Building State Justice 

Communities 

America’s Partner for Equal Justice

A State Planning Report from the 

Legal Services Corporation 

March 2001 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary.............................................................................i 

I. Introduction .................................................................................... 1 

II. Planning In Selected States........................................................... 4 

California .......................................................................................... 7 

Colorado.......................................................................................... 11 

Florida............................................................................................. 15 

Illinois.............................................................................................. 19 

Indiana............................................................................................. 23 

Maine............................................................................................... 28 

Maryland ......................................................................................... 31 

Minnesota ........................................................................................ 34 

Missouri........................................................................................... 38 

New Hampshire ............................................................................... 41 

New Jersey....................................................................................... 44 

Ohio ................................................................................................. 48 

Oregon............................................................................................. 53 

Pennsylvania ................................................................................... 56 

South Carolina ................................................................................ 60 

Utah ................................................................................................. 63 

Washington...................................................................................... 66 

West Virginia................................................................................... 71 

III. Lessons From Successful State Planning................................. 73 

A. Broad Lessons ........................................................................ 73 

B. Models and Initiatives ............................................................ 76 

For more information, please contact: 

Robert Gross 

Senior Program Counsel for State Planning 

(202) 336-8856; grossr@lsc.gov

With Production Assistance from: 

Lou Castro 
 -iExecutive Summary 

 Building State Justice Communities examines state planning in 18 states. It 

reports on changes in legal services delivery that each state has made since the Legal 

Services Corporation issued its call for state planning six years ago, with its first Program 

Letter on the subject. Many of these changes involved retooling of existing systems. All 

improved access to justice for low-income people, strengthened the quality of the legal 

services delivered by programs and forged new and deeper bonds among stakeholder 

partners in each state’s civil justice community. Almost none were easy; almost none 

were risk-free. 

 They are presented here as examples of how some states responded to LSC’s call 

to recipients and others in the civil justice community to expand their vision from “what’s 

best for the clients in my service area” to “what’s best for clients throughout the state.” 

Specifically, Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 as well as the more recent 2000-7 challenged 

grantees to 

• Investigate the strengths and weaknesses of and resources available to individual 

programs as well as the overall strengths and weaknesses of and resources available 

to the state’s legal services “system;” 

• Assess the needs of the communities served by the programs and the overall 

“system;” 

• Anticipate changes and trends that will most likely affect civil legal services 

programs in coming years; and 

• Devise a plan of action, on a statewide basis, to address the identified needs of lowincome persons in the present while ensuring that the civil legal needs of future 

generations of low-income persons can be efficiently and effectively addressed. 

 Recognizing that each state has individual challenges and opportunities, history 

and culture, this report highlights similarities of experience in states that made critical 

advances in developing a vibrant civil justice community. These 18 states are engaged in 

a process. They realize that planning is not finished with the production of a State Plan. 

Their task is to develop, pursue and continually refine strategies for building and 

maintaining comprehensive, integrated, statewide civil legal justice delivery systems. 

They undertake this responsibility in collaboration with others, understanding that LSC 

recipients do not act alone just as client needs are often more complex than a simple legal 

issue. Their successes include: 

• Obtaining or significantly expanding state funding for legal services; 

• Establishing systems for coordinating advocacy and training among programs; 

• Making the court system more responsive and accessible to low-income and pro se 

litigants; 
 -ii- 

• Reconfiguring programs within a state to strengthen coordination, access and 

services; 

• Establishing structures to more creatively involve the private bar in the delivery of 

civil legal assistance; 

• Creating and executing a statewide technology plan to improve access and enhance 

delivery; 

• Developing a statewide coordinated intake system; and 

• Expanding the number of stakeholders within a state committed to the concept of 

equal justice. 

 These 18 states are by no means the only ones that have made progress. Others 

could have been included as well. The states in this report were selected because, while 

they represent a range of local circumstances, resources and background, each has a 

broad vision for justice and the passion and commitment needed to achieve it. They have 

pursued innovative strategies at the risk of failure and acknowledged that their civil legal 

delivery systems need both regular review and adjustment, if not significant change. 

Building State Justice Communities contains some broad lessons learned from their 

experience: 

• There is no single model for building a state justice community. 

• People within a state must feel the need to and some urgency for changing the legal 

services delivery system. 

• Building and maintaining a state justice community is an ongoing process. 

• A firm grounding in shared values and a shared vision will increase the likelihood of 

success. 

• Planning initiatives must be based upon a structured and principled determination of 

the needs of client communities. 

• Strong leadership is required for positive change. 

• Planning and implementation require staffing and support. 

• Involving an experienced planning consultant in the initial phases of launching a 

process and developing a plan can be valuable, particularly where difficult issues 

involving institutional relationships are present. 

• Building a state justice community is demanding and involves real cost. 

• If a state is going to successfully create a state justice community, someone has to be 

responsible for it. 

• The creation of state justice communities will be successful only if there is 

encouragement and legitimization of constructive dissatisfaction. 

• State planning will fail unless there is acceptance of and encouragement for the risks 

inherent in experimentation and innovation. 

• The successful state planning initiative requires open communication. 

• A state planning initiative takes time, a commitment to forego issues of turf and 

personal interests and a supportive reward system. 

• Significant investments in state justice communities will be far outweighed by the 

results--increased access and expanded services for low-income people and the 

intangible benefit of realizing the ideal of equal justice for all. 
 -1- 

Organizations are like elephants -- slow to change 

 James A. Belasco

I. Introduction 

 Over the last ten years, many civil legal services leaders, stakeholders, program 

directors and managers throughout the United States began to wonder whether the civil 

legal services delivery structure that had been in place for a quarter of a century was 

positioned to meets its many future challenges. Funding was declining or stagnant, many 

people in leadership positions were weary after years of fighting for survival, demand for 

the delivery of quality legal services was increasing, staff were questioning their work 

environments and their personal goals, technology was fundamentally changing the 

practice of law, and society was growing increasingly inhospitable to the needs of poor 

people. The legal services delivery system, created in another time and place, didn't seem 

to be working in the ways that we--stakeholders, staff, clients--expected it to work. And 

although we were proud of our collective past, many of us had serious doubts as to 

whether the delivery system that we had created, and that had performed well for us and 

for our clients for the past twenty years, was the most effective and efficient delivery 

system for the difficult and challenging times ahead. 

Programs and program directors responded to these concerns in different ways. 

Some pursued strategic planning initiatives. Others engaged in aggressive resource 

development, pursued alternative methods of providing legal services to clients, 

reconfigured their organizations, or, in some instances, took their skills and talents 

elsewhere. And, unfortunately, too many of us did nothing. 

In 1995 and again in 1998, the Legal Services Corporation recognized that legal 

services programs were going to have to change the method and manner in which they 

conducted their business if they were going to remain viable and responsive to the needs 

of low income persons. Moreover, LSC wanted to encourage all programs to pursue 

some semblance of planning. LSC, therefore, required its grantees to begin to examine, 

on a statewide level, how all grantees in a particular state would serve in the present, and 

plan to serve in the future, the civil legal needs of low-income persons. In 1995, LSC's 

state planning initiative was primarily focused on how grantees would work together to 

address funding shortfalls and to respond to the 1995-96 restrictions. In 1998, LSC 

Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 broadened the scope of the state planning initiative, 

asking grantees to determine how they could expand services and ensure that all clients 

received similar levels of assistance regardless of their location in the state or other 

factors such as language, disability or political popularity. 

In essence, these two Program Letters asked grantees to expand their horizons 

from “what's best for the clients in my service area” to “what’s best for clients 

throughout the state.” Programs were requested to develop plans to coordinate and 

integrate their work in seven important areas--enhancing client access and efficiency in 

delivering high quality legal assistance; using technology to expand access and enhance 
 -2- 

services; promoting client self-help and preventive legal education and advice; 

coordinating legal work and training; collaborating with the private bar; expanding 

resources to support legal services; and designing a system configuration that enhances 

client services, reduces barriers and operates efficiently and effectively. LSC's grantees 

were asked to: 

• Investigate the strengths and weaknesses of and resources available to individual 

programs as well as the overall strengths and weaknesses of and resources available 

to the state’s legal services “system;” 

• Assess the needs of the communities served by the programs and the overall 

“system;” 

• Anticipate changes and trends that will most likely affect civil legal services 

programs in coming years; and 

• Devise a plan of action, on a statewide basis, to address the identified needs of low 

income persons in the present while ensuring that the civil legal needs of future 

generations of low-income persons can be efficiently and effectively addressed. 

A handful of states answered LSC's call to action. They consolidated programs to 

increase efficiency and deploy resources more effectively; they took advantage of 

technology advances to improve intake systems; they expanded the network of 

stakeholders to increase the support and guidance available to service providers. Their 

successes inspired LSC and other national organizations to a deeper involvement in state 

planning and higher expectations for all states. 

In January 2000, the LSC Board of Directors approved LSC’s 5-year Strategic 

Direction Plan. This document commits LSC to dramatically expand the impact of legal 

services programs throughout the nation by improving access to legal services among 

eligible persons while enhancing the quality of the services delivered. The Plan 

highlights LSC’s State Planning Initiative as the primary strategy for achieving these 

goals. In December 2000, LSC issued its third program letter on state planning. Program 

Letter 2000-7 renewed LSC's challenge to its grantees to actively engage in assessing 

their delivery practices and policies and the allocation of their legal services dollars. 

Program Letter 2000-7 makes clear that the state planning initiative will continue to be 

LSC's highest priority. 

What does LSC mean when it talks about state planning? It has often been 

pointed out that the term state planning does not capture the full scope of the activities 

that are included in the process as it is playing out across the country. Developing a plan 

is only the beginning of an ongoing effort that includes implementation of the plan's 

initiatives, continuous outreach to new partners, regular assessment of progress toward 

goals, and modifications of the plan as circumstances change. 

Because these elements are all included in the concept of strategic planning, as it 

is currently understood in management practice, one advantage of the term state planning 

is that it emphasizes that what is involved is strategic planning for state equal justice 

communities. 
 -3- 

Developing structures and processes for building and maintaining 

comprehensive, integrated, statewide civil legal assistance delivery systems may define 

the process more accurately but it is certainly a mouthful. Building state justice 

communities captures the concepts of partnership and shared responsibility that are 

involved, but may under-emphasize the ultimate goal to which the building of the 

community is directed--the creation and maintenance of a system capable of providing 

equal justice for low-income people. In the end, actions do speak louder than words. It 

doesn't really matter if we talk about state planning or state justice communities or worldclass delivery systems or the creation of comprehensive, integrated and coordinated legal 

services delivery systems. It just matters that we do it. In this Report, however, the term 

state planning should be understood in its broadest sense, as inclusive of all these 

concepts and various structures, processes, and individual initiatives described in the 

following sections. 

One final thought. Although state planning is LSC's highest priority and we have 

put considerable resources into it over the last three years, LSC did not embark upon this 

journey alone. As we proceeded with state planning activities, our national partners also 

introduced projects targeted to the same goals--the creation in every state of a “state 

justice community” collaborating on the creation and maintenance of a civil legal 

assistance system fully responsive to the needs of low-income people. Among these 

initiatives we would like to specifically recognize are the joint ABA-NLADA SPAN 

(State Planning Assistance Network) project, and the joint NLADA-CLASP Project for 

the Future of Equal Justice. On the state level, IOLTA--based funders including but not 

limited to IOLTA programs in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia, New York, 

New Jersey and Michigan--have also been a key force in state planning. 

This Report describes progress that the legal services community has made in the 

six years since LSC issued its first Program Letter on the subject. It identifies some 

lessons gleaned from these achievements, describes the growth in selected states toward 

building a justice community capable of responding to the full range of civil legal needs 

of low-income people (Part II), and identifies some lessons that have emerged from 

successful or promising planning processes, as well as the particular structures and 

strategies that these states have employed (Part III). 

We acknowledge the hard work of building state justice communities and salute 

all those who have rolled up their sleeves to take part in this exciting effort. We believe 

this report demonstrates there is a big payoff for clients--which, after all, is what it is all 

about. 
 -4- 

II. Planning In Selected States 

Over the past six years, many states have developed a range of initiatives aimed at 

expanding access and improving services to clients. Their achievements, like the 

planning processes they have followed, have varied according to local circumstances, 

challenges, and opportunities. As expected, one size truly does not fit all. However, 

there have been important similarities in terms of successes. These include: 

• Obtaining or significantly expanding state funding for legal services; 

• Establishing systems for coordinating advocacy and training among programs; 

• Making the court system more responsive and accessible to low-income and pro se 

litigants; 

• Reconfiguring programs within a state to strengthen coordination, access, and 

services; 

• Establishing structures to more creatively involve the private bar in the delivery of 

civil legal assistance; 

• Creating and executing a statewide technology plan to improve access and enhance 

delivery; 

• Developing a statewide coordinated intake system; and 

• Expanding the number of stakeholders within a state committed to the concept of 

equal justice. 

This section describes the progress that has taken place in 18 selected states 

toward building state justice communities capable of responding to the civil legal needs 

of their low-income residents. These states are at different stages in the planning process. 

In a few states, a fully developed state justice community is in place and its 

accomplishments are paying off in terms of expanded and improved services to clients. 

Some states have developed key justice community institutions whose significant 

improvements in the structure of civil legal assistance in their state position them to make 

real changes for clients. Some states are still in an early phase: they have developed a 

plan that shows real promise and are just beginning to build the structures and launch the 

initiatives to implement it. 

The states described here are by no means the only ones that have made progress. 

Others could have been included as well. Some states, such as Connecticut, Vermont, and 

Hawaii, made major changes in their delivery systems in 1995 and 1996 and are working 

diligently to realize the full potential of those systems. Others, such as New York, Texas, 

and North Carolina, are engaged in promising efforts to overcome particular challenges 

associated with their size and diversity. Still others--Kentucky, Wisconsin, Louisiana--

while relatively slow to embrace the concept of state planning have, within the past year, 

made significant progress in addressing issues of access and quality in their states. 
 -5- 

What we hope to demonstrate in describing what has been achieved in these 

selected states is both their differences and their similarities, the range of different 

processes, structures, and strategies that have led to their successes, and the basic 

commonalties that underlie them in terms of vision, inclusiveness, leadership and 

commitment. Each of the states described in this section provides insights and lessons 

that can be of benefit to others. 
 -6- 

California 

 

2001

Alameda

Contra Costa

Marin

Napa

San Francisco

San Mateo

Alpine

Inyo

Mono

Amador

Butte

Calaveras

Del Norte

El Dorado

Glenn

Humboldt

Lake

Lassen

Mendocino

Modoc

Nevada

Placer

Plumas

Sacramento

Shasta

Sierra

Siskiyou

Solano

Tehama

Trinity

Yolo

Colusa

Imperial

Madera

Monterey

San Benito

San Joaquin

San Luis Obispo

Santa Barbara

Santa Clara Santa Cruz

Sonoma

Stanislaus

Sutter

Ventura

Yuba

Fresno

Kings

Mariposa

Merced

Tulare

Tuolumne

Kern

Orange

Los Angeles

Riverside

San Bernardino

San Diego

Bay Area Legal Aid

California Indian Legal Services

Legal Services of Northern California

California Rural Legal Assistance

Central California Legal Services

Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance

Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles

Legal Aid Society of Orange County

San Fernando Valley Neighborhood Legal Services

Inland Counties Legal Services

Legal Aid Society of San Diego

1998

Alameda

Alpine

Inyo

Mono

Amador

Butte

Calaveras

El Dorado

Glenn

Lassen

Modoc

Nevada

Placer

Plumas

Sacramento

Shasta

Sierra

Siskiyou

Solano

Tehama

Trinity

Yolo

Colusa

Imperial

Madera

San Benito

San Joaquin

San Luis Obispo

Sonoma

Stanislaus

Sutter

Ventura

Yuba

Contra Costa

Del Norte

Humboldt

Lake

Mendocino

Fresno

Kings

Mariposa

Merced

Tulare

Tuolumne

Kern

Los Angeles

Marin

Napa

Monterey

Santa Cruz

Orange Riverside

San Bernardino

San Diego

San Francisco

San Mateo

Santa Barbara

Santa Clara

LAS of Alameda County

California Indian LS

LS of Northern Calif

California Rural

Contra Costa

Redwood LA

Central California

Greater Bakersfield

Legal Aid Foundtn of LA

North Bay

Central Coast

Orange County

Inland Counties

LAS of San Diego

SF Neighborhood LA

LAS of San Mateo

Channel Counties

Community LS

LAF Of Long Beach

San Fernando Valley LS
 -7- 

 California 

In 1998, California in recognition of the state's size, diversity and complexity 

asked LSC to allow it to first develop regional plans for the creation of "regional" justice 

communities. LSC approved this proposal and in October received regional plans from 

five regions. The current configuration and planning successes in each of these regions 

are described below: 

The Northern Region. Since April 1999, as the result of program mergers, Legal 

Services of Northern California has been the sole LSC-funded provider for the entire 

region, with nine offices covering 23 counties. This region has made significant progress 

in developing a comprehensive, integrated delivery system to provide high-quality 

services to clients throughout northern California. In addition to instituting a programwide Regional Counsel advocate support/case review system, which emphasizes 

collaboration and co-counseling on common issues throughout the whole region, LSNC 

is coordinating and advancing a region-wide advocacy agenda in welfare to work and 

housing and economic development. This region has also developed additional resources 

for region-wide initiatives, such as a $120,000 three-year grant from the Rockefeller 

Foundation to increase the capacities of three community-based organizations. 

The Bay Area. The Bay Area was one of three geographical areas in the United States 

involuntarily reconfigured by LSC. On January 1, 2000 Bay Area Legal Aid (“Bay 

Legal”) became the only LSC-funded program for all seven counties in the San Francisco 

area. The new program, headquartered in Oakland, was the result of a merger between 

San Francisco Neighborhood Legal Assistance (SFNLAF), Community Legal Services in 

San Jose, and Legal Foundation of Contra Costa. In FY 2000, Bay Legal was the 

recipient of a $175,235 LSC Technology Initiative Grant. This grant will enable Bay 

Legal advocates and clients throughout the region to use networked computer terminals 

to easily access forms and information. In its first year, Bay Legal also successfully 

conducted a region-wide “Campaign for Justice” fundraising effort which brought in 

significant funds to all of its offices. 

