perceptible within a relatively short time frame.

Other programs-Federal, State, local, and private-aimed at helping the poor, as well as changes in local conditions employment, wage scales, local attitudes-have their effect upon the same people who receive assistance under the programs authorized by the act.

Amendments to the act and revisions in agency guidelines, at various times have necessitated redirection of programs and other changes, which have affected the progress of programs in the short

run.