June 13, 2000

           Re: The Arkansas State Planning Report

Dear Directors:

           We would like to share some of our observations with you regarding your ongoing state planning activities and the report you submitted in response to LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. We have taken into consideration the passage of time since the submission of your report, the written and oral communications between the Arkansas programs and LSC, and your ongoing planning process and activities. In addition, we treat the "major steps" listed throughout the report as statements of goals since your topical narratives do not clearly delineate your intentions.

           We commend you for the work you have undertaken since the report, especially your participation on the Legal Services Taskforce of the Arkansas Bar Association, the statewide fundraising planning conference, the new statewide web site, and your grant application under LSC’s recent technology initiative.

General Comments

           In order to place our analysis and feedback 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 report contains a plan to establish a statewide hotline to supplement the programs’ current approach to intake, which consists of a combination of walk-ins, visits by appointment, and local and regional hotlines that provide brief service and referrals. Also, historically the programs have coordinated training, expert case assistance and substantive law task forces.

           Second, a viable plan presents the common goals, purposes, 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.

           Providing equitable service and access to all clients while maintaining a five-program configuration and local control is the overarching statement of vision and purpose expressed by the report.

           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.

           The state planning topics have been discussed with or reviewed by a limited, but diverse group of stakeholders--the five programs, the Texarkana branch office of East Texas Legal Services, the Arkansas Bar Association, the Arkansas IOLTA Foundation, and the Administrative Office of the Courts, and Arkansas Volunteer Lawyers for the Elderly. The state’s law school, client groups, and non-legal providers of services to low-income persons appear not to have participated. Having a broad range of individuals, client groups, and organizations involved in the process legitimates the outcome and elevates the likelihood of success. Future reports should reflect such involvement.

           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.

           In most instances, the report fails to identify the persons responsible for the activities necessary to accomplish the planners’ goals. Because state planning is complex and time-consuming, it is important to share the workload, delegate, and hold people accountable for assignments. We want to see evidence that you are planning to succeed. Therefore, in future reports we request that you clearly identify your goals, the activities and timeframes for accomplishing them, and the person, group or committee responsible for their implementation.

           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 extensive deference given to local practices and preferences throughout the report⁽¹⁾ suggests that the state planners were not able to look beyond the institutional interests of a single program to examine the big picture in terms of the capability of programs and the critical needs of clients.

           Sixth, a defensible plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6.

           The report does not fully satisfy this expectation. Significant planning activities remain to be done in the areas of: 1) Intake, advice, referral, and brief service; 2) Use of private attorneys; 3) Resource development; and 4) The configuration of programs in the state.

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

           Generally, clients access legal services through each program’s legal hotline⁽²⁾, by making appointments for office intake, or by walking in without prior appointment. All programs have toll-free numbers. Clients in the larger service areas have access to legal services through outreach sites. Multilingual⁽³⁾ staff or interpreters are available for non-English speaking clients. To expand access for the elderly, the programs joined with the Arkansas Bar Association and the Office on Aging to create a volunteer lawyers program for the elderly. This project has been in existence since 1983 and closes approximately 500 pro bono cases per year.

           To strengthen and improve access and services for the low-income population generally, the planners’ goal is a statewide hotline that will also serve as a centralized telephone intake system. Callers will be able to access the system by calling a toll-free number from anywhere in the state. After a screening for eligibility, clients will be referred to their local program for immediate information, advice, referral, and brief service. The hotline goal was adopted in December 1997, but has not been implemented due to a lack of funds. Obtaining a state legislative appropriation for legal services was the sole funding strategy for the hotline. The appropriation effort was defeated in both 1997 and 1999.⁽⁴⁾ This is an impressive and appropriate goal for an overwhelmingly rural state like Arkansas. We commend the planners for their continuing effort to obtain funding to implement this.

           Post-report activities indicate that the effort to establish the statewide hotline has helped the planners view other collaborative efforts from a statewide perspective—especially fundraising. In fact, the statewide fundraising plan and establishment of the statewide hotline have become so intertwined as to be one and the same. The planners should develop talking points for the statewide hotline that not only educate the funding community and the general public, but also provide inspirational force for the fundraising campaign.

