September 2001

Legal Services Corporation

A Special Report to Congress

America’s Partner 

For Equal Justice

STATE PLANNING &

RECONFIGURATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS Douglas S. Eakeley, Chair

LaVeeda Morgan Battle, Vice Chair

Hulett H. Askew

John T. Broderick, Jr.

John N. Erlenborn

Edna Fairbanks-Williams

F. Wm. McCalpin

Maria Luisa Mercado

Nancy H. Rogers

Thomas F. Smegal, Jr.

Ernestine P. Watlington

MANAGEMENT

AND ADMINISTRATION

John N. Erlenborn, President

Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President for Legal Affairs, General

 Counsel, and Corporate Secretary

Mauricio Vivero, Vice President for Governmental Relations

 and Public Affairs

Randi Youells, Vice President for Programs

David L. Richardson, Acting Vice President for Administration

Danilo A. Cardona, Director of Compliance and Enforcement

Alice Dickerson, Director of Human Resources

Michael A. Genz, Director of Program Performance

John C. Meyer, Acting Director of Information Management

Leslie Q. Russell, Director of Information Technology

OFFICE OF

INSPECTOR GENERAL

Leonard J. Koczur, Acting Inspector General

David C. Maddox, Director of Financial and Information

 Resource Management

Laurie Tarantowicz, Assistant Inspector General for

 Legal Review
I. INTRODUCTION

L

1

“To provide high quality legal assistance to those who would otherwise

be unable to afford adequate legal

counsel.”

LSC Act of 1974

THEHE LSC MISSION

egal Services Corporation (LSC) is a private, non-membership,

nonprofit corporation in the District of Columbia. Eleven voting members, appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and

consent of the Senate, compose the LSC Board of Directors. By law, the

Board is bipartisan: no more than six members can be of the same political

party.1

LSC was created by Congress in 1974 and continues to play a central role in providing low-income Americans with access to legal assistance and information concerning critical civil legal problems. LSC is

guided by its congressionally mandated mission, spelled

out in the LSC Act of 1974, “to provide equal access to

the system of justice in our Nation for individuals who

seek redress of grievances” and “to provide high quality

legal assistance to those who would otherwise be unable

to afford adequate legal counsel.”2

LSC funds local legal services programs to serve

diverse clientele in every state, county, and congressional

district in the United States, as well as in Puerto Rico,

the Virgin Islands, Guam, and Micronesia. As one of the

primary funders of civil equal justice in every state, LSC has a duty to

stimulate the most effective means of delivering legal services to low-income individuals. LSC is committed to meaningful partnerships with our

grantees and the broader civil equal justice community. LSC is also obligated to ensure that the federal investment promotes efficient and effective client service and complements the efforts of other providers of civil

legal services.

In 1996, Congress passed a major overhaul of LSC’s grant-making

and regulatory structure that included three major reforms impacting the

legal services community.3

 First, Congress adopted a number of new accountability requirements governing what services LSC-funded programs

may provide, what they may do with non-LSC funds, and whom they

may represent. These new guidelines have refocused the LSC delivery
2

LSC Annual Appropriation

$250,000,000

$270,000,000

$290,000,000

$310,000,000

$330,000,000

$350,000,000

$370,000,000

$390,000,000

$410,000,000

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal Year

Dollars

system on serving individual clients with particular legal needs.

Attorneys working for LSC-funded programs may no longer, for

example, initiate or participate in class action lawsuits, collect courtawarded attorneys’ fees, represent prisoners or certain categories

of aliens, or take cases involving political redistricting, abortion,

or drug-related public housing evictions.4 Another major reform

of 1996 instituted a competitive bidding process for LSC service

contracts, requiring programs to demonstrate results and progress

as a condition of continued federal funding.5 Finally, in 1996 Congress approved a one-third reduction in LSC’s annual appropriation, from $400 million to $278 million.6

In July 1995, in anticipation of the funding cutbacks, LSC

initiated the broad outlines of its “state planning process” to highlight strategies by which programs could stretch scarce federal dollars to help ensure that all low-income clients have an equal opportunity to receive the most accessible, effective legal assistance possible. After three years of development in the field, LSC’s State

