Daniel S. Somerfleck, Director/Managing Attorney
Guam Legal Services Corporation

Dear Mr. Somerfleck,

I am writing in response to the document entitled "State Planning Report for Guam Legal Services Corporation", dated October 1, 1998 and submitted to the Corporation at that time.

In February 1998, the Corporation issued Program Letter 98-1, which called upon all LSC recipients to participate in a state planning process to examine, from a statewide perspective, what steps should be taken to develop further a comprehensive, integrated delivery system. We requested that each state planning process develop a Report to be submitted to LSC by October 1, 1998. In July 1998, we issued Program Letter 98-6, setting forth "State Planning Considerations" to assist recipients in their planning processes and to provide instructions for each area which should be addressed in the Report.

In response to these Program Letters, and as referred to in your cover letter, you have submitted a copy of the narrative portion of Guam Legal Services Corporation's (GLSC) FY1999 Application for Funding. Although we have not had an opportunity to respond until now due to the press of other responsibilities and because we are not aware of any major concerns in GLSC's provision of legal services, we do wish to reply to your submission at this time.

Your Application for Funding fully addressed the questions in LSC's Request for Proposals and resulted in the decision by the Corporation to provide GLSC with three-year funding. The Application reflects the excellent job you have done in turning around a very troubled program and in re-establishing quality advocacy and restoring GLSC to a level of respectability in your community. However, the Application does not address, nor was it intended to address, participation in a statewide (territory-wide) planning process involving other key stakeholders, except secondarily and indirectly. Nor does it assess strengths and weaknesses of the current delivery approach, establish goals to strengthen and expand services beyond GLSC's immediate goals, or determine major steps and a timetable to achieve those goals.

However, the stated intention of Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 was that recipients engage in an inclusive planning process and submit a Report to LSC. We recognize that planning will be different in a state or territory which is served by only one LSC recipient than in a state with a number of LSC-funded programs, and that Guam possesses certain unique geographic, social, and economic characteristics which affect the delivery of legal services in that environment. Nonetheless, we believe that the considerations underlying the need for a planning process to assist in the development and improvement of the delivery system apply with equal force in Guam.

The Application does touch on some of the points raised in the Program Letters. It discusses other legal resources which serve or are involved with low income clients in civil matters, including the Public Defender, the Senior Law Service, Protection and Advocacy, the PAI Program, the Courts, and the bar, and describes collaborative work with some of them. It is clear that GLSC has restored good working relationships with these entities. Building on these efforts, we believe that collaboration should extend to a planning process which takes a look at the range of issues facing poor Guamanians and the resources which may be available or that can be developed to meet clients' legal needs, and then sets forth goals with steps and timetables to achieve them.

Concerning Point 1 of the Program Letters, your Application describes an intake system which begins with a pre-screening interview, followed in non-emergency cases by an intake appointment, an appointment with a staff attorney, and a subsequent determination of representation. Many legal services programs, including programs which serve special client populations, have looked carefully at their intake systems, and have modified their systems to be more effective and more "client-friendly", taking into account local considerations. For example, in many situations staff may be able to provide advice and brief service assistance to the client at the time of the initial interview and by telephone, thus obviating the need for the client who will only receive counsel and advice or brief service assistance to make a number of trips to the office. Also, many programs dispense with a case acceptance process for routine advice and brief service cases, when intake is conducted by experienced staff under attorney supervision. You may wish to review the materials prepared by the Corporation on intake systems, available on the Corporation's web site. (See, e.g., "Intake Systems Report [Innovative Uses of Centralized Telephone Intake and Delivery in Five Programs]," March 1998).

Intake systems are one area in which collaboration with others can be explored. A number of recipients are working with other providers to move toward a centralized intake system which serves as the primary point of contact for all low-income persons in the state or region and which provides assistance or refers the client to the appropriate provider for extended service assistance. Another area of collaboration is technology; some states have worked to establish the same case management software and e-mail program for both legal services and other legal providers, including the State Bar, thus facilitating communication among the providers and increasing the ability to refer clients and to work jointly with others across program boundaries. Similar partnerships have been created concerning self-help and preventive education, often involving the courts and the bar.

The purpose of this letter is not to suggest that you adopt the above approaches. Rather, we believe that GLSC, as other recipients, should engage in and would benefit from discussions with other stakeholders to determine potential common approaches and to better inform your choices and strategies in developing and improving the way in which you deliver legal services to clients. Accordingly, we request that you pursue a state (territory) planning process and submit a Report to the Corporation on or before March 1, 2000. While this planning process may be informal, your Report should follow the planning considerations set forth in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6.