August 24, 2000

The Honorable T.W. Small, Chair
Access to Justice Board
2101 Fourth Avenue, 4^th Floor
Seattle, WA 98121-2330

Dear Judge Small:

           Thank you very much for the revised State Plan for Washington State. It was a real pleasure to meet you and many of the other planning participants at the celebration dinner in Seattle last September. We greatly appreciate the hard work, careful thought, and dedication to equal justice that is obvious not only throughout the written document but that we observed in action during our visit to the Northwest Justice Project and in conversations with many other participants in your planning effort. We also want to thank members of your group including Ada Shen Jaffe, Jim Bamberger, Barbara Clark, Joan Fairbanks, Joan Kleinburg, Pat McIntyre, and others who have so generously shared their experience and knowledge with planners all over the country. They have made important contributions to the pursuit of equal justice not only in Washington but across the nation as well. We have also shared your report and the statement of hallmarks, which continues to guide your efforts, with many planners from other states.

           At the outset, we note with appreciation that Washington has actively engaged in formal planning work since 1995. We applaud the planners for being leaders in the effort to view planning as a series of activities and goals, subject to refinement and amendment as circumstances change and new information becomes available, rather than as a one-time event.

           One of the most important hallmarks of excellence in any endeavor is constant review and evaluation in order to improve. The latest report demonstrates that indicator since it evaluates past efforts, notes strengths and weaknesses, and then moves forward to build on the strengths and to improve observed weaknesses.

           In order to place our comments on the Washington 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 LSC and non-LSC funded programs in the state, such as the Columbia Legal Services, 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. However, it appears that work on a revised plan was in part motivated by planners’ conclusion that while the overall state structure is sound, significant challenges remain with local and regional coordination of client services and to strategic cooperation among providers. The revised plan attempts to address this problem by putting greater emphasis on the need for planning and coordination at the regional and local level.

           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 July 1995, Washington’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. Washington has 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.

           The equal justice partners have reached beyond the legal community to the wider society to include those individuals who can make substantial contributions to this important effort. An example of this outreach is the ATJ Board’s establishment of a workgroup to develop a state plan for public legal education in partnership with the Washington State Bar Association, the attorney general’s office, and the governor. This effort led to the creation of the new statewide Council on Public Legal Education, whose members include representatives from the legal, education, and media communities. Its successes include the development of a core curriculum for the judiciary on access to justice issues.

           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 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. In addition other partners such as the bar and judiciary likewise accept responsibility for certain tasks such as resource development and reinvigoration of pro bono projects. The Washington plan discusses previous goals and objectives, reviews their status, and then moves its vision forward by acknowledging, where appropriate, their successful completion, and establishing new goals and objectives. Time lines and responsibility are assigned for all tasks.

           Formal deadlines with assigned accountability appear to have been useful tools to move activities forward since they helped to create common expectations about completion and highlighted agreed upon goals. The discrete accomplishments undoubtedly helped to generate a sense of achievement that inspired additional movement and deepened 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.

           Broad vision is reflected throughout the 1995 plan and continues to inform current and future efforts. Examples can be found in the mission statement, the equal justice values, and in the specific activities for each substantive element of the plan. Most impressive is the consistent linking to and measuring of tasks and activities against mission and values.

           Advocates frequently give lip service to the importance of "being client centered." Washington’s accomplishments based on the 1995 foundation demonstrate what can be achieved when planners truly act from a client centered rather than an institutional centered perspective. The consolidation of the three LSC funded programs and the creation of Columbia Legal Services, funded with non-LSC resources to ensure that low income Washingtonians 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, reflect this client commitment. We agree with the report’s assessment that putting clients before institutional and "turf" interests is a key factor in making considerable progress toward the vision of equal justice.

           6. LSC requirements. A comprehensive plan will fully respond to all of the issues identified in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. The Washington 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.

           Recognizing the essential rural nature of Washington State, a primary focus of the delivery system as envisioned in the 1995 Hallmarks, and articulated again in the revised report is access to the civil justice system for the low income population. Intake systems have been designed to "timely and effectively connect clients with civil equal justice network resources that can deliver civil legal assistance in a manner most responsive to the degree and intensity of the client’s legal need."

           The primary point of contact to the system is through the Northwest Justice Project’s Coordinated Legal Education, Advice and Referral system (CLEAR) funded by LSC. As its name implies, CLEAR provides advice, brief services, to low income callers who call its toll-free number. CLEAR is available in 38 of 39 counties in Washington, and on a limited basis in King County, the state’s largest, which includes Seattle and its greater metropolitan area. Assisted referrals to statewide and local providers are given to those who need extended services.