           The report provides an overview of the programs’ technological capacities. There is a technology plan and the statewide Resource Training and Coordination Unit (Resource Unit) is the responsible entity that oversees the implementation of technology goals. All programs have Kemp’s computerized case management systems. All advocates have desktop computers, but not electronic access to legal information and expertise. All offices are networked with intra-office e-mail, but only two programs have Internet e-mail service on each advocate’s desktop.

           The Resource Unit recently placed the statewide pleadings and brief bank on the legal services statewide web site. By January 2001, the programs plan to establish a wide area network or extranet to link all programs, statewide e-mail on each advocate’s desktop, and a system for referring PAI cases electronically. Because the planned statewide hotline will use state of the art computer and telephone technology, the programs’ technological capacities will be upgraded.

          The report describes the separate and uncoordinated work of programs to promote access to the courts, self-help opportunities, preventive community education and advice. To strengthen and expand preventive education services, the planners decided to develop a series of 30-minute videos to be aired on local cable community access channels throughout the state. This worthy goal has yet to be accomplished. We believe this approach could reach some of the clients who cannot attend traditional preventive legal education programs for reasons of physical disability, literacy challenges, transportation, and the like. The planners should revisit this goal to determine anew whether it remains feasible.

          The programs do not have a history of providing pro se litigation assistance and education. The report states that "pro se systems (with the exception of orders of protection for victims of domestic abuse) are virtually nonexistent in Arkansas….[The] courts have for the most part been reluctant to establish pro se delivery systems." Since submission of the report, however, members of the judiciary and the Administrative Office of Courts attended the November 18-21, 1999, National Conference on Pro Se Litigation where pro se assistance centers in Arizona and other states were discussed. The planners intend to collaborate with the judiciary and the state and local bar associations to explore the use of pro se systems. Before the end of the year, the planners will issue a progress report on the system that they intend to implement. In studying pro se systems around the country, the planners should not overlook the American Bar Association as a resource.

          The Resource Unit assesses the training needs of all staffs on an annual basis. It holds annual statewide meetings for training, networking, and discussing new and emerging legal issues. It coordinates substantive law task forces in the areas of family/juvenile law, public benefits, housing, and consumer. A poverty law manual has been developed for legal services advocates and pro bono attorneys (free of charge). And, the Resource Unit publishes a quarterly newsletter, which is also posted on the Unit’s web site.

          The planners’ conclusion is that "training efforts are adequate at the present time, lack of funding severely limits [the Resource Unit’s] ability to expand and strengthen training—particularly in the area of legal skills training." The planners should consider addressing the weakness in the area of "legal skills training" by establishing a legal skills taskforce consisting of highly skilled staff attorneys, paralegals, and pro bono attorneys. This taskforce could hold regular statewide meetings (via telephone) to discuss and answer questions encountered by program staff in their ongoing work. An advocate facing a particular legal skills problem, as well as other interested advocates, should be allowed to participate in the taskforce’s telephone conferences. Members of the taskforce should become familiar with and recommend legal skills/ advocacy books, audiotapes, videocassettes, and compact discs for purchase by the programs, bar associations or law school libraries. Finally, the taskforce should seriously consider developing a legal skills manual that would be a practical guide on trial and administrative advocacy drawn from the experience of assisting advocates around the state.

          According to the report, in the early 1990’s Arkansas was ranked among the top ten states in the nation for its private attorneys’ pro bono participation rate. The planners estimate that "almost 2500 attorneys--a little more than one third of the state’s resident attorneys--participate in pro bono programs statewide." With the exception of a volunteer lawyers program for the elderly, however, it appears that the programs have not taken full advantage of this strong interest in pro bono service. Instead, each program has established and seeks to maintain a wide variety of local, uncoordinated pro bono programs and initiatives. LSC’s current 1999 closed case statistics reveal that in Arkansas 1,253 PAI cases were closed statewide last year. Assuming that at least 2500 resident attorneys remain committed to pro bono work for the poor, these statistics represent only .5 cases per pro bono attorney.

          The planners acknowledge that "following implementation of the statewide hotline…it is conceivable that growing demand for hotline services will necessitate growth of pro bono involvement on a statewide basis." This is an excellent observation, but we think expanding the use of pro bono attorneys need not await implementation of the statewide hotline. Implementation of the hotline could be delayed another year and a half for lack of funding. On the other hand, there are no significant obstacles, financial or otherwise, to directing the use of private attorneys for the benefit of clients today.

