Ms. Nancy J. Kleeman
Director of Volunteer Legal Services
Minnesota State Bar Association
514 Nicollet Mall, Suite 300
Minneapolis, MN 55402

                                                                Re: State Planning Report

Dear Ms. Kleeman:

            I am writing to provide you and the Minnesota state planners with official "feedback" from LSC on your state planning report and planning process. At the outset, let me express our appreciation for the tremendous effort you and the State Bar have invested in the delivery of legal services to the poor. The Minnesota State Bar Association has long been a leader in the effort to secure justice for all, and many of the fine accomplishments you were able to describe in your report are the result of the Bar’s strong commitment and leadership. We also want to applaud the collaborative relationship between the Coalition programs and the Minnesota State Bar Association. The goodwill and good work that has resulted has done much to expand resources for Minnesota’s low-income clients.

            Minnesota submitted its state planning report in response to LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 on September 25, 1998. In late July 1999, LSC consultant Linda Rexer spent a week in Minnesota exploring Minnesota’s planning process, goals and achievements. Her positive observations and recommendations are contained in the attached October 22, 1999 memorandum ("the Rexer memorandum"), and we adopt both with the following comments.

            In order to place our comments 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 ensure 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 of 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.

            Minnesota’s programs have been working and planning together in coalition, and with the State Bar Legal Assistance to the Disadvantaged Committee, for 17 years. There are regular Coalition meetings (LSC-funded programs, the Bar’s Director of Volunteer Legal Services, and other providers) as well as "visioning" meetings of the program directors. This continuous planning process has lead to many impressive collaborative and coordinated efforts. Of particular note are those endeavors, such as the McKnight and Bush Foundation projects, which have crossed program boundaries and/or developed and allocated resources on the basis of a statewide view of client need. Also noteworthy are the many actions Minnesota has taken to assure that no low-income group is left out of the justice system and that all providers receive the support and training necessary to provide high quality legal services. These accomplishments would not have been possible without a high degree of coordination among providers, the Bar, the Judiciary, funders and other stakeholders.

            It is a credit to Minnesota planners and their commitment to continuous improvement that despite its success, the planners recognize that Minnesota’s planning structure and processes should be reviewed. We echo the Rexer memorandum’s recommendation that planning leaders should protect their future effectiveness by working to assure continued inclusiveness in key planning decisions by those outside as well as inside the Coalition and by periodically evaluating the Coalition’s membership, its leadership, role and relationship to other stakeholders. We will be interested in hearing what steps you and the Coalition programs will take to assure your planning process remains inclusive and open to new ideas.

            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. In 1995, the Minnesota Supreme Court established the Joint Legal Services Access and Funding Committee to examine alternatives for addressing the critical legal needs of low-income people. The Joint Committee’s final report included several recommendations, which, according to the 1998 planning report "form the pillars of current thinking in Minnesota." Included are:

            Minnesota has taken many actions (discussed in the planning report and Rexer memorandum) that reflect these values and suggest they are indeed the "pillars of current thinking" which support and guide Minnesota planning. In the coming years, it may be useful periodically to step back, look rigorously at "the big picture," and explore how well the delivery system as a whole continues to implement these values. Consideration might also be given to how or whether another explicit articulation of these values might expand or reinforce this vision to a succeeding generation of legal services leaders, and to your colleagues on the bench and in the bar, as well as assist in guiding ongoing planning efforts.

            3.          Stakeholder involvement. Meaningful planning reflects the participation of all individuals, organizations and institutions within the state that have a stake in state’s system for ensuring equal justice. As mentioned earlier, Minnesota’s planning has been relatively broad based; however, planners should review and consider how best to assure sustained, productive participation of stakeholders.

            4.            Goals and 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 between and 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.

            Minnesota planners have amply demonstrated an ability to establish goals and pursue them to completion, making any necessary adjustments along the way. Efforts to acquire and implement the McKnight and Bush Foundation grants are a good example. Minnesota is at a point, however, where, as the Rexer memorandum suggests, it would benefit from similar purposeful, statewide planning in other substantive and delivery areas. As pointed out in the memorandum, affirmative attention and planning around priorities, client access, and a broader range of substantive client issues, will build upon current strengths. And, incorporating the current "visioning" among project directors into the broader planning process can only help Minnesota programs and stakeholders continue to share responsibility for system-wide innovation and achievement. We are pleased that Minnesota planners are already moving in this direction and we look forward to learning about how planners are exploring strategies in these areas.

            5.            Broad vision. An effective plan indicates that all of the legal service providers looked beyond single issues or a single program 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.

            As the Rexer memorandum states: Minnesota programs have demonstrated "a willingness to be flexible, consider needs other than their own and respect each others’ abilities." The programs do not appear to be constrained by "turf" concerns and seem willing to continue to make decisions focused on what is best for clients, not what is best for individual programs. We applaud this approach and hope Minnesota planners will continue to bring this perspective to its planning.

            6.            LSC requirements. A comprehensive plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. Minnesota has substantially fulfilled this requirement and continues to seek ways to expand and improve client services

            Minnesota has many access initiatives in place such as expanded centralized intake (across several programs), toll-free telephone access, work on statewide approaches to pro se (with the State Bar’s committee), statewide funding, the partnership with all the state’s law schools through MJF and the major statewide technology projects. A statewide 800 number has been established for public assistance cases. We congratulate Minnesota on these efforts. At the same time, as the Rexer memorandum suggests, this is an area where some more purposeful state planning can assess (and address where needed) the consistency, evenness and quality of client access throughout the state.

