Lindia Robinson, Executive Director
Central Mississippi Legal Services
414 South State Street, Third Floor
Jackson, Mississippi 39201-5021

Dear Ms. Robinson:

              Thank you for the timely submission of Mississippi’s State Plan for the Delivery of Legal Services developed in response to LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. The staff of the Legal Services Corporation Office of Program Performance has thoroughly reviewed and discussed your plan.

              We also appreciated the opportunity to talk with you about the background against which you developed the plan. That conversation clarified for us some confusion we had about your approach and how you envision achieving the various goals you set. The following observations are based on your plan, our recent meeting in Mississippi and the "Draft Reports of Mississippi State Planning for the Delivery of Legal Services" (draft reports) you recently resubmitted.

              At the outset, we note with appreciation that during the time between the initial submission of the plan and the preparation of this letter, the LSC programs in Mississippi along with the Mississippi Volunteer Lawyers Project (MVLP) pursued implementation activities. You clearly understand that efforts to strengthen Mississippi’s legal services delivery system merit serious and on-going attention. We also want to applaud the congenial and collaborative relationship between the programs and the Mississippi Volunteer Lawyers Project (MVLP). The goodwill and good work that has resulted has done much to expand resources for Mississippi’s low-income clients.

              In that spirit, we want to emphasize that our letter is a "feedback" document and should not be viewed a criticism of a single exercise. Mississippi planners correctly see planning as a series of activities and goals, subject to refinement and amendment as circumstances change and new information becomes available. With that in mind, we offer suggestions and comments for future strategies to help you achieve your goals with greater speed and chance of success. We are available to answer any questions or concerns about our response to your plan and provide assistance to you in your planning work.

              In order to place our comments on the Mississippi 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 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.

              This plan indicates a high degree of coordination among all but one of the six programs in the state. We are deeply troubled, however, that there are instances in which the plan notes that only "five of the six programs" agree to cooperate on a particular activity when all six should be involved. It is impossible to develop a "coordinated integrated statewide delivery system" if one legal services program has opted out of the process and/or the result. This lack of participation calls the entire plan into question.

              We are also concerned that neither the 1998 plan nor the draft reports indicates with any specificity what other legal organizations were involved in the plan’s creation. Mississippi is home to law schools, domestic violence shelters and other groups that provide (or have the potential to provide) legal services to low-income clients. It is important to invite representatives from these and similar organizations to the planning table. If representatives from these organizations were included in planning, we would like to know that. If they were not, we hope that you will bring them into the process as you move forward. Tell us, too, if you invited the organizations involved in the 1995 planning process to participate in this subsequent effort.

              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, Mississippi’s planners adopted a planning mission -- "to assure the continuation of an effective, efficient and comprehensive delivery system which meets the most pressing needs of low-income Mississippians." Planners derived two principles from this mission: 1) a commitment to equal access to justice regardless of economic status, and 2) stronger partnerships with others who believe that, regardless of income, everyone is entitled to a full range of legal services. Recent conversations with Mississippi program directors indicated that this mission, while not referred to in the 1998 document, also guided participants.

              The 1998 plan contained no information on "the most pressing needs of low-income Mississippians."⁽¹⁾  The plan does not tell the reader what the planners see as the major issues confronting clients and client communities. It is difficult to understand how the goals and activities set out in the plan could have been determined outside of the context of these critical legal needs. Planners might want to devote some time to talking over what they believe are the most significant legal problems facing poor people in the state and make adjustments to the plan in light of their discussions.

              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. Planning committee reports show that Mississippi planners invested a real effort in convening work groups to study various state planning issues, and develop goals and activities to address them. The reports give the names of many work group members but reveal almost nothing about why they were included in the process. Member status (e.g., client) or organizational affiliation (e.g., The Mississippi Bar) is shown for only two groups. In instances where context is given, the work group membership seems broad. For the majority of reports, however, the reader does not know whether participants were drawn from a sufficiently broad community of individuals and organizations to ensure appropriate support for the plan. Only by including individuals and entities in the state with a deep interest in civil legal services for poor clients can planners be assured that their results represent the needs, wishes and opinions of those Mississippians who have a stake in its access to justice initiatives.

              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 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.

              Here, when tasks are assigned, it is the legal service providers who are charged with performing them. Responsibility for completing tasks appears to have been given almost exclusively to the LSC-funded program directors and the MVLP. For the most part, dates by which tasks must be accomplished are not listed, although priority is given to training, technology and resource development. The plan does not contain many quantifiable results by which success can be measured. Vague timetables and outcomes make Mississippi’s plan read more like a wish list than a strategy to strengthen existing systems and implement bold changes.

