State_Planning_Report.txt

Organizations are like elephants -- slow to change
James A. Belasco

Over the last ten years, many civil legal services leaders,
stakeholders, program directors and managers throughout the United
States began to wonder whether the civil legal services delivery
structure that had been in place for a quarter of a century was
positioned to meets its many future challenges. Funding was
declining or stagnant, many people in leadership positions were
weary after years of fighting for survival, demand for the delivery
of quality legal services was increasing, staff were questioning
their work environments and their personal goals, technology was
fundamentally changing the practice of law, and society was growing
increasingly inhospitable to the needs of poor people. The legal
services delivery system, created in another time and place, didn't
seem to be working in the ways that we--stakeholders, staff,
clients--expected it to work. And although we were proud of our
collective past, many of us had serious doubts as to whether the
delivery system that we had created, and that had performed well
for us and for our clients for the past twenty years, was the most
effective and efficient delivery system for the difficult and
challenging times ahead.
Programs and program directors responded to these concerns in
different ways. Some pursued strategic planning initiatives. Others
engaged in aggressive resource development, pursued alternative
methods of providing legal services to clients, reconfigured their
organizations, or, in some instances, took their skills and talents
elsewhere. And, unfortunately, too many of us did nothing.
In 1995 and again in 1998, the Legal Services Corporation
recognized that legal services programs were going to have to
change the method and manner in which they conducted their business
if they were going to remain viable and responsive to the needs of
low income persons. Moreover, LSC wanted to encourage all programs
to pursue some semblance of planning. LSC, therefore, required its
grantees to begin to examine, on a statewide level, how all
grantees in a particular state would serve in the present, and plan
to serve in the future, the civil legal needs of low-income
persons. In 1995, LSC's state planning initiative was primarily
focused on how grantees would work together to address funding
shortfalls and to respond to the 1995-96 restrictions. In 1998, LSC
Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 broadened the scope of the state
planning initiative, asking grantees to determine how they could
expand services and ensure that all clients received similar levels
of assistance regardless of their location in the state or other
factors such as language, disability or political popularity.
In essence, these two Program Letters asked grantees to expand
their horizons from "what's best for the clients in my service
area" to "what's best for clients throughout the state." Programs
were requested to develop plans to coordinate and integrate their
work in seven important areas--enhancing client access and
efficiency in delivering high quality legal assistance; using
technology to expand access and enhance services; promoting client
self-help and preventive legal education and advice; coordinating
legal work and training; collaborating with the private bar;
expanding resources to support legal services; and designing a
system configuration that enhances client services, reduces
barriers and operates efficiently and effectively. LSC's grantees
were asked to:


•
Investigate the strengths and weaknesses of and resources
available to individual programs as well as the overall strengths
and weaknesses of and resources available to the state's legal
services "system;"


•
Assess the needs of the communities served by the
programs and the overall "system;"


•
Anticipate changes and trends that will most likely
affect civil legal services programs in coming years;
and


•
Devise a plan of action, on a statewide basis, to address
the identified needs of low income persons in the present while
ensuring that the civil legal needs of future generations of
low-income persons can be efficiently and effectively
addressed.


A handful of states answered LSC's call to action. They
consolidated programs to increase efficiency and deploy resources
more effectively; they took advantage of technology advances to
improve intake systems; they expanded the network of stakeholders
to increase the support and guidance available to service
providers. Their successes inspired LSC and other national
organizations to a deeper involvement in state planning and higher
expectations for all states.
In January 2000, the LSC Board of Directors approved LSC's
5-year Strategic Direction Plan. This document commits LSC to
dramatically expand 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 highlights LSC's State Planning Initiative as
the primary strategy for achieving these goals. In December 2000,
LSC issued its third program letter on state planning. Program
Letter 2000-7 renewed LSC's challenge to its grantees to actively
engage in assessing their delivery practices and policies and the
allocation of their legal services dollars. Program Letter 2000-7
makes clear that the state planning initiative will continue to be
LSC's highest priority.
What does LSC mean when it talks about state planning? It has
often been pointed out that the term state planning does not
capture the full scope of the activities that are included in the
process as it is playing out across the country. Developing a plan
is only the beginning of an ongoing effort that includes
implementation of the plan's initiatives, continuous outreach to
new partners, regular assessment of progress toward goals, and
modifications of the plan as circumstances change.
Because these elements are all included in the concept of
strategic planning, as it is currently understood in management
practice, one advantage of the term state planning is that it
emphasizes that what is involved is strategic planning for state
equal justice communities.
Developing structures and processes for building and maintaining
comprehensive, integrated, statewide civil legal assistance
delivery systems may define the process more accurately but it is
certainly a mouthful. Building state justice communities captures
the concepts of partnership and shared responsibility that are
involved, but may under-emphasize the ultimate goal to which the
building of the community is directed--the creation and maintenance
of a system capable of providing equal justice for low-income
people. In the end, actions do speak louder than words. It doesn't
really matter if we talk about state planning or state justice
communities or worldclass delivery systems or the creation of
comprehensive, integrated and coordinated legal services delivery
systems. It just matters that we do it. In this Report, however,
the term state planning should be understood in its broadest sense,
as inclusive of all these concepts and various structures,
processes, and individual initiatives described in the following
sections.
One final thought. Although state planning is LSC's highest
priority and we have put considerable resources into it over the
last three years, LSC did not embark upon this journey alone. As we
proceeded with state planning activities, our national partners
also introduced projects targeted to the same goals--the creation
in every state of a "state justice community" collaborating on the
creation and maintenance of a civil legal assistance system fully
responsive to the needs of low-income people. Among these
initiatives we would like to specifically recognize are the joint
ABA-NLADA SPAN (State Planning Assistance Network) project, and the
joint NLADA-CLASP Project for the Future of Equal Justice. On the
state level, IOLTA--based funders including but not limited to
IOLTA programs in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, New
York, New Jersey and Michigan--have also been a key force in state
planning.
This Report describes progress that the legal services community
has made in the six years since LSC issued its first Program Letter
on the subject. It identifies some lessons gleaned from these
achievements, describes the growth in selected states toward
building a justice community capable of responding to the full
range of civil legal needs of low-income people (Part II), and
identifies some lessons that have emerged from successful or
promising planning processes, as well as the particular structures
and strategies that these states have employed (Part III).
We acknowledge the hard work of building state justice
communities and salute all those who have rolled up their sleeves
to take part in this exciting effort. We believe this report
demonstrates there is a big payoff for clients--which, after all,
is what it is all about.

Over the past six years, many states have developed a range of
initiatives aimed at expanding access and improving services to
clients. Their achievements, like the planning processes they have
followed, have varied according to local circumstances, challenges,
and opportunities. As expected, one size truly does not fit all.
However, there have been important similarities in terms of
successes. These include:


•
Obtaining or significantly expanding state funding for
legal services;


•
Establishing systems for coordinating advocacy and
training among programs;


•
Making the court system more responsive and accessible to
low-income and pro se litigants;


•
Reconfiguring programs within a state to strengthen
coordination, access, and services;


•
Establishing structures to more creatively involve the
private bar in the delivery of civil legal assistance;


•
Creating and executing a statewide technology plan to
improve access and enhance delivery;


•
Developing a statewide coordinated intake system;
and


•
Expanding the number of stakeholders within a state
committed to the concept of equal justice.


This section describes the progress that has taken place in 18
selected states toward building state justice communities capable
of responding to the civil legal needs of their low-income
residents. These states are at different stages in the planning
process. In a few states, a fully developed state justice community
is in place and its accomplishments are paying off in terms of
expanded and improved services to clients. Some states have
developed key justice community institutions whose significant
improvements in the structure of civil legal assistance in their
state position them to make real changes for clients. Some states
are still in an early phase: they have developed a plan that shows
real promise and are just beginning to build the structures and
launch the initiatives to implement it.
The states described here are by no means the only ones that
have made progress. Others could have been included as well. Some
states, such as Connecticut, Vermont, and Hawaii, made major
changes in their delivery systems in 1995 and 1996 and are working
diligently to realize the full potential of those systems. Others,
such as New York, Texas, and North Carolina, are engaged in
promising efforts to overcome particular challenges associated with
their size and diversity. Still others--Kentucky, Wisconsin,
Louisiana--while relatively slow to embrace the concept of state
planning have, within the past year, made significant progress in
addressing issues of access and quality in their states.
What we hope to demonstrate in describing what has been achieved
in these selected states is both their differences and their
similarities, the range of different processes, structures, and
strategies that have led to their successes, and the basic
commonalties that underlie them in terms of vision, inclusiveness,
leadership and commitment. Each of the states described in this
section provides insights and lessons that can be of benefit to
others.


In 1998, California in recognition of the state's size,
diversity and complexity asked LSC to allow it to first develop
regional plans for the creation of "regional" justice communities.
LSC approved this proposal and in October received regional plans
from five regions. The current configuration and planning successes
in each of these regions are described below:
The Northern Region. Since April 1999, as the result of program
mergers, Legal Services of Northern California has been the sole
LSC-funded provider for the entire region, with nine offices
covering 23 counties. This region has made significant progress in
developing a comprehensive, integrated delivery system to provide
high-quality services to clients throughout northern California. In
addition to instituting a programwide Regional Counsel advocate
support/case review system, which emphasizes collaboration and
co-counseling on common issues throughout the whole region, LSNC is
coordinating and advancing a region-wide advocacy agenda in welfare
to work and housing and economic development. This region has also
developed additional resources for region-wide initiatives, such as
a $120,000 three-year grant from the Rockefeller Foundation to
increase the capacities of three community-based organizations.
The Bay Area. The Bay Area was one of three geographical areas
in the United States involuntarily reconfigured by LSC. On January
1, 2000 Bay Area Legal Aid ("Bay Legal") became the only LSC-funded
program for all seven counties in the San Francisco area. The new
program, headquartered in Oakland, was the result of a merger
between San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance (SFNLAF),
Community Legal Services in San Jose, and Legal Foundation of
Contra Costa. In FY 2000, Bay Legal was the recipient of a $175,235
LSC Technology Initiative Grant. This grant will enable Bay Legal
advocates and clients throughout the region to use networked
computer terminals to easily access forms and information. In its
first year, Bay Legal also successfully conducted a region-wide
"Campaign for Justice" fundraising effort which brought in
significant funds to all of its offices.
The Central California Region. Five LSC-funded programs
previously served the central California region. Today, the region
is served by three LSC-funded providers--California Rural Legal
Assistance (CRLA), Central California Legal Services (CCLS) and
Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance (GBLA). These three programs
created the California Rural Justice Consortium, a planning entity
dedicated to the vision of a seamless justice system in the region.
The Consortium is working on issues throughout the region,
including the legal problems of migrant sheepherders and health and
environmental issues affecting rural clients. In order to address
the access barriers that face rural and isolated communities and
enhance communication between and among the three programs, the
programs have developed highly sophisticated video-conferencing
capability. The three programs have also agreed to allow and
encourage staff members to move freely among the three programs in
order to respond to clients needs most effectively.
The Los Angeles Basin. As a result of the merger between the
Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach and the Legal Aid Foundation of
Los Angeles, there are now three programs serving this region. The
programs have hired a Joint Advocacy Coordinator who staffs the
Joint Advocacy Project to respond to major issues that cut across
program lines and can be addressed most effectively by advocates
from multiple programs. One of the first projects jointly pursued
by the LA Basin programs will address the diverse languages spoken
by Asian client population. Under a grant from the Open Society
Institute, the programs contracted with the Asian Pacific American
Legal Center of Southern California to provide centralized intake
for Asian clients who do not speak English. If the clients require
extended service or representation, their cases are then matched
with staff of any of the three programs depending on the specific
language capabilities of each program. Through this project the LA
Basin has found a way to serve Asian clients who do not speak
English.
The programs are also poised to make a major investment in
technology to expand the delivery of legal services. The I-CAN
project, funded initially by an LSC technology initiative grant,
was developed by the Legal Aid Society of Orange County (LASOC) to
help "pro per" clients fill out Judicial Council forms in family
law matters. Future plans includes replicating I-CAN throughout the
region and locating kiosks at libraries that can be used by clients
for on-line filings of certain legal matters.
The Southern Region. The two programs in this region, the Legal
Aid Society of San Diego and Inland Counties Legal Services, were
relatively late in region-wide planning. Recently, these two
programs have committed to an agenda of specific collaborative
projects, including joint technology consultations, joint efforts
by the two Boards of Directors in areas of mutual interest, joint
economic development projects, and assistance in developing intake
systems. Both programs are recipients of "partnership" grants to
run projects to help Spanish-speaking "pro per" clients in their
respective county courthouses. Both are also active participants in
other statewide initiatives. For example, Inland and San Diego have
both partnered with CRLA to respond to migrant clients needs in the
Coachella and Imperial valleys. However, significant integration
and planning work remains to be done in this area of the state.
State Activities. LSC's 1998 call for state planning coincided
with an active period within California's justice community. The
Access to Justice Commission was created in 1996 as a coordinating
body to seek support for legal services programs and develop
strategies to address the severe lack of access to justice that had
been identified earlier by a State Bar-sponsored blue ribbon study
group. The membership of the Commission consisted of
representatives from the bench and bar, including many long-term
supporters of legal services, academics, and business, labor and
religious leaders, as well as representatives of the provider
community. The first priority of the Commission was resource
development and the Commission led a sustained effort in the
California legislature to obtain state funds to support the
provision of civil legal services to lowincome persons. In 1999,
California appropriated, for the first time, $10 million for legal
services. The same amount was appropriated in FY 2000. A 50%
increase to $15 million is expected for 2001.
The Commission's second priority was the improvement of access
to the courts for "pro per" litigants. The Commission and planners
dedicated 10% of the state appropriation for civil legal services
to fund innovative projects that partner legal services providers
and the courts to assist low-income self-represented litigants.
With support from LSC's Technology Initiative Grants, LSC-funded
programs are leaders and active participants in California's plan
to utilize technology to expand access and improve legal services
delivery. Other promising technology initiatives include the
CalJustice Technology Project of the Public Interest Clearinghouse,
which focuses on increasing client access to the judicial system
through the development of an artificial intelligence-based tool to
help advocates quickly spot issues in and strategize about cases.
The state has also recently adopted statewide priorities for
connectivity and communication, developed minimum technology
standards and created mechanisms to share best practices.
Other statewide non-technology initiatives include:


•
Inter-program and inter-region collaborative projects to
develop new substantive expertise and new programs to respond to
changes in policy and law impacting upon low-income
clients;


•
A system of advocacy training and litigation support
through a network of support centers in the areas of health, youth,
housing, and economic development;


•
The development of standards and assessment tools
tovaluate the support centers.