The Central California Region. Five LSC-funded programs previously served the 

central California region. Today, the region is served by three LSC-funded providers--

California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), Central California Legal Services (CCLS) 

and Greater Bakersfield Legal Assistance (GBLA). These three programs created the 

California Rural Justice Consortium, a planning entity dedicated to the vision of a 

seamless justice system in the region. The Consortium is working on issues throughout 

the region, including the legal problems of migrant sheepherders and health and 

environmental issues affecting rural clients. In order to address the access barriers that 

face rural and isolated communities and enhance communication between and among the 

three programs, the programs have developed highly sophisticated video-conferencing 

capability. The three programs have also agreed to allow and encourage staff members to 

move freely among the three programs in order to respond to clients needs most 

effectively. 
 -8- 

The Los Angeles Basin. As a result of the merger between the Legal Aid Foundation of 

Long Beach and the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, there are now three programs 

serving this region. The programs have hired a Joint Advocacy Coordinator who staffs 

the Joint Advocacy Project to respond to major issues that cut across program lines and 

can be addressed most effectively by advocates from multiple programs. One of the first 

projects jointly pursued by the LA Basin programs will address the diverse languages 

spoken by Asian client population. Under a grant from the Open Society Institute, the 

programs contracted with the Asian Pacific American Legal Center of Southern 

California to provide centralized intake for Asian clients who do not speak English. If 

the clients require extended service or representation, their cases are then matched with 

staff of any of the three programs depending on the specific language capabilities of each 

program. Through this project the LA Basin has found a way to serve Asian clients who 

do not speak English. 

The programs are also poised to make a major investment in technology to 

expand the delivery of legal services. The I-CAN project, funded initially by an LSC 

technology initiative grant, was developed by the Legal Aid Society of Orange County 

(LASOC) to help "pro per” clients fill out Judicial Council forms in family law matters. 

Future plans includes replicating I-CAN throughout the region and locating kiosks at 

libraries that can be used by clients for on-line filings of certain legal matters. 

The Southern Region. The two programs in this region, the Legal Aid Society of San 

Diego and Inland Counties Legal Services, were relatively late in region-wide planning. 

Recently, these two programs have committed to an agenda of specific collaborative 

projects, including joint technology consultations, joint efforts by the two Boards of 

Directors in areas of mutual interest, joint economic development projects, and assistance 

in developing intake systems. Both programs are recipients of "partnership" grants to run 

projects to help Spanish-speaking "pro per" clients in their respective county courthouses. 

Both are also active participants in other statewide initiatives. For example, Inland and 

San Diego have both partnered with CRLA to respond to migrant clients needs in the 

Coachella and Imperial valleys. However, significant integration and planning work 

remains to be done in this area of the state. 

State Activities. LSC’s 1998 call for state planning coincided with an active period 

within California’s justice community. The Access to Justice Commission was created in 

1996 as a coordinating body to seek support for legal services programs and develop 

strategies to address the severe lack of access to justice that had been identified earlier by 

a State Bar-sponsored blue ribbon study group. The membership of the Commission 

consisted of representatives from the bench and bar, including many long-term supporters 

of legal services, academics, and business, labor and religious leaders, as well as 

representatives of the provider community. The first priority of the Commission was 

resource development and the Commission led a sustained effort in the California 

legislature to obtain state funds to support the provision of civil legal services to lowincome persons. In 1999, California appropriated, for the first time, $10 million for legal 

services. The same amount was appropriated in FY 2000. A 50% increase to $15 million 

is expected for 2001. 
 -9- 

The Commission's second priority was the improvement of access to the courts 

for "pro per" litigants. The Commission and planners dedicated 10% of the state 

appropriation for civil legal services to fund innovative projects that partner legal services 

providers and the courts to assist low-income self-represented litigants. 

With support from LSC’s Technology Initiative Grants, LSC-funded programs are 

leaders and active participants in California’s plan to utilize technology to expand access 

and improve legal services delivery. Other promising technology initiatives include the 

CalJustice Technology Project of the Public Interest Clearinghouse, which focuses on 

increasing client access to the judicial system through the development of an artificial 

intelligence-based tool to help advocates quickly spot issues in and strategize about cases. 

The state has also recently adopted statewide priorities for connectivity and 

communication, developed minimum technology standards and created mechanisms to 

share best practices. 

Other statewide non-technology initiatives include: 

• Inter-program and inter-region collaborative projects to develop new substantive 

expertise and new programs to respond to changes in policy and law impacting upon 

low-income clients; 

• A system of advocacy training and litigation support through a network of support 

centers in the areas of health, youth, housing, and economic development; 

• The development of standards and assessment tools tovaluate the support centers. 
 -10- 

Colorado 

Adams

Alamosa

Arapahoe

Archuleta

Baca

Bent

Boulder

Chaffee

Cheyenne

Clear Creek

Conejos

Costilla

Crowley

Custer

Delta

Denver

Dolores

Douglas

Eagle

El Paso

Elbert

Fremont

Garfield

Gilpin

Grand

Gunnison

Hinsdale

Huerfano

Jackson

Jefferson

Kiowa

Kit Carson

La Plata

Lake

Larimer

Las Animas

Lincoln

Logan

Mesa

Mineral

Moffat

Montezuma

Montrose

Morgan

Otero

Ouray

Park

Phillips

Pitkin

Prowers

Pueblo

Rio Blanco

Rio Grande

Routt

Saguache

San Juan

San Miguel

Sedgwick

Summit

Teller

Washington

Weld

Yuma

2001 Colorado Legal Services

Adams

Arapahoe

Boulder

Clear Creek Denver

Douglas

Eagle

Gilpin

Grand

Gunnison

Jackson

Jefferson

Lake

Moffat

Pitkin

Rio Blanco

Routt

Summit

Alamosa

Archuleta

Baca

Bent

Cheyenne

Conejos

Costilla

Crowley

Delta

Dolores

Elbert

Garfield

Hinsdale

Huerfano

Kiowa

Kit Carson

La Plata

Larimer

Las Animas

Lincoln

Logan

Mesa

Mineral

Montezuma

Montrose

Morgan

Otero

Ouray

Phillips

Prowers

Rio Grande

Saguache

San Juan

San Miguel

Sedgwick

Washington

Weld

Yuma

Chaffee

Custer

El Paso

Fremont

Park

Pueblo

Teller

Legal Aid Society of Metropolitan Denver

Colorado Rural Legal Services

Pikes Peak/Arkansas River Legal Aid 1998
 -11- 

Colorado 

State planning in Colorado began in 1995 with the formation of the Statewide 

Legal Services Planning Group. Represented in the Group were LSC-funded programs, 

the organized bar, the judiciary, both law schools in the state, eligible clients, the 

Colorado Lawyers Trust Account Foundation (the state=s IOLTA program), the Legal Aid 

Foundation (the statewide fundraising arm for Colorado=s federally-funded legal services 

programs) providers of specialized legal services and other groups interested in the 

provision of legal assistance to low-income people. 

Early planning efforts focused on development of additional resources, expansion 

of pro bono assistance and support from the private bar and ensuring effective delivery of 

services by the federally funded programs. Initial efforts addressed a variety of internal 

issues including training and support, increased use of technology, more efficient and 

uniform intake and the provision of legal advice and brief service, and meeting the needs 

of particularly vulnerable populations including migrants, Native Americans, non-English 

speaking persons, immigrants and disabled and institutionalized individuals. 

Progress was made on a number of issues important to the legal services 

community, but despite signs of chronic weakness in two programs, the 4-program LSC 

structure was left intact. During LSC’s 1996 competition, the service area of one of these 

programs was awarded to an adjacent program. The other received limited funding, and 

ultimately was provided a very short grant. Together with LSC’s 1998 Program Letters, 

this decision provided the impetus for more serious discussion of program configuration 

which resulted in the formation of a single statewide program, Colorado Legal Services, 

effective October 1, 1999. 

The formation of a single statewide program was adopted to breathe life into a 

single program that will provide meaningful access to high quality legal services, in the 

pursuit of justice for as many low-income people throughout Colorado as possible.@ This 

vision became a touchstone for decisions as to program governance, delivery issues, 

including office staffing, support, training, technology, and increased access to high 

quality legal advice, brief service and more extensive legal representation. 

During the consolidation process, the Legal Services Corporation technical 

assistance grants enabled the program to utilize the services of a skilled consultant and 

facilitator to move the process to conclusion, to send program staff to visit and observe 

other programs with well respected and technologically sophisticated centralized intake 

systems, to bring experts to the program to help design a transition to statewide 

administrative and personnel systems, and helped fund the statewide staff meeting which 

launched and celebrated the new statewide program. 

The goals of the single statewide program included establishing uniform standards 

for high quality legal representation, increased administrative efficiency and the 

provision of more effective, accurate and helpful brief service and advice, increased 
 -12- 

training, technical assistance and support for all staff, but particularly for casehandlers in 

small remote rural offices, and significantly increased access for more low-income 

Coloradans in need of service. Many of these goals have been met and others continue as 

work in progress. 

Initiatives that CLS has undertaken to improve and expand services to clients on a 

statewide basis included: 

 

• The establishment of statewide priorities that pay particular attention to the needs of 

rural, hard-to-reach areas; 

• Increased training and advocacy support throughout the state; 

• Detailed plans to initiate a Client Access Plan which will feature a highlycentralized 

telephone-based intake system; 

• Vastly upgraded technological equipment, Internet access and computer capability; 

• A new case information system that will provide improved information about 

numerous aspects of the provision of legal assistance to the low-income community 

throughout the state; 

• Casehandlers standards to be used as benchmarks by staff in the representation of all 

program clients. 

Successful efforts have also been made to expand resources necessary for the 

delivery of civil legal assistance to the indigent. Other efforts focus on how to increase 

pro bono representation of both eligible clients and potential clients in need of service 

provided by the federally funded statewide program, and to locate providers for services 

that may not be available from the recipient of LSC funds. 

Increases in resource for civil legal assistance have included: 

• Significantly expanded giving by law firms and lawyers to the Legal Aid Foundation 

of Colorado since 1995; 

• After many years of effort, State General Assembly appropriated funds in 1999 

($250,000) to serve the civil needs of victims of domestic and family violence and 

$400,000 in fiscal year 2000. 

The coordinated and focused efforts of the State Planning Group have also 

brought major positive changes to pro bono activities throughout the state including: 

• The Colorado Supreme Court revised Rule 6.1 of the Colorado Rules of Professional 

Conduct, effective January 1, 2000, to provide an aspirational goal that every lawyer 

provide not less than 50 hours per year of pro bono services each year; 

• The Colorado Supreme Court amended the Code of Judicial Conduct to more clearly 

specify that judges may engage in activities to encourage lawyers to perform pro 

bono service; 

• The Colorado Bar Association=s Board of Governors in May, 2000 approved a set of 

guidelines to encourage pro bono service by government and public attorneys; 
 -13- 

• A thorough review and revision of its Private Attorney Involvement activities by CLS 

to further encourage pro bono participation throughout the State; 

• Efforts by CLS to maximize local pro bono participation while further coordinating 

statewide technical assistance and legal support provided to attorneys who participate 

in pro bono programs as well as increased recognition of volunteer lawyers at both 

the local and state level. 

The relationship between LSC-funded providers and their partners in the state 

justice community in Colorado has always been positive. The consolidation of the 

federally-funded programs into a single statewide entity has provided the opportunity for 

increased communication and collaboration throughout the state both within legal 

services and between legal services providers and their allies in the private bar, client and 

local communities and with other key constituencies. It is expected that continued 

planning and concerted effort will result in higher quality service provided more 

uniformly throughout the state, and that clients in increasing numbers will be the 

beneficiaries of a more thoughtful and better coordinated state justice community in 

Colorado. 
 -14- 

Florida 

Alachua

Bradford

Columbia

Dixie

Gilchrist

Hamilton

Lafayette

Levy

Madison

Suwannee

Taylor Union

Baker

Clay

Duval

Nassau

Bay

Calhoun

Franklin

Gadsden

Gulf

Holmes Jackson

Jefferson

Leon

Liberty

Okaloosa

Wakulla

Walton Washington

Brevard

Flagler

Putnam

Saint Johns

Seminole

Volusia

Broward

Charlotte

Collier

De Soto

Glades

Hardee

Hendry

Highlands

Indian River

Lee

Martin

Okeechobee

Palm Beach

Polk

Saint Lucie

Citrus

Hernando

Marion

Sumter

Dade

Monroe

EscambiaSanta Rosa

Hillsborough

Pasco

Lake

Orange

Osceola

Manatee

Pinellas

Sarasota

Three Rivers LS

Jacksonville LA

LS of North Florida

Central Florida LS

LA S of Broward County

Florida Rural LS

Withlacoochee LS

LS of Greater Miami

Northwest Florida LS

Bay LS

Greater Orlando LS

Gulfcoast LS
 -15- 

Florida 

Florida planning efforts began in 1991 with The Florida Bar and Florida Bar 

Foundation’s Joint Commission on the Delivery of Legal Assistance study and report. Its 

recommendation to increase pro bono engagement was addressed in 1993 when the 

Florida Supreme Court mandated pro bono reporting for Florida Bar members. 

Recommendations contained in the 1991 plan also resulted in the institution of tri-annual 

peer reviews for all Florida Bar Foundation (Foundation) funded programs, including the 

state’s twelve LSC organizations. Recommendations that programs improve technology 

capacities were addressed in large part by a revolving loan fund, established by the 

Foundation, that enabled LSC programs and other IOTA recipients to purchase needed 

computer and related technology. In 1996, the state’s “companion system” was created 

to serve clients whom LSC-funded organizations could not represent. 

More recently, and in response to LSC’s state planning letters, planning moved to 

a new level when the directors of Florida’s largest legal services programs held a retreat 

to consider how to improve civil legal assistance in the state. A Technical Assistance 

Grant from LSC, matched by a grant from The Florida Bar Foundation, enabled the 

directors to retain the services of a consultant who has continued to guide the planning 

process. 

At the retreat, the 21 directors examined changes in client needs and the practice 

of law over the past ten years. They asked themselves what accomplishments they and 

their staff were most proud of, and how they could expand these achievements. They 

considered ways in which the 33 civil legal services programs in the state (including the 

12 LSC entities) should expand partnerships to ensure that low-income Floridians had 

access to a full array of the highest quality legal services possible. They realized that 

significant change in the service delivery system was needed because of the increasing 

complexity of the practice of law, the number of legal services providers in the state, the 

restrictions on LSC recipients and, most important, changes in laws and programs 

affecting clients. It became clear that restructuring Florida’s delivery system could 

increase the work that made staff most proud and brought clients the best services. The 

directors developed the concept of “statewide, client-centered, energetic, affirmative 

advocacy” as a key value against which to measure all proposals for change. Its elements 

were identified as: 

• Shared responsibility for the statewide delivery system 

• Collaborative attitudes on the part of advocates and programs 

• Strategic thinking about the most effective way to achieve results for clients 

• Advocacy skills needed to provide effective, high-quality services 

• Client centered provision of services 

• Ongoing self-assessment 

 A survey was sent to all staff at the 33 nonprofit civil legal services asking them 

to describe how they could become (or maintain themselves as) energetic, affirmative 
 -16- 

advocates, as well as what support they might require and how collaborative efforts in the 

state could meet those needs. There were 273 responses from 25 programs. The results 

were reported to the equal justice community and posted on the Florida Legal Services 

website, www.floridalegal.org.

The initial planning effort sparked by the 21 program directors grew to become a 

broadly inclusive structure. Participants represent key stakeholders including funders, 

bar leaders, judges, advocates and clients, among others. Its principal components are: 

Oversight Committee. Consisting of representatives of the Board of Governors of the 

Florida State Bar and The Florida Bar Foundation, the statewide Standing Committee on 

Pro Bono Legal Services, the Project Directors Association, Florida Legal Services, the 

judiciary, and clients, this group guides the planning process, seeks input from 

stakeholders, establishes a timeline and gives final approval of the state plan. 

Action Committees. Charged with exploring problems and opportunities in the areas 

identified in the project director retreat and the advocacy survey, these committees focus 

on Resource Development, Vision, Technology, Legislative/Administrative Advocacy, 

Client Access, Collaboration, and Training and Technical Assistance. Each committee 

developed measurable goals with estimated dates for completion. Close to 80 individuals 

serve on the committees. 

Coordinating Committee. Composed of the Chairs of the Action Committees, this body 

considered the recommendations of the Action Committees and integrated them into a 

draft state plan. 

Project Directors’ Association. Consisting of the Executive Directors of the state’s 33 

nonprofit civil legal services programs, this group has responsibility for ensuring 

implementation at the program level. 

After circulation for comment to all stakeholders, including county governments 

(the third largest source of legal services funding in the state), local pro bono committees, 

local bar associations and Area Agencies on Aging, the Oversight Committee released 

the draft plan for public comment in late December 2000. A final version was adopted at 

the end of February 2001. 

The 2001 State Plan divides the state into six regions, and highlights a regional 

approach in its collaboration and configuration strategies. Each region houses LSC and 

other nonprofit civil legal services providers bound together by a commitment to 

collaborate. Programs in each region will sign an “enforceable agreement” enunciating 

the specific activities each organization will undertake. In January 2001, LSC asked the 

Florida planners to more carefully explore whether the current configuration of LSC and 

non-LSC funded programs is one that will best advance their goals. LSC requested that 

the planners seriously consider the advantages of having one LSC-funded program 

anchor each of the six regions identified in the plan. 
 -17- 

Programs have already moved to carry out some of the Plan’s recommendations. 

All 33 programs receiving Foundation funds have jointly hired a statewide resource 

director. The Foundation, along with The Florida State Bar and several law firms, have 

provided funds to hire a statewide pro bono development director. Planners are seeking 

funds to improve the statewide website and expand internet access to community 

education materials beyond the current community education site for immigrant advocacy 

organizations. Other initiatives include a statewide Child Support Task Force and a 

statewide Emma Lazarus Project. 

Regionwide efforts are also underway. In one region, three LSC programs have 

established a regional intake system, funded by an LSC Technology Initiative Grant, with 

a second planned for another region, to be developed in 2001. A region-wide community 

economic development initiative housed at an LSC program provides expertise and other 

resources to all IOTA recipients a third region. A regional Special Educational Advisory 

Project (involving four programs) to do outreach and advocacy for children, and a 

regional Team Child Project on joint advocacy between legal services programs and 

public defender offices for youth entering the juvenile justice system have also been 

established. 

The Florida Bar Foundation, which gives substantial funding to the state’s 33 

nonprofit civil legal services organizations, has pledged to annually evaluate each of its 

recipients on their state planning work as well as their contribution to the regional effort. 

