Kenneth L. Schorr, Executive Director
Legal Services of the Southern Piedmont, Inc.
1431 Elizabeth Avenue
Charlotte, NC 28204

Melissa Pershing, Executive Director
Legal Services of North Carolina, Inc.
P.O. Box 26087
Raleigh, NC 27611-6087

Gina L. Reyman, Executive Director
North Central Legal Assistance Program, Inc.
P.O. Box 2101
Durham, NC 27702-2101

Kay B. House, Executive Director
Legal Aid Society of Northwest North Carolina, Inc.
216 West Fourth Street
Winston-Salem, NC 27101-2824

Re: LSC's Response to the North Carolina Plan

Dear Project Directors:

            Thank you for the timely submission of the North Carolina planning report. The staff of the Legal Services Corporation's Office of Program Operations (OPO) has reviewed and discussed your plan. OPO understands that planning on the issues identified in LSC Program Letter 98-1 and 98-6 received a late start in North Carolina because the four programs were consumed for most of the year in deliberations over the Commission on the Delivery of Civil Legal Service's draft recommendations to unify Legal Services of North Carolina. This late start is certainly reflected in the document submitted to LSC.

            This plan suffers from major deficiencies and does not reflect any positive movement towards a comprehensive, integrated delivery system. This report gives no indication that you are examining the delivery system from a statewide perspective. Often times, the goals in a particular area include activities to strengthen local efforts. While this is appropriate, the "vision," which emerges from this document, is a purely local vision or continuation of the status quo. This is unacceptable.

            The following represent LSC staff's observations of the strengths and weaknesses of the North Carolina State Plan:

The Planning Process

            Planning is a process that provides for a series of interacting functions aimed at logical and articulated goals. Effective planning is broad based, and includes a wide range of persons and institutions with a stake in the achievement of these 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.

            Effective planning is a staged process that requires a longitudinal commitment of time and resources. Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 were intended to stimulate a process of continual growth and change; one that is based on certain identified core values, and which promotes the development of a civil equal justice delivery system that works for all low-income residents of the state. Planning, implementation, review/assessment and retooling are key components of any effective planning process. Each plan must define the who's, what's, how's and when's of the next steps of the process.

            This document fails to meet the requirements of effective planning. A common set of values or principles, which drive the planning and implementation process, are neither articulated nor evident from the planned activities. Only one non-LSC funded entity was involved or consulted in preparing this report. While we again acknowledge the late start the four programs faced in responding to 98-1, this report does not adequately explain the involvement of other stakeholders in future planning efforts. Further, this report does not adequately acknowledge or build on the planning which has occurred in North Carolina since 1995. Instead, this report states that planning will continue in North Carolina through the work of the project directors. This planning will occur at project director meetings where all seven of the issues outlined in 98-1 will be discussed. This report is silent as to how often these meetings are to occur.

            The programs need to develop core values from which their planning will proceed, describe with more specificity how other stakeholders will be involved in the planning process, and explain in more detail how the planning process will be structured to build upon the work of the Commission, where appropriate, or to address delivery issues not addressed in the Commission's recommendations.

Client Access to Services

            The report describes the current LSC and non-LSC funded providers of legal services in North Carolina. The picture that emerges is that there are at least 25 programs providing legal services in North Carolina, each with its own intake system. The plan presents a weak argument as to the advantages of the present system without acknowledging any weaknesses even though "wider systemic problems" of the intake systems have been discussed at task force meetings. However, the focus of the discussions and the results of the discussions are not stated. The report further states that several intake issues, including intake for Spanish speaking clients, uniform eligibility standards, exchange of case acceptance priorities, models for hotlines, have been discussed at project director meetings. Again the results of these discussions are not stated. As a "next step," the report states that these discussions will continue at project director meetings. Further, the Commission has appointed a committee "to study existing legal service provider's screening, intake, advice and referral policies and systems." While the project directors will serve on this committee, they apparently do not intend to use it as the vehicle to examine intake systems. This raises concerns about whether the work of the committee will duplicate or run counter to the work of the project directors.

            Programs, in partnership with other providers, need to address the strengths and weaknesses of their current intake systems, using 98-6 as a guide. Based on this analysis, they need to develop some concrete plans to strengthen intake statewide. Why the programs will not use the Bar committee, which is examining intake issues, as the vehicle to address intake issues should be explained.

Technology

            All LSC funded programs currently have above-average technological capacities. Non-LSC funded legal services providers have inter-program e-mail capabilities. While the report states that LSC funded programs have exchanged information regarding technology planning in order to maintain the compatibility of the entire system, this is not listed as an on-going activity or objective. The LSC funded programs' commitment to achieving an integrated comprehensive delivery system is questionable if this oversight is deliberate.

