LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

SERVING THE CIVIL LEGAL NEEDS

OFLOW-INCOME AMERICANS

A SPECIAL REPORT to CONGRESS3⁄4APRIL 30, 2000
1

I. Summary

Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is a private, non-membership, nonprofit corporation

in the District of Columbia. The Board of Directors of LSC is composed of eleven voting

members who are appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and consent of

the Senate. By law, the Board is bipartisan: no more than six members can be of the same

political party.

LSC plays a central role in providing low-income Americans with access to legal

assistance and information concerning critical civil legal problems. Created in 1974, LSC is

charged by Congress “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.”

For 1999, LSC grantees reported closing 1,038,662 million1civil legal cases relating to

issues such as domestic violence, child custody and visitation rights, evictions, access to health

care, bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims, and many other issues that millions of

low-income Americans face throughout their lives. Without the funding provided by LSC, many

of these individuals would have no other source of legal assistance for these problems.

II. The National Legal Services Program

Legal Services Corporation funds local legal services programs to serve clients in every

state, county, and congressional district in the United States as well as in Puerto Rico, the Virgin

Islands, Guam and Micronesia. In addition, special service areas are funded for two populations

with special needs – Native Americans and migrant workers. Eligibility for services is

determined on a case-by-case basis pursuant to grantee eligibility criteria established under

parameters set forth in LSC regulations. Each grantee establishes a maximum income eligibility

level, not to exceed 125 percent of the current official Federal Poverty Income Guidelines.

In 1996, Congress implemented a number of new accountability requirements including

competitive bidding for Legal Services Corporation grants. This system of competitive bidding

eliminated the right of grantees to a hearing to contest a funding decision awarding a grant to a

competitor, ensuring LSC can award grants to the best applicants without unnecessary

administrative barriers. Additionally, new compliance monitoring procedures, which use outside

auditors to monitor grantee compliance with regulations and to perform comprehensive yearly

oversight of grantee activities, were formulated. Another new provision adopted in 1997

prohibits any local program that has been found to engage in a substantial violation of the law or

its grant conditions from being considered for an LSC grant in future competitions.

Also in 1996, other new requirements were adopted governing what legal services

programs can do and whom they can represent. These new guidelines have refocused the LSC

delivery system on serving individual clients with particular legal needs. With the

 

1

 For a complete explanation of the number of cases closed for 1999, see Section V, 1999 Case Statistics.
2

implementation of these restrictions, legal services attorneys are not permitted to initiate or

participate in class action lawsuits. They may not challenge or engage in any activity to

influence welfare reform. They may not collect court-awarded attorneys’ fees. Litigation on

behalf of prisoners and representation of undocumented and other categories of aliens is also

prohibited. Other new requirements address redistricting, cases involving eviction from public

housing of individuals charged with or convicted of drug violations and participation in

government rulemaking and solicitation. Unlike past laws restricting the work of legal services,

these provisions apply to all the funds of a recipient, with very few specified exceptions.

All local LSC-funded programs are administered by local boards of directors (or other

governing bodies, in certain instances), a majority of whose members are appointed by local bar

associations, and provide legal assistance to individuals pursuant to locally determined priorities

that respond to community conditions and needs. Based on these priorities, local programs hire

staff, contact local attorneys, and develop pro bono programs for the direct delivery of legal

assistance to eligible clients. LSC requires each legal services program to spend an amount

equal to at least 12.5 percent of its annualized grant to encourage participation by private

attorneys in the provision of legal assistance to poor individuals.

The legal services delivery system offers a model of efficient resolution of disputes and

avoidance of unnecessary litigation. Only a very small percentage (9% in 1999) of LSC-funded

cases are resolved by the decision of a court, and the majority of these are family law cases that

require a court determination.

Rather than litigating cases, legal services lawyers consistently find other, more efficient

ways to solve problems for their clients. Under tremendous pressure from the demand for their

services, they know they must use their limited resources wisely. As in past years, nearly threefourths of cases in 1999 were resolved through advice, referral, or brief services.