              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.

              While the Mississippi plan does not clearly articulate what providers consider the major issues faced by clients, each section of it emphasizes a statewide approach. In some instances, strategies leading to significant systemic changes are placed on the table and, by and large, the planners are not constrained by "turf" concerns. Moreover, at our conversations at the recent planning meeting we heard all program directors commit to working together to advance the vision of an effective and efficient system that meets the most pressing needs of low-income Mississippians. We hope that this all-program collaboration continues.

              6. LSC requirements. A comprehensive plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. The Mississippi State Plan addressed each issue contained in the Program Letters but the result is aspirational rather than a blueprint for change, setting out "shoulds" rather than the "will do's."

              This section’s goals build on 1995’s efforts and aim to improve the existing six telephone intake systems. These goals recognize the barriers rural clients face when trying to obtain information about legal remedies. They point to the need for a coordinated intake system in the state. In one goal, the programs agree to ask the state bar to reactivate its statewide hotline, an information and referral service staffed by attorneys. This has been accomplished. The remaining goals highlight the importance of "intake standards" and collectively move the programs toward a high-quality uniform intake system by September 1999.

              These goals are specific and concrete; they imply action. If implemented, they will do much to strengthen the current intake structure. The planners agree to produce a statewide telephone intake manual (Goal B) and provide intake training on a statewide basis (Goal C). They will search for sites such as welfare offices where clients can fax documents to the intake worker (Goal E). They will create a referral list of attorneys in the service area for intake staff referral (Goal F) and augment intake staff with volunteer attorneys (Goal G). The programs will also seek funds for a regional intake system (Goal D).

              Although planners agree to meet these goals by September 1999, details to guide their implementation are not included. For example, there are no committees or individuals charged with carrying out any activities; there are no benchmarks. A discussion on the merits of regional intake is lacking, as is any strategy for obtaining funding. How PAI will be extended to intake is not articulated nor are the merits of such an effort. It is not clear if volunteer attorneys, welfare office staff or other critical stakeholders were included in creating these goals.

              These goals are worth pursuing and planners may want to devote some time to redrafting them, adding quantifiable outcomes, action plans and job assignments. For example, it would be helpful to know who will contact social services and other agencies to see if they will let clients fax documents to legal service offices. Before funding is sought for "regional intake" there will have to be an understanding of what is meant by the term and how many regions are envisioned. Proponents will have to decide whether the system will offer advice and brief counsel as well as intake and how it will be integrated with program technology. Planners will also need to evaluate the current system and the merits of a statewide system before concluding that regional is most appropriate.

              In 1995, Mississippi’s planners reviewed existing technology and agreed not only to improve present capacity but also to make compatible acquisitions. The programs have made remarkable progress. All programs have purchased new systems that allow for timekeeping, fiscal and case management components and ticklers. Within their respective programs, all staff communicate via e-mail. Five-sixths of the programs have voice mail and toll-free telephones. Planners agree that by the end of FY 1999 there will be computers for each employee and fully automated law libraries. Each program will have a toll-free telephone system, and callers will be able to reach an operator during work hours. We appreciate that Mississippi programs have so clearly committed to strengthening their technological capabilities to enhance service to clients, and that they are doing so in a coordinated fashion.

              By an unspecified date beyond 1999, each staff person will have a networked computer and e-mail address. There will be a "tech expert," an individual who will help staff with computer problems and train them on new systems. Programs will seek funds to acquire the assistance of an outside technology firm for regional technology problems and concerns (Goal A). The programs also agree to create a statewide website (Goal C) and to develop additional technology to allow centralized data collection and reporting (Goal B). Since the plan was submitted, the programs have pooled resources to hire a part-time technology resource person, whom they share.⁽²⁾

              In the main, no individuals or committees are charged with meeting these goals. There is no date set for achieving them. Funding sources are not enumerated nor is there any mention of pursuing funds except the commitment of programs to support coordinated training projects. This plan does not indicate why planners want to establish a website or how it will promote the vision of an improved delivery system, equal access and stronger partnerships.

              Planners might want to create a strategy for obtaining requisite funding and assign tasks. A clear idea of why and how a website will improve client access to the civil legal system would also be useful. Planners might consider how technology could advance other goals such as increased pro bono, regional intake systems and statewide training events.

              Poverty and a highly rural environment limit the amount of services that programs can offer clients. Education is needed to show clients the many ways in which the civil legal system and lawyers are useful in areas far beyond family, federal benefits and housing law. The planners propose education initiatives that can be used statewide, and several have been implemented.

