December 3, 1998

Mr. Elliott Hicks, President
Mr. Thomas Tinder, Executive Director
West Virginia State Bar Association
Legal Services Symposium
2006 Kanawha Blvd. East
Charleston, WV 25311

Mr. James Martin
West Virginia Legal Services Plan
922 Quarrier Street, Suite 550
Charleston, WV 25301

Ms. Adrienne Worthy
Legal Aid Society of Charleston
922 Quarrier Street, Fourth Floor
Charleston, WV 25301

Mr. Robert Baker
Appalachian Research and Defense Fund
922 Quarrier Street, Suite 500
Charleston, WV 25301

Re: West Virginia Legal Services Planning Report

Dear West Virginia State Legal Services Planners:

       Thank for your timely submission of the West Virginia LSC State Planning report. Staff of the Legal Services Corporation's Office of Program Operations (OPO) have reviewed and discussed your plan. We have determined that the plan is substantially responsive to the state planning request articulated in Program Letter 98-1, as further clarified in Program Letter 98-6. We congratulate the West Virginia state planners on your efforts to broaden the base of persons and institutions invested in the efforts to meet the civil equal justice needs of low-income West Virginians.

       While the plan provides a general sense of where the LSC-funded programs are headed in West Virginia, we have identified a number of concerns regarding the degree to which the planing report outlines a future that will result in the construction of a comprehensive, integrated statewide civil legal services delivery system. Further, while we note that there have been some efforts to structurally reconfigure the delivery system in recent years, and that these are continuing with the proposed merger of the Legal Aid Society of Charleston and the Appalachian Research and Defense Fund, the plan begs the question of whether a fully unified LSC-funded delivery system would best further the overall state planning objectives outlined in the LSC Program Letters. These and other areas of concern outlined below suggest the need for further and expanded state planning in the coming months. As you continue with these efforts, we hope the Symposium and its members will look to LSC as a partner in the state planning process.

       The following represent our specific observations of the strengths and weaknesses of the West Virginia State Plan, as well as the context for our comments:

1. First, with the publication of Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6, we asked that your state undertake a process of planning designed to achieve a comprehensive integrated statewide civil legal services delivery system. We identified a non-exclusive list of important planning areas and provided some additional considerations that we hoped would guide civil equal justice delivery planners in your state.
   
   This being a planning exercise, we think it important to return to certain benchmarks for effective planning to provide context for the balance of the thoughts set forth in this letter. First, planning is a process designed to move an institution or set of institutions to a set of specifically articulated goals. Effective planning is broad based, and includes a wide range of persons and institutions with a stake in the achievement of these goals. A common set of values and principles is key to ensuring consistency of vision and purpose both in the planning process and throughout the implementation phases.
   
   Effective planning is a staged process that requires a longitudinal commitment of time and resources. Our call for renewed state planning in the Program Letters was intended to stimulate a process of continual growth and change; one that is based on certain identified core values, and which promotes the development of a civil equal justice delivery system that works for all low-income residents of each state. Planning, implementation, review/assessment and retooling are key components of any effective planning process. In the end, each plan should define the who's, what's, how's and when's of the next steps of the process.
   
   LSC outlined its values and objectives in the State Planning Considerations attached to Program Letter 98-6. Expanding on the primary objective of a statewide, integrated civil legal services delivery system, we explained that such systems "are responsive to the most compelling needs of eligible clients, ensure the highest and most strategic use of all available resources, and maximize the opportunity for clients throughout the state to receive timely, effective and appropriate services." (Emphasis in original) From LSC's perspective, "no eligible client [should be] left out of the justice system or receive less effective assistance because of geography or other factors." While LSC identified areas for planning focus in 98-1 and 98-6, we specifically observed that the overriding objective is the development of a comprehensive, integrated service delivery system. We further observed that planning efforts within the enumerated areas are more of a means to the larger objective as opposed to being ends to be achieved of themselves.
   
   Reviewing the West Virginia Plan, we find that there are really no benchmarks to guide the Symposium and its members in the planning and implementation process. We believe the Symposium would benefit from an articulation of the values that drive both the process and the development of specific intended outcomes. Especially important is the need for an articulated vision of a comprehensive, integrated statewide service delivery system that meets the needs of low-income West Virginians. It would be our hope that such a vision would answer the following questions: What values are important to and guide the state planning process? What specifically are the West Virginia State Planners trying to achieve; i.e., what should an effective civil equal justice delivery system look like from a client perspective? How do the state planners contemplate getting from here to there? And what accountability mechanisms will be established to ensure consistency of future actions with the overarching vision and values?
   
   
2. We were unable to determine the precise nature of the Symposium's charter. Among the many questions that we had were: From where does the Symposium's authority flow? To whom or what is it accountable? Is the Symposium a permanent planning and oversight body? Should it be? How do the West Virginia State Planners ensure that the broadest range of stakeholders is represented in the state planning process on an ongoing basis? What is the relationship between the Symposium and Supreme Court's Commission on the future of the Judiciary, especially its Access to Justice Task Force? How will the activities of these bodies be coordinated?
   
   
3. The Plan is weak in its discussion of an integrated statewide delivery network. Each program's individual performance capacity in each of the areas of focus is chronicled without reference to the larger operation of a statewide civil legal services delivery system as a whole. We are left with the firm impression that the nature, availability, quality and effectiveness of the services received by clients is almost exclusively a function of the identity and capacity of the program from which it receives those services. Few areas of inter-program coordination are identified, and the proposed short- and long-term actions suggest that implementation will continue on a program-by-program basis. Is this a fair reflection of the reality? If so, it is a significant area of concern to LSC, and we believe should be addressed by the Symposium in its continuing deliberations.
   