Brief Service

20%

Referred After Legal 

Assessment

2 %

Insufficient Merit

1 %

Client Withdrew

6 %

Settlement w/o Litigation

2 %

Settlement with Litigation

4 %

Agency Decsion

4 %

Court Decision

9 %

Other

2 %

Eligibility Change

0.5%

Counsel & Advice

50%
3

III. The Case Statistics Issue

LSC acknowledges that serious questions have been raised concerning the accuracy and

validity of the Case Service Report (CSR) data submitted annually by our grantees.2 LSC is

aware that problems exist in the statistical reports received and is taking steps to identify and

correct those problems. The problems identified stem, in part, from a lack of clarity in some of

LSC’s past case reporting guidelines and, more generally, from insufficient attention by grantees

to the existing reporting and documentation requirements.

It should be kept in mind that the issue is largely one of grantee compliance with

technical and administrative guidance on how and when to report certain activities. In no

instance has LSC, its Inspector General, or the General Accounting Office identified any fraud or

intentional misrepresentation by any of the grantees in their compilation and reporting of this

data. LSC will aggressively take steps to correct problems associated with the CSR system, and

will continue to make full and timely reports to the U.S. Congress and the public. LSC views the

issues concerning the CSR data to be akin to those encountered by many government entities as

they attempt to meet the goals envisioned by the Government Performance and Results Act

(GPRA).

Self-initiated Review of CSR Data

 LSC’s review of its CSR data was an outgrowth of its ongoing oversight responsibilities

and it has become integral to its voluntary strategic planning process. Although not subject to

the Government Performance and Results Act, LSC shares the aspirations of that law to

rationalize the budget and appropriations processes by tying funding into objective measures of

the agency’s performance.

In November 1997, the LSC Board adopted its first Strategic Plan for FY 1998-2003.

The strategic directions adopted by the Board will achieve LSC’s vision3 by accomplishing two

major strategic goals: (1) By 2004, LSC will dramatically increase the provision of legal

services to eligible persons; (2) By 2004, LSC will ensure that eligible clients are receiving

appropriate and high quality legal assistance. That plan is currently being revised – as are the

 

2

"The conferees have concerns about the case service reporting and associated data reports submitted annually by

the Corporation’s grantees and the case statistical reports submitted by the Corporation to the Congress, and the

conferees direct the Corporation to make improvement of the accuracy of these submissions a top priority, per

directions in the House report. The conferees also direct the Corporation to submit its 1999 annual case service

reports and associated data reports to Congress no later than April 30, 2000." Departments of Commerce, Justice,

and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-113, 112 Stat. 1501.

3

Twenty-five 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. Over the past quarter century,

LSC has helped millions of low-income citizens solve important, sometimes life-threatening, 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 a lawyer for critical legal assistance. 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.
4

initial plans submitted by many governmental entities. As recently reported by GAO, most

federal agencies are far from meeting the goals set by GPRA for performance data on which the

Administration and Congress can rely on in setting budget amounts and appropriations levels.

Nonetheless, LSC, having embarked on the path laid out by GPRA, recognizes the need

to assess the data currently available on grantee activity for its accuracy and adequacy as a

measure of LSC’s performance. When the first Strategic Plan was published, and adopted clients

served as a performance measure, the LSC Inspector General decided there was a need to

determine the accuracy of the grantees’ reports on which the measure was based. A series of

audits of 1997 data was conducted in 1998 in anticipation of the first performance report due in

2000. These audits examined the accuracy of case statistical reports submitted by six grantees,

and the causes of identified deficiencies, rather than validating or testing the accuracy of national

or system-wide data.

Initial Findings

 What LSC found when it began the assessment of the CSR system was a 20-year-old

reporting structure, the guidance for which had not been updated since 1993. The reporting

system rested on the definition of a “case.” However clear and meaningful the definition of a

case may have been in the past, it became evident the definition had not kept pace with the

changes in the service delivery systems. As the pace of the evolution of service delivery systems

and the reconfiguration of grantees accelerated following the funding cutbacks and program

reforms in 1996, and spurred on by the technological revolution, the reporting of grantee activity

solely on the basis of “cases” was becoming increasingly inadequate. This resulted in

inconsistent and inaccurate reporting. Critical legal services were now being provided, inter

alia, through Internet web sites, through toll-free telephone intake and brief advice systems,

through pro se clinics and projects, and through stand-alone kiosks. An attorney representing a

client before judge and jury was no longer the norm of a “case” when delivering critical legal

services to low-income individuals.

