Mr. Alfred Butzbaugh, President
Ms. MaryAnn Sarosi, Access to Justice Coordinator
Michigan State Bar Association

Mr. Robert Gillett
Ms. Paula Zimmer
Ms. Jeanne McGuire
Ms. Candace Crowley
Legal Services Association of Michigan

Ms. Margaret Nichols, Board Member
Ms. Linda Rexer, Executive Director
Michigan Bar Foundation

Re: LSC Review of the Michigan State Planning Report

Dear Michigan State Planners:

          Thank you for the timely submission of the Michigan State Planning Report in response to LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. Thank you also for your ongoing coordination with me during the period that I have been serving as the LSC contact person with the Michigan State Planning Group. The staff of the Legal Services Corporation's Office of Program Operations (OPO) has reviewed and discussed your plan in substantial detail. We applaud the Michigan State Planning Group for its leadership in managing a collaborative, values-driven civil equal justice planning process. Our review finds the Plan is not only consistent with the expectations outlined in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6, but represents a thoughtful and promising continuation of a state planning process that has guided Michigan's civil equal justice community into new collaborative endeavors since the establishment of the State Bar's Access to Justice Goal Group and adoption of the initial Michigan State Plan in 1995.

          In order to provide constructive assistance to the Access to Justice For All Task Force and the State Planning Group, we provide the following comments on the Michigan State Planning Report.

1. As both the Task Force and the Michigan State Planning Group are acutely aware, effective planning is broad based, and includes a wide range of persons and institutions with a stake in the achievement of articulated goals. A common set of values and principles is key to ensuring consistency of vision and purpose both in the planning process and throughout the implementation phases. Finally, effective planning is a staged process that requires a commitment to regular review, analysis, evaluation and augmentation over time.
   
   Measured against these standards, the Michigan State Planning Process continues to be viable and effective. The Michigan State equal justice community is guided by a clear sense of vision. This was articulated in the 1995 State Plan and has been further clarified by the Core Capacities document adopted by the Task Force's Service Delivery Subcommittee. All stakeholders clearly recognize the need to view equal justice delivery planning from a statewide perspective, and the state planners correspondingly have demonstrated a commitment to developing initiatives that, in the end, ensure the effective operation of a comprehensive, integrated civil legal services delivery system. It is also clear that the state planners continue to understand the need to reach out to the broadest base of individuals and institutions with a stake in the design and operation Michigan's equal justice delivery system. Further, while strategies within a number of key planning areas have yet to be articulated, the planning design and overall expectations are calculated to ensure that the Michigan planning process will serve the objectives articulated in Planning Considerations attached to Program Letter 98-6; i.e., to design a system that is "responsive to the most compelling needs of eligible clients, ensures the highest and most strategic use of all available resources, and maximizes the opportunity for clients throughout the state to receive timely, effective and appropriate services." (Emphasis in original) The Task Force has clearly adopted the view articulated in our Planning Considerations that "no eligible client [should be] left out of the justice system or receive less effective assistance because of geography or other factors." Finally, we acknowledge that the Michigan planning objectives may be broader in scope the statutory focus of LSC's planning expectations, and pledge to work with the Michigan State Planning Group to ensure that our respective processes complement one another.
   
   
2. LSC recognizes that many of the delivery issues facing the Michigan State Planning Group are the subjects of continuing discussion within the Service Delivery Subcommittee (SDS). We are extremely interested in the substantive recommendations of the SDS, their underlying rationale, and the specific timelines and accountability systems developed to ensure that the Subcommittee's recommendations are timely and effectively implemented. While we understand that the work group reports will not be submitted to the full SDS before early 1999 and that these reports will be forwarded to the Task Force sometime during the Spring of 1999, we request that these interim documents be forwarded to LSC as they become available. This will enable us to provide thoughtful input and advice as the process continues to move forward.
   
