Dennis Groenenboom
Executive Director
Legal Services Corporation of Iowa
1111 Ninth Street
Suite 230
Des Moines, IA 50314-2527

                                                                       Re: State Planning Report

Dear Dennis:

          Thank you for the timely submission of Iowa’s state plan, developed in response to LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. Please excuse this much delayed response to your report.

          We recognize the considerable work that went into this plan. The staff of the Legal Services Corporation’s Office of Program Performance have thoroughly reviewed the report and would like to share the following observations with you. They reflect the information from our conversations and include developments since the report was initially submitted. We want to emphasize that our letter is a "feedback" document and should not be viewed as a criticism. We are available to answer any questions or concerns about our response to your plan and provide assistance to you in your planning work.

          At the outset, we note with appreciation Iowa’s history of planning and good work on behalf of clients as reflected in the successful resource development efforts. These efforts have allowed the programs to maintain the level of services to clients that were offered before the 1995 decrease in LSC grants to Iowa. We acknowledge Iowa planners’ understanding of the importance of planning as evidenced by the efforts undertaken prior to LSC’s issuance of Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 and by the continuation of those efforts. We recognize that many successful statewide efforts, such as obtaining state funding for legal services, could not have been accomplished without a great deal of work and planning. We are also pleased that, during the time between the initial submission of the plan and the preparation of this letter, Legal Services Corporation of Iowa (LSCI), Legal Aid Society of Polk County (LASPC), and the other stakeholders have continued to pursue implementation activities.

          In order to place our comments on the Iowa state plan within a context, it is important to understand what we look for when we review a plan. 

          Although the report cites various instances of coordination, it appears that coordination is done in an ad hoc manner rather than through a comprehensive approach to service delivery. For example, the report states that "through regular communications LASPC and LSCI advocates have been involved with training, work group discussions and innovative thinking regarding representation of clients." It is unclear whether either program has policies that set out expectations or requirements for "regular communications," participation in substantive work groups, co-counseling in certain cases, or consultation on cases whose outcome may have an impact beyond the immediate client. Likewise it is unclear whether there is any systematic coordination with other legal services providers beyond consultation when priorities are reviewed.

          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. Sometimes planners have these in mind but make the assumption that others will see them as inherent in their planning effort.

          The Iowa plan did not include a common vision, values, or principles to guide the planners and the planning process. Developing and reaching agreement on a common purpose or vision helps to clarify and resolve any difference among the planners, thereby strengthening the process and its outcomes. Also, it is our experience that, when planners have agreed upon a common goal, they can better prioritize tasks and measure success against the norms they have established. A common vision guides the planners through the years and provides a foundation to which they can return as they evaluate progress and set new objectives. 

          Florida, for example, has adopted the touchstone of "energetic, affirmative, client-centered advocacy." Proposed activities are examined by planners to see if they advance "energetic, affirmative, client-centered advocacy." Strategies that cannot be seen as leading to this goal are abandoned. In the same vein, New Jersey planners articulated (1) a belief in the need for legal services programs to function as a "concerted, coherent, closely coordinated legal assistance delivery system" and (2) the need to develop additional resources to expand the provision of legal services; (3) the need to incorporate the views of clients and key partners in making major decisions about how to design and implement a system of high quality comprehensive legal services; and (4) the need to target legal services resources to achieve the greatest measure of equal justice for clients and economically disadvantaged people. That state’s plan then showed how its vision would be realized through planning efforts. Washington state developed a set of hallmarks and core capacities needed in the civil justice system to achieve its vision. The hallmarks, developed five years ago, continue to guide the planning process today. Oregon likewise developed "equal justice values" in 1996 that continue to frame the planning issues. 

          We ask that Iowa planners spend some time discussing what they believe is the best civil legal services delivery system for the state and then adopt a set of articulated values and principles that will provide a foundation to help them achieve that vision. 

          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. It is unclear from the report to what extent other stakeholders were involved in the planning process other than reviewing drafts of the report. Usually, the more organizations feel included in the planning process, the more they will support the implementation of a given plan. 

          Planners in other states have found convening work groups of appropriate stakeholders to study various state planning issues, such as increasing access to courts, and to develop goals and activities to address them, an effective method for stakeholder involvement. Working together to achieve common purpose is frequently a useful tool for forging solid partnerships with other stakeholders in a state’s civil justice system. Indeed, engagement with judicial staff and judges in the planning process in other states, such as Oregon, has facilitated greater acceptance of and assistance to pro se litigants. LSC encourages you to expand the community of planners and their hands-on involvement in the planning process. 

          4.          Assignment of Tasks. A good plan presents its goals both in terms of measurability and of who is responsible for ensuring their completion. Responsibility is clearly delineated and is shared 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. 

