Thomas F. Garrett
Executive Director
Legal Services Law Line of Vermont, Inc.
30 Elmwood Avenue
Burlington, Vermont 05401

Re: Report to the Legal Services Corporation State Planning in Vermont

Dear Mr. Garrett:

Thank you for your report on state planning in Vermont. The staff of the Office of Program Performance has had an opportunity to review the Plan and would like to share the following observations with you.

The Corporation applauds the close working relationship that exists between the Legal Services Law Line of Vermont (Law Line) and Vermont Legal Assistance (VLA). Their coordination and collaboration is exceptional. The Report presents a clear picture of both programs' commitment to make the delivery system client-centered and to work collaboratively to offer clients a full scope of services.

The Report indicates that most of the positive improvements made in the state's delivery system have been through the collaborative efforts of the LSC funded program, Legal Services Law Line of Vermont and the major non-LSC provider, Vermont Legal Assistance. The three other providers of legal services, South Royalton Legal Clinic at the Vermont Law School (SRLC), Vermont Protection and Advocacy (VP&A), and Vermont Volunteer Lawyers Project do not appear to be involved in the planning. While there appears to be extensive collaboration between Law Line and VLA, there appears to be little collaboration, other than in resource development, with the other three providers.

While the planning efforts did not have extensive representation from additional key stakeholders including the bar, bench and the smaller providers, we realize the challenge faced by Law Line to attempt to engage organizations that are not funded by the Corporation in the state planning process called for by LSC. The Corporation encourages Law Line to broaden the range of participants in its future planning.

In 1996, after careful analysis and planning, Vermont created Legal Services Law Line of Vermont, a new non-profit organization, to apply for LSC funds and to specialize in advice and brief service. Most intake and referrals are conducted by VLA, a non-LSC legal services program that focuses on full service representation and policy advocacy. VLA determines if the caller requires extensive representation or brief service. Cases requiring advice and brief service are referred to Law Line. LSC compliments these two organizations on their extensive collaboration, use of technology and coordination of efforts that form a comprehensive delivery network that provides most clients in Vermont with access, efficient delivery and high quality legal assistance.

Low income persons with legal issues in the family and mental disability area are served with distinct intake systems run by the two organizations specializing in those areas -- South Royalton Legal Clinic and Vermont Protection and Advocacy. As pointed out in the Report, while this configuration seems to provide a comprehensive delivery network for eligible Vermonters, these two smaller providers are not well integrated into the larger delivery network. Both VLA and Law Line seek to better coordinate services and collaboration with these organizations.

Although there have been constructive changes made in the delivery network since 1995, there is no current planning on how to further improve the delivery network. The key stakeholders may want to consider creating a formal group to meet regularly to review the current structure, determine if it is necessary to further coordinate with SRLC and VP&A and plan how to do so with a timetable and specification of leadership to achieve the determined goals.

While Vermont has no technology plan, there has been significant improvement in technology for the two major legal services providers and a serious coordinated effort by them to use technology collaboratively. Law Line and VLA have enhanced their technology in the areas of computers, other hardware, software, legal research, telephones and e-mail. They worked jointly to create a wide area network which enhances the services of both programs. Law Line and VLA may want to consider if they can play a role in enhancing statewide technology with the other providers.

The Corporation appreciates Law Line's extensive efforts to provide assistance to pro se litigants using individual advice, developing instructional videos for pro se family court litigants, surveying pro se litigants to evaluate the effectiveness of the current pro se assistance programs, and providing pro bono lawyers to give advice to pro se litigants. Law Line has developed its own pro se materials in addition to distributing materials produced several years ago by VLA. Law Line intends to use its web site to coordinate materials and make them accessible in one place. Law Line should be commended on its efforts in the area of enhancing access and self-help opportunities for low-income persons.

The Report accurately points out the need to more comprehensively organize and coordinate community education and self-help materials. This may be an area where, because of the focus of the other providers, Law Line's opportunity for further collaboration with the other providers is limited. Law Line may want to consider seeking the participation of the state bar as a way to enhance its efforts in working with the judiciary to overcome barriers to court access.

There does not seem to be any organized plan for assessing training needs between the programs or for conducting ongoing training. There does not seem to be any integration of the private bar into the training. LSC congratulates VLA and Law Line on the two day training event held for their staff last spring and encourages the continuation of such events.

The planners may want to consider a formal review of training needs of staff and to designate some entity to organize regular training events that include not only VLA and Law Line, but also SRLC, VP&A and the private bar.

The Report indicates that there has been some collaboration among providers to enable Law Line to apply for additional funding. While the Corporation applauds such cooperation, the Report does not demonstrate that there is any collaborative effort to approach funding for all providers on a statewide systematic basis. The role the IOLTA program is unclear and it is also unclear if there is any collective effort to preserve or expand funding in the state. All the providers may want to consider developing a plan that would contemplate a coordinated approach to funding from the state, the bar, private contributors and federal sources.

The strength of Vermont's plan is that it clearly shows that the state has made significant changes since 1995 to improve the delivery system. The coordination between Law Line and VLA in the delivery network area and in technology has enhanced services for clients. The coordination and cooperation of those legal services programs is exemplary. These efforts would be enhanced by the presence of the other key stakeholders in the planning process. The planning process would also be strengthened if there were specific goals for the future, a designation of leaders charged with implementing the goals and a timetable to reach them. Please report back to LSC on October 1, 1999 to update the Corporation on what has been accomplished since the last report.