Melinda M. Waters, Executive Director
Legal Services Corporation of Alabama, Inc.
500 Bell Building
207 Montgomery Street
Montgomery, AL 36104-3534

Thomas G. Keith, Executive Director
Legal Services of North-Central Alabama, Inc.
2000-C Vernon Street
P.O. Box 2465
Huntsville, AL 35804-2465

Kenneth R. Cain, Jr., Executive Director
Legal Services of Metro Birmingham, Inc.
1820 Seventh Avenue, North
P.O. Box 11765
Birmingham, AL 35202-1765

           Re: The Alabama State Planning Plan

Dear Ms. Waters and Messrs. Keith and Cain:

           Thank you for your submission of the Alabama state plan, developed in response to LSC Letters 98-1 and 98-6. Also, we deeply appreciate the hospitality and kind assistance extended to us during our visit in May. As promised, we would like to share some of our observations with you as you move forward with your planning process to develop a comprehensive, integrated delivery system that will meet the present and future needs of low-income persons in the state of Alabama.

           In order to place our comments within a context, it is important to understand our expectations for state plans. First, a good plan provides for the statewide coordination of activities and services in the present while ensuring consideration of the needs of the future. In an acceptable plan, the efforts and activities of a state’s legal services providers are coordinated with each other, with other providers of services to low-income persons and with funders to insure that: (a) no group or subgroup of low-income clients is excluded from securing and enforcing their rights within the civil justice delivery system; and (b) that all low-income persons within the state are able to enjoy meaningful and appropriate access to the civil justice system. A good plan describes how this coordination of activities is taking place today and what changes the state delivery system will make in order to meet future needs.

           The Alabama plan partially meets this expectation. The plan recounts the extent to which the three LSC-funded programs have worked together in the past and promises increased efforts of collaboration and coordination in the future, especially in the areas of statewide funding, resource development, and a delivery network that maximizes client access and provide high quality legal assistance. The plan, however, is virtually silent as to how the three LSC-funded programs will work with other stakeholders in a coordinated and integrated manner to deliver services to client-eligible persons.

           Second, a viable plan presents the common goals, purposes and values, principles and norms that underlie and support it in order to ensure consistency of vision and purpose. It spells out as early on as possible what the planners are attempting to achieve through their plan.

           The Alabama plan approaches this expectation to some extent. For example, the plan sets out the guiding vision that the three legal services programs should function as a coordinated legal assistance delivery system. We have questions, however, as to how the three programs will proceed to implement a coordinated delivery system. The plan acknowledges the need to develop additional resources to expand the provision of legal services and recognizes the need to target the programs’ resources to achieve the greatest measure of equal justice for clients and low-income persons. But the plan is silent as to the methods the programs' will use to achieve these goals.

           Third, a defensible plan is one that has been discussed with and/or reviewed by individuals, organizations and institutions within the state that have a stake in the design and operation of the state’s system for ensuring equal justice.

           While the State and local bars have had many opportunities to participate in discussions with the programs dating back to 1995, a crucial omission throughout this plan is the plan’s failure to incorporate the views of clients and other legal and non-legal providers of services to low-income persons in making major decisions about how to design and implement a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system.

           Fourth, a good plan presents its goals both in terms of their measurability and in terms of who is responsible for ensuring their completion. Responsibility is either assumed or assigned. Perhaps more importantly, responsibility is shared between and among everyone who is covered by and included in the plan.

           The plan does not make clear who will assume primary responsibility for implementing many of the established goals. As to activities the three programs have decided to undertake, the plan should identify the responsible persons who will supervise their accomplishments.

           Fifth, in order for a plan to be considered effective, the plan must demonstrate that all of the legal services providers were willing to look beyond single issues or a single program to examine the big picture in terms of client needs and organizational capacities in order to develop the best possible methods and mechanisms to address the present and future needs of clients within the state. A good plan for the statewide coordination of legal services presents concrete information as to what the legal services providers believe to be the major issues confronting clients and the client communities served by the programs, indicates how the programs can work collaboratively to respond to these issues, and spells out what the legal services programs envision for their collective future and for the future of their delivery system.