The audits conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and reported in June

1999, confirmed the Inspector General’s findings as to the factors causing systemic errors in

grantee case reporting. 4 The GAO visited five large programs: Puerto Rico Legal Services, Inc.,

Legal Services for New York City, Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles, Legal Assistance

Foundation of Chicago, and Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. in Baltimore, Maryland. Overall, the GAO

deemed questionable approximately 34 percent of both open and closed cases reported by the

five grantees in 1997. The percentage of questionable cases for individual programs ranged from

7 percent to 42 percent. A problem common to all programs was the untimely closure of cases,

although again the extent of the problem in any particular program varied from under 4 percent

in one program to over 30 percent in another. Overall, the GAO questioned between 5-9 percent

of the cases reported because of the lack of adequate financial eligibility documentation and

between 7-24 percent of the cases for lack of citizenship or alien status documentation. It should

 

4 GAO/GGD-99-135R LSC Case Reporting Problems.
5

be noted that GAO concluded only that the case files failed to contain the documentation

necessary to confirm the eligibility or ineligibility of any of these clients.

LSC’s Corrective Action

As these concerns surfaced, LSC decided as an initial step to reissue the 1993 CSR

Handbook in May 1998, providing additional guidance on particular areas that were considered

to be most prone to error. In general, clearer guidance was provided to programs on reviewing

their own reporting procedures and practices, ensuring they conformed to the Handbook and

ensuring all branch offices were aware of and were following these procedures. LSC reiterated

guidance on not reporting financially or otherwise ineligible clients, referrals of ineligible cases

or cases for which no legal work was performed. Recognizing this guidance would not affect the

1997 CSR data, which had already been submitted by the grantees, but wanting to improve the

accuracy of future CSR data, LSC sought to heighten the awareness of grantees to the CSR

requirements and to focus their attention on potential problem areas. As previously reported to

Congress, though, a number of grantees did voluntarily submit corrections to their 1997 CSR

data during 1998.

As the audit information became available during 1998 and into 1999, LSC gained a

fuller understanding of the extent of the CSR problem and its complexities. Even though

quantifiable data was lacking during most of 1998, LSC had sufficient information to begin

taking actions to address the problems. As previously noted, LSC reissued its CSR instructions

to all grantees, calling attention to problem areas known at that time. Recognizing that more

action was needed to improve the CSR system, LSC provided additional written guidance to the

field, including a substantial revision to its CSR Handbook (reissued in November 1998), and

conducted training sessions on that guidance. In addition, LSC has required all grantees to

perform a self-inspection of their CSR data, has followed up on grantees where corrective action

was found necessary, and has increased its on-site presence to test grantee compliance.

5

IV. What Is A Case?

A case is defined as the provision of permissible legal assistance to an eligible client with

a legal problem, or set of closely related legal problems, accepted for assistance supported by

LSC or non-LSC funds in accordance with the requirements of the LSC Act, regulations, and

other applicable law. 6

 

5

 The FY2001 budget request includes $1.54 million in additional funds to provide 40 annual specialized on-site

compliance reviews. These on-site reviews will allow LSC management to identify program weaknesses, engage in

effective Corrective Actions Plans oversight, and provide program-specific needed guidance and oversight. The

reviews will allow LSC to more effectively execute its compliance function and ensure the accuracy of CSR

reporting by its grantees.

6

 Legal Services programs may record and report the provision of legal assistance as a case only if: (a) the client is

financially and otherwise eligible to receive assistance under the LSC Act, regulations, and other applicable law; the

client’s case is within program priorities (or is an emergency case accepted under the program’s emergency case

acceptance procedures); the legal services program has actually accepted the client for service through its intake

system or another established procedure for ensuring client eligibility; (b) the type of legal assistance provided to the

client is not prohibited by the LSC Act, regulations, or other applicable law (e.g. a class action); (c) the legal
6

Since 1997, LSC has significantly tightened its requirements for what constitutes a case.