          The planners should revisit this area and adopt explicit statistical goals for increasing the number of cases handled by private attorneys statewide. A modest goal of three cases per year per attorney might be a good starting point. Increasing the number of cases handled by private attorneys could free up legal services advocates to provide more services to the rural areas. The report notes that there are no resident attorneys in several rural counties. Since increased pro bono assistance in the non-rural areas is a far more attainable goal, it is incumbent upon the legal services programs to provide the increased services necessary to achieve equitable access for the rural areas.

          There is a disparity in the financial resources available to the Center for Arkansas Legal Services (CALS) and the other four programs. LSC data indicate that CALS’ resources amount to $14.00 per poor person as compared to $10.00 per poor person for Ozark Legal Services and Legal Services of Northeast Arkansas, and $9.50 per poor person for Western Arkansas Legal Services and East Arkansas Legal Services. Because the planners have adopted a statewide fundraising strategy and share a vision of equitable service and access for clients without regard to geography, this disparity may prove to be insignificant. We commend the planners for maintaining this vision and commitment as a centerpiece of their state planning activities.

          With the assistance of the Arkansas Bar Association and the IOLTA Foundation, the planners are continuing to search for non-LSC funding. The Legal Services Task Force of the Arkansas Bar is educating legislators, judges and other stakeholders about the benefits to constituents of funding civil legal services. The planners have just recently concluded a two-day resource development roundtable to reassess their statewide resource development strategy. They established a fundraising goal of $1.5 million, identified potential funders, and established a fundraising tasks timeline. We think the programs are beginning to develop a culture that values fundraising with the understanding that it is an essential function of doing business.

          The programs should develop a written statewide fundraising plan that demonstrates to the potential funders in particular, and the philanthropic community in general, that legal services for the poor is a worthwhile program to fund, and fund generously. Philanthropic leaders and other funders should come to see funding for legal services as an effort to create the kind of civil justice system they want for themselves, their families, and neighbors. For their part, program directors should devote sufficient time to aggressive fundraising and related activities. The inability or unwillingness to do so raises serious questions about the viability of their program as a separate and distinct entity.

          The report states that "Given the demands of Arkansas’ poverty population and geography, the current configuration—in conjunction with the wide-ranging collaborative efforts outlined in this report—represents an effective, comprehensive and integrated delivery system that best meets the needs of this state." We do not agree. The planners have not looked beyond the narrow institutional interests of each program to examine the big picture. The critical legal needs of the state’s low-income population and the capacity of each program do not suggest that the status quo represents the best possible methods and mechanisms to address the present and future needs of clients.

          Our program letters require programs to take a fresh look at the delivery system, from a statewide perspective, and ask if the present configuration currently achieves, and will in the future, achieve the best possible results for clients. Pointing to a prior merger that reduced the number of programs from six to five does not satisfy this requirement in Arkansas.

          The report states that the "the current configuration coupled with a strong statewide support component and a statewide hotline allows for the most effective and economical delivery of high quality legal services to eligible clients in this state." We note, however, that the programs have been unsuccessful in establishing their planned statewide hotline, and the number of PAI cases in proportion to the number of pro bono lawyers is disturbingly low. And, although the Resource Unit is an impressive commitment by the programs, we do not consider it "a strong statewide support component." Our understanding is that it has one staff and we think the programs have only provided a shoestring budget for its operations.

          The report justifies the current configuration by listing a number of benefits. First, the current delivery system "enables each legal services program to develop priorities and office systems so that the program can most effectively meet the unique needs of the client community in its service area." East Arkansas Legal Services’ (EALS) housing work in the Delta and its community economic development work throughout the service area are cited as examples of this first benefit. We have reviewed the 1999 closed case statistics for all of the Arkansas programs from both a statewide and local perspective. Except in two instances, there are no significant differences in the rank order of the types cases closed by the programs. From a statewide perspective, the rank order of case types is: 1) family, 2) consumer finance, 3) housing, 4) income maintenance, 5) juvenile, 6) health, 7) employment, 8) individual rights, and 9) education. Thus, it seems that a more centralized configuration would not lessen responsiveness to the compelling needs of clients anywhere in the state, but could ensure the highest and most strategic use of all available resources.

