Mr. David Butler, Chair
Colorado’s Statewide Planning Group
555 17^th Street, Suite 3200
Denver, CO 80202

Dear Mr. Butler:

            I want to apologize for the delay in responding to the State Plan for Colorado which your Committee submitted to the Legal Services Corporation ("LSC" or "the Corporation") last October. Due to limited staffing resources, we have had to prioritize our response: the most immediate priority was given to states that were competing for 1999 and 2000 funding.

            We have now had the opportunity to review your Plan and want to thank and applaud you and your Planning Group for your efforts to build a comprehensive equal justice system. We are impressed with the vision, articulated in your Plan, which calls for a unified campaign from all segments of the state’s legal system – the judiciary, the private bar, the state legislature, the LSC-funded providers – to expand access to the legal system for low-income people. This goal will be realized through increased funding, through utilization of technology, and through extensive advocacy training for program staff and pro bono attorneys.

            Instead of blindly embracing and defending the status quo, the Plan objectively assessed the strengths and weaknesses of various segments of the existing system. It devised a strategy to improve certain aspects of the current operation, where needed.

            Although LSC’s overall assessment of Colorado’s Plan is positive, we nonetheless would like to offer some specific comments for you to consider. We hope you will take these not as criticism but in the spirit of constructive ideas to help your on-going planning effort.

            Accountability Mechanism

            We note and applaud the widely inclusive and participatory process of Colorado’s planning. All important segments of the legal establishment as well as clients are represented and have a role in formulating policies and strategies to improve the delivery system. The fact that the State Planning Group is organized into three Committees with clear areas of responsibility should enhance effectiveness of operation. While the Report implied that your Planning Group will coordinate the work of these committees, it has been our observation that a more formally recognized role for this Group may contribute greatly to the successful implementation of various planning initiatives.

            We understand that your Group as well as all Committees operate largely by volunteer efforts and, thus, formal organizational structure and authority are often not contemplated or desired. We want to be sure that there exists in the state planning process a mechanism to (1) ensure continuity of effort; (2) link planning and implementation; and (3) coordinate committee interaction and responses. For example, as the "Resource" Committee develops proposals to raise funds for legal services, input from the "Delivery" Committee, including information on progress on "merger" negotiations, may help highlight the need for and the attractiveness of a statewide intake system as a funding proposal to be "shopped" with foundations. Is there a mechanism within your Group to make sure such interaction occurs?

            We admire the tenacity of the Planning Group and the Committee on Development of Additional Funding. Their efforts to obtain additional resources for statewide legal services work in spite of the difficulty posed by Colorado’s unique political landscapes, specifically the "Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights" (TABOR), have been remarkable in both inventiveness and determination. The Plan included an excellent blueprint of specific activities involving the leadership and support of the State Supreme Court and the Colorado Bar Association (CBA). Again, such initiative would benefit from a clear implementation agenda and timetable recommended by the Planning Group.

            Our last comment on this point is with regard to the interrelationship between the Planning Group and the Judicial Advisory Council. Since the latter is involved in many of the same issues facing the Planning Group, a natural alliance and combination of effort are most desirable. However, except for some overlapping membership in various committees, the Plan did not have a structured way to ensure that exchanges of viewpoints, input and information between the two take place.

            Planning Issues and How They Are Related to the Configuration Issue

            Had we responded to your state Plan in December, one of our refrains would have been the relative lack of a coordinated approach by the three LSC-funded providers on a range of planning issues, including intake, removing barriers to access, and private attorney involvement. Even in areas of priority-setting, technology and resource development, where the state had begun to seek systemwide improvements, the implementation of Colorado’s Plan might have been difficult, given the widely divergent practices and philosophies of individual programs. Thus, our initial reaction was that the Plan’s configuration discussion was not sufficiently proactive.

            Against this background, you can imagine our delight with the significant progress that the LSC programs have made in the past four months to remove barriers to effective coordination by transforming the delivery system into a statewide program. We expect that this will enhance Colorado’s capability to find creative ways to address delivery issues, such as client access, that may be more challenging than usual due to the vast geography and difficult terrain of the state. A statewide structure may also be a more efficient vehicle to implement the technology plan that Colorado has devised, which can result in better communication among staff advocates and pro bono attorneys, as well as overall effectiveness of the delivery system. We hope that all segments of Colorado’s legal establishment, including the bar and its foundation, will help and support our recipients as they move toward their goal of a comprehensive delivery system.

            Capacity to Address Issues of All Groups or Subgroups of Low-income Clients

            LSC found Colorado’s Plan a comprehensive and thoughtful document which unflinchingly assessed the strengths and weaknesses of the current system. However, the Plan focused almost exclusively on the activities of LSC recipients. While LSC takes pride in the achievements of our recipients in Colorado and believe that, as they move forward to a statewide structure, they will become even more effective, we realize that our recipients are only one segment of a network of providers and also operate under strict statutory restrictions. For this reason, we hope that your Planning Group includes in the discussion the necessity and importance of coordinating with other legal services providers to insure that no group or subgroup of low-income clients are excluded from securing and enforcing their rights within the civil equal justice delivery system, and that all low-income persons in the state are able to enjoy meaningful and appropriate access to the civil justice system.

            In closing, I want to reiterate how pleased we are at the investment in state planning made by the Committee and other stakeholders. From materials you attached to the state Plan, we learned that beginning in 1995 when Colorado responded to the crisis situation due to significant budget cuts in federally funded legal services, your state has engaged in a thoughtful planning process. It is our belief that some fundamental components of an effective delivery system have developed thanks to these diligent efforts. Given the current progress on the statewide structure, we have no doubt that Colorado is well on its way to being a leader in the nationwide legal services community in creating the capacity to improve access and provide more effective assistance to eligible clients.