Planning Initiative was formally launched in 1998. In the ensuing

II. LSC CONVENES

RECONFIGURATION TASK FORCE

T

4

his document, the LSC Special Report to Congress – State

Planning and Reconfiguration, was prepared in response to a request made by the U.S. House of Representatives during the FY2002

Appropriations process, in which the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary stated:

The Committee supports LSC’s efforts to

streamline its service area configurations

through the State planning process. However,

the Committee has been made aware of concerns that LSC has attempted to impose its

own reconfiguration plans on certain States

without clearly articulating standards for

such decisions. In several instances the Corporation rejected reconfiguration plans developed and approved by all relevant stakeholders within a State, and provided no opportunity for the State to appeal that decision. The

Committee expects LSC to review the State

planning process and the concerns raised, and

report back to the Committee by no later than

September 4, 200110, with a proposal that articulates the reconfiguration standards and

process for States to appeal LSC’s decisions.

The Committee intends that LSC consult

with appropriate stakeholders in developing

this proposal.11

On June 30, 2001, the

LSC Board of Directors

established the LSC Task

Force to Study and

Report on Configuration

of Service Areas charged

with reviewing “existing

policies, standards, and

procedures governing

state planning and for

defining service areas...”
5

Since implementation of the State Planning Initiative in 1998,

LSC has sought to apply a set of detailed criteria in making all

decisions on whether a given service area arrangement is optimally

configured to provide high-quality legal services to the greatest number of eligible low-income clients. These criteria were created to

complement the goals of State Planning and to guide staff in evaluating the efficacy of service area plans submitted by recognized stakeholders in each state. These guidelines were conveyed to LSC-funded

programs through the release of a series of Program Letters and

other field correspondences.12 Furthermore, as of July 19, 2001, all

recognized stakeholders have a right to a de novo review of service

area decisions by both the LSC Vice President for Programs and

the LSC President when LSC decisions run contrary to stakeholders’ proposed configuration schemes.13

In response to inquiries from the legal services community

and Members of Congress, the LSC Board of Directors on June 30,

2001, established the LSC Task Force to Study and Report on Configuration of Service Areas. The Task Force was charged with reviewing “existing policies, standards, and procedures governing state

planning and for defining service areas; and any revisions to existing policies, standards, and procedures which the Task Force concludes to warrant serious consideration by LSC.”14

Co-chaired by two LSC Board members, New Hampshire

Supreme Court Justice John T. Broderick and Ernestine Watlington,

the Task Force convened the first of several meetings on August

21, 2001, in Washington, D.C. Representing the Task Force were

Hulett H. Askew and Maria Luisa Mercado of the LSC Board; James

Head of the National Legal Aid & Defender Association; Melville

D. Miller, Jr., of Legal Services of New Jersey; Jonathan Ross of

the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on Legal Aid

and Indigent Defendants; Faith Rivers of the South Carolina Bar

Association; and Jeanne Charn, director of Clinical Legal Education at Harvard Law School.

Justice Broderick delivered an interim report from the Task

Force to the LSC Board of Directors at the Board’s meeting on

September 8, 2001, in Alexandria, Va. Broderick reported that the

Task Force has made considerable progress in examining concerns
6

pertinent to service area configuration and the right of designated stakeholders to appeal decisions with which they disagree. He stated that broad

consensus exists on a majority of issues before the Task Force and that

remaining areas of disagreement are expected to be resolved in short order.

One specific area of consensus among Task Force members was that all

LSC reconfiguration criteria should be codified into one document. The

current LSC reconfiguration standards, which are under review by the

Task Force, are compiled and discussed in Section IV of this Special Report

to Congress.

A final report from the Task Force is expected to be presented to

the LSC Board of Directors for consideration in October 2001. The LSC

Board will give due consideration to any and all recommendations embodied in the Task Force’s final report. In the interim, the Board believes it

crucial to relay to Congress LSC’s current standards governing state planning, service area configuration, and review processes.

