Bonnie T. Brisbane, Executive Director
Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program, Inc.
438 King Street
Charleston, SC 29403-6283

Johnny Simpson, Executive Director
Palmetto Legal Services
2109 Bull Street
P.O. Box 2267
Columbia, SC 29202-2267

Alvin Hinkle, Executive Director
Carolina Regional Legal Services Corporation
279 West Evans Street
P.O. Box 479
Florence, SC 29503-0479

Teresa Nesbitt Cosby, Executive Director
Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina, Inc.
1 Pendleton Street
Greenville, SC 29601

J. Edwin McDonnell, Executive Director
Piedmont Legal Services, Inc.
148 East Main Street
Spartanburg, SC 29306

Re: The South Carolina State Planning Process

Dear Program Directors:

             Thank you for your report regarding the state planning process in South Carolina in response to LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. We have had an opportunity to review your report and would like to share our observations with you.

             Your report describes several major accomplishments, initiatives and strengths of the legal services programs in South Carolina for which we commend you. Unfortunately, however, the report does not fully satisfy the substantive requirements of Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 for an organized plan for the future. While we can infer from such notable initiatives as your statewide central intake system that some impressive planning has occurred, the report does not provide a clear picture of your overall planning goals, objectives, or process. There is no information, for example, of when your planning body (the Legal Services Coordinating Council) met, whether it, or any other group, analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the South Carolina delivery system and its components, or established specific goals for its improvement. Nor is there any information, in concrete terms, about what comes next. Our Program Letters requested that you:

             Your presentation would have been stronger if you had followed this format. In future reports we request that you clearly identify your goals, the activities and timeframes for accomplishing them, and the persons responsible for their implementation. If committees or subcommittees have or will be established, please identify them and their members, their purpose and plans.

             With the above prefatory remarks, we proceed with an analysis of your report from a statewide perspective and will suggest further steps you should take to satisfy the requirements of Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 in the future.

             In order to place our comments within a context, it is important to understand our expectations for state plans in addition to those already discussed. First, a good plan provides for the statewide coordination of activities and services in the present while ensuring consideration of the needs of the future. In an acceptable plan, the efforts and activities of a state’s legal services providers are coordinated with each other, with other providers of services to low-income persons and with funders to insure that: (a) no group or subgroup of low-income clients is excluded from securing and enforcing their rights within the civil justice delivery system; and (b) that all low-income persons within the state are able to enjoy meaningful and appropriate access to the civil justice system. A good plan describes how this coordination of activities is taking place today and what changes the state delivery system will make in order to meet future needs.

             Your report provides a description of the statewide central intake system that all of the programs have agreed to establish. It describes the customized case management software and hardware for statewide use made possible with grants from the South Carolina Bar Foundation and the South Carolina Bar. The South Carolina Legal Services Association provides training and case assistance on a statewide basis. The Bar Foundation supports the legal services programs and is planning to establish a toll-free legal information hotline. These are all positive examples of the coordination required to address the present and future need of low-income persons. We cannot determine, however, if the programs have seriously considered the degree of collaboration and coordination needed beyond centralized intake.

             Second, a viable plan presents the common goals, purposes and values, principles and norms that underlie and support it in order to ensure consistency of vision and purpose. It spells out as early on as possible what the planners are attempting to achieve through their plan.

             The report spells out a bold plan to implement statewide central intake, revealing a common goal to provide the greatest measure of access to legal services for clients and low-income persons throughout the state. However, any other goals, values and principles underlying your vision for a state plan are not apparent. We are left with the impression that intake and referral were the only significant changes placed on the table during the planning process.

             Third, a defensible plan is one that has been discussed with and/or reviewed by individuals, organizations and institutions within the state that have a stake in the design and operation of the state’s system for ensuring equal justice.

             The report indicates that the programs did not satisfy this expectation. We acknowledge the reference to your unsuccessful attempt to involve stakeholders such as judges, court administration, private practitioners, bar leaders, and social service providers "in a review of the delivery system." The report does not describe, however, the manner in which stakeholders were invited to participate or the substance of any articulated reasons given for declining an invitation.