A case that is eligible to be counted as such must include some actual counsel and advice or

other legal assistance provided to the client. Thus, analysis and referral of a case to another legal

services provider cannot be counted, nor can service where the client is accepted and work is

done, but the client withdraws or loses contact with the program before any actual legal

assistance is provided.

Programs have been required to screen their submissions for “duplicates.” A duplicate is

not merely the submission of exactly the same case twice by computer or other error, but also

any situation in which the same client returns to the program with the same legal problem in the

same year. The test as to how similar the issue in two separate requests for assistance has to be

before it is counted as one case has presented significant borderline problems, but there have

been a large number of clear duplicates eliminated from the case reports.

It has also been clarified that if a case fails to meet any required documentation (financial

eligibility, citizenship/eligible alien status, within program priorities, etc.) it may not be reported

to LSC as a case. Especially for 1999, LSC has substantially strengthened the documentation

requirements for reporting a case to LSC. As a result, numerous cases have been excluded from

reporting, even though the client received legal service, because the case was not documented

according to LSC requirements. For many of these cases, it was overwhelmingly likely that the

client and the service would have been eligible to be counted as a closed case but for the lack of

proper documentation.

Programs, however, are allowed to count closed cases for the elderly and for battered

women under the following specific programs without financial eligibility information because

these Federal programs require that clients be accepted regardless of financial circumstances:

Title XX Social Security Act, Titles III and IV Older Americans Act, and Violence Against

Women Act.

V. 1999 Case Statistics

For 1999, LSC grantees reported closing 1,038,662 civil legal cases relating to issues

such as domestic violence7, child custody and visitation rights, evictions, access to health care,

bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims, and many other issues faced by millions of

low-income Americans. The consequences of such problems may be as serious as the loss of a

family’s only source of income or homelessness. Left unresolved, they can cost society far more

than the expense of providing legal services to address them. Other case types frequently

encountered include foreclosures, collections and repossessions, child support, and wage claims.

Without the federal funding provided by LSC to local legal services programs, many, and

 

problem(s) of a client are not of a type prohibited by the LSC Act, regulations, or other applicable law (e.g., an

abortion case).

7 In 1999, it is estimated that LSC grantees received approximately $10.5 million in federal funds under the

Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) for use in rendering assistance in domestic violence cases. It is estimated

that in the year 2000 they will receive approximately $11.5 million in VAWA funding.
7

possibly most, of these individuals with these problems would have no other source of legal

assistance.

Despite LSC’s significant efforts to improve the data accuracy, there may be occurrences

of errors in documentation or substance in this number. In January of this year, LSC instructed

all programs to conduct a Self-Inspection of a sample of closed cases prior to submitting 1999

CSR data to LSC. The purpose of the Self-Inspection process was to provide programs a means

to verify, by reviewing a sample of cases, that their 1999 CSR data satisfies LSC’s standards for

accuracy. In addition, it provides LSC management useful insight into the current nature and

extent of the CSR data issue.

Although the Self-Inspection was not constructed, or executed, to yield a statistically

valid assessment of the accuracy of the closed cases for 1999, the Self-Inspection did reveal,

LSC believes, significant improvements in data accuracy from previous years. Again stressing

this process did not produce an extensive assessment, LSC management submits that it is

sufficient to reasonably estimate the population of reported cases contains an error rate of 11

percent.

In order to fulfill our pledge to the U.S. Congress and to the general public concerning

our commitment to providing the most accurate and reliable data, we adjusted the number of

cases reported by LSC grantees (1,038,662) by the average estimated error rate (11%).

Accordingly, we submit a total of cases closed for 1999 of 924,000. For reasons that will be

discussed in subsequent sections of this report, we also highlight that this figure represents only a

portion of the work conducted by LSC grantees. Nonetheless, it represents the most reliable,

albeit conservative 8, estimate of cases closed in 1999 by LSC grantees.