          While the plan does present some timelines, and a number of activities have moved forward since it was submitted, the planners may want to set out specific tasks, assign responsibility for their completion to individuals and organizations and establish definite time frames, as a next step in the process. Formal deadlines with assigned accountability are often quite useful in moving activities forward since they create common expectations about completion. They are also valuable because they highlight agreed-upon goals. Furthermore, individually and collectively, discrete accomplishments generate a sense of achievement that inspires additional movement and deepens a sense of ownership in participants. 

          5.          Broad Vision. An effective plan indicates that all of the legal service providers and their partners looked beyond single issues or a single provider 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 the legal service providers see as the major issues confronting clients and client communities. It will indicate 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.

          Although the plan states that the elderly, children, survivors of domestic violence, migrants, and Sudanese refugees are significant client populations, it is unclear what the planners see as the major issues facing these and other low income Iowans.⁽¹⁾   Likewise, the plan did not show whether Iowa has in place delivery mechanisms that will ensure that all low-income persons within the state are able to enjoy meaningful and appropriate access to the civil justice system, including those individuals who may be disenfranchised, unpopular, or not currently adequately served by legal services providers. We ask that both of these issues be addressed in response to this letter.

          6.          LSC Requirements. A comprehensive plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. Our comments on those specific issues are found below. We acknowledge Iowa planners’ understanding of the importance of good planning as evidenced by the efforts undertaken prior to LSC’s issuance of Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6, particularly in training and resource development by the continuation of planning work in technology development. However, our concerns with the plan, based on criteria for good planning stated above and those discussed below under each topic in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6, need to be addressed. 

          The focus of the delivery system is the 11 local offices across the state. In Iowa applicants for service have the option of having intake done by phone or in person in local offices. Telephone access is through toll-free telephone numbers. LSCI is currently reviewing the feasibility of centralized intake for its offices both in terms of available technology and an evaluation of the seniors’ hotline funded by a grant from the Administration on Aging. 

          We suggest that the planners conduct a candid review of the current methods of access to service. This assessment should focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the existing system and describe any changes that planners believe should be instituted. It should study the feasibility of an approach that would include all providers and would create relatively equal levels of access regardless of geographic locality or other barriers. We encourage planners to think about a system that would establish for all low income Iowans a continuum of services, the extent of which for any given client would be determined by both priorities of pressing legal need and the individual client’s ability to utilize advice, information, or self-help strategies on their own. Any agendas for change should include measurable goals along with specific tasks and timelines, and assign responsibility for their completion.

          We congratulate the Iowa legal services providers on the substantial upgrade of their technological capacity since the planning report was submitted to LSC and for obtaining the necessary funding to pay for the improvements. Most importantly among those improvements, is desktop e-mail that gives staff access to advocates in other offices and programs since it is a critical tool for facilitating collaboration. All legal services offices are now networked and have software consistency for word processing, e-mail, Intranet and internet applications.

          The planners may want to establish additional connectivity and electronic communication goals for all the stakeholders in the Iowa civil justice system. Besides improving and coordinating technological capacities among providers, planners should consider how low income people could use the various new technologies to meet their legal needs. Some examples of this approach include web sites with pro se information, forms, and instructions and remote intake from library and other sites. Technology can also be useful in providing pro bono attorneys access to poverty law materials such as briefs and pleadings and in recruitment of additional private attorneys. 

          The planners may want to review the technology section of other states such as Maine and Washington or visit their web sites. Although Iowa may not currently have the technological infrastructure, such as public access to the Internet through libraries, rapid progress is being made across the nation to bridge the "digital divide." Planning for the time when such access will become available would allow providers to take advantage of the technology more quickly than postponing efforts until an infrastructure is in place. 

          We understand that the Iowa providers are currently studying telecommunication systems for voice and data transmission which could possibly facilitate a centralized intake and rapid advice system. Part of the research is to find out the limits of the technological capacity within the state. The Legal Services Corporation is able to provide technical assistance to planners in this area. Glenn Rawdon of our staff assists programs on technology issues. Feel free to contact him at (202) 336-8868.

          We note the extensive capacity for video conferencing in Iowa through the university system that has been used successfully for training events. We encourage planners to consider how video conferencing could be used to assist clients in remote locations in the state. Florida Rural Legal Services has developed the capacity to do intake and provide services with clients in library locations throughout its service area. In rural Louisiana, Kisatchie Legal Services Corporation makes use of teleconferencing for staff meetings and for attorney/client conferences which results in both staff and clients avoiding driving long distances and still being to participate face to face.

          Given the limited number of advocates available to assist low income Iowans directly, the report emphasizes the importance that Iowa legal services providers produce an array of preventive legal education materials. It cites a collection of 24 booklets and 14 pamphlets on a variety of legal subjects that are distributed widely across the state not only through local legal services offices but also through libraries and social services agencies as well. Such materials are of considerable value to many low-income residents. We applaud the effort to keep the materials updated and to write them so that people of limited educational capacity can understand and utilize them. Having them available in a form that can be utilized by those with limited sight, such as in large type, demonstrates a sensitivity to those who have physical disabilities as well. 