Regional efforts will be a critical component of the Foundation’s tri-annual on-site peer 

review of each program. Thus, programs will be measured not only on their individual 

contributions to regional and state planning, but also on the quality of their region’s 

accomplishments. The Foundation anticipates that this approach to evaluations will help 

maintain the productive pace of the past years’ planning and emphasize the importance of 

joint endeavors. Furthermore, planning leaders have indicated that configuration is a 

priority for planners in 2001, and have developed committees and strategies to address 

this critical issue. 
 -18- 

Illinois 

2001

Adams

Alexander

Bond

Brown

Calhoun

Cass

Champaign

Christian

Clark

Clay

Clinton

Coles

Crawford

Cumberland

De Witt

Douglas

Edgar

Edwards

Effingham

Fayette

Ford

Franklin

Gallatin

Greene

Hamilton

Hancock

Hardin

Jackson

Jasper

Jefferson

Jersey

Johnson

Lawrence

Logan

Macon

Macoupin

Madison

Marion

Mason

Massac

Menard

Monroe

Montgomery

Morgan

Moultrie

Perry

Piatt

Pike

Pope

Pulaski

Randolph

Richland

Saint Clair

Saline

Sangamon

Schuyler

Scott

Shelby

Union

Vermilion

Wabash

Washington

Wayne

White

Williamson

Boone

Bureau

Carroll

De Kalb

Du Page

Grundy

Henry

Iroquois

Jo Daviess

Kane

Kankakee

Kendall

La Salle

Lake

Lee

Livingston

Marshall

McHenry

McLean

Mercer

Ogle

Peoria

Putnam

Rock Island

Stephenson

Tazewell

Whiteside

Will

Winnebago

Woodford

Cook

Fulton

Henderson

Knox

McDonough

Stark

Warren

Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation

Prairie State Legal Services

Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago

West Central Illinois Legal Assistance

1998

Adams

Alexander

Bond

Brown

Calhoun

Cass

Champaign

Christian

Clark

Clay

Clinton

Coles

Crawford

Cumberland

De Witt

Douglas

Edgar

Edwards

Effingham

Fayette

Ford

Franklin

Gallatin

Greene

Hamilton

Hancock

Hardin

Jackson

Jasper

Jefferson

Jersey

Johnson

Lawrence

Logan

Macon

Macoupin

Madison

Marion

Mason

Massac

Menard

Monroe

Montgomery

Morgan

Moultrie

Perry

Piatt

Pike

Pope

Pulaski

Randolph

Richland

Saint Clair

Saline

Sangamon

Schuyler

Scott

Shelby

Union

Vermilion

Wabash Washington Wayne

White

Williamson

Boone

Bureau

Carroll

De Kalb

Du Page

Grundy

Henry

Iroquois

Jo Daviess

Kane

Kankakee

Kendall

La Salle

Lake

Lee

Livingston

Marshall

McHenry

McLean

Mercer

Ogle

Peoria

Putnam

Rock Island

Stephenson

Tazewell

Whiteside

Will

Winnebago

Woodford

Cook

Fulton

Henderson

Knox

McDonough

Stark

Warren

Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation

Prairie State Legal Services

Cook County Legal Assistance Foundation

West Central Illinois Legal Assistance

Legal Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago

Cook County

Served by two programs
 -19- 

Illinois 

The LSC-funded programs in Illinois have a long history of working together on 

joint projects, state support and other matters. In 1996, in response to LSC’s first 

program letter, the programs requested that the Illinois State Bar Association and the 

Chicago Bar Association join them in the planning process. In April 1997, under the 

authority of these bar associations, the Illinois Equal Justice Project was established. The 

mission of the Illinois Equal Justice Project included: protecting the integrity and 

accessibility of the legal system for all Illinois residents; educating individuals, families 

and groups about the self-help process within the judicial system; and promoting costeffective legal services for low income individuals and families. 

The Equal Justice Project brought together a very diverse group of individuals 

including representatives of the low-income client community, social service agencies, 

government agencies, civil legal services organizations, religious communities, the 

judiciary, lawyers and cultural organizations to address the need for comprehensive costeffective legal services in the State of Illinois. The project was governed by a Steering 

Committee. In addition, three working groups were created: Non-Adjudicatory Problem 

Solving; User Friendly Pro Se Adjudication; and Legal Service Delivery System. The 

Project adopted six guiding principles: 

• Equal justice is a basic right, which is fundamental to our democracy. Thus, the 

integrity of our country, our state and our justice system depends on protecting and 

enforcing the rights of all people on an equal basis; 

• Illinois residents must be educated to protect their legal rights and accept their legal 

responsibilities. They must also have information about self-help processes and 

available remedies; 

• The justice system must work with social services, government agencies and 

community leaders to promote holistic, multi-disciplinary approaches to preventing 

and resolving legal difficulties; 

• Since demand for services continues to increase, legal aid programs must be 

supported in avoiding duplication, maximizing coordination and promoting effective 

use of existing and emerging technologies; 

• Legitimate political discourse requires constructive alternatives. Attacks on the 

current system, often based on misleading anecdotes, have failed to enlighten 

participants or improve services to the public; and 

• The organizations and institutions, which comprise our justice system, are largely 

local. Equal justice is an integral part of the general public welfare and funding equal 

justice is a fundamental obligation of state and county government. 

Each working group met several times to develop recommendations for changes 

to the legal services delivery system. The recommendations were adopted by the 

Chicago and Illinois State Bar Associations, and, along with an appendix of existing and 

proposed implementation measures, submitted to the Governor, the Illinois General 

Assembly, the Illinois Supreme Court, local governments, state agencies, legal services 
 -20- 

programs, bar associations and individual lawyers. The focus was on creating a true 

system of equal justice in Illinois. (The report also recognized work that had already 

begun among all legal services programs with the establishment of a Statewide Legal 

Services Delivery and Technology Working Group, which was meeting to share 

information on the use of technology.) 

As part of the goals developed by the Equal Justice Project, the Chicago and 

Illinois State Bar Associations agreed to support the introduction of the Illinois Equal 

Justice Act in the Illinois General Assembly. The bill failed in the 1997-98 session but 

passed the following year. Although stripped of any funding mechanism, the bill 

authorized the establishment the Illinois Equal Justice Foundation to receive and 

distribute any money appropriated by the legislature. Finally, in the 1999-2000 session, 

$500,000 was appropriated. While less than the $1,000,000 sought by the governor, it is 

a start. 

In June 1999, LSC commented upon the Illinois State Plan and implementation to 

date. In its feedback letter, LSC noted that it was “impressed with the steps you have 

taken and will continue to take under this plan to develop an integrated and 

comprehensive delivery system that is designed to meet the present as well as the future 

needs of low-income person within your state.” However, LSC also asked the planners to 

reopen their consideration of the configuration of the LSC-funded programs believing 

that “a thorough review of this plan leads to the almost inescapable conclusion that while 

reconfiguration may not be a front-burner issue within this state, there is merit to 

seriously exploring reconfiguration of the five LSC-funded programs into three.” LSC 

also suggested that the planners develop ways to involve more clients and community 

representatives in the planning process and develop plans to expand their funding base. 

Reconsideration of the configuration of the LSC programs has led to decisions to 

consolidate the five organizations. In 2001, final reconfiguration of the LSC-funded 

delivery system will be completed, leaving three programs--Prairie State Legal Services, 

Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, and the Legal Assistance Foundation of 

Metropolitan Chicago. 

The programs have also followed LSC and the Equal Justice Project 

recommendations to consider more streamlined and cooperative ways of operating. 

While Illinois initially had five federally funded legal services programs, planners 

identified another twenty-two programs that were providing legal services to the 

economically disadvantaged. Many of these programs were small and most operated 

within Cook County. In November 1999, the first- ever meeting of all of these programs 

was held. The Legal Services Corporation provided funding for two facilitators and 

lodging and meal costs were paid for by the Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois. The 

programs met for two days to plan areas of need and cooperation. Working groups were 

established to coordinate training statewide, to focus on the establishment of a statewide 

website and to continue coordination and sharing in technology matters. 
 -21- 

The programs continue to explore avenues for improving services to clients. With 

funding from the Lawyers Trust Fund of Illinois, the Technology Working Group and 

representatives from CARPLS (the Chicago-based hotline and referral services), Legal 

Assistance Foundation of Metropolitan Chicago, Prairie State Legal Services and Land of 

Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation have formed a “Best Practices” group. These 

individuals have visited one another’s programs as well as four additional model 

hotline/telephone intake systems around the country. As they have observed better, more 

efficient and more innovative ways of doing business, new procedures have been 

adopted. 

In cooperation with IIT Kent College of Law, legal services programs are also 

involved in establishing a Technology Center for Law and the Public Interest. This will 

be a single database that will have three portals for three separate interest groups 

including a portal for clients that would provide them access to client community legal 

education materials and self-help legal materials. (This would expand upon materials 

that are currently available from Southern Illinois Self-Help Center and the Illinois legal 

services website.) A second portal would provide information and video streaming 

training for pro bono attorneys. The final portal would provide access for legal services 

staff to training materials, discussion groups, legal research and other matters. The 

twelve partners in this collaboration have recently signed agreements specifying the 

duties of each partner. The site will be located at IIT-Kent College of Law. 

The Illinois Equal Justice Foundation has recently made its first grants from 

money appropriated by the Illinois General Assembly. Because of the limited money 

available, the first grants were restricted to funding for civil legal services and hotlines. 

Later this year, the Foundation will initiate a study to evaluate the most effective way in 

which pro bono can be encouraged and supported. At the present time, Illinois has a Pro 

Bono Center whose function is to work with the organized bar and legal services 

programs in encouraging participation in existing pro bono programs as well as to help 

develop new pro bono programs in Illinois. The focus of the study will be to determine 

what changes need to be made in the existing structure to allow the Center to effectively 

meet its mission or, alternatively, to recommend a new structure. This study will be 

funded by an LSC technical assistance grant and will be coordinated with an ABA peer 

study. 
 -22- 

Indiana 

2001

Adams

Allen

Bartholomew

Benton

Blackford

Boone

Brown

Carroll

Cass

Clark

Clay

Clinton

Crawford

Daviess

De Kalb

Dearborn

Decatur

Delaware

Dubois

Elkhart

Fayette

Floyd

Fountain

Franklin

Fulton

Gibson

Grant

Greene

Hamilton

Hancock

Harrison

Hendricks

Henry

Howard

Huntington

Jackson

Jasper

Jay

Jefferson

Jennings

Johnson

Knox

Kosciusko

Lagrange

Lake

LaPorte

Lawrence

Madison

Marion

Marshall

Martin

Miami

Monroe

Montgomery

Morgan

Newton

Noble

Ohio

Orange

Owen

Parke

Perry

Pike

Porter

Posey

Pulaski

Putnam

Randolph

Ripley

Rush

Saint Joseph

Scott

Shelby

Spencer

Starke

Steuben

Sullivan

Switzerland

Tippecanoe

Tipton

Union

Vanderburgh

Vermillion

Vigo

Wabash

Warren

Warrick

Washington

Wayne

White Wells

Whitley

Indiana Legal Services

1998

Adams

Allen

De Kalb

Huntington

Steuben

Wells

Whitley

Bartholomew

Blackford

Boone

Brown

Clark

Clay

Crawford

Daviess

Dearborn

Decatur

Delaware

Dubois

Fayette

Floyd

Franklin

Gibson

Grant

Greene

Hamilton

Hancock

Harrison

Hendricks

Henry

Jackson

Jay

Jefferson

Jennings

Johnson

Knox

Lawrence

Madison

Marion

Martin

Monroe

Morgan

Ohio

Orange

Owen

Parke

Perry

Pike

Posey

Putnam

Randolph

Ripley

Rush

Scott

Shelby

Spencer

Sullivan

Switzerland

Tipton

Union

Vanderburgh

Vermillion

Vigo

Warrick

Washington

Wayne

Benton Carroll

Cass

Clinton

Elkhart

Fountain

Fulton

Howard

Jasper

Kosciusko

Lagrange

Lake

Marshall

Miami

Montgomery

Newton

Noble

Pulaski

Saint Joseph

Starke

Tippecanoe

Wabash

Warren

White

LaPorte Porter

Legal Services of Maumee Valley

Legal Services Organization of Indiana

Legal Services Program of Northern Indian Legal Services of Northwest Indiana
 -23- 

Indiana 

In 1998, the four LSC-funded programs in Indiana submitted a state plan to LSC 

that was seriously flawed. The planners were told that their plan was “non-responsive to 

the issues identified in LSC Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6 and in need of major work.” 

Indiana was instructed to submit a revised plan to LSC and develop a “collaborative, 

inclusive and values-driven plan and planning process that strengthens services to clients 

throughout the state.” 

Serious planning within the legal services community began in early 1999 with a 

commitment to "plan to plan" on the part of the four LSC-funded programs in the state at 

that time. LSC gave Indiana a technical assistance grant to hire a consultant to assist with 

the planning efforts. Over the course of a long series of meetings and discussions, 

representatives of the boards and staff of the four programs reached the conclusion that if 

all clients in Indiana were to have access to high quality legal services, significant 

changes needed to be made in the configuration of programs within the state. In 

September 1999, the boards of all four programs passed a resolution approving the 

concept of merger. Although merger discussions continued among the four programs, in 

March 2000 two of the programs did not vote in favor of the merger plan, and therefore 

the plan moved forward with only two programs: Legal Services Organization of Indiana, 

Inc. and Legal Services of Northwest Indiana, Inc. 

As of December 31, 2001, Legal Services of Northwest Indiana, Inc. joined with 

Legal Services Organization of Indiana, Inc. (LSOI) by transferring its assets to LSOI. 

LSOI then changed its name to Indiana Legal Services, Inc. (ILS) and on January 1, 2001 

became the only LSC funded program in Indiana. ILS currently has a 3-month sub-grant 

agreement with the Legal Services Program of Northern Indiana, Inc. (LSPNI) which 

previously received an LSC grant, in order to attempt to reach an agreement with LSPNI 

regarding transfer of staff and other assets from LSPNI to ILS. ILS is opening an office 

in Fort Wayne, where Legal Services of Maumee Valley, Inc. (LSMV) still operates. 

LSMV has non-LSC funding to represent clients in specific substantive areas, and ILS 

and LSMV are in the process of developing referral protocols to ensure that clients are 

referred to the appropriate organization. 

The formation of ILS is based on the “Legal Services Plan” developed by the 

boards of LSOI and LSNI. The plan describes the legal work, allocation of resources, 

role of private attorneys, role of the client community, role of service providers, 

governance and program operations and intake for Indiana Legal Services, Inc. The Plan 

provides for a minimum of nine offices and a 51-member board that is appointed in 

proportion to poverty population from the 14 judicial districts throughout the state. 
 -24- 

The major values included in the “Legal Services Plan” are: 

• The need to remain responsive to and work with local communities. The Indiana 

Legal Services Plan makes it clear that ILS must look at problems faced by the lowincome community from both a state and a local perspective. ILS is designed so that 

it can bring together statewide resources in order to meet the needs of local 

communities. Priorities will be set statewide, but each region of the state will have its 

own case acceptance guidelines, which will take into consideration local needs and 

resources. Each region will have a Regional Advisory Council, with a large number 

of client representatives, which will develop these guidelines and work with the local 

ILS office to ensure that it is meeting the needs of clients in the region. 

• The need to ensure high quality legal work. In order to ensure that advocates 

throughout the state are linked to each other, the 4 programs developed the Indiana 

Justice Center in 1999. The IJC developed a website with both public and private 

sections (www.indianajustice.org), sponsors training events, coordinates community 

legal education materials, oversees the pilot hotline project and serves as a voice for 

legal services to the bar, judiciary and other entities. The IJC also supports the work 

of the Round Table, which has a number of sections (senior law, consumer law, 

public benefits, housing, family law, Hispanic Law, etc.) to which advocates from 

throughout the state belong. These sections meet regularly by conference call and in 

person in order to share ideas and strategies and conduct training events. Each 

section also has a “listserv,” hosted by the IJC, and a section on the website to which 

they can post pleadings and other documents that could be useful to other advocates. 

The Round Table sections are chaired by casehandlers from throughout the state and 

responsibility for organizing the agendas for meetings is shared. The philosophy 

behind the Round Table is that all legal services advocates are responsible for 

ensuring high quality legal work of the program. The Round Table sections also 

include non-legal services advocates, providing an opportunity to share expertise 

between programs. The Indiana Legal Services Plan also described the Pilot Hotline 

Project, which was begun in an effort to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of 

intake and advice. This Project is piloting new telephone and case management 

systems so that ILS can determine the most effective way of implementing a 

statewide Hotline. 

• The need to expand funding for the provision of civil legal services to low income 

persons in Indiana. Indiana is the last state to have an IOLTA Program. The 

Indiana Supreme adopted Rule 6.5 of the Rules Professional Responsibility, which 

establishes Pro Bono Committees in each of the 14 Judicial Districts. These 

Committees are charged with developing and implementing plans to meet the civil 

legal needs of low-income people through pro bono systems. These Committees’ 

plans now receive funding from IOLTA as of January 2001. Each of these 

committees has legal services representation, and many of the plans are integrally 

linked to the current legal services pro bono programs. Rule 6.5 also created the Pro 

Bono Commission, which oversees these committees and recommends IOLTA 

distributions to the Indiana Bar Foundation (IBF). The IBF is responsible for the 
 -25- 

IOLTA program and has worked with the banks and bar in Indiana to launch a 

successful IOLTA program. ILS continues to work with the Indiana Equal Justice 

Fund, Inc. (IEJF), a separate not for profit organization established in 1995 to raise 

funds for legal services. IEJF conducts an annual attorney campaign, for the benefit 

for legal services and legal aid programs. IEJF was also instrumental in the passage 

of a general appropriation of $1 million from the Indiana General Assembly. ILS is 

also committed to increasing local funds for each of its 9 offices 

• The need to bring stakeholders together on an annual basis to continue the 

process of equal justice planning and to celebrate Indiana’s successes. In 

February 2001, the Indiana Justice Center, with support from the Indiana Bar 

Foundation and the Indiana Pro Bono Commission, sponsored the Second Annual 

Access to Justice Conference, a statewide meeting of judges, bar leaders, law school 

representatives, legal services and legal aid staff and board members, clients, court 

personnel, and others to continue the process of statewide Access to Justice planning. 

