Kent R. Spuhler, Executive Director
Florida Legal Services, Inc.
2121 Delta Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32303

Dear Mr. Spuhler:

           Thank you for your timely submission of the Florida State Planning report which we have reviewed and discussed. This plan supplements "Opening The Door To Justice -- The Quest To Provide Access For The Poor In Florida," a 1991 report of The Florida Bar/The Florida Bar Foundation Joint Commission on the Delivery of Legal Services to the Indigent in Florida, included in your submission as Attachment 1. We have also read documents you recently gave us which describe additional state planning activities between 1991 and 1998.

           The opportunity to talk with you and Paul Doyle about the background against which the plan was created and activities pursued since its submission was very useful. That conversation clarified some confusion we had about the planners’ approach and how they envision achieving the various goals you set. The following observations are based on the plan and subsequent submissions.

           At the outset, we want to commend Florida planners for their dedication to improving the delivery of legal services to poor Floridians. The first Florida state plan issued in 1991. Since then, planners have reflected on and refined their strategies in response to sea changes in the legal services community. We note with appreciation the most recent indication of their dedication -- between the initial submission of the 1998 plan and the preparation of this letter, the LSC programs in Florida along with other legal services providers in the state pursued specific implementation activities and initiated new ones. You clearly understand that efforts to strengthen Florida’s legal services delivery system merit serious and on-going attention.

           We also want to applaud the congenial and collaborative relationship among the programs and Florida Legal Services (FLS), the Florida Bar Foundation (Foundation) and The Florida Bar. The resulting goodwill and good work has done much to expand resources for Florida’s low-income clients. It has also made Florida a leader in bold and innovative approaches to meeting the legal needs of low-income individuals and families.

           In that spirit, we want to emphasize that our letter is a "feedback" document and should not be viewed a criticism of a single exercise. Florida’s planners correctly see planning as a series of activities and goals, subject to amendment as circumstances change and new information becomes available. With that in mind, we offer suggestions and comments to help you achieve your current goals with greater speed and chance of success. We are available to answer any questions or concerns about our response to your plan and provide assistance to you in your planning work.

           Florida planners have a long record of improving legal services in the state. We are impressed with the efforts of the Foundation and FLS to use technology to connect programs and to increase the availability of important resources. These initiatives, in conjunction with statewide training and work group activities help ensure that clients will have access to the same quality of services no matter where in the state they live. We want to commend the work of the Project Directors Association (PDA) for its on-going endeavors that allow legal services programs in Florida to share their strengths and expertise with peers. It is also noteworthy that the Foundation was one of the first funders to engage in program evaluation activities. In another innovative effort and in cooperation with the PDA, the Foundation redirected its resources to create a companion system of legal services that helps establish equal access to the civil justice system. These creative collaborations among stakeholders have made Florida a state to be emulated and brought about remarkable improvements in access to justice for poor people in Florida. While the 1998 plan builds on these gains, the Corporation proposes some changes to it that we hope you will consider as you continue planning for the future of legal services in your state.

           In order to place our comments within a context, it is important to understand what we consider when we review a plan.

           1. Coordination of efforts. Coordination of existing legal activities is required to insure that no community of low-income clients is excluded from securing and enforcing their legal rights and that all low-income persons in the state have appropriate access to the civil justice system. To this end, a state’s legal services programs must coordinate efforts with one another, with other providers of services to low-income persons, and with funders. A good plan sets out how this coordination occurs and what changes are necessary to improve current efforts and meet future needs.

           This plan shows a high degree of collaboration. It indicates that the FLS, the Foundation and the PDA cooperate to improve and extend legal services for needy clients. The plan confirms the intent of these organizations to continue building common resources and strategies. The plan and supplemental material demonstrate how the legal needs of special populations are being met and will continue to be met, including the needs of individuals who cannot currently be represented by LSC programs.

           2. Common purpose. A viable plan is founded on shared goals, purposes, values, principles and norms to ensure a consistent vision and purpose. It spells out as early as possible what the planners are attempting to achieve through their plan.

           At the outset, the 1998 Florida plan notes that it aims to "examine, from a statewide perspective, what steps should be taken to develop further a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system… to ensure that needy clients throughout the state have timely, effective and appropriate legal services." The goal of continuing to implement a "comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system" is an important one as is the goal of providing "timely, effective and appropriate services." However, the plan contains no information on what the planners believe are the most important legal services needed by clients. We understand that programs are beginning a self-study guided by a series of questions that will elicit information on this subject. We ask Florida’s planners to keep us informed of their work in this area and the results of the questionnaire.