           The plan reveals that the programs had great difficulty looking beyond a single LSC grantee to examine the big picture in the areas of intake and delivery network, statewide funding, and client self-help and pro se representation. As a result, we cannot determine if the programs seriously considered the best possible methods and mechanisms to address the present and future needs of low-income persons. No significant changes were placed on the table during the planning process.

           Sixth, a comprehensive plan will fully respond to all of the issues presented in LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. As stated above, the plan does not fully respond to all of the issues presented in LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6.

The Seven Questions Presented by Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6

           The plan describes current client access and intake systems in Alabama. Intake is handled separately by each program through its local offices. One of the programs has an 800 number. Each program uses Kemps case management software. Hearing and sight-impaired clients as well as non-English speaking clients are provided access to legal services through the resources of local colleges. Also, LSCA employs a statewide paralegal who speaks Spanish fluently. The plan recognizes that access and intake in rural communities remains a serious problem despite the programs' circuit riding arrangements, use of PAI panel attorneys, and use of attorneys through the State's and local bars' pro bono projects. The programs agree that clients in one part of the state should not receive less access or less effective legal assistance than is available to clients in other parts of the state.

           The plan lists the development of a statewide referral directory as a high priority and joint project of all three programs with a completion date of nine months. At the time our visit in May, work on the directory had not begun. We think such a directory is a very good idea. The programs may want to seek input from other service providers around the state and seek technical and monetary assistance from colleges and universities, relevant government agencies as well as the State bar.

           Regarding the unequal access experienced by rural communities, one approach the programs may want to consider is statewide or regional central intake combined with toll-free hotlines. The programs have already displayed a willingness to cooperate beyond their customary levels and all have the same intake system. There are statewide and regional central intake systems around the country that could serve as a model for the programs’ consideration.

           An additional approach the programs might consider is allowing their own staff with specialized expertise or skills to work across program boundaries in rural areas to address the unequal access. When developing the statewide technology plan, we suggest that special attention be given to the use of technology to maximize rural clients’ access to legal services, especially advanced computer and telephone technologies.

           The plan describes the programs' current technological capacities. The three programs have not developed a collaborative technology plan and there is no statewide coordination of technology acquisitions or upgrades. All programs have computerized case management and financial systems. Advocates and staff have desktop computers, access to the internet, CD-ROM libraries, Westlaw and Lexis, office e-mail, some voice mail, and individual e-mail in many instances. LSMB has a web page and LSCA is working to establish a web page at the State Bar web site. LSNCA has produced videos for use in client interviews.

           The plan promises that the programs will formulate a statewide technology plan within one year and determine an appropriate web site or sites within six months. The timelines for these goals are reasonable, but follow up activities for accomplishing them are not stated. For example, will the programs establish a Technology Advisory Committee? If so, the members of this committee would be the responsible persons to accomplish these goals. If no committee, should we assume that the executive directors will perform all follow-up activities? Or, will a Technology Coordinator be hired? There is no discussion of funding for the technological goals. We assume that there are costs associated with technology acquisitions and upgrades but this plan does not address how technology will be funded. This section of the plan lacks significant goals, and the goals that are included in the plan are stated in very broad language that does not commit the programs to making any systemic changes.

           The plan describes the extent to which the three programs currently work collaboratively to promote and support pro se assistance. It shows the programs' belief that the "private bar, court clerks, and judges in Alabama have not yet fully embraced pro se representation as an acceptable means of increasing access to the court system." Pro se representation appears to be more acceptable in the urban counties. LSMB holds regular pro se clinics. LSCNA has obtained a grant and has the support of the local bench and bar for a family law pro se clinic.

           The programs conclude this section of the plan by promising to work to "place all community education materials on the Internet," to work with the State bar and the courts to "increase understanding and acceptance of pro se representation," and to work with the Alabama Center for Alternative Dispute Resolution to "increase membership on its pro bono mediation and arbitration panels for low income citizens." While good goals, the plan does not, however, explain the major steps through which the programs envision accomplishing them and the responsible persons who will oversee implementation of the goals. Furthermore, the time frames are vague--"ongoing" is used for two of the three major goals.

