problems which might suggest them.

The report's failure to relate problems to

the institution is illustrated in the following discus

sion:

"Also, recently, an incident at the Delano
High School involved one of the newer mem-
bers of the CRLA staff and this provoked
hostility by the community. This is the
most controversial aspect of the entire
focus and has been very sensitive for us...
Recently, they hired a young Chicano attor-
ney, who we found has a great passion for
the people and a great sense of outrage.
Unfortunately, he has found it difficult to
channel his passion into a legal context
and has, in a number of instances, literal-
ly taken to the streets as a community
organizer. This happened in particular at
the Delano High School, which resulted in
the withdrawal by students and a picketing
of the school. He led the picketing."
(Page 14--Emphasis added.)

This discussion was followed by the following

observation:

"It is true, many of the lawyers attached to
CRIA are inexperienced lawyers, and some-
times members of the Bar whom I interviewed,
referred to that inexperience. In the Salinas
office, for example, with the exception of
the senior lawyer, all of the lawyers have
less than five years of practice. (Page 16--
Emphasis added.)

"

Incidents recited throughout the evaluation suggest that the problem gces considerably beyond inexperience. What is disappointing is that the August evaluation lacked the imagination and depth to consider the possibility

that these problems had their roots in institutional flaws

of CRLA.

Beyond this problem, the evaluation did contri

bute some serious and alarming observations. On community relations, for example, the following is significant:

"There is one point I would like to make about
the office in McFarland, at least in my impres-
sion, is that it has not always been able to
deal well in matters affecting the community.
It is not always able to involve itself dispas- •
sionately. That is to say, they have assumed
from the very outset that the poor community,
that is, the poor white community were the good
guys, the establishment, the government, the
growers, were all the bad guys and what has
happened, in a sense, is that the adversary
relationship has been withdrawn from the court-
room and has taken place initially in the
streets, in their initial confrontation with
the community." (Page 15 --Emphasis added.)

The evaluator then noted that the community did not possess the hostility toward CRLA which the CRLA office imagined:

"I guess what came out of McFarland was for the
nonpoverty community to say, "I wish CRLA in
McFarland would work with us. If they are going
to sue us, fine. But I wish they'd work with us
and speak to us and research the problem, not
so much legally but factually before they plunge
into a suit.'" (Page 15--Emphasis added.)

One of OEO's major emphases is the mobilization and integration of all segments of a community to eradicate poverty. Here was a problem going to the very heart of such a concept. Here was an instance in which an OEO Legal

Service office was disrupting a community, stirring tensions and hostilities and which, had they been done by someone outside of the poverty industry, would have been universally

56-127 O 71 21

condemned. Thus questions concerning the institutional soundness of CRLA as an organization capable of providing legal services to the poor while producing meaningful and integrated changes in rural communities are necessary and legitimate.

(2) The other most celebrated evaluation of CRLA was that done by the General Accounting Office of the Comptroller General of the United States, which was released in July 1968. (Exhibit 03-0150-02. This evaluation is discussed elsewhere in this report.)

The GAO Report grew out of a request by Congressman Robert B. Mathias to undertake an investigation primarily of CRLA's relationship with the United Farm Workers Organizing Committee (UFWOC). Specifically, the investigation inquired into the charge:

that the grantee (CRLA) may not have complied
with certain conditions of its grant because of
(1) a possible connection between the grantee
and the union, (2) the alleged harassment of a
county welfare department, (3) inadequate repre-
sentation of agricultural producers on the
grantee's board, and (4) the alleged engagement
of the grantee in political activities.

The inquiry into CRLA's connection with UFWOC was limited to five charges, relating to grant conditions that have

been made more stringent since 1968, when the report was issued.

The GAO Report was extremely interesting to us

as a point of departure. Although it was limited both

in scope and in its conclusions, discussed in another section of this report, additional information has since come to

light that makes it dubious at best.

(3) In some respects the most hopeful opportunity for a fresh look at CRLA took place in Stanislaus County only weeks before this evaluation was prepared. This occurred when a Grand Jury convened in response to the "growing public concern that California Rufal Legal Assistance, Inc., is not carrying out its stated corporate purpose of providing adequate legal assistance for the poor". CRLA had always exhibited a public eagerness to be evaluated by anyone who cared to do so, but when the Stanislaus County Grand Jury convened for the purpose of doing an evaluation, the objectivity of which no one could deny, CRLA secured from the Federal District Court an injunction against any investigation of their program.

The incident is lamentable, for this was the first time that a program would be evaluated by people in the area being served by that program. This point is most important, for typically, legal service programs are evaluated by people from far away, who know nothing about the community in which the program functions. This severe limitation in past CRLA evaluations is ironic in view of OEO's

explicit and dominant emphasis on communities and local

control.

In this particular case, the Stanislaus County Grand Jury had several members with excellent credentials to evaluate the impact of CRLA on poor people. Among them were the head of the local branch of the NAACP, and a local leader of the Mexican-American community. But when faced with the possibility they might be evaluated by people not precommitted to the poverty-law establish-, ment, and by people whose intimate knowledge of the community and their constituents could not be questioned, they sought a sanctuary in the federal injunction that prevented the Grand Jury from proceeding further with its evaluation.

The result was that the Grand Jury voted unanimously a resolution urging Governor Reagan to veto CRLA's 1971 budget, and urging him to institute an immediate investigation into CRLA's activities.

It

In important respects, the Grand Jury evaluation of CRLA that never took place was the most revealing evaluation of the program that has ever occurred. demonstrates that a duly-constituted body of citizens, with a responsibility to their community, were prevented from discharging their responsibility.

They were thwarted