           The plan candidly recognizes both the strengths and weaknesses of this approach. Planners will continue to evaluate and improve the system as technology and resources allow. The most frustrating weakness noted is the inability to secure extended representation for all those who need it due to insufficient provider resources across the state. Strengths include efficient deployment of scarce resources that allows services for clients to be maximized, and specialized, trained staff who provide high quality services. While it is apparent that CLEAR provides very competent services to those who are able to access the system, there remains a need to expand full access to King County. In addition, NJP has identified barriers experienced by certain client populations in fully utilizing CLEAR as a primary source of service and is developing strategies for overcoming those barriers. It is also important to note the planners acknowledgement that CLEAR should not be viewed as an adequate substitute for full representation in high priority cases.

           The Northwest Justice Project and its equal justice partners are to be congratulated on its CLEAR intake system. Those of us who have observed its work are impressed by its organization, utilization of technology, substantive support, and most of all by its highly motivated, knowledgeable and caring staff. We are most appreciative of NJP’s welcome to planners from around the nation who request to visit the CLEAR project and staff’s willingness to candidly share their experiences with other legal service providers.

           Since 1995, planners have recognized technology as an important tool to achieving their equal justice vision for Washington as well as acknowledging its potential as a barrier for low-income people to access services. The Access to Justice Board’s Communications and Technology Committee was established and charged with the task of developing a statewide technology plan based on articulated goals and objectives. These include: coordinate access to Justice-related technology efforts within the state; facilitate a statewide network of providers; facilitate development of public access to the legal system; facilitate ability to share urban resources with rural areas; facilitate the dissemination of legal information and resources; and ensure effective monitoring of technology as a barrier to access and equal justice. The committee works to "consciously coordinate" its efforts with all components of the civil justice system, particularly with the administrative offices of the courts.

           Accomplishments since 1995 include: compatible platforms for case management systems that will allow comparable data to be collected for analytical and evaluative purposes; emerging hardware and software standards among all components of the civil equal justice community which support case reporting, intake, timekeeping and system integration; networked computers in all provider offices with more than five staff members; the capacity to assure coordination of technology efforts throughout the delivery system and to plan for improvements; effective computer and software technology for all case handling staff of NJP, CLS, pro bono and specialty legal services providers; and systems for technology training and support. Additional accomplishments are: creation of linked web sites that provide an array of community legal education materials, self-help materials and forms, and instructions for accessing a provider.

           Future plans include: recruitment of management information systems professionals from law firms and legal organizations to provide an array of pro bono assistance to the equal justice partners; the development of model technology policies dealing with issues such as confidentiality and privacy; development and scheduling of training modules to ensure technology competence; development of online interactive forms to expand the capacity of low income people to navigate the legal system when they need assistance in routine matters. The ComTech Committee also plans to work toward the development of a pilot project that would use videoconferencing technology to bring pro bono assistance to the rural areas of the state.

           Responsibility for the work under this topic is assigned to three committees of the Access to Justice Board: Education, Systems Impediments, Status Impediments and the Northwest Justice Project. As described above, committee members come from a wide variety of appropriate backgrounds that has allowed a multi-disciplined approach to increased access.

           It is important to note that efforts made by the court system, legal service providers, and the bar have made Washington a leader among the states in improving access to its courts. The use of facilitators, employed by the courts to assist pro se family law litigants, appears to be a most helpful step in increasing access. Absent sufficient lawyers to represent low-income clients, court facilitators can help to improve fairness in the justice system by assisting pro se litigants in a variety of ways including providing technical and logistical help. Clarifying the scope of their authority and responsibilities is a most useful step in institutionalizing the facilitator program. Currently, the facilitator program is limited to family law. The planners may want to consider expanding the assistance to other areas of substantive law such as housing.

           The development of a core curriculum for the judiciary on access to justice, including dealing with pro se litigants, is an important ingredient in making the Washington courts more hospitable to pro se litigants. Also raising key access questions by bar committees and others of judicial candidates during the screening process helps to sensitize judges to the importance of access.

           The work of the Public Legal Education Work Group resulted in the establishment of a Public Legal Education Council, staffed and supported by the Washington State Bar to oversee the development of a statewide effort for public legal education. Attention will continue to be paid to not duplicating efforts in the development and distribution of information. One important avenue of distribution will be through NJP’s website. Planners will continue to create additional opportunities for clients to learn about their legal rights and responsibilities and to prevent or resolve legal problems they face.

