E.     Communications with LSC 

All communications concerning this RFP must be directed to: 

Randi Youells
Vice President for Programs
Legal Services Corporation
750 First Street, N.E.
10^th Floor
Washington, DC 20002 

Telephone: 202/336-7269
Fax:  202/336-8952
Email: youellsr@lsc.gov  

F.     Freedom of Information Act 

            The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the associated LSC regulations may require the release to the public, upon request, of certain documents held by LSC, including portions of proposals submitted to LSC by third parties.  In general, LSC will not release any documents that are exempt from disclosure because their release would cause competitive harm to the Submitter.  If a FOIA request for such documents is received, LSC will contact the Submitter prior to any release of material.  Nonetheless, Submitters are encouraged to label information considered confidential as such in Proposals at the time of submission. 

G.    Miscellaneous 

            Minor procedural or administrative exceptions to the requirements contained in this RFP may be accepted by LSC during the proposal review process.  

LSC may disqualify or reject any or all proposals.  

LSC reserves the right to have and retain all original data and working papers generated during the project. 

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE  
DEVELOPMENT OF A  
STATE JUSTICE COMMUNITY EVALUATION INSTRUMENT  

APPENDIX A

August 10, 2001

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

PROGRAM LETTER 98-1
Date:       February 12, 1998
Subject:   State Planning 

Summary

      This Program Letter calls upon all LSC recipients to participate in a state planning process to examine, from a statewide perspective, what steps should be taken in their states to develop further a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system. State planners should evaluate whether all programs are working in a coordinated fashion to assure that pressing client needs are being met, that sufficient capacities for training and information sharing exist, that programs are moving forward together on technology, and are collaborating to increase resources and develop new initiatives to expand the scope and reach of their services.

      In states with a number of LSC-funded programs and/or the presence of very small programs, a key question to be answered is whether the current structure of the state delivery system, and specifically the number of programs, constitutes the most effective and economical way to meet client needs throughout the state.

      The state planning process should develop a report to be submitted to LSC on or before October 1, 1998. We will be guided by your recommendations when making our funding decisions for FY 1999 and beyond.

Background

      1995 Program Letter. In July 1995, in anticipation of Congressional action on LSC's 1996 appropriation, we asked recipients in each state to participate in the development of a plan for the design, configuration and operation of LSC-funded programs in the state. In view of potential LSC funding cuts and Congressional restrictions on client services, we were especially concerned that recipients work closely with other stakeholders (e.g., state and local bar associations, IOLTA funders, the judiciary, client groups, non-LSC-funded programs, and others with an interest in legal services) to develop an integrated delivery system to address client needs. A subsequent August 1995 Program Letter outlined the issues and criteria the state planning process should address. Included were integration of LSC-funded programs into a statewide legal services system; advisability of consolidation of programs; consideration of efficient intake and provision of advice and brief service; appropriate use of technology; engagement of pro bono attorneys; and development of additional resources.

      Responses to Changes in Laws Affecting Clients and LSC Recipients. Much has occurred since August 1995. Fundamental changes have been made in laws and programs affecting eligible clients -- changes which have increased clients' need for legal information, advice, and representation. At the same time, LSC appropriation measures have resulted in deep funding cuts for many programs, elimination of LSC funding of national and state support entities, and dramatic changes in the range of services LSC recipients are permitted to perform. In response, many states have initiated planning processes, developed new partnerships to leverage resources, expanded funding sources, implemented new technologies, and launched innovative methods for serving clients.

      Efforts to develop and strengthen comprehensive delivery systems in order to improve and expand client services continue in many states. Equal Justice Commissions, Bar sponsored committees, and organizations of legal services providers continue to explore ways to maximize services in a changed and changing environment. LSC supports these ongoing state efforts and encourages others.

      1998 Grant Decisions. In the 1998 LSC grant competition, we determined that grants in several states that were eligible for three year funding should be made for a shorter period. For North Carolina, grants were made for one year. For New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia, grants were made for two years. The decision to award grants for a shorter period was made for two reasons: (1) to encourage recipients in these states to develop further their plans for a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system; and, (2) concern that the number of LSC-funded programs in these states may not constitute the most economical and effective configuration for delivering legal services to the low-income community.

      1998 Program Letter. This Program Letter calls upon all recipients to re-examine and adjust as necessary their state delivery plans in order to further improve and expand legal services to eligible clients within the state.

A Comprehensive, Integrated Statewide Delivery System.

      In re-evaluating delivery plans, recipients should examine the progress they have made in the past two and one half years in developing a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system. Careful planning and coordination is necessary to insure that pressing legal needs do not go unmet and that resources are used wisely and economically. States must continue to innovate and develop new strategies and alternative delivery models to make the most of scarce resources -- to reach more clients, and to provide higher quality services through enhanced use of information technology; centralized intake systems providing advice, brief services, and referrals; expansion of community legal education, pro se, and other methods promoting client self-help; better coordination with volunteer private attorneys; and other, similar initiatives requiring substantial resources and expertise to undertake.

      There are many ways for states to achieve these goals. Many excellent models exist of statewide fundraising, integrated technology, statewide and regional hotlines, pro se projects, taskforces and training. Recipients should evaluate which approaches will work best in their states to achieve an even stronger, more effective system for addressing client needs.

      Recipients must also examine how the present configuration of programs, and specifically the number of programs, impacts upon the overall effectiveness of the state delivery system. In this regard, it is especially important that each participant look at client services, not from the view of just one city, or one county, or one program, but from a statewide perspective.

What Is Required by This Letter

      In the past two and one half years, several states have undertaken extensive processes to evaluate their delivery systems and have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, many state planning recommendations. Additionally, some states have ongoing planning processes involving a wide variety of stakeholders in the civil justice system. We do not intend such states to repeat past, or supplant current processes. Instead, we ask recipients to either work within ongoing processes or develop new ones appropriate to the situation in each state. In either case, we hope recipients and other stakeholders will view this process as an opportunity to join together to strengthen the delivery system and improve and expand services to clients.

      In this context we call upon each LSC-funded program to share responsibility for ensuring that a statewide planning process, whether ongoing or to be initiated, addresses the questions discussed further below. For each question state planners should:

	assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach;
	establish goals to strengthen and expand services to eligible clients; and
	determine the major steps and a timetable necessary to achieve those goals.

      A report should be submitted to LSC on or before October 1, 1998.⁽¹⁾If a state has recently developed a plan which addresses the substance of one or more of the following questions, for those questions, the state need only report on the pertinent section(s) of that plan.

      In exceptional cases, it may not be possible for a state planning process to fully address all of the following questions. In such cases, recipients should contact the LSC staff member responsible for their state.

    The questions to be addressed are:

1.       Intake and the Provision of Advice and Brief Services.

How are intake and delivery of advice and referral services structured within the state? What steps can be taken to ensure a delivery network that maximizes client access, efficient delivery, and high quality legal assistance?

      A successful intake system is critical to effective and comprehensive delivery of legal services. Over the past two years many programs have instituted centralized telephone intake and delivery systems which provide high quality advice and brief service assistance, and promptly refer clients whose problems require more assistance to program case handlers or other resources. In a number of states, statewide or regional systems, using advanced telephone and computer technology, have consolidated these functions in one location where trained, experienced staff provide prompt access for clients and minimize the risk of multiple referrals or loss of clients. These systems improve the quantity and quality of advice, brief service and referral assistance while increasing the number of extended service cases which can be handled by the program.

