(3) Innovations and improvements in programs, institutional practices, laws, and regulations which increase opportunities for the poor;

(4) Increased and more effective participation by the poor in the planning and conduct of programs which affect their lives;

(5) Broadening of the base of human and material resources invested by the non-poor community in antipoverty activities;

(c) Section 1078.1-7 lists a representative sample of the kinds of improvements in community response which are indicators that these standards are being met. The lists in § 1078.1–7 are not exhaustive. They merely identify a range of constructive effects which have been or can be achieved through effective community action programs. It is unlikely that any single grantee will achieve all or even most of the improvements listed. It may, of course, achieve other improvements, not listed, which are equally valid indicators of improved community response.

(d) The range, depth, and speed of improvements will depend on local conditions, capabilities, and needs. Priorities and strategies will therefore differ from one community to the next, and may change over time in any single community. Since each community has a different potential for change, and since each community action program is at a different stage of development, the effectiveness of a grantee or program will be measured by improvements over previous performance in that community rather than by comparing different communities against a single absolute level of performance. The longer a grantee or program has been in operation, the greater will be the degree of improved community response expected from its current programs and activities. The general presumption is that there should be a continuing cumulative increase in the grantee's ability to produce or stimulate constructive effects in the community.

(e) Since the purpose of Community Action is to improve the community's response to poverty, the desired improvement in the focusing of resources should occur in the activities of other community groups and institutions outside the grantee organization. However, program effectiveness is determined also by a finding that grantee programs or actions significantly contributed to the improvements achieved in the response

of other groups. Program effectiveness is thus judged both by the nature of the improvement, and the grantee's contribution to it.

§ 1078.1-5

Setting local goals consistent with national standards.

(a) Every CAP grantee is required to establish planning goals as part of its annual application process. The additional requirement established by this subpart is that such goals must be consistent with and directly related to the national standards of program effectiveness. This means that in addition to indicating how the grantee's programs will meet standards of program quality, grantee goals must indicate what specific improvements in the community's response to poverty the grantee will attempt to accomplish during the new funding period. In reviewing and approving grantee applications for funding OEO will be concerned not only with whether the grantee's goals are realistic and consistent with the grantee's overall strategy, but also with whether such goals are consistent with the basic community action purpose of stimulating a better focusing of the community's

resources.

(b) In establishing planning goals, CAP grantees are subject to the following requirement:

(1) Every grantee goal must meet at least one of the five general national standards.

(2) Every grantee must establish a sufficient range of goals so that taken together they meet each of the five national standards.

(c) Local grantee goals may be more specific, locally tailored versions of one or more of the indicators listed in § 1078.1-7 or of some other indicator which the OEO funding office approves as meeting one or more of the national standards. In any event, grantee goals must be speIcific as to both the character and the extent of the improvement in community response which should be accomplished during the funding period. Where suitable, goals should be stated in quantitative terms, but whether they use quantitative or other concrete measures, grantee goals should deal with the question of "how much" as well as with the quality and character of improvements to be achieved.

tional standards of program effectiveness as part of their regular grant application process. Local goals should be identified, and the strategy for attaining them should be discussed, in the grantee's Plans and Priorities form (CAP Form 81)1 and Program Account Work Program forms (CAP Forms 7 and supplementary or alternative Forms 7a71). Instructions for completing these forms are found in OEO Instruction 6710-11 and subsequent instructions in the 6710 series.

(b) Local goals established for the funding period and subsequent years will be reviewed and approved by the OEO funding office as part of the grant approval process. These goals, consistent with national standards, will then form the basis against which the effectiveness of the grantee's programs will be evaluated.

§ 1078.1-7 Indicators of improvements

in community response to poverty. (a) Strengthened community capacity for planning and coordinating poverty-related programs. (1) Development and dissemination of more accurate information about the problem, conditions, and causes of poverty.

and

(2) Improved information on evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of poverty-related programs.

(3) Greater and more effective exchange of information among agencies dealing with poverty-related problems.

(4) Increased allocation of staff and fiscal resources to antipoverty planning. (5) Increased pooling and interchange of planning staffs and other resources among poverty-related agencies.

(6) Increased joint planning of poverty programs.

(7) Improved mechanisms for both formal and informal working contacts among agencies with related antipoverty responsibilities.

(8) Better division of labor and responsibilities among antipoverty agencies.

(9) Increased communication and cooperation between public and private poverty-related agencies.

(10) Increased joint funding and operation of poverty programs by agencies with related responsibilities.

(b) Better organization of a range of services related to the needs of the poor.

1 Not filled with the Office of the Federal Register.

(1) Decentralization of services to lowincome neighborhood locations.

(2) Relocation of related services to common or nearby sites.

(3) Establishment of programs which fill significant services gaps, and elimination of duplicative services.

(4) Operation of related service programs so that each supports the other in helping the poor solve a combination of individual or family problems.

