February 23, 1999

Amy Christensen
Executive Director
Southern Tier Legal Services
104 E. Steuben Street
Bath, New York 14810

Andrew Scherer
Director
LSNY Legal Support Unit
350 Broadway
New York, New York 10013

Stephen Brooks
General Counsel
IOLA Fund of New York
36 W. 44th Street Suite 711
New York, New York, 10036-8100

Dear Amy, Andy, and Stephen:

          Thank you for the timely submission of New York's planning report. The staff of the Legal Services Corporation's Office of Program Performance (OPP) has reviewed and discussed your plan. The staff at LSC recognizes the challenges facing New York planners: the difficulties inherent in planning around delivery issues covering a large populous state; the loss of significant funding during the midst of the planning process; and the Steering Committee's desire to make the planning process as participatory and democratic as possible. LSC would like to recognize and congratulate you, Steering Committee members, the IOLA Fund, and all who participated in the planning process for all of your efforts to take planning seriously and to work together to develop a comprehensive, integrated delivery system where no client is left out of the justice system or receives less effective assistance because of geography or other factors.

          Generally, while this plan does have some weaknesses, as will be discussed in this letter, this plan lays a foundation for the beginning of a long-range planning process for your state. Even though, in many instances, this plan is solely a series of recommendations, which is quite vague on how the recommendations will be implemented, the implementation of many of these recommendations certainly will improve client services as well as further the integration of a statewide delivery system. The planners recognize that planning needs to continue on the regional and statewide levels and that implementation will be part of the next phase of the planning process.

          The following represent LSC staff's observations of the strengths and weaknesses of the New York report:

The Planning Process

          The New York planning process was as unique among state planners as it was ambitious. New York was the only state which attempted to foster discussion of planning issues through the use of an Internet site. No New York stakeholder can claim that they were left out of the planning process given the sweeping inclusiveness of the process. As should all good planning, this planning process proceeded from an articulated set of goals. For all of this, New York planners are to be complimented.

          The February, 1999 plan for implementing the December, report resolves many of the questions we had on implementation and governance. Having the Steering Committee maintain responsibility for the issue of configuration appears to be appropriate under this structure since the Steering Committee, as the oversight body, is best able to assess the integration of the delivery system from a statewide perspective. We hope that the statewide working groups, besides carrying out the activities in the February, 1999 implementation plan, will continue to develop and/or modify plans in their subject matter areas as the need develops. One cannot lose sight of the fact that planning is an ongoing process. Finally, given the size of New York state, the use of regional collaboratives to implement plans and to further the work of the statewide subject matter collaboratives is appropriate. While we continue to have some concerns about the relationship of the statewide working groups to the regional collaboratives, we are willing to see how this implementation structure plays out as New York legal services providers take on concrete activities.

          As the regional collaboratives and statewide working groups begin or continue their work, both should not lose sight of the goals of an effective statewide delivery system. In the July, 1998 preliminary planning document, New York planners adopted as their goals the objectives outlined in a paper prepared by the Project For the Future of Legal Services. We suggest that the statewide working groups and regional collaboratives also consider adopting the goals of an effective statewide system, which are described in Program Letter 98-6. This statement of goals lends itself better to serving as an overarching reference point, which drives all activities, for the development of a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system.

          The February, 1999 implementation plan does not describe the regional designations of LSC programs. At the time of the January Project Directors' meeting, there was a question as to which region Chemung County Neighborhood Legal Services and North Country Legal Services will be placed. While we understand that these programs relate to several neighboring regions, we do not want to see their involvement in continued planning efforts lost or forgotten because they are on a regional cusp.

          Finally, we are very pleased to learn that the IOLA Fund will continue to provide staffing for ongoing planning efforts. LSC commends the IOLA Fund for its continuing commitment and support to state planning. This support is critical to the success of planning efforts. To date, LSC has found that the more successful planning efforts are occurring in states where a statewide group has provided both in-kind and financial support for planning. Such support eases coordination and reporting tasks. Again, congratulations to the IOLA Fund for taking this on.

          On a similar note, we are pleased to see the involvement of Legal Services for New York City in both statewide and city-wide planning efforts. We expect nothing less from our second largest LSC provider. A strong LSNY, providing quality services and taking a leadership role on planning issues, is critical to the success of a fully integrated New York state delivery system.