 

8

The adjusted total of 924,000 is conservative because: (a) some grantees did use Self-Inspection data to exclude

Consumer

12%

Education

1%

Employment

2%

Family

36%

Juvenile

1%

Health

3%

Housing

23%

Income Maintenance

14%

Individual Rights

2%

Other 

6%
8

Leveraging Federal Resources

Federal funding to Legal Services Corporation provides the national infrastructure for the

U.S. civil legal services delivery system. But for the federal investment, the overwhelming

majority of cases reported by LSC grantees would not have been possible. In six states, the

federal investment represents almost the entire contribution for providing civil legal services to

low-income individuals.9 In another sixteen states, LSC funding represents over 50% of the total

investment in the civil legal services system.10

Beginning with 1999 cases, another significant change is the requirement for programs to

report all cases eligible for LSC services, regardless of the funding source. The prior rule

mandated that each case had to be at least partially funded by LSC funds, as well as being LSCeligible. This new change is intended to make case reporting more consistent among grantee

programs as these programs have varying mixes of LSC and non-LSC funding and varying,

legitimate methods of allocating LSC and non-LSC funding among their activities that produce

case closures.

As noted above, the LSC case count for 1999 includes all cases that meet LSC eligibility

criteria, regardless of the funding mix of any particular grantee. LSC strongly encourages all its

grantees to obtain other funding for the client community that Congress has legislated is eligible

for LSC funding. The ability to leverage other funds to represent LSC eligible clients is a factor

LSC considers in evaluating its grantees. LSC believes that the total number of LSC eligible

clients served by LSC grantees is of considerable relevance.

It has been suggested that this change may cause an artificial increase in the number of

cases reported through the CSR system. The purpose of the change, however, was to achieve

better accuracy and more consistency in the reporting of work made possible by LSC funding.

Our grantees have successfully leveraged their federal funding by attracting other private and

public sources of funding. Grantees use their mix of funding in a variety of ways. The former

CSR system did not consistently collect and identify much of this effort on behalf of eligible

clients. In fact, because of this inconsistency in reporting, the old system often produced

artificial variations in reported case statistics among similar programs. The revised reporting

requirement will greatly enhance the accuracy of the data on services to the eligible U.S. lowincome population and will produce more complete data on the work of grantees that can be

reasonably attributable to LSC grantees.

 

from their submission to LSC approximately 17,000 of the insufficiently supported cases that made up the 11

percent error rate, and (b) in the process of requiring more rigorous documentation of cases, some cases that actually

had sufficient documentation, and many cases where the client was almost certainly eligible, were excluded,

resulting in a countervailing undercount.

9

 State-wide civil legal services’ percentages of total funding received from LSC: Alabama, 91%; Arkansas, 80%;

Mississippi, 95%; New Mexico, 83%; South Dakota, 89%; Wyoming, 84%. The SPAN Update: A Guide to Legal

Services Planning. January 1999. American Bar Association: National Legal Aid & Defender Association.

10 Arizona, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska,

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. The SPAN Update: A Guide to Legal Services

Planning. January 1999. American Bar Association: National Legal Aid & Defender Association.
9

FUNDING FOR LSC GRANTEES -- 1999

LSC Grants and Other LSC Support

$307,645,774 (50.8%)

State and Local Grants

$88,418,692 (14.6%)

IOLTA

 $68,630,885 (11.3%)

Other Non-LSC Funding and Support

$62,223,769 (10.3%)

Other Federal Grants

$47,783,028 (7.9%)

Private

Grants

$30,610,663

(5.1%)
10

Developing New Performance Measures

In addition to providing Congress and the public more reliable and accurate statistics on

closed cases, LSC is committed to developing and to implementing by January 1, 2001, a new

reporting system to document and assess the work of LSC grantees. LSC has contracted with an

independent research firm to develop and implement a pilot project at six LSC grantees that will

gather the necessary information needed to create a reporting system that captures all the work of

LSC grantees, not simply the traditional “closed cases.” This reporting system will detail and

describe the delivery of services that are not cases, services such as community education,

information through Internet web sites, self-help forms and kiosks. The reporting system may

also provide information on the impact to the community and to the client by describing non-

“case” services’ in the following manner:

♦ the type of innovative service provided,

♦ the number of eligible clients receiving the service,

♦ the nature of the legal problems addressed through the innovative service, and

♦ the impact of the innovative service on the legal problems.