          Second, the current configuration allows "advocates within each program have developed a high level of expertise in handling matters before local courts and in making referrals to local agencies." This does not tip the scale against a more centralized configuration since reconfiguration does not require that advocates abandon the courts and agencies before which they have considerable experience.

          Third, "involvement of local private attorneys in board work and on pro bono panels is greatly enhanced by contact with local programs." Reconfiguration does not mean losing local identity or closing project offices. The planners might want to study the Georgia Legal Services Program (GLSP) for an example where local identity is maintained in a centralized configuration. GLSP is basically a statewide rural program, serving all Georgia counties outside the five-county Atlanta metropolitan area.

          Fourth, "local funding sources are more likely to contribute to a local legal services program" since "many funding sources are interested in making awards on the local level." As we state above, local identity can be maintained under a more centralized configuration. We note the planners’ ongoing efforts to implement a statewide fundraising strategy. This work should continue with the greatest sense of urgency and the planners should educate funders about the efficacy of providing financial support to legal services on a more centralized basis.

          We note the planners’ concerns regarding the four Arkansas counties that have been served by East Texas Legal Services for nearly twenty-five years. The fate of those counties is an appropriate subject for discussion. If a plan emerges for substantial and beneficial reconfiguration, then LSC will consider restructuring service area TX-11 by transferring the four counties to one or more of the service areas in Arkansas. For now, suffice it to say that substantial innovative work is necessary before LSC can consider the issue of the four counties.

          The planners should revisit the configuration of the programs. It remains unclear whether the current configuration is likely to support a comprehensive, integrated delivery system. Given the extreme poverty conditions and the paucity of financial resources in Arkansas frequently cited in post-report communication, continuing with five programs does not appear to be a rational use of limited LSC resources. The burden is on the state planners in Arkansas to demonstrate that there is compelling justification for maintaining the status quo. In our view, nothing in the demography, geography or history of the state seems to support the status quo. We believe, and some programs agree, that a more centralized configuration can increase the provision of high quality services, increase the ability to recruit better qualified attorneys and paralegals, enhance the effectiveness of training and mentoring of new attorneys, foster the development of greater specialization and expertise in staff, and enhance the capacity to undertake aggressive fund raising and resource development.

          Should the planners be unable to achieve the kind of progress suggested in this letter, LSC will act sooner rather than later to join with the planners and others to design and implement a more effective configuration for Arkansas.

Conclusion

          While the planners have undertaken some significant work since submitting your state planning report, there are four areas in which future planning should focus:

• Intake, Advice and Referral. The planners should continue the work begun in December 1997 to establish statewide hotline for central intake, advice, brief service and referral to provide more equitable access by the eligible client population around the state.

• Use of Private Attorneys. The planners should develop a strategic plan for expanding their utilization of private attorneys to perform a full spectrum of legal work for low-income clients with the goal of achieving 2500 closed PAI cases within two years.

• Resource Development. The planners should commit their statewide fundraising plan to writing. In addition to listing potential funders, the persons responsible for making specified contacts, and the timetable for contacts, the written plan should address the programs’ mission and vision statements, the set of basic facts about legal services in the state that will be communicated to the public (both funders and the public generally), and a statement of talking points for each category of funders about how legal services complement their civic or business interest in the state.
  
• Reconfiguration. The planners should reconsider what would be the optimal structural configuration of programs if the state planners looked beyond any one program’s institutional interests and examined the big picture in terms of statewide client needs and the efficient and effective delivery of quality services throughout the state.

          We commend you for your efforts thus far and we are available to answer any questions about our state planning expectations. Finally, we request that, on or before February 1, 2001, the planners submit a supplemental state planning report, addressing the four areas set forth above.

____________________

¹ The statewide hotline, according to the directors, will not be freestanding, but decentralized and attached to each program due to local preferences. Written community education materials are developed program-by-program. And, the private attorney involvement programs and resource development are limited by strong local identities.

² Legal hotline," in this context, refers to a telephone intake system where experienced attorneys and/or paralegals immediately respond to callers and are specially trained to provide information, advice, referral, and brief services.

³ Non-English speakers in Arkansas tend to be Hispanic and Vietnamese.

⁴ The regular sessions of the Arkansas legislature are held in odd-numbered years. The
duration of the sessions is approximately 60 calendar days.