      State planners should evaluate the current status of intake and delivery of advice and referral services within the state and develop strategies for improvement. Consideration should be given to developing regional and statewide intake and delivery systems which:

Are client-centered, providing ease of access to legal services and prompt, high quality assistance or referral;

Use specialization to enhance case evaluation and provision of advice, brief service and referral assistance;

Make effective use of technology; and

Provide oversight and follow-up to ensure high quality legal services and client satisfaction.

2.       Effective Use of Technology.

Is there a state legal services technology plan? How can technological capacities be developed statewide to assure compatibility, promote efficiency, improve quality, and expand services to clients?

      Within individual programs, effective use of technology can reduce the cost and substantially enhance the quality of services. Collectively, technology can dramatically improve the capacity of staff throughout the state to quickly exchange and share information, improving their ability to stay current with the law, develop legal strategies, write briefs and otherwise serve clients. In the past two years, many programs have significantly increased their technological capacities. On a statewide level, programs have used new technologies to establish E-mail communication with all legal services staff throughout the state; to connect with other service providers; to exchange information with private attorneys participating in PAI efforts; to establish centralized brief/pleadings/forms/manuals/ information banks; to create resource centers for information on state law and policy developments; and to establish unified case management systems which allow for data collection and outcome measures. New technologies involving the Internet and advanced telephone and computer applications have also been used to provide legal and program resource information to clients.

      Improving and staying current with technology is costly and makes it all the more important that states take a unified approach and develop a technology plan that will maximize collective capacity while minimizing cost. A state technology plan should establish reasonable goals and set forth steps to:

Assure that all programs have networked computer access for all staff; integrated case management; computerized timekeeping; E-mail and the ability to electronically transfer documents; computerized financial management systems; and technological support;

Develop or improve compatible technological capacities which will allow all staff, statewide, to communicate with each other, share information, and take advantage of other efficiencies made possible by computerization; and

Use new technologies to provide legal and program resource information to clients and other interested persons.

3.       Increased Access to Self-Help and Prevention Information.

What are the major barriers low-income persons face in gaining access to justice in the state? What efforts can be taken on a statewide basis to expand client access to the courts, provide preventive legal education and advice, and enhance self-help opportunities for low-income persons?

      Pro se, community legal education and access to courts efforts have great potential to address many of the legal needs of low-income persons. Programs in many states utilize these methods to increase legal information available to the public, empower clients to advocate on their own behalf, and increase access to the courts for all low-income people. Given the intensive effort required to implement such strategies, and the influence state laws and rules have on such initiatives, often these results can be realized more easily by coordinated state level efforts. In several states, for example, collaboration with state bar committees and state judicial administrations has resulted in rule changes, publication of pro se oriented materials and more accessible court systems. Likewise, the development of self-help and community legal education materials has benefited from concerted statewide efforts involving a variety of organizations working to make justice more accessible.

      State planners should evaluate the status of pro se, community legal education, and access efforts in their state and determine what steps should be taken statewide to enhance their effectiveness in meeting client needs. Consideration should be given to:

Statewide coordination and/or production of pro se and community education materials, such as brochures in multiple languages, videos, cable-access TV programs, and projects designed to take advantage of new technologies such as computerized pro se programs and the world wide web; and

State level initiatives, including efforts with bar associations, the judiciary and other interested parties to increase access to the courts.

4.       Capacities for Training and Access to Information and Expert Assistance.

Do program staff and pro bono attorneys throughout the state receive the training and have access to information and expert assistance necessary for the delivery of high quality legal services? How can statewide capacities be developed and strengthened to meet these needs?

      In the last two years several states have developed new or strengthened existing capacities to ensure that staff and pro bono attorneys throughout the state receive necessary training and have access to information and expert assistance essential for the delivery of high quality legal services. These states employ a variety of methods to provide staff and pro bono attorneys with training on substantive law and skills development, practice manuals and related poverty law materials, information on poverty law developments and strategies, and co-counseling for less experienced staff and pro bono attorneys. Communication, planning and ongoing discussion concerning major legal needs, poverty law developments, effectiveness of approaches, and commonalities in legal work, helps ensure productive use of resources. The use of new technologies has helped maximize the effectiveness of these efforts.

      State planners should evaluate current capacities for the provision of training and related services essential for the delivery of high quality legal services. Planners should:

Assess how a statewide approach can address the needs for these services of staff and pro bono attorneys throughout the state; and

Determine the steps necessary to provide these services as effectively and efficiently as possible.

5.       Engagement of Pro Bono Attorneys.

What is the current status of private attorney involvement in the state? What statewide efforts can be undertaken to increase the involvement of private attorneys in the delivery of legal services?

      In the past two years, several states have been successful in enlisting or re-enlisting the state Bar, the judiciary and others in developing and supporting private attorney involvement throughout the state. These efforts have helped local private attorney involvement programs expand participation rates and the range and types of services available to clients. State planners should evaluate the current status of private attorney involvement in the state and consider how statewide strategies can increase engagement of pro bono attorneys and benefit clients throughout the state, including areas of the state with lower private attorney involvement.

      Consideration should be given to:

Renewed efforts to involve the Bar, the judiciary and other leaders in the legal community in promoting private attorney involvement;

Providing greater opportunities for attorney participation in a full spectrum of legal work, including advice and brief service, negotiation, administrative representation, pro se classes, transactional assistance, and simple and complex litigation;

Providing greater opportunities for attorneys to assist programs with training, co-counseling and mentoring staff; and

Providing greater opportunities for law schools, corporate counsel, government attorneys, and other professionals to engage in pro bono activities.

6.       Development of additional resources.

What statewide financial resources are available for legal services to low-income persons within the state? How can these resources be preserved and expanded?

      In the past two years, many programs have increased the resources available to them through innovative grant projects, local fundraising and other efforts. Even more dramatic, however, are the increases programs have received in many states through collective development and/or expansion of statewide revenues such as state appropriations, filing fee surcharges, state fundraising campaigns, state bar dues checkoffs and direct state bar grants. Whether new or expanded, these revenues have almost always been the product of thoughtful planning with programs and other stakeholders working together.

      State planners should evaluate the possibilities for further statewide resource development and develop a statewide strategy to preserve, build, and/or create new financial and non-financial resources in their state. Since program efforts to build such statewide resources are more successful when many stakeholders participate, it is especially important for planners to involve a variety of community leaders in these efforts.
 

7.       Configuration of a Comprehensive, Integrated Statewide Delivery System.

Where there are a number of LSC-funded programs and/or the presence of very small programs, how should the legal services programs be configured within the state to maximize the effective and economical delivery of high quality legal services to eligible clients within a comprehensive, integrated delivery system?

      In most states, the present delivery structure reflects national funding decisions made in the 1970's. In many states, those decisions were not determined by analyses of what delivery structure would yield the most economical and effective services to clients throughout the state. Moreover, those decisions were made before such major developments in legal services delivery such as IOLTA funding, private attorney involvement, law school clinical programs, hotlines, the emergence of other civil legal aid providers, and restrictions on recipients' non-LSC funds; and before the information revolution and the opportunities it presents with personal computers, E-mail, sophisticated telephone technology, and the Internet. In light of developments over the past twenty-five years, and especially since 1995, it is time to take a fresh look and re-evaluate those structures.