           Unique to the Washington plan is the work of the Systems Impediments Committee and of the Status Impediments Committee. The systems committee is charged with "identifying judicial, legislative and administrative system impediments to access to justice and recommending and implementing appropriate changes." The status committee is charged with "identifying and removing impediments to the justice system for people whose status (e.g., physical or mental limitations, disability, race ethnicity, language, cultural or other differences, remoteness or physical isolation, etc.) makes meaningful access to the system more difficult." Current activities include the development of a pro se handbook, revision of notices to better explain the administrative hearing processes, and further development of the court facilitator concept described above.

           We congratulate the Washington planners on their achievements in increasing access to the civil justice system and encourage them to continue their work in this important area of state planning.

           The report notes a history of close cooperation among the Washington legal services providers in achieving good outcomes for their clients prior to the 1995 planning work. The objective was to build on what the planners viewed as a solid foundation of cooperation among the staffed programs and to bring additional partners into the effort. Although the plan acknowledges some gaps in its coordination of legal work due to the increase in the number of participants and insufficient resources, it nevertheless demonstrates a high degree of coordination. These indicators include:

To enhance the coordination effort even further, planners may want to consider establishing a mechanism to evaluate the effectiveness of advocacy coordination and its impact on client needs.

           Ensuring that advocates have the training needed to enable them to provide high quality service to clients is a priority for Washington planners. Columbia Legal Service serves as the lead training vehicle for the equal justice partners. Training needs assessments are conducted among all the equal justice partners, including the specialty programs. Substantive and skills training is offered on a regular schedule. Given the large number of professional providers of continuing legal education in Washington, planners may wish to consider shifting some of the training responsibility to them thereby freeing time for Columbia Legal Services to provide more direct representation to clients.

           The Washington Bar and legal services providers have a long history of collaboration and partnership in the quest for equal justice. Private attorneys are offered a wide array of opportunities to make a contribution to the effort from providing advice through the CLEAR project to co-counseling with legal services providers in complex litigation. In 1998 Washington planners report that more than 37,000 clients received some type of service from volunteer attorney programs. The organized bar and private attorneys are indispensable partners in all aspects of the equal justice efforts, particularly in securing sustainable funding as discussed below.

           Washington is to be applauded on its achievements in involving the private bar in its mission to achieve equal justice. The planners continue 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. As noteworthy as the 37,000 clients served by volunteer attorneys is, the planners are concerned that this level of service has not appreciably increased recently. Given the current national trend of decreased pro bono services from private attorneys, the planners face considerable challenges in expanding Washington’s level of pro bono services. These challenges highlight the ongoing need for all partners to work closely with the Volunteer Lawyer Programs.

           Washington is to be congratulated on its resource development past results and new initiatives and for making sustained funding the highest resource development priority, including building an endowment for the LAW Fund. The importance of resource development cannot be overstated since most of the weaknesses noted by planners, such as the need for enhanced coordination of legal work and more training, can only be cured by increased resources. Equally impressive is the commitment to minimize the natural competition among the partners for scarce resources in favor of promoting "complementary rather than competitive initiatives, and to ensure that, in the end, the system generates more resources in the aggregate than it would if programs continued to operate independently."

           Planners recognize the formidable challenges to achieving this commitment and the continued competition for funds among segments of the delivery network. Planners also appear to recognize that "turf" and individualized institutional interests are most easily set aside during times of crisis and response. Continued progress will require active engagement and renewed commitment to the vision during times of relative stability and potential expansion of resources. LSC and planners from other states will watch with heightened interest to see whether the ATJ Board is able to implement expectations and protocols to ensure a principled approach to local and statewide resource development efforts that fulfills the expectations of the resource development protocol and promotes a community of invested stakeholders. We wish you much success in achieving your goal of a $10,000,000 "biennial increase in state funding."

           As noted above, program configuration was given serious and careful review in 1995 and resulted in the consolidation of the LSC funded programs and the creation of Columbia Legal Services with non-LSC funding. The planners determined that this configuration allowed LSC resources to be maximized for client services and provided the low income residents of Washington access to all potential remedies and legal tools as well as unrestricted service based on substantive subject matter.

           Based on the planners’ vision and fundamental values, configuration continues to be reviewed. Whether it remains as it is or is changed in the future, will be decided by the planners’ determination of the maximization of resources for clients’ benefit. Currently under review is the configuration of the private attorney involvement projects. This approach again demonstrates that clients, rather than institutions, come first.

           Based on the history of successful planning and the commitment to planning in Washington, we know that this important work will continue. We ask that Washington provide us with any updated reports and keep us informed about their experiences and any new learnings that may come from those efforts and experiences.

           Again, we thank you and all of those involved for their hard work in helping to make equal justice in Washington more than merely a laudatory goal. We also thank you for the example you set for all of us who care about equal justice. Our continued best wishes for great success in all of your efforts.