              Goal A indicates that videotapes on housing, employment, family and consumer law and pro se skills will be produced, "depending on funding." Planners may want to develop an agenda for distributing the films that is more specific than what is currently in the plan ("agencies and other interested parties"). They should also consider why and how this project will enhance client access to justice. One film has been produced and planners might want to use this opportunity to craft a strategy for using and distributing subsequent films.

              Other goals include creation and distribution of a newsletter for clients (Goal B) and information on the proposed website that will inform the visitor about other groups that serve the legal needs of low-income people (Goal C). Goal D, dissemination of information through "Law and You" columns in the state’s weekly papers, is underway. Several columns have been printed in these newspapers, which are often read by rural community residents. They are also available to clients in LSC program offices. One segment of Goal E (1)(a), the establishment of a pro se "Courthouse Assistance" pilot program in an urban jurisdiction has already been accomplished, and plans are underway to create the same project in a rural courthouse, both staffed by volunteer attorneys. Goals E (1)(b) and (4) charges the pro se work group with creating additional videos and an Internet site to guide pro se litigants.

              While it is noteworthy that several goals have been realized, planners provide no details about how meeting them advances the plan’s mission and benefits clients. Planners might want to review this section’s goals in relation to their vision and in the context of current and future client needs. Timetables, specific assignments and measurable outcomes would help planners understand in what ways activities undertaken here advanced or frustrated goals. Additional information is needed, for example, on who is producing the videos, how they are to be funded and how the topics on which they focus are selected. It would also be beneficial for planners to identify who is responsible for writing the newspaper columns and how each "Law and You" subject is chosen. Planners might want to evaluate the existing pro se project before embarking on additional efforts. In this way, subsequent projects can benefit from lessons learned on the first.

              With the loss of a state support entity in Mississippi, the legal services programs collectively assumed the responsibility for training staff and maintaining substantive law task forces. Over the past three years, the programs have pooled financial resources and collaborated on this. They experimented with a single statewide coordinator function, modeled on the state support system. When that was unsuccessful, they initiated plans to pay collectively for a group of statewide coordinators. The 1998 plan calls for hiring training coordinators on issues programs deem critical – substantive law areas, technology including computerized legal research, and a "client interest group." Once hired, the coordinators will organize statewide training events. They will teach in their specialized areas. They will identify statewide litigation issues, collect resources and be available for co-counseling with pro bono and LSC program attorneys. Since they submitted their plan, the LSC programs have made arrangements for two part-time coordinators – in technology and housing.

              The plan notes that program directors will supervise the specialists and programs will contribute toward their salaries and costs, but the plan designates no program directors. The plan states that job announcements will be advertised but contains no guidance on the hiring process or timelines. There does seem to be some funding commitment from the programs. Specific dollar amounts are not given in the plan and no authority is established to ensure that programs stick to the payment schedule. Furthermore, as noted in footnote 2, the current structure requires the specialists work full-time for their individual programs and on personal time in their specialist category, an approach that seems poised to fail. We urge the planners reopen their conversation on this topic and openly discuss the importance of training and the need for expert assistance. At first, they might want to focus on one area of expertise and commit wholeheartedly to supporting that one position financially and professionally. The benefits gained from having a first full-time expert on one subject would help create a foundation from which to move toward funding another, and a third, and so forth over time.

              MVLP operates the state’s pro bono initiative. Each LSC program subsidizes the work of MVLP. In turn the director and staff initiate projects to increase pro bono involvement, such as MSCORP (a joint venture with the Business Law Section and the Mississippi Center for Nonprofits). Although over 1,300 volunteers participate, the plan recognizes the need for increased pro bono efforts. It is commendable that in 1996, the Mississippi State Bar (MSB) adopted Rule 6.1 of the ABA Model Rules amended and now supports an aspirational goal of 50 hours of services to low-income clients by its members.

              This section’s goals are strong. If each were realized, Mississippi would have an outstanding pro bono record. But the goals are written as aspirations, describing what should occur not what must take place to accomplish the plan’s mission. Bar members should be educated about the new rule. Outstanding volunteers should be recognized and their work should be publicized. Judges should be encouraged to recognize the pro bono work of bar members. Information about the kinds of pro bono cases handled by volunteers should be disseminated. Speakers’ bureau should be established and attorneys should be solicited by direct mail. Judges should be asked to encourage pro bono activity and current volunteers should be asked to bring a colleague into the volunteer community. The MSB should be asked to establish a "buy out" permitting individual lawyers to donate money in lieu of hours. Rosters of volunteers in rural jurisdictions should be regularly updated.