In this report, the LSC Board of Directors is pleased to provide

information addressing Congress’s three principal concerns:

1. A Review of the State Planning Process;

2. A Report on LSC’s Reconfiguration Standards; and

3. The Process to Appeal LSC’s Reconfiguration Decisions.
SC’s State Planning Initiative embraces a new vision15 for

legal services in which eligible clients in every state would be afforded an equal opportunity to avail themselves of high-quality civil

legal assistance. In an effort to foster more consistent levels of statewide service and to eliminate “service gaps” that leave clients in geographically remote areas under-represented compared to their urban counterparts, LSC has asked its grantees to undergo a fundamental paradigm shift in their program visions. Program leaders have been instructed to abandon the parochial thinking of “What’s best for clients in my

service area?” and asked instead to consider “What’s best

for clients throughout my state?”

LSC initially stressed the importance of state planning in 1995 when it asked its recipients in each state to

participate in the development of plans for the design, configuration, and operation of LSC-funded programs in their

states. The 1995 Program Letters16 containing this directive

also enumerated the issues and criteria that state planning

should address.

Launching the State Planning Initiative, LSC staff

developed and issued Program Letters 1998-117 and 1998-

6,18 which directed programs to plan for the creation of comprehensive, integrated, client-centered legal services systems

and defined the terms of such systems. Grantees were required to submit reports outlining their state plans by October 1, 1998. Their plans were to include responses to the

seven central tenets of State Planning: (1) development of

intake, advice, and referral services; (2) effective usage of technology; (3) increased access to legal self-help and prevention information; (4) coordination of legal work, training, information, and exIII. AN OVERVIEW OF THE STATE

PLANNING PROCESS

7

L

7 TENETS ENETS OFF STATE TATE PLANNING LANNING

 Development of intake,

advice, and referral services

Effective usage of technology

Increased access to legal self-help

and prevention information

Coordination of legal work, training,

information, and expert assistance

Engagement of pro bono attorneys

Development of additional state,

local and private resources

Optimal configuration of service areas

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7 TENETS OF STATE PLANNING
8

pert assistance; (5) engagement of pro bono attorneys; (6) development of

additional state, local, and private resources; and (7) optimal configuration

of service areas.

In designing state plans, LSC instructed its programs to collaborate

with a range of local, state, and national stakeholders, including state and

local bar associations, Interest On Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA) administrators, state judiciaries, client groups, pro bono commissions, state

legislatures, non-LSC-funded legal services programs, and a host of others.

LSC requires its grantees in each state to work with each other and equal

justice stakeholders to develop justice communities that best respond to

clients’ most compelling needs, ensure the most strategic and cost-effective

use of all available resources, and maximize the opportunity for clients

statewide to receive timely, effective, and appropriate legal services.

Guided by the belief that access to quality legal services is critical

to a fair adversarial justice system and committed to making significant

improvements in their delivery, the LSC Board of Directors approved and

enacted Strategic Directions 2000-2005 in January 2000. Its twin objectives

are to dramatically increase the number of low-income Americans who

can access the civil justice system and to ensure that all clients receive

quality legal services.

In designing state plans,

LSC instructed its

programs to collaborate

with a range of local,

state, and national

stakeholders, including

state and local bar

associations, Interest On

Lawyers Trust Account

(IOLTA) administrators,

state judiciaries, client

groups, pro bono

commissions, state

legislatures, and nonLSC-funded legal services programs.
9

IV. REPORT ON LSC’S

RECONFIGURATION STANDARDS

 ongress has vested in Legal Services Corporation the responsibility of specifying the service areas for which it will offer grants for the

provision of legal services. LSC awards one service contract per delineated service area. Some states, like California and New Jersey, comprise

multiple service areas and, therefore, feature multiple LSC-funded grantees. Others, like Indiana and Colorado, have one service area encompassing the entire state and one corresponding statewide program.

Each state is different, and in some states, intra-state regions differ

significantly as well. As LSC has stated in numerous letters to the field,

there is no “magic number” of legal services programs for a given state or

a single delivery model that fits every state. Each state plan must be

viewed based on the totality of the circumstances, with the bottom-line

consideration turning on LSC’s studied determination as to whether a

given service area configuration inures to the benefit of the greatest number of clients in the most cost-effective way.

As a general rule, service area configuration decisions are evaluated against one overarching principle: Program configuration should

occur in a manner that maximizes the effective and efficient delivery

of high quality legal services to eligible clients throughout the state

within a comprehensive, integrated delivery system. In some states, it

may be possible to develop and implement statewide initiatives to improve service delivery, increase resources, and enhance the capacity of

the system to meet the civil legal needs of all low-income people without

altering service areas or historical relationships. In other states, the very

development and implementation of such initiatives may require overhauling or establishing new organizational relationships and service areas.