State planning in Colorado began in 1995 with the formation of
the Statewide Legal Services Planning Group. Represented in the
Group were LSC-funded programs, the organized bar, the judiciary,
both law schools in the state, eligible clients, the Colorado
Lawyers Trust Account Foundation (the state=s IOLTA program), the
Legal Aid Foundation (the statewide fundraising arm for Colorado=s
federally-funded legal services programs) providers of specialized
legal services and other groups interested in the provision of
legal assistance to low-income people.
Early planning efforts focused on development of additional
resources, expansion of pro bono assistance and support from the
private bar and ensuring effective delivery of services by the
federally funded programs. Initial efforts addressed a variety of
internal issues including training and support, increased use of
technology, more efficient and uniform intake and the provision of
legal advice and brief service, and meeting the needs of
particularly vulnerable populations including migrants, Native
Americans, non-English speaking persons, immigrants and disabled
and institutionalized individuals.
Progress was made on a number of issues important to the legal
services community, but despite signs of chronic weakness in two
programs, the 4-program LSC structure was left intact. During LSC's
1996 competition, the service area of one of these programs was
awarded to an adjacent program. The other received limited funding,
and ultimately was provided a very short grant. Together with LSC's
1998 Program Letters, this decision provided the impetus for more
serious discussion of program configuration which resulted in the
formation of a single statewide program, Colorado Legal Services,
effective October 1, 1999.
The formation of a single statewide program was adopted to
breathe life into a single program that will provide meaningful
access to high quality legal services, in the pursuit of justice
for as many low-income people throughout Colorado as possible.@
This vision became a touchstone for decisions as to program
governance, delivery issues, including office staffing, support,
training, technology, and increased access to high quality legal
advice, brief service and more extensive legal representation.
During the consolidation process, the Legal Services Corporation
technical assistance grants enabled the program to utilize the
services of a skilled consultant and facilitator to move the
process to conclusion, to send program staff to visit and observe
other programs with well respected and technologically
sophisticated centralized intake systems, to bring experts to the
program to help design a transition to statewide administrative and
personnel systems, and helped fund the statewide staff meeting
which launched and celebrated the new statewide program.
The goals of the single statewide program included establishing
uniform standards for high quality legal representation, increased
administrative efficiency and the provision of more effective,
accurate and helpful brief service and advice, increased training,
technical assistance and support for all staff, but particularly
for casehandlers in small remote rural offices, and significantly
increased access for more low-income Coloradans in need of service.
Many of these goals have been met and others continue as work in
progress.
Initiatives that CLS has undertaken to improve and expand
services to clients on a statewide basis included:


•
The establishment of statewide priorities that pay
particular attention to the needs of rural, hard-to-reach
areas;


•
Increased training and advocacy support throughout the
state;


•
Detailed plans to initiate a Client Access Plan which
will feature a highlycentralized telephone-based intake
system;


•
Vastly upgraded technological equipment, Internet access
and computer capability;


•
A new case information system that will provide improved
information about numerous aspects of the provision of legal
assistance to the low-income community throughout the
state;


•
Casehandlers standards to be used as benchmarks by staff
in the representation of all program clients.


Successful efforts have also been made to expand resources
necessary for the delivery of civil legal assistance to the
indigent. Other efforts focus on how to increase pro bono
representation of both eligible clients and potential clients in
need of service provided by the federally funded statewide program,
and to locate providers for services that may not be available from
the recipient of LSC funds.
Increases in resource for civil legal assistance have
included:


•
Significantly expanded giving by law firms and lawyers to
the Legal Aid Foundation of Colorado since 1995;



•
After many years of effort, State General Assembly
appropriated funds in 1999 ($250,000) to serve the civil needs of
victims of domestic and family violence and $400,000 in fiscal year
2000.

The coordinated and focused efforts of the State Planning Group
have also brought major positive changes to pro bono activities
throughout the state including:


•
The Colorado Supreme Court revised Rule 6.1 of the
Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, effective January 1, 2000,
to provide an aspirational goal that every lawyer provide not less
than 50 hours per year of pro bono services each year;


•
The Colorado Supreme Court amended the Code of Judicial
Conduct to more clearly specify that judges may engage in
activities to encourage lawyers to perform pro bono
service;


•
The Colorado Bar Association=s Board of Governors in May,
2000 approved a set of guidelines to encourage pro bono service by
government and public attorneys;


•
A thorough review and revision of its Private Attorney
Involvement activities by CLS to further encourage pro bono
participation throughout the State;


•
Efforts by CLS to maximize local pro bono participation
while further coordinating statewide technical assistance and legal
support provided to attorneys who participate in pro bono programs
as well as increased recognition of volunteer lawyers at both the
local and state level.


The relationship between LSC-funded providers and their partners
in the state justice community in Colorado has always been
positive. The consolidation of the federally-funded programs into a
single statewide entity has provided the opportunity for increased
communication and collaboration throughout the state both within
legal services and between legal services providers and their
allies in the private bar, client and local communities and with
other key constituencies. It is expected that continued planning
and concerted effort will result in higher quality service provided
more uniformly throughout the state, and that clients in increasing
numbers will be the beneficiaries of a more thoughtful and better
coordinated state justice community in Colorado.


Florida


Florida planning efforts began in 1991 with The Florida Bar and
Florida Bar Foundation's Joint Commission on the Delivery of Legal
Assistance study and report. Its recommendation to increase pro
bono engagement was addressed in 1993 when the Florida Supreme
Court mandated pro bono reporting for Florida Bar members.
Recommendations contained in the 1991 plan also resulted in the
institution of tri-annual peer reviews for all Florida Bar
Foundation (Foundation) funded programs, including the state's
twelve LSC organizations. Recommendations that programs improve
technology capacities were addressed in large part by a revolving
loan fund, established by the Foundation, that enabled LSC programs
and other IOTA recipients to purchase needed computer and related
technology. In 1996, the state's "companion system" was created to
serve clients whom LSC-funded organizations could not
represent.
More recently, and in response to LSC's state planning letters,
planning moved to a new level when the directors of Florida's
largest legal services programs held a retreat to consider how to
improve civil legal assistance in the state. A Technical Assistance
Grant from LSC, matched by a grant from The Florida Bar Foundation,
enabled the directors to retain the services of a consultant who
has continued to guide the planning process.
At the retreat, the 21 directors examined changes in client
needs and the practice of law over the past ten years. They asked
themselves what accomplishments they and their staff were most
proud of, and how they could expand these achievements. They
considered ways in which the 33 civil legal services programs in
the state (including the 12 LSC entities) should expand
partnerships to ensure that low-income Floridians had access to a
full array of the highest quality legal services possible. They
realized that significant change in the service delivery system was
needed because of the increasing complexity of the practice of law,
the number of legal services providers in the state, the
restrictions on LSC recipients and, most important, changes in laws
and programs affecting clients. It became clear that restructuring
Florida's delivery system could increase the work that made staff
most proud and brought clients the best services. The directors
developed the concept of "statewide, client-centered, energetic,
affirmative advocacy" as a key value against which to measure all
proposals for change. Its elements were identified as:


•
Shared responsibility for the statewide delivery
system


•
Collaborative attitudes on the part of advocates and
programs


•
Strategic thinking about the most effective way to
achieve results for clients


•
Advocacy skills needed to provide effective, high-quality
services


•
Client centered provision of services


•
Ongoing self-assessment


A survey was sent to all staff at the 33 nonprofit civil legal
services asking them to describe how they could become (or maintain
themselves as) energetic, affirmative advocates, as well as what
support they might require and how collaborative efforts in the
state could meet those needs. There were 273 responses from 25
programs. The results were reported to the equal justice community
and posted on the Florida Legal Services website,
www.floridalegal.org.
The initial planning effort sparked by the 21 program directors
grew to become a broadly inclusive structure. Participants
represent key stakeholders including funders, bar leaders, judges,
advocates and clients, among others. Its principal components
are:
Oversight Committee. Consisting of representatives of the Board
of Governors of the Florida State Bar and The Florida Bar
Foundation, the statewide Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal
Services, the Project Directors Association, Florida Legal
Services, the judiciary, and clients, this group guides the
planning process, seeks input from stakeholders, establishes a
timeline and gives final approval of the state plan.
Action Committees. Charged with exploring problems and
opportunities in the areas identified in the project director
retreat and the advocacy survey, these committees focus on Resource
Development, Vision, Technology, Legislative/Administrative
Advocacy, Client Access, Collaboration, and Training and Technical
Assistance. Each committee developed measurable goals with
estimated dates for completion. Close to 80 individuals serve on
the committees.
Coordinating Committee. Composed of the Chairs of the Action
Committees, this body considered the recommendations of the Action
Committees and integrated them into a draft state plan.
Project Directors' Association. Consisting of the Executive
Directors of the state's 33 nonprofit civil legal services
programs, this group has responsibility for ensuring implementation
at the program level.
After circulation for comment to all stakeholders, including
county governments (the third largest source of legal services
funding in the state), local pro bono committees, local bar
associations and Area Agencies on Aging, the Oversight Committee
released the draft plan for public comment in late December 2000. A
final version was adopted at the end of February 2001.
The 2001 State Plan divides the state into six regions, and
highlights a regional approach in its collaboration and
configuration strategies. Each region houses LSC and other
nonprofit civil legal services providers bound together by a
commitment to collaborate. Programs in each region will sign an
"enforceable agreement" enunciating the specific activities each
organization will undertake. In January 2001, LSC asked the Florida
planners to more carefully explore whether the current
configuration of LSC and non-LSC funded programs is one that will
best advance their goals. LSC requested that the planners seriously
consider the advantages of having one LSC-funded program anchor
each of the six regions identified in the plan.
Programs have already moved to carry out some of the Plan's
recommendations. All 33 programs receiving Foundation funds have
jointly hired a statewide resource director. The Foundation, along
with The Florida State Bar and several law firms, have provided
funds to hire a statewide pro bono development director. Planners
are seeking funds to improve the statewide website and expand
internet access to community education materials beyond the current
community education site for immigrant advocacy organizations.
Other initiatives include a statewide Child Support Task Force and
a statewide Emma Lazarus Project.
Regionwide efforts are also underway. In one region, three LSC
programs have established a regional intake system, funded by an
LSC Technology Initiative Grant, with a second planned for another
region, to be developed in 2001. A region-wide community economic
development initiative housed at an LSC program provides expertise
and other resources to all IOTA recipients a third region. A
regional Special Educational Advisory Project (involving four
programs) to do outreach and advocacy for children, and a regional
Team Child Project on joint advocacy between legal services
programs and public defender offices for youth entering the
juvenile justice system have also been established.
The Florida Bar Foundation, which gives substantial funding to
the state's 33 nonprofit civil legal services organizations, has
pledged to annually evaluate each of its recipients on their state
planning work as well as their contribution to the regional effort.
Regional efforts will be a critical component of the Foundation's
tri-annual on-site peer review of each program. Thus, programs will
be measured not only on their individual contributions to regional
and state planning, but also on the quality of their region's
accomplishments. The Foundation anticipates that this approach to
evaluations will help maintain the productive pace of the past
years' planning and emphasize the importance of joint endeavors.
Furthermore, planning leaders have indicated that configuration is
a priority for planners in 2001, and have developed committees and
strategies to address this critical issue.


The LSC-funded programs in Illinois have a long history of
working together on joint projects, state support and other
matters. In 1996, in response to LSC's first program letter, the
programs requested that the Illinois State Bar Association and the
Chicago Bar Association join them in the planning process. In April
1997, under the authority of these bar associations, the Illinois
Equal Justice Project was established. The mission of the Illinois
Equal Justice Project included: protecting the integrity and
accessibility of the legal system for all Illinois residents;
educating individuals, families and groups about the self-help
process within the judicial system; and promoting costeffective
legal services for low income individuals and families.
The Equal Justice Project brought together a very diverse group
of individuals including representatives of the low-income client
community, social service agencies, government agencies, civil
legal services organizations, religious communities, the judiciary,
lawyers and cultural organizations to address the need for
comprehensive costeffective legal services in the State of
Illinois. The project was governed by a Steering Committee. In
addition, three working groups were created: Non-Adjudicatory
Problem Solving; User Friendly Pro Se Adjudication; and Legal
Service Delivery System. The Project adopted six guiding
principles:


•
Equal justice is a basic right, which is fundamental to
our democracy. Thus, the integrity of our country, our state and
our justice system depends on protecting and enforcing the rights
of all people on an equal basis;


•
Illinois residents must be educated to protect their
legal rights and accept their legal responsibilities. They must
also have information about self-help processes and available
remedies;


•
The justice system must work with social services,
government agencies and community leaders to promote holistic,
multi-disciplinary approaches to preventing and resolving legal
difficulties;


•
Since demand for services continues to increase, legal
aid programs must be supported in avoiding duplication, maximizing
coordination and promoting effective use of existing and emerging
technologies;


•
Legitimate political discourse requires constructive
alternatives. Attacks on the current system, often based on
misleading anecdotes, have failed to enlighten participants or
improve services to the public; and


•
The organizations and institutions, which comprise our
justice system, are largely local. Equal justice is an integral
part of the general public welfare and funding equal justice is a
fundamental obligation of state and county government.