           3. Stakeholder involvement. Meaningful planning reflects the participation of all individuals, organizations and institutions within the state that have a stake in the state’s system for ensuring equal justice. Historically, Florida’s approach to state planning has included the participation of numerous individuals. The 1998 plan maintains this policy of inclusion by involving entities that represent and can speak for critical stakeholders in Florida.

           4. Assignment of tasks. A good plan presents its goals both in terms of their measurability and of who is responsible for ensuring their completion. Responsibility is either assumed or assigned. Moreover, responsibility is shared between and among everyone who is covered by and included in the plan. In a high-quality planning document, all of the legal services providers play important roles and perform essential tasks.

           It is clear that the Foundation, the PDA, FLS and Florida’s legal services programs have responsibility for implementing many sections of this plan. Because of the influence and authority as well as the financial resources available to these entities, it is appropriate that they assume primary responsibility for integrating the work of the legal services programs in Florida. The plan demonstrates that these groups are committed to implementing and evaluating their goals.

           Some of the goals planners set lack measurability. Without quantifiable outcomes it will be difficult to define success. Furthermore, language and directions are sometimes vague, giving those responsible for meeting the goals little or no information about what the planners want them to achieve. We address this concern in our analysis of the plan’s various sections.

           5. Broad vision. An effective plan demonstrates that all legal services providers looked beyond single issues or a single program and examined client needs and organizational capacities at the state level. This allows participants to design the best possible methods and mechanisms to address present and future needs of clients within the state. A plan that provides for coordination of legal services will contain concrete information about what legal services providers see as the major issues confronting clients and client communities. It will show how these providers will collaboratively respond to these issues, and it will describe what they envision for their collective future and for the future of their delivery system.

           For the most part, the Florida plan discusses at the state level how to improve the legal services delivery system. The plan envisions statewide pro bono and resource development structures. It describes current statewide training and availability of expertise. In its discussion on configuration, however, the plan supports the status quo. In our suggestions below, we encourage planners to reexamine sections affected by this position from a statewide viewpoint, asking whether different approaches would more readily result in the comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system they seek.

           Sixth, a comprehensive plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. This plan, supplemented by the additional information, is responsive to LSC’s Program Letters.

           This plan describes intake systems in Florida. Each program has its own structure although all participate in an intrastate referral agreement to facilitate client referral. The programs recognize the importance of improved communication about their respective areas of expertise, priorities and other aspects of intake. The plan acknowledges the benefits of a more uniform approach to intake and commits the programs to considering the usefulness of regional and statewide efforts.

           The Florida programs agree to review the existing referral agreement and share information with one another about their respective programs through a statewide directory and local web sites (Goal i). A PDA committee "will examine the benefits of a standardized application format for legal assistance" (Goal ii). Florida programs will become "more engaged" in pro se assistance projects (Goal iii) and they will "increase their efforts… to expand and develop" intake and advice volunteer opportunities to attract non-litigation attorneys (Goal iv). Florida programs agree to "explore" the advantages of local, regional and statewide hotlines (Goal v) and they will "work cooperatively" through the workgroup system to develop more effective intake "instruments" (Goal vi). Intake staff will be trained on "client-centered" systems (Goal vii) and programs will continue to communicate with one another about how they have improved their respective intake systems, particularly in areas involving technology and client access (Goal viii).

           It is worthwhile that programs are striving to make intake structures more accessible to clients. Enhancing systems with improved information about other legal and social services resources will assist in addressing clients concerns more effectively. Yet, the goals that seek these results do not require any specific activities that guarantee success. They do not contain quantifiable outcomes by which progress can be measured. How will program engagement in pro se assistance projects be measured and to what extent should efforts to expand and develop intake volunteer opportunities be increased? What activities are included in the verbs "explore," "engage" and "examine?" What is meant by "client-centered" systems? Planners may want to consider augmenting their goals with milestones upon which subsequent tasks can be built and language that gives explicit guidance to those responsible for carrying out the activities implied by each goal.