           In the technology section of the plan, the programs do not state whether new and emerging computer and telephone technologies will be acquired to expand self-help opportunities for clients. LSMB’s web site is mentioned, as are LSCA’s and LSNCA’s ongoing work to establish sites, but there is no discussion of how these web sites will impact one of the state’s biggest problem—equal access to legal services by rural communities. The plan speaks of placing "all community education materials on the Internet," but is silent as to how it envisions the client-eligible population gaining access to the Internet. When developing the statewide technology plan, the programs might want to study the extent to which the client-eligible population has access to the Internet.

           The plan makes clear that pro se representation in Alabama faces substantial challenges from the bench and bar. Because this is true, the programs may want to enlist the support of the law schools in the state to gain the courts' and bars' acceptance of pro se representation. Law school journal articles as well as State and local bar journal articles by judges, legal scholars and practitioners might be persuasive. Also, under appropriate circumstances, the programs might want to publish the views and experiences of low-income persons who have successfully engaged in pro se representation.

           The three programs hold joint training conferences. Advocates from all the programs attend the CLE and training events of the local bars, the in-state law schools, and national organizations such as NLADA and the National Consumer Law Center. Specialty Advocacy Teams (SATs), consisting of advocates from all three programs, assist with statewide training, resource materials, and updates about legal developments and strategies. Poverty law manuals are available for the Legal Services advocates as well as pro bono attorneys. Through the SATs and other Legal Services staff, there is on going and periodic assessment of training needs and resources and plans are developed and implemented to address the identified needs. There is a statewide brief bank. All of the programs have senior staff attorneys to coordinate and supervise legal work.

           The goals for this section of the plan include placing all available client materials on a web site, producing additional client education videos, and collaborating with the in-state law schools to share resource materials.

           While the programs have developed several important practices in this area, it is not evident from the report that the programs assessed their strengths and weaknesses or considered what further steps might be taken to assure the delivery of high quality assistance throughout the state. The first two goals in this area, for example, are already contained in the section on client access; and, the third goal, while commendable, has no one assigned to its implementation. Another concern raised by this section of the plan is the plan’s silence on advocates, especially members of the SATs, communicating electronically with one another to discuss common legal issues, approaches, and strategies to serve clients. The programs might keep this in mind when developing the statewide technology plan.

           We recommend that the programs revisit this area and determine whether current practices and systems meet the training and coordination needs of the state’s legal services advocates, including pro bono and PAI attorneys. Perhaps staff from all three programs and pro bono and PAI attorneys might be involved in this task.

           Through the State's and local bars' Volunteer Lawyers Programs, there are pro bono attorneys active in each of Alabama's sixty-seven counties. The executive director of each program serves on the State Bar Committee on Access to Legal Services, which monitors the statewide pro bono project and assists the three local bar pro bono initiatives in Mobile, Birmingham, and Madison Counties. The legal services programs screen all clients served by the pro bono projects. Each program assists the pro bono projects within their service area with a portion of its budget. In addition to pro bono projects, LSCA and LSMB have reduced fee panels through their private attorney involvement programs.

           Through their work on the State Bar Committee on Access to Legal Services, the executive directors of the three programs will seek CLE credit for pro bono activities, an increase in pro bono services in rural areas, the establishment of pro se clinics, hotlines and other innovative projects, and State Bar recognition of the services of attorneys and firms who make substantial contributions through PAI or the pro bono projects. In addition, the programs will increase their own efforts to recognize pro bono achievements.

           The goal to establish CLE credits for pro bono activities is a very ambitious and innovative way to recruit and expand the participation of private attorneys statewide. In addition, the programs might consider recruiting private attorneys from the more populous portions of the state to assist clients in areas of the state with few practicing lawyers to address the unequal access between rural and urban communities. It might be helpful to offer the private attorneys opportunities to participate in the full spectrum of legal work, including advice and brief service, administrative representation, transactional assistance as well as litigation.