140 people attended the 2001 Conference, more than half of whom were not from 

legal services. The first Conference, attended by 180 people, in January 2000 

included presentations from bar leaders from Michigan and New Mexico who 

reported on those states' progress in state planning, an update on state planning in 

Indiana and breakout sessions addressing technology, resource development, pro 

bono and pro se. The 2001 Conference featured an introduction of Indiana Legal 

Services, Inc. and an introduction of the new pro bono plans in several of the 14 

judicial districts. Chief Justice Randall Shepard delivered keynote addresses at both 

conferences, calling upon Indiana state bar leaders and legal services advocates to 

work together in developing a statewide system that ensures equal access to justice 

for all low-income people in Indiana. LSC President John McKay spoke at the 2001 

Conference in celebration of the new statewide program and recognition of the 

importance of developing state justice communities. Breakout sessions addressed pro 

bono issues, pro se and technology. Planning for the 2002 Conference, which will be 

a working conference, has begun. 

• The need to expand the use of technology to provide essential services to clients. 

ILS has a technology plan that will enable advocates, both staff and pro bono, from 

throughout the state to access information. The IJC website provides a place for 

advocates to share information. The technology sessions at the Access to Justice 

Conferences have focused on how technology can be used to link advocates across 

the state and across program lines, and how it can be used to directly benefit clients 

by providing information and tools for pro se litigants. 

• The need to improve and expand the role of the private bar in civil legal services 

delivery. ILS worked with the Indiana Supreme Court to submit a successful grant 

application to the State Justice Institute for a Statewide Pro Se Office, at the Office of 

Supreme Court Administration. This office will work with 4 pilot pro se programs in 

the state, including the ILS Pilot Hotline Project, to determine best practices for pro 

se support, and will develop form pleadings, approved by the Supreme Court, for use 

throughout the state. These forms will be posted on the IJC website. This 
 -26- 

collaborative effort is a major step for Indiana in the area of pro se support. These 

form pleadings will be used at pro se clinics sponsored by ILS and the Pro Bono 

Committees throughout the state. A committee appointed by the Supreme Court will 

oversee this project, which will include ILS staff members. 

Indiana differs from many other states in that the Indiana planners have made 

considerable progress in the last few years beyond the reconfiguration of the LSC funded 

programs but, unlike other states, Indiana does not have a formal State Planning body. 

This state conducts its planning activities through ad hoc groups addressing discreet 

issues. In this way they have involved the judiciary, the private bar, law schools, social 

service providers, court personnel, legal services staff and board members and clients in 

their planning effort. 
 -27- 

Maine 

Androscoggin

Aroostook

Cumberland

Franklin

Hancock

Kennebec

Knox Lincoln

Oxford

Penobscot

Piscataquis

Sagadahoc

Somerset

Waldo

Washington

York

Pine Tree Legal Assistance
 -28- 

Maine 

In Maine, much of the groundwork for comprehensive state planning had already 

been laid when the Corporation issued its first program letter on the subject in 1995. In 

1990, the Commission on Legal Needs in Maine, chaired by former Senator Edmund 

Muskie and made up of Commissioners drawn from the judiciary, the legislature, the 

private bar, and the low-income community, convened a series of hearings around the 

state and issued a report calling for increased resources for legal services with a number 

of recommendations for improving access. Under the leadership of an implementation 

committee created in the wake of the report, over the next five years a number of steps 

were taken to increase and support pro bono participation in the delivery of civil legal 

assistance, support pro se litigants, increase IOLTA participation, and eliminate barriers 

to access. The state legislature also followed up on the report by creating the 

Commission on the Future of Maine’s Courts, with a similarly broad composition. In 

response to its report, issued in 1993, a number of steps were taken by the courts to assist 

low-income and pro se litigants. 

In 1995, anticipating the imposition of restrictions on LSC activities and cuts in 

LSC funding, the Chief Justice of the Maine Supreme Court and the Presidents of the 

State Bar Association and the State Bar Foundation sponsored a day-long forum on the 

future of legal services, attended by leaders from the private bar, the legal services 

community, the state and federal judiciary, the legislature, and executive branch. The 

forum led to the creation of the Justice Action Group, staffed by the State Bar 

Association and chaired by U.S. District Court Judge Frank M. Coffin. Other members 

included Supreme Court Chief Justice Daniel Wathen, Supreme Court Justice (and 

former LSC Board Member) Howard Dana, the Presidents of the State Bar Association 

and the State Bar Foundation, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and a 

representative each from the University of Maine School of Law and the Boards of Pine 

Tree Legal Assistance and Legal Services for the Elderly. The Justice Action Group 

undertook responsibility for overseeing the work of a number of task forces for specific 

issue areas. The work of the task forces was supported by the Legal Services Response 

Team, consisting of the directors of the legal services programs and directors of the Bar 

Foundation and Bar Association. A second statewide forum took place in 1996, focusing 

on the needs of pro se litigants, with continuing follow-up from all participants. 

Among the most significant achievements resulting from these phases of the 

planning process were the following: 

• A substantial increase in IOLTA rates at most major banks; 

• Enactment of bipartisan legislation to increase court filing fees and fines to provide 

funding for legal services; 

• Creation of the Maine Equal Justice Project, to provide representation of low-income 

people before the state legislature, and Maine Equal Justice Partners, a network of pro 

bono litigators willing to engage in administrative advocacy, class actions, and other 

broad systemic advocacy; 
 -29- 

• Development and implementation, with substantial donated funding and in-kind 

donations, of a statewide technology plan, enabling the five major providers to 

computerize their operations fully and to improve their telephone systems 

dramatically, as well as creation of a shared “information technology coordinator” 

position housed at Pine Tree Legal Services, the LSC program; 

• Establishment of a new public interest fellowship program named in honor of Judge 

Coffin, supported with funding by the twelve largest law firms in Portland. Between 

two and three “Coffin Fellows” housed at Pine Tree have handled family law cases on 

behalf of poor people every year since 1998; 

• Creation of a new Family Division in the courts to handle family law matters and to 

be more responsive to the needs of pro se litigants, accompanied by simplification of 

court forms and hiring of a volunteer coordinator within the court system to promote 

the recruitment and training of volunteers to help pro se litigants. 

The cooperation among stakeholders that marked these endeavors has led to some 

exciting initiatives to improve and expand access to justice for low-income people. 

Building upon its experience in using technology to deliver services to clients--over 

150,000 pieces of community legal education material are downloaded annually from its 

website--Pine Tree, with the cooperation and assistance of the Administrative Office of 

the Courts, has developed an interactive program to assist pro se litigants in completing 

district court forms over the internet. The forms can be created on line and then printed 

out in ready-to-file form. The project, funded by LSC and the Maine Bar Foundation, 

also permits the internet posting of briefs and other materials by Pine Tree staff to 

facilitate the representation of low-income clients by other providers and pro bono 

attorneys. 

Most recently, Pine Tree has received a major grant from the U.S. Department of 

Commerce’s prestigious Technology Opportunity Program to create the HelpMe 

Domestic Violence Project. The project will enable victims of domestic violence to use 

teleconferencing and videoconferencing technology and on-line filing to confer with Pine 

Tree advocates, prepare and file Protection from Abuse petitions, and confer with judges 

if necessary, all without leaving the security of a domestic violence shelter. The project 

will be complemented by the HelpMeLaw website, funded by an LSC Technology 

Initiative Grant. The web site will serve as a comprehensive portal for low-income 

Mainers seeking legal assistance information of any type, providing information from all 

of the state’s legal services providers as well as state agencies and other sources of 

information and assistance. 

All Maine legal services providers participate in the New England training 

consortium and have made their in-house training events open to staff of all the legal 

service programs. For instance, an intensive trial skills training program has been held at 

the University of Maine School of Law twice in the past three years, using donated 

faculty drawn from the Law School and the private bar--this event has been made 

available free of charge to all staff attorneys at Pine Tree, Legal Services for the Elderly 

and the Maine Equal Justice Project. 
 -30- 

Maryland 

Allegany

Anne Arundel

Baltimore

Baltimore City

Calvert

Caroline

Carroll Cecil

Charles Dorchester

Garrett Frederick

Harford

Howard Kent

Montgomery

Prince Georges

Queen Annes

Saint Marys

Somerset

Talbot

Washington

Wicomico

Worcester

Legal Aid Bureau
 -31- 

Maryland 

Maryland has a long history of statewide planning. The Maryland Legal Services 

Corporation over the years has supported various efforts to examine and improve the 

statewide system, including the 1987 Maryland Legal Services Review Commission (the 

“Cardin Commission”), the 1992 Commission on the Needs of Low-Income Persons in 

Family Law Matters, and the 1992 evaluation of the pro bono system in the state. 

In response to the restrictions and funding cuts imposed nationally in 1996, the 

Maryland State Bar Association created the Maryland Coalition for Civil Justice (MCCJ) 

to spearhead and oversee state planning. MCCJ drew together a wide spectrum of 

individuals and organizations involved in the support and delivery of legal services in the 

state, including legal services providers, community and bar leaders, legislators, and 

clients. Statewide Conferences on the Delivery of Legal Services were held in November 

1998 and January 2000. 

Recommendations from the planning process led to the development of the 

Maryland Legal Assistance Network (MLAN), funded by the Open Society Institute 

through a three-year $1 million grant to the Maryland Legal Services Corporation. 

MLAN includes four component programs: 

• A centralized statewide system of telephone access, intake, screening, information, 

assistance, referral and service evaluation; 

• Expanded pro se and unbundled legal services; 

• An expanded Internet-based People's Law Library-an Internet-based Lawyer to 

Lawyer Support Center. 

Maryland ranks at the top of the list nationally in the level of funding for civil 

legal assistance in the state. LSC funding represents less than 15 percent of the total 

funding available. In addition to the providers with statewide responsibility--MLAN, the 

LSC-funded Legal Aid Bureau, Maryland Volunteer Lawyers’ Services, Inc., and the Pro 

Bono Resource Center--there are more than 30 small providers that offer legal services to 

low-income persons in the state. Some of the small providers are stand-alone 

organizations that target very specific populations or legal problems. Others are part of 

larger organizations that focus on specific populations or legal problems. In addition, 

Maryland has two law schools that are very active in delivering legal services to lowincome persons in a variety of areas. 

Maryland is also unique in the depth and focus of the support that the civil legal 

assistance system receives from key institutions within the state. The judiciary is very 

supportive, with the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, being 

deeply engaged in planning efforts. The state legislature provides significant bipartisan 

support for the legal services delivery system. Legal services also enjoys the longstanding, active support and engagement of the Maryland State Bar Association, as well 

as numerous local bar associations. 
 -32- 

Notwithstanding these successes, the equal justice community in Maryland has 

continued to look for ways to expand and improve services to clients. 

Responding to concerns on the part of the MCCJ, the Pro Bono Resource Center, 

and others that, despite a long history of strong pro bono commitment, some momentum 

appears to have been lost in recent years, the Court of Appeals established the Maryland 

Judicial Commission on Pro Bono in 1998 to reinvigorate the pro bono effort. The 

Commission is working to promote active leadership and encouragement from the bench 

on a local level, with oversight from the Court of Appeals, to increase bar participation 

and assist providers in developing more innovative and creative opportunities for 

volunteers. 

In addition, the MCCJ sponsored, with funding from the Maryland Legal Services 

Corporation and the Project for the Future of Equal Justice, a thorough evaluation of the 

state’s delivery system by consultant John A. Tull. The study, completed in mid-2000, 

found strengths and accomplishments and noted many remarkable features from which 

other states could learn. It also identified some lost opportunities. It recommended three 

broad strategies to address these issues: increasing the flow of information among the 

providers; establishing formal collaborative arrangements in areas such as technology, 

planning and development, and substantive support and training; and creation of a 

framework for more ongoing planning and system-wide decision-making regarding 

issues affecting the entire system, particularly with regard to substantive matters not 

being addressed. The report concluded that the MCCJ should lead in planning and 

overseeing the implementation of these strategies at the statewide level. 
 -33- 

Minnesota 

Aitkin Carlton

Cass

Cook

Crow Wing

Itasca

Kanabec

Koochiching

Lake

Pine

Saint Louis

Anoka

Becker

Beltrami

Clay

Clearwater

Grant Douglas

Hubbard

Kittson

Lake of the Woods

Mahnomen

Marshall

Norman

Otter Tail

Pennington

Polk

Pope

Red Lake

Roseau

Stevens

Traverse

Wadena

Wilkin

Benton

Big Stone

Chippewa

Chisago

Hennepin

Isanti

Kandiyohi

Lac qui Parle

Lincoln Lyon

Meeker

Mille Lacs

Morrison

Renville

Sherburne

Stearns

Swift

Todd

Wright

Yellow Medicine

Blue Earth

Brown

Carver

Cottonwood

Dakota

Dodge

Faribault Fillmore Freeborn

Goodhue

Jackson Houston

Le Sueur

Martin

McLeod

Mower

Murray

Nicollet

Nobles

Pipestone Olmsted

Ramsey

Redwood Rice

Rock

Scott Sibley

Steele

Wabasha

Waseca

Washington

Watonwan Winona

LAS of NE Minnesota

Judicare of Anoka County

Legal Services of NW Minnesota

Central Minnesota L.S.

Southern Minnesota Regional LS
 -34- 

Minnesota 

State planning in Minnesota goes back to 1980, when the six LSC-funded 

programs in the state received a special planning grant to identify areas for coordination 

and cooperation. The system in place today is the result of the processes begun with that 

grant. The providers worked with the newly created Legal Assistance to the 

Disadvantaged Committee of the Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) to create the 

Minnesota Legal Services Coalition State Support Center and the position of Director of 

Volunteer Legal Services, now the Access to Justice Director at the Minnesota State Bar 

Association. The seven regional programs serving all 87 Minnesota counties are known 

collectively as the Minnesota Legal Services Coalition. Directors of the Coalition 

programs, along with Center staff, the Access to Justice Director, and representatives of 

other specialized legal services providers have continued to meet regularly to discuss and 

coordinate on issues of statewide concern. 

In 1995, in response to the pending cuts in LSC funding, the Minnesota 

Legislature requested the Minnesota Supreme Court to create a joint committee including 

representatives from the Supreme Court, the MSBA, the Coalition, and other providers to 

prepare recommendations for state funding changes or other alternatives to maintain an 

adequate level of funding for civil legal assistance. The Supreme Court established the 

Joint Legal Services Access & Funding Committee, directing it to make 

recommendations to the Court and the Legislature by December 31, 1995. The Court 

appointed a liaison from the Court and 29 Committee members representing the 

legislature, the federal and state judiciary, lawyers in private and public practice, legal 

services program staff, and the public, including the client community. 

The Joint Committee developed a number of principles, including: 

• The legal services programs should continue to strive to offer low-income people a 

level playing field, access to all forums, and a full range of legal services in areas of 

critical need. 

• Legal services should be structured to ensure that populations with special needs, 

such as Native Americans, migrant and seasonal workers, people with disabilities, 

and financially distressed family farmers, continue to have access to legal services. 

• Adequate state support services, such as training, community legal education 

materials and mechanisms for information sharing, continue to be available to all 

legal services providers, including volunteer attorney programs. 

The Committee report concluded that, “while the Coalition programs and others 

are already a national model of coordination and cooperation, the programs should 

continue to search for areas in which they can achieve additional efficiencies and 

improve client services through increased coordination and cooperation.” Among the 

other recommendations of the Joint Committee that have subsequently been implemented 

are the following: 
 -35- 

• An attorney registration fee increase to support legal services, which has added over 

$850,000, per year to the pool available to grantees. 

• An increase from the legislature of an additional $600,000 to the base funding for 

legal services beginning in 1997, for a total state appropriation of $6.5 million per 

year. 

• A planning grant from the Bush Foundation to identify which technology applications 

would increase program effectiveness, reduce barriers to quality service and increase 

the value of services to clients, followed by a major implementation grant. 

• Extensive education around the state to encourage implementation of the ABA Rule 

6.1 aspirational goal that each lawyer donate at least 50 hours of legal services each 

year. The Joint Committee recommended that the MSBA consider reporting of pro 

bono activities. In 1999, the MSBA petitioned the Minnesota Supreme Court to 

require the reporting of pro bono work. The court denied the petition. 

• A significant increase in interest rates on many IOLTA accounts by major banks. 

Legal services programs in Minnesota continue to work together to integrate and 

provide a full range of services to clients across the state. The Coalition’s jointly-funded 

State Support Center continues to coordinate training and support functions. The Center 

publishes a twice-monthly newsletter for legal services staff and approximately 2,500 

volunteer lawyers. It conducts numerous CLE accredited trainings each year, and 

coordinates bi-monthly statewide task force meetings in the areas of family, housing, 

public benefits, consumer, immigration and seniors law. It also coordinates the 

production and statewide distribution of community education and self-help materials in 

many languages. 

To assure each component of the system operates with the highest quality and is 

integrated, the Coalition, with technical assistance support from LSC, is developing a 

statewide peer review system. The Coalition programs have identified their goal as 

raising the level of integration and cooperation among programs to that of a “virtual 

statewide law firm.” 

Implementation of the Coalition’s Statewide Technology Plan with funding from 

the Bush Foundation has represented a major step toward achieving that goal. The plan 

sets forth a three-stage process, with implementation beginning in 1998 and continuing 

through 2009. Phase of I of the implementation, scheduled for 1998-2000, is largely 

complete. An LSC technical assistance grant enabled the state to begin planning for 

implementation of Phase II, scheduled for 2000-2003. Initiatives completed under Phase 

I of the Plan include the following: 

• Bringing every office up to a baseline level of technological capacity; 

• providing every staff member with desktop internet access and an individual e-mail 

account; 

• Developing a private website information geared toward legal services staff, such as 

staff announcements, special training materials, etc; 
 -36- 

• Developing a public website to create a legal services presence online, providing 

office and program information, legal education information, and other information 

for clients and advocates; 

• Creating e-mail lists and web forums for Task Forces and Coalition programs; 

• Developing technology planning, education and support to enable all staff and 

management to use technology as an effective tool to improve service to clients; and 

• Providing all advocates with on-line legal research capacity, including online 

subscription to Westlaw research, online updates of recent developments in poverty 

law, and links on the statewide website to free online research resources. 

A preliminary evaluation of Phase I, currently under way, has found that most 

users are happy with the overall implementation of the technology plan to date and 

believe that it has significantly improved their program’s capacity and their own 

individual capacity to serve clients. Many users consider the implementation of the plan 

to have made a profound difference in the way they do their jobs. Many users commented 

on the effectiveness of the new technology in promoting closer relationships among 

providers. 

Future phases of the Statewide Technology Plan, aided in part by an LSC grant, 

call for streamlining the intake and case management processes, developing seamless 

communication among all programs and offices, improving client access to services, 

integrating case management software, and completing the transition to a virtual 

statewide law firm. A three-year proposal to support these efforts is also pending before 

the Bush Foundation. 