LSC also will develop systems for measuring the outcomes (or benefits) of the assistance

that the programs provide to eligible clients. Outcome measurement may include an assessment

of:

♦ the monetary impact of employment and benefits cases,

♦ the effect on quality of life of health and housing cases,

♦ the impact on minor children of assistance in family cases, and

♦ the financial stability afforded in consumer/finance cases.

In addition to establishing a more complete reporting system, LSC is committed to using

economic analysis and performance measures to evaluate the impact of federal funding and

individual grantee performance. Discussed below are two methods of analysis currently under

review to accomplish these goals. While LSC will implement these performance measures on

January 1, 2001, it will diligently evaluate the chosen method of analysis prior to implementation

to ensure it provides useful and meaningful data. By 2001, LSC will require grantees to provide

information that allows LSC to comparatively analyze the cost per case among similarly situated

programs and similar types of services, i.e., brief advice and referral. LSC statistics for CY 2002

will reflect the input of all these performance measures.

The “Cost per Case” Model: The first methodology LSC is developing and evaluating

to assess the work of grantees is a “cost-per-case” analysis. “Cost per case” is a rough

quantitative output measure of the efficiency of LSC programs’ delivery of case services to

eligible clients. In the past, it has been computed by dividing a program’s annual LSC funding

by its annual total cases closed. The calculation uses all of a program’s LSC funding, even

though LSC programs provide services to eligible clients that do not meet the definition of a

“closed case,” as previously detailed. While a “cost-per-case” analysis is limited in that it only

addresses quantity, and not quality of services, it does provide some useful quantitative
11

information. The raw cost per case figure can be further analyzed to take into account the level

of service (from brief advice and counsel up to a court case).

Currently, LSC uses a “cost-per-case” analysis when it conducts on-site evaluations of

grantees. By comparing the “cost per case” of a particular grantee over a period of time, LSC

may gain useful information on the workload and performance of a program from year to year.

LSC also uses a “cost-per-case” analysis to compare similarly situated grantees. This measure

does require LSC staff to understand how services differ from grantee to grantee, so that the

differences in levels of service can be adjusted to arrive at meaningful cost-per-case figures.

For example, grantee A receives $30,000 in LSC funds and serves 3,000 clients at a costper-case ratio of $100. The majority of these cases involve the provision of advice and brief

service, traditionally not very time-consuming or labor intensive. Grantee B also receives

$30,000 in LSC funds, but only serves 500 clients at a cost-per case ratio of $600. However,

grantee B primarily handles clients facing domestic violence, eviction from their residences, or

issues involving access to health care. Grantee B's cases usually involve protracted negotiation

or litigation. Given the differences in the types of cases handled by these two grantees, a simple

cost-per-case analysis, without further definition, would yield meaningless data in terms of the

comparative value of services provide by these two programs.

Another caution that must be raised with this particular approach is that all LSC-funded

programs engage in a wide range of very important activities that do not fall within the definition

of “case,” which would thus not be included in valuing the program’s services. LSC-funded

programs use many means (newsletters, pamphlets, speaking engagements, and web sites) to

provide legal information to low-income persons, helping them avoid legal problems or aiding

them in learning to handle problems when they surface. Where appropriate, LSC grantees refer

low-income persons to organizations that can help the clients with their problems - either to

alternate sources of legal assistance or to other sources of assistance, such as charitable

organizations and social services agencies. Through the provision of legal information,

programs also assist individuals in preparing to represent themselves in court. Resources

expended in supporting efforts such as community legal education, outreach, state planning and

resource development also would not be factored into the program’s “cost-per-case.”