             Fourth, a good plan presents its goals both in terms of their measurability and in terms of who is responsible for ensuring their completion. Responsibility is either assumed or assigned. Perhaps more importantly, responsibility is shared between and among everyone who is covered by and included in the plan.

             The report indicates that the Legal Services Coordinating Council supervises the state planning process. The Council is comprised of two persons from each of the five programs, two persons from the South Carolina Bar, two persons from the South Carolina Legal Services Association, and an advisory representative from the South Carolina Bar Foundation. A Standardization Committee, comprised of representatives from each of the programs, supervises technology acquisitions and upgrades. The report fails, however, to provide descriptions of the actual state planning and related activities engaged in by the Coordinating Council and the Standardization Committee. For example, how often did meetings occur? Who were the responsible persons leading the council and the committee? How did they receive input from the programs’ board, staff and clients, as well as the bar and other external stakeholders? Did they generate reports and papers to communicate with boards, staff, clients, the bar, and other external stakeholders? How will the Coordinating Council operate in the future?

             Fifth, in order for a plan to be considered effective, the plan must demonstrate that all of the legal services providers were willing to look beyond single issues or a single program to examine the big picture in terms of client needs and organizational capacities in order to develop the best possible methods and mechanisms to address the present and future needs of clients within the state. A good plan for the statewide coordination of legal services presents concrete information as to what the legal services providers believe to be the major issues confronting clients and the client communities served by the programs, indicates how the programs can work collaboratively to respond to these issues, and spells out what the legal services programs envision for their collective future and for the future of their delivery system.

             The report shows that the programs were able to look beyond a single LSC grantee to examine the big picture in considering technology and statewide central intake/referral. This is also true in the areas of training, information and expert assistance as evidenced by the original decisions to support the establishment of the South Carolina Legal Services Association and subsequent decisions not to duplicate any of its functions. However, as we have indicated above and will continue to point out below, this degree of collaboration and coordination from a statewide perspective is not present in many other areas.

             Sixth, a defensible plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. The report makes clear that this has not occurred.

             The plan describes the statewide central intake system the programs have decided to implement. The new system will be constructed around advanced computer and telephone technologies. A toll-free number with designated times for accepting calls will be included. Clients unable to access legal services by telephone will be afforded in-person interviews in local offices.

             Statewide intake system will quickly become a separate corporate entity and will be housed separately from the legal services programs. Statewide intake already has an executive director and a ten-person board of directors, which includes all of the program executive directors. The operating budget for statewide intake is expected to be approximately $300,000 per year. And statewide intake is expected to engage in fundraising throughout the state.

             The programs’ establishment of statewide central intake is a very bold and appropriate approach. We commend your efforts in this regard and look forward to periodic reports of its progress and any new developments.

             The programs have developed a collaborative technology plan that provides statewide coordination of technology acquisitions and upgrades. A Standardization Committee, comprised of representatives from each program, will implement the technology plan. The report indicates that the programs have enhanced their technological capacities by acquiring customized case management software for case planing, intake and time keeping. All advocates have desktop computers that are part of a network in each office. Each office has Internet access. The report does not state whether advocates and offices have access to e-mail, CD-ROM libraries, Westlaw and Lexis, or voice mail. If this technology is not available in each office, we strongly urge the programs make its availability a high priority.

             One of the programs has a web site that provides general information, a description of available services, and application procedures. This web site also provides links to related web pages such as LSC and the Social Security Administration. Community education brochures are listed on the site as well. The Standardization Committee is working to assist the other programs with web pages that will be linked together. The sites will then contain briefs, pleadings and other legal materials for advocates. More importantly, the new web sites will provide a link to a "real-time chat room for statewide legal services discussions of issues and sharing of information."

             The technology plan revealed in the report is a good response to the circumstances faced by the programs and is compatible with the overarching goal of statewide central intake and referral. As in other sections of the report, however, there is no description of the steps to be taken by the Standardization Committee and other working groups to implement their ideas. As you move forward in this area, we strongly encourage you to articulate concrete objectives and steps for their achievement, which include timetables and the persons responsible.