Each working group met several times to develop recommendations
for changes to the legal services delivery system. The
recommendations were adopted by the Chicago and Illinois State Bar
Associations, and, along with an appendix of existing and proposed
implementation measures, submitted to the Governor, the Illinois
General Assembly, the Illinois Supreme Court, local governments,
state agencies, legal services programs, bar associations and
individual lawyers. The focus was on creating a true system of
equal justice in Illinois. (The report also recognized work that
had already begun among all legal services programs with the
establishment of a Statewide Legal Services Delivery and Technology
Working Group, which was meeting to share information on the use of
technology.)
As part of the goals developed by the Equal Justice Project, the
Chicago and Illinois State Bar Associations agreed to support the
introduction of the Illinois Equal Justice Act in the Illinois
General Assembly. The bill failed in the 1997-98 session but passed
the following year. Although stripped of any funding mechanism, the
bill authorized the establishment the Illinois Equal Justice
Foundation to receive and distribute any money appropriated by the
legislature. Finally, in the 1999-2000 session, $500,000 was
appropriated. While less than the $1,000,000 sought by the
governor, it is a start.
In June 1999, LSC commented upon the Illinois State Plan and
implementation to date. In its feedback letter, LSC noted that it
was "impressed with the steps you have taken and will continue to
take under this plan to develop an integrated and comprehensive
delivery system that is designed to meet the present as well as the
future needs of low-income person within your state." However, LSC
also asked the planners to reopen their consideration of the
configuration of the LSC-funded programs believing that "a thorough
review of this plan leads to the almost inescapable conclusion that
while reconfiguration may not be a front-burner issue within this
state, there is merit to seriously exploring reconfiguration of the
five LSC-funded programs into three." LSC also suggested that the
planners develop ways to involve more clients and community
representatives in the planning process and develop plans to expand
their funding base.
Reconsideration of the configuration of the LSC programs has led
to decisions to consolidate the five organizations. In 2001, final
reconfiguration of the LSC-funded delivery system will be
completed, leaving three programs--Prairie State Legal Services,
Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, and the Legal
Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago.
The programs have also followed LSC and the Equal Justice
Project recommendations to consider more streamlined and
cooperative ways of operating. While Illinois initially had five
federally funded legal services programs, planners identified
another twenty-two programs that were providing legal services to
the economically disadvantaged. Many of these programs were small
and most operated within Cook County. In November 1999, the first-
ever meeting of all of these programs was held. The Legal Services
Corporation provided funding for two facilitators and lodging and
meal costs were paid for by the Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois. The
programs met for two days to plan areas of need and cooperation.
Working groups were established to coordinate training statewide,
to focus on the establishment of a statewide website and to
continue coordination and sharing in technology matters.
The programs continue to explore avenues for improving services
to clients. With funding from the Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois,
the Technology Working Group and representatives from CARPLS (the
Chicago-based hotline and referral services), Legal Assistance
Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago, Prairie State Legal Services
and Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation have formed a "Best
Practices" group. These individuals have visited one another's
programs as well as four additional model hotline/telephone intake
systems around the country. As they have observed better, more
efficient and more innovative ways of doing business, new
procedures have been adopted.
In cooperation with IIT Kent College of Law, legal services
programs are also involved in establishing a Technology Center for
Law and the Public Interest. This will be a single database that
will have three portals for three separate interest groups
including a portal for clients that would provide them access to
client community legal education materials and self-help legal
materials. (This would expand upon materials that are currently
available from Southern Illinois Self-Help Center and the Illinois
legal services website.) A second portal would provide information
and video streaming training for pro bono attorneys. The final
portal would provide access for legal services staff to training
materials, discussion groups, legal research and other matters. The
twelve partners in this collaboration have recently signed
agreements specifying the duties of each partner. The site will be
located at IIT-Kent College of Law.
The Illinois Equal Justice Foundation has recently made its
first grants from money appropriated by the Illinois General
Assembly. Because of the limited money available, the first grants
were restricted to funding for civil legal services and hotlines.
Later this year, the Foundation will initiate a study to evaluate
the most effective way in which pro bono can be encouraged and
supported. At the present time, Illinois has a Pro Bono Center
whose function is to work with the organized bar and legal services
programs in encouraging participation in existing pro bono programs
as well as to help develop new pro bono programs in Illinois. The
focus of the study will be to determine what changes need to be
made in the existing structure to allow the Center to effectively
meet its mission or, alternatively, to recommend a new structure.
This study will be funded by an LSC technical assistance grant and
will be coordinated with an ABA peer study.


In 1998, the four LSC-funded programs in Indiana submitted a
state plan to LSC that was seriously flawed. The planners were told
that their plan was "non-responsive to the issues identified in LSC
Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 and in need of major work." Indiana
was instructed to submit a revised plan to LSC and develop a
"collaborative, inclusive and values-driven plan and planning
process that strengthens services to clients throughout the
state."
Serious planning within the legal services community began in
early 1999 with a commitment to "plan to plan" on the part of the
four LSC-funded programs in the state at that time. LSC gave
Indiana a technical assistance grant to hire a consultant to assist
with the planning efforts. Over the course of a long series of
meetings and discussions, representatives of the boards and staff
of the four programs reached the conclusion that if all clients in
Indiana were to have access to high quality legal services,
significant changes needed to be made in the configuration of
programs within the state. In September 1999, the boards of all
four programs passed a resolution approving the concept of merger.
Although merger discussions continued among the four programs, in
March 2000 two of the programs did not vote in favor of the merger
plan, and therefore the plan moved forward with only two programs:
Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Inc. and Legal Services of
Northwest Indiana, Inc.
As of December 31, 2001, Legal Services of Northwest Indiana,
Inc. joined with Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Inc.
(LSOI) by transferring its assets to LSOI. LSOI then changed its
name to Indiana Legal Services, Inc. (ILS) and on January 1, 2001
became the only LSC funded program in Indiana. ILS currently has a
3-month sub-grant agreement with the Legal Services Program of
Northern Indiana, Inc. (LSPNI) which previously received an LSC
grant, in order to attempt to reach an agreement with LSPNI
regarding transfer of staff and other assets from LSPNI to ILS. ILS
is opening an office in Fort Wayne, where Legal Services of Maumee
Valley, Inc. (LSMV) still operates. LSMV has non-LSC funding to
represent clients in specific substantive areas, and ILS and LSMV
are in the process of developing referral protocols to ensure that
clients are referred to the appropriate organization.
The formation of ILS is based on the "Legal Services Plan"
developed by the boards of LSOI and LSNI. The plan describes the
legal work, allocation of resources, role of private attorneys,
role of the client community, role of service providers, governance
and program operations and intake for Indiana Legal Services, Inc.
The Plan provides for a minimum of nine offices and a 51-member
board that is appointed in proportion to poverty population from
the 14 judicial districts throughout the state.
The major values included in the "Legal Services Plan" are:


•
The need to remain responsive to and work with local
communities. The Indiana Legal Services Plan makes it clear that
ILS must look at problems faced by the lowincome community from
both a state and a local perspective. ILS is designed so that it
can bring together statewide resources in order to meet the needs
of local communities. Priorities will be set statewide, but each
region of the state will have its own case acceptance guidelines,
which will take into consideration local needs and resources. Each
region will have a Regional Advisory Council, with a large number
of client representatives, which will develop these guidelines and
work with the local ILS office to ensure that it is meeting the
needs of clients in the region.


•
The need to ensure high quality legal work. In order to
ensure that advocates throughout the state are linked to each
other, the 4 programs developed the Indiana Justice Center in 1999.
The IJC developed a website with both public and private sections
(www.indianajustice.org), sponsors training events, coordinates
community legal education materials, oversees the pilot hotline
project and serves as a voice for legal services to the bar,
judiciary and other entities. The IJC also supports the work of the
Round Table, which has a number of sections (senior law, consumer
law, public benefits, housing, family law, Hispanic Law, etc.) to
which advocates from throughout the state belong. These sections
meet regularly by conference call and in person in order to share
ideas and strategies and conduct training events. Each section also
has a "listserv," hosted by the IJC, and a section on the website
to which they can post pleadings and other documents that could be
useful to other advocates. The Round Table sections are chaired by
casehandlers from throughout the state and responsibility for
organizing the agendas for meetings is shared. The philosophy
behind the Round Table is that all legal services advocates are
responsible for ensuring high quality legal work of the program.
The Round Table sections also include non-legal services advocates,
providing an opportunity to share expertise between programs. The
Indiana Legal Services Plan also described the Pilot Hotline
Project, which was begun in an effort to increase the effectiveness
and efficiency of intake and advice. This Project is piloting new
telephone and case management systems so that ILS can determine the
most effective way of implementing a statewide Hotline.



•
The need to expand funding for the provision of civil
legal services to low income persons in Indiana. Indiana is the
last state to have an IOLTA Program. The Indiana Supreme adopted
Rule 6.5 of the Rules Professional Responsibility, which
establishes Pro Bono Committees in each of the 14 Judicial
Districts. These Committees are charged with developing and
implementing plans to meet the civil legal needs of low-income
people through pro bono systems. These Committees' plans now
receive funding from IOLTA as of January 2001. Each of these
committees has legal services representation, and many of the plans
are integrally linked to the current legal services pro bono
programs. Rule 6.5 also created the Pro Bono Commission, which
oversees these committees and recommends IOLTA distributions to the
Indiana Bar Foundation (IBF). The IBF is responsible for
the

IOLTA program and has worked with the banks and bar in Indiana
to launch a successful IOLTA program. ILS continues to work with
the Indiana Equal Justice Fund, Inc. (IEJF), a separate not for
profit organization established in 1995 to raise funds for legal
services. IEJF conducts an annual attorney campaign, for the
benefit for legal services and legal aid programs. IEJF was also
instrumental in the passage of a general appropriation of $1
million from the Indiana General Assembly. ILS is also committed to
increasing local funds for each of its 9 offices


•
The need to bring stakeholders together on an annual
basis to continue the process of equal justice planning and to
celebrate Indiana's successes. In February 2001, the Indiana
Justice Center, with support from the Indiana Bar Foundation and
the Indiana Pro Bono Commission, sponsored the Second Annual Access
to Justice Conference, a statewide meeting of judges, bar leaders,
law school representatives, legal services and legal aid staff and
board members, clients, court personnel, and others to continue the
process of statewide Access to Justice planning. 140 people
attended the 2001 Conference, more than half of whom were not from
legal services. The first Conference, attended by 180 people, in
January 2000 included presentations from bar leaders from Michigan
and New Mexico who reported on those states' progress in state
planning, an update on state planning in Indiana and breakout
sessions addressing technology, resource development, pro bono and
pro se. The 2001 Conference featured an introduction of Indiana
Legal Services, Inc. and an introduction of the new pro bono plans
in several of the 14 judicial districts. Chief Justice Randall
Shepard delivered keynote addresses at both conferences, calling
upon Indiana state bar leaders and legal services advocates to work
together in developing a statewide system that ensures equal access
to justice for all low-income people in Indiana. LSC President John
McKay spoke at the 2001 Conference in celebration of the new
statewide program and recognition of the importance of developing
state justice communities. Breakout sessions addressed pro bono
issues, pro se and technology. Planning for the 2002 Conference,
which will be a working conference, has begun.


•
The need to expand the use of technology to provide
essential services to clients.


ILS has a technology plan that will enable advocates, both staff
and pro bono, from throughout the state to access information. The
IJC website provides a place for advocates to share information.
The technology sessions at the Access to Justice Conferences have
focused on how technology can be used to link advocates across the
state and across program lines, and how it can be used to directly
benefit clients by providing information and tools for pro se
litigants.
• The need to improve and expand the role of the private bar in
civil legal services delivery. ILS worked with the Indiana Supreme
Court to submit a successful grant application to the State Justice
Institute for a Statewide Pro Se Office, at the Office of Supreme
Court Administration. This office will work with 4 pilot pro se
programs in the state, including the ILS Pilot Hotline Project, to
determine best practices for pro se support, and will develop form
pleadings, approved by the Supreme Court, for use throughout the
state. These forms will be posted on the IJC website. This
collaborative effort is a major step for Indiana in the area of pro
se support. These form pleadings will be used at pro se clinics
sponsored by ILS and the Pro Bono Committees throughout the state.
A committee appointed by the Supreme Court will oversee this
project, which will include ILS staff members.
Indiana differs from many other states in that the Indiana
planners have made considerable progress in the last few years
beyond the reconfiguration of the LSC funded programs but, unlike
other states, Indiana does not have a formal State Planning body.
This state conducts its planning activities through ad hoc groups
addressing discreet issues. In this way they have involved the
judiciary, the private bar, law schools, social service providers,
court personnel, legal services staff and board members and clients
in their planning effort.


Maine

-27

In Maine, much of the groundwork for comprehensive state
planning had already been laid when the Corporation issued its
first program letter on the subject in 1995. In 1990, the
Commission on Legal Needs in Maine, chaired by former Senator
Edmund Muskie and made up of Commissioners drawn from the
judiciary, the legislature, the private bar, and the low-income
community, convened a series of hearings around the state and
issued a report calling for increased resources for legal services
with a number of recommendations for improving access. Under the
leadership of an implementation committee created in the wake of
the report, over the next five years a number of steps were taken
to increase and support pro bono participation in the delivery of
civil legal assistance, support pro se litigants, increase IOLTA
participation, and eliminate barriers to access. The state
legislature also followed up on the report by creating the
Commission on the Future of Maine's Courts, with a similarly broad
composition. In response to its report, issued in 1993, a number of
steps were taken by the courts to assist low-income and pro se
litigants.
In 1995, anticipating the imposition of restrictions on LSC
activities and cuts in LSC funding, the Chief Justice of the Maine
Supreme Court and the Presidents of the State Bar Association and
the State Bar Foundation sponsored a day-long forum on the future
of legal services, attended by leaders from the private bar, the
legal services community, the state and federal judiciary, the
legislature, and executive branch. The forum led to the creation of
the Justice Action Group, staffed by the State Bar Association and
chaired by U.S. District Court Judge Frank M. Coffin. Other members
included Supreme Court Chief Justice Daniel Wathen, Supreme Court
Justice (and former LSC Board Member) Howard Dana, the Presidents
of the State Bar Association and the State Bar Foundation, a member
of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a representative each from
the University of Maine School of Law and the Boards of Pine Tree
Legal Assistance and Legal Services for the Elderly. The Justice
Action Group undertook responsibility for overseeing the work of a
number of task forces for specific issue areas. The work of the
task forces was supported by the Legal Services Response Team,
consisting of the directors of the legal services programs and
directors of the Bar Foundation and Bar Association. A second
statewide forum took place in 1996, focusing on the needs of pro se
litigants, with continuing follow-up from all participants.
Among the most significant achievements resulting from these
phases of the planning process were the following:


•
A substantial increase in IOLTA rates at most major
banks;


•
Enactment of bipartisan legislation to increase court
filing fees and fines to provide funding for legal
services;


•
Creation of the Maine Equal Justice Project, to provide
representation of low-income people before the state legislature,
and Maine Equal Justice Partners, a network of pro bono litigators
willing to engage in administrative advocacy, class actions, and
other broad systemic advocacy;


•
Development and implementation, with substantial donated
funding and in-kind donations, of a statewide technology plan,
enabling the five major providers to computerize their operations
fully and to improve their telephone systems dramatically, as well
as creation of a shared "information technology coordinator"
position housed at Pine Tree Legal Services, the LSC
program;


•
Establishment of a new public interest fellowship program
named in honor of Judge Coffin, supported with funding by the
twelve largest law firms in Portland. Between two and three "Coffin
Fellows" housed at Pine Tree have handled family law cases on
behalf of poor people every year since 1998;


•
Creation of a new Family Division in the courts to handle
family law matters and to be more responsive to the needs of pro se
litigants, accompanied by simplification of court forms and hiring
of a volunteer coordinator within the court system to promote the
recruitment and training of volunteers to help pro se
litigants.


The cooperation among stakeholders that marked these endeavors
has led to some exciting initiatives to improve and expand access
to justice for low-income people. Building upon its experience in
using technology to deliver services to clients--over 150,000
pieces of community legal education material are downloaded
annually from its website--Pine Tree, with the cooperation and
assistance of the Administrative Office of the Courts, has
developed an interactive program to assist pro se litigants in
completing district court forms over the internet. The forms can be
created on line and then printed out in ready-to-file form. The
project, funded by LSC and the Maine Bar Foundation, also permits
the internet posting of briefs and other materials by Pine Tree
staff to facilitate the representation of low-income clients by
other providers and pro bono attorneys.
Most recently, Pine Tree has received a major grant from the
U.S. Department of Commerce's prestigious Technology Opportunity
Program to create the HelpMe Domestic Violence Project. The project
will enable victims of domestic violence to use teleconferencing
and videoconferencing technology and on-line filing to confer with
Pine Tree advocates, prepare and file Protection from Abuse
petitions, and confer with judges if necessary, all without leaving
the security of a domestic violence shelter. The project will be
complemented by the HelpMeLaw website, funded by an LSC Technology
Initiative Grant. The web site will serve as a comprehensive portal
for low-income Mainers seeking legal assistance information of any
type, providing information from all of the state's legal services
providers as well as state agencies and other sources of
information and assistance.
All Maine legal services providers participate in the New
England training consortium and have made their in-house training
events open to staff of all the legal service programs. For
instance, an intensive trial skills training program has been held
at the University of Maine School of Law twice in the past three
years, using donated faculty drawn from the Law School and the
private bar--this event has been made available free of charge to
all staff attorneys at Pine Tree, Legal Services for the Elderly
and the Maine Equal Justice Project.


Maryland

-30

Maryland has a long history of statewide planning. The Maryland
Legal Services Corporation over the years has supported various
efforts to examine and improve the statewide system, including the
1987 Maryland Legal Services Review Commission (the "Cardin
Commission"), the 1992 Commission on the Needs of Low-Income
Persons in Family Law Matters, and the 1992 evaluation of the pro
bono system in the state.
In response to the restrictions and funding cuts imposed
nationally in 1996, the Maryland State Bar Association created the
Maryland Coalition for Civil Justice (MCCJ) to spearhead and
oversee state planning. MCCJ drew together a wide spectrum of
individuals and organizations involved in the support and delivery
of legal services in the state, including legal services providers,
community and bar leaders, legislators, and clients. Statewide
Conferences on the Delivery of Legal Services were held in November
1998 and January 2000.
Recommendations from the planning process led to the development
of the Maryland Legal Assistance Network (MLAN), funded by the Open
Society Institute through a three-year $1 million grant to the
Maryland Legal Services Corporation. MLAN includes four component
programs:


•
A centralized statewide system of telephone access,
intake, screening, information, assistance, referral and service
evaluation;


•
Expanded pro se and unbundled legal services;


•
An expanded Internet-based People's Law Library-an
Internet-based Lawyer to Lawyer Support Center.


Maryland ranks at the top of the list nationally in the level of
funding for civil legal assistance in the state. LSC funding
represents less than 15 percent of the total funding available. In
addition to the providers with statewide responsibility--MLAN, the
LSC-funded Legal Aid Bureau, Maryland Volunteer Lawyers' Services,
Inc., and the Pro Bono Resource Center--there are more than 30
small providers that offer legal services to low-income persons in
the state. Some of the small providers are stand-alone
organizations that target very specific populations or legal
problems. Others are part of larger organizations that focus on
specific populations or legal problems. In addition, Maryland has
two law schools that are very active in delivering legal services
to low- income persons in a variety of areas.
Maryland is also unique in the depth and focus of the support
that the civil legal assistance system receives from key
institutions within the state. The judiciary is very supportive,
with the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, the state's highest
court, being deeply engaged in planning efforts. The state
legislature provides significant bipartisan support for the legal
services delivery system. Legal services also enjoys the
longstanding, active support and engagement of the Maryland State
Bar Association, as well as numerous local bar associations.
Notwithstanding these successes, the equal justice community in
Maryland has continued to look for ways to expand and improve
services to clients.
Responding to concerns on the part of the MCCJ, the Pro Bono
Resource Center, and others that, despite a long history of strong
pro bono commitment, some momentum appears to have been lost in
recent years, the Court of Appeals established the Maryland
Judicial Commission on Pro Bono in 1998 to reinvigorate the pro
bono effort. The Commission is working to promote active leadership
and encouragement from the bench on a local level, with oversight
from the Court of Appeals, to increase bar participation and assist
providers in developing more innovative and creative opportunities
for volunteers.
In addition, the MCCJ sponsored, with funding from the Maryland
Legal Services Corporation and the Project for the Future of Equal
Justice, a thorough evaluation of the state's delivery system by
consultant John A. Tull. The study, completed in mid-2000, found
strengths and accomplishments and noted many remarkable features
from which other states could learn. It also identified some lost
opportunities. It recommended three broad strategies to address
these issues: increasing the flow of information among the
providers; establishing formal collaborative arrangements in areas
such as technology, planning and development, and substantive
support and training; and creation of a framework for more ongoing
planning and system-wide decision-making regarding issues affecting
the entire system, particularly with regard to substantive matters
not being addressed. The report concluded that the MCCJ should lead
in planning and overseeing the implementation of these strategies
at the statewide level.


Minnesota

-33

State planning in Minnesota goes back to 1980, when the six
LSC-funded programs in the state received a special planning grant
to identify areas for coordination and cooperation. The system in
place today is the result of the processes begun with that grant.
The providers worked with the newly created Legal Assistance to the
Disadvantaged Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association
(MSBA) to create the Minnesota Legal Services Coalition State
Support Center and the position of Director of Volunteer Legal
Services, now the Access to Justice Director at the Minnesota State
Bar Association. The seven regional programs serving all 87
Minnesota counties are known collectively as the Minnesota Legal
Services Coalition. Directors of the Coalition programs, along with
Center staff, the Access to Justice Director, and representatives
of other specialized legal services providers have continued to
meet regularly to discuss and coordinate on issues of statewide
concern.
In 1995, in response to the pending cuts in LSC funding, the
Minnesota Legislature requested the Minnesota Supreme Court to
create a joint committee including representatives from the Supreme
Court, the MSBA, the Coalition, and other providers to prepare
recommendations for state funding changes or other alternatives to
maintain an adequate level of funding for civil legal assistance.
The Supreme Court established the Joint Legal Services Access &
Funding Committee, directing it to make recommendations to the
Court and the Legislature by December 31, 1995. The Court appointed
a liaison from the Court and 29 Committee members representing the
legislature, the federal and state judiciary, lawyers in private
and public practice, legal services program staff, and the public,
including the client community.
The Joint Committee developed a number of principles,
including:


•
The legal services programs should continue to strive to
offer low-income people a level playing field, access to all
forums, and a full range of legal services in areas of critical
need.


•
Legal services should be structured to ensure that
populations with special needs, such as Native Americans, migrant
and seasonal workers, people with disabilities, and financially
distressed family farmers, continue to have access to legal
services.



•
Adequate state support services, such as training,
community legal education materials and mechanisms for information
sharing, continue to be available to all legal services providers,
including volunteer attorney programs.

The Committee report concluded that, "while the Coalition
programs and others are already a national model of coordination
and cooperation, the programs should continue to search for areas
in which they can achieve additional efficiencies and improve
client services through increased coordination and cooperation."
Among the other recommendations of the Joint Committee that have
subsequently been implemented are the following:


•
An attorney registration fee increase to support legal
services, which has added over $850,000, per year to the pool
available to grantees.


•
An increase from the legislature of an additional
$600,000 to the base funding for legal services beginning in 1997,
for a total state appropriation of $6.5 million per
year.


•
A planning grant from the Bush Foundation to identify
which technology applications would increase program effectiveness,
reduce barriers to quality service and increase the value of
services to clients, followed by a major implementation
grant.



•
Extensive education around the state to encourage
implementation of the ABA Rule

6.1 aspirational goal that each lawyer donate at least 50 hours
of legal services each year. The Joint Committee recommended that
the MSBA consider reporting of pro bono activities. In 1999, the
MSBA petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to require the
reporting of pro bono work. The court denied the petition.


•
A significant increase in interest rates on many IOLTA
accounts by major banks.


Legal services programs in Minnesota continue to work together
to integrate and provide a full range of services to clients across
the state. The Coalition's jointly-funded State Support Center
continues to coordinate training and support functions. The Center
publishes a twice-monthly newsletter for legal services staff and
approximately 2,500 volunteer lawyers. It conducts numerous CLE
accredited trainings each year, and coordinates bi-monthly
statewide task force meetings in the areas of family, housing,
public benefits, consumer, immigration and seniors law. It also
coordinates the production and statewide distribution of community
education and self-help materials in many languages.
To assure each component of the system operates with the highest
quality and is integrated, the Coalition, with technical assistance
support from LSC, is developing a statewide peer review system. The
Coalition programs have identified their goal as raising the level
of integration and cooperation among programs to that of a "virtual
statewide law firm."
Implementation of the Coalition's Statewide Technology Plan with
funding from the Bush Foundation has represented a major step
toward achieving that goal. The plan sets forth a three-stage
process, with implementation beginning in 1998 and continuing
through 2009. Phase of I of the implementation, scheduled for
1998-2000, is largely complete. An LSC technical assistance grant
enabled the state to begin planning for implementation of Phase II,
scheduled for 2000-2003. Initiatives completed under Phase I of the
Plan include the following:


•
Bringing every office up to a baseline level of
technological capacity;


•
providing every staff member with desktop internet access
and an individual e-mail account;


•
Developing a private website information geared toward
legal services staff, such as staff announcements, special training
materials, etc;


•
Developing a public website to create a legal services
presence online, providing office and program information, legal
education information, and other information for clients and
advocates;


•
Creating e-mail lists and web forums for Task Forces and
Coalition programs;


•
Developing technology planning, education and support to
enable all staff and management to use technology as an effective
tool to improve service to clients; and


•
Providing all advocates with on-line legal research
capacity, including online subscription to Westlaw research, online
updates of recent developments in poverty law, and links on the
statewide website to free online research resources.


A preliminary evaluation of Phase I, currently under way, has
found that most users are happy with the overall implementation of
the technology plan to date and believe that it has significantly
improved their program's capacity and their own individual capacity
to serve clients. Many users consider the implementation of the
plan to have made a profound difference in the way they do their
jobs. Many users commented on the effectiveness of the new
technology in promoting closer relationships among providers.
Future phases of the Statewide Technology Plan, aided in part by
an LSC grant, call for streamlining the intake and case management
processes, developing seamless communication among all programs and
offices, improving client access to services, integrating case
management software, and completing the transition to a virtual
statewide law firm. A three-year proposal to support these efforts
is also pending before the Bush Foundation.
The programs continue to receive very strong support from the
MSBA, the court and the legislature. The Legal Assistance to the
Disadvantaged Committee, a planning leader since the 1980's,
continues to work in close cooperation with the Coalition and other
providers. The Committee's most significant recent accomplishment
was the launching of the statewide probono.net/mn initiative, a
powerful web-based resource to support all attorneys across the
states that are representing low-income clients.


Missouri submitted its state plan to LSC on October 1, 1998. On
December 4, 1998, LSC sent a letter to the Missouri planners
informing them that LSC had serious concerns as to whether the
overall result of the plan would be the creation of a
comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system. Missouri was
asked to continue its planning efforts and file a supplemental
planning report with LSC on or before October 1, 1999.
In late 1998, primarily because of the inadequacies of the
Missouri State plan, LSC made the decision to renew LSC grants to
Missouri programs for a period of two years. This two-year funding
decision was made to allow the Missouri legal services programs the
time and the opportunity to develop a viable, effective and
comprehensive state plan.
In January 2000, assisted by two consultants hired by the
Missouri Bar using technical assistance grants provided by LSC,
Missouri's six legal services programs announced the Missouri Plan
for Equal Access to Justice, a blueprint for action aimed at
delivering four major results over the next three years:


•
To double the number of low income clients served by the
state's legal services system;


•
To increase by 50 percent the total funding for legal
services statewide;


•
To achieve geographical parity, increasing the resources
available in rural areas to establish equal availability to legal
services in all counties;


•
To make funding available for a full range of legal
services.