           While there is no formal statewide technology plan in the state, there has been a coordinated effort, spearheaded by the Foundation, to bring programs up to minimum capability including networking. The FLS maintains a Florida folder, accessible to all programs. It offers legal and other resources to staff that benefit clients and client communities around the state. Florida has been a pioneer in the technology field, encouraging legal services providers to acquire and use computer and Internet resources and making funds available to ensure that this happens. More recently, The Foundation and the PDA negotiated a statewide contract with LEXIS for legal research. Commendably, all endeavors in this regard have been from the statewide vantagepoint so that every program and its clients can benefit from technology advances. The FLS complements the Foundation’s instrumental role in seeing programs obtain technology resources by supporting the state’s Program Administrators association, a workgroup for program administrators where members share technology information and advice. It is important to note, also, that these support systems are available to and include many other advocacy organizations in addition to Florida’s LSC programs.

           In 1997 the Foundation and FLS sponsored a statewide meeting, a portion of which was devoted to using technology to build a stronger delivery system. Goals were established at that time and adopted by the planners here. Short-term goals have been met. They include1) expand use of Handsnet, 2) post more information on the Florida folder and 3) make greater use of technology for information sharing.

           Medium term goals are in the process of being realized. They are to establish more program websites and expand advocate and community access to them. Long-term goals (two to three years) include enabling every advocate access to the Internet from her desk, establishing statewide technology support and seeking funding for technology improvements. The Program Administrators Association and FLS have taken responsibility for achieving these goals, as have the individual programs.

           These goals advance the plan’s vision of "maximizing opportunities for all clients to receive timely, effective and appropriate services" and "ensuring that all potential clients have similar access to high quality services." The plan appropriately considers improvements from a statewide perspective and recognizes that technology resources include training and other supportive functions.

           Florida’s plan addresses the legal need of low-income individuals and special populations that LSC programs may not always be able to meet. It also considers ways in which programs can create community education opportunities that build on existing local, regional and statewide access resources. Planners are also studying the relationship between access to court and the training and resource role of the substantive task forces. The newly created position of statewide pro bono coordinator will enhance activities undertaken in this area.

           There is a statewide domestic violence toll-free hotline administered by FLS and, recently, an Emma Lazarus website was created to help address immigration issues. There are bilingual community education pamphlets on consumer rights, family and landlord-tenant law. Individual programs have established pro se initiatives to meet the special needs of their client populations. These are coordinated with the work of other stakeholders on a statewide and local basis.

           Planners’ goals to expand and improve on these activities include an FLS-sponsored statewide event for legal services programs and active community group members on effective community education (Goal i) and updating and increasing the number of community education materials by workgroups under the direction of the PDA (Goal ii). The Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services, staffed by FLS, will review governmental and judicial participation in pro bono and report on ways these groups can be more involved in pro bono work (Goal iii). The FLS website will have a community education section for program staff and the community (Goal iv) and programs will work closely with local courts to implement the "Family Self Help Programs," established by the Florida Supreme Court Rules and implemented by the end of 1998. According to the plan, goal i has already been accomplished; goal iii will be met by July 1999 and goal iv in October 1999; goals v and ii are "on-going."

           Additional information indicates that planners are investigating how community education activities can help meet current legal needs of poor individuals and families.⁽¹⁾ Their research will include evaluations of how well existing and proposed activities are increasing access to civil justice systems for low-income Floridians. Up for consideration, also, is whether community education should be coordinated at the state level. When their inquiry is complete, they will establish goals that improve or expand current strategies.

           LSC recognizes that many of the delivery issues facing the Florida planners are the subjects of continuing discussion, including community education and self-help initiatives. We are extremely interested in the substantive recommendations of the planners on this and other topics, including underlying rationales, specific timelines and accountability systems established to ensure that new goals and activities are effectively accomplished. We look forward to hearing from the planners on these endeavors as the Client-Centered Energetic Advocacy Initiative moves forward.

           When state support systems ceased to receive LSC funding, the Foundation increased resources to FLS to help it maintain existing training skills and expertise in areas of law critically important to low-income people in Florida. In this way, Florida has maintained statewide training and expert resources for LSC programs and volunteer attorneys. Local advocates and community organization staff are included in these events. In 1997, the Foundation and FLS led the country in addressing the loss of federally funded state and national support centers by establishing a "companion" system of legal services for clients whom federally funded legal programs could no longer represent. Thus, the legal needs of poor Floridians for whom LSC representation is impossible continue to be addressed, and experts in relevant legal fields are trained and supported.

