9,643 applications, or 73 percent of their total quotas of 13,158 for fiscal year 1968; the individual office percentages of quotas filled ranged from 56 percent to 88 percent. Applications resulting from the recruitment drives of one of the two OEO regional offices at which our review was made totaled 1,419, or 56 percent of its quota of 2,529, and applications resulting from the drives of the other office totaled 866, or 70 percent of its quota of 1,241; the first office did not achieve any of its quarterly quotas, and the second office achieved only one. VISTA headquarters had the responsibility for the overall direction of recruitment; it established policies and guidelines, allocated staff to the regions, assigned quotas, and evaluated regional recruitment efforts; its functions also included planning and conducting in-service training for recruitment staffs, aiding in planning and coordinating recruitment drives, and developing approaches, techniques, and materials to increase efficiency and productivity of recruitment efforts. Implementation of the recruitment plans, policies, guidelines, and procedures developed by headquarters was the responsibility of the OEO regional offices. Our review of the recruitment activities of two of the regional offices indicated that standard techniques had been used in college and community drives, including radio and television publicity and use of other mass media, contacts with schools, scheduled interviews. etc., and that the recruiting campaigns had been conducted substantially in accordance with the guidelines provided by VISTA headquarters. In August 1968, VISTA, to provide additional guidance and technical assistance to the OEO regional offices in recruiting activities, established a technical assistance team at VISTA headquarters to visit the regions and provide staff training, technical assistance, and skilled support for regional recruiting efforts. Many prospective VISTA volunteers assigned to the regional training centers were not of the quality or the type considered necessary to perform satisfactorily in VISTA work and they were released after training had begun. In evaluating the applicants for VISTA volunteer service, selecting those qualified for this service, and assigning them to regional training centers, the Selection Division in Washington did not have the necessary information to reject many applicants later found to be deficient in the characteristics and qualifications needed for satisfactory performance of the kind of service contemplated to be done by VISTA volunteers upon completion of their training. Usually the Selection Division had to evaluate the fitness of an individual for volunteer service solely on the basis of the responses the individual indicated on his application and of at least six references, because (1) the recruiters generally did not appraise the applicants interviewed during direct recruitment drives, although an interview form for this purpose had been prepared and provided by headquarters to the regional offices, and (2) in accordance with procedures in effect, no applicants were given an aptitude test and applicants who applied in response to the general publicity given to recruitment efforts generally were not interviewed. MIGRANT AND SEASONAL FARMWORKERS PROGRAM The basic objective of the migrant program is to assist migrant and other seasonally employed agricultural workers and their families to improve their living conditions and to develop skills necessary for a productive and self-sufficient life in an increasingly complex and technological society. OEO has reported that obligations for services for migrant and seasonal farmworkers, authorized under title III-B of the EOA, for fiscal year 1968 amounted to $25 million, of which 94 percent or $23.4 million was obligated for reconstructive programs to serve an estimated 28,900 individuals. The remaining $1.6 million was obligated for maintenance programs to serve an estimated 179,000 individuals, including approximately 150,000 individuals who utilized migrant service centers along major migrant routes. The reconstructive programs comprise education, rehabilitation, and permanent housing activities, and the maintenance programs comprise day care, migrant service centers, health services, and temporary housing activities. The actual number of migrant and seasonal farmworkers and members of their families is unknown, but estimates range as high as 7 million. On the basis of conservative estimates of the migrant population, the OEO programs reach a relatively small proportion of the total migrant and seasonal farmworker population. The objectives and other particulars of this program are described in appendix I, page 180. We reviewed the program of one grantee with responsibility for migrant programs in nine counties in Arizona having an approximate migrant-seasonal farmworker population of 18,000. OEO reported that financing for this program from inception in April 1965 through the 1968 program year amounted to about $5 million. Our review was directed mainly to the education and child day-care programs. CONCLUSIONS 1. The program in Arizona has been beneficial in helping to equip participating migrant adults with educational skills and training which have permitted or should assist them to obtain or qualify for employment in areas that offer greater opportunity for gaining regular or permanent employment. The program has been beneficial also in providing participating preschool migrant children with services which they might not have otherwise received and which should enable them to be better prepared for elementary school. 2. Program effectiveness could be improved by establishing training program procedures for determining each participant's employment handicaps such as a lack of education or vocational skills or limited work experience-and for developing a plan to overcome these handicaps. Such procedures could also provide useful information for measuring the effectiveness of the program and for making program revisions. 3. The grantee accepted a high proportion of applicants who did not meet ŎEO eligibility criteria, due in part to differences in interpretation of the criteria. This circumstance detracted from the effectiveness of the program, particularly in view of the limited funds. available to the migrant program in relation to the estimated number of persons to be served. RECOMMENDATIONS In accordance with the foregoing conclusions, we recommend that the Director, OEO— Require that (1) systematic employability plans be prepared whereby participants' handicaps can be identified at the time of enrollment so that an appropriate curriculum can be developed to meet such needs, (2) participants' progress in the program be periodically reviewed, and (3) data on participants' postprogram experience be maintained; and Clarify eligibility criteria for the programs, and require that vigorous efforts be made to insure that participation in the program is limited to those meeting such criteria. Education program PROGRAM RESULTS The program comprises full-time stipend and part-time nonstipend classes. The stipend classes, which pay participants up to a maximum of $55 a week, included prevocational and vocational training and basic education courses. These courses were directed toward preparing participants for employment in occupational fields which were in demand in the area. The nonstipend classes were oriented primarily toward academic subjects including courses for preparing adults for obtaining the equivalent of a high school diploma. From inception of the program through August 1968, about 690 adults had enrolled in the