By Facsimile & U.S. Mail

Steven Gottlieb, Executor Director
Atlanta Legal Aid Society, Inc.
151 Spring Street, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2097

Phyllis J. Holmen, Executive Director
Georgia Legal Services Program
1100 Spring Street, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30309-2848

            Re: The Georgia State Planning Process

Dear Mr. Gottlieb and Ms. Holmen:

            Thank you for your report on the Georgia state planning process in response to LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. We have had an opportunity to review your report and would like to share some of our observations with you.

            In reviewing your report, we have taken into consideration that Georgia is one of several states that have ongoing planning processes that predate our program letters. In such cases, as our program letters noted, we did not intend that programs repeat the past, or supplant their current processes. Instead, such programs were advised to either work within their ongoing processes, as you chose, or develop new ones appropriate to the situation in their particular state.

            Regardless of the approach taken, however, our program letters required that state plans provide a statewide perspective and contain, among other things, the following:

            Your report describes some major accomplishments and strengths of the legal services programs in Georgia for which we commend you. The report would have been stronger, however, if it had satisfied the substantive requirements of the program letters for an organized plan for the future. While your report informs us of major ongoing planning activities, the report does not provide a clear picture of the overall planning goals and objectives of those activities.

            Throughout, the Georgia report fails to identify the "major steps" necessary to achieve the goals adopted to strengthen and expand services to eligible clients, and, in many instances, fails to set forth the necessary timetables for accomplishing the goals. In future reports we request that you provide a clear statewide perspective, and clearly identify your goals, the activities and timeframes for accomplishing them, and the persons responsible for their implementation. If committees or subcommittees have or will be established, please identify them and their members, their purposes and plans.

            With the above prefatory remarks, we proceed with an analysis of your state planning report.

            In order to place our further comments 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 Georgia report describes intake systems that are similar for both programs—preliminary screening by telephone, in-office appointments, walk-in, circuit riding, toll free numbers and statewide hotlines. In addition, the report addresses how access is afforded most of the state’s special populations such as migrant farm workers and use of the Georgia Relay System for hearing impaired clients. The report cites an extensive history of collaboration between the two programs in several areas; however, that history of collaboration does not appear to extend to the areas of intake, advice and referral.

            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.

            The report reveals several goals that the two programs share: Achieving the best possible results for low-income persons throughout Georgia through collaboration; expanding access to legal services and justice by working with a broader group of stakeholders to coordinate and expand legal services; developing new methods of providing advice and self-help opportunities for low-income persons who cannot be provided full representation; undertaking joint litigation in response to common legal problems seen in individual cases by casehandlers in various parts of the state; and increasing pro bono representation, preventive legal education and advice. The report does not, however, provide an overarching statement of vision and mission that support these goals.

            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.

            As we have already noted, Georgia has an ongoing planning process that began in 1990 and many stakeholders have been given opportunities to provide input. The focus of the report, however, is almost exclusively on collaboration between the two LSC-funded programs, and rarely refers to collaboration with other legal and non-legal providers of services to low-income persons.

            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.

            Throughout, the Georgia report fails to state or is vague as to the major steps necessary for accomplishing stated goals, the persons responsible for their implementation, and the necessary timetables for accomplishing the goals.

            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.

            While there are several expressions to indicate that the programs are committed to developing the best methods and mechanisms to address the present and future needs of low-income persons in the state, the predominant conclusion is that the status quo works best to "maximize effective and economical delivery of high quality services to eligible clients within a comprehensive, integrated delivery system." We do note, however, the statements in the report that the programs intend to consider collaborative efforts in the areas of advice and referral, that they intend to consider a formal expansion of services beyond traditional geographic boundaries where one program has staff with special expertise in a particular subject area, and that they intend to discuss collaborative fundraising and resource development.

            Sixth, a defensible plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. The report demonstrates that the programs have not fully satisfied this expectation.

            Clients are generally screened by telephone for appointments, advice and referral at ALAS. The report states that the "specifics of such intake procedures vary among offices based on local conditions." The ALAS intake systems for the downtown offices are given as an example, but the "local conditions" which justify the different systems are not provided.
GLSP branch offices use regional "central intake," which could include as many as 23 counties. This approach has been subject to periodic reviews that continue to recommend regional, rather than statewide, central intake system. Each of the offices has a toll-free number by which clients seek services.

            There are two statewide hotlines among the programs. One is a landlord-tenant toll-free line operated by GLSP, and the other is a seniors line which addresses Medicaid and Medicare, nursing home, consumer and estate problems, operated by ALAS. The plan does not disclose the costs associated with the hotlines and the extent to which the programs have collaborated on such costs.

            The programs do special outreach to the Hispanic population, to seniors, to those with AIDS, to the mentally ill, to the homeless and battered women, and to persons in nursing homes and personal care homes. In response to the state’s growing Hispanic population, both programs have Spanish speaking staffs in service areas with concentrations of Spanish speaking clients. Also, ALAS has a phone line dedicated to Spanish speaking callers.

