Edward Berg, Esq.
Richard F. Halliburton, Esq.
Douglas B. Kays, Esq.
Sidney T. Pearson III, Esq.
Lew Polivick, Esq.
Dianne Taylor, Esq.

Re: 1998 Missouri State Planning Report

Dear Missouri Project Directors:

Thank you for the timely submission of Missouri's State Plan and for the considerable work that went into your planning effort. The staff of the Legal Services Corporation's Office of Program Operations has reviewed and discussed your plan in substantial detail. While the Plan shows considerable strength in some individual areas such as resource development and the use of private attorneys, we have serious concerns whether the overall result will be a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system. To address the concerns outlined below, we ask that the planning efforts continue and that a supplemental report be filed with LSC on or before October 1, 1999.

Planning Process.

At the beginning of the report, a lengthy list of participants is presented. However, there is no discussion of the planning process used, such as the number of meetings held, level of participation, process for reaching decisions, etc., or whether there is any group charged with responsibility for leading the effort to implement the plans contained in the report. There also does not appear to be a framework of values which guided or will continue to guide the ongoing planning. A similar lack of clarity exists regarding responsibility for carrying out many of the tasks associated with the goals contained in the report. We encourage you in your supplemental report to determine responsibility for overall plan implementation and to articulate a concrete vision and corresponding values that will guide future state planning activities. In addition, we encourage the assignment of tasks, establishment of timelines, and processes for review of progress in achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the plan.

1. A Delivery Network that Maximizes Client Access, Efficient Delivery, and High Quality Legal Assistance.

The Plan concludes that a centralized statewide intake, advice and referral system would not "provide better and more efficient services." It is unclear why this conclusion was reached and its impact on clients, or whether any other approaches to enhanced client access were considered such as quality intake and advice standards. The Plan describes a statewide hotline for elders. Indeed all the programs wrote letters in support of Western Missouri's hotline grant application. This conclusion particularly seems inconsistent with efforts to operate hotlines for specialized groups of clients such as the elderly or people with AIDS. It leads reviewers to ask why a statewide hotline provides effective service for elders but not for other clients. Also the Plan indicates that more than one program has an AIDS hotline but does not address the feasibility of continuing these efforts on a regional or statewide basis. The only concrete, articulated effort in this area is the adoption of a uniform referral policy among the programs. However, that policy is not clearly articulated in the Plan.

2. Coordinated Efforts and a Capacity to Utilize New and Emerging Technology to Assure Compatibility, Promote Efficiency, Improve Quality and Expand Services to Clients.

The technology section of the Plan appears to be a "plan to plan." It envisions a technology task force "to develop a plan to upgrade technology for the programs' staffs, volunteer attorneys and client access to services." All of the stated goals are worthy ones and most of them have dates by which they are to be accomplished. However the Plan does not indicate who will be responsible for implementation nor who will comprise the task force. Missing also is any discussion of common case management systems or how different hardware and software for common functions will be addressed.

3. Coordinated Effort to Expand Client Access to the Courts, Enhance Self-help Opportunities for Low-income Persons, and Provide Preventive Legal Education and Advice.

The Plan lists five barriers to access: client eligible population's lack of money; pro se and in forma pauperis access to the courts; lack of free mediation services; lack of transportation; and the restrictions on LSC funding. It most directly addresses court access by working to obtain an automatic waiver of filing fees upon a program's certification that a person is financially eligible for its services and access to mediation services by working with the Office of State Courts Administrator to obtain mediation services for family law issues.

It is unclear how collectively community legal education materials will be developed and updated so duplication will be avoided and gaps in the available information will be filled although a goal is to "create standardized self-help materials for distribution" by September 1999. Securing pro se access appears to be an individual effort by program rather than a collective one except for presentations at a judicial conference. The identified barriers of lack of transportation and restrictions on services provided with LSC funding are not addressed in the Plan.

4. Coordination of Legal Work and a Capacity to Provide Training, Information and Expert Assistance Necessary for the Delivery of High Quality Assistance.

The Plan calls for the programs to: reinstate the annual legal services conference; re-institute substantive statewide task forces that will be responsible for training and clearinghouse functions in substantive legal areas; compile and produce a staff directory; establish a training task force; and collaborate on the creation of training and practice manuals. These are worthy goals and good coordination of legal work among programs can assist in achieving an integrated delivery system.

Although the goals include time frames for the accomplishment of each, leadership and staffing responsibilities are not assigned other than each program will take responsibility for one substantive area. The disparity in staff size among the six programs raises concerns about whether this is a feasible approach for those programs with a very small number of attorneys.

5. Coordination and Collaboration With, and a High Degree of Involvement by the Private Bar.

This section of the Plan is an articulate description of the good work and involvement of pro bono attorneys, the support of the Missouri Bar, and the variety of ways the private attorneys participate. The Plan states that at least 25% of attorneys in each program's service area participate and estimates that 100,000 hours were contributed last year with a value of $10,000,000.

The Planners may want to consider further efforts to build on this past success and efforts to expand the participation of private attorneys statewide.

6. Diversified Funding and Coordination of Resource Development Efforts.

The Plan describes extraordinary success in resource development through the efforts of the programs and the bar which grew out of the 1995 planning work. Both the prior successes and the future goals are applauded. However, a serious deficiency not addressed is the great disparity in the dollars per poor person funding among programs and service areas within the state. These amounts range from a low of $9.41 per poor person to a high of $21.61. The planners need to address this disparity and whether the nature, availability, quality and effectiveness of the services received by clients is exclusively a function of the identity and capacity of the program from which they receive services. Without this disparity being addressed, there is a serious question as to whether even when implemented, the Plan, as submitted, will lead to an integrated delivery system in Missouri.

7. A Configuration That Maximizes the Effective and Economical Delivery of High Quality Legal Services Throughout the State.

The discussion in the section on configuration is an affirmation and defense of the present system. The only acknowledged weakness is the duplication of "certain" administrative functions. The Planners need to provide a concrete, objective analysis of the present configuration and suggestions for any proposed changes. If the conclusion is that the present configuration maximizes the effective and economical delivery of quality legal services throughout the state, a thoughtful discussion of why clients are best served through the present configuration must be provided.

As noted in the beginning of this letter, all Missouri programs are required to continue their planning efforts and to address the issues outlined in this letter by October 1, 1999. During 1999, LSC will carefully evaluate the current program configuration in Missouri. We are particularly concerned whether the existing configuration facilitates addressing the critical legal needs of low-income Missourians regardless of their place of residence. As outlined above, our expectation is that programs will also do a careful analysis of the current configuration.