Stan L. Foster, Executive Director
Legal Aid of Western Oklahoma, Inc.
Cameron Building, Suite 110
2901 Classen Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73106

RE:     1998 Oklahoma State Planning Report
           Recipient Number: 737056

Dear Stan:

          Thank you for the timely submission of Oklahoma’s State Planning Report and for the Committee’s considerable work that went into this effort. We have had an opportunity to review the Report and would like to share the following observations with you. Please excuse this much delayed response to your Report.

          The description of the planning process indicates broad participation of stake holders in Oklahoma’s civil justice system. Our congratulations on achieving this broad participation which is an important key to the successful implementation of state planning efforts. We also note, however, the Report itself is a description of the current situation in Oklahoma and does not provide a plan for a future, fully integrated and comprehensive delivery system as required in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. An effective plan contains the following elements:

          To address these elements and the concerns discussed in the remainder of this letter, LSC asks that Oklahoma planners submit an updated Report as outlined in "Next Steps," on page four of this letter. The updated Report should also describe the planning process itself.

          The Report describes how access to the individual programs is achieved. However, it provides no discussion of an integrated approach other than stating that "Careful study and planning should be undertaken by legal services providers before adopting a regional or statewide intake system," and the recommendation to the Oklahoma Bar Association that it "study establishing a referral hot-line or clearinghouse for the general public to legal services and public interest providers throughout the state. . . ." The Committee should consider including suggested next steps with a time frame for undertaking such an inquiry or study. The Committee may also want to include a discussion of other approaches to enhanced client access such as intake and advice quality standards and referral policy among the three programs.

          The technology section of the Report discusses the current technology utilized by each program. It does not include a "plan to plan" for integrated technology for the three LSC funded programs. In particular there is no discussion of technology communication among the three programs such as a statewide legal services web site with links to each program, easy access to e-mail for all case handlers, access to each other’s briefs, pleadings, forms, and other commonly used programs’ legal documents. The Committee should consider concrete goals and time frames for their implementation. Without this addition, it will be difficult for a reviewer not to conclude that each program will continue to go its own way in technology development rather than striving for an integrated approach. The Committee may want to establish a statewide task force and a timetable to plan for future technological improvements and integration. This task force should also address resource development to fund any recommendations it makes in order for all three programs to be able to benefit from such recommendations.

          The Report describes laudable community education and pro se efforts of the individual programs and identifies the lack of coordination among the three programs as a weakness. The required future Report needs to present a plan to achieve a coordinated and integrated approach to expanded access to courts, self-help opportunities, and preventive legal education. Without such an articulation of future efforts, a reviewer may conclude that the current duplication of effort is likely to continue. This Report should address planned steps and time frames to achieve a comprehensive approach to this important issue.

          The programs are to be commended for continuing the state support effort through pooling a portion of their non-LSC funds. Although the Plan calls for establishing a statewide training task force immediately, it needs to also present concrete steps to accomplish this objective. The Report does not address future collaboration on and coordination of legal work. Any such efforts between the basic field programs appears to depend on the initiative of individual advocates rather than through a structure such as substantive task forces that encourages such efforts. The Report should include concrete steps and time lines for addressing this issue.

          This section of the Plan presents many suggestions for increasing pro bono services from the private bar. With only 10 per cent of the private bar currently participating, the LSC programs along with other providers and the state and local bars need to seriously review and analyze current efforts. This analysis should include current barriers to participation and a concrete plan to address them. The review should include whether these efforts should remain with the legal services programs or whether the bar could be more effective than the programs in administering this effort and would be willing to undertake that responsibility. The Report should include concrete steps and time lines for addressing this issue.

          Although the Plan describes the need for additional resources and a variety of possible sources for additional funding, it should articulate next steps in the effort to increase resources for the programs. These might include such efforts as the creation of a development task force or consideration of employing a statewide resource developer. It is not clear from the Report to what extent the state support office engages in statewide resource development. It also should be noted that Oklahoma Indian Legal Services appears not to have shared in the current success the two basic field programs have had in developing non-LSC funding streams. Specifically, budget reports submitted to LSC indicate that Oklahoma Indian Legal Services did not receive IOLTA funds in either 1997 or 1998. Given the Plan’s well articulated need for specialized service to Native Americans who are "the poorest of the poor" in Oklahoma, this disparity provides cause for concern. The follow-up Report should address this issue and include concrete plans and time frames for statewide resource development activities.

          With the exception of the discussion of Oklahoma Indian Legal Services, which appears to provide an objective analysis for its continued independence, the configuration discussion is an affirmation and defense of the present system. The only acknowledged weakness is the duplication of some administrative functions. The Planners need to provide a concrete, more 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 needs to be provided.

          The Corporation asks that Oklahoma continue its planning process and prepare a Report to LSC that includes a plan which addresses the planning elements outlined above, the planning process, and the additional concerns stated in this letter. The Report will be due to LSC on December 1, 1999 and should include an update on accomplishments since the previous Report. Again, we appreciate the planning work accomplished to date. We look forward to your future work and are available to help in the continuing planning process in any way that we can.