            To strengthen and expand services, the programs’ goals are to consider "formal expansion of services beyond traditional geographic boundaries where one program has staff with special expertise in a particular subject area," and to "work with the Georgia Access to Justice Project to better coordinate services and referrals among various providers, particularly for underserved populations and LSC restricted activities." The timeframe for both goals is one year. In addition, the programs will review and consider updating the system for referring cases to one another.

            The goals that are listed are good, but we think they do not go far enough to satisfy the expectations of our program letters. The programs might want to establish an intake committee to engage in a serious evaluation of the current intake and referral systems from a statewide perspective. Such a committee should include the programs’ technology responsible persons to determine the role of technology in the coordination of intake and referrals between the programs and other providers throughout the state.

            The report describes each program's current technological capacity. Both programs have computerized case management systems. All advocates have desktop computers and electronic access to legal information and expertise. All GLSP offices are networked with intra-office e-mail, with Westlaw and at least one computer with Handsnet. Each of ALAS’s major offices has a newly revised Local Area Windows NT Network which allows for internal e-mail. Also, each ALAS office has access to the Internet, Handsnet and computerized research. Both programs have web sites. General program information and news, community legal education, and self-help materials can be found ALAS’s site. GLSP’s site is on the State Bar of Georgia’s web page and will contain client-oriented materials in the future. ALAS’s computers are networked between all program offices; GLSP’s computers are not networked between offices.

            The report reveals that coordinated and shared technology has not been a high priority. The two programs have not developed a formal statewide technology plan. The adopted goal is to "consider regular meetings of management and technical staff of both programs and of other providers to share information and insure that our technology is compatible." The timeframe for this goal is ongoing.

            The advocates of both programs should be able to talk to one another as well as their fellow program colleagues by e-mail, sharing documents, legal research resources and other information. The programs might want to form a technology committee headed by their technology responsible persons to study and make recommendations as to the coordinated use of computer and other technologies. Since one important goal of the programs is better coordination of "services and referrals among the various providers," the program might consider adopting the same case management system to facilitate the referral of intake between the programs, to facilitate sharing responsibilities for new and expanded statewide hotlines, and to facilitate work across geographic boundaries. In addition, the programs might want to share the same computer assisted legal research system and a single web site. As to a single web site, the programs could divide responsibility for different sections of the site and maintain a section that would be program specific to facilitate regular communication with the client population, the general public, as well as program staff, pro bono attorneys and other providers. The programs should ensure that links to their web site are easy to locate.

            The report describes the two programs’ ongoing collaborative and separate work to promote access to the courts, self-help opportunities, preventive community education and advice. Activities include providing model answers in eviction cases; advising tenants by video tape how to present their case pro se; training lay advocates who assist pro se domestic violence victims with temporary protective orders; providing pro se assistance to family law clients under contract with county government; participation by legal services staff on bar committees such as Judicial Council’s Pro Se Litigants, Access to Justice, and Unmet Legal Needs and Underutilized Lawyer; and participation of legal services staff in Bar rule changes that could relax the unauthorized practice rule.

            While the programs’ self help and preventative legal education activities demonstrate a commitment to client empowerment, their goal to strengthen and expand work in this area is weak. The goal reads: "There is a long history of developing new methods of providing advice and self help to clients who can not be provided full representation; we should continue to evaluate these methods and their effectiveness. Time: Ongoing." The report does not explain how the evaluation will be done or the involvement of clients. It does not explain whether effective self help and community education programs that are presently restricted to one portion of the state will be expanded to other areas. And, as with many sections of the report, the "ongoing" timeframe is a non-existent timetable. We think the issues raised can be easily fixed in future planning and urge the programs to give them appropriate thought and action.

           The programs’ collaboration on training and legal work extends over two decades. Training needs are assessed annually, including "substantive law issues as well as legal and management skills." Both programs have directors of litigation and joint task forces in such areas as public assistance, housing and health law. Task force members meet several times annually and usually includes training components. The meetings are face-to-face. In addition, specialist attorneys and other experienced advocates serve as resources for other advocates throughout both programs. For past few years, the programs’ collaboration has included the "Legal Services University," a statewide event covering a range of topics with a special track for new attorneys. The University is open to staff from non-LSC programs and pro bono attorneys. Non-professionals receive computer and other skills training either in-house or externally.

           The programs’ goal in this section is to "explore with other providers how to increase their involvement in our training efforts and how to integrate them into substantive backup efforts." The programs will seek assistance from the Georgia Access to Justice Project. The legal work, training, and expert case assistance coordination engaged in by the programs is good. Also, the goal is a good one, but at the same time it is too soft. The report does not explain what is meant by "explore" in this context—what are the major steps necessary to accomplish this goal? Who are the responsible persons for implementation of the goal? Who are some of the other providers the programs have in mind? What is the timetable for the activities necessary to accomplish the goal?

