[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 250 (Thursday, December 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 82401-82404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-33143]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION


Program Letter 2000-7--State Planning and Performance Measures

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.

ACTION: Notice of issuance of Program Letter 2000-7--State Planning and 
Performance Measures.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Notice sets forth the text of Program Letter 2000-7--
State Planning and Performance Measures. The program letter announces 
three strategies to advance LSC's efforts to create comprehensive 
integrated, coordinated, client-centered state justice communities in 
each state:
    (1) The creation of a team within LSC specifically assigned 
responsibility for state planning;
    (2) A period of self-evaluation by and in each state justice 
community, with an evaluation report to be issued to LSC at the end of 
the evaluation period; and
    (3) The linking of state planning with the development of new 
performance measurement tools.
    This Program Letter has been sent to each LSC grant recipient and 
is also posted to the LSC website at www.lsc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randi Youells, Vice President for 
Programs, Legal Services Corporation, 750 First Street, NE, Washington, 
DC 20002-4250; 202/336-7269 (phone); [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Program Letter 2000-7

    To: All LSC Program Directors.
    From: Randi Youells, Vice President for Programs.

[[Page 82402]]

    Date: December 13, 2000.
    Re: State Planning and Performance Measures, (Building A Stronger 
Foundation: A Framework for Planning and Evaluating Comprehensive, 
Integrated and Client-Centered State Justice Communities).
    Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 launched LSC's most recent state 
planning activities approximately three years ago. Pressured by funding 
shortfalls and the changing needs of clients and concerned with 
enhancing system efficiency, effectiveness and the ability to meet 
clients' legal needs, legal services programs throughout the United 
States were challenged by these two program letters to become actively 
engaged in a process of reassessing their delivery practices and 
policies, restructuring their legal services delivery systems and 
reallocating their legal services dollars. Essentially, LSC Program 
Letters 98-1 and 98-6 asked grantees to look at their roles in a new 
way--to expand their horizons from what's best for the clients in my 
service area to what is best for clients throughout the state. Using 
this new lens, programs were asked to report on how they would 
coordinate and integrate their work in seven important areas--enhancing 
client access, efficiently delivering high quality legal assistance; 
effectively using technology to expand access and enhance services; 
promoting client self-help and preventive legal education and advice; 
coordinating legal work and training staff; coordinating and 
collaborating with the private bar; developing additional resources to 
support legal services delivery; and designing a legal services 
delivery configuration that enhanced client services, reduced barriers 
and operated efficiently and effectively.
    On January 28, 2000, the LSC Board of Directors approved LSC's 5-
year Strategic Direction Plan.\1\ This document commits LSC to 
dramatically enhance the impact of Legal Services programs throughout 
the nation by improving access to legal services among eligible persons 
while enhancing the quality of the services delivered. The Plan 
highlighted LSC's State Planning Initiative as the primary strategy for 
expanding access to and availability of services throughout the United 
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To download a copy, go to http://www.lsc.gov/pressr/
pr__pi.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Over the course of the last three years, many states have begun to 
develop comprehensive and integrated legal services delivery systems 
that:
    (1) recognize that state justice communities must be broader than 
just LSC-funded grantees to include both LSC-funded and non-LSC funded 
sectors of the legal services delivery system, and
    (2) provide a continuum of services that encompasses individual 
representation, extended representation, advice, pro se advocacy, 
preventative education, community involvement and support, and the use 
of technology to expand essential services to all low-income persons 
within a state.
    These are exciting developments. However, it continues to be 
apparent that in many states and territories, the legal services 
delivery system remains a fragmented set of disconnected services. In 
many states we continue to find a wide divergence in the availability 
of services, client access capabilities and civil equal justice 
resources. This stands in stark contrast to our expectation that the 
statewide delivery system be constructed and maintained to provide for: 
(a) Relative equity of client access to the civil legal services 
delivery system throughout the state; (b) relative equity in the 
availability of the full range of client service capacities necessary 
to meet the full continuum of client legal needs regardless of where in 
the state clients live; (c) relative equity in the capacity to serve 
client communities in all of their diversity; and (d) relative equity 
in the investment of civil equal justice resources (federal, state, 
private, and in-kind/pro bono) throughout the state.
    A hallmark of an integrated delivery system is its flexibility to 
deploy resources in geographic or substantive areas so that quality of 
services is improved, funds are increased and outcomes for clients are 
expanded in areas where they are weak. In this context, then, relative 
equity considers the system's various capacities throughout the state, 
from region to region, and directs necessary resources to locales where 
improvement of any sort is required to assure that all low-income 
people in the state have similar degrees of access to the full spectrum 
of equal justice services.
    In this program letter we are announcing three strategies to 
advance LSC's efforts to create comprehensive integrated, coordinated, 
client-centered state justice communities in each state:
    (1) The creation of a team within LSC specifically assigned 
responsibility for state planning;
    (2) A period of self-evaluation by and in each state justice 
community, with an evaluation report to be issued to LSC at the end of 
the evaluation period; and
    (3) The linking of state planning with the development of new 
performance measurement tools.
    The information received from the field on the State Planning 
Process and Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 after publication of these 
two documents in the Federal Register and input derived from more than 
two years of on-site engagement by LSC staff and consultants in the 
field were instrumental in the development of these strategies.

The Creation of a State Planning Team within LSC

    LSC's Strategic Plan emphasizes that LSC's State Planning 
Initiative is our primary strategy for expanding access to and 
availability of services throughout the United States. To stress the 
importance of this effort and to facilitate the development of state 
justice communities, LSC will create a planning team to coordinate our 
state planning activities. This team will be directly attached to and 
supervised by the LSC Vice-President for Programs.

A Period of Self-Evaluation by and in Each State Justice Community

    We are in a period of significant transition moving from an LSC-
centric legal services model to comprehensive, integrated and client-
centered state justice communities. We acknowledge that the journey is 
not over and that significant effort remains to ensure that 
comprehensive justice communities exist and function within every state 
and territory. As we move forward with our efforts, we must remain 
conscious of the need to address several questions of fundamental 
relevance. These include:
    (1) To what extent has a comprehensive, integrated client-centered 
legal services delivery system been achieved in a particular state?
    (2) To what extent have intended outcomes of a comprehensive, 
integrated and client-centered legal service delivery system been 
achieved including but not limited to service effectiveness/quality; 
efficiency; equity in terms of client access; greater involvement by 
members of the private bar in the legal lives of clients; and client-
community empowerment?
    (3) Are the best organizational and human resource management 
configurations and approaches being used?
    We believe that the next several months are an appropriate time to 
try to begin to answer these questions. We have been involved in state 
planning activities for approximately three years, and LSC believes 
that states need a period of introspection about where

[[Page 82403]]

they have been and where they are going. Moreover, we can all 
acknowledge that self-evaluation is a worthwhile and important part of 
our planning for the creation of comprehensive, integrated, client-
centered legal services delivery systems within each state. We are, 
accordingly, requiring our grantees and requesting that other state 
planners begin a period of evaluation of their planning efforts and 
activities over the last three years using the above questions as a 
framework for the evaluation report. These self-evaluations will inform 
each state justice community and LSC of what has worked, what has not 
worked and why, what obstacles stand in planners path, and what steps 
and support might assist each state to better achieve a comprehensive, 
integrated, client-centered delivery system that delivers upon the 
promise of equal justice for all.
    Evaluations can be performed by state planners themselves or by 
outside consultants hired to perform this task. We ask that a single 
evaluation report for each state be submitted to LSC on or before July 
1, 2001 unless LSC has granted your state an extension of time in which 
to file the report. Please submit your extension requests no later than 
May 15, 2001, to Robert Gross, Senior Program Counsel for State 
Planning at LSC. Reports should be no longer that 30 pages (not more 
than 10 pages single-spaced for each area of inquiry) and should 
contain the name and telephone number of a contact person(s). 
Attachments will be accepted as long as they provide additional 
information that clarifies a particular issue or area of inquiry as 
identified in the body of the report. The report should assume that the 
effort to create state justice communities is ongoing and that we do 
not expect that you have completed your work. Self-evaluation reports 
should be a candid and honest assessment of the progress that each 
state has made in creating a comprehensive, integrated and client-
centered delivery system as well as of the work that remains to be 
done. Reports should address the following issues in the order 
presented:
To what extent has a comprehensive, integrated and client-centered 
legal services delivery system been achieved in a particular state?
    Areas of exploration include:
    (1) What are the important issues that impact upon low income 
people within your state? How is your state responding to these issues?
    (2) What are the components of the delivery system?
    (3) Has this system created mechanisms to assess its performance in 
relationship to commonly-accepted external guides such as the ABA 
Standards for Providers of Civil Legal Services to the Poor, the LSC 
Performance Criteria or some other set of objective criteria? What is 
the protocol for undertaking system performance review and when was a 
review last undertaken?
    (4) Does your statewide system work to ensure the availability of 
equitable legal assistance capacities to clients--regardless of who the 
clients are, where they reside or the languages they speak? How does 
your system ensure that clients have equitable access to necessary 
assistance including self-help, legal education, advice, brief service, 
and representation in all relevant forums? Please describe what steps 
you anticipate taking to ensure equitable access in the coming years.
    (5) How does the legal service delivery system employ technology to 
provide increased access and enhanced services to clients throughout 
the state? What technological initiatives are currently underway and 
how will they support the integrated statewide delivery system?
    (6) How has the legal service delivery system expanded its 
resources to provide critical legal services to low income clients 
including hard to reach groups such as migrant farmworkers, Native 
Americans, the elderly, those with physical or mental disabilities, 
those confined to institutions, immigrants and the rural poor?
    (7) What steps have been implemented within the legal services 
delivery system and among client communities to identify and nurture 
new leaders? Do the existing leaders reflect the diversity within the 
state and within client communities that your delivery system serves? 
Do your state's equal justice leaders reflect the gender, race, ethnic 
and economic concerns of important but sometimes overlooked groups 
within your state? Does the leadership provide opportunities for 
innovation and experimentation; does it support creative solutions to 
meet changing needs; are new ideas welcomed; are clients nurtured as 
leaders? Has the leadership been given sufficient authority and 
resources to implement needed changes?
    (8) What do you envision will be your next steps to achieve a 
client-centered integrated and comprehensive delivery system within 
your state or territory? How will clients be actively involved in the 
determination of these next steps?
    (9) What has been the greatest obstacle to achieving a statewide, 
integrated, client-centered delivery system and how was that obstacle 
overcome or, alternatively, how do you plan to overcome that obstacle?
    (10) Has any benefit-to-cost analysis been made in terms of 
creating a comprehensive, integrated and client-centered legal services 
delivery system in your state? If yes, what does your analysis show?
    (11) What resources, technical assistance and support would help 
you meet your goals?
To what extent have intended outcomes of a comprehensive, integrated 
client-centered legal service delivery system been achieved including 
but not limited to service effectiveness/quality; efficiency; equity in 
terms of client access; greater involvement by members of the private 
bar in the legal lives of clients, and client-community empowerment?
    Areas of exploration include:
    (1) In terms of the issues impacting upon low-income persons within 
your state, what strategies have you designed to address these issues 
and how do you plan to measure your future success in addressing your 
objectives?
    (2) Has the legal services delivery system expanded access and 
services through coordination with providers throughout the state? Can 
this be quantified?
    (3) Has the quality of services provided by the legal services 
delivery system improved. How?
    (4) Since 1998, has there been improvement in the relative equity 
of client access throughout the state for all low income clients 
regardless of who they are, where in the state they reside, what 
languages they speak, their race/gender/national origin, or the 
existence of other access barriers? How is this equity achieved?
    (5) Since 1998, has there been improvement in the relative equity 
in terms of the availability of the full range of civil equal justice 
delivery capacities throughout the state? What mechanisms have been 
developed to ensure such relative equity is achieved and maintained? 
Since 1998, has there been improvement in the relative equity in the 
development and distribution of civil equal justice resources 
throughout the state? Are there areas of the state that suffer from a 
disproportionate lack of resources (funding as well as in-kind/pro 
bono)? If so, is there a strategy to overcome such inequities?
    (6) Does this legal services delivery system operate efficiently? 
Are there areas of duplication?
    (7) Has the system expanded the way it involves private lawyers in 
the