The programs continue to receive very strong support from the MSBA, the court 

and the legislature. The Legal Assistance to the Disadvantaged Committee, a planning 

leader since the 1980’s, continues to work in close cooperation with the Coalition and 

other providers. The Committee’s most significant recent accomplishment was the 

launching of the statewide probono.net/mn initiative, a powerful web-based resource to 

support all attorneys across the states that are representing low-income clients. 
 -37- 

Missouri 

1998

Adair

Clark

Franklin

Jefferson

Knox Lewis

Lincoln

Macon Marion

Monroe

Montgomery

Pike

Ralls

Saint Charles

Saint Louis

Schuyler Scotland

Shelby

Warren

Washington

Andrew

Atchison

Barton

Bates Benton

Buchanan Caldwell

Camden

Carroll

Cass

Clay

Clinton

Daviess De Kalb

Gentry

Grundy

Harrison

Henry

Hickory

Holt

Jackson

Jasper

Johnson

Lafayette

Linn

Livingston

McDonald

Mercer

Morgan

Newton

Nodaway

Pettis

Platte

Putnam

Ray

Saint Clair

Saline

Sullivan

Vernon

Worth

Audrain

Boone

Callaway

Chariton

Cole

Cooper

Howard

Miller

Moniteau

Osage

Randolph

Barry

Cedar

Christian

Dade

Dallas

Douglas

Greene

Howell

Laclede

Lawrence

Oregon Ozark

Polk

Shannon

Stone

Taney

Texas Webster Wright Bollinger

Butler

Cape Girardeau

Carter

Dunklin

Mississippi

New Madrid

Pemiscot

Perry

Ripley

Scott

Stoddard

Crawford

Dent

Gasconade

Iron Madison

Maries

Phelps Pulaski

Reynolds

Saint Francois Sainte Genevieve

Wayne

Legal Services of Eastern Missouri

Legal Aid of Western Missouri

Mid-Missouri Legal Services 

Legal Services of Southern Missouri

Southeast Missouri Legal Services

Meramec Area Legal Aid 

De Kalb

Adair

Clark

Franklin

Jefferson

Knox Lewis

Lincoln

Macon Marion

Monroe

Montgomery

Pike

Ralls

Saint Charles

Saint Louis

Schuyler Scotland

Shelby

Warren

Washington

Andrew

Atchison

Barton

Bates Benton

Buchanan Caldwell

Camden

Carroll

Cass

Clay

Clinton

Daviess

Gentry

Grundy

Harrison

Henry

Hickory

Holt

Jackson

Jasper

Johnson

Lafayette

Linn

Livingston

McDonald

Mercer

Morgan

Newton

Nodaway

Pettis

Platte

Putnam

Ray

Saint Clair

Saline

Sullivan

Vernon

Worth

Audrain

Boone

Callaway

Chariton

Cole

Cooper

Howard

Miller

Moniteau

Osage

Randolph

Barry

Bollinger

Butler

Cape Girardeau

Carter

Cedar

Christian

Crawford

Dade

Dallas Dent

Douglas

Dunklin

Gasconade

Greene

Howell

Iron

Laclede

Lawrence

Madison

Maries

Mississippi

New Madrid

Oregon Ozark

Pemiscot

Perry

Phelps

Polk

Pulaski

Reynolds

Ripley

Saint Francois Sainte Genevieve

Scott

Shannon

Stoddard

Stone

Taney

Texas

Wayne

Webster Wright

Legal Services of Eastern Missouri

Legal Aid of Western Missouri

Mid-Missouri Legal Services Corporation

Legal Services of Southern Missouri

2001
 -38- 

Missouri 

Missouri submitted its state plan to LSC on October 1, 1998. On December 4, 

1998, LSC sent a letter to the Missouri planners informing them that LSC had serious 

concerns as to whether the overall result of the plan would be the creation of a 

comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system. Missouri was asked to continue its 

planning efforts and file a supplemental planning report with LSC on or before October 

1, 1999. 

In late 1998, primarily because of the inadequacies of the Missouri State plan, 

LSC made the decision to renew LSC grants to Missouri programs for a period of two 

years. This two-year funding decision was made to allow the Missouri legal services 

programs the time and the opportunity to develop a viable, effective and comprehensive 

state plan. 

In January 2000, assisted by two consultants hired by the Missouri Bar using 

technical assistance grants provided by LSC, Missouri's six legal services programs 

announced the Missouri Plan for Equal Access to Justice, a blueprint for action aimed at 

delivering four major results over the next three years: 

• To double the number of low income clients served by the state's legal services 

system; 

• To increase by 50 percent the total funding for legal services statewide; 

• To achieve geographical parity, increasing the resources available in rural areas to 

establish equal availability to legal services in all counties; 

• To make funding available for a full range of legal services. 

In February 2000, the plan was presented to key partners at a meeting attended by, 

among others, the Chief Justice of the Missouri Supreme Court, the President and 

Executive Director of the Missouri Bar, the Chair of the Bar's Committee on Delivery of 

Legal Services Committee, the Chair of the Statewide Legal Services Planning 

Committee, and other state leaders supportive of legal services. Participants endorsed the 

plan and offered their support for achieving its goals. The plan was presented and 

endorsed by the Missouri Bar Board of Governors at its March 29, 2000 meeting. It has 

since been printed and made available throughout the state by the Missouri Bar. 

To provide public accountability and support for the plan, the Missouri Statewide 

Legal Services Commission has been chartered by the Chief Justice of the Missouri 

Supreme Court and President of the Missouri Bar. The Commission is specifically 

charged with assessing the effectiveness of the system for delivering legal services to 

low-income Missourians and assisting in advocating adequate funding for legal services. 

The first meeting was held on March 9, 2001. 

 The following initiatives to implement the plan are currently under way or 

planned: 
 -39- 

State Support Center. A new state support center has been created to engage in 

legislative monitoring and advocacy, training, coordination of statewide advocacy, 

collection and dissemination of information, and coordination of the system of 

substantive law task forces. A center director has been hired, and office space located. 

The programs in Missouri are providing initial funding for the center. 

Substantive Law Task Force Structure. A statewide system of seven substantive law 

task forces is being put into place. The seven issue areas are Consumer, Housing, Family, 

Income Maintenance & Health, Education, Immigration, and Disability. The leaders of 

the task forces will participate in the task force Leadership Council. Each task force is 

developing statewide goals, strategies, and priorities. The work of the task forces will be 

showcased at an event celebrating the recent opening of the new state support center. 

Legal Needs Study. With funding from the Missouri Bar Foundation, Professor Greg 

Casey of the University of Missouri is currently conducting a scientific legal needs study 

that will provide a complete, accurate estimate of the need for civil legal assistance in the 

state. The seven substantive task forces are cooperating in its design and analysis. The 

study will be completed in early 2001. The Commission, the Chief Justice, and every 

local bar in the state will be invited to participate in a statewide media campaign to 

announce its findings and build support for responding to the needs it identifies. 

New Southern Regional Delivery System. Three smaller programs in the southern part 

of the state, Southeast Missouri Legal Services, Meramec Area Legal Aid Corporation, 

and Legal Aid of Southwest Missouri, merged at the end of 2000. The new entity is now 

known as Legal Services of Southern Missouri. 

Technology. Under the leadership of a statewide Technology Task Force, 

implementation of technology goals has begun. All legal services programs in the state 

are being brought up to minimum technological capacities, technology training goals are 

being developed and implemented, and technology-based support for the task force 

system is being put into place, along with the development of client access initiatives. 

Intake. A State Intake and Advice Task Force will be convened in 2001 to examine 

ways in which to integrate and coordinate intake and advise practices across the state. 

Resource Development. A statewide Director of Development has been hired as part of 

the planned emerging state support system. A State Resource Development Action Team 

and a State Rural Development Team will be convened in 2001. The Resource 

Development Action Team will use the results of the legal needs study to build support 

for state funding for civil legal services, with the participation of the courts, the bar, and 

others, supported by a public communications strategy and a grassroots support network. 

The Rural Development team will target potential resources and launch a campaign for 

rural resource development. 
 -40- 

New Hampshire 

Belknap

Carroll

Cheshire

Coos

Grafton

Hillsboro

Merrimack

Rockingham

Strafford Sullivan

Legal Advice & Referral Center
 -41- 

New Hampshire 

New Hampshire’s state planning process began in July 1995, when 

representatives of the New Hampshire Bar Association, New Hampshire Legal 

Assistance (NHLA), and the New Hampshire Pro Bono Referral System convened a 

series of meetings with stakeholders in the legal services delivery system to discuss the 

design, configuration and operation of the LSC-funded programs in the state in light of 

pending restrictions and funding cuts. Among those who participated in the process were 

representatives of the New Hampshire Bar Foundation, Franklin Pierce Law Center, New 

Hampshire Children’s Alliance, Child and Family Services of New Hampshire, the 

Disability Rights Center, the New Hampshire Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic 

Violence, and the Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. 

From this process, a new non-profit entity, Legal Advice & Referral Center 

(LARC), was formed to apply for LSC funding. LARC functions as a “hotline” that 

conducts most of the intake for the Pro Bono Referral System, provides advice and 

counsel in specific substantive areas (coordinated with other legal service providers to 

prevent redundancy), refers cases requiring more than advice and counsel to NHLA and 

other providers, and develops community education and pro se materials. NHLA, 

without LSC funding, continues to provide a full range of legal services from regional 

offices across the state, while the Pro Bono Referral System continues to serve lowincome people throughout the state through its network of volunteer private attorneys. 

In 1997, the legal services programs secured their first-ever state appropriation to 

maintain a New Hampshire Legal Assistance office in the northern part of the state. The 

appropriation has been sustained, and with strong support from the state IOLTA program, 

a private bar campaign and aggressive grant seeking, the programs have increased their 

advocacy staff by over 40%. 

In 1999, New Hampshire planners sought and received an LSC technical 

assistance grant to begin evaluating the new system they created in 1996, determining 

how well it works and what changes may need to be made. The grant was matched by 

the New Hampshire Bar Foundation and New Hampshire Charitable Trust. A Planning 

Committee meets periodically and the executive directors and key board leaders of 

NHLA, LARC, and Pro Bono meet frequently. A full staff retreat of the three programs 

deepened the understanding among advocates about the goals of integration of legal 

services delivery in New Hampshire and has led to the creation of a number of 

committees and task forces to further promote statewide coordination. The scope of the 

planning process will be expanded by including other client-centered non-profit 

organizations, and a second all-staff retreat will be held in 2001. 

One important outcome of the state’s recent planning was the decision to combine 

the fundraising activities of LARC, NHLA and the Pro Bono Program, under the auspices 

of the New Hampshire Bar Foundation. The Bar Foundation has hired a resource 

developer to carry out this plan. 
 -42- 

Coordinated planning has led to gains in other areas as well. In technology, the 

three programs have achieved their baseline goals of providing individual e-mail and 

desktop access to the Internet for all staff, upgrading hardware, and enabling all the 

programs to use the same database program. They are currently in the process of 

developing a technology plan for the next 18 months. Some of the topics under 

consideration are finalizing electronic data transfer between all the programs, expanding 

the LARC website into a legal services community website, developing the capacity to 

distribute pro se materials over the Internet, and redesigning LARC's telephone system. 

NHLA’s technology coordinator continues to provide services to LARC and Pro Bono on 

a contract basis to help maintain the client databases at all three programs and to preserve 

and enhance the technological coordination among all three programs. 

The planners are in the process of determining a cost-effective method for 

determining the legal needs of low-income people in New Hampshire, to serve as the 

basis for a review and joint statement of priorities among the three programs as well as 

public statement of need. Also, under consideration is the designation of a statewide 

community outreach and education coordinator. 

Last year, the New Hampshire Bar Foundation accepted an NHLA proposal to use 

IOLTA funds to create a law school loan assistance program to help address the 

burgeoning problem of law school debt, which is driving talented law school graduates 

away from legal services. In another example of cooperation and mutual assistance 

among New Hampshire’s legal services programs, NHLA urged that attorneys at LARC 

be allowed to participate from its inception and recommended that attorneys at the 

Disability Rights Center be allowed to participate in the coming year. In its first year of 

operation, ten staff attorneys from NHLA and LARC received an average of $3,000 in 

tax free grants to help them pay law school loans and stay in legal services. 

The New Hampshire Bar Association continues its long interest in and support of 

full access to justice. Creator of the country’s first statewide pro bono project and the 

nation’s second IOLTA program, the Bar continues to house the Pro Bono Program and 

seek new ways to expand its impact. Currently, the State Bar’s Delivery of Legal 

Services Committee is attempting to involve government attorneys in pro bono efforts, 

and the Bar Association’s Pro Se Committee, chaired by the Director of New Hampshire 

Legal Assistance, is working with the New Hampshire Supreme Court to create a courtsponsored Pro Se Task Force and launch a thorough study of pro se issues in the state. 
 -43- 

New Jersey 

Bergen

Atlantic

Cape May

Burlington

Camden

Cumberland

Gloucester

Salem

Essex

Hudson

Hunterdon

Mercer

Middlesex

Monmouth

Ocean

Morris

Passaic

Somerset

Sussex

Union

Warren

Bergen County Legal Services

Cape-Atlantic Legal Services

Camden Regional Legal Services

Essex-Newark Legal Services Project

Hudson County Legal Services Corporation

Hunterdon County Legal Service Corporation

Legal Aid Society of Mercer County

Middlesex County Legal Services Corporation

Ocean-Monmouth Legal Services

Legal Aid Society of Morris County

Passaic County Legal Aid Society

Somerset-Sussex Legal Services Corporation

Union County Legal Services Corporation

Warren County Legal Services
 -44- 

New Jersey 

The core legal services delivery system in New Jersey consists of 14 programs 

that maintain full-time offices in 20 of the state’s 21 counties. Legal Services of New 

Jersey, a non-LSC funded entity, administers the quite substantial non-LSC resources that 

support legal services in this state. LSNJ is both a funder/fundraiser and a state support 

organization providing support to the field programs in training, litigation coordination, 

pro bono coordination, the establishment of accountability standards, resource 

development, technology support, support for service delivery innovations, policy 

advocacy, major case advocacy, and statewide leadership. LSNJ coordinates all of the 

state taskforces, holds regular meetings for project directors and others and routinely 

conducts program evaluations. 

In 1994, LSNJ announced an intensive comprehensive statewide analysis of the 

state’s efforts to provide high quality legal assistance to clients. This process was called 

“reengineering.” In reality however, little of LSNJ's efforts effort went into 

"reengineering" the delivery system since it, as well as other legal services providers and 

stakeholders throughout the state, were devoting considerable energies and efforts into 

developing new sources of funding to support the work of the fourteen LSC-funded 

programs in the aftermath of the 1995 funding cuts and the restrictions. These efforts 

were highly successful. Today, funding for the fourteen LSC-funded grantees in the state 

comes from three primary sources: the state, IOLTA and LSC. Approximately two 

million additional dollars come from counties, other governmental units, and private 

sources. On the average, only fifteen percent of New Jersey grantees' annual budgets 

comes from LSC. 

 

In 1998, when LSC issued Program Letter 98-1, LSNJ was already nearing 

completion of its formal three-year Legal Services Master Plan for the period 1998-2001. 

The plan was developed with input from representatives of the state government, the 

judiciary, the New Jersey State Bar Association, specialty bar associations, county bars, 

law schools, public interest legal organizations, and representatives of the major in-state 

funding sources, the State of New Jersey and the IOLTA Fund of the Bar of New Jersey. 

The overarching values underlying this three year plan included: (1) the need for 

legal services programs in New Jersey to function as a “concerted, coherent, closely 

coordinated legal assistance delivery system;” (2) the need to develop additional 

resources to expand access and improve quality of services within the state; (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) 

100% access for clients throughout the state. 

Within this framework, the plan laid out initiatives to improve and streamline 

every aspect of the delivery system’s operations. The first priority was to continue to 

increase resources available for client services. The second priority was to maximize the 

efficient and effective expenditure of these resources and to achieve enhanced outcomes 
 -45- 

for clients by improving the core legal services delivery system. The plan identified steps 

and strategies to integrate the core system with a wider network of partners involved in 

the delivery of civil legal services to low income persons. 

As it enters its third and final year, upon implementation, this three-year plan has 

led to the following accomplishments: 

• Creation of a statewide integrated intake system; 

• Adoption of a uniform statewide case management system; 

• Development of a coordinated statewide outreach and community legal education 

strategy; 

• Adoption of advisory protocols for improving supervision of legal work; 

• A comprehensive analysis of the full extent and nature of the unmet need for essential 

civil legal aid for economically disadvantaged people in New Jersey (scheduled to be 

completed this year); 

• Creation of a technology infrastructure, and the development and implementation of 

strategies to ensure that LSC's grantees are fully utilizing available technology to 

expand and improve client services. These strategies include, but are not limited to, 

statewide computer training, periodic visits--by LSNJ--to local programs to assess the 

effectiveness of their use of technology, development of computerized intake 

questionnaires and case handling protocols, coordination of activities with the courts 

to help self-represented clients through the use of technology, upgrading and updating 

programs’ technology capabilities and maintaining and enhancing desktop electronic 

research capability; 

• Preservation and expansion of the capacity of legal services providers to deliver 

essential legal assistance to eligible clients, including a major statewide initiative to 

expand the private funding base statewide; 

• Development of expanded pro bono efforts to supplement the work of legal services 

programs; 

• Implementation of new statewide protocols for ongoing program self-assessment; 

• Adoption of standardized performance criteria and assessment for legal services staff; 

• Efforts to develop a uniform program performance reporting system that will measure 

outcomes for clients on a statewide basis; and 

• Creation of an effective statewide capacity to conduct research important to poverty 

law advocacy and extended representation of clients in areas of critical need. 