In the vast majority of cases, LSC has agreed with the recommendations of state planning groups throughout the country and has configured service areas accordingly. However, LSC, in the proper exercise of

its statutory authority, may sometimes reject a state plan as insufficiently

LSC RECONFIGURATION

Standard #1

The configuration of programs

within the state:

• Facilitates a delivery network

that provides low-income

persons throughout the state

broad, prompt, and even access

to the legal services it furnishes

regardless of such obstacles as

disability, geographical isolation,

culture and language.

• Takes into account the sociocultural and economic affinities

in place that are most relevant to

issues facing low-income clients.

• Takes into account the

geographic, physical, and

historical distinctions of most

relevance to clients.

LSC R LSC RECONFIGURATION ECONFIGURATION

The state delivery system is

designed and configured to

maximize access for clients

throughout the state.

C
10

responsive to the tenets of State Planning and substitute a reconfiguration

plan adjudged to better maximize effective and efficient delivery of high

quality legal services.

In deciding to accept or reject a proposed state plan, LSC must

ultimately determine whether, when taken together with strategies outlined in the plan in question, the proposed configuration is best calibrated

to:

1) Maximize access for clients statewide

2) Maximize effectiveness of legal services statewide

3) Make the highest and best use of available resources

4) Encourage innovation in the delivery of legal services

and appropriately evaluate results

5) Respond effectively and efficiently to new and emerging client needs

Until the implementation of the State Planning Initiative, determining service areas in a given state was more a product of geographic and

historical happenstance than a reasoned judgment about the precise configuration that would yield the best legal services system for the greatest

number of clients. But Congress’ 1996 reform replacing presumptive refunding of grantees with competitive bidding for LSC service contracts19

– coupled with budget cuts of the same year – necessitated a thorough

reexamination of the efficacy of existing service area arrangements in each

state. With fewer resources to expend and a growing client base to serve,

LSC has embraced service area reconfiguration as one important way to

“insure that grants and contracts are made so as to provide the most economical and effective delivery of legal assistance to persons in both urban

and rural areas.”20 Rather than viewing service area reconfiguration as a

punitive measure against under-performing programs currently receiving

federal funds, LSC instead considers statewide reconfiguration to be one

of several tools to ensure that federal dollars are being spent in the most

efficient, cost-effective manner possible, in a way that will result in the

best service to the most low-income clients.

Standard #2

The state delivery system is

designed and configured to

maximize effective legal

services to clients

throughout the state.

The configuration of programs

within the state:

• Provides relative equity in the

availability of the full range of

client service capacities regardless of where the client lives.

• Facilitates providers having the

resources, expertise, information

and experience neccessary to

provide high quality legal

services consistent with state

and national standards of

provider performance.

• Facilitates coordination of legal

work and a statewide capacity to

provide training, information,

and expert assistance

necessary for the delivery of

high quality legal assistance.

• Facilitates coordination of

provider efforts to expand client

access to the courts, enhance

self-help opportunities for lowincome persons, and provide

preventive legal education and

advice.

• Takes into account location of

governmental, judicial, and

human services entities.

LSC RECONFIGURATION
Standard #3

The state delivery system is

designed and configured to

make the highest and best

use of available resources.

The configuration of programs

within the state:

• Facilitates coordination of

resource development efforts,

including such efforts as unified

approaches to major potential

public sources, liaisons with and

maintenance of existing

statewide resources, and

coordinated technical assistance

for local fundraising.

• Provide relative equity in the

investment of civil equal justice

resources.

• Facilitates coordination of

efforts and a capacity to utilize

new and emerging technology to

promote efficiency, improve

quality and expand services to

clients regardless of where they

live and other access barriers.

• Avoids duplication of capacities,

services, and systems; uses best

organizational and human

resources practices.

• Facilitates strong coordination

and collaboration with, and a

high degree of involvement by,

the private bar.

• Strengthens the relationship

between the federal investment

strategy and development of

state-based resources.

