May 10, 2000

Roger L. McCollister, Executive Director
Kansas Legal Services
712 S. Kansas Avenue, Suite 200
Topeka, Kansas 66603

Dear Roger:

          Thank you for the timely submission of Kansas’ state plan, developed in response to LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. We also appreciated receiving the Kansas Bar Association=s AResponse to the State Planning Requirement.@ Please excuse this much delayed response to your report.

          We recognize the considerable work that went into this plan and continues to go into your planning efforts. The staff of the Legal Services Corporation’s Office of Program Performance has 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 Kansas’s history of planning as reflected in the very successful resource development efforts. We acknowledge Kansas 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 the funding for and implementation of the Access to Justice Advice Line, technology upgrades, and resource development 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, Kansas Legal Services (KLS) and the other stakeholders have continued to pursue implementation activities. You clearly understand that efforts to strengthen Kansas’ civil legal services structure merit serious and on-going attention.

          We also want to applaud the productive and positive relationship between the KLS and the Kansas Bar Association (KSA). The KBA’s support has been crucial to Kansas Legal Services’ many successful efforts on behalf of low-income clients.

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

          Although such coordination may be taking place, it is unclear from this plan to what degree KLS coordinates with non-LSC legal services providers, social service agencies such as the domestic violence shelters, other advocates, and community groups.

          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 Kansas 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 Kansas 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. Pparticipation in the Kansas planning process was limited to the Kansas Bar Association (KBA) and the judiciary stakeholders. While both are important partners in all efforts to achieve a comprehensive, integrated legal services delivery system within the civil justice system, there are other stakeholders who need to be included.

          In other states planning partners have included representatives of domestic violence coalitions, law schools, homeless prevention organizations, client organizations and an array of social and legal services providers. We recognize that appropriate partners are dependent on the individual circumstances of each state but as we have discussed, for planning in Kansas to succeed, it is imperative to bring in additional stakeholders. For this reason we applaud the partnerships with the University of Kansas and Washburn University law school clinics. We encourage planners to continue to engage others who share the commitment to equal access to justice for poor people. We urge Kansas planners to consider sharing their plan as widely as possible with appropriate groups if they have not already done so. Usually, the more organizations feel included in the planning process, the more they will support the implementation of a given plan. LSC encourages you to continue expanding the community of planners in your state.

          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 either assumed or assigned. Moreover, responsibility 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 tools to help activities move forward since they create common expectations about completion. They are useful too 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.

          It is unclear from the plan what the planners see as the major issues facing low income Kansans. Likewise, it is not clear if Kansas 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 Kansas 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 and by the continuation of those efforts. We also recognize that many successful statewide efforts such as the funding for and implementation of the Access to Justice Advice Line, technology upgrades, and resource development could not have been accomplished without thoughtful planning. However, our concerns with the plan based on criteria for good planning stated above need to be addressed.

          We congratulate you on the development and implementation of a statewide, centralized intake system. The intake system, with one toll-free intake telephone number, allows service applicants to be screened for eligibility, referred to the appropriate provider, or given advice and information regardless of where they may live within the state. A specialized staff located in Wichita is able to maximize intake efficiency, thereby freeing up other staff to provide more extended service.

          We are interested in the reasons you chose this particular approach to intake and in receiving reports on your experience with this intake approach, particularly any evaluations or learnings that would be useful to other states and programs as they examine similar systems. We ask that the planners articulate specific goals, objectives, and measurable outcomes for the integrated intake system. For example, tell us why you selected this approach to intake, the benefits you expect that it will provide to the program, how it will strengthen services to clients, and the methodology you will use to evaluate it.

         We understand that Kansas Legal Services is currently upgrading its computer system. All case handlers now have computers on their desk. These are networked within the individual office and all have e-mail capabilities. Each KLS office has at least one computer with access to the Internet. This is a good first step along with plans for improved technological coordination among KLS, the Bar, and state agencies. However, the planners need to consider the importance of each case handler having access to e-mail and the Internet at his/her desk to facilitate efficiency.

         The planners may want to establish additional connectivity and electronic communication goals for all the stakeholders in the Kansas civil justice system. Besides improving and coordinating technological capacities among providers, planners should consider how low income people can 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 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. The Legal Services Corporation is able to provide technical assistance to planners in this area. Glenn Rawdon has joined our staff to assist programs on technology issues. Feel free to contact him at (202) 336-8868.

         The creation of the Access to Justice Fund by Kansas Legal Services, the Kansas Bar Association and the Office of Judicial Administration reflects a commitment to increasing access to the courts through additional funding for legal services providers and more pro se access. It was not clear from the report whether the effort to expand pro se materials and access exists in areas other than family law. While we recognize that the need is particularly great in the family law area, the planners should think about other areas of law as well, such as housing and consumer law. As a next step in the planning process, planners may also wish to study 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.

         As a statewide LSC funded program, KLS coordinates its work through its centralized support unit and complex litigation group in its areas of practice. Each staff member=s access to e-mail, the Internet, and the website, should improve coordination of legal work. The cooperation between KLS and the state bar on training reflects a commitment on both quality of work and increased access for those who need assistance.

         The close working relationship between the Kansas Bar Association and Kansas Legal Services has produced substantial benefits for low income Kansans. Private attorneys participate through direct client representation and the provision of advice on the Elder Law Hotline. It is critically important that the program, the state bar and its Legal Aid and Referral Committee look for new and innovative ways to include private attorneys in this important work. The Kansas Legal Services FY2000 funding proposal indicates that only 350 out of 9,000 Kansas attorneys participate in pro bono activities which is a 3.9 per cent participation rate, a suprisingly low level of engagement. Assuming that this participation rate is correct, the planners need to create new opportunities for private attorneys to participate in pro bono activities and to expand their participation in the access to justice effort. They may want to explore private attorneys assisting with self-help clinics, mentoring for new legal services staff, or providing expertise, when it is needed in areas such as tax, that are outside the usual practice of legal services attorneys.

         We congratulate Kansas Legal Services, the Kansas Bar Association, the Office of Judicial Administration, and other partners on their very successful efforts to increase resources for legal assistance for low income Kansans. More than five million dollars in addition to the LSC grant is a most impressive result of your resource development efforts. We wish you continued success in maintaining and increasing that high level of funds. Because of this success, planners may want to consider looking for additional funding for technology improvement and for such additional efforts as may be necessary to assure no group of low income clients is excluded from securing and enforcing their legal rights.

         The Corporation recognizes Kansas=s efforts to create a comprehensive, integrated delivery system. We ask that you address the concerns raised in this letter about the 1998 plan by July 1, 2000. Also in that report, please provide information on accomplishments achieved since the initial plan was submitted. I have enclosed a copy of the Washington State plan. You and the planners may find it helpful as you articulate your vision, goals, measurable objectives and the tasks necessary to achieve your vision. We wish you much success in this endeavor. Please contact me if you have any questions or want to discuss any of the issues raised in this letter.