February 12, 1999

Norman Janes
Executive Director
Statewide Legal Services of Connecticut, Inc.
425 Main Street
Middletown, Connecticut 06457

                                           Re:  Connecticut State Planning Report

Dear Mr. Janes:

The Legal Services Corporation thanks you for your timely submission of the Connecticut State Planning Report. The staff of the Office of Program Performance has had an opportunity to review the Report and would like to share the following observations with you.

LSC appreciates the extensive planning engaged in by the key stakeholders in Connecticut in 1995 and recognizes that significant coordination among many of the legal services providers exists today. The Report is a clear representation of where the LSC-funded legal services program and non-LSC programs are at in their collaborative effort to achieve a comprehensive, integrated delivery system. The Report articulates the hard work and successful planning that have taken place and the significant accomplishments achieved as a result of that planning. LSC recognizes and congratulates you for your efforts to develop a comprehensive delivery system in Connecticut that provides enhanced services for clients.

The Corporation understands that coordination continues among the Core Legal services providers, Connecticut Legal Services, Inc. (CLS), New Haven Legal Assistance Association, Inc. (NHLAA), Legal Aid Society of Hartford, Inc. and Neighborhood Legal Services, Inc. (NLS), Statewide Legal Services (SLS) and the Legal Assistance Resource Center of Connecticut, Inc. (LARCC), whose directors meet on a regular basis and continue to work toward improvements in the delivery system for the state. LSC realizes the challenge faced by SLS to attempt to engage non-LSC funded programs in the state planning process called for by LSC and congratulates SLS on the extent to which coordination and collaboration exists in the state. The Corporation also applauds the plan of SLS and the Core Providers to better communicate and coordinate with the broader network of Speciality Providers and the plan to convene a meeting with as many of the Specialty Providers as possible. Although the Report does indicate that there is a modicum of formal organized planning currently being engaged in, it seems that there is no formal planning scheduled for the future.

1. A Delivery Network that Maximizes Client Access, Efficient Delivery, and High Quality Legal Assistance.

In 1996 after careful analysis and planning, Connecticut created Statewide Legal Services (SLS), a new nonprofit organization to apply for LSC funds and to serve as a hotline to conduct intake for itself and other providers. This new organization has been highly successful and conducts the majority of the intake for the Core Providers as well as intake for the Speciality Providers. The strength of SLS includes:

The strength of the current delivery network is the coordination and collaboration of the Core Providers. A weakness in the current delivery network includes the less formal coordination with the Speciality Providers. To achieve an integrated and coordinated delivery network, all significant providers should be as closely connected as possible into SLS' intake system. As recognized above, SLS has little leverage to compel cooperation of these organizations other than the logical proposition that clients will benefit from better coordination. SLS may want to consider how it can better engage the Speciality Providers. The Core Providers may want to consider engaging in a more formal planning process to improve the delivery network. It may be that with all Connecticut has achieved over the last three years it is unnecessary to make major changes in client access and that the fine tuning that needs to be done will be achieved as a result of the regular meetings of the directors. However, it is often difficult to achieve a logical goal without a formal process involving designated leaders and time frames.

2. Coordinated Efforts and a Capacity to Utilize New and Emerging Technology to Assure Compatibility, Promote Efficiency, Improve Quality and Expand Services to Clients.

A notable example of the coordinated technology effort in Connecticut is that, while technology currently varies among the Core Providers, a technology plan has been developed and funded which, when completed, will provide all IOLTA funded providers with a coherent and sophisticated level of technology. Other indices of coordination include the plan for a common Web site, technology training and the sharing of a technology expert among three of the Core Providers. Connecticut has shown a capacity to achieve coordination of technology efforts throughout a significant part of the delivery systems and to plan for improvements.

LSC encourages the Core Providers to continue their efforts to develop technology. The planners may want to consider a more formal coordinated effort on technology with specified leadership, goals and time periods to develop a strategy to bring the Speciality Providers into the technology improvements, provide more technology for legal work, engage the pro bono participants in greater use of technology, and to develop a design to continue to expand and provide for the upkeep of technology.