(5) Changes in hours and methods of operation which increase utilization of services by poor people.

(6) Improved information and publicity about available services.

(7) Improved outreach, intake, and followup to maximize full use and benefit from available services.

(c) Innovations and improvements in programs, institutional practices, laws, and regulations which increase opportunities for the poor. (1) Implementation of new program concepts, designs, and techniques which increase the accessibility, quality, relevance, and effectiveness of services for the poor.

(2) Modification of eligibility and other rules to assure maximum use of services by those who need them.

(3) Improved incentives to service beneficiaries to move from dependency to self-sufficiency.

(4) Improved and expanded employment opportunities for the poor:

(1) Modification of State and local civil service laws and regulations, as well as private employment practices, to remove arbitrary requirements for prior education and experience which exceed the actual demands of the job, or where necessary skills could be readily acquired through on-the-job training.

(ii) Increasing use of nonprofessionals to perform functions, otherwise performed by professionals, for which professional qualifications are not

necessary.

(iii) Establishment of career development programs through which nonprofessionals can advance to positions of greater responsibility and higher pay through in-service training, education incentives, and other aids to selfimprovement.

(iv) Elimination of automatic disqualification from employment because of arrest or bad credit records, or because of previous conviction of crime where the crime was not serious or has no connection to the nature of the position.

(v) Enactment and better enforce

ment of equal employment opportunity

measures.

(vi) Increased active recruitment among the poor and minority group members for supervisory as well as entry level positions.

(5) Increased protection of the rights of poor people as consumers:

(i) Strengthening and improved enforcement of housing codes.

(ii) Enactment and stronger enforcement of open housing measures, and adoption of nondiscriminatory practices by real estate brokers.

(iii) Improved relocation assistance, fair compensation for replacement of property, and provision of increased lowincome housing in urban renewal and other housing programs.

(iv) Elimination of discriminatory pricing, merchandising, and credit practices in low-income neighborhoods.

(6) Improved administration of justice and law enforcement:

(i) Provision of adequate and competent counsel for low-income residents. (ii) Elimination of discriminatory bail/bond requirements.

(iii) Inclusion of low-income and minority group members on juries.

(iv) Elimination of discriminatory sentences for poor persons convicted of crimes.

(v) Improved police-community relations and elimination of discriminatory policy practices in low-income areas.

(d) Increased and more effective participation by the poor in the planning and conduct of programs which affect their lives. (1) Development and strengthening of neighborhood-based and target area organizations of lowincome residents addressing a broad range of problems and issues.

(2) Development and strengthening of organizations of low-income participants or beneficiaries of specific service programs:

(i) Welfare rights groups.

(ii) Parent-school organizations. (iii) Youth groups.

(3) Development and strengthening of economic self-help organizations:

(1) Production and marketing cooperatives.

(ii) Buyers clubs. (iii) Credit unions.

(iv) Neighborhood improvement and low-income housing organizations.

(v) Private business enterprises owned and operated by organizations of lowincome people.

(vi) Day-care cooperatives for working mothers.

(4) Development and strengthening of indigenous leadership in the low-income community and in organizations of poor people.

(5) Increased and more productive communication and consultation between organizations of the poor and the public and private institutions which serve the poor.

(6) Increased authority, responsibility, and administrative capability for organizations of the poor:

(1) Delegation to such organizations of policy-making or operating authority for poverty-related programs.

(ii) Delegation to such organizations of policy-making or operating authority for nonpoverty programs.

(iii) Provision to such organization of discretionary funds to plan, develop, and conduct programs of their choice.

(7) More active and widespread participation by individual residents and poor people in both low-income organizations and in other community, neighborhood, civic, and school organizations.

(8) Greater understanding and exercise by the poor of their rights and privileges as citizens.

(9) Greater and more meaningful representation by the poor on the governing and/or advisory boards of public and private agencies.

(10) Increased employment of lowincome people by public and private agencies in positions of responsibility through which they can influence the character and quality of programs serving the poor.

(e) Broadening of the base of human and material resources invested by the nonpoor community in antipoverty activities. (1) Increased support by nonpoor groups and individuals from programs and measures needed to deal with poverty problems.

(2) Expansion of and improvements in public community services for residents of low-income areas:

(i) Police and fire protection.
(ii) Public transportation.

(iii) Garbage collection and street cleaning.

(iv) Education. (v) Recreation.

(vi) Library services.

(3) Redirection of public or private agency programs to focus more resources on the needs of the poor.

(4) Increased local or state appropriations and revenue for antipoverty programs.

(5) New or increased (non-OEO) Federal funds in the community for antipoverty programs.

(6) Absorption by local or state public or private agencies of costs of established antipoverty originally financed with OEO or other Federal funds.

(7) Increased provision of volunteer time and services to antipoverty programs by individuals or organizations: (i) Professionals and professional societies.

(ii) Civic associations.

(iii) Women's groups. (iv) Fraternal orders.

(v) Business organizations.