LSC is carefully studying how to refine the “cost-per-case” analysis in order to use it

effectively as a management tool. Toward this end, LSC has recently initiated activities to

develop more appropriate strategies and mechanisms to gather and to quantify data on all of the

work -- cases and matters, regardless of funding source -- being performed by its grantees.

The Cases Funded Exclusively with LSC Resources Model: The second methodology

LSC is developing is a model to estimate the number of cases funded exclusively with LSC

funds. To arrive at this estimate, total cases reported by LSC grantees would be augmented with

an estimate of all cases handled by LSC-funded organizations. These are cases traditionally not

reported to LSC – either because documentation LSC requires is not present in these cases or

because they are expressly handled with funding that allows financial eligibility standards that

are more lax than LSC standards. This number would then be added to the total reported to LSC
12

(to produce a total caseload number) and then reduced by the national rate of funding of LSC

programs by other sources.

This process would yield an estimate for cases that are funded exclusively with LSC

resources. In using such a number, however, several factors need to be kept in mind.

• This figure would only be an estimate. We do not compile an actual count of the

number of cases that are not within LSC’s definition of a case.

• The reportable and not reportable cases, on average, do not take the same amount of

time. Other funding sources may be funding a different mix of cases that may, on

average, take more or less time than the average case for LSC-eligible clients.

LSC will receive additional information on the ability of grantees to leverage federal

dollars using an estimate of cases funded exclusively with federal resources, through this

methodology, although it is a less than perfect method of analysis. LSC routinely evaluates its

grantees on their ability to leverage additional dollars from alternative sources to expand their

ability to provide critical legal services to low-income persons. For example, as noted above,

grantees often seek alternative funding to expand services to women and children in potentially

abusive situations. Further, under its state planning initiative that mandates all grantees within a

particular state work together to create a comprehensive and integrated statewide delivery

system, grantees are required to address how they will work together to expand the resources

available within that state to support legal services.

VI. The Need for Legal Services

The need for legal services is overwhelming. Although we live in a time of great

economic prosperity, there are currently still 34.5 million Americans living in households with

an income below the poverty level.11 Some 10 million additional individuals with incomes

between 100 and 125 percent of the poverty level are also potentially eligible for legal services.

This means that almost one out of every five Americans is eligible for legal services assistance.

America’s children are particularly affected by poverty. Even though the poverty rate has

slightly declined, 18.9 percent of children are still poor.12 In order to ensure these Americans are

not left out of the justice system, a strong federal role in supporting legal services is vital.

A 1994 study for the American Bar Association concluded that approximately 80 percent

of poor Americans do not have the advantage of an attorney when they are faced with serious

situation where a lawyer’s advice and assistance would make a difference. Similar conclusions

have been reached by state legal needs’ studies in a dozen states including Florida, Georgia,

Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New York,

and Virginia, using a variety of methodologies for estimating the unmet legal needs of the poor.

 

11 U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 1998, http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p60-207.pdf

12 Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Analysis of 1998 Poverty and Income Data, (September 1999).
13

Because of limited resources, local legal services programs are forced to turn away tens

of thousands of people with critical legal problems. A survey of selected programs in the spring

of 1993, when LSC funding was substantially higher than it is today, revealed that nearly half of

all people who applied for assistance from local programs were turned away because of a lack of

program resources. Most programs are forced to limit the cases they accept to emergencies or

other situations that threaten the safety and stability of the family or individual involved. Recent

studies estimate that between one and four million American women experience an assault by an

intimate partner each year, and 3.3 million children are exposed to violence by family members

against their mothers or female caretakers. 13

Client Demographics

Legal services clients are as diverse as our nation, encompassing all races, ethnic groups

and ages. They include the working poor, veterans, family farmers, people with disabilities, and

victims of natural disasters. Many were formerly middle class, and became poor because of age,

unemployment, illness, or the breakup of a family.

In 1999, as in the past, nearly three-fourths of LSC clients were women, most of them

mothers with children. Although the named client is usually an adult, most LSC cases also

involve and benefit children. The legal problems faced by people living in poverty can result in

particularly serious, long-term consequences for children.