In February 2000, the plan was presented to key partners at a
meeting attended by, among others, the Chief Justice of the
Missouri Supreme Court, the President and Executive Director of the
Missouri Bar, the Chair of the Bar's Committee on Delivery of Legal
Services Committee, the Chair of the Statewide Legal Services
Planning Committee, and other state leaders supportive of legal
services. Participants endorsed the plan and offered their support
for achieving its goals. The plan was presented and endorsed by the
Missouri Bar Board of Governors at its March 29, 2000 meeting. It
has since been printed and made available throughout the state by
the Missouri Bar.
To provide public accountability and support for the plan, the
Missouri Statewide Legal Services Commission has been chartered by
the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court and President of
the Missouri Bar. The Commission is specifically charged with
assessing the effectiveness of the system for delivering legal
services to low-income Missourians and assisting in advocating
adequate funding for legal services. The first meeting was held on
March 9, 2001.
The following initiatives to implement the plan are currently
under way or planned:
State Support Center. A new state support center has been
created to engage in legislative monitoring and advocacy, training,
coordination of statewide advocacy, collection and dissemination of
information, and coordination of the system of substantive law task
forces. A center director has been hired, and office space located.
The programs in Missouri are providing initial funding for the
center.
Substantive Law Task Force Structure. A statewide system of
seven substantive law task forces is being put into place. The
seven issue areas are Consumer, Housing, Family, Income Maintenance
& Health, Education, Immigration, and Disability. The leaders
of the task forces will participate in the task force Leadership
Council. Each task force is developing statewide goals, strategies,
and priorities. The work of the task forces will be showcased at an
event celebrating the recent opening of the new state support
center.
Legal Needs Study. With funding from the Missouri Bar
Foundation, Professor Greg Casey of the University of Missouri is
currently conducting a scientific legal needs study that will
provide a complete, accurate estimate of the need for civil legal
assistance in the state. The seven substantive task forces are
cooperating in its design and analysis. The study will be completed
in early 2001. The Commission, the Chief Justice, and every local
bar in the state will be invited to participate in a statewide
media campaign to announce its findings and build support for
responding to the needs it identifies.
New Southern Regional Delivery System. Three smaller programs in
the southern part of the state, Southeast Missouri Legal Services,
Meramec Area Legal Aid Corporation, and Legal Aid of Southwest
Missouri, merged at the end of 2000. The new entity is now known as
Legal Services of Southern Missouri.
Technology. Under the leadership of a statewide Technology Task
Force, implementation of technology goals has begun. All legal
services programs in the state are being brought up to minimum
technological capacities, technology training goals are being
developed and implemented, and technology-based support for the
task force system is being put into place, along with the
development of client access initiatives.
Intake. A State Intake and Advice Task Force will be convened in
2001 to examine ways in which to integrate and coordinate intake
and advise practices across the state.
Resource Development. A statewide Director of Development has
been hired as part of the planned emerging state support system. A
State Resource Development Action Team and a State Rural
Development Team will be convened in 2001. The Resource Development
Action Team will use the results of the legal needs study to build
support for state funding for civil legal services, with the
participation of the courts, the bar, and others, supported by a
public communications strategy and a grassroots support network.
The Rural Development team will target potential resources and
launch a campaign for rural resource development.


New Hampshire


New Hampshire's state planning process began in July 1995, when
representatives of the New Hampshire Bar Association, New Hampshire
Legal Assistance (NHLA), and the New Hampshire Pro Bono Referral
System convened a series of meetings with stakeholders in the legal
services delivery system to discuss the design, configuration and
operation of the LSC-funded programs in the state in light of
pending restrictions and funding cuts. Among those who participated
in the process were representatives of the New Hampshire Bar
Foundation, Franklin Pierce Law Center, New Hampshire Children's
Alliance, Child and Family Services of New Hampshire, the
Disability Rights Center, the New Hampshire Coalition Against
Sexual and Domestic Violence, and the Chief Justice of the New
Hampshire Supreme Court.
From this process, a new non-profit entity, Legal Advice &
Referral Center (LARC), was formed to apply for LSC funding. LARC
functions as a "hotline" that conducts most of the intake for the
Pro Bono Referral System, provides advice and counsel in specific
substantive areas (coordinated with other legal service providers
to prevent redundancy), refers cases requiring more than advice and
counsel to NHLA and other providers, and develops community
education and pro se materials. NHLA, without LSC funding,
continues to provide a full range of legal services from regional
offices across the state, while the Pro Bono Referral System
continues to serve low- income people throughout the state through
its network of volunteer private attorneys.
In 1997, the legal services programs secured their first-ever
state appropriation to maintain a New Hampshire Legal Assistance
office in the northern part of the state. The appropriation has
been sustained, and with strong support from the state IOLTA
program, a private bar campaign and aggressive grant seeking, the
programs have increased their advocacy staff by over 40%.
In 1999, New Hampshire planners sought and received an LSC
technical assistance grant to begin evaluating the new system they
created in 1996, determining how well it works and what changes may
need to be made. The grant was matched by the New Hampshire Bar
Foundation and New Hampshire Charitable Trust. A Planning Committee
meets periodically and the executive directors and key board
leaders of NHLA, LARC, and Pro Bono meet frequently. A full staff
retreat of the three programs deepened the understanding among
advocates about the goals of integration of legal services delivery
in New Hampshire and has led to the creation of a number of
committees and task forces to further promote statewide
coordination. The scope of the planning process will be expanded by
including other client-centered non-profit organizations, and a
second all-staff retreat will be held in 2001.
One important outcome of the state's recent planning was the
decision to combine the fundraising activities of LARC, NHLA and
the Pro Bono Program, under the auspices of the New Hampshire Bar
Foundation. The Bar Foundation has hired a resource developer to
carry out this plan.
Coordinated planning has led to gains in other areas as well. In
technology, the three programs have achieved their baseline goals
of providing individual e-mail and desktop access to the Internet
for all staff, upgrading hardware, and enabling all the programs to
use the same database program. They are currently in the process of
developing a technology plan for the next 18 months. Some of the
topics under consideration are finalizing electronic data transfer
between all the programs, expanding the LARC website into a legal
services community website, developing the capacity to distribute
pro se materials over the Internet, and redesigning LARC's
telephone system. NHLA's technology coordinator continues to
provide services to LARC and Pro Bono on a contract basis to help
maintain the client databases at all three programs and to preserve
and enhance the technological coordination among all three
programs.
The planners are in the process of determining a cost-effective
method for determining the legal needs of low-income people in New
Hampshire, to serve as the basis for a review and joint statement
of priorities among the three programs as well as public statement
of need. Also, under consideration is the designation of a
statewide community outreach and education coordinator.
Last year, the New Hampshire Bar Foundation accepted an NHLA
proposal to use IOLTA funds to create a law school loan assistance
program to help address the burgeoning problem of law school debt,
which is driving talented law school graduates away from legal
services. In another example of cooperation and mutual assistance
among New Hampshire's legal services programs, NHLA urged that
attorneys at LARC be allowed to participate from its inception and
recommended that attorneys at the Disability Rights Center be
allowed to participate in the coming year. In its first year of
operation, ten staff attorneys from NHLA and LARC received an
average of $3,000 in tax free grants to help them pay law school
loans and stay in legal services.
The New Hampshire Bar Association continues its long interest in
and support of full access to justice. Creator of the country's
first statewide pro bono project and the nation's second IOLTA
program, the Bar continues to house the Pro Bono Program and seek
new ways to expand its impact. Currently, the State Bar's Delivery
of Legal Services Committee is attempting to involve government
attorneys in pro bono efforts, and the Bar Association's Pro Se
Committee, chaired by the Director of New Hampshire Legal
Assistance, is working with the New Hampshire Supreme Court to
create a courtsponsored Pro Se Task Force and launch a thorough
study of pro se issues in the state.


New Jersey


The core legal services delivery system in New Jersey consists
of 14 programs that maintain full-time offices in 20 of the state's
21 counties. Legal Services of New Jersey, a non-LSC funded entity,
administers the quite substantial non-LSC resources that support
legal services in this state. LSNJ is both a funder/fundraiser and
a state support organization providing support to the field
programs in training, litigation coordination, pro bono
coordination, the establishment of accountability standards,
resource development, technology support, support for service
delivery innovations, policy advocacy, major case advocacy, and
statewide leadership. LSNJ coordinates all of the state taskforces,
holds regular meetings for project directors and others and
routinely conducts program evaluations.
In 1994, LSNJ announced an intensive comprehensive statewide
analysis of the state's efforts to provide high quality legal
assistance to clients. This process was called "reengineering." In
reality however, little of LSNJ's efforts effort went into
"reengineering" the delivery system since it, as well as other
legal services providers and stakeholders throughout the state,
were devoting considerable energies and efforts into developing new
sources of funding to support the work of the fourteen LSC-funded
programs in the aftermath of the 1995 funding cuts and the
restrictions. These efforts were highly successful. Today, funding
for the fourteen LSC-funded grantees in the state comes from three
primary sources: the state, IOLTA and LSC. Approximately two
million additional dollars come from counties, other governmental
units, and private sources. On the average, only fifteen percent of
New Jersey grantees' annual budgets comes from LSC.
In 1998, when LSC issued Program Letter 98-1, LSNJ was already
nearing completion of its formal three-year Legal Services Master
Plan for the period 1998-2001. The plan was developed with input
from representatives of the state government, the judiciary, the
New Jersey State Bar Association, specialty bar associations,
county bars, law schools, public interest legal organizations, and
representatives of the major in-state funding sources, the State of
New Jersey and the IOLTA Fund of the Bar of New Jersey.
The overarching values underlying this three year plan included:
(1) the need for legal services programs in New Jersey to function
as a "concerted, coherent, closely coordinated legal assistance
delivery system;" (2) the need to develop additional resources to
expand access and improve quality of services within the state; (3)
the need to incorporate the views of clients and key partners in
making major decisions about how to design and implement a system
of high quality comprehensive legal services; and (4) 100% access
for clients throughout the state.
Within this framework, the plan laid out initiatives to improve
and streamline every aspect of the delivery system's operations.
The first priority was to continue to increase resources available
for client services. The second priority was to maximize the
efficient and effective expenditure of these resources and to
achieve enhanced outcomes for clients by improving the core legal
services delivery system. The plan identified steps and strategies
to integrate the core system with a wider network of partners
involved in the delivery of civil legal services to low income
persons.
As it enters its third and final year, upon implementation, this
three-year plan has led to the following accomplishments:


•
Creation of a statewide integrated intake
system;


•
Adoption of a uniform statewide case management
system;


•
Development of a coordinated statewide outreach and
community legal education strategy;


•
Adoption of advisory protocols for improving supervision
of legal work;


•
A comprehensive analysis of the full extent and nature of
the unmet need for essential civil legal aid for economically
disadvantaged people in New Jersey (scheduled to be completed this
year);


•
Creation of a technology infrastructure, and the
development and implementation of strategies to ensure that LSC's
grantees are fully utilizing available technology to expand and
improve client services. These strategies include, but are not
limited to, statewide computer training, periodic visits--by
LSNJ--to local programs to assess the effectiveness of their use of
technology, development of computerized intake questionnaires and
case handling protocols, coordination of activities with the courts
to help self-represented clients through the use of technology,
upgrading and updating programs' technology capabilities and
maintaining and enhancing desktop electronic research
capability;


•
Preservation and expansion of the capacity of legal
services providers to deliver essential legal assistance to
eligible clients, including a major statewide initiative to expand
the private funding base statewide;


•
Development of expanded pro bono efforts to supplement
the work of legal services programs;


•
Implementation of new statewide protocols for ongoing
program self-assessment;


•
Adoption of standardized performance criteria and
assessment for legal services staff;


•
Efforts to develop a uniform program performance
reporting system that will measure outcomes for clients on a
statewide basis; and



•
Creation of an effective statewide capacity to conduct
research important to poverty law advocacy and extended
representation of clients in areas of critical need.

In 2001, LSNJ has begun activities to develop its next
three-year master plan (2002-2004) for the state of New Jersey. Key
points of exploration for this plan include:


•
A systematic look at best practices in highly-regarded
legal services programs nationally;


•
Utilization of the results of the comprehensive New
Jersey legal needs study, which is scheduled to be substantially
completed by December 2001, to identify needs and establish
priorities for funding and for services;


•
Further refinement of those statewide core capacities
(which New Jersey terms "necessary characteristics") required of a
highly coordinated and integrated statewide legal assistance
system;


•
The need for expanded research into delivery
options;


•
The need to promote experimentation and creativity in
developing new ways to deliver quality legal assistance to
low-income clients;


•
Full evaluation of progress to date in meeting the goals
outlined in the current state plan with an initial report to be
completed by July 2001;


•
A new three- year technology plan; and


•
As suggested by LSC, a new look at program configuration,
particularly in light of both the positive experiences in other
states and the significant resources and energies that must be
devoted to the maintenance of a statewide delivery system that has
so many components.




Although some planning efforts took place in Ohio in response to
the legislative changes of 1995-1996, the recent round of
successful planning efforts occurred because of two independent
events that merged to become an effective catalyst for change. In
late 1997, the Ohio Legal Assistance Foundation (OLAF)--a major
funder of civil legal services throughout the state--launched a
process of comprehensive evaluation of each of its recipients,
including the LSC-funded programs in the state. These in-depth
evaluations used teams of respected legal services leaders from
throughout the country and assessed the quality and effectiveness
of each legal aid provider with regard to legal work, client
involvement, management, and administrative functioning making
recommendations for improvement as appropriate. In January 1998,
LSC independently launched its state planning initiative and
selected Ohio--a state wherein LSC funded 14 separate programs
including two programs that served a single county--as one of its
priority states. State plans were due into LSC by October 1, 1998.
However, since LSC was working closely with Ohio in planning
activities, LSC quickly determined that any plan submitted to LSC
on October 1, 1998 would not meet LSC's planning expectations nor
address the issues identified in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6.
Accordingly, LSC granted the Ohio planners a five-month extension
for submission of their plan urging them to develop "a planning
process that is values driven, articulates core capacities that
must be in place throughout the state, is sensitive to the needs of
all clients in Ohio, and is inclusive of all of legal services
stakeholders. In addition… the planning process and the plan itself
(must) address the need for program collaboration and coordination
within the state…"
As state planning activities were slowly initiated, the program
evaluations launched by OLAF were also proceeding. (OLAF extended
an invitation to the LSC planning consultant assigned to Ohio to
participate in the evaluation of six of the LSCfunded legal
services providers in the state. She accepted the invitation.) As
evaluations were completed, it became increasingly apparent that
the many strengths of the state's civil legal assistance system
were offset by significant weaknesses, including variation in
quality among the programs, insufficient communication, and lack of
shared responsibility for addressing problems on a statewide
basis.
In mid-1998, the Ohio Planning Steering Committee was formed to
coordinate existing planning groups and to make sure planning was
launched where it did not yet exist. The Steering Committee was and
is composed of representatives of legal services programs, OLAF,
law schools, pro bono programs, the client community,
communitybased organizations, and the organized bar. A consultant
was engaged by the state planners to facilitate the planning
process. Using the "discussion draft" on the hallmarks of a
comprehensive, integrate statewide civil legal assistance system
prepared by the Project for the Future of Equal Justice as a model,
the planners adopted as two overarching goals: (1) the need for the
creation of a legal services delivery system that provides
comprehensive, integrated high quality legal services to the client
community and (2) "100% access to essential legal services for
low-income Ohioans such that they are able to secure substantive
and procedural equal justice." Measuring the existing system in the
state against that vision, the participants in the planning process
quickly came to the realization that significant change was
necessary.
The Steering Committee, working through subcommittees, produced
a draft report setting action plans for activities aimed at
building an integrated, statewide delivery system. The plan was
shared with other stakeholders, including all program directors,
who then met as a group in early 1999 for a frank and open
discussion about configuration. The Ohio State Plan: Toward
Achieving a Comprehensive Integrated Legal Services Delivery System
was submitted to LSC in March 1999. It was quickly approved and the
legal services community in the state has spent the two years since
then refining and implementing the plan, mobilized by a new energy
and a renewed sense of purpose.
A key component of the plan was the decision was to reduce the
14 LSC-funded programs in the state to seven regional delivery
systems. The reconfiguration process took place over the course of
2000 and has now been completed. In addition to the LSCfunded
programs, there are non-LSC-funded programs in three regions, as
well as three statewide non-LSC funded programs: Pro-Seniors, which
serves senior citizens; the Equal Justice Foundation, which
provides litigation advocacy; and the OSLSA State Support Center
(OSLSA).
Planners also identified the development of an integrated and
coordinated statewide intake process as an essential component of
an effective delivery system for the state. Among the specific
goals were the following:


•
Establish telephone access for clients in those parts of
the state where it did not exist.