      Re-evaluation is particularly critical in states with a number of LSC-funded programs and/or the presence of very small programs. States with many programs often suffer from uneconomical and inefficient redundancy of effort, or no effort at all, in technology, training, fundraising, and development of client services such as intake, advice and referral systems or client education materials. Similarly, small programs often lack the resources necessary to develop proper staff supervision or appropriate specialization, or to acquire current technology necessary for maximum effectiveness.

      In addition, while individual programs may excel, a large number of programs or the presence of small programs may result in unnecessary diversion of the state's resources from client services to administrative overhead. Each program, no matter how large or small, must devote significant resources to A-133 audits, state and federal tax and wage reports, funding applications, recordkeeping, personnel policies, purchase and maintenance of technology and equipment, and other administrative tasks. Experienced and accomplished lawyers spend time on program administration when they could be using their talents to represent clients, train or mentor new lawyers and otherwise lead their program's legal work.

      Where these conditions exist, state planners must consider whether consolidation of programs would make better use of resources available in the state.

      There is no magic number of programs or a single delivery model that fits all states. In some states, a statewide LSC provider makes the most sense; in others, a regional approach or other configuration may be appropriate. Each state must examine what configuration, from a statewide perspective, maximizes services and benefits for clients throughout the state. Factors to be considered include:

	Size, complexity, cultural and ethnic diversity/homogeneity of client population.
	Geographic, physical, and historical distinctions and affinities within the state.
	Variation in local client needs and ability to respond and set priorities accordingly.
	Assessments of programs' performance and capacity to deliver effective and efficient legal services in accordance with LSC and other professional criteria.
	Ease and efficiency of client access to services and opportunities for improvement.
	Capacity to efficiently and effectively conduct community legal education, pro se and outreach activities.
	Level, uniformity, and plans for further development of technological capacity.
	Current levels of private bar involvement and potential for expansion.
	The availability of training, expert assistance, and information about legal developments.
	Current funding sources and potential to expand resources available to all programs.
	Cultural and ethnic diversity of program leadership and management.
	Relative costs associated with fiscal and administrative responsibilities and potential savings in management, board and administrative costs.

      In making grants for FY 1999 and beyond, we will look closely at each state where there is currently a number of LSC-funded programs and/or the presence of very small programs to assess whether careful consideration has been given to consolidation of LSC programs. We hope, and have faith, that in these states, this planning process will result in plans for merger and consolidation of programs and integration of services on a broader scale than we have previously seen, and that each state's plan will result in a configuration that is efficient and effective in providing access to justice for the state's low-income clients.

Questions

      LSC staff will be contacting recipients to discuss this Program Letter. In the meantime, if you have questions, please contact the LSC staff member responsible for your state.

________________

¹ LSC will provide guidance at a later date on the format for this report.

 

 

PROGRAM LETTER 98-6

To:          All LSC Program Directors

From:      Karen J. Sarjeant
                Acting Vice President for Programs 

Date:       July 6, 1998 

Subject:  State Planning Considerations 

Introduction

      On February 12, 1998, the Corporation issued Program Letter 98-1 calling upon all LSC recipients to participate in a state planning process to examine, from a statewide perspective, what steps should be taken in their states to further develop a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system. The Letter poses seven questions recipients are to address in their planning processes and requests recipients to submit a report to LSC on or before October 1, 1998. Many recipients have asked LSC to provide further guidance and additional information about how the state planning process will affect LSC grant decisions. Recipients have also inquired about the format for the October 1 report. This Program Letter responds to these requests.

State Planning Considerations

      The attached State Planning Considerations have been developed to provide recipients and other stakeholders with more information about statewide goals, capacities and approaches recipients should consider in their planning processes. A number of other sources of information that may assist state planners and upon which these Considerations draw are referenced in the Planning Considerations. We hope these Planning Considerations will help states develop effective plans to strengthen their delivery systems and services to clients. We encourage recipients with any questions about the State Planning Considerations or planning process to contact the LSC staff member responsible for their state.

How the State Planning Process Will Affect LSC Grant Decisions

      The Corporation is directed under the LSC Act to "insure that grants and contracts are made so as to provide the most economical and effective delivery of legal assistance to persons in both urban and rural areas."⁽¹⁾. The state planning process will provide information that helps LSC exercise this statutory responsibility.

1.       Competition

a.       Duration of grants

The state planning process will provide information that helps LSC determine the duration of grants for service areas in the 1999 competition, i.e., service areas that are eligible for grants of up to three years commencing January 1, 1999.

In the 1998 LSC grant competition, we determined that grants in several states that were eligible for three year funding would be made for a shorter period. The decision to award grants for a shorter period was made for two reasons: (1) to encourage recipients in these states to develop further their plans for a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system; and (2) concern that the configuration of LSC-funded programs in these states did not constitute the most economical and effective structure for delivering legal services to the low-income community.

As with the 1998 competition, LSC will take into account state delivery plans and configuration of programs in determining the duration of grants for service areas now being competed. Where LSC believes states need to further develop their plans for a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system or where LSC remains concerned about the configuration of LSC-funded service areas, grants will be made for less than three years.

b.       Service areas

1.       1999 Competition

The state planning process will not affect decisions about the number, size or configuration of service areas in competition this year.

2.       2000 and Future Competition Years

Information received through the planning process will affect future decisions regarding the most appropriate number, size and configuration of LSC-funded service areas to be competed for the year 2000 and beyond. This includes service areas that become scheduled for those years because of one or two year grant awards made in the present 1999 competition.

2.       Grant Renewals

The state planning process will not affect decisions about the number, size or configuration of service areas up for renewal or the duration of grant renewals, i.e., previously made multi-year awards which are now up for renewal. Decisions on renewal of these grants will continue to be based upon a showing of the renewal applicant's continued ability "to perform the duties required under the terms of its grant."⁽²⁾

Format for the October 1 Report

      The attached Instructions for State Planning Reports provide information about the structure and format of the reports due at LSC on or before October 1, 1998. Please contact the LSC staff member responsible for your state if you have any questions.

___________________

¹ Legal Services Corporation Act, Section 1007(a)(3).

² 45 CFR 1634.11.

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legal Services Corporation

July 1998

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS

INTRODUCTION

      On February 12, 1998, the Legal Services Corporation issued Program Letter 98-1 calling upon all LSC recipients to participate in a state planning process to examine, from a statewide perspective, what steps should be taken in their states to further develop a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system. The Letter poses seven questions recipients are to address and requests recipients submit a report to LSC on or before October 1, 1998. These "State Planning Considerations" provide more information about statewide goals, capacities and approaches recipients should consider in addressing these questions.

      In presenting these Planning Considerations, LSC does not intend to establish "bottom line standards." Each state is different and needs to find its own ways to strengthen and further develop its statewide system. At the same time, we believe there are enough commonalities among the states and experience within the legal services community to suggest some guideposts that may help recipients and other stakeholders in their collaborative efforts to improve and expand services to clients.

Goals of Effective Statewide Systems

      The State Planning Considerations begin with an overview of key statewide delivery goals. Central to each is the notion that effective delivery systems are responsive to the most compelling needs of eligible clients, ensure the highest and most strategic use of all available resources, and maximize the opportunity for clients throughout the state to receive timely, effective and appropriate legal services. Local input and investment are important to assure providers respond to local needs, develop local solutions where appropriate, and build support within their communities. At the same time, it is the responsibility of all legal services providers to strive together to assure no eligible client is left out of the justice system or receives less effective assistance because of geography or other factors.