A.       Resource Development

          New York planners rank resource development as their top priority. With the loss of state funding in 1998, it is understandable that this issue is on top of the list. Even though we recognize the critical work which must be done to achieve passage of permanent funding legislation, we hope that this work is not accomplished at the expense of other planning efforts. We expect that work will continue in the other areas identified in this report during this year.

          Given the legal services providers' history on collaborating on state, local, and private funding issues, there is no reason to doubt that this will not occur again in 1999 despite the failure of this report to articulate a legislative plan that is concrete and measurable. However, it is not as clear that "interested programs" will come together to explore funding for economic development activities and to share expertise in that area and that programs will collaborate on public relations initiatives unless someone or some organization steps forward to see that this happens.

B.       Intake, Advice and Referral

          As with several of the substantive sections of this report, there appeared to be no attempt to identify the weaknesses of the current system (strengths were sometimes mentioned); analyze whether the weaknesses interfere or obstruct the goals of a legal services delivery system, which were described in the July preliminary planning document; and then articulate a plan to respond to the weaknesses. In this section, the reader must glean the weaknesses of current intake systems from a description of current activities. Further, it is not at all clear what planners are hoping to achieve from their work in this area. Goals and objectives are not stated and are not readily apparent from the "agenda for the future" activities.

          It is unfortunate that after one year of "planning" all that the planners are able to conclude is that intake issues are "varied and complex." It was our hope that the 1998 planning process would begin to address these varied and complex issues. To date the planners have offered no plan for moving this issue forward besides possibly participating in a conference with other IOLA recipients and working in their regional collaboratives on unstated tasks. At the very least, LSC planners need to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their intake systems and develop a plan, based on measurable goals and objectives, to address the weaknesses while furthering the development of an integrated comprehensive delivery system.

          It is unfortunate that the proposed conference did not occur during the 1998 planning process. Given that a 1999 conference is better late than never, plans for the conference should move forward. This report was extremely vague on how this conference will move forward. Who is responsible for planning the conference? Second, it is not clear what state planners hope to be achieved with this conference. At the end of the conference what is expected to happen? Will participants be expected to take any action? Finally, conference planners are urged to obtain and distribute a catalogue of current intake systems prior to the conference. If this does not happen, too much time will be wasted at the conference in gathering information which participants have no time to digest.

          Planners may wish to review the state plan reports of New Jersey and Pennsylvania on this issue. Both are populous states with many LSC funded programs. Their reports provide two approaches to the development of intake systems within an integrated delivery system consisting of many LSC providers.

C.       Technology

          Unlike the other sections of this report, this section does identify areas where improvement is needed: problems in making software purchase decisions in the absence of common standards; lack of a dedicated funding source for technology purchases; lack of local expert technical support assistance; and the lack of staff access to the Internet in all programs. The report also highlights the uses of technology in a law office setting. An "agenda for the future" is presented which builds on the uses of technology and addresses the identified weaknesses of the current system.

          While all of the "agenda for the future" items are sound, the vast majority are aspirational. Only three of the seventeen agenda for the future items are actual action plans. Of the three activities which are concrete, WNYLC is to be commended for its willingness to share its technological expertise and skills for furthering the development of an integrated comprehensive delivery system in New York. Further, the IOLA Fund is to be commended for its willingness to commit time and money to build programs' technological capacities.

          New York planners may want to review how Pennsylvania planners addressed this issue from a statewide perspective. Pennsylvania planners articulated three goals related to technology and presented concrete steps and a timetable for achieving these goals. Michigan and New Jersey have also made tremendous advances in technology from a statewide perspective and may provide helpful information.

D.        Coordination of Legal Work, Training, Information and Expert Assistance

          This section does a good job of articulating the strengths and weaknesses of current training and support resources. Unfortunately, again strategies to deal with perceived weaknesses are extremely weak to non-existent. The report recognizes the need for better coordination among programs involved in training and support but does not put forth concrete plans to eliminate duplication and improve coordination. At least for this section of the report, the planners recognized this section's failure to establish an actual plan and called for further work in this area. We agree - further planning work is needed here.

E.        Access to the Courts, Self-help and Preventive Education

          Again, planners need to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the current situation involving access to the courts, self-help and preventive education. Besides a description of what some programs are doing in these areas individually, only pro se activities are subject to any analysis. Since an overview of the strengths and weaknesses of the current situation is not presented, it is not apparent whether the recommendations proceed from any goals and objectives.