LSC RECONFIGURATION

Standard #4

The state delivery system is

designed and configured to

encourage innovation in

the delivery of legal

services accompanied by

appropriate evaluation of

results.

The configuration of programs

within the state:

• Facilitates coordinated research

and efforts to stay abreast of

developments in the delivery of

legal services.

• Facilitates attempts to secure

new funding for, or allocate

current funding to, new

projects and experimental

models for serving clients or

strengthening system

capacities.

• Facilitates program evaluation

and sharing of results among

providers.

LSC RECONFIGURATION LSC RECONFIGURATION

The configuration of programs

within the state:

• Enhances the likelihood of

achieving the intended goals

of a comprehensive, clientcentered delivery system, as

outlined in the seven tenets of

state planning.

• Facilitates efficient, ongoing

assessment of demographic

trends, changes in laws, and

public programs affecting lowincome persons.

• Ensures regular review of

system capacities, resources,

and adjustments to respond to

emerging client needs and

other changes affecting the

delivery of legal services.

• Operates to ensure that all

components of the delivery

system have sufficient

resources to adjust to changes

in client needs.

• Promotes ability to develop

and retain staff who are diverse

and culturally competent.

Standard #5

The state delivery system is

designed and configured to

respond effectively and

efficiently to new and

emerging client needs and

other changes affecting the

delivery of legal services to

the poor.

LSC RECONFIGURATION

11
12

V. RECONFIGURATION

REVIEW PROCESS

n July 19, 2001, LSC implemented a Reconfiguration Review Process establishing an official framework by which designated

state planning bodies21 may seek review of LSC reconfiguration

decisions. This formal Review Process guarantees representatives

of every designated state planning body the right to direct communication with LSC officials at the highest level in seeking reconsideration of an LSC decision. The objective of the Review Process is

to maximize the potential for full communication between stakeholders and LSC officials before any configuration decisions are

made final and effective.

Central to the Review Process is the right of designated stakeholders to de novo reviews of all configuration decisions, first by

the LSC Vice President for Programs and then by the LSC President, whose decision is final and binding. The Review Process guarantees DSPB representatives a face-to-face meeting with the Vice

President of Programs to make their case. If the state planning body

disagrees with the Vice President’s decision, they may then request

a face-to-face meeting with the LSC President to seek reconsideration of the Vice President’s recommendation. After due consideration of the stakeholders’ ultimate appeal, the LSC President will

promptly advise the state planning body of a final decision on configuration.

LSC is committed to effective communication and coordination with designated state planning bodies (DSPB) on matters in

which decisions are likely to have a direct impact on other civil

equal justice planning initiatives in a state. LSC recognizes the increasingly active role that state planners have assumed in overseeing state civil equal justice delivery activities. LSC further recognizes that its decisions have the potential to directly affect state

funding, resource allocation, and other considerations. In recognition of this crucial symbiosis, LSC’s Reconfiguration Review Process

O

Central to the Review Process

is the right of designated

stakeholders to de novo reviews

of all configuration decisions,

first by the LSC Vice President

for Programs and then by the

LSC President.
prescribes a clear review mechanism that guarantees recognized stakeholders a full opportunity to make their case:

1) At the earliest possible time, LSC’s state planning team will

advise the DSPB in each state of any issues of concern with

respect to service area configuration and provide guidance on

how to address those concerns consistent with the enumerated

reconfiguration standards.

2) To the extent reasonably practical, LSC’s state planning team

will work with the DSPB, grantees, and other stakeholders to

foster timely and effective consideration of issues relating to

service area reconfiguration.

3) LSC will identify in which states, if any, it proposes to define

new service areas at least sixty (60) days prior to publishing

those service areas in the Federal Register. At that time, LSC

also will notify the relevant state planning bodies of pending

service area changes.

4) If the LSC state planning team recommends a service area configuration that differs from that proposed by the DSPB, authorized representatives of the DSPB may seek a meeting with

LSC’s Vice President for Programs to ask for reconsideration.

The representatives will be asked to articulate in writing their

concerns and objections.