           Special populations are included in the training and skills building agendas. The Foundation has created grants to support legal work on behalf of children. It has supported training and other initiatives targeting the unmet legal needs of children and maintained a community of legal advocates on behalf of children. FLS organizes training events through annual surveys of training needs and coordinating a yearly schedule of programs developed by the Training Plan Advisory Group. In addition to training in substantive legal and program areas, FLS has sponsored statewide pro bono conference, expanded its video and audiotape lending library, and initiated teleconference training events. FLS, the Foundation and the PDA have also collaborated to develop and sustain expertise and training opportunities in critical nonlegal areas, such as technology.

           There are ten FLS sponsored workgroups where substantive expertise is housed and from which most trainers are drawn. There are also workgroups for program administrators and pro bono coordinators. Each workgroup assumes clearinghouse functions and members are available to assist and consult with the programs. Sixteen FLS staff attorneys with legal expertise in a broad range of issues, some of which are not covered by the workgroups, are also available to programs. In areas where in-house expertise is lacking, FLS has contracted with outside agencies to provide necessary assistance. Finally, a Foundation grant supported the acquisition of HandsNet by most programs allowing staff the opportunity to gain access to the Florida Folder to obtain legal updates, workgroup information, model pleadings and identification of experts. Recently, the FLS and the Foundation convened a meeting of the PDA and other program staff to analyze, among other issues, how best the programs and workgroups can assist one another. Programs will continue to study this issue and other program improvement topics through the process of responding to a detailed questionnaire created as a result of that meeting.

           While we appreciate that planners continue to study how clients’ legal needs and the resources of the workgroups and of other legal providers in the state intersect, for two reasons it is difficult to analyze this section’s goals. Most important obviously, is that they are undergoing further consideration as a result of the questionnaire-study in which programs are engaged. Second, the current goals contain no measurable outcomes or guidance on activities planners want undertaken in order to achieve them. LSC is impressed with the effort currently underway to both capture important information about each program and to rethink the current plan in light of what is learned. We are concerned that the success of this endeavor necessarily implicates structural considerations not addressed in the plan, specifically the number of LSC programs in the state. While Florida’s admittedly strong technology and other statewide initiatives may serve to reduce the inherent structural challenges of twelve LSC programs, we are believe that substantial efficiencies may be lost by adhering to the current program configuration. We will be looking closely at the results of the questionnaires, as the planners forward that information to us.⁽²⁾

           The Florida Supreme Court requires that each attorney licensed in the state report pro bono activities on an annual basis. In spite of this, Florida pro bono activities are not increasing as expected nor are they sufficient to meet the need for additional legal services. The Florida Bar, the Foundation and FLS have convened a special committee to address this problem. FLS coordinates and supports pro bono development throughout the state and sponsors the Florida Pro Bono Coordinators Association, a membership group of 30 pro bono coordinators. The Florida Bar Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services assists the circuit committees that report annually to the Florida Supreme Court on pro bono activities in their locales. It is staffed by the FLS.

           Goals included in the 1998 plan included obtaining $150,000 for a statewide pro bono director project by January 1999 (goal i). This goal has been substantially met with $130,000 acquired. The Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services of The Florida Bar (staffed by the FLS) agreed to sponsor a theme issue of The Florida Bar Journal to coincide with the Equal Justice Conference in May 1999 (goal ii). This goal has also been achieved. The Standing Committee on Pro Bono Legal Services will also review pro bono participation by judges and government attorneys and report on findings and ways to expand participation by July 1999 (goal iii).

           Importantly, these goals focus on statewide efforts. That goal i has been substantially met and goal ii has been accomplished is highly commendable and a tribute to the commitment of The Florida Bar and the Foundation to PAI activation in a way that will benefit clients throughout the state. Planners are troubled by the recent decline in pro bono activity, and we share that concern. A statewide pro bono coordinator appears to be an appropriate response to the situation. We look forward to learning about how the planners and coordinator propose to reverse the decline and hope we may be able to share your strategies and solutions with others.

