Gretchen Coll-Marti, Executive Director
Puerto Rico Legal Services, Inc.
Apartado 9134
Santurce, Puerto Rico 00908-9134

Aleida Varona-Mendez, Executive Director
Community Law Office, Inc.
P.O. Box 194735
San Juan, Puerto Rico 00919

                                                                Re: State Planning

Dear Gretchen and Aleida:

           The purpose of this letter is to follow up on LSC’s visit to your offices and to provide you with our comments on your efforts to address the issues raised in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 regarding state planning. In October 1998, you timely submitted a state planning report. This evaluation of state planning in Puerto Rico is based not only on this report but also on information obtained by LSC during the February 2000 visit.

           John Tull and Danilo Cardona reported favorably on both of your program operations. John and Danilo were especially impressed with how PRLS has addressed the obstacles in delivering legal services in the Commonwealth. PRLS’ use of management systems, such as strategic planning, allows it to effectively address issues related to its client community. We congratulate both of you for your programs’ achievements.

           Although LSC’s Program Letter 98-6 asks for a description of the state planning process and its participants, the Puerto Rico October 1998 state plan report does not describe a planning process and participants. Instead, it states without providing many examples that PRLS, CLO, and the pro bono subrecipient coordinate their work. While coordination among providers certainly is an important and productive part of the effort to develop a comprehensive, integrated delivery system much more is needed.

           First, a good plan sets out how coordination of existing legal activities occurs among not only LSC-funded providers but also with other providers of legal services to low-income persons. Further, a good plan sets out what changes in coordination are needed to improve current efforts and to meet future needs. While the report describes some instances of coordination between the two LSC funded programs or one LSC funded program and other entities, it appears that coordination is done in an ad hoc manner rather than through a comprehensive approach to service delivery. For example, except in the area of training, where CLO and PRLS invite staff to each other’s training events, the coordination that occurs appears to be the result of special funding, as in the case of work in the area of domestic violence. While coordination of services is always the preferred method of delivery, such coordination would achieve better results if it were part of an over-all delivery plan.

           Second, 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. Sometimes planners have these in mind but make the assumption that others will see them as inherent in their planning effort.

           The Puerto Rico report did not include a common vision, values, or principles to guide the planners and the planning process. Developing and reaching agreement on a common purpose or vision helps to clarify and resolve any difference among the planners, thereby strengthening the process and its outcomes. Also, it is our experience that, when planners have agreed upon a common goal, they can better prioritize tasks and measure success against the norms they have established.

           Florida, for example, has adopted the touchstone of "energetic, affirmative, client-centered advocacy." Proposed activities are examined by planners to see if they advance "energetic, affirmative, client-centered advocacy." Strategies that cannot be seen as leading to this goal are abandoned. In the same vein, New Jersey planners articulated (1) a belief in the need for legal services programs to function as a "concerted, coherent, closely coordinated legal assistance delivery system" and (2) the need to develop additional resources to expand the provision of legal services; (3) the need to incorporate the views of clients and key partners in making major decisions about how to design and implement a system of high quality comprehensive legal services; and (4) the need to target legal services resources to achieve the greatest measure of equal justice for clients and economically disadvantaged people. That state’s plan then showed how its vision would be realized through planning efforts. Washington state developed a set of hallmarks and core capacities needed in the civil justice system to achieve its vision. The hallmarks, developed five years ago, continue to guide the planning process today. Oregon likewise developed "equal justice values" in 1996 that continue to frame the planning issues.

           Third, meaningful planning reflects the participation of all individuals, organizations and institutions within the state that have a stake in the state’s system for ensuring equal justice. You may want to consider involving the Puerto Rico Bar Association, the law school, and the judiciary in the planning process as well as program staff, clients, and Board members. Usually, the more organizations feel included in the planning process, the more they will support the implementation of a given plan.

           Planners in other states have found convening work groups of appropriate stakeholders to study various state planning issues, such as increasing access to courts, and to develop goals and activities to address them, an effective method for stakeholder involvement. Working together to achieve common purpose is frequently a useful tool for forging solid partnerships with other stakeholders in a state’s civil justice system. Indeed, engagement with judicial staff and judges in the planning process in other states, such as Oregon, has facilitated greater acceptance of and assistance to pro se litigants. LSC encourages you to expand the community of planners and their hands-on involvement in the planning process.

           Fourth, a good plan presents its goals both in terms of measurability and of who is responsible for ensuring their completion. Responsibility is clearly delineated and 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. This report includes little articulation of goals and fails to describe what planners hope to accomplish through the planning process. Since no "plan" is actually presented in this report, it is not surprising that the report does not describe who is responsible for doing what and how success will be measured.

           Fifth, an effective plan indicates that all of the legal service providers and their partners looked beyond single issues or a single provider 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. This report fails to articulate the major issues planners hope to address through the planning process.

           Finally, a comprehensive plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. Our comments on those specific issues are found below.

           The report describes PRLS’ and CLO’s intake systems. It is entirely unclear how Pro Bono, Inc.’s intake system coordinates with these two programs. There is no discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the present systems, including the use of specialized hotlines for special populations.