In 2001, LSNJ has begun activities to develop its next three-year master plan 

(2002-2004) for the state of New Jersey. Key points of exploration for this plan include: 

• A systematic look at best practices in highly-regarded legal services programs 

nationally; 

• Utilization of the results of the comprehensive New Jersey legal needs study, which is 

scheduled to be substantially completed by December 2001, to identify needs and 

establish priorities for funding and for services; 
 -46- 

• Further refinement of those statewide core capacities (which New Jersey terms 

"necessary characteristics”) required of a highly coordinated and integrated statewide 

legal assistance system; 

• The need for expanded research into delivery options; 

• The need to promote experimentation and creativity in developing new ways to 

deliver quality legal assistance to low-income clients; 

• Full evaluation of progress to date in meeting the goals outlined in the current state 

plan with an initial report to be completed by July 2001; 

• A new three- year technology plan; and 

• As suggested by LSC, a new look at program configuration, particularly in light of 

both the positive experiences in other states and the significant resources and energies 

that must be devoted to the maintenance of a statewide delivery system that has so 

many components. 
 -47- 

Ohio 

2001

Adams

Athens

Belmont

Carroll

Coshocton

Fairfield

Gallia

Guernsey

Harrison

Hocking

Holmes

Jackson

Jefferson Knox

Lawrence

Licking

Meigs

Monroe

Morgan

Muskingum

Noble Perry

Pickaway

Pike

Ross

Scioto

Tuscarawas

Vinton

Washington

Allen

Auglaize

Champaign

Clark

Clinton

Darke

Fayette

Greene

Hardin

Highland

Logan

Mercer

Miami

Preble Montgomery

Putnam

Shelby

Van Wert Ashland

Columbiana

Mahoning

Medina Portage

Richland

Stark

Summit

Trumbull

Wayne

Ashtabula

Cuyahoga

Geauga

Lake

Lorain

Brown

Butler

Clermont

Hamilton

Warren

Crawford

Defiance

Erie

Fulton

Hancock

Henry

Huron

Lucas

Ottawa

Paulding

Sandusky

Seneca

Williams

Wood

Wyandot

Delaware

Franklin

Madison

Marion Morrow

Union

Ohio State Legal Services

Western Ohio Legal Services

Community Legal Aid Services

The Legal Aid Society of Cleveland

Legal Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati

Legal Services of Northwest Ohio

The Legal Aid Society of Columbus

1998 Adams

Athens

Belmont

Carroll

Coshocton

Fairfield

Gallia

Guernsey

Harrison

Hocking

Holmes

Jackson

Jefferson Knox

Lawrence

Licking

Meigs

Monroe

Morgan

Muskingum

Noble Perry

Pickaway

Pike

Ross

Scioto

Tuscarawas

Vinton

Washington

Allen

Auglaize

Hardin

Logan

Mercer

Putnam

Shelby

Van Wert Ashland Crawford

Cuyahoga

Geauga

Lake

Richland

Ashtabula

Columbiana

Mahoning

Trumbull

Brown

Clermont

Hamilton

Butler Warren

Champaign

Clark

Clinton

Darke

Fayette

Greene

Highland

Miami

Preble

Defiance

Erie

Fulton

Hancock

Henry

Huron

Ottawa

Paulding

Sandusky

Seneca

Williams

Wood

Wyandot

Delaware

Franklin

Madison

Marion Morrow

Union

Lorain

Lucas

Medina Portage

Summit

Montgomery

Wayne Stark

Ohio State LS

Western Ohio LS

The LAS of Cleveland

Northeast Ohio LS

LAS of Greater Cincinnati

Butler-Warren

Rural LAS of W. Ctrl Ohio

ABLE

The LAS of Columbus

LAS of Lorain County

The Toledo LAS

Western Reserve

LAS of Dayton

Community LA Services

Wooster-Wayne LAS
 -48- 

Ohio 

Although some planning efforts took place in Ohio in response to the legislative 

changes of 1995-1996, the recent round of successful planning efforts occurred because 

of two independent events that merged to become an effective catalyst for change. In late 

1997, the Ohio Legal Assistance Foundation (OLAF)--a major funder of civil legal 

services throughout the state--launched a process of comprehensive evaluation of each of 

its recipients, including the LSC-funded programs in the state. These in-depth evaluations 

used teams of respected legal services leaders from throughout the country and assessed 

the quality and effectiveness of each legal aid provider with regard to legal work, client 

involvement, management, and administrative functioning making recommendations for 

improvement as appropriate. In January 1998, LSC independently launched its state 

planning initiative and selected Ohio--a state wherein LSC funded 14 separate programs 

including two programs that served a single county--as one of its priority states. State 

plans were due into LSC by October 1, 1998. However, since LSC was working closely 

with Ohio in planning activities, LSC quickly determined that any plan submitted to LSC 

on October 1, 1998 would not meet LSC's planning expectations nor address the issues 

identified in Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6. Accordingly, LSC granted the Ohio 

planners a five-month extension for submission of their plan urging them to develop "a 

planning process that is values driven, articulates core capacities that must be in place 

throughout the state, is sensitive to the needs of all clients in Ohio, and is inclusive of all 

of legal services stakeholders. In addition... the planning process and the plan itself 

(must) address the need for program collaboration and coordination within the state...” 

As state planning activities were slowly initiated, the program evaluations 

launched by OLAF were also proceeding. (OLAF extended an invitation to the LSC 

planning consultant assigned to Ohio to participate in the evaluation of six of the LSCfunded legal services providers in the state. She accepted the invitation.) As evaluations 

were completed, it became increasingly apparent that the many strengths of the state’s 

civil legal assistance system were offset by significant weaknesses, including variation in 

quality among the programs, insufficient communication, and lack of shared 

responsibility for addressing problems on a statewide basis. 

In mid-1998, the Ohio Planning Steering Committee was formed to coordinate 

existing planning groups and to make sure planning was launched where it did not yet 

exist. The Steering Committee was and is composed of representatives of legal services 

programs, OLAF, law schools, pro bono programs, the client community, communitybased organizations, and the organized bar. A consultant was engaged by the state 

planners to facilitate the planning process. Using the “discussion draft” on the hallmarks 

of a comprehensive, integrate statewide civil legal assistance system prepared by the 

Project for the Future of Equal Justice as a model, the planners adopted as two 

overarching goals: (1) the need for the creation of a legal services delivery system that 

provides comprehensive, integrated high quality legal services to the client community 

and (2) "100% access to essential legal services for low-income Ohioans such that they 

are able to secure substantive and procedural equal justice.” Measuring the existing 
 -49- 

system in the state against that vision, the participants in the planning process quickly 

came to the realization that significant change was necessary. 

The Steering Committee, working through subcommittees, produced a draft report 

setting action plans for activities aimed at building an integrated, statewide delivery 

system. The plan was shared with other stakeholders, including all program directors, 

who then met as a group in early 1999 for a frank and open discussion about 

configuration. The Ohio State Plan: Toward Achieving a Comprehensive Integrated 

Legal Services Delivery System was submitted to LSC in March 1999. It was quickly 

approved and the legal services community in the state has spent the two years since then 

refining and implementing the plan, mobilized by a new energy and a renewed sense of 

purpose. 

 

A key component of the plan was the decision was to reduce the 14 LSC-funded 

programs in the state to seven regional delivery systems. The reconfiguration process 

took place over the course of 2000 and has now been completed. In addition to the LSCfunded programs, there are non-LSC-funded programs in three regions, as well as three 

statewide non-LSC funded programs: Pro-Seniors, which serves senior citizens; the 

Equal Justice Foundation, which provides litigation advocacy; and the OSLSA State 

Support Center (OSLSA). 

Planners also identified the development of an integrated and coordinated 

statewide intake process as an essential component of an effective delivery system for the 

state. Among the specific goals were the following: 

• Establish telephone access for clients in those parts of the state where it did not exist. 

• Create centralized regional telephone intake systems in the seven new service 

delivery regions for all LSC-funded providers, as well as other providers where 

possible. 

• Establish a statewide telephone service with a toll-free number that will route callers 

to the appropriate regional intake system. 

• Standardize intake and case management software among programs to expedite intake 

and referrals. 

• Study systems other programs use to provide advice and brief services to clients and 

development of recommendations as to how these service components can be 

standardized from program to program. 

Currently, most of the regions have developed or are developing a regionwide 

intake system, with the assistance of consultants and funding provided by the Ohio Legal 

Assistance Foundation and funds granted by LSC under a technical assistance grant. 

Several of these regionwide intake systems are extremely innovative and offer potential 

as a prototype for the state. 

Under the leadership of a Technology Advisory Committee created in early 1998 

and a Technology Coordinator hired in late 1998, supported by OLAF funds and 
 -50- 

originally housed at OSLSA, the state planners adopted a technology plan in 1998 that set 

minimum technology standards for all programs in the state, as well as long-term goals. 

In 1999, the Statewide Technology Coordinator launched a Technology Task 

Force, made up of two representatives from each program, one who is responsible for 

technology matters and one who can effectively communicate how their program 

provides services to the client community. All providers have now met most of the 

standards, which include upgrades of computer hardware and software, computers for all 

staff, desktop internet access, individual e-mail, and electronic legal research capacity. 

The state has a statewide website and planners are considering web-based intake. 

The plan includes a heightened commitment to client empowerment, client and 

community education, and expansion of pro se options. OSLSA is coordinating a Pro Se 

Project funded by OLAF and the Ohio State Bar Foundation to develop standardized pro 

se materials for use across the state, set up two pro se pilot projects in rural Ohio, and 

develop training materials for pro se clinics. LSC has awarded the State Support Center a 

Technology Integration Grant for development of web-based pro se assistance with 

tutorials for victims of domestic violence. A NAPIL Fellow is cataloguing all 

community education material currently in use throughout the state and reviewing them 

for accuracy, duplication, and needed changes. New mechanisms for effective and 

efficient dissemination of community education materials will be developed by 

community education and technology planners. 

Legal work is coordinated through OSLSA and the Litigation Director’s Task 

Force, which was created during the planning process. The task force has set two initial 

goals: to prioritize, coordinate and develop a work plan for legal work on a state-wide 

and regional level; and to develop resources to support this legal work through pooled 

resources of programs, collaborations with law schools, special funding from OLAF and 

foundations, and the creation of additional task forces. 

OSLSA and OLAF also play important roles in the area of training. OLAF funds 

training for the state civil legal services providers and coordinates training for various pro 

bono projects. OSLSA has primary responsibility for coordinating and delivering 

training to legal services staff across the state. There have been a number of successful 

statewide substantive law training conferences. The statewide website has a calendar of 

training events and related information, and a statewide brief bank that can be accessed 

by all advocates is in the works. 

 During the planning process, the planners recognized that mobilizing and 

involving the private bar in the legal lives of low-income clients was one of the state's 

weaknesses. Accordingly, the planning process resulted in the establishment of a Pro 

Bono Work Group to develop and implement a state pro bono plan. OLAF has designated 

two key staff to provide leadership in this area. The group is working to expand, enhance 

and coordinate pro bono initiatives and integrate pro bono programs with staff-based 

delivery systems, with the ultimate goal of raising the current statewide participation rate 

in pro bono programs of under 10 percent to 17 percent. As part of this effort, the Ohio 
 -51- 

Attorney General and Governor recently announced pro bono policies for governmental 

attorneys, and the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court sent a letter to all lawyers in 

the state urging participation in pro bono work. Ohio is also experimenting with an 

innovative project to link churches, private attorneys and low-income clients through 

faith-based pro bono projects in areas of the state where pro bono participation is low. 

The civil legal assistance in the state has a long history of collaborative 

fundraising endeavors. Ohio has been extremely successful in obtaining diversified state 

funding for legal services and has one of the highest levels of state funding in the 

country. In 1993, the Ohio State Bar Association received the prestigious Harrison 

Tweed Award from the ABA in recognition of its efforts to help expand funding for legal 

services. OLAF has succeeded in significantly increasing IOLTA funding in recent 

years. The initial planning report submitted to LSC in March 1999 ranked continuing 

attention to resource development as a very high priority and outlined steps to ensure 

continued support for legal services from filing fees, attorney registration fees, IOLTA, 

and other sources. OLAF continues to work each year to try to generate general revenue 

funding. One important new resource has been the Ohio Supreme Court, which initially 

provided $350,000 annually, raised to $500,000 this year. The Columbus and Cincinnati 

legal aid capital campaigns have each raised significant funding for their capital 

campaigns--$4 million in Cincinnati and $1.5 million in Columbus. 
 -52- 

Oregon 

Baker

Benton

Clackamas

Clatsop

Columbia

Coos

Crook

Curry

Deschutes

Douglas

Gilliam

Grant

Harney

Hood River

Jackson

Jefferson

Josephine

Klamath Lake

Lincoln

Linn

Malheur

Morrow

Multnomah

Tillamook Sherman

Umatilla

Union

Wallowa

Wasco

Washington

Wheeler

Yamhill

Lane

Marion

Polk

Legal Aid Services of Oregon

Lane County Legal Aid Service

Marion-Polk Legal Aid Service
 -53- 

Oregon 

Oregon’s state planning process began in 1995 with the creation of the Oregon 

State Bar Legal Services Task Force, convened by the President of the State Bar in 

consultation with the Chief Justice of the Oregon Supreme Court. Members of the Task 

Force included the Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, judges from the Circuit 

Court and Court of Appeals, and leaders from the private bar, as well as members of the 

Oregon State Bar Board of Bar Governors. 

The Task Force worked through subcommittees organized around the following 

broad areas: Client Need/Priorities, Structure and Organization, Funding, and Ethical 

Responsibility/Quality Assurance/Transition. They gathered information from a wide 

range of legal services providers, including law school clinics, the state Protection and 

Advocacy Agency, the Juvenile Rights Project, and pro bono groups and others in the 

community concerned about services to low-income residents of Oregon. Each of the 

subcommittees reported to the full committee. A final Task Force Report was issued in 

1999. Since then, activities have been coordinated through an Access to Justice Network 

that includes all the entities involved in planning efforts. Statewide Access to Justice 

Conferences were held in 1998 and 2000. Planners continue to involve an impressive 

array of stakeholders, including representatives of the bench, the State Bar, the Governor, 

the Attorney General, the Legislature, and legal services and social services providers. 

Work groups have been created on all key issues. In 1999, the State Bar funded a 

statewide legal needs assessment to inform the ongoing planning effort. 

Planners in Oregon have made resource development their highest priority, 

concluding that a substantial infusion of new resources is the key to achieving a 

comprehensive, integrated statewide system that provides access to justice for all. Under 

the leadership of the State Bar’s Campaign for Equal Justice, the state has had 

considerable success. The Campaign has been raising more than $600,000 a year from 

private attorneys. Foundation funding accounts for an additional $400,000 annually. The 

state planners have set a goal of a 50 per cent increase in funding over the next five years, 

with an ultimate goal of $10,000,000 in annual state dollars. Currently, the Legislature is 

considering a bill that will charge out-of-state attorneys a fee to practice in Oregon. If 

passed, this is expected to generate about $150,000 annually, all of which will go to LSCfunded programs. Supporters of legal services for low-income clients are also working 

with state legislators to create a General Fund appropriation for legal services programs 

to augment the dollars generated annually through filing fee add-ons that are also directed 

to legal services initiatives. 

Cooperative efforts among the court system, the bar, and legal service providers 

have made Oregon a leader in improving access to its courts. A successful pilot project, 

funded by the courts, to employ facilitators to assist pro se litigants is being expanded to 

additional courts. The facilitators help to improve fairness in the justice system by 

assisting pro se litigants in a variety of ways, including reviewing pleadings for errors. 

Legal service providers continue to work with a variety of partners, including the Oregon 
 -54- 

Judicial Conference, to improve pro se forms and instructions in additional areas of the 

law, beyond domestic relations. State planning strategies have also opened up other 

avenues for improving outcomes for clients. Creative partnering between legal services 

and the Oregon Farm Bureau resulted in a successful mediation program, housed at the 

LSC-funded Legal Aid Services of Oregon, that resolves disputes between farmworkers 

and growers. 

 There are three LSC-funded programs in the state, Legal Aid Services of Oregon, 

Lane County Legal Aid Service, and Marion-Polk Legal Aid Service, as well as two nonLSC-funded programs and the Center for Non-Profit Legal Services. The Oregon Law 

Center was specifically established to ensure access for disfavored client populations and 

issues restricted for LSC recipients. Building on a long history of close coordination of 

legal work, the programs collaborate through five task forces--domestic relations, 

administrative law, housing, migrant and elder law. The task forces are facilitated by 

senior attorneys from the various programs, and meet quarterly. All programs 

participate. Co-counseling across programs occurs routinely, and expertise is regularly 

shared. The programs have cooperated on a statewide training needs assessment, and 

advise the Oregon State Bar on continuing legal education events for private attorneys to 

ensure that poverty law issues are included. 

In the areas of technology, planners have targeted a number of long-term changes, 

including upgrading hardware and software, use of videoconferencing for rural intake, 

and creation of a statewide legal services web site. Legal Aid Services of Oregon has 

received a federal Violence Against Women Act grant for a videoconferencing pilot 

project that will permit remote intake from domestic violence shelters in rural areas 

without legal services offices. The program also received an LSC Technology Innovation 

Grant for a web-based pro se project in conjunction with the Oregon Judicial 

Administration for Family Law. 

Although reconfigration of the LSC-funded programs has not been a priority 

issue, LSC has asked the Oregon planners to examine whether maintenance of three 

separate organizations continues to make sense. 
 -55- 

Pennsylvania 

Adams

Bedford

Berks

Blair

Clearfield Centre

Cumberland

Dauphin

Franklin

Fulton

Huntingdon

Juniata

Lancaster

Lebanon

Mifflin

Perry

Schuylkill

Somerset York

Allegheny

Beaver

Butler

Lawrence

Armstrong

Cambria

Clarion

Indiana

Jefferson

Westmoreland

Bradford

Carbon

Clinton

Columbia

Lackawanna

Lehigh

Luzerne

Lycoming

Montour Monroe

Northampton

Northumberland

Pike

Snyder

Sullivan

Susquehanna

Tioga

Union

Wayne

Wyoming

Bucks

Chester

Delaware

Montgomery

Cameron

Crawford

Elk

Erie

Forest

McKean

Mercer

Potter

Venango

Warren

Fayette

Greene

Washington

Philadelphia

MidPenn LS

Neighborhood LS

Laurel LS

North Penn LS

Montgomery County

NW LS

SW Penn

Philadelphia

2001

Adams

Cumberland

Franklin

Fulton

Allegheny

Beaver

Butler

Lawrence

Armstrong

Clarion

Indiana

Jefferson

Westmoreland

Bedford

Cambria Blair

Somerset

Dauphin Berks

Lancaster

Lebanon Perry

Schuylkill

York

Bradford

Lackawanna Sullivan

Susquehanna

Wayne

Wyoming

Bucks

Cameron

Crawford

Elk

Erie

Forest

McKean

Mercer

Potter

Venango

Warren

Carbon

Luzerne

Monroe

Pike

Clearfield Centre

Huntingdon

Juniata

Mifflin

Chester

Clinton

Columbia

Lycoming

Montour

Northumberland

Snyder

Tioga

Union

Fayette Delaware

Greene

Washington

Lehigh

Northampton

Montgomery

Philadelphia

Legal Services Inc.