VI.           Diversified Funding and Coordination of Resource Development Efforts.

           According to LSC’s 1998 data, Florida programs range in funding per poor person from $12.10 (Greater Orlando Legal Services) to $27.56 (Bay Area Legal Services, Inc.). Planners emphasize that support for fundraising in Florida is local and forecast that 1998 fundraising levels will rise due to increased filing fee surcharges in some counties as well as federal grants. IOTA funds are distributed to legal services programs but also to 27 other organizations that serve clients (some of whom are ineligible for LSC program services) in over half of the state’s 67 counties (37/67). Interest rates for IOTA accounts are quite low, and the PDA joined by IOTA recipients is working with local law firms on ways of increasing them. FLS has been instrumental in obtaining funding for domestic violence programs and services for legal aliens. The Foundation has made targeted grants to LSC and non-LSC programs to encourage collaboration on issues of importance to clients, such as children’s legal needs.

           The plan lists three goals to increase resources. Goal i charges the PDA with drafting a proposal to fund a statewide resource developer by June 30, 1999. Goal ii charges the PDA with sponsoring a resource development seminar by December 31, 1998 where programs can share successful ways of expanding funding. Goal iii describes The Florida Bar’s "active consideration" of an annual Equal Justice Fellowship Program through which five recent law graduates would be funded for two-year fellowships to work with provider programs. The Bar is expected to reach its conclusion on the fellowship initiative in the next few months.

           Appropriately, this section’s goals address statewide needs and activities. They are fairly explicit; two includes dates. They promote planners’ articulated mission.

           Florida planners note that the current configuration of programs takes into account local and regional support and resources as well as individual characteristics of client groups. Such uniqueness has permitted The Foundation to make matching grants that encourage local fundraising and address special issues. Florida planners conclude that each program has been designed to facilitate access and overcome geographic and cultural isolation. The Foundation ensures program standards through its evaluation system, which involves program reviews on a tri-annual basis and the provision of technical assistance, when needed. The Florida folder and other Internet resources help staff develop strategies to address client needs in 67 counties.

           Planners agree to continue reviewing configuration-related concerns through a leadership retreat to be sponsored by The Foundation and held in early 1999 that will focus on improving Florida’s system (goal i). The statewide fund developer (to be hired in June 1999) will be asked to provide new opportunities for programs to work collaboratively on a regional and statewide basis (goal ii).

           This plan sets out a defense of the current structure without considering any alternatives. There does not appear to have been a discussion of the benefits of fewer (or more) programs. Florida’s contention that the status quo is the most appropriate would have been stronger had the planners described their serious review of other approaches, weighing the value of each against the current delivery system. Planners should use leadership retreats to talk about how they would configure a delivery system for the state if they were asked to design one now, using a clean slate. They should pose difficult questions such as whether a delivery system would function more efficiently if there were far fewer programs or if there were a statewide intake system.

           We appreciate that planners have asked programs and other stakeholders to consider how the legal services delivery system in the state should be configured. It is always preferable when leaders in the state initiate discussions on this topic, and we look forward to your report on action plans that the questionnaire’s responses generate. LSC is aware that conversations on service area boundaries are often difficult, and we value your willingness to pose the hard questions.

VIII.     Future Activities

           As a first step, we would like you to send us a short report by November 1, 1999, on any changes in your goals and activities made as a result of our observations about Florida’s plan. Please include any information that you have learned from your questionnaire/study that relates to state planning or that you think would help us understand planners’ endeavors.

           In closing, we want to thank you for your concern about the quality and quantity of legal services available to poor Floridians. We are very pleased that you have continued to work on the plan since it was submitted and, in fact, have met some of your goals. You are to be congratulated on your cooperative efforts within the state and with us to improve the delivery of civil legal services to low-income individuals and families, and we look forward with pleasure to continued work with you.

__________________
¹ In February 1999, the PDA met to discuss numerous issues. As a result two statewide initiatives were launched, one is directed at funding and the other at client-centered energetic advocacy. The goal of the second is "to inspire, develop and implement successful energetic affirmative client-centered advocacy for each individual advocate and program and on a statewide collaborative basis. …As to collaborative efforts, the Committee believes that every statewide structure should be considered from ground zero…EVERYTHING is up for discussion." Emphasis in original memo of May 10,1999 to IOTA Grantees (Florida) from the PDA Committee on Client-Centered Energetic Advocacy Initiative.

² The questionnaire asks program to design a legal services delivery system for the state, assuming there is nothing in place at this time.