3. Coordinated Effort to Expand Client Access to the Courts, Enhance Self-help Opportunities for Low-income Persons, and Provide Preventive Legal Education and Advice.

This section of the Report describes the ongoing joint efforts to provide information and education to the low income community in Connecticut which is lead by LARCC's efforts to publish client education and self-help materials. A positive attribute of the coordination is LARCC's collaboration with the staff of other providers and Task Forces to produce the appropriate materials which are then distributed by the various providers. While all Core Providers have pro se "Form Clinics" using forms produced in cooperative efforts with the courts, it is unclear if the Providers coordinate these clinics on a statewide basis to determine the most efficient and effective manner of conducting pro se activities. The Report does indicate that the State Judicial Department is concerned about the number of pro se litigants and will take some steps in this area. However, the Report doesn't state what is being done by the State Judicial Department or the extent of involvement by the legal services providers. There is no indication of any state-based efforts to undertake with the state/local bar or the judiciary efforts to promote access to justice in the state.

The planners may want to consider the possibility of engaging more involvement of the private bar in access issues.

4. Coordination of Legal Work and a Capacity to Provide Training, Information and Expert Assistance Necessary for the Delivery of High Quality Assistance.

The Report describes an integrated network of coordinated training for the Core Providers organized by LARCC, which provides planning and presentation of training. Task Forces play a pivotal role in providing training in substantive legal areas. The Core Providers participate extensively in contributing to the trainings. It seems that strong leadership for training exists. The Core Providers may want to consider how to bring the Speciality Providers into the training programs, how to better use technology for training and how to provide more extensive training for pro bono attorneys on those subject areas that typically affect clients of legal service programs.

5. Coordination and Collaboration With, and a High Degree of Involvement by the Private Bar.

The Corporation recognizes that as a part of the state's coordination, the Connecticut Bar Association (CBA) has taken the lead in recruiting, training, communicating with and recognizing pro bono attorneys in the state. The legal service providers play a significant role on the CBA Pro Bono Committee. The Report indicates that the Bar provides training to enhance participation in family matters and that pro bono attorneys participate in Programs' pro se clinics. While both of these efforts are laudable, the planners may want to consider engaging pro bono attorneys in more extensive training on substantive legal issues other than family matters and bringing pro bono attorneys into those areas such as consumer, housing and benefits. The Report recognizes the need for pro bono attorneys to use technology more extensively in their work for clients.

The Core Providers may want to consider taking a leadership role in formulating a plan to enhance training and technology improvement for the private bar. Their expertise would be helpful to the Pro Bono Committee. Without formal planning which designates leadership, goals and a time period the Pro Bono Committee may not focus on taking the steps necessary to improve the coordination of pro bono attorneys with the providers.

6. Diversified Funding and Coordination of Resource Development Efforts.

LSC recognizes that Connecticut has one of the highest funding per poor person in the country and that there has been coordination on resource development for years. The Corporation praises the coordination of the various programs that has nourished the ability to seek out and obtain various funding while preserving the existing funding. While this funding has been accomplished without any formal structure or leadership, the planners may want to consider taking a more formal approach to resource development and designate a group of interested stakeholders to study successful techniques use in other states to identify and receive statewide revenues and to explore the possibilities that exist for developing strategies to use those techniques to obtain additional revenues in Connecticut.

7. Next Steps.

Connecticut has made significant changes in the delivery system since 1995. The delivery network, technology, and resource development have been enhanced. The coordination and cooperation of the Core Providers are exemplary. The directors meet regularly and continue to make changes which improve delivery. However, it seems that the state lacks an ongoing formal planning process with articulated goals, specificity on leadership and a timetable. Perhaps the planned meeting with the Specialty Providers will lead to more formal planning. The planners should report back to LSC on October 1, 1999 to update the Corporation on what has been accomplished since the last report.