             The report reveals that the programs have not worked collaboratively in the past to enhance self-help opportunities for low-income persons in South Carolina, but are now committed to doing so. The report emphasizes the largely rural character of the state and the resulting transportation problems and barrier to legal services by low-income persons.

             The programs recognize the need to provide pro se assistance to clients who cannot be represented by legal services advocates or pro bono attorneys. Pro se assistance will include videotapes on subjects such as domestic violence, and divorce based on habitual drunkenness or drug abuse. Also, pro se assistance will be provided through local office-based legal clinics where "how to" workshops will be given in the areas of consumer, housing and domestic matters. Utilization and needs assessment statistics garnered from the statewide central hotline will be used to identify areas of the state where legal clinics may be needed. The subject matter of the clinics will also include family law, consumer, housing, and homelessness issues and seniors issues. Among the five programs, there are videotapes on living wills, health care powers of attorney, reverse mortgages, domestic violence, and habitual drunkenness/drug abuse related divorces for pro se assistance. These will be shared statewide.

             The report treats pro se assistance and representation in a cursory manner, raising doubts as to how thorough a consideration the programs afforded expanded client access to the courts. Given the client-eligible population’s lack of access to both legal services and pro bono attorneys, the programs are encouraged to take another look at this area. The programs may want to establish a committee to study the approaches to pro se assistance and representation used in other states.

             Training for advocates, expert case assistance, periodic training needs assessments, and statewide substantive law task forces are primarily provided to the programs and their staffs by one statewide source, the South Carolina Legal Services Association, Inc. (SCLSA). Case assistance is provided in the following areas: family, housing, health, Social Security/SSI, consumer, TANF, food stamps, veterans and unemployment matters. The substantive law task forces meetings provide opportunities for staff from around the state to meet face-to-face and share ideas and strategies. In addition to legal services advocates, SCLSA provides training and case assistance to participants in the pro bono program and to other private attorneys representing low and moderate-income clients.

             In addition to SCLSA events, advocates from all the programs attend the South Carolina Bar CLE seminars and the conferences and meeting of such national organizations as NLADA, the ABA, the Southeastern Project Directors and local and regional technical schools.

             In the future, SCLSA plans to join with the South Carolina chapter of the Academy of Trial Attorneys to provide simulation and evaluation training, similar to previous Legal Services Basic Legal Skills Training (BLAST). The Academy’s participation will occur under its pro bono service projects. This collaboration will provide opportunities for legal services advocates to be trained by some of the state’s premier trial lawyers.

             The report shows an impressive vehicle, SCLSA, for developing and maintaining competent and knowledgeable advocates. As with the rest of the report, however, there is no analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches. The report is silent, for example, as to the interplay between new and emerging technologies and the statewide substantive law task forces, expert case assistance and the training provided by SCLSA. In some places the report leaves the impression that advocates must meet at the same physical location to share ideas and strategies.

             The South Carolina Bar has been very supportive of the legal services programs’ efforts to achieve a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system. For example, the programs’ new case management software and hardware acquisitions were made possible by a $400,000 combined grant from the Bar and the South Carolina Bar Foundation. The Bar hosted a series of citizen meetings to assess experiences with and perceptions of the civil justice system. The results from these meetings led to the recommendation of a toll-free legal information hotline that will also provide referrals to the programs’ statewide intake system. The Bar actively promotes alternative dispute resolution and mediation as means to resolve more problems for low-income persons.

             The report cites a paucity of pro bono attorneys as a persistent barrier to low-income persons having access to legal services. The State bar pro bono program has responded by agreeing to assist SCLSA attract more private pro bono lawyers to its training and expert case assistance services. In addition, the pro bono program plans to co-sponsor a domestic violence seminar with SCLSA. The program has already recruited law students, private sector paralegals and legal secretaries, process servers, court reporters, psychologists and mediators to assist the pro bono efforts in the state.

             The South Carolina Bar and Bar Foundation are commended for the support and financial resources they have contributed to the provision of civil legal services for low-income persons. In addition to the State bar’s program, there are several local and regional pro bono projects. We also commend them for the support and resources they have provided.