5) Upon such a request, the VP for Programs will convene a faceto-face meeting with the authorized representatives of the

DSPB. As soon as practical thereafter, the VP for Programs

shall advise the DSPB of the service area configuration recommendation to be forwarded to the LSC President. In making

the recommendation, the VP for Programs shall be guided by

state planners’ responsiveness to the enumerated

reconfiguration standards; the analysis and recommendations

of the LSC state planning team; the articulated concerns of the

DSPB; and any other information deemed to be relevant by

the VP of Programs.

13
14

6) If the DSPB is not satisfied with the VP for Programs’ recommendation, it may seek a meeting with the LSC President to ask for

reconsideration. The DSPB will be asked to provide any additional

written information it wishes to be considered to assist the LSC

President in fully and fairly entertaining all concerns and objections.

7) Upon such a request, the President will convene a face-to-face

meeting with the authorized representatives of the DSPB. As soon

as practical thereafter, the LSC President will advise the DSPB of

the final decision on service area configuration in the affected state

or territory. In making the decision, the President shall be guided

by state planners’ responsiveness to enumerated reconfiguration

standards; the analyses and recommendations of the LSC state planning team and the VP for Programs; the articulated concerns of

the DSPB; and any other information deemed relevant by the President.
VI. CONCLUSION

C

15

 ongressional reforms passed in 1996 necessitated a fundamental

shift in how LSC apportions federal dollars to legal services providers across

the country. The shift to a competitive bidding process, coupled with sizeable reductions in Legal Services Corporation’s annual budget, compelled

the LSC Board of Directors to adopt a new approach to allocating Congress’ annual investment in civil equal justice for the poor. The expectations underlying this new approach have been spelled out in considerable

detail in Program Letters issued broadly to the field, and in state-by-state

correspondences between LSC’s state planning team and various equal justice stakeholders.

In the current climate of scarce resources, LSC must remain committed to pursuing bold new approaches that foster effective legal assistance to low-income clients, including overhauling service areas adjudged

to be insufficiently responsive to the tenets of State Planning. In an overwhelming majority of instances, LSC has used the competitive bidding process to forge deeper bonds with its grantees and stakeholders, allowing LSC

to serve as an active partner in planting the seeds of comprehensive, integrated state justice communities nationwide. In fact, stakeholders in dozens

of states have embraced the new approach fully and reported back enthusiastically on their progress since initiating their own state planning processes.

LSC understands that organizations can be reluctant to embrace

major change. LSC also recognizes that opinions may differ as to the most

appropriate configuration of service areas, and that grantees and other stakeholders may have a better perspective on how to best serve clients and

enhance access in their states. In recognition of these tensions, LSC has

worked diligently since 1995 to convey the expectations of the State Planning Initiative and to establish meaningful partnerships with stakeholders

aimed at fostering a new symbiosis between the federal provider and recipients of legal services funding. However, if an impasse is ultimately reached

in a particular state, it is critical that LSC maintain its statutory right to

decide the configuration of service areas in order to foster greater access

and service for all eligible low-income clients.

The shift to a

competitive bidding

process, coupled with

sizeable reductions in

Legal Services

Corporation’s annual

budget, compelled the

LSC Board of

Directors to adopt a

new approach to

allocating Congress’

annual investment in

civil equal justice for

the poor.
1

 Legal Services Corporation Act of 1974, as amended, § 1004, 42 U.S.C. § 2996c. (2001) (“LSC

Act of 1974”).

2 Id. at § 1001, 42 U.S.C. § 2996. 3

 Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110

Stat. 1321 (1996). These new LSC administrative provisions have been incorporated into each LSC

appropriation since 1996, subject to some modifications made in the Departments of Commerce,

Justice, and State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998, Pub. L. 105-119,

111 Stat. 2440 (1997).

4 Id. at § 504. 5 Id. at § 503. 6 Id. LSC’s current Congressional FY01 appropriation is $329.3 million. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2001 Pub. L. No. 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762 (2000).

7 Strategic Directions 2000-2005, page 4, “Programmatic Strategies.” 8

 LSC Act of 1974 at § 1007(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 2996f(a)(3).

9

 LSC’s budget was $400 million, its highest level ever, when the American Bar Association’s

(ABA) legal needs study was concluded in 1994. Using a variety of methodologies for estimating

the unmet legal need of the poor, several states have since reached conclusions similar to the ABA

study, including Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts,

Missouri, Nevada, New York, and Virginia. LSC asked for funding to conduct a new national legal

needs study in its FY2001 budget request to Congress; however, no funds were allocated for that

purpose.