Capacities

      The Considerations next discuss the capacities and coordinated efforts recipients were asked to address by Program Letter 98-1. Funding limitations compel legal services providers continually to make choices among very important legal needs and possible service delivery activities, and to constantly face tradeoffs in which an increased commitment in one area may mean a lessening of emphasis in another. Accordingly, the Corporation does not expect that all states can develop every capacity in the immediate future or undertake every coordinated activity at the same time or to the same degree, especially where doing so may require acquisition or reallocation of significant and scarce resources. States must seek a reasonable balance among the areas, in light of their resources, and LSC will take into account variations in resources available to states as well as the priorities states may choose for strengthening their delivery system.

Indicators

      To further assist recipients, these Considerations also present "indicators" for each of the seven topics to be addressed in the state planning process. The indicators provide examples of approaches in place or under development in many states to which state planners can look for an indication of their state's progress in each of the seven areas. The indicators should not be seen as requirements or as the only approaches possible or desirable in a given state. There may be a variety of other activities which a statewide system of legal services providers may choose to undertake on a statewide basis in a particular state, and the Corporation encourages states to do so.

System Configuration

      Finally, these Planning Considerations present a framework and indicators for planners to consider as they analyze whether the present configuration of programs currently achieves, and will in the future, achieve the best possible results for clients. The Corporation remains committed to development of integrated delivery systems in each state and encourages recipients to consider carefully whether the present design and configuration of programs facilitates development of an integrated system that reflects the goals and capacities presented in these Planning Considerations.

GOALS OF EFFECTIVE STATEWIDE SYSTEMS

      The Corporation encourages development of statewide civil legal services delivery systems which are responsive to the most compelling needs of eligible clients, ensure the highest and most strategic use of all available resources, and maximize the opportunity for clients throughout the state to receive timely, effective and appropriate legal services. In accordance with prevailing professional norms, such a system should:

identify and address the most important legal needs of eligible clients, as determined by appropriate needs assessments, taking into account the diversity of persons and needs in the state and its various communities;

strive to provide low-income persons throughout the state broad and equal access to legal services regardless of such obstacles as disability, geographical isolation, culture and language;

provide high quality legal services to clients throughout the state, regardless of regional distinctions in demography, the economy, or the presence or absence of other local resources to provide or support the provision of legal services to low-income persons;

encourage innovation in the delivery of legal services accompanied by appropriate assessment of results;

minimize duplication of capacities and administration and make the best use of resources available to the delivery system as a whole and its component parts; and

have the capacity and flexibility to respond effectively and efficiently to new and emerging client needs and other changes affecting the delivery of legal services to the poor.

CAPACITIES AND COORDINATED ACTIVITIES

      State planning should be a continuous, forward-looking process. There is no national template that can be applied, and no optimum design or configuration applicable to all states. At the same time, there are key functional capacities and coordinated efforts that, when present, and integrated into a statewide system, have been shown to enhance the effective delivery of legal services to low-income people throughout the state. Program Letter 98-1 identified the following:

I.

A DELIVERY NETWORK THAT MAXIMIZES CLIENT ACCESS, EFFICIENT DELIVERY, AND HIGH QUALITY LEGAL ASSISTANCE

      Within each state, all low-income persons should have equal access to legal services. To achieve this goal, systems must be designed to use scarce resources efficiently and to overcome barriers to access caused by geographic isolation, language, disability, age, and inaccessibility or location of the legal services office. Programs must also tailor their services to ensure meaningful access to clients with distinct needs, such as the homeless, elderly, institutionalized, immigrants, farmworkers, and Native Americans. Once potential clients seek services from legal services providers, the state delivery network should have the capacity to respond promptly, efficiently, and effectively.

      Historically, most civil legal services programs required that all persons seeking assistance have an in-office interview to determine eligibility and the extent of services to be received, even though most of these persons only needed or would only receive, information, advice, or very brief service. Such approaches have proven to be inefficient and, at times, a barrier to access itself. Many legal services programs have replaced these historic walk-in methods with telephone intake and delivery systems which provide high quality advice and brief service, and promptly refer clients whose problems require more assistance to program case handlers or other resources. These telephone delivery systems permit clients to obtain help without traveling to an office, extend service to persons who previously would not have received any help, and free casehandlers to spend more time on extended service cases.

      In a number of states, statewide or regional systems, using advanced telephone and computer technology, have consolidated some or all of these intake, advice and referral functions in one location where trained, experienced staff provide prompt access for and assistance to clients. Some of these systems have a single or primary point of entry which lessens confusion among clients about where to seek assistance while allowing coordination of services, avoiding duplication, and conserving resources among providers.

      In states or regions where state planners believe a single intake, advice and referral system may not be appropriate, providers should find other ways to link their intake and delivery systems to provide prompt and even access for low-income persons throughout the state. At a minimum, all providers must have efficient, responsive systems and coordinate on such matters as publicity, case acceptance, intake and referral policies.

      Finally, while legal services offices within the state may have special programs to deal with the legal needs of special client populations such as immigrants, farmworkers and Native Americans, offices without these special programs must coordinate how the legal needs of these persons and others who experience disproportionate access barriers will be met.

Indicators

      In assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the state's delivery network, as well as to develop strategies to maximize client access, efficient delivery and high quality legal assistance, state planners may wish to consider whether:

Intake, Advice and Referral Systems Are Coordinated and Skilled Personnel Provide Prompt, Responsive, Intake, Advice, and Referral.

Intake, advice and referral systems are centralized or coordinated within appropriate geographical regions to provide easy and even access to eligible clients.

Intake, advice and referral system cases are regularly reviewed for quality of analysis and advice and identification of recurring or systemic problems affecting clients.

Intake, advice and referral systems effectively use technology to record and manage client data and generate letters, information and self-help materials for clients.

Programs routinely evaluate intake, advice and referral system effectiveness, including how effectively the system provides access to eligible clients.

Programs Have Taken Collective Action To Overcome Barriers to Client Access to Legal Services.

Programs use a variety of means, such as toll free telephone lines, outreach visits, coordination with other agencies, and utilization of private attorneys to make services available to clients living in locations distant from a staffed office.

Intake, advice and referral are conducted in languages commonly spoken in the area served.

All programs with telephone intake systems offer alternatives to those clients who have difficulties in gaining access to or using a telephone system.

Special Population Clients Are Able to Gain Access to Legal Services Throughout the State.

Intake, advice and referral systems identify and address legal issues of special population clients.

Intake, advice and referral staff are knowledgeable about specialized legal expertise available within the state so that proper referrals may be made.

Service delivery to special population clients is coordinated among programs.

II.

COORDINATED EFFORTS AND A CAPACITY TO UTILIZE NEW AND EMERGING TECHNOLOGY TO ASSURE COMPATIBILITY, PROMOTE EFFICIENCY, IMPROVE QUALITY AND EXPAND SERVICES TO CLIENTS

      Effective use of technology can significantly increase low-income persons' access to assistance, improve the effectiveness and efficiency of legal work within programs, and enhance coordination among legal services providers and related organizations and individuals.