   
3. LSC is impressed with Michigan's vision of the role of technology as it relates to the development of a meaningful and relevant civil equal justice delivery system. We want to specifically congratulate the Michigan state planners for their understanding of the interrelationship between technologies available to staff, public access technology, and the potential increase in the availability of meaningful and relevant information for clients. We also are impressed by the degree to which the state planners understand that technological innovation must extend beyond the community of staffed civil legal services providers and reach out to the pro bono, specialty provider, and human and social services communities. As technology initiatives continue to be implemented and their effectiveness evaluated, we hope that the Michigan legal services community will chronicle its experiences and share them with the national civil equal justice community. There is much to learn in this area, and Michigan is one of the states likely to have a substantial amount of information and experience to share.
   
   
4. It is admittedly difficult to address the Planning Report's discussion of certain areas outlined in 98-1 and 98-6, in light of the continuing deliberations of the Service Delivery Subcommittee. Nevertheless, we cannot help but observe that efforts in a number of these areas (e.g., self-help strategies, pro bono support, development of complementary preventative legal education strategies and materials, etc.) are likely to be undermined by structural considerations, including the lack of uniformity in systems and organizational structures. This dynamic is further compounded by the relatively large number of LSC-funded programs in the state, a number of which are small and lacking in the capacity to achieve systems economies. While technological and other innovations may serve to reduce the inherent structural challenges, LSC remains concerned that important efficiencies and service delivery commonalties may be lost by adhering to the current program configuration. We will be looking closely to the report and recommendations of the SDS as it relates to these issues.
   
   
5. There is no more important statewide initiative than the Task Force's effort to implement a single coordinated statewide fundraising campaign. LSC staff continue to be impressed by your efforts in this area. We are also cognizant of the fact that success of this campaign necessarily implicates a number of other planning issues including, but not limited to, issues of program configuration. We take seriously your concerns about potential action by LSC that might undermine effective completion and implementation of the recommendations that will be forthcoming this spring. We take equally seriously our commitment in the State Planning Considerations to "take into account variations in resources available to states as well as the priorities states may choose for strengthening their delivery system."
   
   LSC will work with the Michigan State Planning Group to support timely and effective implementation of strategies -- resource development, service delivery, technology, intake, etc. -- designed to deliver on the promise of equal justice for Michigan's low-income residents. At the same time, LSC must reserve the right and responsibility to promote specific initiatives not championed by the state planners that we believe necessary to further our objective of an integrated statewide civil legal services delivery system. In the months ahead, LSC will continue to communicate with the Task Force and state planners to maximize opportunities for collaborative and common initiatives that avoid the need for unilateral approaches affecting our respective investments in Michigan's civil equal justice delivery system.
   
   
6. Following up on the previous point, we appreciate the Planning Report's candid discussion of program configuration. We observe that the Task Force's Integration and Merger Committee (IMC) Report and subcommittee deliberations left the issue of program configuration where it best belongs -- in the hands of the Service Delivery Committee. Like the IMC, LSC believes that the principal reason to address the issue of program configuration is its direct and immediate relationship to the objective of constructing the most effective and efficient delivery system. It is this belief that causes us to again raise serious concerns about the size and number of LSC grantees in the state. We look forward to reviewing the SDS's recommendations and the results of the Bar Foundation's peer assessment efforts as they relate to issues of program configuration.

          The State Bar of Michigan, the Michigan Bar Foundation and the Legal Services Association of Michigan are to be congratulated on your continuing efforts to develop an effective, full-range, full-service approach to the delivery of civil legal services to low-income residents of Michigan. It is clear that there continues to be a tremendous amount of energy and commitment on the part of all stakeholders, and that your efforts will continue to bear fruit for many years to come. We eagerly anticipate the report and recommendations of the Task Force's Service Delivery Subcommittee, and the opportunity to engage in a continuing dialogue with the Michigan equal justice community on issues of common concern.

          While LSC is not in position to act on a number of the specific concerns raised in the Planning Report, we appreciate the Report's discussion of the effect of current statutory and regulatory provisions, and the potential long-term impact of these provisions on the structural configuration of Michigan's civil equal justice delivery system. We also note the efforts of the Michigan State Planners to ensure appropriate and effective coordination of the entire equal justice delivery system, including both LSC and non-LSC legal services providers, and the relationship of this effort to the larger vision that underlies the state planning process. We thank you for this information.

          Again, thank you for the State Planning Report in response to Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. We look forward to working with the Michigan civil equal justice community in the months and years ahead.