February 11, 1999

Connie Boyles Lane
Executive Director
Legal Advice & Referral Center
33 North Main Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

Re:       State Planning Report of the New Hampshire Legal Services                   Community

Dear Ms. Lane:

The Legal Services Corporation thanks you for the timely submission of the State Planning Report of the New Hampshire Legal Services Community. The staff of the Office of Program Performance has had an opportunity to review the Report and would like to share the following observations with you.

LSC appreciates the extensive planning engaged in by the key stakeholders in New Hampshire in 1995 and recognizes that the planning continues today. The Report presents a clear picture as to where the LSC-funded legal services program and non-LSC programs are at in their collaborative effort to achieve a comprehensive integrated delivery system. Although the Report does have some weaknesses, as described elsewhere in this letter, this Report is a good representation of the hard work and successful planning that has taken place and the significant accomplishments achieved as a result of that planning. LSC would like to specifically recognize and congratulate you for your efforts to create a comprehensive delivery system that provides enhanced services for clients in New Hampshire.

The Corporation recognizes that the planning continues. A facilitator has been hired and a core planning group is meeting with her and developing a plan for the future. Additionally, the major legal services providers, Legal Advice and Referral Center, (LARC), New Hampshire Legal Assistance, (NHLA) and New Hampshire Pro Bono Referral System, (Pro Bono) meet on a regular basis and continue to work toward improvements in the delivery system for the state.

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

In 1996, after careful analysis and planning, New Hampshire created LARC, a new non-profit organization, to apply for LSC funds and to serve as a hotline to conduct intake for itself and other providers. This evolution has been highly successful. LARC accounts for 75% of the intake/counsel and advice in New Hampshire and NHLA provides the other 25%. The vitality of this configuration is exemplified by LARC's professionalism in providing a coordinated centralized intake, advice and referral system which serves all low income citizens in the state, its extensive use of technology and in its comprehensive coordination with the other providers.

The strength of this part of the Report is the description of the constructive changes made in the delivery network since 1995. Its weakness is that while it lists a number of goals and issues for the future, there is no prioritization of those goals, no time table for achieving the goals and no indication of who or which organization will lead those participating in planning to achieve the goals when and if the goals are adopted. It may be that, with all New Hampshire has achieved over the last three years, it is unnecessary to make major changes in client access and that the fine tuning that needs to be done in access will be achieved as a result of the regular meetings that the providers hold. However, it is very difficult to achieve change without setting precise goals and a structure to accomplish the goals. The planners may want to consider selecting a few specific goals from those listed in the Report and work toward achieving them. LARC may also want to consider analyzing it's role and determining if intake, advice and referral can be further streamlined so that LARC serves an even larger proportion of those seeking access to the delivery system.

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

While New Hampshire has no technology plan, there has been significant improvement in technology for the legal services providers and a serious coordinated effort by them to use technology collaboratively. The planners have shown a capacity to achieve a coordination of their technology efforts throughout the delivery systems and to plan for improvements. The major providers of legal services have all enhanced their technology in the areas of computers, hardware, software, telephones and e-mail. They made joint decisions in purchasing technology and strived to have the same database for all programs.

Another strength of their coordinated efforts, was the creation of LARC's web site, which contains brochures/pamphlets, client educational materials and links to Pro Bono's Bar web site. The Report indicates that each provider approaches the technology used for research differently and therefor coordination could be better in the area of legal research.

LSC encourages the planners to continue their efforts to develop technology. The weakness enumerated in the prior section continues for technology. While there are many important goals listed as possible efforts in the future, the Report lacks specificity on prioritization, timetable and leadership. The planners may want to consider the possibility of entering into a joint purchase of services for legal research.

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.

This section of the Report indicates very good collaborative efforts between LARC and NHLA in producing and distributing pamphlets/brochures, self help and client educational materials. The division of tasks among the providers reflects the ongoing cooperative efforts to enhance services for clients. The Report does not indicate any state based efforts on the planners part to engage the state/local bars or the judiciary in attempts to promote access to justice in the state.

The Report's stated goal of developing innovative ways to provide assistance to potential pro se parties is excellent. The challenge will again be for the planners to determine how to achieve that overarching goal, by working toward the many goals and issues presented as possible areas of collaboration. The Corporation looks forward to hearing the outcome of the Pro Se Sub-Committee's study and of any action taken as a result of that study.

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

The Corporation also applauds the efforts by providers to integrate social service agencies into training opportunities as described in the Report. There is little in the Report about any coordination of legal work. This may be an oversight in the Report. However, if this coordination does not currently exist, the providers may want to consider joint efforts in sharing information about significant judicial, legislative and administrative developments affecting clients, sharing information on legal strategies, having casehandlers communicate electronically using brief banks and developing practice manuals.

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

The Corporation recognizes the vibrant pro bono program in New Hampshire that includes participation of 1/3 of the private bar in pro bono activities. It is also significant that the types of cases taken by pro bono attorneys have expanded from mostly family law cases in 1995 to a meaningful cross section of cases including consumer and landlord tenant in 1998. This change is the result of the state's resolute planning since 1995. As noted previously, the private bar is an active partner in trainings on legal issues affecting the poor.

The Report includes a thoughtful list of possible goals for the future. Two of those goals, assessing court-imposed barriers to pro bono attorneys and exploring ways to involve government attorneys in pro bono, are to be addressed by the Bar Association. The Report does not state who will address the other goals and if there is a time frame in which they will be addressed. The planners may want to consider prioritizing the goals and determine how and when the goals may be achieved.

6. Diversified Funding and Coordination of Resource Development Efforts.

In 1995 the planners anticipated that a possible consequence of restructuring could be competition for established funding sources. The three major providers agreed not to compete with one another for existing grants or foundation requests, and to work cooperatively in the future as new grants and fundraising opportunities arose. Thus far, most resource development has been carried out by individual programs. However, an excellent example of cooperation in resource development was the joint effort of NHLA and LARC to enable LARC to obtain a housing advice grant from the New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority ("NHHFA"). The Corporation recognizes and encourages the three programs to continue their discussions on diversification and coordination of funding and a more formal mechanism for resource allocation. Again, the proposed goals are good but the lack of specificity on timing and leadership detracts from the strength of the planning.

The programs may want to consider the possibility of approaching the Bar Association or Bar Foundation to seek leadership in a coordinated program to develop resources. The upcoming statewide planning meeting may lead to prioritization of goals and resolution of outstanding issues.

7. Next Steps.

The strength of New Hampshire's Report is that it clearly shows that the state has made significant changes in the delivery system to benefit clients since 1995. The delivery network, technology, access to the courts and involvement of the private bar have been enhanced. The coordination and cooperation of the legal services programs is exemplary. They meet regularly and continue to make changes which improve the delivery system. This is an indication of strong coordination. The weakness of the Report is its lack of specificity on which goals will be targeted for future achievement, lack of specificity on who will lead in the future and a lack of a timetable. Perhaps the up-coming state planning meetings will resolve these issues. The planners should report back to LSC on October 1, 1999 to up-date the Corporation on what has been accomplished since the last report.