      Technology can expand the access of low-income persons to legal assistance by increasing the amount of advice and brief service, community legal education materials and pro se assistance available. Intake, advice and referral systems that take advantage of technology to provide prompt advice, referrals and brief service hold the promise of serving more persons more quickly with the same or similar resources devoted to traditional intake structures. Web sites, intranets and related technologies can make community legal education and pro se materials much more broadly available than they have been. While the access of low-income persons to the Web is currently limited, libraries, schools and providers of other social services are rapidly obtaining this capacity, providing public access to citizens and alerting low-income persons to pertinent information.

      The efficiency and effectiveness of legal work within a program may be improved by augmenting casehandlers' access to legal information and expertise, strengthening legal work management, and increasing communication and coordination within a program. Computers linked to the Internet increase access to legal information and expertise by allowing access to computerized statutory and case materials, legal research materials, brief and pleadings banks and by linking casehandlers and task forces through e-mail and similar connectivity. Supervision of legal work and overall coordination of program advocacy are made considerably easier by the presence of networked case management software and e-mail access to all casehandlers.

      Similarly, the capacity of a legal services programs to be in touch with other legal services professionals, professionals in related fields, community organizations, and private bar members potentially or currently working on pro bono projects is considerably enhanced by e-mail, Web access and other related technologies. This capacity can result in shared information and expertise and expanded opportunities for coordinated efforts and joint projects.

      This potential has the best chance of being realized if all legal services providers within the state work together to expand resources and secure necessary expertise to establish compatible systems that are coordinated and non-duplicative.

Indicators

      In assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the state's technological capacities as well as in developing strategies to improve or expand technological capacities, state planners may wish to consider whether:

Advocates and Programs Have the Necessary Technological Capacity.

There is a statewide planning capacity to assure the coordination of technology efforts throughout the delivery system and to plan for improvements. Plans are updated periodically to keep pace with changing technologies and delivery system needs.

Each case handler has a desktop computer and the necessary skills and ability to use it effectively.

In offices with more than five persons, computers are networked.

Each office has at least one computer accessible to all staff with e-mail and Internet connectivity. Where each staff member does not currently have e-mail access at his or her desk, this capacity is being planned for within the next two years.

The same case management software is used throughout the state. The software supports case reporting, intake and timekeeping.

The delivery system has in place systems of technology training and support adequate to its needs.

There is a plan, including a plan to develop and allocate resources, for necessary periodic replacement or upgrading of hardware and software.

Materials Are Put on the Web for Use by Low-Income Persons and Social Services Providers.

Community legal education and pro se materials are available on one or more Web sites in the state.

Programs' Technological Infrastructure Supports Telephone Intake and Brief Advice Systems.

Telephone intake and advice systems take advantage of appropriate technology including case management and advanced telephone systems.

Programs' technological infrastructure (networked computers) is sufficient to support regional or statewide intake systems where planned.

Casehandlers Have Electronic Access to Legal Information and Expertise.

A computerized brief and pleading bank and other materials such as substantive law manuals are available to casehandlers throughout the state.

Casehandlers have access to adequate electronic legal research tools and the necessary skills to use them.

Electronic communications among casehandlers, both within programs and externally (e.g. within task forces), is readily available through e-mail, intranets and/or list serves.

Private Bar Involvement Efforts Make Effective Use of Technology.

PAI recruitment, training, and case handling are enhanced by utilization of technologies such as Web sites and other forms of electronic communication to transmit relevant information to and from participating attorneys, advertise PAI opportunities, and provide participating attorneys with resources (e.g. pleadings, substantive law materials) and information about training programs.

III.

COORDINATED EFFORT TO EXPAND CLIENT ACCESS TO THE COURTS, ENHANCE SELF-HELP OPPORTUNITIES FOR LOW-INCOME PERSONS, AND

PROVIDE PREVENTIVE LEGAL EDUCATION AND ADVICE

      Equal access to justice has long been a cornerstone of the Legal Services Corporation Act and a critical part of the mission of legal services programs. Reductions in federal funds coupled with the increase in client needs have required the legal services community to develop or use new approaches in order to address the need of low-income persons for access to information, services, courts, and other dispute resolution forums and processes.

      Several states have developed successful pro se and access-to-courts projects. Because of the influence of state laws and rules affecting such initiatives, individual providers, working alone, often have to make intensive efforts to implement such strategies. In many instances, positive results can be realized more easily by coordinated state level efforts. Collaboration with state bar committees and state judicial administrators can result in rule changes, development of uniform practices and procedures, publication and dissemination of pro se oriented materials and the development of a more accessible court system.

      Coordinated state level efforts to develop self-help and community education materials can provide similar benefit to clients. In some states, legal services programs, state bar associations and others have collaborated to develop, maintain, and distribute (in some instances, electronically) a range of legal information useful to low-income persons. These efforts are a cost effective way to provide information that can help low-income persons avoid or resolve legal problems by themselves.

Indicators

      In assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the state's access-to-justice capacity as well as in developing strategies to expand or to improve upon existing capacities in this area, state planners may wish to consider whether:

Community Education Materials, Information, and Instruction Are Prepared and Maintained in a Coordinated Manner and Made Readily Available Throughout the State.

Low-income persons throughout the state are informed of legal rights and responsibilities, available options to resolve legal grievances, and the availability of legal services to assist them in protecting their rights.

Where appropriate, audio, audio-visual, and electronic community legal education (CLE) materials are developed and made available.

CLE materials are culturally and linguistically relevant to the various low-income populations within the state.

Staff of community organizations are educated and trained to recognize the legal needs of low-income persons and to make appropriate referrals to legal providers.

Pro Se Projects Are Developed Collaboratively and Structured to Provide Effective Assistance to the Low-Income Community.

Pro se projects use a reliable screening process to determine appropriate participants and provide the support participants need to achieve their objectives.

Pro se materials are clear, easily understood by clients, and in languages spoken by a substantial portion of the low-income community.

Pro se assistance is publicized through a variety of community outreach efforts.

Pro se projects conduct on-going evaluation to ensure that clients achieve objectives, and projects identify problems and make improvements where needed.

State Based Efforts Are Undertaken With Other Stakeholders to Promote Access to Justice in the State.

Efforts are undertaken to establish or work with state bar committees engaged in access issues.

Participants work with state and local judicial officers and court administrative personnel to identify and overcome barriers to court access.

Efforts are undertaken to work with state and local bar officials, judicial officers, and others to ensure low-income citizens have access to appropriate alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation and arbitration.

 

IV.

COORDINATION OF LEGAL WORK AND A CAPACITY TO PROVIDE TRAINING, INFORMATION AND EXPERT ASSISTANCE NECESSARY FOR THE DELIVERY OF HIGH QUALITY ASSISTANCE

      Provision of high quality legal services requires a competent and knowledgeable staff. This, in turn, requires on-going training and professional development, resource materials, timely updates about legal developments and strategies, and co-counseling or other expert assistance on complex client matters. Most programs individually lack the resources and capacities to ensure their staff are provided necessary training, information and related professional assistance. Further, it is not efficient or effective for each program in a state to separately attempt to address the needs of their staffs in these areas.

      Clients are better served and all programs in a state are more effective, economical and efficient, if the staff expertise and other resources of all providers are strategically coordinated to meet the training and professional development needs of staff throughout the state. Effective coordination allows for the identification and use of all available resources, minimizes duplication, facilitates appropriate division of labor, and assures more efficient use of scarce resources.