Neighborhood LS

Laurel LS

Southern Alleghenys

MidPenn LS

North Penn LS

Bucks County LAS

Northwestern

LS of NE Penn

Keystone

LA of Chester County

Susquehanna

Delaware County LAS

SW Penn LS

Lehigh Valley

Montgomery County

Philadelphia

1998
 -56- 

Pennsylvania 

Prior to development of its 1998 state plan, Pennsylvania’s legal services 

community was fragmented and performing unevenly. Nearly, a third of Pennsylvania’s 

15 LSC-funded programs were receiving one year funding because of quality concerns, 

and at least one was on the verge of receiving no LSC funding. Pennsylvania programs 

were also competing with one another for LSC funds. And, as Pennsylvania’s State Plan 

observed: 

 “It had never been a state role to say it's not acceptable that those in need 

in one part of the state have less access than those in another part, or that 

clients in one area have less effective legal assistance than is available to 

clients in other parts of the state.” 

 Indeed, in February 1998, Pennsylvania sent a representative to the LSC Board 

meeting to object to LSC’s state planning initiative; and, later that month, a Pennsylvania 

delegation traveled to Washington to reiterate those views. 

 Three years later, much has changed. With strong leadership and financial support 

from key members and institutions of the justice community, Pennsylvania is in the midst 

of implementing a comprehensive state plan to “transform ... a collegial confederation of 

independent programs into a statewide integrated service delivery system.” Key features 

include: 

• Redesign of the delivery system by creation of 6 regions and consolidation of the 

LSC programs from 15 to 8. Each region was required to develop its own plan for a 

full service regional delivery system, with sufficient capacities in the areas outlined in 

LSC’s program letters. Periodic reports are submitted to the Statewide Steering 

Committee assessing whether the region has each capacity in place, and if not, what 

steps are to be taken to put it in place. The program consolidations have been 

completed, and each region is moving forward on its delivery plan. 

• Creation of the Statewide Support Team housed at Pennsylvania Legal Services to 

provide statewide support and leadership in three core areas enumerated in the State 

Plan--training, resource development and technology. The three new positions, 

Director of Resource Development, Technology Coordinator, and Training and Legal 

Information Facilitator are supported by $250,000 funding from the Pennsylvania 

IOLTA Board and Pennsylvania Legal Services. 

• Development of a permanent state planning committee with a strong determination to 

build a better system. Made of up representatives of the Pennsylvania Bar 

Association, Pennsylvania IOLTA, Pennsylvania Legal Services, and the 

Pennsylvania Project Directors Association, the Steering Committee meets by 

conference call on a regular biweekly basis and assiduously oversees plan 
 -57- 

implementation. In both 1999 and 2000, the Committee published formal progress 

reports on implementation of the State Plan. 

Recent accomplishments in addition to the major structural and leadership 

changes include: 

Resource Development. The Pennsylvania Bar Association’s Board of Governors and 

House of Delegates has approved the Report and Recommendations of the Task Force on 

Legal Services to the Needy, which called for a set of initiatives to increase funding and 

pro bono: 

• Expansion of pro bono programs; 

• Establishment of coordinated pro bono assistance teams in counties without existing 

pro bono programs; 

• Judicial encouragement of pro bono programs; 

• Greater law school participation in pro bono; 

• Increased leadership in the pro bono area by senior bar members; 

• Institution of a $5 add-on to continuing legal education fees to increase funding for 

legal services by $10 million; 

• Legislation to increase funding for legal services through an increase in court filing 

fees; and 

• Direction of cy pres awards to legal services programs. 

The CLE fee increase is pending before the state Supreme Court. The 

Pennsylvania Bar Association has launched an effort to encourage all local bars to adopt 

a pro bono plan. 

In addition, the statewide Resource Development Coordinator has established a 

staff-level statewide resource development committee that meets regularly by conference 

call, created a marketing brochure aimed at funders, provided direct technical assistance 

to regional fundraising efforts, and developed several major statewide grant proposals. 

Technology. All providers have met the key standards set out in the technology plan 

adopted in 1998. There is a statewide website, www.palegalservices.org. The state 

support team is working with the six regions to develop a web-based case management 

system that will support a new intake system for the state. 

Coordination of Legal Work and Training. Creation of a statewide brief bank is under 

way, with funding from the Pennsylvania Bar Foundation. The statewide substantive task 

forces have been reinvigorated, with support from the Training and Legal Information 

Facilitator, who has established substantive e-mail groups and organizes task force 

meetings, in addition to planning and organizing a number of statewide substantive 

training events. 

Next Steps. In its December 2000 report, Status and Achievements of Pennsylvania’s 

State Planning Effort, 1998-2000, the Steering Committee identified some next steps: 
 -58- 

• Deciding the best ways to organize regional phone intake/advice systems and finding 

the funding to fully staff them; 

• Determining how to deliver a full range of services in those regions, which presently 

lack the institutional capacity to do so; 

• Expanding on successful pro se assistance efforts to develop more and stronger 

partnerships with courts and social agencies; 

• Strengthening the resource development and marketing efforts in regions and the state 

by developing a recognizable identity and compelling message for legal services in 

Pennsylvania, and staffing effective regional resource development efforts; 

• Continuing to develop the PLS website as a statewide asset by incorporating new 

plans such as the brief/materials bank and pro se assistance models and finding 

partners such as bar associations, courts and social agencies who might share content; 

and 

• Keeping alive the conversations begun in 1998 as a vehicle for continuing momentum 

into 2001 and 2002. 

The Statewide Steering Committee has recently expanded its membership by 

adding members of the PLS Steering Committee which includes representatives of the 

Pennsylvania Clients Council. 
 -59- 

South Carolina 

Abbeville

Anderson

Edgefield

Greenville

Greenwood

McCormick

Oconee

Pickens

Aiken

Allendale

Bamberg

Barnwell

Calhoun

Fairfield

Lexington

Newberry

Orangeburg

Saluda Richland

Sumter

Beaufort

Berkeley

Colleton Charleston

Dorchester

Georgetown

Hampton

Horry

Jasper

Marion

Williamsburg

Cherokee

Chester

Chesterfield

Darlington

Dillon

Kershaw

Lancaster

Laurens

Lee

Marlboro

Spartanburg

Union

York

Clarendon

Florence

Legal Services Agency of Western Carolina

Palmetto Legal Services

Neighborhood Legal Assistance Program

Piedmont Legal Services

Carolina Regional Legal Services Corporation
 -60- 

South Carolina 

South Carolina Strong collaboration among the five LSC programs, the South 

Carolina Bar, the South Carolina Bar Foundation and the Appleseed Justice Center 

(formerly South Carolina Legal Services Association), has been a hallmark of South 

Carolina’s planning since the initial response to the 1995 federal budget cuts and 

restriction. At that time, the South Carolina Bar adopted a dues check-off for legal 

services, earmarking 20% for the former state support center, South Carolina Legal 

Services Association. The Bar Foundation also increased its financial support of the 

Legal Services Association in order to preserve South Carolina’s well-respected support 

and advocacy capacity. And in 1997, largely due to the efforts of the South Carolina Bar 

and the South Carolina Legal Services Association, the legislature, over the Governor’s 

veto, adopted a filing fee add-on to support the LSC programs. 

State planning today occurs under the auspices of the Legal Services Coordinating 

Council. Formed in 1997, at the request of the Bar’s Structure Task Force, the Council 

consists of two persons from each legal services program, two persons from the South 

Carolina Bar, two persons from the Appleseed Justice Center, and an advisory 

representative from the South Carolina Bar Foundation. 

The Council’s initial planning efforts focused on the creation of LATIS, a 

statewide centralized access, advice and referral system. Capitalized by a $353,000 Bar 

Foundation grant, and a subsequent $46,000 South Carolina Bar donation, LATIS began 

operations in December 1999. LATIS varies from most centralized access, advice and 

referral systems in that it is a separately incorporated organization governed by a board of 

directors from the legal services program directors and boards, the Bar Foundation, the 

South Carolina Bar and the Appleseed Justice Center. Operating expenses are paid by 

the five legal services programs for whom LATIS provides a central access point. 

South Carolina’s collaborative efforts produced another success the following 

year. In September 2000, LSC awarded the state LSC’s largest Technology Initiative 

Grant--$500,000 for a two-year project that will establish a virtual legal aid office in 

every county of the state, including 23 counties that do not have legal services offices. 

This project, called “Partners for Justice” is a cooperative venture among the five LSC 

programs, LATIS, the Appleseed Justice Center, the South Carolina Bar Pro Bono 

Program, and 46 human services agencies. 

The virtual law offices will allow real-time video-conferencing between staff and 

clients, broadcasted clinics on a variety of topics, including pro se workshops and legal 

education clinics, and access to streaming video training capsules and pro se pleadings. 

They will be housed in a variety of locations, including churches, elementary schools, 

libraries, homeless shelters, United Ways, victim services centers and municipal offices. 

The legal services programs have entered into written partnership agreements with 46 

entities across the state that have agreed to house the work stations and provide personnel 
 -61- 

to be trained to assist potential clients with computerized access to legal services 

programs and other attorney providers. 

 Other efforts currently under way or planned include the following: 

• The five programs have adopted uniform, statewide case priorities. 

• A Technology Standardization Committee ensures statewide coordination of 

technology acquisitions and upgrades, and a Forms Standardization Committee 

ensures standardization of paperwork and administration among the programs. A 

common case management system has been installed in LATIS and all five programs, 

and a Case Management Committee assures the system meets the changing needs of 

each program. 

• Programs are working on reducing administrative costs through collective purchase of 

insurance, supplies, research resources, fringe benefits, and the like. 

• Accountability standards are being developed by the Bar Foundation to ensure that 

each program creates strong ties within the community with the goal of building local 

bar support and involvement and increasing local fundraising. 

• To address the relatively low level of participation in the delivery of legal services by 

volunteer attorneys at the local level, the South Carolina Bar Access to Justice 

Committee has recommended, and the Bar Foundation is entertaining a grant request, 

to support the creation of a paralegal position in each program to facilitate increasing 

pro bono participation. 

• The Appleseed Justice Center coordinates training and education activities for 

program advocates and private attorneys to develop expertise in areas of poverty law 

practice, to update advocates on new developments and emerging trends in law and 

policy, and to ensure the use of new strategies, tools, skills and advocacy. 

Techniques. It also provides expert case assistance and coordination of the statewide 

substantive law task forces. A system of statewide litigation teams is being 

developed. 

Even with these successes, state planners believe consolidation of the LSC 

programs will produce a more unified and stronger voice for clients and assure greater 

consistency and a full range of services throughout the state. With planning assistance 

funds from LSC, the Bar Foundation has hired a consultant to help the Coordinating 

Council develop a reconfiguration plan to be submitted to LSC this March. 
 -62- 

Utah 

Beaver

Box Elder

Cache

Carbon

Daggett

Davis

Duchesne

Emery

Garfield

Grand

Iron

Juab

Kane

Millard

Morgan

Piute

Rich

Salt Lake

San Juan

Sanpete

Sevier

Summit

Tooele

Utah Uintah

Wasatch

Washington

Wayne

Weber

Utah Legal Services
 -63- 

Utah 

In 1996, the Utah Supreme Court, at the request of the Utah State Bar, ordered the 

State Bar to form the Access to Justice Task Force, charged with reviewing the state of 

legal services for the poor in Utah, exploring new ideas for improving and expanding 

those services, and making recommendations to the Bar and the Supreme Court to 

implement improved services. 

The Task Force, co-chaired by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the 

President of the State Bar, included federal and state judges, a member of the ABA pro 

bono committee, senior partners and leaders of the legal community, the Governor’s 

General Counsel, an assistant U.S. Attorney and an assistant Attorney General, the Dean 

of the state law school and a professor from Brigham Young University’s law school, bar 

commissioners and the pro bono coordinator of the state bar, directors of agencies serving 

low-income and minority communities, and board members of the three legal services 

programs in the state. 

The Task Force submitted its report and recommendations to a meeting of the 

Utah State Bar in July 1997, leading to the formation of the Access to Justice Foundation 

in 1998. The Access to Justice Foundation continues to be the vehicle for state planning 

in Utah, charged with implementing the Task Force’s recommendations for improving 

the delivery of legal assistance to low-income Utahns. Among the initiatives currently 

under way as a result of these efforts are the following: 

• The unified statewide “Justice for All” fundraising campaign was launched in 1999. 

In its first year, the campaign raised $410,000. In 2000, that figure rose to $495,000. 

For the 2001 campaign, $100,000 has already been pledged by a foundation as 

matching funds. Proceeds from the campaign are shared among providers in the state. 

• The Multicultural Legal Center, a new organization to provide advocacy in areas 

restricted to LSC-funded programs, was created. 

• Utah Legal Services, the LSC-funded provider, Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake, and 

the Disability Law Center are applying for a grant to house the three collaborating 

agencies together on one site, to be known as the “Community Legal Center.” 

• Legal services providers are working closely with the Utah State Bar to maximize the 

latter's pro bono projects by providing training in poverty law issues to potential 

volunteers. Recent initiatives have included intensified efforts to train private 

attorneys to provide representation in domestic violence and children’s SSI 

termination cases. 

• With the encouragement of Utah Legal Services, the state Administrative Office of 

the Courts is studying the “self-service centers” model used in Arizona to help pro se 

litigants for possible replication in the state. 
 -64- 

• Planners are considering how best to implement the Access to Justice Task Force’s 

recommendation that a shared centralized intake system be established for all 

providers of legal and social services for low-income people in the state. As 

envisioned, this system would eliminate duplication of intake services and provide 

clients with instant links to appropriate providers. Although legislative efforts to 

obtain state funding for legal services have not been successful to date, planners hope 

that the legislature might be willing to provide funding to implement such a system, 

along with other technology-based projects to expand access to justice. 
 -65- 

Washington 

2001

Adams

Asotin Benton

Chelan

Clallam

Clark

Columbia

Cowlitz

Douglas

Ferry

Franklin

Garfield

Grant

Grays Harbor

Island

Jefferson

King

Kitsap

Kittitas

Klickitat

Lewis

Lincoln

Mason

Okanogan

Pacific

Pend Oreille

Pierce

San Juan

Skagit

Skamania

Snohomish

Spokane

Stevens

Thurston

Wahkiakum Walla Walla

Whatcom

Whitman

Yakima

Northwest Justice Project

1995

Adams

Asotin Benton

Chelan

Clallam

Clark

Columbia

Cowlitz

Douglas

Franklin

Garfield

Grant

Grays Harbor

Island

Jefferson

King

Kitsap

Kittitas

Klickitat

Lewis

Okanogan

Pacific

San Juan

Skagit

Skamania

Snohomish

Wahkiakum Walla Walla

Whatcom

Whitman

Yakima

Ferry

Lincoln

Pend Oreille

Spokane

Stevens

Mason

Pierce

Thurston

Evergreen Legal Services

Spokane Legal Services Center

Puget Sound Legal Assistance Foundation
 -66- 

Washington 

Washington’s state planning has been led by the Access to Justice Board. The 

Board was created by the state Supreme Court in 1994, and charged with expanding 

resources for civil legal services and coordinating their delivery. Its nine members, 

appointed by the Court, represented a range of civil legal assistance stakeholders, 

including the bench, the bar, the Legal Foundation of Washington (which administers 

IOLTA funds), LSC-funded programs and volunteer lawyer programs. 

One year later, the three federally-funded legal services programs requested that 

the ATJ Board appoint a committee to oversee the planning process outlined in LSC’s 

1995 Program Letter. The Board led a broad planning process and, in October 1995, 

adopted the two documents which guide the delivery of legal services within the state of 

Washington: Visioning Justice: Hallmarks of a Statewide Civil Legal Assistance Delivery 

System and the Plan for Delivery of Civil Legal Services to Low-Income Persons in 

Washington State. These two documents define the mission of the state’s civil legal 

assistance delivery system, express key “Equal Justice Values” and attempt to identify 

corresponding “Core Capacities,” to serve the mission. The fundamental principles of 

these two documents can be summarized as follows: (a) legal services providers must be 

"client-centered," i.e., activities must be conceived and carried out in service and in 

concert with the populations that are being served; (b) legal services providers must strive 

to ensure the highest and best use of all available resources within the state of 

Washington and available to the statewide access to justice network; and (c) legal 

services providers have a special responsibility to ensure that no population or client 

group is written out of the justice system based on perceived political unacceptability or 

controversy. 

As a result of these 1995 planning activities, the Access to Justice Board 

reconfigured the delivery structure in Washington and created two statewide legal 

services entities--Columbia Legal Services and the Northwest Justice Project (NJP)--to 

coordinate and supplement the activities of an extensive network of legal services 

advocates, pro bono projects, other providers and supporters within the state of 

Washington. NJP is the LSC-funded provider. NJP operates CLEAR--Coordinated 

Legal Education and Referral System-- to provide telephone and internet-based referral, 

advice, brief service, community legal education and intake services throughout the state. 

Columbia Legal Services receives no LSC funds. As part of its mission within the state's 

civil justice community, Columbia Legal Services is responsible for providing lowincome people in Washington State with the ability to define, assert, promote and enforce 

a full range of legal rights within Washington's civil justice system. 

Key components of the state’s planning and coordinating structure include the 

following: 

• Access to Justice Board. The ATJ Board and its committees and work groups act as 

accountability mechanisms, clearinghouses, and coordinating bodies to ensure that 
 -67- 

the goals of the equal justice community are achieved. The ATJ Board makes regular 

reports to the state Supreme Court and the governing body of the state bar on the 

progress of its committees and work groups in implementing the State Plan. 

• Annual Access to Justice Conference. Now in its sixth year, the annual event has 

become the keystone event for the entire statewide equal justice community. Each 

conference has generated a higher level of participation and sense of community. 

Each has included a broader spectrum of stakeholders, culminating, in 2000, in a joint 

judicial, bar, and equal justice conference attended by over 800 persons. 

• Equal Justice Coalition. The Coalition, created by the ATJ Board and underwritten 

by the Legal Foundation of Washington and Legal Aid for Washington Fund, has 

spearheaded a five-year-long campaign to solidify broad, bipartisan support for 

funding for civil legal assistance 

• “ComTech” (Communications/Technology) Committee. This ATJ Committee 

drew the state’s first communications/technology blueprint and oversaw its statewide 

implementation, resulting in interconnectivity for the entire civil legal services 

delivery system. Most recently, ComTech has teamed up with the Office for the 

Administrator of the Courts and the Coalition Against Domestic Violence to pioneer 

innovative interactive forms project to improve the justice system’s responsiveness to 

victims. 