           Again, the report discusses current technological systems used by PRLS and CLO. PRLS’ systems appear to be adequate. We understand based on the recent visit that PRLS intends to improve current computer systems. PRLS appears to use telephone intake to provide advice and brief service to clients. This is an excellent use of telephone technological resources. The report states CLO’s desire to improve computer systems but no plan is presented how this will occur. Further, there is no mention on how technology is used to enhance the efforts of the pro bono program and whether improvements need to be made. Also, there is no mention on how technology may be used to enhance the provision of information to clients. For example, are client information materials available on a website that would enable an advocate, or even a client, to easily access the information?

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

           This section of the October 1998 was not responsive to Program Letter 98-1. In Program Letter 98-1 we asked programs to examine this question:

           "What are the major barriers low-income persons face in gaining access to justice in the state? What efforts can be taken on a statewide basis to expand client access to the courts, provide preventive legal education and advice, and enhance self-help opportunities for low-income persons?"

           Accordingly, we expected programs to examine community legal education efforts, the use of pro se, and other efforts to increase the access of low-income persons to the court system. This examination would typically require the LSC programs working in partnership with the courts, bar associations, and other legal providers to coordinate, enhance, and improve these efforts. This report did not contain an examination of these activities including whether pro se is a viable alternative for clients in the Puerto Rico court system. We hope that you will share this information with us in future reports.

4.  Coordination of Legal Work and Capacity to Provide Training, Information and Expert Assistance

           PRLS has an excellent training program for its staff and is to be commended for inviting CLO staff to its training events. However, Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 also asked programs to consider the coordination of legal work in the state. There is no mention on whether CLO and PRLS make any attempt to coordinate legal work, to share information, and to use senior staff for expert assistance. Some programs have created statewide task forces in such areas as housing, benefits, and consumer law. These task forces meet quarterly with planned agendas. Information is shared via list serves on the Internet.

5.  Private Attorney Involvement

           The October 1998 report describes PRLS’ and CLO’s PAI programs. A major part of PRLS’ PAI program is a subgrant to Pro Bono, Inc. There is no mention of whether any attempt is made by the three providers to coordinate recruitment efforts. For example, do the three programs collaborate on offering incentives, such as special training, to private attorneys interested in volunteering?

6.  Resource Development

           The October 1998 report describes a failed 1995 joint effort to obtain additional funding from the Puerto Rico legislature. The rest of the report describes individual fundraising successes. We understand that PRLS is currently pursuing filing fee legislation. It is not clear to us whether this is a joint effort with CLO and whether the effort has the support of the bar and the judiciary. It appears to us that such support would be key to success of the effort.

7.  Configuration

           The planning report concludes that the current delivery system achieves the best possible results for clients. While the two programs coordinate some activities at some levels, we cannot help but wonder whether even greater efficiencies and more effective services could occur if there were one program serving the Commonwealth. In fact, the reasons stated in your state plan and FY 2001 grant applications in support of two programs in Puerto Rico argue against two programs. PRLS’ telephone advice and referral hotline already operates statewide. CLO’s domestic violence project and AIDS project already extends into PRLS’ service area. CLO staff attend PRLS training events. Finally, CLO intends to adopt PRLS’ case management system. This level of coordination is to be commended but at the same time begs the question – why should LSC maintain two programs in Puerto Rico?

           While reconfiguration of the programs in Puerto Rico is not viewed as a priority for LSC at this time or as a necessary outcome of the state planning process, PRLS and CLO should continue to explore and report back to us how a merger of the two programs might yield better services for clients. In re-examining this issue, we believe you should focus on the potential and possibilities for expanded client service that merger presents rather than the obstacles; for example, how merger might help the programs avoid duplication of capacities and administration, such as administrative and financial operations, computer systems and libraries; how merger might enhance resource development, including private bar involvement, ease clients’ accessibility to the intake system, promote the effective use of existing and emerging technologies, and extend to all Puerto Rico clients the presence, expertise and focus a single organization can bring to the table.

           We recognize that Puerto Rico stakeholders face unique challenges to create a comprehensive, integrated delivery system. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has a greater number of low-income persons than any state. Resources from which to draw on in Puerto Rico to create a comprehensive, integrated delivery system, not the least of which are financial resources, are scarce. These challenges alone, however, do not provide justification to surrender on state planning initiatives.

           As noted above, the report submitted by PRLS and CLO lacks many of the elements associated with a good planning process, including involvement of stakeholders, an assessment of strengths and weaknesses, and steps and a timetable to achieve identified goals. While it is apparent that PRLS, CLO, and Pro Bono, Inc. have good working relationships, it does not appear from the report that any serious planning has actually occurred focusing on comprehensive delivery. We believe that planning is an on-going process and that application of planning principles would be beneficial in charting the course for future provision of legal services in Puerto Rico. Accordingly, we request that you give further attention to the planning considerations in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 and to the issues in this letter, including the configuration issue, and that you submit a status report on your progress on or before February 1, 2001.

           Please contact me if you have any questions.