Indicators

      In assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the state's training and legal work coordination capacities as well as in developing strategies to expand or to improve upon existing capacities in this area, state planners may wish to consider whether:

Advocates Have Access to Adequate and Appropriate Training and Opportunities for Professional Development.

There is on-going and periodic assessment of the training needs of legal services advocates and pro bono attorneys throughout the state. This assessment includes evaluation of training needs in substantive law, legal skills, management, and use of technology.

There is an on-going assessment of training resources within the state (and, as necessary, outside the state), which may include resources within programs or a central statewide organization (e.g., state bar CLE).

Plans are developed and implemented to address identified training needs.

Legal Work is Coordinated and Information Is Shared.

Information about significant judicial, legislative, and administrative developments affecting clients is monitored, analyzed and shared through a central clearinghouse(s) and contact point(s) or other means.

Information concerning legal strategies and techniques in the major legal areas affecting clients in the state is shared and consultation occurs through a central clearinghouse(s) and contact point(s) or other means.

Casehandlers communicate electronically and electronically access legal information, including brief banks and practice manuals, and expertise.

The development of practice manuals and related resource materials is coordinated.

Regular statewide meetings (via teleconferencing if necessary because of geographical considerations) of casehandlers and supervisors are scheduled to discuss common legal issues, approaches, and strategies to serve clients.

 

V.

COORDINATION AND COLLABORATION WITH, AND A HIGH DEGREE OF INVOLVEMENT BY THE PRIVATE BAR

      Private attorney involvement is a critical element of any integrated and coordinated legal services delivery system that is committed to ensuring the highest and best use of all available resources. Many states, employing a variety of techniques, have been successful in enlisting the state Bar, the judiciary and others in developing and supporting private attorney involvement throughout the state. Coordinated recruitment, training and recognition of pro bono attorneys have also increased participation and helped local programs expand the range and types of services available to clients. Cooperative efforts among providers can also result in engagement of pro bono attorneys across program boundaries and otherwise help overcome the difficulties rural programs may encounter in recruiting attorneys where there may be relatively few practicing lawyers in the area.

Indicators

      In assessing the strengths and weaknesses of programs' private bar involvement efforts and in developing statewide capacities to expand or improve upon statewide efforts in this area, state planners may wish to consider whether:

Participation and Recruitment of Private Attorneys Is Considered From a Statewide Perspective.

Private attorney participation rates are periodically evaluated from a statewide perspective to determine what strategies might be undertaken to improve overall participation rates, or in areas with limited numbers of private attorneys, to increase the availability of private bar assistance.

Private attorneys are offered the opportunity to participate in a full spectrum of legal work, including advice and brief service, administrative representation, transactional assistance, and litigation; and are offered a range of activities beyond taking cases, such as conducting community education and pro se classes, volunteering on a hotline, training, co-counseling and mentoring staff.

Private attorneys with specialized expertise or skills are recruited to co-counsel or act as a resource (across program boundaries) on specialized substantive issues and/or issues which may generally not be the province of legal services lawyers, e. g., zoning, tax, commercial transactions, real estate, complex litigation, and non-profit corporation laws.

Private attorneys are recruited from more populous portions of the state to assist clients in areas of the state with few practicing lawyers.

Training and Utilization of Technology Supports Private Bar Involvement Efforts.

Training for PAI attorneys is incorporated into the statewide training agenda for legal services advocates.

Desk manuals on substantive poverty law are developed for PAI attorneys, made available in electronic form, and updated regularly.

Bar support is sought to develop poverty law CLE courses for PAI attorneys and to waive or reduce fees for appropriate CLE courses to encourage enrollment.

Communication vehicles are developed or used to inform PAI attorneys throughout the state about training and volunteer opportunities.

Participating PAI attorneys are connected electronically with legal services providers in the state to facilitate communications about client cases and general legal issues and to receive necessary assistance and support.

Activities Support the Recruitment/Retention of PAI Attorneys.

Attorneys and firms which have made substantial contributions to PAI activities are publicly recognized throughout the state through such means as bar awards and articles in bar and general circulation newspapers and magazines.

VI.

DIVERSIFIED FUNDING AND COORDINATION OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

      Over the past twenty years, legal services programs have developed strong relationships with local bar associations, individual attorneys, governmental entities, and funders to help generate resources to expand the delivery of civil legal services to the poor. While local fundraising efforts continue to be an important revenue source for programs, coordinated, statewide fundraising efforts offer the opportunity to raise significant, additional funds and often are a critical source of revenue for programs in areas without the economic base to support local fundraising campaigns.

      In many states recipients have succeeded, through collective efforts of programs and stakeholders, to develop and expand revenues for all programs through state appropriations, filing fee surcharges, state fundraising campaigns, state bar dues checkoffs, increased attorney registration fees, direct state bar grants, and support for statewide projects from foundations and corporations.

      The pending challenge to IOLTA funding makes it even more important that recipients evaluate the possibilities for further resource development and diversification and develop a statewide strategy to preserve, build, and create new financial and non-financial resources in their states.

Indicators

      In assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the state's resource development efforts and in developing strategies to improve or expand upon statewide capacities in this area, state planners may wish to consider whether:

Coordinated Statewide Efforts, Involving All Stakeholders, Are Undertaken To Preserve, Build and Create New Resources that Assist All Programs.

A state based strategy exists to involve as many stakeholders as possible in coordinated, sustained efforts to preserve, and expand where possible, existing state revenue sources.

Programs and stakeholders have identified statewide revenues being received in other states, explored the possibilities, and where appropriate, developed strategies to obtain such revenues for their own states. Among the sources of revenues to be considered are: state appropriations, filing fee surcharges, state fundraising campaigns, state bar dues checkoffs, increased attorney registration fees, direct state bar grants, and support for statewide projects from foundations and corporations.

Programs and stakeholders have developed strategies to obtain additional resources for areas of the state with disproportionately low resources.

Programs and stakeholders have developed strategies to expand support for legal services beyond the legal community and involve other community leaders in resource development efforts.

VII.

A CONFIGURATION THAT MAXIMIZES THE EFFECTIVE AND ECONOMICAL DELIVERY OF HIGH QUALITY LEGAL SERVICES THROUGHOUT THE STATE

      No single delivery structure or configuration fits all states. Each state has its own demography, geography, resources and history, and state planners must take into account these and other factors when determining what configuration maximizes services for clients. However, in assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the current system configuration, it is critical that state planners focus on the future rather than the past. History and prior decisions by LSC and others are not of themselves sufficient to justify the status quo. Given the significant changes in the legal services landscape, state planners must take a fresh look, from a statewide perspective, and ask if the present configuration currently achieves, and will in the future, achieve the best possible results for clients.

      In some states it may be possible to develop and implement statewide initiatives to improve service delivery, increase resources and enhance the capacity of the system to meet the civil legal needs of low-income people throughout the state without altering service areas or historical relationships. In other states, implementation of such initiatives requires reconfiguration of organizational relationships and service areas. An effective state planning process will carefully assess whether the present and future needs of clients will best be served by the current configuration or whether changes are required to achieve an integrated system that reflects the goals and capacities presented in these State Planning Considerations.

Indicators

      In assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the current configuration of legal services programs, and determining what, if any, changes are needed to develop and implement the capacities discussed above, state planners may wish to consider whether:

The State Delivery System Is Designed and Configured to Maximize Access for Clients Throughout the State.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates a delivery network that provides low-income persons throughout the state broad, prompt, and even access to the legal services it furnishes regardless of such obstacles as disability, geographical isolation, culture and language.