•
Create centralized regional telephone intake systems in
the seven new service delivery regions for all LSC-funded
providers, as well as other providers where possible.


•
Establish a statewide telephone service with a toll-free
number that will route callers to the appropriate regional intake
system.


•
Standardize intake and case management software among
programs to expedite intake and referrals.


•
Study systems other programs use to provide advice and
brief services to clients and development of recommendations as to
how these service components can be standardized from program to
program.


Currently, most of the regions have developed or are developing
a regionwide intake system, with the assistance of consultants and
funding provided by the Ohio Legal Assistance Foundation and funds
granted by LSC under a technical assistance grant. Several of these
regionwide intake systems are extremely innovative and offer
potential as a prototype for the state.
Under the leadership of a Technology Advisory Committee created
in early 1998 and a Technology Coordinator hired in late 1998,
supported by OLAF funds and originally housed at OSLSA, the state
planners adopted a technology plan in 1998 that set minimum
technology standards for all programs in the state, as well as
long-term goals.
In 1999, the Statewide Technology Coordinator launched a
Technology Task Force, made up of two representatives from each
program, one who is responsible for technology matters and one who
can effectively communicate how their program provides services to
the client community. All providers have now met most of the
standards, which include upgrades of computer hardware and
software, computers for all staff, desktop internet access,
individual e-mail, and electronic legal research capacity. The
state has a statewide website and planners are considering
web-based intake.
The plan includes a heightened commitment to client empowerment,
client and community education, and expansion of pro se options.
OSLSA is coordinating a Pro Se Project funded by OLAF and the Ohio
State Bar Foundation to develop standardized pro se materials for
use across the state, set up two pro se pilot projects in rural
Ohio, and develop training materials for pro se clinics. LSC has
awarded the State Support Center a Technology Integration Grant for
development of web-based pro se assistance with tutorials for
victims of domestic violence. A NAPIL Fellow is cataloguing all
community education material currently in use throughout the state
and reviewing them for accuracy, duplication, and needed changes.
New mechanisms for effective and efficient dissemination of
community education materials will be developed by community
education and technology planners.
Legal work is coordinated through OSLSA and the Litigation
Director's Task Force, which was created during the planning
process. The task force has set two initial goals: to prioritize,
coordinate and develop a work plan for legal work on a state-wide
and regional level; and to develop resources to support this legal
work through pooled resources of programs, collaborations with law
schools, special funding from OLAF and foundations, and the
creation of additional task forces.
OSLSA and OLAF also play important roles in the area of
training. OLAF funds training for the state civil legal services
providers and coordinates training for various pro bono projects.
OSLSA has primary responsibility for coordinating and delivering
training to legal services staff across the state. There have been
a number of successful statewide substantive law training
conferences. The statewide website has a calendar of training
events and related information, and a statewide brief bank that can
be accessed by all advocates is in the works.
During the planning process, the planners recognized that
mobilizing and involving the private bar in the legal lives of
low-income clients was one of the state's weaknesses. Accordingly,
the planning process resulted in the establishment of a Pro Bono
Work Group to develop and implement a state pro bono plan. OLAF has
designated two key staff to provide leadership in this area. The
group is working to expand, enhance and coordinate pro bono
initiatives and integrate pro bono programs with staff-based
delivery systems, with the ultimate goal of raising the current
statewide participation rate in pro bono programs of under 10
percent to 17 percent. As part of this effort, the Ohio Attorney
General and Governor recently announced pro bono policies for
governmental attorneys, and the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme
Court sent a letter to all lawyers in the state urging
participation in pro bono work. Ohio is also experimenting with an
innovative project to link churches, private attorneys and
low-income clients through faith-based pro bono projects in areas
of the state where pro bono participation is low.
The civil legal assistance in the state has a long history of
collaborative fundraising endeavors. Ohio has been extremely
successful in obtaining diversified state funding for legal
services and has one of the highest levels of state funding in the
country. In 1993, the Ohio State Bar Association received the
prestigious Harrison Tweed Award from the ABA in recognition of its
efforts to help expand funding for legal services. OLAF has
succeeded in significantly increasing IOLTA funding in recent
years. The initial planning report submitted to LSC in March 1999
ranked continuing attention to resource development as a very high
priority and outlined steps to ensure continued support for legal
services from filing fees, attorney registration fees, IOLTA, and
other sources. OLAF continues to work each year to try to generate
general revenue funding. One important new resource has been the
Ohio Supreme Court, which initially provided $350,000 annually,
raised to $500,000 this year. The Columbus and Cincinnati legal aid
capital campaigns have each raised significant funding for their
capital campaigns--$4 million in Cincinnati and $1.5 million in
Columbus.


Oregon

-52

Oregon's state planning process began in 1995 with the creation
of the Oregon State Bar Legal Services Task Force, convened by the
President of the State Bar in consultation with the Chief Justice
of the Oregon Supreme Court. Members of the Task Force included the
Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, judges from the Circuit
Court and Court of Appeals, and leaders from the private bar, as
well as members of the Oregon State Bar Board of Bar Governors.
The Task Force worked through subcommittees organized around the
following broad areas: Client Need/Priorities, Structure and
Organization, Funding, and Ethical Responsibility/Quality
Assurance/Transition. They gathered information from a wide range
of legal services providers, including law school clinics, the
state Protection and Advocacy Agency, the Juvenile Rights Project,
and pro bono groups and others in the community concerned about
services to low-income residents of Oregon. Each of the
subcommittees reported to the full committee. A final Task Force
Report was issued in 1999. Since then, activities have been
coordinated through an Access to Justice Network that includes all
the entities involved in planning efforts. Statewide Access to
Justice Conferences were held in 1998 and 2000. Planners continue
to involve an impressive array of stakeholders, including
representatives of the bench, the State Bar, the Governor, the
Attorney General, the Legislature, and legal services and social
services providers. Work groups have been created on all key
issues. In 1999, the State Bar funded a statewide legal needs
assessment to inform the ongoing planning effort.
Planners in Oregon have made resource development their highest
priority, concluding that a substantial infusion of new resources
is the key to achieving a comprehensive, integrated statewide
system that provides access to justice for all. Under the
leadership of the State Bar's Campaign for Equal Justice, the state
has had considerable success. The Campaign has been raising more
than $600,000 a year from private attorneys. Foundation funding
accounts for an additional $400,000 annually. The state planners
have set a goal of a 50 per cent increase in funding over the next
five years, with an ultimate goal of $10,000,000 in annual state
dollars. Currently, the Legislature is considering a bill that will
charge out-of-state attorneys a fee to practice in Oregon. If
passed, this is expected to generate about $150,000 annually, all
of which will go to LSCfunded programs. Supporters of legal
services for low-income clients are also working with state
legislators to create a General Fund appropriation for legal
services programs to augment the dollars generated annually through
filing fee add-ons that are also directed to legal services
initiatives.
Cooperative efforts among the court system, the bar, and legal
service providers have made Oregon a leader in improving access to
its courts. A successful pilot project, funded by the courts, to
employ facilitators to assist pro se litigants is being expanded to
additional courts. The facilitators help to improve fairness in the
justice system by assisting pro se litigants in a variety of ways,
including reviewing pleadings for errors. Legal service providers
continue to work with a variety of partners, including the Oregon
Judicial Conference, to improve pro se forms and instructions in
additional areas of the law, beyond domestic relations. State
planning strategies have also opened up other avenues for improving
outcomes for clients. Creative partnering between legal services
and the Oregon Farm Bureau resulted in a successful mediation
program, housed at the LSC-funded Legal Aid Services of Oregon,
that resolves disputes between farmworkers and growers.
There are three LSC-funded programs in the state, Legal Aid
Services of Oregon, Lane County Legal Aid Service, and Marion-Polk
Legal Aid Service, as well as two non-LSC-funded programs and the
Center for Non-Profit Legal Services. The Oregon Law Center was
specifically established to ensure access for disfavored client
populations and issues restricted for LSC recipients. Building on a
long history of close coordination of legal work, the programs
collaborate through five task forces--domestic relations,
administrative law, housing, migrant and elder law. The task forces
are facilitated by senior attorneys from the various programs, and
meet quarterly. All programs participate. Co-counseling across
programs occurs routinely, and expertise is regularly shared. The
programs have cooperated on a statewide training needs assessment,
and advise the Oregon State Bar on continuing legal education
events for private attorneys to ensure that poverty law issues are
included.
In the areas of technology, planners have targeted a number of
long-term changes, including upgrading hardware and software, use
of videoconferencing for rural intake, and creation of a statewide
legal services web site. Legal Aid Services of Oregon has received
a federal Violence Against Women Act grant for a videoconferencing
pilot project that will permit remote intake from domestic violence
shelters in rural areas without legal services offices. The program
also received an LSC Technology Innovation Grant for a web-based
pro se project in conjunction with the Oregon Judicial
Administration for Family Law.
Although reconfigration of the LSC-funded programs has not been
a priority issue, LSC has asked the Oregon planners to examine
whether maintenance of three separate organizations continues to
make sense.


Prior to development of its 1998 state plan, Pennsylvania's
legal services community was fragmented and performing unevenly.
Nearly, a third of Pennsylvania's 15 LSC-funded programs were
receiving one year funding because of quality concerns, and at
least one was on the verge of receiving no LSC funding.
Pennsylvania programs were also competing with one another for LSC
funds. And, as Pennsylvania's State Plan observed:
"It had never been a state role to say it's not acceptable that
those in need in one part of the state have less access than those
in another part, or that clients in one area have less effective
legal assistance than is available to clients in other parts of the
state."
Indeed, in February 1998, Pennsylvania sent a representative to
the LSC Board meeting to object to LSC's state planning initiative;
and, later that month, a Pennsylvania delegation traveled to
Washington to reiterate those views.
Three years later, much has changed. With strong leadership and
financial support from key members and institutions of the justice
community, Pennsylvania is in the midst of implementing a
comprehensive state plan to "transform … a collegial confederation
of independent programs into a statewide integrated service
delivery system." Key features include:


•
Redesign of the delivery system by creation of 6 regions
and consolidation of the LSC programs from 15 to 8. Each region was
required to develop its own plan for a full service regional
delivery system, with sufficient capacities in the areas outlined
in LSC's program letters. Periodic reports are submitted to the
Statewide Steering Committee assessing whether the region has each
capacity in place, and if not, what steps are to be taken to put it
in place. The program consolidations have been completed, and each
region is moving forward on its delivery plan.


•
Creation of the Statewide Support Team housed at
Pennsylvania Legal Services to provide statewide support and
leadership in three core areas enumerated in the State
Plan--training, resource development and technology. The three new
positions, Director of Resource Development, Technology
Coordinator, and Training and Legal Information Facilitator are
supported by $250,000 funding from the Pennsylvania IOLTA Board and
Pennsylvania Legal Services.


•
Development of a permanent state planning committee with
a strong determination to build a better system. Made of up
representatives of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, Pennsylvania
IOLTA, Pennsylvania Legal Services, and the Pennsylvania Project
Directors Association, the Steering Committee meets by conference
call on a regular biweekly basis and assiduously oversees
plan


implementation. In both 1999 and 2000, the Committee published
formal progress reports on implementation of the State Plan.
Recent accomplishments in addition to the major structural and
leadership changes include:
Resource Development. The Pennsylvania Bar Association's Board
of Governors and House of Delegates has approved the Report and
Recommendations of the Task Force on Legal Services to the Needy,
which called for a set of initiatives to increase funding and pro
bono:


•
Expansion of pro bono programs;


•
Establishment of coordinated pro bono assistance teams in
counties without existing pro bono programs;


•
Judicial encouragement of pro bono programs;


•
Greater law school participation in pro bono;


•
Increased leadership in the pro bono area by senior bar
members;


•
Institution of a $5 add-on to continuing legal education
fees to increase funding for legal services by $10
million;


•
Legislation to increase funding for legal services
through an increase in court filing fees; and


•
Direction of cy pres awards to legal services
programs.


