deemed desirable by program officials. In many cases the recorded counseling contacts did not evidence what problems or other matters were discussed. Local program officials attributed the incomplete case files and the infrequency of counseling contacts to other workload demands and insufficient staff.

The importance of adequate counseling and records thereon derives from the fact that (1) the counselor is the focal point of communication between the program and the participant, (2) the counselor generally has a caseload of many participants and adequate records are essential for the counselor to be fully knowledgeable of the problems and progress of each participant, and (3) such records facilitate continuity of counseling where there is a turnover of counselors.

Absenteeism

At most locations the program experienced a high degree of absenteeism by participants from their assignments. Our tests of records of selected participants for particular periods of time indicated that the extent of absenteeism varied widely among locations and therefore did not lend itself to an overall averaging. However, the results of a few of our individual tests are illustrative; the records for 31 participants showed an average absenteeism of 31 percent over a period of 1 month; of 124 participants, 40 were absent during an entire month and 32 were absent 40 percent or more of their scheduled training time; of 363 participants, 100 were absent 30 percent or more of their scheduled training time over a period of 1 month.

Some locations did not maintain a record of the reasons for absences; from such records as were available and from discussions with local officials, it appeared that medical problems including pregnancy, child care problems, family problems, drinking, lack of interest, and transportation problems were the principal reasons for absences. Assistance payments under the program were reduced or terminated in some, but not all, cases of continued unexcused absence. The extent of, and reasons for, absenteeism did not seem to differ much between urban and rural areas.

HEW officials informed us that they recognized the need for experimenting with ways of dealing with the absenteeism problem. They pointed out that HEW had to overcome in many areas of the country an absenteeism habit that had developed among many welfare recipients from their earlier experiences on work relief projects. In some work relief projects that required recipients to work for their assistance payments, it was often a practice to permit absenteeism with the understanding that a person would have to make up the lost time at a later date. We were informed, however, that in some work relief projects there was no followup to require persons to make up lost time.

Analyses of program information

HEW regulations required local officials to accumulate and periodically report certain data on program operations. HEW analyzed the reported data for its purposes but did not feed back the results of its analyses to local program officials. The type of information required was such that data properly reported and analyzed could have served as a basis for evaluating and improving local program operations. The reasons given by HEW for not feeding back the results of its analyses were that initially the validity of the data was questionable

and later, although measures were initiated to improve the quality of reporting, such actions were not fully implemented because of the phasing out of the work experience and training program.

Field reviews and evaluations

Most State program directors told us that they continually evaluated local programs and regularly visited the program sites. In many cases they did not prepare reports. On-site visits by HEW regional representatives were generally infrequent and of short duration (1 or 2 days each). Officials of HEW informed us that they were aware that sufficient staff was not available for adequate evaluation and monitoring, but they did not consider it proper to request more funds and to recruit additional staff for a program that was coming to an end. Other problems of administration

Other problems of administration which arose in certain specific locations are worthy of note.

1. In the selection of participants, preference was given to those with at least an elementary school education, which thereby limited the opportunity for participation by those with less education (Maricopa County).

2. Basic education, although needed, was not included in the local program (Maricopa County and Gila River Indian Reservation).

3. Scheduled training was less than 30 hours a week and some less than 25 hours a week, whereas it should have been close to 40 hours a week (Los Angeles County).

CONSIDERATIONS FOR APPLICATION TO THE WIN PROGRAM

A major problem of the work experience and training program was the high percentage of enrollees who terminated before completing training. Many such terminees remain unemployed and continue on the welfare rolls, and their termination thus detracts from the effectiveness of the program. A related problem was the generally high rate of absenteeism from scheduled training.

Although the successor WIN program imposes certain requirements that adult AFDC recipients participate in the program in order to receive AFDC assistance, the fact that such assistance must be continued for their minor dependents appears to us to raise some question as to the probable effectiveness of these requirements in enforcing participation. Also, the WIN regulations governing absenteeism allow considerable leeway for recipients to minimize their participation.

The WIN program is similar in nature to the work experience and training program, but it is directed exclusively to AFDC recipients and permits participants to earn specified amounts without reduction of AFDC payments. We believe that, for a participant to derive from the program sufficient benefits to enable him to become self-sufficient, active participation in, and completion of, program activities geared to overcoming his employment handicaps is essential.

We have suggested, and DOL has agreed, that the problem of absenteeism warrants close and continuous attention and that, if the procedures established under the WIN program are not effective in minimizing absenteeism, prompt action should be taken to devise appropriate means to bring about a satisfactory level of attendance.

In a broader view, each of the problems of administration under the work experience and training program previously discussed warrants careful attention in the WIN program, particularly since most adult AFDC recipients are mothers many with large families and many having attained only low levels of education. This circumstance presents a very difficult challenge to program administrators charged with helping adult AFDC recipients become self-sufficient and thus lighten the AFDC caseload. The effective identification of employment handicaps and formulation of a workable plan for their removal, through training, counseling, and proper recording of counseling actions to facilitate continuity in the handling of individual cases and assessment of progress in relation to goals, is necessary.

Of great importance is the need for adequate field reviews and evaluations and for analyses of program information and related research by DOL both for the purpose of rendering technical assistance and advice to local WIN program officials with respect to the improvement of individual projects and for the purpose of structuring overall improvements in the program. In the latter regard, in light of the major problems which have existed in the work experience and training program, it appears to us that there is a need to research the specific reasons for early terminations and absenteeism to ascertain whether they can be alleviated or eliminated through additional services, modification of program content, or such other means as may be indicated.

