Joseph Kreamer, Chair
State Bar of Arizona
Committee on Legal Services
c/o Rhees, Hopkins & Kreamer
100 W. Clarendon, Suite 700
Phoenix, AZ 85013

Re: 1998 Arizona State Planning Report

Dear Mr. Kreamer:

      Thank you for your timely submission of the Arizona LSC State Planning Report. The staff of the Legal Services Corporation’s Office of Program Operations has reviewed and discussed your Report in substantial detail. Although the Plan contains certain laudable and promising collaborative efforts, particularly those spearheaded by the State Bar, the Bar Foundation, and the Arizona Justice Institute, overall, the Plan does not demonstrate significant progress toward a comprehensive, integrated delivery system for Arizona. We further conclude that the current configuration of service areas within the state is a serious impediment to achieving such a delivery system.

      The Corporation acknowledges the leadership of the Arizona State Bar, most specifically the State Bar Legal Services Committee, in ensuring that the state planning process, begun in 1995 in response to LSC's call for planning, and continued this year, includes all people who are concerned about a strong and integrated legal services delivery system in Arizona. We note with appreciation your personal leadership and input, the participation of the Arizona Bar Foundation and the Arizona Justice Institute in every stage of the 1998 state planning process. It is apparent that the Committee made every effort to maintain an inclusive process, evidenced by the list of participants at your September 19 meeting, and the subcommittee deliberations, culminating in the Report submitted to LSC on October 1, 1998.

      It is also apparent that when you began deliberating in the spring of this year, all participants intended to take a serious look at how far the state had come and what steps were needed to implement the 1996 State Plan recommendations. It was a reasonable approach, given that the 1996 Plan addressed issues which LSC wanted discussed in the state planning this year. Unfortunately, however, it appears that the subcommittee abandoned this initial vision and, instead, focused on issues of local control and the preservation of the present configuration of programs. As the Report indicates, "the configuration issue has dominated the discussion and development of [the Report]." This no doubt accounts for the failure of the planning process to make much headway where collaboration and coordination among LSC recipients is required.

      On the topics where coordination is the responsibility of a non-LSC entity, we find that Arizona does quite well. For example, the Arizona Justice Institute contributes immensely to the continuation of a well-coordinated training program which responds to the needs of providers in the state. Its advocacy effort in the state legislature on issues concerning legal services is beneficial to all advocates for the poor. Its coordination of case strategy discussion among legal services staff and community-based advocacy organizations on the issue of domestic violence is indicative of a well-planned, well-executed statewide approach to delivery issues that LSC desires to see in all state planning. The Institute's coordinating role in the distribution of materials via technology will contribute greatly to strengthening the integrated delivery system in Arizona.

      Arizona’s resource development efforts also exemplify strong stakeholder involvement and leadership. Thanks to the efforts of both the State Bar and the Arizona Bar Foundation, funding for legal services has diversified beyond LSC and IOLTA. The State Bar-sponsored dues check-off campaign and the drive to seek private foundation funding have both been well-designed and coordinated to maximize outcomes and avoid duplication of effort, with the ultimate goal of increasing funds for legal services. Like the activities undertaken by the Arizona Justice Institute, both the State Bar and the Bar Foundation have a clear vision -- to diversify funding sources for legal services, as well as to seek additional funding. They seem to be resolute in their efforts to execute this agenda and, above all, appear to have developed strategies to carry them out.

      In contrast, topics requiring LSC provider collaboration suffer from a lack of broad vision and clear strategy. Discussion of nearly all of these topics is weakened by preoccupation with local control; e.g., "the strength of the [intake] system lies in the local control..." and as to PAI, "any configuration of programs that lessens the local control and coordination of these efforts would likely adversely affect recruiting efforts." Inability to rise above these concerns has thwarted necessary progress in communication, coordination and development of a more integrated system.

      The discussion on Intake is an example. While the Report states that "the strength of the system lies in the local control and coordination of the system," there is no evidence to convince LSC that "coordination" between programs on the topic of Intake goes beyond referral. Citing the success of the statewide elder law hotline, which is operated by one program and, therefore, not really a coordinated initiative, the Report "recognizes that there can be advantages to centralizing intake procedures" and "intends to continue to explore the issue." However, there is no mention of who will do the exploring, when or how, or by what criteria a centralized intake system would be evaluated.