            As the Rexer memorandum observed: "No one can look at the size and scope of the Bush Foundation grants to build technological capacity and build an information network without being very impressed by the resources obtained and the activities begun." LSC applauds and strongly encourages Minnesota to continue its impressive work in this area. We are pleased to have been able to contract with Dr. Susan Koch to assist you in developing Phase II of your technology plan. We very much look forward to the results and are certain you will continue to share the story of your accomplishments with other states.

            Minnesota’s planning report documents the strong involvement of programs in state efforts to increase access to the courts. Legal services staff serve on the pro se committees in each judicial district and legal services lawyers are among the 14 members of the MSBA Task Force on Pro Se Litigants which has produced a series of recommendations for the bench and bar. Legal services attorneys will continue to work with the MSBA Pro Se Implementation Committee.

            The programs have long coordinated through the Coalition the production and statewide distribution of community education and self-help materials (in many languages). The Coalition will consider how to broaden their reach further in its technology planning.

            Training and support functions have long been coordinated by the Coalition’s jointly-funded State Support Center. The Center publishes a twice-monthly newsletter for legal services staff and approximately 2,500 volunteer lawyers. It conducts numerous CLE accredited trainings each year, coordinates bi-monthly statewide task force meetings in the areas of family, housing, public benefits, consumer, immigration and seniors law. There is a technology task force and a support staff task force. Each year the Center sponsors a two-day statewide conference. These and other activities, coupled with co-counseling among programs and with private attorneys, help assure consistent, high quality legal services throughout the state. These efforts will be further enhanced as Minnesota makes greater use of technology to communicate and share information about legal work.

            It is evident that Minnesota enjoys a high degree of coordination with and involvement by the private bar. One of the first state bar associations to employ an access to justice staff attorney, the MSBA received the ABA’s Harrison Tweed Award in 1994. Legal services staff are active on the Bar’s Legal Aid to the Disadvantaged Committee and the Bar’s Director of Volunteer Services works closely with the programs. The numerous initiatives undertaken by programs and the Bar to expand pro bono activity are chronicled in the report and need not be recounted here. Suffice it to say that Minnesota continues its strong commitment to involving the bar as a partner in the effort to expand access to justice. That it faces the challenge, observed in the Rexer memorandum, of how to avoid having pro bono efforts become stagnant, is only testimony to previous innovation and success in obtaining broad participation throughout the state.

            The Rexer memorandum does suggest, and we agree, that as state planning goes forward, the role of Judicare-type services should be reviewed. Without taking away from the valuable contributions and long time historical commitments by contract attorneys also noted in the Rexer memorandum, we believe the Judicare approach should be reviewed as should every other facet of the delivery system. Questions to ask include those posed in the Rexer memorandum: are these services responsive to the most critical needs of clients, is using contract attorneys a conscious choice in service of particular state and/or program strategies, and how do programs ensure that the same high quality of service is provided to clients assisted by contract attorneys.

            Minnesota has an outstanding record in the area of resource development. Its collaboration and coordination in funding efforts has allowed for a unified and powerful voice before the legislature, the courts, the bar, foundations and others. Legal services programs have received state appropriations since 1982. The programs have always filed a single IOLTA proposal, and in 1984 Minnesota became the first state to adopt comprehensive IOLTA. In 1990, the Loan Repayment Assistance Program of Minnesota was formed to make loan repayment assistance to attorneys working in legal services programs. Most recently, the programs collaborated to receive a three-year $1.3 million grant from the McKnight Foundation to undertake systemic work in the area of family law and a $700,000 technology grant from the Bush Foundation. Minnesota was the first state to adopt an attorney registration fee increase to support legal services (which generated $850,000 in its first year).

            The Corporation applauds all those responsible for these and the many other excellent efforts Minnesota has made to expand access to justice.

            Minnesota has demonstrated a high degree of coordination, communication and formal collaboration. It has altered the configuration and structure of its support and delivery network in the past as circumstances required. No doubt it can and will do so again if needed. In the meantime, Minnesota’s technology and other planning will further integrate the current system to the continuing benefit of clients. While we have some question about whether the current configuration of programs is one the planners would create if starting afresh, we do not believe it is of immediate concern. We are confident Minnesota will continue to regularly review and analyze how well this configuration is functioning for the benefit of clients.

            Of more immediate interest is the development of an evaluation system that helps assure continued, consistent high quality legal services throughout the state. We were very pleased to receive and grant Minnesota’s request for technical assistance to design a statewide evaluation system that not only addresses individual program evaluation and replication of best practices, but also will explore ways that information from the review process can feed into ongoing comprehensive statewide planning. We commend Minnesota’s planners for initiating this effort and very much look forward to the results.

            We want to congratulate and thank you and all others in Minnesota interested in justice for the poor for the effort you have put forth for many years to secure justice for all. We are confident that Minnesota programs and other stakeholders in the civil justice system will build upon your strong record of achievement and continue to seek new ways to expand and improve the quality and quantity of legal services available to low-income Minnesotans. We very much appreciate your cooperative endeavors within the state and with us to improve the delivery of civil legal services to low-income individuals and families, and look forward to continued work with you. We ask that you keep us informed of your progress and provide a report on October 1, 2000 responding to the suggestions contained in this letter. We also welcome any response you may have to this letter at any time. Thank you again.

                                                                Sincerely,

                                                                Robert Gross
                                                                Senior Program Counsel For State Planning