             The programs might consider joining with a committee of the South Carolina Bar to explore studies from other states regarding the recruitment and retention of pro bono attorneys.

             The five programs are funded by LSC, with amounts ranging from a high of 80 percent to a low of 45 percent of program budgets. The programs have not adopted a statewide funding plan. The South Carolina legislature enacted a $15.00 court filing fee surcharge for the benefit of legal services in January 1998. The surcharge raised almost $1.2 million in 1998. The report states that it is unlikely that legal services programs will ever again receive an "additional allocation through appropriated dollars from the General Assembly." No further explanation is provided for this pessimistic assessment. Without more, we strongly urge the programs not to abandon this source of funding. Instead, the programs might want to identify a wide variety of stakeholders and community leaders to pursue a renewed effort for state funding.

             In 1998 the South Carolina Bar Foundation’s IOLTA program gave the programs $1,045,824 for implementation of the statewide intake system and general operations. In the same year, the South Carolina Bar implemented a $30.00 voluntary dues check-off to fund civil legal services. A portion of the funds from the dues check-off ($124,600) was expended on the programs’ internal preparation costs for the central intake system. The remainder, $42,480, has been reserved for the central intake office. It is not clear whether you can expect similar funding in the future. The report gives the impression that these large grants were a one-time contribution to the statewide central intake initiative.

             As to fundraising in general, the report states that the programs have made some joint grant applications for special projects, but usually pursue their individual efforts. The explanation given for this approach is an experience with a previous joint fundraising and resource development vehicle, the Resource Development Board. The report states that "The interest from the board was minimal, and it was disbanded after two years." However, it is important to note that some good did come out of that effort as the report goes on to state that "the Board did assist in influencing a number of banks to increase their IOLTA interest rates."

             We commend the programs for their fundraising success in previous years, especially with the South Carolina Bar and Bar Foundation. Based upon your past successes, we urge the programs to consider building upon the experience with the bar to develop a statewide strategy to preserve the filing fee surcharge, and explore the possibilities for appropriations directly from the South Carolina legislature. In urging you to focus on this subject, it is not our intention to emphasize state government or state bar funding to the exclusion of private and corporate sources. To the contrary, we think the programs should seek funding from corporate South Carolina with the same tenacity suggested for state government.

             The legal services configuration in South Carolina consists of five LSC-funded programs. The report recommends no changes in this configuration. It maintains that the present structure maximizes the effective and economical delivery of high quality legal services throughout the state. It maintains further that the configuration avoids duplication of capacities and administration. As an example, the report cites the fact that a neighboring program handles part of the financial administration of the smallest program in the state.

             In assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the current configuration, it is LSC’s position that state planners focus on the future rather than the past. History and prior decisions by LSC and others are not of themselves sufficient to justify the status quo. Given the significant changes in the legal services landscape, programs must take a fresh look, from a statewide perspective, and ask if the present configuration currently achieves, and will in the future, achieve the best possible results for clients.

             The report concludes with the stipulation that while no change in the current configuration is warranted, "consolidation and realignment of counties to provide better and more service to indigent clients are open issues and will be reviewed on a regular basis." Based upon the information provided in the report, we cannot agree with this assessment. Accordingly, we recommend that the programs reopen their consideration of configuration and address the question--perhaps with the assistance of bar leaders and a consultant--as to what would be the optimal structural configuration for South Carolina legal services programs if the planners looked at the big picture in terms of statewide client needs and the efficient and effective delivery of quality legal services throughout the state.

             Despite the report’s failure to comply with our expectations in terms of format, we have been able to infer from your report the beginning groundwork for a comprehensive, integrated delivery system for the state of South Carolina. The report reveals your willingness to seriously consider statewide strategies and alternative delivery models. We ask that you continue your planning efforts and provide a progress report to us by October 1, 1999. This report should clearly identify your goals, the activities and timeframes for accomplishing them, and the persons responsible for their implementation. In addition, we ask that you take an objective look at the configuration of programs and report back to us by February 1, 2000.