[[Page 82404]]

delivery of essential services to low-income persons? Does the system 
effectively and efficiently use the private bar to deliver essential 
services to low income people?
Are the best organizational and human resource management 
configurations and approaches being used?
    Areas of exploration include:
    (1) For calendar year 2001, what is the current configuration of 
programs (LSC and non-LSC) that deliver services to low income 
clients--i.e., what are the components (size, areas of responsibility, 
governance) of the delivery system? What are the funding sources and 
levels for each of these components of the delivery system?
    (2) Since October 1998, what other configurations and/or approaches 
have been seriously explored? Were any adopted? Were any rejected? Are 
any changes contemplated in the coming year?
    (3) Is there any identifiable duplication in capacities or services 
in the state? How many duplicative systems--accounting systems, human 
resources management systems, case management systems, etc.--currently 
exist? Does the service delivery system now in use minimize or 
eliminate duplications that existed prior to October 1, 1998?
    (4) Since October 1998, what innovative service delivery systems/
mechanisms/initiatives have been adopted in the state? Have any been 
explored and then rejected?

Linking State Planning with the Development of New Performance 
Measurement Tools

    Simultaneously with these self-evaluations, LSC will proceed to 
contract with a private research firm to formally evaluate legal 
services delivery systems in a selected number of states. LSC plans to 
select several states that we believe are at important stages of the 
planning-implementation process for an outside evaluation. If your 
state is chosen, you will not have to do the self-evaluation discussed 
in this program letter. Moreover, LSC will provide discretionary grants 
and/or technical assistance to assist with and help defray any in-kind 
program costs associated with this project.
    The purpose of these evaluations will be to determine whether or 
not the delivery model in use in the state has effectively implemented 
the concepts and principles of a comprehensive, integrated and client-
centered legal services delivery system. LSC will study the 
relationship between the structure of the delivery system and desired 
outcomes as articulated by the selected states in prior planning 
documents. The findings of these formal evaluations--together with the 
material presented in the self-evaluations--will assist LSC and other 
interested stakeholders in understanding how best to conceptualize, 
design and deliver comprehensive, integrated and client-centered legal 
services. We will use this information to begin to develop new 
performance measurement tools.

Victor M. Fortuno,
General Counsel and Vice President for Legal Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-33143 Filed 12-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P