              There are other objectives. Planners will encourage the MSB sections to adopt projects and refine the information that is given to volunteers to include time lines and program priority areas. The planners recognize that corporate counsel and law students have important roles to play. Recruitment efforts at law schools will increase. Law schools will be urged to expand clinics. The planners would like to see a "a people’s law school." They want existing volunteer mediation and mentoring opportunities to continue.

              No individuals are assigned to any tasks. No deadlines are set. Funding strategies are not given even though some funding will be required to meet them. There appears to be no commitment from necessary partners such as law schools and judges. The goals are written in predatory language rather than in a style that shows a firm commitment to achieving them. Finally, central to increased pro bono is the involvement of program directors and staff in local bar activities, which this plan does not address. Planners may want to pull two or three of the most important goals from this section and commit to meeting them by making assignments and developing measurable outcomes for each.

              Initially, the programs pooled funds to pay for a resource developer. When they could not find the appropriate individual, they hired the Fund Raising Project in Atlanta. No consensus was reached between the programs on the Project’s various proposals and, at this point, five-sixths of the LSC programs are joining forces to implement a statewide private attorney giving campaign. In the last legislative session, an effort to have a funding bill passed was partially successful; the MSB will continue work on this effort.

              The planners advance a statewide resource development strategy that is seriously undermined by the failure of all programs to participate. It seems unfair to both clients and programs that one organization refuses to join in the effort to equalize access and resources for all poor Mississippians. The plan seeks to broaden the role of IOLTA to increase MSB involvement and statewide development efforts. The plan recognizes the importance of collaboration to increase funding potential. Appropriately it pledges to fulfill the 1995 resource development plan – in collaboration with local and state groups, programs will seek new revenue streams such as filing fees and service contracts and in-kind contributions. On the other hand, no specific activities, assignments or quantifiable outcomes are included in the plan. It will be difficult to ensure and measure achievements.

              In April 1999, LSC funded the program’s joint request for $10,000 for a consultant to facilitate collaborative and statewide resource development strategies. Hiring this individual will no doubt provide an impetus to fundraising activities in the state. Furthermore, a coordinated focus on resource development might also help increase joint efforts in other areas of the delivery system where regional and statewide approaches could be beneficial. We encourage the programs to move forward to realize their proposal’s purpose.

              This plan proposes new service areas to be created when four programs merge into two. Timeframes are given and assignments are made. We understand that the new configuration scheme proposed is the first step in a long-range effort that will result in three LSC programs in the state. This section of the plan indicates that planners in the state were willing to look beyond service areas and boundaries. Changing service area boundaries involves much work, and LSC appreciates the investment of time and energy made by the boards and staff of all the programs involved in this effort. We hope that in future planning documents, you will discuss more fully how you believe that the proposed changes (now and over the next few years) will make the delivery system more effective and efficient.

              This plan shows that all but one of the programs are committed to working together to improve legal services for poor people. The high degree of pooled resources and joint activities is commendable. We encourage you to build on it by establishing significant and measurable outcomes that will help you more quickly realize your vision for equal access. By November 1, 1999, we would like to have from you a detailed and specific response to the observations and concerns set out in this letter. Please revisit the plan’s goals adding, for each goal, quantifiable outcomes, completion dates and assignments that show which individuals and organizations will be responsible for ensuring that the goals are met. Include in your report a discussion on configuration and on efforts to include all of Mississippi’s LSC programs in the state planning process. At the same time, we would like to hear more about who participated in the 1998 state planning process and your reflections on what are the most pressing needs facing poor Mississipians.

              In closing, we want to thank you for your concern about the quality and quantity of legal services available to poor Mississippians. We are very pleased that you have continued to work on the plan since it was submitted and have, in fact, met some of your goals. 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 with pleasure to continued work with you.

________________

¹  The 1995 plan’s section on "Legal Needs of Clients" observed that "The most common categories of legal advocacy performed by…LSC grantees are family, housing, income maintenance, consumer, health and employment. Case types frequently encountered include evictions, foreclosures, divorces, child support, spousal abuse, child abuse or neglect, access to health care and benefit claims…." This is a recitation of the kinds of cases handled by legal services programs rather than a probing conversation on the legal needs of the client community on a statewide basis. Not only did the latest state plan not discuss the critical legal needs, it failed to review the 1995 list against the backdrop of "welfare reform," the demise of the LSC state support office and other sea changes in the poverty law landscape.

²  We understand that the assistance that this specialist provides occurs during "annual leave" and after work hours. It is difficult to understand how the specialist can provide significant guidance to program staff when she must do so on personal time. Mississippi’s programs have invested a great deal to improve technological capacities. They should consider spending a bit more so that all staff can really take advantage of these resources.