prevocational and vocational classes. About 200 of these enrollees had obtained jobs after participation and about 30 had been admitted to more advanced training programs. About 4,000 adults had enrolled in the education component, comprising about 3,760 who completed the courses and 240 who dropped out. About 1,480 adults had enrolled in courses to prepare for obtaining the equivalent of a high school diploma, and 375 obtained the equivalency certificate. Although the vocational training program had resulted in the job placement of a number of participants, we found that in most cases the placements resulted from training for jobs in the apparel industry. OEO policy based on congressional intent is that grant funds should not be used for such training. We were advised by OEO in February 1969 that such training was no longer being provided by the grantee. We also found that the grantee was not following, nor did OEO require, a systematic employment plan as a means of determining a participant's employment handicaps and of providing for measures to overcome these handicaps. Such a plan would have assisted the grantee in identifying a participant's needs and goals, measuring a participant's progress toward meeting his needs and goals, and assessing the benefits that he derived from participating in prevocational and vocational training. Child day-care program The day-care program was designed to provide not only custodial care but also health, nutritional, and educational services for children. ranging in age from infancy to about 5 years. During approximately 3%1⁄2 years of operation, about 3,300 children had been served by the program. 26-849 0-69- -9 We reviewed the operation of the program using the criteria applicable to the Headstart program since these criteria have essentially been adopted by the Federal Panel on Early Childhood as a minimum requirement of federally funded day-care programs. These critreia are to be effective July 1, 1969, for migrant programs and became effective July 1, 1968, for all other programs. At the two centers where we conducted our review, we found that the program generally was effective in providing a safe and healthful physical environment, competent child care, certain health services, nutritional meals, and training of aides. Evaluations of the children served, which were made for the grantee by teachers in the public school system, indicated that the majority of the day-care participants who had subsequently enrolled in the public schools were considered superior to their contemporaries of the same socioeconomic background in such categories as physical well-being, social adaptability, emotional stability, and mental ability. We found that dental services generally consisted of a cursory examination by a physician rather than a comprehensive dental examination and care by a dentist and that psychological services were not being provided although both of these services were needed. The new day-care program requirements provide that these services be made. available to migrant day-care participants beginning July 1, 1969. Administration We found that the migrant and seasonal farmworkers were adequately represented on decisionmaking bodies and that progress had been made in mobilizing and coordinating Federal, State, and local resources in furtherance of program objectives; however, a comprehensive overall plan had not been developed to reduce poverty and to systematically solve the problems of the migrant and seasonal farmworkers. Since there was no such plan, there was no supportable assurance that the resources available had been applied to program activities likely to be most effective in combating poverty. We found also that policies and procedures were not adequate to ensure the eligibility of individuals selected for participation in either the education or the day-care programs, and our tests showed that a high proportion of participants were ineligible under OEO guidelines. A special condition to migrant grants provides that the programs be restricted to migrant and other seasonally employed agricultural families who, during the year preceding participation in the program, had1. Earned at least 50 percent of their total income as agricultural employees; 2. Been employed only on a seasonal basis and not by one employer for the entire calendar year; and 3. Incomes below the poverty line. In addition, OEO required that no person selected would be allowed to hold a job over which a member of his immediate family exercised supervisory authority. For the education component OEO established additional eligibility criteria which required that, beginning in 1968, participants of the stipend classes be heads of households. In our test of the eligibility of family members from 25 families, selected at random, that were participating in the day-care program, we found that 36 family members-23 children and 13 day-care aidesfrom 17 families were not eligible for one or more of the reasons listed below. Reason for ineligibility Income from agricultural work not 50 percent of total income. Not a seasonal farmworker. Annual income above poverty line (average excess $1,400). Number 12 426 2 In our test of the eligibility of 20 participants, selected at random, in the education program, we found that 14 of the particpants were not eligible for one or more of the reasons listed below. Reason for ineligibility Not head of household. Annual income above poverty line (average excess $1,600). Number 7 4 10 11 This situation was due, at least in part, to differences in the interpretation of eligibility requirements by program personnel and the lack of adequate procedures for verifying eligibility. ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY LOAN PROGRAM We made a survey of the Economic Opportunity Loan (EOL) program that was directed primarily toward examining into the effectiveness of the administration of the program by the Small Business Administration (SBA). Our survey was conducted at SBA headquarters in Washington, D.C., and at SBA's New York area and regional offices. Economic opportunity loans (EOLS) are intended to assist in establishing, preserving, and strengthening small business concerns and in improving the managerial abilities employed in such concerns-using both private and public managerial talents and resources. Special attention is to be given to business concerns (1) located in urban or rural areas with high proportions of unemployment or low-income individuals or (2) owned by low-income individuals. From inception of the program through fiscal year 1968, 7,773 EOLS totaling about $82.5 million had been approved. At June 30, 1968, 6,322 EOLS totaling about $55.5 million were outstanding. SBA estimates that outstanding loans will total $70.5 million at June 30, 1969, and $85 million at June 30, 1970. Other pertinent information concerning the EOL program is discussed in appendix I, beginning on page 180. CONCLUSIONS SBA's administration of the EOL program could be substantially improved, and in some cases program effectiveness could be increased. i. SBA has made only limited analyses of program information for the purpose of evaluating the effectiveness of the program. 2. In the review and approval of loans, the absence of clearly stated eligibility criteria that can be applied in the loan approval process has precluded SBA management from obtaining reasonable assurance that loan funds are made available to borrowers who are intended to benefit from the EOL program. 3. SBA has not fulfilled the objective of the program to improve the managerial skills employed in small business concerns receiving financial assistance. |