            Again, the "next steps" are not concrete and again merely list a series of issues the programs will address at their project director meetings. No thought is given as to how the programs' current technological capabilities may be used to improve services to clients and to integrate the delivery system on a statewide basis.

Access to Justice

            Again no plan is presented on this issue and no articulation of what the planners hope to accomplish. For example, the report describes what programs are doing individually and states that self-help materials will be shared with other legal services providers across the state. But there is no discussion of how the sharing of these materials will be coordinated, who will assume responsibility for this task, when it will be done, or what steps will be in place to ensure that the sharing of this information is on-going. While the report again identifies issues the project directors will discuss in the future, it is not readily apparent why these issues are important to them or how the resolution of these issues will lead to a more integrated statewide delivery system. Further, there is no discussion of any efforts to work with the private bar and judiciary on the development of pro se materials.

Coordination of Legal Work and Training

            North Carolina's task force system continues to thrive even after a major change in structure which occurred with the loss of the LSC funded state support center. North Carolina providers should be proud of the work of their task forces.

            However, this section, as in the other sections, does not adequately address the strengths and weaknesses of the current task force system. This report seems to raise some concerns about the involvement of non-LSC funded programs, especially the North Carolina Justice and Community Development Center, in the task forces. The involvement of all legal services providers in a state in a system which will coordinate advocacy efforts within a state is to be encouraged. If the LSC funded programs have concerns about collaborating with entities which perform services, which are restricted under LSC funding, the programs should seek guidance from LSC as opposed to letting these issues fester.

PAI

            There appears to be excellent state and local bar activities to encourage private attorneys to engage in pro bono work. The report states that "many local programs" have developed creative and thoughtful models for private attorney involvement. (Again, there is no articulation of how these models will be shared among the programs.) However, the success rate of these efforts is not stated. Further, there is no assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the current efforts leading to an articulation of what can be done on a statewide level to improve or expand pro bono efforts.

Resource Development

            Programs have done fairly well to coordinate activities on state legislative efforts and to coordinate local fundraising campaigns. However, future resource development plans are unfocused. Planners need to assess whether they have any chance of securing passage of a dedicated funding bill. This assessment will direct the amount of resources to be placed in next year's legislative effort. Further, there is no logical reason to delay planning on other resource development activities not related to IOLTA, as suggested in this report. Many resource development activities are not affected by Phillips. Planning may thus go forward on these activities.

Configuration

            The Commission recommended that upon a successful evaluation of the unification of LSNC, which must be completed by June 1, 2001, all four LSC funded programs merge into one program by December 31, 2001. LSNC agrees with the Commission's recommendation. LSSP rejects it because they believe that the Commission's recommendation was not based on a "full and open discussion" of all of the stakeholders. The two other LSC funded programs have apparently taken no position in this matter, although at least one (LASNNC) has publicly supported LSSP's position earlier this year.

            LSSP has not convinced the Corporation that they were denied a voice in the Commission's deliberations. From the Corporation's perspective, LSSP and the other LSC providers were given the opportunity to make their case for the status quo and failed. Consequently, the Corporation will continue to give the Commission's recommendation on the configuration of LSC funded programs in North Carolina great weight.

            Resolving the Commission's recommendation, the disagreement among the four providers as to the Commission's recommendation, and LSC's opinion of the Commission's recommendation poses a major challenge for the LSC providers. How the LSC providers will involve other North Carolina stakeholders in discussions on this issue at this point in time is not stated. All that is stated is a vague promise "to continue discussions on structural planning." Future reports to LSC on this issue should include, at the very least, a detailed description how the programs approached this issue and who was involved in the discussions.

Summary

            Much work needs to be done in North Carolina on achieving a comprehensive, integrated delivery system. To date, the LSC funded programs in North Carolina have not seriously considered the issues posed in Program Letter 98-1 and 98-6. Since this report does not adequately address the requirements of Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6, the plan must be rewritten. We expect that the programs will address the issues of 98-1 and 98-6 throughout 1999 in a manner consistent with the spirit of the two Program Letters and the specific concerns raised in this letter. A report to LSC on the 1999 planning process, activities undertaken, and progress achieved must be submitted to LSC by December 15, 1999. The Corporation will consider this report along with any future reports on the progress being made in North Carolina to achieve an integrated, comprehensive delivery system in its deliberations on the configuration of service areas in the state.

            We at the Corporation offer our assistance to the state planning community and look forward to working in partnership with you and others associated with the North Carolina civil equal justice community.