LOCALLY INITIATED EMPLOYMENT AND JOB CREATION PROGRAMS

Participation by Community Action Agencies (CAA's) in efforts to increase employment opportunities and improve human performance, motivation, and productivity is authorized and encouraged by title II of the act. OEO has estimated that, in fiscal year 1968, about $23 million of community action program (CAP) funding was provided to finance in whole or in part about 300 locally initiated manpower programs. Our review of CAA operations included six programs in which about $3.7 million of CAP funds were used to provide employment or job creation services. For a more detailed description of such programs, see appendix I, page 178.

Additional CAA efforts, not discussed in this section, have included employment of the poor, to assist in carrying out portions of the CAA programs, and provision of employment-related services, such as referral by the neighborhood centers to training or job opportunities. Also, in many locations the CAA's have administered employment programs such as the Neighborhood Youth Corps and the concentrated employment program.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The six CAP employment programs that we reviewed, although varied in size and nature, provided employment, training, job referral, and other services to a large number of individuals. However, the value of these services to the individuals served has varied considerably. Statistical data showed high, early dropout rates and strongly indicated that many individuals seeking assistance from the programs. received little or no actual help.

2. As discussed more fully in chapter 4, a prerequisite to a fully effective program of this type, in our view, is the establishment and enforcement of appropriate eligibility criteria to insure that the limited resources available are directed to the primary target group. The three major programs that we reviewed needed strengthening in this respect. Additionally, where counseling, training, followup, and job development were features of the program, we usually found that they needed improvement in some important aspect.

3. Although we noted instances in which fully effective coordination. was not achieved, we generally were impressed favorably by the positive actions that had been taken to achieve coordination. The effective coordination of the various employment programs is a continuing challenge to program administrators at all levels.

RECOMMENDATION

In our supplementary reports on community action programs at individual locations, we are making specific recommendations for improvement in the administration of employment and job creation programs.

Program results

The six programs that we reviewed varied widely in their funding level, number of participants, and services provided. Three were jointly funded by the DOL and OEO at the time of our review. The three smaller programs and one of the larger programs offered temporary employment, paid for with Federal funds, to individuals who could not readily obtain other employment. The employment opportunities were usually for a period of 1 year and included varying degrees of training in connection with beautification projects, a home construction project, and positions at local public or private agencies. In total, these four programs were designed for a participation level of about 400 individuals at an annual Federal cost of about $2.6 million, including related administrative costs.

One of the two remaining programs had the objective of providing youths with counseling, remedial education, and prevocational training. Job development and placement services were also provided by this program which had an enrollment level of about 1,100 and an annual Federal funding level (OEO and DOL) of about $2.4 million. Usually participants were enrolled in the program for a period of 6 months or less.

The other program utilized neighborhood employment teams located in the poverty target areas to provide recruitment, counseling, and referral services. Diagnostic and evaluative services and 8 to 16 weeks of vocational training were also provided to individuals referred for these services by the neighborhood teams. As intially planned, the neighborhood teams were expected to serve a minimum of 6,000 individuals and enrollment in vocational training was expected to total about 600 in a 1-year period. The program, which also had a job-development component, was carried out at an annual Federal cost of about $1.4 million.

Reported registration for these six programs reached nearly 19,000 a year-a figure well above the planned participation-because of factors such as high dropout rates, reporting errors, and a greater

demand for job referral services than had been planned which resulted from an attempt to serve all residents of the target areas. At three of the programs, including two of the major ones, many of the participants did not receive significant amounts of the programs available training, usually because they were seeking job referral only or because they withdrew from the programs within a short period. In one major program, for example, our review of a sample of 88 enrollee case folders showed that 62 enrollees had left the program in 1 week or less; available information showed loss of interest as the primary reason for leaving.

One of the three major programs reviewed reported that, during a 12-month period, it had served about 16,600 participants, of whom about 4,500 had been placed in jobs. However, our review, which included contacts with selected former participants, showed that, because of duplicate counting and other factors, the reports represented substantial overstatements. For example, we found that a random sample of 124 participants had been counted as 165 participants, in the reports.

We found also that, in comparison with the goal of another program to place 600 enrollees in jobs during 1967, 470 enrollees were actually placed in full-time jobs.

A primary goal of the third major program was to place poor adults in permanent jobs at public and private nonprofit agencies in which they had undergone training. However, of 1,334 former participants placed in temporary jobs at agencies over a 3-year period, only 242 were subsequently absorbed by the agencies. Thus, the program had limited success in achieving its primary objective.

For the two larger programs which provided both training and job placement, there was, in our opinion, a lack of timely or adequate followup of former participants and little information had been accumulated concerning their postprogram experience.

Job development activities are meant to create new employment opportunities for the unemployed or underemployed through such means as prevailing on employers to lower employment requirements or to establish new positions for which a high level of skill is not required. Two of the major programs that we reviewed reported a combined number of developed jobs of about 8,900 a year. For one of these programs, however, we found that relatively few of the reported new job openings included in our test were new opportunities, since most jobs were in positions in which the employer had not relaxed employment requirements and, further, most of the openings had been listed with other public or private employment agencies. Provision of service to target group

In our reviews of the three larger programs, we found that, because of the policies and procedures that were being followed, a significant number of the participants apparently were not from the primary target group.

One of the larger programs was designed to provide counseling and referral services to a minimum of 6,000 hard-core unemployed or underemployed; however, an attempt was made to assist all applicants from the target areas, regardless of their employment histories or whether their incomes were above or below the OEO poverty line; and there were many more applicants than the program had been