The CLE fee increase is pending before the state Supreme Court.
The Pennsylvania Bar Association has launched an effort to
encourage all local bars to adopt a pro bono plan.
In addition, the statewide Resource Development Coordinator has
established a staff-level statewide resource development committee
that meets regularly by conference call, created a marketing
brochure aimed at funders, provided direct technical assistance to
regional fundraising efforts, and developed several major statewide
grant proposals.
Technology. All providers have met the key standards set out in
the technology plan adopted in 1998. There is a statewide website,
www.palegalservices.org. The state support team is working with the
six regions to develop a web-based case management system that will
support a new intake system for the state.
Coordination of Legal Work and Training. Creation of a statewide
brief bank is under way, with funding from the Pennsylvania Bar
Foundation. The statewide substantive task forces have been
reinvigorated, with support from the Training and Legal Information
Facilitator, who has established substantive e-mail groups and
organizes task force meetings, in addition to planning and
organizing a number of statewide substantive training events.
Next Steps. In its December 2000 report, Status and Achievements
of Pennsylvania's State Planning Effort, 1998-2000, the Steering
Committee identified some next steps:


•
Deciding the best ways to organize regional phone
intake/advice systems and finding the funding to fully staff
them;


•
Determining how to deliver a full range of services in
those regions, which presently lack the institutional capacity to
do so;


•
Expanding on successful pro se assistance efforts to
develop more and stronger partnerships with courts and social
agencies;


•
Strengthening the resource development and marketing
efforts in regions and the state by developing a recognizable
identity and compelling message for legal services in Pennsylvania,
and staffing effective regional resource development
efforts;


•
Continuing to develop the PLS website as a statewide
asset by incorporating new plans such as the brief/materials bank
and pro se assistance models and finding partners such as bar
associations, courts and social agencies who might share content;
and


•
Keeping alive the conversations begun in 1998 as a
vehicle for continuing momentum into 2001 and 2002.


The Statewide Steering Committee has recently expanded its
membership by adding members of the PLS Steering Committee which
includes representatives of the Pennsylvania Clients Council.


South Carolina


South Carolina Strong collaboration among the five LSC programs,
the South Carolina Bar, the South Carolina Bar Foundation and the
Appleseed Justice Center (formerly South Carolina Legal Services
Association), has been a hallmark of South Carolina's planning
since the initial response to the 1995 federal budget cuts and
restriction. At that time, the South Carolina Bar adopted a dues
check-off for legal services, earmarking 20% for the former state
support center, South Carolina Legal Services Association. The Bar
Foundation also increased its financial support of the Legal
Services Association in order to preserve South Carolina's
well-respected support and advocacy capacity. And in 1997, largely
due to the efforts of the South Carolina Bar and the South Carolina
Legal Services Association, the legislature, over the Governor's
veto, adopted a filing fee add-on to support the LSC programs.
State planning today occurs under the auspices of the Legal
Services Coordinating Council. Formed in 1997, at the request of
the Bar's Structure Task Force, the Council consists of two persons
from each legal services program, two persons from the South
Carolina Bar, two persons from the Appleseed Justice Center, and an
advisory representative from the South Carolina Bar Foundation.
The Council's initial planning efforts focused on the creation
of LATIS, a statewide centralized access, advice and referral
system. Capitalized by a $353,000 Bar Foundation grant, and a
subsequent $46,000 South Carolina Bar donation, LATIS began
operations in December 1999. LATIS varies from most centralized
access, advice and referral systems in that it is a separately
incorporated organization governed by a board of directors from the
legal services program directors and boards, the Bar Foundation,
the South Carolina Bar and the Appleseed Justice Center. Operating
expenses are paid by the five legal services programs for whom
LATIS provides a central access point.
South Carolina's collaborative efforts produced another success
the following year. In September 2000, LSC awarded the state LSC's
largest Technology Initiative Grant--$500,000 for a two-year
project that will establish a virtual legal aid office in every
county of the state, including 23 counties that do not have legal
services offices. This project, called "Partners for Justice" is a
cooperative venture among the five LSC programs, LATIS, the
Appleseed Justice Center, the South Carolina Bar Pro Bono Program,
and 46 human services agencies.
The virtual law offices will allow real-time video-conferencing
between staff and clients, broadcasted clinics on a variety of
topics, including pro se workshops and legal education clinics, and
access to streaming video training capsules and pro se pleadings.
They will be housed in a variety of locations, including churches,
elementary schools, libraries, homeless shelters, United Ways,
victim services centers and municipal offices. The legal services
programs have entered into written partnership agreements with 46
entities across the state that have agreed to house the work
stations and provide personnel to be trained to assist potential
clients with computerized access to legal services programs and
other attorney providers.
Other efforts currently under way or planned include the
following:


•
The five programs have adopted uniform, statewide case
priorities.


•
A Technology Standardization Committee ensures statewide
coordination of technology acquisitions and upgrades, and a Forms
Standardization Committee ensures standardization of paperwork and
administration among the programs. A common case management system
has been installed in LATIS and all five programs, and a Case
Management Committee assures the system meets the changing needs of
each program.


•
Programs are working on reducing administrative costs
through collective purchase of insurance, supplies, research
resources, fringe benefits, and the like.


•
Accountability standards are being developed by the Bar
Foundation to ensure that each program creates strong ties within
the community with the goal of building local bar support and
involvement and increasing local fundraising.


•
To address the relatively low level of participation in
the delivery of legal services by volunteer attorneys at the local
level, the South Carolina Bar Access to Justice Committee has
recommended, and the Bar Foundation is entertaining a grant
request, to support the creation of a paralegal position in each
program to facilitate increasing pro bono participation.


•
The Appleseed Justice Center coordinates training and
education activities for program advocates and private attorneys to
develop expertise in areas of poverty law practice, to update
advocates on new developments and emerging trends in law and
policy, and to ensure the use of new strategies, tools, skills and
advocacy. Techniques. It also provides expert case assistance and
coordination of the statewide substantive law task forces. A system
of statewide litigation teams is being developed.


Even with these successes, state planners believe consolidation
of the LSC programs will produce a more unified and stronger voice
for clients and assure greater consistency and a full range of
services throughout the state. With planning assistance funds from
LSC, the Bar Foundation has hired a consultant to help the
Coordinating Council develop a reconfiguration plan to be submitted
to LSC this March.


Utah

-62

In 1996, the Utah Supreme Court, at the request of the Utah
State Bar, ordered the State Bar to form the Access to Justice Task
Force, charged with reviewing the state of legal services for the
poor in Utah, exploring new ideas for improving and expanding those
services, and making recommendations to the Bar and the Supreme
Court to implement improved services.
The Task Force, co-chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme
Court and the President of the State Bar, included federal and
state judges, a member of the ABA pro bono committee, senior
partners and leaders of the legal community, the Governor's General
Counsel, an assistant U.S. Attorney and an assistant Attorney
General, the Dean of the state law school and a professor from
Brigham Young University's law school, bar commissioners and the
pro bono coordinator of the state bar, directors of agencies
serving low-income and minority communities, and board members of
the three legal services programs in the state.
The Task Force submitted its report and recommendations to a
meeting of the Utah State Bar in July 1997, leading to the
formation of the Access to Justice Foundation in 1998. The Access
to Justice Foundation continues to be the vehicle for state
planning in Utah, charged with implementing the Task Force's
recommendations for improving the delivery of legal assistance to
low-income Utahns. Among the initiatives currently under way as a
result of these efforts are the following:


•
The unified statewide "Justice for All" fundraising
campaign was launched in 1999. In its first year, the campaign
raised $410,000. In 2000, that figure rose to $495,000. For the
2001 campaign, $100,000 has already been pledged by a foundation as
matching funds. Proceeds from the campaign are shared among
providers in the state.


•
The Multicultural Legal Center, a new organization to
provide advocacy in areas restricted to LSC-funded programs, was
created.


•
Utah Legal Services, the LSC-funded provider, Legal Aid
Society of Salt Lake, and the Disability Law Center are applying
for a grant to house the three collaborating agencies together on
one site, to be known as the "Community Legal Center."


•
Legal services providers are working closely with the
Utah State Bar to maximize the latter's pro bono projects by
providing training in poverty law issues to potential volunteers.
Recent initiatives have included intensified efforts to train
private attorneys to provide representation in domestic violence
and children's SSI termination cases.


•
With the encouragement of Utah Legal Services, the state
Administrative Office of the Courts is studying the "self-service
centers" model used in Arizona to help pro se litigants for
possible replication in the state.


•
Planners are considering how best to implement the Access
to Justice Task Force's recommendation that a shared centralized
intake system be established for all providers of legal and social
services for low-income people in the state. As envisioned, this
system would eliminate duplication of intake services and provide
clients with instant links to appropriate providers. Although
legislative efforts to obtain state funding for legal services have
not been successful to date, planners hope that the legislature
might be willing to provide funding to implement such a system,
along with other technology-based projects to expand access to
justice.




Washington



Washington's state planning has been led by the Access to
Justice Board. The Board was created by the state Supreme Court in
1994, and charged with expanding resources for civil legal services
and coordinating their delivery. Its nine members, appointed by the
Court, represented a range of civil legal assistance stakeholders,
including the bench, the bar, the Legal Foundation of Washington
(which administers IOLTA funds), LSC-funded programs and volunteer
lawyer programs.
One year later, the three federally-funded legal services
programs requested that the ATJ Board appoint a committee to
oversee the planning process outlined in LSC's 1995 Program Letter.
The Board led a broad planning process and, in October 1995,
adopted the two documents which guide the delivery of legal
services within the state of Washington: Visioning Justice:
Hallmarks of a Statewide Civil Legal Assistance Delivery System and
the Plan for Delivery of Civil Legal Services to Low-Income Persons
in Washington State. These two documents define the mission of the
state's civil legal assistance delivery system, express key "Equal
Justice Values" and attempt to identify corresponding "Core
Capacities," to serve the mission. The fundamental principles of
these two documents can be summarized as follows: (a) legal
services providers must be "client-centered," i.e., activities must
be conceived and carried out in service and in concert with the
populations that are being served; (b) legal services providers
must strive to ensure the highest and best use of all available
resources within the state of Washington and available to the
statewide access to justice network; and (c) legal services
providers have a special responsibility to ensure that no
population or client group is written out of the justice system
based on perceived political unacceptability or controversy.
As a result of these 1995 planning activities, the Access to
Justice Board reconfigured the delivery structure in Washington and
created two statewide legal services entities--Columbia Legal
Services and the Northwest Justice Project (NJP)--to coordinate and
supplement the activities of an extensive network of legal services
advocates, pro bono projects, other providers and supporters within
the state of Washington. NJP is the LSC-funded provider. NJP
operates CLEAR--Coordinated Legal Education and Referral System--
to provide telephone and internet-based referral, advice, brief
service, community legal education and intake services throughout
the state. Columbia Legal Services receives no LSC funds. As part
of its mission within the state's civil justice community, Columbia
Legal Services is responsible for providing lowincome people in
Washington State with the ability to define, assert, promote and
enforce a full range of legal rights within Washington's civil
justice system.
Key components of the state's planning and coordinating
structure include the following:



•
Access to Justice Board. The ATJ Board and its committees
and work groups act as accountability mechanisms, clearinghouses,
and coordinating bodies to ensure that

the goals of the equal justice community are achieved. The ATJ
Board makes regular reports to the state Supreme Court and the
governing body of the state bar on the progress of its committees
and work groups in implementing the State Plan.


•
Annual Access to Justice Conference. Now in its sixth
year, the annual event has become the keystone event for the entire
statewide equal justice community. Each conference has generated a
higher level of participation and sense of community. Each has
included a broader spectrum of stakeholders, culminating, in 2000,
in a joint judicial, bar, and equal justice conference attended by
over 800 persons.


•
Equal Justice Coalition. The Coalition, created by the
ATJ Board and underwritten by the Legal Foundation of Washington
and Legal Aid for Washington Fund, has spearheaded a five-year-long
campaign to solidify broad, bipartisan support for funding for
civil legal assistance


•
"ComTech" (Communications/Technology) Committee. This ATJ
Committee drew the state's first communications/technology
blueprint and oversaw its statewide implementation, resulting in
interconnectivity for the entire civil legal services delivery
system. Most recently, ComTech has teamed up with the Office for
the Administrator of the Courts and the Coalition Against Domestic
Violence to pioneer innovative interactive forms project to improve
the justice system's responsiveness to victims.


•
Education Committee. This ATJ Committee is responsible
for ensuring that the culture of the judicial system is one that
demonstrably values equal justice. Among its strategies are
judicial training and introducing the concept of equal justice into
the judicial screening process. The Education Committee sparked the
creation of the Public Legal Education Council, a 35-member body
created by joint initiative of the Governor, the Attorney General,
the Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Council has adopted goals
and a multiyear strategy to help the public understand their rights
and responsibilities and their options for complying with those
responsibilities and asserting those rights.



•
Systems Impediments Committee and the Status Impediments
Committee. The Systems Committee is charged with "identifying
judicial, legislative and administrative system impediments to
access to justice and recommending and implementing appropriate
changes." The Status Committee is charged with "identifying and
removing impediments to the justice system for people whose status
(e.g., physical or mental limitations, disability, race ethnicity,
language, cultural or other differences, remoteness or physical
isolation, etc.) makes meaningful access to the system more
difficult." Current activities include the development of a pro se
handbook, revision of administrative appeal notices, and expansion
of the court facilitator system. The committees are in the process
of reorganization and consolidation into a single committee, with
the objective of establishing inclusion/diversity/multi-cultural
competency as key justice system imperatives.

Among the accomplishments of Washington's planning
include:


•
A highly integrated configuration of providers, featuring
two statewide programs, one federally funded and one non-federally
funded, and a complementary system of local volunteer lawyers
programs, specialty legal services providers, law school clinical
programs, courthouse facilitator, domestic violence advocacy
programs and many others.


•
The design and successful implementation of the CLEAR
intake, advice, brief services, and referral system, which provides
telephone services for the entire state as well as a variety of
community legal education materials in hard copy and through its
website.


•
A system of closely coordinated advocacy among providers,
featuring statewide substantive task forces; inter-organizational
teams that address substantive issues affecting large numbers of
low income residents; co-counseling across programs; and dedication
of three staff at Columbia Legal Services to statewide advocacy
coordination.


•
A deep commitment by the private bar to provide equal
justice to low-income persons reflected in the provision of pro
bono representation in some 35,000 cases annually.


•
A statewide system of training.


•
Institution of a system of Family Law Facilitators in the
courts; development of a core curriculum for the judiciary on
access to justice, including dealing with pro se litigants; and
other joint initiatives among the bar, the courts, and legal
services providers to expand access to the courts.