The State Delivery System Is Designed and Configured to Maximize Effective Legal Services to Clients Throughout the State.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates providers having the resources, expertise, information and experience necessary to provide high quality legal services consistent with state and national standards of provider performance.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates coordination of legal work and a statewide capacity to provide training, information and expert assistance necessary for the delivery of high quality assistance.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates coordination of provider efforts to expand client access to the courts, enhance self-help opportunities for low-income persons, and provide preventive legal education and advice.

The State Delivery System Is Designed and Configured to Makes the Highest and Best Use of Available Resources.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates coordination of resource development efforts, including such efforts as unified approaches to major potential public sources, liaison with and maintenance of existing statewide resources, and coordinated technical assistance for local fundraising.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates coordination of efforts and a capacity to utilize new and emerging technology to promote efficiency, improve quality and expand services to clients.

The configuration of programs within the state avoids duplication of capacities and administration.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates strong coordination and collaboration with, and a high degree of involvement by, the private bar.

The State Delivery System Is Designed and Configured To Encourage Innovation in the Delivery of Legal Services Accompanied by Appropriate Evaluation of Results.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates coordinated research and effort to stay abreast of developments in the delivery of legal services.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates attempts to secure new funding for, or allocate current funding to, new projects and experimental models for serving clients or strengthening system capacities.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates evaluation and sharing of results among providers.

The State Delivery System Is Designed and Configured to Respond Effectively and Efficiently to New and Emerging Client Needs and Other Changes Affecting the Delivery of Legal Services to the Poor.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates efficient, ongoing assessment of demographic trends, changes in laws and public programs affecting low-income persons.

The configuration of programs within the state does not impede regular review of system capacities and resources and adjustments in their deployment to respond to emerging client needs and other changes affecting the delivery of legal services to the poor.

The configuration of programs within the state facilitates components of the delivery system having sufficient resources and support to adjust to changes in client needs, staff or funding.

 

Legal Services Corporation For 25 Years, America's Partner For Equal Justice

PROGRAM LETTER 2000-7

John McKay President Board of Directors Douglas S. Eakeley Roseland, NJ Chairman John N. Erlenborn Issue, MD Vice Chairman Hulett H. Askew Atlanta, GA LaVeeda M. Battle Birmingham, AL John T. Broderick, Jr. Manchester, NH Edna Fairbanks-Williams Fairhaven, VT F. Wm. McCalpin St. Louis, MO Maria Luisa Mercado Galveston, TX Nancy H. Rogers Columbus, OH Thomas F. Smegal, Jr. San Francisco, CA Ernestine P. Watlington Harrisburg, PA