           The report describes a wide variety of pro bono programs and initiatives. Some pro bono programs operate in conjunction with ALAS and GLSP; others were established by bar associations. Georgia has an aspirational goal of 40 hours of pro bono work per year for each practicing attorney; the pro bono reporting is voluntary. At ALAS volunteer lawyers provide representation in eviction and adoption cases. They sponsor a NAPIL fellow and four associates from Atlanta law firms for four-month rotations at ALAS’s offices. GLSP sponsors a pro bono project at the state bar. Pro bono attorneys staff debtors’ clinic and help with Saturday intake. The GLSP executive director is a member of the State bar’s executive committee.

           While the report describes a large volume of pro bono activities, it does not state the pro bono participation rate for Georgia attorneys. The programs’ goals in this section of the report are the following: (1) to further develop the pro bono efforts of "non-litigation" attorneys, (2) to increase the number of pro bono attorneys for immigrant populations, (3) to place goals no. 1 and 2 on the agenda of the next annual pro bono conference, and (4) to assist the Access to Justice Committee with developing a "presentation for local bar associations concerning access to justice, the role of the legal services programs, and the need for private bar and community involvement to meet the legal needs of the poor."

           The above goals are appropriate. Unfortunately, the report does not present a strategy for accomplishing them. The major activities and timetable necessary to achieve the goals are not stated. And, the report does not identify the persons responsible for their implementation. The programs might want to revisit this area and make the adopted goals more explicit, describe the major activities and timetable for accomplishing them, and identify the persons responsible for their implementation.

           The report demonstrates that the two programs have been very successful in obtaining non-LSC funds. The non-LSC funding sources include local governments, targeted federal funds for special populations, United Way and private foundations, IOLTA, state government appropriations, state bar campaigns, and other private donations. Resource development is a very high priority.

           The programs’ accomplishments are very impressive. According to LSC 1998 data, LSC funding accounted for 68 percent of GLSP’s budget compared to 53 percent this year, and 46 percent of ALAS’s budget compared to 34 percent this year. Statewide, LSC funding was 61 percent of the total that both programs received in 1998 compared to 53 percent this year. Nevertheless, there remains a significant disparity in the financial resources available to the two programs. GLSP’s resources amount to $15.40 per poor person as compared to ALAS’s $23.82 per poor person. The gap has widened. LSC’s 1997 data show the disparity as $12.83 for GLSP in comparison to $19.04 for ALAS.

           Despite the inequitable resources, for the time being, the programs have concluded that state-based financial resources can best be preserved and expanded if they continue their practice of jointly approaching some funders while approaching others separately. The programs run separate bar campaigns. GLSP’s campaign is statewide and ALAS’s is restricted to its service area.

           The report concludes with the observation that "while fundraising has for the most part not been competitive between the programs, the directors and key Board members of each program have begun to discuss further coordination on funding issues; that process should continue."

           The programs should revisit the subject of resources and consider adopting more explicit goals. Toward this end, the programs should adopt a statewide perspective and consider whether clients in one part of the state should not have equal or less financial resources for civil legal assistance than are available to clients in other parts of the state. In considering this question, the programs should be mindful that the configuration of legal services in Georgia is more likely the result of historical accident, rather than an analysis of what would yield the most economical and effective services to clients throughout the state. As to any goals adopted upon reconsideration, there should be a description of the major steps and timetable necessary to accomplish them, and the persons responsible for their implementation should be identified.

           The report does not recommend changes in the configuration of the two programs. It maintains that the present structure maximizes the effective and economical delivery of high quality legal services and constitutes a comprehensive, integrated delivery system.

           It is LSC’s position that given the significant changes in the legal services landscape, programs must take a fresh look, from a statewide perspective, and ask if the present configuration currently achieves, and will in the future, achieve the best possible results for clients. As we noted above, the report describes some major accomplishments and strengths of the programs; but, at the same time, the report demonstrates that the two programs failed to look beyond their narrow institutional interests 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. While the two programs in Georgia are worlds in themselves, each is part of something bigger. It is this larger context that is missing from the report. The report fails to present a concrete plan as to how the programs will work collaboratively in the future to respond to critical issues in the areas of intake, advice and referral, technology, and resource development. Symptomatic of this is the see-saw fashion in which several sections of the report are presented—first, a description of GLSP’s structures and activities, then the same for ALAS, as if the two directors took turns writing their particular part of the report.

           Reconfiguration of the programs in Georgia is not viewed as a current priority or as a necessary outcome of the state planning process. We recognize the many important accomplishments of the programs, including the long history of collaboration in the areas of training, litigation, information and expert assistance, and strong relationships with state and local bar associations. However, further innovative work is necessary if the two programs are going to be able to successfully create a statewide comprehensive, integrated delivery system. Should the current configuration of the programs proves to be an impediment to the kind of progress suggested above, LSC’s presumption regarding reconfiguration in Georgia will be reconsidered.

           While the Georgia report documents many accomplishments and areas of agreement among the two programs, there are three major areas in which the programs should expand or change their planning focus: