33842 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

Grants Cooperative Agreements;

Availability etc.: Civil Legal Services to

Poor—Various States

AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.

ACTION: Program Letters 98–1 and 98–6

regarding statewide planning and Grant

Assurances for FY2001.

SUMMARY: Program Letters 98–1 and 98–

6 regarding statewide planning were

issued in 1998 to solicit input on and

assist recipients of Legal Services

Corporation funding in improving the

delivery of legal services to low-income

persons. Recipients of such funding

must also agree to the Grant Assurances

for FY2001 as part of the competitive

bidding process.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 26, 2000.

Comments must be submitted on or

before this date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Comments should be submitted to

Victor M. Fortuno General Counsel,

Office of Legal Affairs, Legal Services

Corporation, 750 First Street, NE,

Washington, DC 20002–4250; 202–336–

8800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1998

the Legal Services Corporation (LSC)

issued Program Letters 98–1 and 98–6 to

all LSC recipients. These program letters

solicited input from LSC recipients on

improving the delivery of legal services

to low-income persons through

statewide planning and coordination

among LSC recipients. These letters are

also available via the Internet at http:/

/ain/ainboard/RFP/Appxcvr.htm in

Appendix I. Although not required to

publish these documents, LSC has

decided to do so. Statewide planning

has become an increasingly important

aspect of the delivery of legal services

to low-income persons.

All recipients of LSC funding must

agree to the Grant Assurances. This

document is also available via the

Internet at http://ain/ainboard/

ainboard.htm under Application Forms.

The Grant Assurances addresses the

recipient’s agreement to comply with all

applicable laws, rules, regulations,

guidelines, instructions, etc. and to

cooperate fully with all auditing,

monitoring and compliance activities

and requirements. Although not

required to publish this document, LSC

has decided to do so.

Comments received by LSC regarding

these documents will be considered as

part of LSC’s ongoing process of

evaluating the best means of delivering

legal services to low-income persons

and ensuring LSC recipient compliance

with all applicable laws, rules,

regulations, guidelines, instructions, etc.

Victor M. Fortuno,

Vice President for Legal Affairs and General

Counsel.

Program Letter 98–1, February 12,

1998, State Planning

Summary

This Program Letter calls upon all

LSC recipients to participate in a state

planning process to examine, from a

statewide perspective, what steps

should be taken in their states to

develop further a comprehensive,

integrated statewide delivery system.

State planners should evaluate whether

all programs are working in a

coordinated fashion to assure that

pressing client needs are being met, that

sufficient capacities for training and

information sharing exist, that programs

are moving forward together on

technology, and are collaborating to

increase resources and develop new

initiatives to expand the scope and

reach of their services.

In states with a number of LSCfunded programs and/or the presence of

very small programs, a key question to

be answered is whether the current

structure of the state delivery system,

and specifically the number of

programs, constitutes the most effective

and economical way to meet client

needs throughout the state.

The state planning process should

develop a report to be submitted to LSC

on or before October 1, 1998. We will

be guided by your recommendations

when making our funding decisions for

FY 1999 and beyond.

Background

1995 Program Letter. In July 1995, in

anticipation of Congressional action on

LSC’s 1996 appropriation, we asked

recipients in each state to participate in

the development of a plan for the

design, configuration and operation of

LSC-funded programs in the state. In

view of potential LSC funding cuts and

Congressional restrictions on client

services, we were especially concerned

that recipients work closely with other

stakeholders (e.g., state and local bar

associations, IOLTA funders, the

judiciary, client groups, non-LSCfunded programs, and others with an

interest in legal services) to develop an

integrated delivery system to address

client needs. A subsequent August 1995

Program Letter outlined the issues and

criteria the state planning process

should address. Included were

integration of LSC-funded programs into

a statewide legal services system;

advisability of consolidation of

programs; consideration of efficient

intake and provision of advice and brief

service; appropriate use of technology;

engagement of pro bono attorneys; and

development of additional resources.

Responses to Changes in Laws

Affecting Clients and LSC Recipients.

Much has occurred since August 1995.

Fundamental changes have been made

in laws and programs affecting eligible

clients—changes which have increased

clients—need for legal information,

advice, and representation. At the same

time, LSC appropriation measures have

resulted in deep funding cuts for many

programs, elimination of LSC funding of

national and state support entities, and

dramatic changes in the range of

services LSC recipients are permitted to

perform. In response, many states have

initiated planning processes, developed

new partnerships to leverage resources,

expanded funding sources,

implemented new technologies, and

launched innovative methods for

serving clients.

Efforts to develop and strengthen

comprehensive delivery systems in

order to improve and expand client

services continue in many states. Equal

Justice Commissions, Bar sponsored

committees, and organizations of legal

services providers continue to explore

ways to maximize services in a changed

and changing environment. LSC

supports these ongoing state efforts and

encourages others.

