Ira Zarov, Executive Director
Legal Aid Services of Oregon
700 S.W. Taylor Street, Suite 310
Portland, OR 97205

Dear Ira:

This letter supplements our recent conversations on state planning activities in Oregon. LSC greatly appreciates your timely submission of the state planning report. We also recognize the considerable work that went into this plan and continues to go into your planning efforts. We have had an opportunity to review and to discuss the report at length and would like to share the following thoughts with you. They reflect: the information from our conversations and include developments since the report was initially submitted; my observations at the Oregon Equal Justice Conference; and the information contained in the report. Please excuse this much delayed written response to your report.

We want to emphasize that our letter is a "feedback" document and should not be viewed as a criticism. At the outset, we note with appreciation that Oregon has actively engaged in formal planning work since 1996. We also applaud the planners for correctly viewing 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. We are available to answer any questions or concerns about our response to your plan and provide assistance to you in your planning work.

I. General Comments

In order to place our comments on the Oregon 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 the three LSC funded programs in the state and with non-LSC legal services providers, such as the Oregon Law Center, and with social service agencies such as the domestic violence shelters. This coordination is reflected throughout the report including in resource development, training, substantive task forces, and technological development efforts.

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 1996, Oregon's planners adopted a planning mission, a statement of foundational values for the mission statement and a set of core capacities "necessary to provide representation in service of the mission and consistent with overall advocacy philosophy." These underpinnings continue to inform and guide the planning efforts.

3. Stakeholder involvement. Meaningful planning reflects the participation of all individuals, organizations and institutions within the state that have a stake in a state's system for ensuring equal justice. Oregon appears to have included all of the important stakeholders in its planning efforts. Planning reports and the annual Access to Justice Conference show that planners continue to invest real effort in convening work groups of appropriate stakeholders to study various state planning issues, and develop goals and activities to address them such as increasing access to courts.

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 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.

While the plan does present some timelines, and a number of activities have moved forward since the plan was submitted, the planners may want to set out specific tasks, assign responsibility for their completion to individuals and organizations and establish definite time frames as a next step in the process. Formal deadlines with assigned accountability are often quite useful tools to help activities move forward since they create common expectations about completion. They are useful too because they highlight agreed-upon goals. Furthermore, individually and collectively, discrete accomplishments generate a sense of achievement that inspires additional movement and deepen a sense of ownership in participants.

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.

An example of this broad vision can be seen in the1996 planning document which presents a statement of the greatest unmet needs. Among those stated unmet needs was representation in domestic violence situations. The programs are to be congratulated on obtaining substantial Department of Justice grants to help increase assistance to victims of domestic violence. Successful efforts such as this demonstrate solid implementation of the vision through effective planning work.

A new statewide in-depth needs assessment is scheduled to be conducted in March. This survey will involve 1500 interviews and will include hard-to-reach groups such as the home bound, the institutionalized, migrant farmworkers, Native Americans, and other minorities. Once the most pressing needs are identified, the intent is to determine collectively the most effective ways to address them and to use these documented unmet needs to inform resource development strategies. The needs assessment again demonstrates that planning in Oregon is an important continuing process rather than a one-time event. It is also noteworthy that the creation of the Oregon Law Center emerged from the planning efforts. The Center, funded with non-LSC resources, will help ensure that low income Oregonians will have available the full array of advocacy strategies and will not be excluded from services because of the unpopularity of their status or their particular legal issue.

6. LSC requirements. A comprehensive plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. The Oregon State Plan, along with the supplemental information fully addressed each issue contained in the Program Letters. Our comments on those specific issues are found below.

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

The focus of the delivery system as stated in the 1996 report, and articulated again in the most recent report, are the 24 local offices across the state, 16 of which are supported by LSC funding. These include administrative offices and a statewide Native American program. In addition, specialized providers such as the Oregon Advocacy Center which provides protection and advocacy services, the Juvenile Rights Program, and a number of immigration projects are considered a part of the delivery network. As a fundamental value, both reports emphasize that the highest quality of service gives clients access to legal service providers in a setting that is as close as possible to where they live. In Oregon applicants for service have the option of having intake done by phone or in person in local offices. Telephone access is through toll-free telephone numbers.

Based on their review of statewide hotlines elsewhere, the planners remain unconvinced that general statewide hotlines provide the most effective assistance to clients. Some of the concerns articulated are: disappointed expectations on referrals for extensive representation when needed; the lack of vigorous advocacy even when patterns and practices inimical to low income clients are identified; and the loss of information about and the connection of advocates to local communities. They do believe that specialized hotlines where responsibility is rotated among experienced advocates can provide helpful and valuable information and assistance to clients. Oregon has a statewide advice hotline for child support issues which provides advice to both the obligor and the obligee. The state planners believe that the local and regional hotlines for housing and welfare issues are also successful.