 

13 According to an August 1995 Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Violence Against Women: Estimates

from the Redesigned Survey (NCJ-154348) and a report by the American Psychological Association, Violence and

the Family: Report of the American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Violence and the Family

(1996).

Estimated Unmet Legal Need

Eligible Clients unable to 

attain needed legal 

assistance 

80%

Eligible Clients served by 

LSC Programs-- 20%
14

Elderly people often require legal assistance because of their special health, income and

social needs, especially in coping with the government administered benefits on which many

depend for income and health care.

White -- Not of Hispanic 

Origin

38%

Black -- Not of Hispanic 

Origin

27%

Hispanic

29%

Native American

2%

Asian or Pacific Islander

1%

Other 

3%

Ethnicity

Age

Under 18

2%

18-59

85%

60 & Over

13%
15

VII. Conclusion

Established by Congress in 1974, LSC plays a central role in providing low-income

Americans with access to legal assistance and information critical to resolving their civil legal

problems. In 1999, for example, LSC grantees reported closing 1,038,662 civil legal cases

relating to issues such as domestic violence, child custody and visitation rights, evictions, access

to health care, bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims, and many other issues faced by

millions of low-income Americans. Despite LSC’s significant efforts to improve data accuracy,

there may be occurrences of errors in documentation or substance.

In order to fulfill our pledge to the U.S. Congress and to the general public concerning

our commitment to providing the most accurate and reliable data, we adjusted the number of

cases reported by LSC grantees (1,038,662) by the average estimated error rate (11%).

Accordingly, we submit a total of cases closed for 1999 of 924,000. This number represents the

most reliable, albeit conservative, estimate of cases closed in 1999 by LSC grantees.

Recognizing that valid questions have been raised regarding the accuracy and validity of

the Case Service Reports (CSR) data that LSC’s grantees annually submit, LSC has committed

itself to ensuring that reliable data is provided.14 The decrease in the number of closed cases for

1999 is, in large measure, the result of LSC’s new, more stringent reporting guidelines. For

example, it has been clarified that if a case file fails to contain any required documentation

 

14 The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held an oversight hearing on Legal Services

Corporation September 29, 1999. The hearing heightened awareness of some of the problems LSC was

encountering in attempting to provide accurate statistics relating to services provided by LSC grantees.

Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Gekas and Rep. Chabot informed LSC of their expectation that the statistics provided

by LSC to Congress concerning their grantees’ activities be accurate. For example, Mr. Chabot stated “Congress

certainly does look at the statistics that we are provided, and we expect those statistics to be accurate when we are

determining what programs are going to be funded and at what levels, so we expect those numbers to be accurate,

and when they're not it disturbs us a great deal, as it should.” Legal Services Corporation: Oversight hearing before

the Subcomm. on Commercial and Admin. Law of the House Comm. on the Judiciary. 106th Cong., 1st Sess.

(1999).

Gender

Group Clients

0.10% Men 

26.3%

Women 

73.6%
16

(financial eligibility, citizenship/eligible alien status, within program priorities, etc.) it may not

be reported to LSC as a case. As a result, numerous cases have been excluded from reporting,

even though the client received legal service, because the case lacked the required

documentation.

Unfortunately, the civil legal needs of all low-income Americans are not being

adequately met due to severe funding shortages at the federal and state level. In FY95, Congress

appropriated $402.5 million for grants to local legal services programs. Assuming inflation

remains at current rates through 2001, almost $450 million is required in FY01 to maintain the

purchasing power (and services) of the FY95 level. Unless the federal investment for civil legal

services is substantially increased, a large segment of the U.S. population will continue to be

without access to the justice system. LSC’s Budget Request for FY01 includes a modest increase

of $24 million for grants to local programs.

LSC is committed to continuing to improve the accuracy of its case statistics, vigorously

enforcing the Congressional restrictions enacted in 1996, and creating new and more meaningful

ways to evaluate the work of legal services programs receiving federal funds. We call on

Congress, the private bar, and local and state governments to support LSC in fulfilling its

Congressional mandate to provide low-income individuals throughout America with real,

meaningful access to our nation’s justice system.