1998 Grant Decisions. In the 1998 LSC

grant competition, we determined that

grants in several states that were eligible

for three year funding should be made

for a shorter period. For North Carolina,

grants were made for one year. For New

York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and

Virginia, grants were made for two

years. The decision to award grants for

a shorter period was made for two

reasons: (1) To encourage recipients in

these states to develop further their

plans for a comprehensive, integrated

statewide delivery system; and, (2)

concern that the number of LSC-funded

programs in these states may not

constitute the most economical and

effective configuration for delivering

legal services to the low-income

community.

1998 Program Letter. This Program

Letter calls upon all recipients to reexamine and adjust as necessary their

state delivery plans in order to further

improve and expand legal services to

eligible clients within the state.

A Comprehensive, Integrated Statewide

Delivery System

In re-evaluating delivery plans,

recipients should examine the progress

they have made in the past two and one

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33843

1LSC will provide guidance at a later date on the

format for this report.

half years in developing a

comprehensive, integrated statewide

delivery system. Careful planning and

coordination is necessary to insure that

pressing legal needs do not go unmet

and that resources are used wisely and

economically. States must continue to

innovate and develop new strategies

and alternative delivery models to make

the most of scarce resources—to reach

more clients, and to provide higher

quality services through enhanced use

of information technology; centralized

intake systems providing advice, brief

services, and referrals; expansion of

community legal education, pro se, and

other methods promoting client selfhelp; better coordination with volunteer

private attorneys; and other, similar

initiatives requiring substantial

resources and expertise to undertake.

There are many ways for states to

achieve these goals. Many excellent

models exist of statewide fundraising,

integrated technology, statewide and

regional hotlines, pro se projects,

taskforces and training. Recipients

should evaluate which approaches will

work best in their states to achieve an

even stronger, more effective system for

addressing client needs.

Recipients must also examine how the

present configuration of programs, and

specifically the number of programs,

impacts upon the overall effectiveness

of the state delivery system. In this

regard, it is especially important that

each participant look at client services,

not from the view of just one city, or one

county, or one program, but from a

statewide perspective.

What Is Required by This Letter

In the past two and one half years,

several states have undertaken extensive

processes to evaluate their delivery

systems and have implemented, or are

in the process of implementing, many

state planning recommendations.

Additionally, some states have ongoing

planning processes involving a wide

variety of stakeholders in the civil

justice system. We do not intend such

states to repeat past, or supplant current

processes. Instead, we ask recipients to

either work within ongoing processes or

develop new ones appropriate to the

situation in each state. In either case, we

hope recipients and other stakeholders

will view this process as an opportunity

to join together to strengthen the

delivery system and improve and

expand services to clients.

In this context we call upon each

LSC-funded program to share

responsibility for ensuring that a

statewide planning process, whether

ongoing or to be initiated, addresses the

questions discussed further below. For

each question state planners should:

• Assess the strengths and

weaknesses of the current approach;

• Establish goals to strengthen and

expand services to eligible clients; and

• Determine the major steps and a

timetable necessary to achieve those

goals.

A report should be submitted to LSC

on or before October 1, 1998. 1 If a state

has recently developed a plan which

addresses the substance of one or more

of the following questions, for those

questions, the state need only report on

the pertinent section(s) of that plan.

In exceptional cases, it may not be

possible for a state planning process to

fully address all of the following

questions. In such cases, recipients

should contact the LSC staff member

responsible for their state.

The questions to be addressed are:

1. How are intake and delivery of

advice and referral services structured

within the state? What steps can be

taken to ensure a delivery network that

maximizes client access, efficient

delivery, and high quality legal

assistance?

2. Is there a state legal services

technology plan? How can technological

capacities be developed statewide to

assure compatibility, promote

efficiency, improve quality, and expand

services to clients?

3. What are the major barriers lowincome persons face in gaining access to

justice in the state? What efforts can be

taken on a statewide basis to expand

client access to the courts, provide

preventive legal education and advice,

and enhance self-help opportunities for

low-income persons?

4. Do program staff and pro bono

attorneys throughout the state receive

the training and have access to

information and expert assistance

necessary for the delivery of high

quality legal services? How can

statewide capacities be developed and

strengthened to meet these needs?

5. What is the current status of private

attorney involvement in the state? What

statewide efforts can be undertaken to

increase the involvement of private

attorneys in the delivery of legal

services?

6. What statewide financial resources

are available for legal services to lowincome persons within the state? How

can these resources be preserved and

expanded?

7. Where there are a number of LSCfunded programs and/or the presence of

very small programs, how should the

legal services programs be configured

within the state to maximize the

effective and economical delivery of

high quality legal services to eligible

clients within a comprehensive,

integrated delivery system?

1. Intake and the Provision of Advice

and Brief Services

How are intake and delivery of advice

and referral services structured within

the state? What steps can be taken to

ensure a delivery network that

maximizes client access, efficient

delivery, and high quality legal

assistance?