The planners recognize that the current system of circuit riding with its attendant financial and time costs to advocates is a weakness in the delivery system. A recent grant for video conferencing is beginning to be implemented in two rural areas. They are eager to evaluate the results from this experimental effort.

We suggest that the planners conduct a candid review of the current methods of access to service and set measurable goals along with specific tasks and timelines and assign responsibility for their completion. This assessment should focus on the strengths and weaknesses of the current system and describe any changes that planners believe should be instituted. Any agendas for change should include measurable goals along with specific tasks and timelines, and assign responsibility for their completion. Given the planned needs assessment, such a review may be appropriate in the context of developing statewide strategies to address the assessment's findings. For example, planners may want to consider convening a work group to study alternatives to circuit riding and report back by a specified date with suggested follow up activities with timelines and assigned responsibilities included in their report. If planners determine that the status quo is the most appropriate for now and for the future, LSC expects that their conclusion will be supported by facts and considerations that were fully and honestly examined by the stakeholders.

We would also encourage planners to consider expanding their vision and equal justice values to include access for all low income Oregonians to a continuum of services, the extent of which for any given client would be determined by both priorities of pressing legal need and the individual client's ability to utilize advice, information, or self-help strategies on their own.

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

Since submitting its report, Oregon created a technology plan, which looks toward technological integration of the legal service providers. This plan was the result of applying for and receiving $140,000 in grants from two local family foundations to Legal Aid Services of Oregon to purchase hardware and to provide training in its use. Because only rural areas were eligible to receive funding under the grant, the Lane County and Marion-Polk Legal Aid Service programs did not share in the grant; however, the Oregon Law Center and the Center for Non Profit Legal Services In Medford, did. With full e-mail capability for every advocate in the three programs, as well as with Oregon Law Center, advocates from every part of the state are able to work collectively on legal issues regardless of the locality in which they arise.

Currently, the Lane County programs have a web site that includes self-help materials. The development of a statewide website is also underway. Reviewing telephone technology is a next step in the technology development process. Increasing telephonic capacity can have a positive impact on access to services, coordination, private attorney involvement, and access to courts.

We would invite the planners to spell out their technology plan along with specific tasks and timelines for their completion. They may also want to show how it furthers the planners' vision for a comprehensive, integrated delivery system for Oregon. Glenn Rawdon who has responsibility for assisting programs and states with technological advancement is an LSC resource you may want to consult as you continue to consider and implement technological improvement plans.

Technology generally and the Internet in particular are being explored as one of the many access points clients can use. In some states, clients fill out intake forms on the Internet, obtain court forms, learn about their legal rights and responsibilities, gain crucial information on social and legal services programs, and obtain other resources that were, until recently, only available at providers' offices or over the telephone.

In other states, planners and programs have used innovative technology resources such as teleconferencing to link staff as well as volunteer lawyers for training and meeting events. We
are pleased that Oregon is also experimenting with video teleconferencing. Resources such as these have been used to clients' advantage, allowing intake and interviews from locales in clients' neighborhoods. We encourage Oregon planners to continue considering the benefits of such innovations in their communities and the many ways in which clients can or soon will be able to access resources through technological advances.

IV. Coordinated Effort to Expand Client Access to the Courts, Enhance Self-help Opportunities for Low-Income Persons, and Provide Preventive Legal Education and Advice.

It is important to note that efforts made by the court system, legal service providers, and the bar have made Oregon a leader among the states in improving access to its courts. I was particularly impressed by the discussions regarding the use of court facilitators during the Equal Access to Justice Conference. A pilot project involving facilitators, employed by the courts to assist pro se litigants, appears to be a most useful step in increasing access. The judges, facilitators, and legal services advocates seemed to agree that, absent sufficient lawyers to represent low-income clients, court facilitators help to improve fairness in the justice system by assisting pro se litigants in a variety of ways including reviewing pleadings for errors. Legal service providers continue to join with a variety of partners, including the Oregon Judicial Conference to improve and increase pro se forms and instructions in additional areas of the law.

The report does not describe community legal education efforts other than the cooperation among the providers in continuing to update informational materials. Distribution of these materials is also not addressed. Discussions are underway about the development of a website as noted above which could provide direct access to the materials.

When the planners review access issues and formulate additional goals along with tasks, timeframes, and assigned responsibility for their completion, they may want to link their efforts in this area to the overall vision for equal justice in Oregon. For example, planners may want to study the many ways in which community legal education efforts can expand access for clients. In their study, they should note how stakeholders in Oregon currently use technology, and intend to use it in the future, to create opportunities for clients to learn about their legal rights and responsibilities and to prevent or resolve legal problems they face. As planners undertake this task, they may want to look to other states that have addressed this topic along with their websites such as Pine Tree Legal Services and the Northwest Justice Project. (LSC's website provides links to all of its recipients' websites.)

