Jerry H. Smith, Executive Director
Central Kentucky Legal Services, Inc.
498 Georgetown Street
P.O. Box 12947
Lexington, Kentucky 40583

Dear Mr. Smith:

            Thank you for your timely submission of the Kentucky Legal Services State Plan Report for 1998 developed in response to LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. The staff of the Legal Services Corporation Office of Program Operations (OPO) has thoroughly reviewed and discussed your plan in substantial detail. LSC has determined that the report presents a clear picture as to where the LSC-funded legal services programs in Kentucky hope to beCboth in terms of client services and in terms of legal services delivery systemsCin the coming years. Moreover, the report presents both a process and a plan of action by which the legal services programs in Kentucky will develop the necessary procedures and methods of operation to substantially coordinate and integrate the provision of legal services to clients in Kentucky in 1999 and 2000. Although the plan does have some weaknesses as described elsewhere in this letter, this plan is a good beginning to a long-range planning process for your state and is much improved over the first draft plan that you provided to me in September 1998. LSC would like to specifically recognize and congratulate you for your efforts to take planning seriously and to work together, with other stakeholders within your state, and with LSC to develop a report that responds in a careful and comprehensive manner to Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. As you proceed to refine and implement this plan and pursue additional planning activities, OPO staff members hope that you will continue to involve LSC as your partner in planning. We are also requesting that you submit to LSC detailed reports on October 1, 1999 and March 1, 2000, outlining your progress in meeting the goals included in your plan.

            In order to provide constructive assistance to your state's planning group, we provide the following comments on the Kentucky State Planning Report.

1. Although the goals, purposes, values, and norms that underlie and support this plan are not explicitly stated, they can be inferred by the plan's contents. However, given that in any viable and defensible planning process, articulation of a common set of values and principles is key to ensuring consistency of vision and purpose, the authors may want to more clearly state the values that the plan is designed to promote in future plans and in future correspondence with LSC.
   
   
2. Planning is a process that must provide for a series of interacting functions that are aimed at logical goals. This plan clearly sets out the process used by Kentucky to develop its plan and its report and it is apparent that you made efforts to include external and internal stakeholders other than the LSC Program Directors in the process of developing and reviewing initial drafts of the plan. For the most part, the required sections of the plan are discussed in terms of their interaction with one another. As part of your future activities, we would encourage you to make sure that your planning activities are broad-based and involve all 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.
   
   
3. The plan clearly recognizes that legal services programs do not operate in a vacuum and that their efforts must be 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 are excluded from securing and enforcing their rights within the civil equal 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. The plans for a statewide needs assessment leading to uniform priorities and case acceptance criteria, the development of a model telephone intake system, the coordination of the development of community legal education materials, the plans to fund the Access to Justice Foundation (AJF) to provide expanded legal assistance to clients in matters not appropriate for LSC-funded program representation, and the coordination of resource development on a statewide basis were particularly impressive. However, as part of you future planning activities, we recommend that Kentucky: (1) take a closer look at the legal needs of special populations such as migrant and seasonal farmworkers and specifically address how these special populations will be served; and (2) ensure that AJF receives funding commensurate with the tasks that you are asking this organization to perform.
   
   
4. It is a well-established tenet of planning that in order to engage in effective planning all providers must be 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. This plan constitutes a serious effort on the part of the Kentucky legal services programs to address the "big picture". For example, in the area of intake, this plan sets out specific weaknesses in the current system of program-based intake and then develops goals/activities geared towards strengthening the coordination of intake throughout the state. We were particularly impressed with the plans for developing a model computerized information system for counsel, advice and referral services, and the plans to develop a model telephonic intake system offering alternatives to clients who have problems in gaining access to telephone services. As part of its future planning activities, we recommend that Kentucky seriously explore other concrete ways in which programs individually can improve their intake systems as well as ways in which programs can coordinate intake with one another. We suggest that Kentucky create a special study committee composed of representatives from all classifications of program staff as well as clients and other stakeholders and charge this committee with the responsibility to take a careful and serious look at intake issues within the state.
   
   
5. In contrast to earlier drafts of the plan, the language contained in this plan is direct and specific. For the most part, goals are measurable and the persons responsible for ensuring their completion are clearly delineated. However, given the fact that overall responsibility for implementation of the plan has been assigned to the OKLSP Board of Directors and given the fact that other entities and organizations-- in particular, AJF--play such a prominent role in this plan's activities, serious thought should be given to expanding the OKLSP Board to include representation by these other organizations or, in the alternative, creating a separate entity to monitor the plan's progress that includes broad-based representation from Kentucky stakeholders.
   
   
6. Some sections of the report are more vague than other sections and should be strengthened. In particular, the discussion of pro se access and the creation/use of alternative methods of dispute resolution are soft. The discussion of how the state will develop appropriate community legal education materials with statewide application that will be available and used by all legal services programs by the end of the decade is not very specific in terms of what steps will be taken.
   
   
7. The recognition on the part of the plan's authors that it is in the state's best interests to create a comprehensive and integrated delivery system enabling the state to develop and maintain a statewide capacity for effective client representation in all appropriate forums and in all geographical portions of the state is evident throughout this plan. However, the plan specifically rejects the need for program reconfiguration. Given the fact that this plan is a serious effort to address the issues identified in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 and given that this plan sets out specific steps that, if implemented, will lead to significant integration within the Kentucky delivery system, program reconfiguration within your state may not be a front-burner issue. However, we cannot help but observe that efforts in a number of the areas outlined in 98-1 and 98-6 (e.g., self-help strategies, pro se access, the creation and use of alternative methods of dispute resolution, the development of preventative legal education strategies and materials, etc.,) appear to be compounded by the continuing presence of six separate LSC-funded legal services providers. While technological and other innovations may serve to reduce the inherent structural challenges, LSC remains concerned that the current program configuration may impede the efficient and effective delivery of legal services within Kentucky. As part of your future activities, we strongly recommend that Kentucky create a subcommittee of the larger planning group composed of program representatives and external stakeholders (the private bar, funders, clients, other providers) and specifically charge this subcommittee with the responsibility of studying the merits and demerits of program reconfiguration.
   
   
8. We continue to be somewhat concerned by information we heard several months ago and recently heard again that at least one of the program directors within Kentucky may have for all intents and purposes opted out of the final stages of program planning and may have directly stated his intent not cooperate with the implementation of the Kentucky plan. Our acceptance of your plan is based in large part on a belief that Kentucky has made serious efforts to address the issues identified in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 and has presented a plan that, if implemented, will lead to significant integration within the Kentucky delivery system. Our support for this plan is eroded if a significant player within the Kentucky legal services delivery system has taken himself and his program out of statewide planning. We ask that you respond to this concern, in writing, by March 1, 1999.

Overall, this plan was an impressive start to a viable and defensible long-term planning process. We at the Corporation offer our assistance to your planning group and others associated with the Kentucky civil equal justice community as you implement and refine this plan.