• Education Committee. This ATJ Committee is responsible for ensuring that the 

culture of the judicial system is one that demonstrably values equal justice. Among its 

strategies are judicial training and introducing the concept of equal justice into the 

judicial screening process. The Education Committee sparked the creation of the 

Public Legal Education Council, a 35-member body created by joint initiative of the 

Governor, the Attorney General, the Office of the Superintendent of Public 

Instruction, and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The Council has adopted 

goals and a multiyear strategy to help the public understand their rights and 

responsibilities and their options for complying with those responsibilities and 

asserting those rights. 

• Systems Impediments Committee and 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 administrative appeal notices, and expansion of the court 

facilitator system. The committees are in the process of reorganization and 

consolidation into a single committee, with the objective of establishing 

inclusion/diversity/multi-cultural competency as key justice system imperatives. 
 -68- 

 Among the accomplishments of Washington’s planning include: 

• A highly integrated configuration of providers, featuring two statewide programs, one 

federally funded and one non-federally funded, and a complementary system of local 

volunteer lawyers programs, specialty legal services providers, law school clinical 

programs, courthouse facilitator, domestic violence advocacy programs and many 

others. 

• The design and successful implementation of the CLEAR intake, advice, brief 

services, and referral system, which provides telephone services for the entire state as 

well as a variety of community legal education materials in hard copy and through its 

website. 

• A system of closely coordinated advocacy among providers, featuring statewide 

substantive task forces; inter-organizational teams that address substantive issues 

affecting large numbers of low income residents; co-counseling across programs; and 

dedication of three staff at Columbia Legal Services to statewide advocacy 

coordination. 

• A deep commitment by the private bar to provide equal justice to low-income persons 

reflected in the provision of pro bono representation in some 35,000 cases annually. 

• A statewide system of training. 

• Institution of a system of Family Law Facilitators in the courts; development of a core 

curriculum for the judiciary on access to justice, including dealing with pro se 

litigants; and other joint initiatives among the bar, the courts, and legal services 

providers to expand access to the courts. 

• The development and implementation of a system-wide technology plan with 

compatible platforms for case management systems; hardware and software standards 

for the civil equal justice community; intake, timekeeping and system integration; 

networked computers; the capacity to ensure coordination of technology efforts 

throughout the delivery system; computer and software technology to support case 

handlers at the two statewide programs, pro bono services, and specialty legal 

services providers; linked websites with community legal education materials, selfhelp materials and forms, and instructions for accessing providers; and systems for 

technology training and support. 

• A shift in the equal justice community, from a culture characterized by a group of 

separate, independent entities that work effectively together in a coordinated effort to 

one in which members perceive themselves as a cohesive, comprehensive, integrated 

team. 

• A dedication to inclusion/diversity/multi-cultural competency which manifests itself 

in effort to seek out and nurture new leaders so that the system will not only survive 
 -69- 

leadership succession, but will continue to adhere to the core vision and values 

embedded in the community in ways that ensure the highest degree of relevancy to 

the increasingly diverse communities of clients in need of equal justice services. 
 -70- 

West Virginia 

1998

Barbour

Berkeley

Braxton

Brooke

Cabell

Calhoun

Doddridge

Gilmer

Grant

Greenbrier

Hampshire

Hancock

Hardy

Harrison

Jackson

Jefferson

Lewis

Marion

Marshall

Mason

Mineral

Monongalia

Monroe

Morgan

Nicholas

Ohio

Pendleton

Pleasants

Pocahontas

Preston

Randolph

Ritchie

Roane

Summers

Taylor

Tucker

Tyler

Upshur

Wayne

Webster

Wetzel

Wirt

Wood

Boone

Clay

Kanawha

Putnam

Fayette

Lincoln

Logan

McDowell Mercer

Mingo Raleigh

Wyoming

West Virginia Legal Services Plan

Legal Aid Society of Charleston

Appalachian Legal Services

2001

Barbour

Berkeley

Braxton

Brooke

Cabell

Calhoun

Doddridge

Gilmer

Grant

Greenbrier

Hampshire

Hancock

Hardy

Harrison

Jackson

Jefferson

Lewis

Marion

Marshall

Mason

Mineral

Monongalia

Monroe

Morgan

Nicholas

Ohio

Pendleton

Pleasants

Pocahontas

Preston

Randolph

Ritchie

Roane

Summers

Taylor

Tucker

Tyler

Upshur

Wayne

Webster

Wetzel

Wirt

Wood

Boone

Clay

Fayette

Kanawha

Lincoln

Logan

McDowell Mercer

Mingo

Putnam

Raleigh

Wyoming

West Virginia Legal Services Plan

Appalachian Legal Services
 -71- 

West Virginia 

Planning efforts in West Virginia have been coordinated through the West 

Virginia Legal Services Symposium, originally created by the State Bar and Bar 

Foundation in 1995. The Symposium, while not yet a formalized body, is a broad 

working group that has included representatives of the West Virginia Supreme Court of 

Appeals, several Circuit Court judges, two Federal District Court judges, and the 

President and other officers of the State Bar. Other participants in the Symposium and its 

numerous standing committees include legal services advocates and program board 

members, representatives of the state Attorney General’s office and other government 

attorneys, faculty from the West Virginia College of Law, bar leaders, and 

representatives of the domestic violence and human services communities. The 

Symposium has been the forum for debate and discussion of a wide range of equal justice 

issues, from the mission of the civil legal assistance delivery system to the design and 

implementation of a number of specific initiatives aimed at unifying, expanding and 

improving the state’s equal justice community. 

The Symposium has also been the vehicle that has helped enable West Virginia to 

unify and transform its delivery system. While five years ago there were 4 LSC 

programs, the state will operate one statewide LSC program beginning January 1, 2002. 

The first mergers occurred in 1996 subsequent to LSC funding cuts, when the smallest 

LSC program, North Central West Virginia Legal Aid Society merged with the largest 

program West Virginia Legal Services Plan. Four years later, the Appalachian Research 

and Defense Fund merged with the Legal Aid Society of Charleston at the start of 2000 to 

create Appalachian Legal Services. Renewed planning efforts and a commitment to 

build statewide core functions and capacities led to the final planned merger between 

Appalachian Legal Services and the West Virginia Legal Services Plan. 

Planning and organizing for this final merger has been extensive, and a merger 

website at www.wvlegalservicesmerger.org helps facilitate the process. 

 

Members of the Symposium organized and launched a new, unrestricted legal 

services provider, Mountain State Justice in 1996. This non-LSC funded entity is 

available to clients throughout the state and currently consists of six full and part-time 

staff attorneys. Funding for this organization is provided by IOLTA, private foundations, 

attorney fees, and donations. 

The West Virginia College of Law, the state’s only law school, is playing an 

increasingly important role in the development of statewide technology and support 

systems. The development of a statewide legal services website, based at the West 

Virginia College of Law, is currently underway. The interactive site will include pro 

bono resources and community legal education materials as well as provider information 

and support resources. It will be part of a coordinated web information delivery strategy 

involving the courts and broad range of non-traditional partners. 
 -72- 

The Symposium’s Intake, Access, Delivery, Self-Help and Prevention Committee 

is developing ways to improve system integration and client access, including institution 

of a statewide telephonic intake, advice and referral system. They are coordinating their 

efforts with pro se and client education information systems. The Futures Commission of 

the West Virginia Judiciary recently recommended that a pro se coordinator be located at 

each county courthouse. 

Through its Committee on Coordination and Collaboration with the Private Bar, 

the Symposium has sponsored a number of efforts to expand private bar involvement 

including better recruitment, training, and support for private attorneys willing to 

participate in the delivery of civil legal services to low income persons. In concert with 

the West Virginia State Bar, the Symposium will launch a permanent Pro Bono Review 

Committee to facilitate the provision of services by volunteer lawyers. 

Last year, the state domestic violence coalition received a VAWA grant to set up 

13 new local pro bono programs in the 13 communities where there are domestic 

violence shelters. Pro bono attorneys provide clients legal assistance at the final domestic 

violence protective order hearing. As a result, significant new private attorney resources 

have been developed in these communities and client representation has dramatically 

increased. 

The Statewide Technology Committee is standardizing all systems, and a 

statewide technology plan for the state is set to be completed in early June. 

The key challenge facing planners in the state is finding a way to increase funding 

in order to significantly expand the capacity for services. In addition to establishing a 

single statewide coordinated fund raising plan, the Symposium is exploring legislative 

proposals involving fee-shifting statutes, as well as more traditional approaches, such as 

filing fees, surcharges, or an increase in bar dues. 

The delivery of legal services in West Virginia will soon be enhanced by a 

statewide $1.6 million TANF grant. By far the largest increase in resources in many 

years, these funds will allow the hiring of 12 attorneys and 12 paralegals to provide 

service to TANF recipients on a wide array of legal problems that can obstacles be to 

making a transition from welfare to work. The addition of this staff will increase the 

state’s legal service’s advocacy staff by over one-third. 
 -73- 

III. Lessons From Successful State Planning 

Although there is no single model for success, many states that are building state 

justice communities share similar characteristics that can guide other states less far along. 

Particular models, strategies, and approaches that have proven successful in one state 

may be useful to others, while the progress of the national initiative to build state justice 

communities as it has played out across the country provides some valuable information 

for national leaders and institutions. The following identifies some of the lessons that can 

be gleaned from observing states that have made significant progress toward building 

state justice communities and attaining the goal of equal justice. Included also are 

models and initiatives that have proven successful or hold out the promise of success. 

A. Broad Lessons

• There is no single model for building a state justice community. States that are on 

the road to success have taken a variety of different approaches, based on particular 

circumstances, challenges, and opportunities. 

• People within a state must feel the need to and some urgency for changing the 

legal services delivery system. Change is difficult and time consuming; people do 

not willingly make dramatic changes in the way they go about their business unless 

and until they feel that the situation demands it. Similarly, legal services delivery 

systems will not change until they come to recognize that access, quality, expansion 

of resources, promotion of diversity, bi-partisan support and public acceptance are 

issues that must be addressed. The goal is to light a fire without burning down the 

tent. We can be proud of what we have accomplished over the last 25 years while 

still understanding that we need to do more and better. 

• Building and maintaining a state justice community is an ongoing process. The 

fact that it is a process means that somebody has made a decision about the direction 

the process should take, and it implies some ability to predict the outcome of the 

process through implementation of strategies designed to accomplish the desired 

objective. It also requires continuous dedication and effort on the part of all those 

entities and individuals in the state committed to equal justice. Even the few states 

that have succeeded in building a justice community that has significantly expanded 

and improved services for low-income people have not achieved the ultimate goal of 

realizing equal justice for low-income people. 

• A firm grounding in shared values and a shared vision will increase the 

likelihood of success. Most successful efforts to build a justice community have 

begun with a process to identify the values that will inform planning efforts and 

provide the basis for a shared vision of what the process is intended to achieve. 

Shared values and vision impel the ongoing investment of time and energy that is 

necessary for success and have enabled processes in a number of states to get past 

areas of disagreement. Values and vision paint the picture that drives the action. 
 -74- 

• Planning initiatives must be based upon a structured and principled 

determination of the needs of client communities. A key task of the planning 

process is to identify the major legal and justice-system-related issues confronting 

low-income people and communities in the state and to develop the best possible 

methods and mechanisms to address them. Some states have used a thorough client 

needs study or report as a basis for their planning efforts. Involving a broad-based 

group of stakeholders in the design, supervision, or administration of the study or 

report has helped to ensure that partners are fully invested in its findings and the 

implementation of proposed solutions. In different states, the study or report has been 

initiated or overseen variously by the courts, the legislature, the state bar association, 

or an officially chartered commission or similar entity. 

• Leadership is key. The states that have made progress toward building justice 

communities have all had leaders willing and able to see the need for change, 

unafraid of taking a statewide perspective, eager to put the needs of clients first, to 

accept responsibility for meeting those needs, and to “keep their eyes on the prize,” 

that is on the core values and vision on which the process and its initiatives are based. 

Moreover, these leaders have successfully defined a series of goals and objectives 

that are founded in the community's belief in equal access to justice and they have 

been adept at communicating their goals to others. 

• Planning and implementation require staffing and support. Planning processes 

are complicated. Ongoing coordination and support for them are essential. 

Permanent change will occur within and among our state communities of justice only 

if participating organizations adopt new structures and approaches that can cope with 

a growing demand for flexibility and diverse high quality legal services. 

• Many states have found that involving an experienced planning consultant in the 

initial phases of launching a process and developing a plan can be valuable, 

particularly where difficult issues involving institutional relationships are 

present. Central coordination and support of an ongoing planning process and 

implementation of its various initiatives can be provided by “access to justice” staff at 

the state bar or bar foundation, IOLTA staff, legal services state support staff, or staff 

working directly for a statewide commission or task force. 

• Building a state justice community is demanding and involves real costs. The 

planning processes under way across the country have required a tremendous 

expenditure of time and energy, as well as actual out-of-pocket costs for staff, 

planning consultants, and other expenses. LSC has been able to provide some 

financial support for these activities, but because of our limited discretionary 

spending, our capacity to contribute is limited. All of the partners that make up state 

justice communities must understand and accept the need for an ongoing commitment 

to contribute their time and energy to these efforts and that those with funding 

capacity must bear a share of the costs. This investment, while significant, will be far 

outweighed by the pay-off in terms of increased access and expanded services for 
 -75- 

low-income people and the intangible benefit that realizing the ideal of equal justice 

for all Americans. 

• If a state is going to successfully create a state justice community, someone has to 

be responsible for it. In other words, state planning can not be left to take care 

of itself. Someone (an individual person or group of persons) must advocate for 

change, must be willing to do the work necessary to secure the change, and must be 

committed to doing what it takes to make the change permanent. 

• The creation of state justice communities will be successful only if there is 

encouragement and legitimization of constructive dissatisfaction. On-going 

evaluation of progress is important. Openness, candor and frank feedback are 

essential. 

• State planning will fail unless there is acceptance of and encouragement for the 

risks inherent in experimentation and innovation. Innovation in processes, 

structures and approaches must be encouraged--even when they don't work out. 

People should be encouraged to explore innovative, creative or experimental 

approaches to the delivery of legal services. 

• The successful state planning initiative requires open communication. Planning 

that results in permanent change will occur most readily and effectively where 

collaboration and team building is rewarded and infighting and/or turf-protecting 

activities are shunned. And no one can be cut out of the process. State planning fails 

when groups of stakeholders feel ignored, marginalized or unimportant. 

• Obstacles and setbacks must be anticipated. Changing a delivery system that has 

been in place for a quarter of a century is difficult. It will take longer than you 

anticipate. Skeptics will try to derail it. There will be failures along the way, and the 

personal costs for some stakeholders cannot be overestimated. Don't expect the path 

forward to be smooth but don't let the obstacles overwhelm you. 

• In the end a state planning initiative takes time, a commitment to forego issues of 

turf and personal interests, and a supportive reward system. The creation of state 

justice communities does not happen overnight, and it does not happen without some 

personal pain (long-time legal services staff have seen their jobs change in front of 

their eyes). Each state must create ways to honor its heroes, record and reward its 

progress. 
 -76- 

B. Models and Initiatives

The following are some tools and strategies employed effectively by states 

included in this Report. This list is intended only to provide some useful examples; it 

does not purport to be a complete listing of all the states that have employed these tools. 

 

• Access To Justice Commission, Task Force, Or Other High-Level Statewide 

Entity To Launch And/Or Oversee Planning Process. California, Florida, Maine, 

Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon, Utah, Washington, West Virginia 

• Core Values. Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Washington 

• Study of Client Needs. Missouri, New Hampshire (pending) 

• Regular Access to Justice Conference. Indiana, Ohio, Oregon, Washington 

• Access to Justice Staff at State Bar Association or Other Bar Institution. California, 

Minnesota, Washington 

• Coordination of Planning and Implementation at Legal Services State Support 

Center. Florida, Indiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania 

• Review of Plan After Interval to Measure Progress and Reassess Goals and 

Strategies. New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Washington 

• Study or Development of Coordinated Regional or Statewide Intake, Advice, 

Referral and Brief Services System. Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Maine, 

Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, West Virginia 

• Statewide Technology Plan Covering All Providers. Maine, Minnesota, New 

Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington 

• Statewide Legal Services Website for Clients and Public. Maine, Minnesota, Ohio, 

Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia 

• Statewide Website For Providers. Minnesota, Washington, West Virginia 

• Statewide Coordination of Creation and Distribution of Community Education 

Materials. Ohio, Washington 

• Provision of Community Education Materials Through Website. Maine, 

Maryland, Minnesota, Washington 

• Partnerships with Courts and Others on Initiatives to Make Courts More 

Receptive and Responsive to Low-Income People and Self-Represented 
 -77- 

Litigants, Including Revision of Forms and Procedures, Creation of Family 

Courts, Institution of Court Facilitators, Electronic Filing of Court Documents, 

Training of Judges. California, Maine, Oregon, Utah, Washington 

 

• Statewide Task Forces on Substantive Legal Issues, Involving Legal Services 

Advocates, Volunteer Private Attorneys, Others as Appropriate, with 

Appropriate Support. Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Washington 

• Statewide Body Charged with Coordination of Advocacy. Indiana, Missouri, 

Ohio, Washington 

• Statewide or (Multi-State Regional) Planning and Coordination of Training For 

Legal Services Advocates and Volunteer Private Attorneys. New England, South 

Carolina, Washington 

• Expansion of Funding to Non-LSC Funded Programs or Creation of New NonLSC Funded Programs to Provide Full Complement of Services. Maine, 

Missouri, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia 

• Expansion of Funding for Legal Services State Support Centers or Creation of 

New State Support Centers to Provide Coordination and Support for 

Technology, Community Education, Training, Complex or Broad Systemic 

Advocacy, or Planning Functions. Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Pennsylvania 

• Court or Bar-Initiated Efforts to Increase Pro Bono Participation. California, 

Indiana, Maryland, New Hampshire, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, 

Washington 

• State-Level Fundraising Campaign Led By Bar or Coalition. Colorado, New 

Hampshire, Oregon, Utah, Washington, West Virginia 

• Statewide Public Awareness Campaign to Raise Visibility of And Support for 

Civil Legal Assistance. Washington 

• State-Level Coordination and Support for Regional or Local Fundraising 

Efforts. Pennsylvania, Washington 

• Campaign for State Funding. California, Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, Ohio, 

Oregon, Utah

• Independent Evaluation of Delivery System. Florida, Ohio, Maryland, New Jersey