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

The report describes a "long history of close cooperation" among the Oregon legal services programs in achieving good outcomes for their clients. Central to coordination of legal work are the four task forces in the areas of domestic relations, administrative law, housing, and elder law. An additional task force dealing with education has been recently formed. The task forces are facilitated by senior attorneys from the various programs and meet quarterly with all programs participating. Co-counseling across programs occurs routinely. Expertise is also routinely shared among programs. This sharing of expertise is described as a "firm feature of the culture of programs throughout the state."

Legal Aid Services of Oregon serves as the training vehicle for the programs with New Lawyer Training and Trial Advocacy offered on a regular schedule. Programs are invited to send staff to all of LASO's training events. The programs also work with the Oregon State Bar to ensure that poverty law issues are included in CLE events for private attorneys.

As noted in the technology section, upgrades to the e-mail system will facilitate better and more efficient coordination of legal work among all legal services providers in Oregon. Better coordination will continue to enhance collaboration and cooperation among the partners.

After the needs assessment is completed, planners may want to revisit this area and develop additional goals, tasks, and strategies to address unmet legal needs in Oregon. Again, setting timeframes and creating action plans will help planners bring reality to their vision.

VI. Coordination and Collaboration with and a High Degree of Involvement by the Private Bar.

The planning partners in Oregon have created a variety of opportunities for private attorneys to assist low income clients from night clinics to specialized direct representation and specialized expertise when it is needed. The Bar has also created a modest means program which provides reduced fee assistance for individuals at 200 per cent of the poverty index. The Access to Justice Conference and Campaign for Equal Justice which raises $500,000 a year from private attorneys also demonstrate successful efforts to involve the private bar in this important work.

Oregon is to be applauded on its achievements in involving the private bar in its mission to achieve equal justice. The planners may wish to build on these noteworthy accomplishments and to look to additional ways to involve private attorneys as they develop strategies to address unmet legal needs that will likely be uncovered in the up-coming needs assessment.

VII. Diversified Funding and Coordination of Resource Development Efforts.

Oregon is to be congratulated on its extraordinary resource development results including those noted above. Equally impressive is the commitment to share funds statewide based on poverty populations whenever funders permit such a distribution and to develop joint grant proposals with other providers when funding criteria permits. These collective efforts demonstrate solid collaboration and coordination.

We wish you much success in achieving your goal of a 50 per cent increase in funding over the next five years. We look forward to seeing a revised resource development plan after the needs assessment and its analysis are completed later in the year. In a revised plan we would again suggest that specific goals, tasks, timelines, and assignments be established.

VIII. A Configuration That Maximizes the Effective and Economical Delivery of High Quality Legal Services Throughout the State.

The planning report in its entirety reflects a high degree of collaboration and integration among the Oregon programs and providers. As Oregon so ably demonstrates, a hallmark of excellence is on-going evaluation and review of current systems in order to make them even better so that more efficient and effective services can be provided to the low income community. It is in this spirit that we ask the Oregon planners to continue to examine configuration in the state and include a discussion of the benefits and problems of the current structure in their response to this letter.

Such a review is particularly appropriate in light of the articulated value of "Maximize Efficiency." This value states: "The system should avoid duplication of capacities and administration; should develop and maintain coordinated and accessible client intake, case evaluation and referral systems; and should strive to maintain organizational relationships and structures that maximize economies of scale and promote the effective use of existing and emerging technologies." The discussion should also address the issue of the equivalent of two separately funded Law Centers, one for Lane County and one for the rest of the state, and the rationale for this structure in light of the above quoted value.

IX. Next Steps.

Based on the history of successful planning in Oregon, we trust that planning efforts will continue. The Corporation asks that Oregon submit an updated report by August 1, 2000 that addresses the issues raised in this letter and describes its future plans. The new needs assessment provides an excellent opportunity to review the initial plan, build on its successes, and to make the necessary changes to ensure continuing progress toward the realization of the planners vision.

Again, we thank you and all of those involved for their hard work in helping to make equal justice more than merely a laudatory goal. Our continued best wishes for great success in all of your efforts.

Sincerely,

  /s/

Carolyn A. Worrell, Program Counsel
Office of Program Performance

cc: LSC Recipient Program Executive Directors
LSC Recipient Program Chairs
Karen Garst, Executive Director, Oregon State Bar
Linda Clingan, Executive Director, The Campaign for Equal Justice
Barbara Herget, Legal Services Program Director, Oregon State Bar
Ralph Saltus, Director, Lane County Law and Advocacy Center
Richard Baldwin, Director, Oregon Law Center
D. Michael Dale, Litigation Director, Oregon Law Center
Bob Joondeph, Director, Oregon Advocacy Center
Debra Lee, Director, Center for Non-profit Legal Services
Rich Cecchitti, Administrator, Oregon Law Foundation
Randi Youells, LSC Vice-President for Programs
Michael A. Genz, LSC Director, Office of Program Performance
Robert D. Gross, LSC Senior Counsel for State Planning