          As with the other sections of this report, it is unclear who will ensure that the proposed activities happen. In one instance, the report calls for the recommendations to be undertaken by either the "state committee or regional collaboratives." Besides begging the question "which state committee since one currently does not exist," the recommendation would be stronger if it were made clear who was responsible for doing what. In another instance, the report recommends that programs create a statewide legal education committee "to explore and plan a clearinghouse" of community legal education materials to be posted on WNYLC's website. The report further recommends that the regional collaboratives organize community education materials to ensure that they are relevant to local practice. No plan is presented for seeing that this happens. Without this level of detail, it is difficult to ascertain whether the particular recommendation will be implemented.

F.       Private Attorney Involvement (PAI)

          New York programs enjoy strong local and state bar pro bono support. The current pro bono system of working locally and coordinating regionally and statewide is a strength of the overall delivery system in New York. The report recognizes, however, the need to increase rural pro bono participation. While the plan for the Rural Law Center and the Pro Bono Coordinators Network to work together to address this issue is sound, the plan needs to be better developed to provide a more definite and measurable description of what changes these organizations hope to achieve as the result of their work. Similarly, the report would be stronger if a time line were provided for the proposed work of the NYPBCN to respond to welfare to work issues. Finally, the recommendation to increase funding for pro bono programs is purely aspirational. No plan is presented as to how this funding increase will be achieved.

G.      System Configuration

          Planners evidently examined only the issue of reconfiguration of the smaller programs based on an analysis of three questions: whether any savings would come from program reconfiguration; whether reconfiguration would improve and/or expand services to clients; and whether present program collaborations at the state and regional level among programs are improving service delivery. Based on their analysis and consideration of the strengths of the current configuration, state planners recommended no change in the present configuration of the smaller programs in New York.

          In the past three years, programs in New York have begun to collaborate in ways that have never happened in the past. This report identifies many areas of further collaboration to strengthen the effectiveness of delivery systems and to promote the integration of current systems. While this report is extremely vague on how these collaborations will happen, if they do happen and the recommendations contained in this report are implemented, the goals of improved service and further integration will be advanced.

          Still, LSC remains very concerned about the configuration of programs in New York. First, we continue to question whether the current structure of the state delivery system, and specifically the number of programs, constitutes the most effective and economical way to meet client needs throughout the state. Second, we encourage planners to give serious thought as to whether the services provided by the smallest programs within the state would be stronger, and the effectiveness of the overall state system strengthened, if these programs were part of a larger legal services program.

          When examining the issue of program configuration from the perspective of service delivery, programs also need to examine the strengths of individual programs and how overall delivery may be improved by configuring programs based on these strengths. Further, it may help planners to frame the configuration issue by considering the ultimate goal of an integrated delivery system:

Does the current configuration hinder the development of a legal services delivery system which ensures that a) all low-income persons within the state are able to enjoy meaningful and appropriate access to the civil justice system; and ensures that b) no group or sub-group of low income clients are excluded from securing and enforcing their rights within the civil justice system?

          New York programs should continue in their collaborative efforts. We do not anticipate making any changes in the configuration of the service areas for New York for the 2000 grant process. Based on the strength of these grant applications, progress state planners have made in implementing these recommendations, and on other information available to the Corporation, we will be making funding decisions, including the grant term, in the late fall of 1999.

Next Steps

          To assist the Corporation in evaluating the effectiveness of New York's planning efforts, we request that:

          LSC programs provide the Corporation with a list of LSC programs by their participation in the regional collaboratives by March 5, 1999.

          LSC programs provide reports to the Corporation on the work of the regional collaboratives and statewide working groups. The report for the first half of 1999 is due on July 15, 1999. The first report should address, inter alia, measurable goals and objectives for the six subject matter areas identified in Program Letter 98-1 for each regional collabortive and the goals and objectives for each statewide working group; the work completed to date to implement these goals and objectives; and a description of any additional unifying goals for the regional collaboratives and statewide working groups besides those identified in the July 1998 preliminary planning report. The second report, due October 1, 1999, should describe the work of the regional collaboratives and statewide working groups since the last report along with plans for future work.

          LSC programs provide a report to the Corporation by October 1, 1999 on the work of the Steering Committee, including an assessment of the configuration issue. Such an assessment should address the configuration issues raised in Program Letter 98-1 and 98-6 as well as concerns raised in this letter.