   
4. Consistent with the foregoing observations, we found the plan to be vague and non-committal regarding efforts to address issues of system integration, enhanced access, inter-program coordination or the development of new intake, advice or referral systems. For example, the Planning Report indicates that each program operates its own clinics and develops its own self-help materials without regard to the efforts of other programs. In some programs, self-help materials on the same subject are developed in each office. These conditions enhance the likelihood of duplication of effort, both between and within programs. We do not believe it sufficient to commit to "continue [working] together to coordinate and develop the maximum access possible for citizens of West Virginia within the limits of staff and fiscal resources," as was discussed in the context of the discussion of client intake, advice and referral. This and other similar statements beg the question of where West Virginia is committed to go, and how it will get there. What is needed, we believe, are concrete, objectively measurable action steps that will help the delivery system move to a fully integrated system within key areas of planning focus. Similarly, we believe it is important to establish timelines, assign individual and organizational responsibilities for specific tasks, and develop meaningful review and accountability systems if the plan is to be more than a snapshot in time accompanied by wishful thinking.
   
   
5. Similar concerns attach to the discussion of technology. We were unable to identify a unified vision or approach to the integration of technology in the West Virginia civil legal services delivery system. Each of the programs has established its own hardware and software platforms. While there is some suggestion that the programs "are discussing collaborating to use a computer for hotline intake, information and advice," the plan sets no expectations of such a system, no evaluation of the resources necessary to accomplish this objective, and no time line by which such efforts should be completed. Further, the plan begs for additional intensive consideration of the degree to which a common approach to technological development and innovation can enhance the ability of clients today and tomorrow to become more knowledgeable of their legal rights and exercise their legal prerogatives without the assistance of an attorney. Some states have developed detailed plans for the maximum integration of technological capacity into their overall civil equal justice delivery systems (including centralized intake, advice and referral systems, public access to self-help materials and web-based PowerPoint do-it-yourself presentations, internal and external resource sharing, etc.). These are readily available and can help inform the future deliberations of the West Virginia state planners.
   
   
6. While the Symposium was understandably focused on the activities of the LSC programs in preparing its response to the Program Letters, we feel it important to observe that an integrated system includes all civil equal justice partners. Hence we believe that future reports might more thoroughly discuss the potential capabilities and opportunities to integrate the state's non-LSC providers (e.g., the Mountain State Justice Project, court-based domestic violence pro bono projects, the clinical law program at West Virginia University College of Law, the Appalachian Center for Law & Public Service, and a range of other special purpose civil legal assistance and human services providers) into the overall civil legal services delivery system.
   
   
7. The plan references recent and historical efforts on the part of the LSC-funded programs to coordinate activities in the area of private attorney involvement. Specific objectives, assignment of responsibilities, and establishment of timelines can help inform state planners on progress toward the timely and effective integration of the private bar as a full partner in the effort to meet the civil equal justice needs of low-income West Virginians.
   
   
8. Aside from committing to continue efforts to secure a state appropriation, the plan is weak in the area of resource development. There is no discussion of a coordinated statewide civil legal services resource development strategy. There was a promising inter-program collaboration in the recent VAWA application round. Even in the area of state funding, however, we were left with a number of unanswered questions. Whether this is a function of the limits of the report or the lack of specific detail agreed upon by the state planners is unclear. In the hope of stimulating further discussions, we offer the following as a non-exclusive list of considerations that the state planners may wish to visit: Whether it is appropriate to identify a specific person or institution to coordinate the state funding effort. Whether a formal structure might help, and if so, what that structure might look like. Whether it is important to generate grass roots support as a step toward generating political support for increased funding, and if so how such support can be developed. Whether it makes sense to hire staff, lobbyists, etc., and if so from where the funding for such commitments might come. What should be the role of the Bar? The legal services community? IOLTA? Etc.
   
   
9. The plan's discussion of configuration acknowledges the pending merger of APPALRED and LASC, as well as the recent merger of the LSC component of NCWVLAS with the West Virginian Legal Services Plan. As a result, there will be two LSC-funded programs serving the state of West Virginia, each with offices in the same building in Charleston. The plan is silent on the issue of whether further consolidation into a single statewide program would further the objectives articulated in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. Considering the degree to which the LSC-funded programs have operated autonomously in the past in most of the areas of planning focus, LSC staff have concerns that failure to take the next step and consolidate the operations of the remaining two programs will result in a substantial missed opportunity to establish the most effective, integrated statewide civil legal services delivery system.

       Overall, we are impressed with the degree of the West Virginia equal justice community's commitment to an effective civil legal services delivery system. We recognize the distinct challenges that you face in meeting the civil legal needs of a substantial and geographically isolated population of low-income West Virginians, and want to express our appreciation for the efforts of the state planners and delivery partners to respond to these needs.

       To assist in future consideration of issues unique to the West Virginia LSC grantees, we ask that the Symposium file a supplemental planning report on or before October 1, 1999. In this supplemental report we encourage the Symposium to articulate a concrete vision and corresponding values that will guide future state planning activities. In addition, we encourage the assignment of tasks, establishment of timelines, and processes for review of progress in achieving the goals and objectives outlined in the plan. Finally, we will expect a thoughtful discussion of consolidation of the two remaining LSC-funded programs. Should it be determined that such action is not indicated, we will expect an explanation of why consolidation will not further the objective of creating a comprehensive, integrated statewide civil legal services delivery system that works for all low-income West Virginians.

       We at the Corporation offer our assistance to the state planning community, and look forward to working in partnership with the Symposium and others associated with the West Virginia civil equal justice community.