          The report indicates a lack of detailed efforts to engage a variety of partners including the courts’ judicial administration system in the expansion of access to the courts. The Iowa legislature and courts have taken major steps to facilitate pro se representation for protection from abuse orders. Additional pro se efforts undertaken in Iowa are for small claims court and child support. Access to the courts for everyone is a fundamental equal justice issue, whether or not they can afford a lawyer, have their case taken by a legal services or pro bono attorney, or have to proceed pro se.

          Clearly, courts prefer that litigants have attorneys represent them. In many states including Arizona and Oregon, courts have recognized that litigants in many situations have no choice but to proceed without representation, and have responded by implementing procedures to assist such individuals. Changes have included the hiring of court facilitators in Oregon, development of more easily understood forms and instructions in Arizona, and access to pro se materials through websites in Maine and Washington. 

          We urge the planners to study court access issues in Iowa and to consider forming a committee of appropriate partners, including court personnel, to develop goals and an action plan to increase access. While we recognize that the need is great in domestic abuse, the planners might want to begin the expansion process by exploring areas such as housing and consumer law. It will be important to take into account the use of technology as a way to expand access to the courts such as access to court forms through library terminals for pro se litigants and the technological innovations described above.

Coordination of legal work is an important indicator of the integration of a statewide delivery system. In multi-LSC-funded program states, active substantive task forces or work groups, with defined responsibilities and leadership, are the most common means of coordinating legal work. Non-LSC funded programs are active partners in the task forces and in coordination of legal work. Frequently, social service provider organizations such as domestic violence shelter and homeless coalition staff are included in this coalition effort. Massachusetts is a good example of this approach.

          With increased use of technology through e-mail and list serves, task forces can be even more effective than in the past since participants can ask questions, share information, strategize on issues at any time rather than waiting for in-person meetings.

          Although such coordination may be taking place in Iowa through the substantive work groups, it is unclear in the plan whether there is a system to ensure coordination among providers or whether any coordination that occurs is based on an individual advocate’s approach to his or her own work. In the next report we ask that the planners address the legal work coordination issue. 

          We applaud the Iowa planners’ attention to the importance of training and its relationship to the provision of high quality services and the solid planning necessary, including the use of training needs assessments, to provide effective training for all provider staff. A comprehensive training effort includes regularly scheduled substantive, procedural, and skill events which Iowa has. It is also noteworthy that volunteer attorneys are included in training events.

          The legal services programs in Iowa have historically had a close working relationship with both the Iowa State Bar Association and county and local bar associations. Bar support for legal services was a key ingredient in obtaining state funding for legal services to the substantial benefit of low income Iowans. 

          Private attorneys participate in service delivery through a variety of opportunities including: direct client representation; the provision of advice on the Legal Hotline for Older Iowans; and conducting intake and advice clinics. Efforts are made to utilize all licensed attorneys including corporate counsels and attorney staff of the U.S. Attorney’s Office who assist domestic violence victims at contempt hearings. Iowa is commended for having more than a third of its attorneys participating in pro bono services thereby giving it one of the highest participation rates in the nation, and for providing services valued annually at 1.3 million dollars. 

          We encourage planners to critically evaluate the current structure of the volunteer lawyer projects. There are now four projects: one run in association with the state bar that recruits attorneys and provides support to the other three projects; a second administered by the Polk County legal services program in Des Moins; a third run by LSCI and a fourth by the local Scott County Bar Association. Having four administratively independent volunteer lawyer projects raises questions of duplication of effort and unproductive competition for resources in addition to the concerns of confusion among attorneys and geographical gaps in service access expressed in the state plan.

          We congratulate the legal services programs, the Iowa bar associations, and other partners such as the domestic violence shelters in their very successful efforts to increase resources for legal assistance for low income Iowans. More than two million dollars, in addition to the LSC grant, is an impressive result of your resource development efforts in a state the size of Iowa. We wish you continued success in your resource development endeavors. 

          It is unclear from the report whether the LSCI resource developer routinely assists other providers in identifying potential resources and in collaborating on proposals to take advantage of such potential. We encourage planners to evaluate how a resource development unit, the costs and benefits of which are shared among providers, working for increased funding for the overall delivery system at the statewide level could contribute to greater collaboration and integration of service delivery.

          The planning report in its entirety reflects a fairly good degree of collaboration and integration among the Iowa programs and providers. However, a hallmark of excellence is on-going evaluation and review of current systems in order to make them even better so that more efficient and effective services can be provided to the low income community. It is in this spirit that we ask the Iowa planners to seriously examine configuration in the state and include a discussion of the benefits and problems of the current structure in their response to this letter. Both LSC programs are located in the same building and their total funding is under $5,000,000. This raises the question whether continuing to have two LSC programs in Iowa is the most effective and efficient administrative structure for the delivery of legal services.

____________________

¹ Although Iowa has Native American populations, they were not mentioned among these special groups.