      The same limited approach is evident in the discussion of coordination of preventive legal education materials. LSC programs state that they will "share [such materials] ... where appropriate." While one instance of collaborative distribution of such materials is mentioned, it is not clear why programs do not regularly and systematically work in concert to develop and distribute such materials. Plans for the Arizona Justice Institute to place a catalogue of available community education materials on its web site appear only to be in the most formative stages, and address only a part of the equation. Who, for example, will determine what materials should be produced, or updated, when, by whom, and what other forms of statewide dissemination will be used?

      As to coordination of legal work, unless the coordination is performed by the Arizona Justice Institute as part of its statewide training and advocacy role, the report gives no evidence of either on-going or future plans for systematically sharing information concerning legal strategies and techniques in the major legal areas affecting clients in the state.

      A similar lack of collaborative planning appears in the section on expanding access to the courts. While the Corporation acknowledges and commends programs' participation in various State Bar committees devoted to expanding access to justice, we note there seems to be no inter-program effort to present the bar and the judiciary with unified positions in this area.

      As with other sections of the report, the section on technology mainly describes what is, not what might be. The section focuses more on the differences among programs in their technology capability, rather than on the question of how technology can be used to increase communication, coordination, and collaboration among programs and with other providers. There was no attempt to set out an aspirational statewide technology standard, and no indication that programs have considered compatible computer systems.

      Like the campaign to develop additional funding for legal services, the State Bar and local bar associations' role in coordinating statewide pro bono efforts is significant. On the other hand, although "rural counties are faced with a more difficult task in recruiting," LSC entities believe that outside of the state bar effort, "any centralization of the recruiting efforts will be of no particular benefit." Framing the problem once again in the context of a debate over centralization and configuration, the report ignores alternatives such as attempting to recruit lawyers from more populous portions to the state to assist clients in areas of the state with few practicing lawyers.

      Finally, on the issue of Configuration, a portion of the Report reads:

"The current configuration is not the one that would be created if the configuration was being created today from scratch. Overall, the current configuration carves the state up in an uneven, sometimes awkward manner. For example, one of the programs (Papago) serves a single tribe, while another program (DNA) serves multiple tribes in a vast area covering parts of three states. Further, there is no unique quality to Pinal and Gila counties that would necessitate a separate program to cover those two counties. It is inescapable that the current configuration does not, in isolation, effectively distribute the programs around the state."

      Standing alone, this inescapable conclusion would not dictate reconfiguration to secure a comprehensive, integrated system. However, despite a presumptive planning goal of minimizing the limitations created by the present configuration, the plan also states:

"There is little communication and coordination between programs in substantive areas such as intake, technology, research and attorney recruitment. The current configuration results in duplication of capacities of administration."

      In light of the above statement, and in concert with a full reading of the report, LSC disagrees with the planners' ultimate conclusion that "the current configuration is the best configuration for the delivery of effective legal services in Arizona." Indeed, the Corporation believes a different configuration is necessary to further the development of a statewide delivery system that is responsive to the most compelling needs of eligible clients, ensures the highest and most strategic use of all available resources, and maximizes the opportunity for clients throughout the state to receive timely, effective and appropriate legal services. Consequently, LSC will redraw some service areas for year 2000. Specifically, AZ-1 and AZ-4 will be combined. NAZ-1, NAZ-2, NAZ-3 and NAZ-4 will also be combined into one service area.

      DNA People's Legal Services, which is a predominantly Native American legal services provider and which has done more than its share in coordinating advocacy work with other basic field and Native American programs within and outside of Arizona, will be provided with three-year funding. All other programs will be awarded funding only for 1999, so that LSC-directed reconfiguration can take place for the year 2000.

      While we believe Arizona's planning efforts were lacking in several respects, we recognize the difficult circumstances under which the effort was undertaken, and we very much appreciate your work in leading this challenging process. As a representative of the State Bar, you should be commended for the vast contributions you and the State Bar have made to the cause of equal access to justice to low-income people in Arizona. We hope you will continue your leadership role in strengthening the legal services delivery system in the state.

      Please feel free to call me at (202) 336-8946 if you have any questions.