•
The development and implementation of a system-wide
technology plan with compatible platforms for case management
systems; hardware and software standards for the civil equal
justice community; intake, timekeeping and system integration;
networked computers; the capacity to ensure coordination of
technology efforts throughout the delivery system; computer and
software technology to support case handlers at the two statewide
programs, pro bono services, and specialty legal services
providers; linked websites with community legal education
materials, selfhelp materials and forms, and instructions for
accessing providers; and systems for technology training and
support.


•
A shift in the equal justice community, from a culture
characterized by a group of separate, independent entities that
work effectively together in a coordinated effort to one in which
members perceive themselves as a cohesive, comprehensive,
integrated team.


•
A dedication to inclusion/diversity/multi-cultural
competency which manifests itself in effort to seek out and nurture
new leaders so that the system will not only survive


leadership succession, but will continue to adhere to the core
vision and values embedded in the community in ways that ensure the
highest degree of relevancy to the increasingly diverse communities
of clients in need of equal justice services.


West Virginia

-70

Planning efforts in West Virginia have been coordinated through
the West Virginia Legal Services Symposium, originally created by
the State Bar and Bar Foundation in 1995. The Symposium, while not
yet a formalized body, is a broad working group that has included
representatives of the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals,
several Circuit Court judges, two Federal District Court judges,
and the President and other officers of the State Bar. Other
participants in the Symposium and its numerous standing committees
include legal services advocates and program board members,
representatives of the state Attorney General's office and other
government attorneys, faculty from the West Virginia College of
Law, bar leaders, and representatives of the domestic violence and
human services communities. The Symposium has been the forum for
debate and discussion of a wide range of equal justice issues, from
the mission of the civil legal assistance delivery system to the
design and implementation of a number of specific initiatives aimed
at unifying, expanding and improving the state's equal justice
community.
The Symposium has also been the vehicle that has helped enable
West Virginia to unify and transform its delivery system. While
five years ago there were 4 LSC programs, the state will operate
one statewide LSC program beginning January 1, 2002. The first
mergers occurred in 1996 subsequent to LSC funding cuts, when the
smallest LSC program, North Central West Virginia Legal Aid Society
merged with the largest program West Virginia Legal Services Plan.
Four years later, the Appalachian Research and Defense Fund merged
with the Legal Aid Society of Charleston at the start of 2000 to
create Appalachian Legal Services. Renewed planning efforts and a
commitment to build statewide core functions and capacities led to
the final planned merger between Appalachian Legal Services and the
West Virginia Legal Services Plan.
Planning and organizing for this final merger has been
extensive, and a merger website at www.wvlegalservicesmerger.org
helps facilitate the process.
Members of the Symposium organized and launched a new,
unrestricted legal services provider, Mountain State Justice in
1996. This non-LSC funded entity is available to clients throughout
the state and currently consists of six full and part-time staff
attorneys. Funding for this organization is provided by IOLTA,
private foundations, attorney fees, and donations.
The West Virginia College of Law, the state's only law school,
is playing an increasingly important role in the development of
statewide technology and support systems. The development of a
statewide legal services website, based at the West Virginia
College of Law, is currently underway. The interactive site will
include pro bono resources and community legal education materials
as well as provider information and support resources. It will be
part of a coordinated web information delivery strategy involving
the courts and broad range of non-traditional partners.
The Symposium's Intake, Access, Delivery, Self-Help and
Prevention Committee is developing ways to improve system
integration and client access, including institution of a statewide
telephonic intake, advice and referral system. They are
coordinating their efforts with pro se and client education
information systems. The Futures Commission of the West Virginia
Judiciary recently recommended that a pro se coordinator be located
at each county courthouse.
Through its Committee on Coordination and Collaboration with the
Private Bar, the Symposium has sponsored a number of efforts to
expand private bar involvement including better recruitment,
training, and support for private attorneys willing to participate
in the delivery of civil legal services to low income persons. In
concert with the West Virginia State Bar, the Symposium will launch
a permanent Pro Bono Review Committee to facilitate the provision
of services by volunteer lawyers.
Last year, the state domestic violence coalition received a VAWA
grant to set up 13 new local pro bono programs in the 13
communities where there are domestic violence shelters. Pro bono
attorneys provide clients legal assistance at the final domestic
violence protective order hearing. As a result, significant new
private attorney resources have been developed in these communities
and client representation has dramatically increased.
The Statewide Technology Committee is standardizing all systems,
and a statewide technology plan for the state is set to be
completed in early June.
The key challenge facing planners in the state is finding a way
to increase funding in order to significantly expand the capacity
for services. In addition to establishing a single statewide
coordinated fund raising plan, the Symposium is exploring
legislative proposals involving fee-shifting statutes, as well as
more traditional approaches, such as filing fees, surcharges, or an
increase in bar dues.
The delivery of legal services in West Virginia will soon be
enhanced by a statewide $1.6 million TANF grant. By far the largest
increase in resources in many years, these funds will allow the
hiring of 12 attorneys and 12 paralegals to provide service to TANF
recipients on a wide array of legal problems that can obstacles be
to making a transition from welfare to work. The addition of this
staff will increase the state's legal service's advocacy staff by
over one-third.

Although there is no single model for success, many states that
are building state justice communities share similar
characteristics that can guide other states less far along.
Particular models, strategies, and approaches that have proven
successful in one state may be useful to others, while the progress
of the national initiative to build state justice communities as it
has played out across the country provides some valuable
information for national leaders and institutions. The following
identifies some of the lessons that can be gleaned from observing
states that have made significant progress toward building state
justice communities and attaining the goal of equal justice.
Included also are models and initiatives that have proven
successful or hold out the promise of success.

A. Broad Lessons


•
There is no single model for building a state justice
community. States that are on the road to success have taken a
variety of different approaches, based on particular circumstances,
challenges, and opportunities.


•
People within a state must feel the need to and some
urgency for changing the legal services delivery system. Change is
difficult and time consuming; people do not willingly make dramatic
changes in the way they go about their business unless and until
they feel that the situation demands it. Similarly, legal services
delivery systems will not change until they come to recognize that
access, quality, expansion of resources, promotion of diversity,
bi-partisan support and public acceptance are issues that must be
addressed. The goal is to light a fire without burning down the
tent. We can be proud of what we have accomplished over the last 25
years while still understanding that we need to do more and
better.


•
Building and maintaining a state justice community is an
ongoing process. The fact that it is a process means that somebody
has made a decision about the direction the process should take,
and it implies some ability to predict the outcome of the process
through implementation of strategies designed to accomplish the
desired objective. It also requires continuous dedication and
effort on the part of all those entities and individuals in the
state committed to equal justice. Even the few states that have
succeeded in building a justice community that has significantly
expanded and improved services for low-income people have not
achieved the ultimate goal of realizing equal justice for
low-income people.


•
A firm grounding in shared values and a shared vision
will increase the likelihood of success. Most successful efforts to
build a justice community have begun with a process to identify the
values that will inform planning efforts and provide the basis for
a shared vision of what the process is intended to achieve. Shared
values and vision impel the ongoing investment of time and energy
that is necessary for success and have enabled processes in a
number of states to get past areas of disagreement. Values and
vision paint the picture that drives the action.


•
Planning initiatives must be based upon a structured and
principled determination of the needs of client communities. A key
task of the planning process is to identify the major legal and
justice-system-related issues confronting low-income people and
communities in the state and to develop the best possible methods
and mechanisms to address them. Some states have used a thorough
client needs study or report as a basis for their planning efforts.
Involving a broad-based group of stakeholders in the design,
supervision, or administration of the study or report has helped to
ensure that partners are fully invested in its findings and the
implementation of proposed solutions. In different states, the
study or report has been initiated or overseen variously by the
courts, the legislature, the state bar association, or an
officially chartered commission or similar entity.


•
Leadership is key. The states that have made progress
toward building justice communities have all had leaders willing
and able to see the need for change, unafraid of taking a statewide
perspective, eager to put the needs of clients first, to accept
responsibility for meeting those needs, and to "keep their eyes on
the prize," that is on the core values and vision on which the
process and its initiatives are based. Moreover, these leaders have
successfully defined a series of goals and objectives that are
founded in the community's belief in equal access to justice and
they have been adept at communicating their goals to
others.


•
Planning and implementation require staffing and support.
Planning processes are complicated. Ongoing coordination and
support for them are essential. Permanent change will occur within
and among our state communities of justice only if participating
organizations adopt new structures and approaches that can cope
with a growing demand for flexibility and diverse high quality
legal services.


•
Many states have found that involving an experienced
planning consultant in the initial phases of launching a process
and developing a plan can be valuable, particularly where difficult
issues involving institutional relationships are present. Central
coordination and support of an ongoing planning process and
implementation of its various initiatives can be provided by
"access to justice" staff at the state bar or bar foundation, IOLTA
staff, legal services state support staff, or staff working
directly for a statewide commission or task force.



•
Building a state justice community is demanding and
involves real costs. The planning processes under way across the
country have required a tremendous expenditure of time and energy,
as well as actual out-of-pocket costs for staff, planning
consultants, and other expenses. LSC has been able to provide some
financial support for these activities, but because of our limited
discretionary spending, our capacity to contribute is limited. All
of the partners that make up state justice communities must
understand and accept the need for an ongoing commitment to
contribute their time and energy to these efforts and that those
with funding capacity must bear a share of the costs. This
investment, while significant, will be far outweighed by the
pay-off in terms of increased access and expanded services
for

low-income people and the intangible benefit that realizing the
ideal of equal justice for all Americans.


•
If a state is going to successfully create a state
justice community, someone has to be responsible for it. In other
words, state planning can not be left to take care of itself.
Someone (an individual person or group of persons) must advocate
for change, must be willing to do the work necessary to secure the
change, and must be committed to doing what it takes to make the
change permanent.


•
The creation of state justice communities will be
successful only if there is encouragement and legitimization of
constructive dissatisfaction. On-going evaluation of progress is
important. Openness, candor and frank feedback are
essential.


•
State planning will fail unless there is acceptance of
and encouragement for the risks inherent in experimentation and
innovation. Innovation in processes, structures and approaches must
be encouraged--even when they don't work out. People should be
encouraged to explore innovative, creative or experimental
approaches to the delivery of legal services.


•
The successful state planning initiative requires open
communication. Planning that results in permanent change will occur
most readily and effectively where collaboration and team building
is rewarded and infighting and/or turf-protecting activities are
shunned. And no one can be cut out of the process. State planning
fails when groups of stakeholders feel ignored, marginalized or
unimportant.


•
Obstacles and setbacks must be anticipated. Changing a
delivery system that has been in place for a quarter of a century
is difficult. It will take longer than you anticipate. Skeptics
will try to derail it. There will be failures along the way, and
the personal costs for some stakeholders cannot be overestimated.
Don't expect the path forward to be smooth but don't let the
obstacles overwhelm you.


•
In the end a state planning initiative takes time, a
commitment to forego issues of turf and personal interests, and a
supportive reward system. The creation of state justice communities
does not happen overnight, and it does not happen without some
personal pain (long-time legal services staff have seen their jobs
change in front of their eyes). Each state must create ways to
honor its heroes, record and reward its progress.




B. Models and Initiatives
The following are some tools and strategies employed effectively
by states included in this Report. This list is intended only to
provide some useful examples; it does not purport to be a complete
listing of all the states that have employed these tools.


•
Access To Justice Commission, Task Force, Or Other
High-Level Statewide Entity To Launch And/Or Oversee Planning
Process. California, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri,
Oregon, Utah, Washington, West Virginia


•
Core Values. Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana,
Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington


•
Study of Client Needs. Missouri, New Hampshire
(pending)


•
Regular Access to Justice Conference. Indiana, Ohio,
Oregon, Washington


•
Access to Justice Staff at State Bar Association or Other
Bar Institution. California, Minnesota, Washington


•
Coordination of Planning and Implementation at Legal
Services State Support Center. Florida, Indiana, Missouri,
Pennsylvania


•
Review of Plan After Interval to Measure Progress and
Reassess Goals and Strategies. New Jersey, Pennsylvania,
Washington


•
Study or Development of Coordinated Regional or Statewide
Intake, Advice, Referral and Brief Services System. Colorado,
Indiana, Maryland, Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Washington, West Virginia


•
Statewide Technology Plan Covering All Providers. Maine,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington


•
Statewide Legal Services Website for Clients and Public.
Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West
Virginia


•
Statewide Website For Providers. Minnesota, Washington,
West Virginia


•
Statewide Coordination of Creation and Distribution of
Community Education Materials. Ohio, Washington


•
Provision of Community Education Materials Through
Website. Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Washington



•
Partnerships with Courts and Others on Initiatives to
Make Courts More Receptive and Responsive to Low-Income People and
Self-Represented

Litigants, Including Revision of Forms and Procedures, Creation
of Family Courts, Institution of Court Facilitators, Electronic
Filing of Court Documents, Training of Judges. California, Maine,
Oregon, Utah, Washington


•
Statewide Task Forces on Substantive Legal Issues,
Involving Legal Services Advocates, Volunteer Private Attorneys,
Others as Appropriate, with Appropriate Support. Missouri, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Washington


•
Statewide Body Charged with Coordination of Advocacy.
Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, Washington


•
Statewide or (Multi-State Regional) Planning and
Coordination of Training For Legal Services Advocates and Volunteer
Private Attorneys. New England, South Carolina,
Washington


•
Expansion of Funding to Non-LSC Funded Programs or
Creation of New Non-LSC Funded Programs to Provide Full Complement
of Services. Maine, Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, West
Virginia


•
Expansion of Funding for Legal Services State Support
Centers or Creation of New State Support Centers to Provide
Coordination and Support for Technology, Community Education,
Training, Complex or Broad Systemic Advocacy, or Planning
Functions. Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Pennsylvania


•
Court or Bar-Initiated Efforts to Increase Pro Bono
Participation. California, Indiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington


•
State-Level Fundraising Campaign Led By Bar or Coalition.
Colorado, New Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Washington, West
Virginia


•
Statewide Public Awareness Campaign to Raise Visibility
of And Support for Civil Legal Assistance. Washington


•
State-Level Coordination and Support for Regional or
Local Fundraising Efforts. Pennsylvania, Washington


•
Campaign for State Funding. California, Colorado, Iowa,
Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, Utah


•
Independent Evaluation of Delivery System. Florida, Ohio,
Maryland, New Jersey