10 The Committee subsequently extended its deadline until September 12, 2001.

11 H. Rep. No. 139, 107th Cong., 1st Sess. (2001). 12 The reconfiguration standards spelled out in this Special Report to Congress consolidate information taken from the following previously published LSC sources: Building State Justice Communities: A State Planning Report from the Legal Services Corporation, April 2001; Letter to NLADA,

CLASP, and PAG, May 1999; Program Letter 98-1; Program Letter 98-6; Program Letter 2000-1;

and Program Letter 2001-7. Additionally, LSC’s state planning team has issued numerous other

targeted field correspondences to individual states’ stakeholders who have submitted configuration

plans adjudged insufficiently responsive to the tenets of State Planning.

13 On July 19, 2001, prior to Congress’ request for this Report, LSC issued Program Letter 01-4

(LSC’s Reconfiguration Review Process), which implemented a review mechanism by which

designated state planning bodies may appeal LSC reconfiguration decisions.

14 LSC Resolution #2001-008, “Resolution Establishing A Task Force To Study and Report on

Configuration of Service Areas,” June 30, 2001.

ENDNOTES

16
15 Twenty-seven years ago, our government made a pledge to help ensure that all persons have access

to America’s civil justice system by enacting legislation that created Legal Services Corporation. LSC

has helped millions of low-income citizens solve important, sometimes life-threatening, civil legal

problems. Despite the success of LSC and its many contributions to access to justice for low-income

Americans, its achievements are overshadowed by the fact that so many in our society continue to

suffer injustice and are unable to gain access to our system of justice. Until all members of our society

are afforded that access, this promise of our government will continue to be unfulfilled. LSC is

committed to promoting a new vision of legal services that will achieve the goal of bringing legal

services to those currently denied access to the justice system.

16 Program Letter 1995-1 directed LSC recipients to develop plans to stretch scarce federal dollars

in the most effective, efficient ways possible. The letter also anticipated the passage of congressional

restrictions on the activities of LSC programs, prompting LSC to instruct its programs to forge deeper

bonds with other stakeholders, including non-LSC funded programs, state and local bar associations,

IOLTA administrators, the judiciary, and client groups. Program Letter 1995-4 provided a general

outline as to the issues and criteria that the state planning process should address. Significant emphasis was placed on the integration of LSC-funded programs into statewide legal services delivery

systems and the seven central tenets of state planning were identified.

17 Program Letter 1998-1, published on February 12, 1998, called upon all LSC recipients to analyze

any progress made toward the development of the legal services model envisioned by state planners.

Programs were to evaluate whether all programs were working cohesively to assure that urgent clients

needs were being addressed; whether sufficient capacities for training and information-sharing

existed; whether programs were moving forward on technology; and whether they were collaborating

to increase resources and develop new initiatives to expand the scope of their services. Grantees were

also asked to examine whether the existing program configuration was conducive to the most effective state delivery system. Grantees were asked to examine their progress in each of the seven principal areas of State Planning in a manner that included assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the

current approach, establishing goals to strengthen and expand services to eligible clients, and determining the major steps yet to be taken and a timetable necessary to achieve those goals. LSC set a

deadline of October 1, 1998, for submission of state planning reports.

18 Program Letter 1998-6, published on July 6, 1998, responded to recipient requests for guidance

and additional information on what was expected in their state planning reports. It included “State

Planning Considerations” designed to address requests for additional information regarding statewide

goals, capacities, and approaches recipients should consider in their state planning processes. Program Letter 1998-6 stated that the State Planning Initiative will provide information to aid LSC in

exercising its statutory responsibility to “insure that grants and contracts are made so as to provide the

most economical and effective delivery of legal assistance to persons in both urban and rural areas.”

19 As part of the competitive bidding requirement, Congress mandated that current and past LSC

recipients may not “be given any preference in the competitive selection process.” Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 § 503(e), Pub. L. No. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321

(1996).

20 LSC Act of 1974 at § 1007(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 2996f(a)(3).

21 If no designated state planning body has been recognized by LSC, the state bar and state IOLTA

administrators may avail themselves of the Review Process.

17