           The three programs are primarily funded by LSC. Each program receives small IOLTA grants for use in domestic abuse cases only. In previous years, LSMB has received funding from United Way, Cumberland Law School Clinical Program, and the CDBG program. LSNCA has also received CDBG funds and one of LSCA’s regional offices is currently receiving Older Americans Act funds. All three programs receive donations from individual attorneys. There is no statewide funding plan for the programs. The programs agree to work jointly on fundraising while continuing their individual efforts to obtain other federal and state funding.

           The programs’ goals include funding from the Alabama legislature through either a court filing fee surcharge or a general appropriation. In addition, the plan calls for a statewide private bar campaign that could raise as much as $300,000 per year; a campaign to obtain funds from Alabama-based philanthropic and corporate foundations for domestic abuse work and other unspecified statewide activities; creation of a staff position to coordinate ongoing statewide planning and developing financial and other resources; and actively educating the bar, the business community and the remaining non-legal community by publishing an annual report of the programs’ work, commissioning an updated survey of unmet legal needs of the poor, and hiring a public relations firm.

           These are ambitious and appropriate goals, and achievement might be more likely if the programs work collaboratively, identify the major steps necessary to achieve each goal, and identify the responsible persons who will take the lead in managing one or more of the funding /resource development campaigns.

           In this section of the plan, it is the programs’ conclusion that the status quo works best to maximize the effective and economical delivery of high quality legal services throughout the state. The legal services system in Alabama consists of three programs, primarily funded by LSC. Legal Services of North-Central Alabama, Inc. (LSNCA) is the oldest and is based in the city of Huntsville, described as a "high-tech, cosmopolitan center with the seventeenth highest per capita income in the nation and the highest in the Southeast." Legal Services of Metro Birmingham, Inc. (LSMB) is the second oldest and is based in the city of Birmingham, described as "home to largest number of private attorney practicing anywhere in the state." Legal Services Corporation of Alabama (LSCA) is the most recent, created in the late 1970s, and is based in the city of Montgomery, the state capital.

           The plan acknowledges that the configuration of legal services in Alabama is more likely the "result of historical accident," rather than the result of an analysis of what configuration would yield the most economical and effective services to clients throughout the state. The plan goes on to state that "regional differences and rivalries tend to favor separate legal services programs serving different areas." It is LSC’s position that this kind of history is not sufficient to justify the status quo. Given the significant changes in the legal services landscape, programs must take a fresh look, from a statewide perspective, and ask if the present configuration currently achieves, and will in the future, achieve the best possible results for clients.

           This section of the plan concludes by stating: "The discussion regarding the advantages and disadvantages to a reconfiguration will continually be discussed by the programs as funding possibilities develop, or as changes occur in the availability of other statewide legal resources for the provision of a full range of services to poor Alabamians." The programs may want to consider whether changes in the configuration of the delivery system may have to occur first in order to attract new or increased funding possibilities, rather than the other way around.

           We recommend that the programs reopen their consideration of the configuration of the LSC-funded programs and address the question--perhaps with the assistance of bar leaders and a consultant--as to what would be the optimal structural configuration for Alabama legal services programs if the planners looked at the big picture in terms of statewide client needs and the efficient and effective delivery of quality legal services throughout the state.

           The planning process in Alabama has documented the many areas of agreement among the three programs and has revealed the extent to which there is a shared vision and mission. However, we think all parties recognize the fact that the plan needs further work and refinement. Based upon our visit and review of the plan, we think there are two major areas in which future planning should occur:

1. Resource development—substantially increasing the amount of non-LSC funding statewide; ensuring equitable funding among all regions of the state, especially the rural areas.
   
   
2. Intake and client access to legal services—the three programs functioning like a virtual statewide law firm; the exploration of centralized or coordinated intake, advice and referral systems to provide easy and even access to eligible clients; legal services staff with specialized expertise or skills working across program boundaries.

           During our visit the programs announced that a series of regional meetings would be held to refine and continue the state planning process. It is our expectation that all three programs as well as a broad and inclusive group of other internal and external stakeholders will participate in all aspects of your future planning activities.

           We commend your planning work to date and for the activities you will initiate in the coming months. We request that you provide us a status report as to the progress of your planning activities October 1, 1999.