TO: All LSC Program Directors   FROM: Randi Youells ___________ Vice President for Programs   DATE: December 13, 2000   RE: STATE PLANNING AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES (Building A Stronger Foundation: A Framework for Planning and Evaluating Comprehensive, Integrated and Client–Centered State Justice Communities)         Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 launched LSC's most recent state planning activities approximately three years ago. Pressured by funding shortfalls and the changing needs of clients and concerned with enhancing system efficiency, effectiveness and the ability to meet clients' legal needs, legal services programs throughout the United States were challenged by these two program letters to become actively engaged in a process of reassessing their delivery practices and policies, restructuring their legal services delivery systems and reallocating their legal services dollars. Essentially, LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 asked grantees to look at their roles in a new way -- to expand their horizons from what's best for the clients in my service area to what is best for clients throughout the state. Using this new lens, programs were asked to report on how they would coordinate and integrate their work in seven important areas -- enhancing client access, efficiently delivering high quality legal assistance; effectively using technology to expand access and enhance services; promoting client self-help and preventive legal education and advice; coordinating legal work and training staff; coordinating and collaborating with the private bar; developing additional resources to support legal services delivery; and designing a legal services delivery configuration that enhanced client services, reduced barriers and operated efficiently and effectively.       On January 28, 2000, the LSC Board of Directors approved LSC’s 5-year Strategic Direction Plan.1 This document commits LSC to dramatically enhance the impact of Legal Services programs throughout the nation by improving access to legal services among eligible persons while enhancing the quality of the services delivered. The Plan highlighted LSC’s State Planning Initiative as the primary strategy for expanding access to and availability of services throughout the United States.       Over the course of the last three years, many states have begun to develop comprehensive and integrated legal services delivery systems that: recognize that state justice communities must be broader than just LSC-funded grantees to include both LSC-funded and non-LSC funded sectors of the legal services delivery system, and provide a continuum of services that encompasses individual representation, extended representation, advice, pro se advocacy, preventative education, community involvement and support, and the use of technology to expand essential services to all low-income persons within a state. These are exciting developments. However, it continues to be apparent that in many states and territories, the legal services delivery system remains a fragmented set of disconnected services. In many states we continue to find a wide divergence in the availability of services, client access capabilities and civil equal justice resources. This stands in stark contrast to our expectation that the statewide delivery system be constructed and maintained to provide for: (a) relative equity of client access to the civil legal services delivery system throughout the state: (b) relative equity in the availability of the full range of client service capacities necessary to meet the full continuum of client legal needs regardless of where in the state clients live; (c) relative equity in the capacity to serve client communities in all of their diversity; and (d) relative equity in the investment of civil equal justice resources (federal, state, private, and in-kind/pro bono) throughout the state.       A hallmark of an integrated delivery system is its flexibility to deploy resources in geographic or substantive areas so that quality of services is improved, funds are increased and outcomes for clients are expanded in areas where they are weak. In this context, then, relative equity considers the system’s various capacities throughout the state, from region to region, and directs necessary resources to locales where improvement of any sort is required to assure that all low-income people in the state have similar degrees of access to the full spectrum of equal justice services.       In this program letter we are announcing three strategies to advance LSC's efforts to create comprehensive integrated, coordinated, client-centered state justice communities in each state: The creation of a team within LSC specifically assigned responsibility for state planning; A period of self-evaluation by and in each state justice community, with an evaluation report to be issued to LSC at the end of the evaluation period; and The linking of state planning with the development of new performance measurement tools. The information received from the field on the State Planning Process and Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 after publication of these two documents in the Federal Register and input derived from more than two years of on-site engagement by LSC staff and consultants in the field were instrumental in the development of these strategies. The Creation of a State Planning Team within LSC       LSC's Strategic Plan emphasizes that LSC's State Planning Initiative is our primary strategy for expanding access to and availability of services throughout the United States. To stress the importance of this effort and to facilitate the development of state justice communities, LSC will create a planning team to coordinate our state planning activities. This team will be directly attached to and supervised by the LSC Vice-President for Programs. A Period of Self-Evaluation by and in Each State Justice Community       We are in a period of significant transition moving from an LSC-centric legal services model to comprehensive, integrated and client-centered state justice communities. We acknowledge that the journey is not over and that significant effort remains to ensure that comprehensive justice communities exist and function within every state and territory. As we move forward with our efforts, we must remain conscious of the need to address several questions of fundamental relevance. These include: To what extent has a comprehensive, integrated client-centered legal services delivery system been achieved in a particular state? To what extent have intended outcomes of a comprehensive, integrated and client-centered legal service delivery system been achieved including but not limited to service effectiveness/quality; efficiency; equity in terms of client access; greater involvement by members of the private bar in the legal lives of clients; and client-community empowerment? Are the best organizational and human resource management configurations and approaches being used?       We believe that the next several months are an appropriate time to try to begin to answer these questions. We have been involved in state planning activities for approximately three years, and LSC believes that states need a period of introspection about where they have been and where they are going. Moreover, we can all acknowledge that self-evaluation is a worthwhile and important part of our planning for the creation of comprehensive, integrated, client-centered legal services delivery systems within each state. We are, accordingly, requiring our grantees and requesting that other state planners begin a period of evaluation of their planning efforts and activities over the last three years using the above questions as a framework for the evaluation report. These self-evaluations will inform each state justice community and LSC of what has worked, what has not worked and why, what obstacles stand in planners path, and what steps and support might assist each state to better achieve a comprehensive, integrated, client-centered delivery system that delivers upon the promise of equal justice for all.       Evaluations can be performed by state planners themselves or by outside consultants hired to perform this task. We ask that a single evaluation report for each state be submitted to LSC on or before July 1, 2001 unless LSC has granted your state an extension of time in which to file the report. Please submit your extension requests no later than May 15, 2001, to Robert Gross, Senior Program Counsel for State Planning at LSC. Reports should be no longer that 30 pages (not more than 10 pages single-spaced for each area of inquiry) and should contain the name and telephone number of a contact person(s). Attachments will be accepted as long as they provide additional information that clarifies a particular issue or area of inquiry as identified in the body of the report. The report should assume that the effort to create state justice communities is ongoing and that we do not expect that you have completed your work. Self-evaluation reports should be a candid and honest assessment of the progress that each state has made in creating a comprehensive, integrated and client-centered delivery system as well as of the work that remains to be done. Reports should address the following issues in the order presented: To what extent has a comprehensive, integrated and client-centered legal services delivery system been achieved in a particular state? Areas of exploration include: What are the important issues that impact upon low income people within your state? How is your state responding to these issues? What are the components of the delivery system? Has this system created mechanisms to assess its performance in relationship to commonly-accepted external guides such as the ABA Standards for Providers of Civil Legal Services to the Poor, the LSC Performance Criteria or some other set of objective criteria? What is the protocol for undertaking system performance review and when was a review last undertaken? Does your statewide system work to ensure the availability of equitable legal assistance capacities to clients -- regardless of who the clients are, where they reside or the languages they speak? How does your system ensure that clients have equitable access to necessary assistance including self-help, legal education, advice, brief service, and representation in all relevant forums? Please describe what steps you anticipate taking to ensure equitable access in the coming years. How does the legal service delivery system employ technology to provide increased access and enhanced services to clients throughout the state? What technological initiatives are currently underway and how will they support the integrated statewide delivery system? How has the legal service delivery system expanded its resources to provide critical legal services to low income clients including hard to reach groups such as migrant farmworkers, Native Americans, the elderly, those with physical or mental disabilities, those confined to institutions, immigrants and the rural poor? What steps have been implemented within the legal services delivery system and among client communities to identify and nurture new leaders? Do the existing leaders reflect the diversity within the state and within client communities that your delivery system serves? Do your state’s equal justice leaders reflect the gender, race, ethnic and economic concerns of important but sometimes overlooked groups within your state? Does the leadership provide opportunities for innovation and experimentation; does it support creative solutions to meet changing needs; are new ideas welcomed; are clients nurtured as leaders? Has the leadership been given sufficient authority and resources to implement needed changes? What do you envision will be your next steps to achieve a client-centered integrated and comprehensive delivery system within your state or territory? How will clients be actively involved in the determination of these next steps? What has been the greatest obstacle to achieving a statewide, integrated, client-centered delivery system and how was that obstacle overcome or, alternatively, how do you plan to overcome that obstacle? Has any benefit-to-cost analysis been made in terms of creating a comprehensive, integrated and client-centered legal services delivery system in your state? If yes, what does your analysis show? What resources, technical assistance and support would help you meet your goals? To what extent have intended outcomes of a comprehensive, integrated client-centered legal service delivery system been achieved including but not limited to service effectiveness/quality; efficiency; equity in terms of client access; greater involvement by members of the private bar in the legal lives of clients, and client-community empowerment? Areas of exploration include: In terms of the issues impacting upon low-income persons within your state, what strategies have you designed to address these issues and how do you plan to measure your future success in addressing your objectives? Has the legal services delivery system expanded access and services through coordination with providers throughout the state? Can this be quantified? Has the quality of services provided by the legal services delivery system improved. How? Since 1998, has there been improvement in the relative equity of client access throughout the state for all low income clients regardless of who they are, where in the state they reside, what languages they speak, their race/gender/ national origin, or the existence of other access barriers? How is this equity achieved? Since 1998, has there been improvement in the relative equity in terms of the availability of the full range of civil equal justice delivery capacities throughout the state? What mechanisms have been developed to ensure such relative equity is achieved and maintained? Since 1998, has there been improvement in the relative equity in the development and distribution of civil equal justice resources throughout the state? Are there areas of the state that suffer from a disproportionate lack of resources (funding as well as in-kind/pro bono)? If so, is there a strategy to overcome such inequities? Does this legal services delivery system operate efficiently? Are there areas of duplication? Has the system expanded the way it involves private lawyers in the delivery of essential services to low-income persons? Does the system effectively and efficiently use the private bar to deliver essential services to low income people? Are the best organizational and human resource management configurations and approaches being used? Areas of exploration include: For calendar year 2001, what is the current configuration of programs (LSC and non-LSC) that deliver services to low income clients -- i.e., what are the components (size, areas of responsibility, governance) of the delivery system? What are the funding sources and levels for each of these components of the delivery system? Since October 1998, what other configurations and/or approaches have been seriously explored? Were any adopted? Were any rejected? Are any changes contemplated in the coming year? Is there any identifiable duplication in capacities or services in the state? How many duplicative systems -- accounting systems, human resources management systems, case management systems, etc. -- currently exist? Does the service delivery system now in use minimize or eliminate duplications that existed prior to October 1, 1998? Since October 1998, what innovative service delivery systems/mechanisms/initiatives been adopted in the state? Have any been explored and then rejected? Linking State Planning with the Development of New Performance Measurement Tools       Simultaneously with these self-evaluations, LSC will proceed to contract with a private research firm to formally evaluate legal services delivery systems in a selected number of states. LSC plans to select several states that we believe are at important stages of the planning-implementation process for an outside evaluation. If your state is chosen, you will not have to do the self-evaluation discussed in this program letter. Moreover, LSC will provide discretionary grants and/or technical assistance to assist with and help defray any in-kind program costs associated with this project.       The purpose of these evaluations will be to determine whether or not the delivery model in use in the state has effectively implemented the concepts and principles of a comprehensive, integrated and client-centered legal services delivery system. LSC will study the relationship between the structure of the delivery system and desired outcomes as articulated by the selected states in prior planning documents. The findings of these formal evaluations -- together with the material presented in the self-evaluations --will assist LSC and other interested stakeholders in understanding how best to conceptualize, design and deliver comprehensive, integrated and client-centered legal services. We will use this information to begin to develop new performance measurement tools.  ____________________ 1  To download a copy, go to http://www.lsc.gov/pressr/pr_pi.htm.