A successful intake system is critical

to effective and comprehensive delivery

of legal services. Over the past two years

many programs have instituted

centralized telephone intake and

delivery systems which provide high

quality advice and brief service

assistance, and promptly refer clients

whose problems require more assistance

to program case handlers or other

resources. In a number of states,

statewide or regional systems, using

advanced telephone and computer

technology, have consolidated these

functions in one location where trained,

experienced staff provide prompt access

for clients and minimize the risk of

multiple referrals or loss of clients.

These systems improve the quantity and

quality of advice, brief service and

referral assistance while increasing the

number of extended service cases which

can be handled by the program.

State planners should evaluate the

current status of intake and delivery of

advice and referral services within the

state and develop strategies for

improvement. Consideration should be

given to developing regional and

statewide intake and delivery systems

which:

• Are client-centered, providing ease

of access to legal services and prompt,

high quality assistance or referral;

• Use specialization to enhance case

evaluation and provision of advice, brief

service and referral assistance;

• Make effective use of technology;

and

• Provide oversight and follow-up to

ensure high quality legal services and

client satisfaction. .

2. Effective Use of Technology

Is there a state legal services

technology plan? How can technological

capacities be developed statewide to

assure compatibility, promote

efficiency, improve quality, and expand

services to clients?

Within individual programs, effective

use of technology can reduce the cost

and substantially enhance the quality of

33844 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

services. Collectively, technology can

dramatically improve the capacity of

staff throughout the state to quickly

exchange and share information,

improving their ability to stay current

with the law, develop legal strategies,

write briefs and otherwise serve clients.

In the past two years, many programs

have significantly increased their

technological capacities. On a statewide

level, programs have used new

technologies to establish E-mail

communication with all legal services

staff throughout the state; to connect

with other service providers; to

exchange information with private

attorneys participating in PAI efforts; to

establish centralized brief/pleadings/

forms/manuals/ information banks; to

create resource centers for information

on state law and policy developments;

and to establish unified case

management systems which allow for

data collection and outcome measures.

New technologies involving the Internet

and advanced telephone and computer

applications have also been used to

provide legal and program resource

information to clients.

Improving and staying current with

technology is costly and makes it all the

more important that states take a unified

approach and develop a technology plan

that will maximize collective capacity

while minimizing cost. A state

technology plan should establish

reasonable goals and set forth steps to:

• Assure that all programs have

networked computer access for all staff;

integrated case management;

computerized timekeeping; E-mail and

the ability to electronically transfer

documents; computerized financial

management systems; and technological

support;

• Develop or improve compatible

technological capacities which will

allow all staff, statewide, to

communicate with each other, share

information, and take advantage of other

efficiencies made possible by

computerization; and

• Use new technologies to provide

legal and program resource information

to clients and other interested persons.

3. Increased Access to Self-Help and

Prevention Information

What are the major barriers lowincome persons face in gaining access to

justice in the state? What efforts can be

taken on a statewide basis to expand

client access to the courts, provide

preventive legal education and advice,

and enhance self-help opportunities for

low-income persons?

Pro se, community legal education

and access to courts efforts have great

potential to address many of the legal

needs of low-income persons. Programs

in many states utilize these methods to

increase legal information available to

the public, empower clients to advocate

on their own behalf, and increase access

to the courts for all low-income people.

Given the intensive effort required to

implement such strategies, and the

influence state laws and rules have on

such initiatives, often these results can

be realized more easily by coordinated

state level efforts. In several states, for

example, collaboration with state bar

committees and state judicial

administrations has resulted in rule

changes, publication of pro se oriented

materials and more accessible court

systems. Likewise, the development of

self-help and community legal

education materials has benefitted from

concerted statewide efforts involving a

variety of organizations working to

make justice more accessible.

State planners should evaluate the

status of pro se, community legal

education, and access efforts in their

state and determine what steps should

be taken statewide to enhance their

effectiveness in meeting client needs.

Consideration should be given to:

• Statewide coordination and/or

production of pro se and community

education materials, such as brochures

in multiple languages, videos, cableaccess TV programs, and projects

designed to take advantage of new

technologies such as computerized pro

se programs and the world wide web;

and

• State level initiatives, including

efforts with bar associations, the

judiciary and other interested parties to

increase access to the courts.

4. Capacities for Training and Access to

Information and Expert Assistance

Do program staff and pro bono

attorneys throughout the state receive

the training and have access to

information and expert assistance

necessary for the delivery of high

quality legal services? How can

statewide capacities be developed and

strengthened to meet these needs?

In the last two years several states

have developed new or strengthened

existing capacities to ensure that staff

and pro bono attorneys throughout the

state receive necessary training and

have access to information and expert

assistance essential for the delivery of

high quality legal services. These states

employ a variety of methods to provide

staff and pro bono attorneys with

training on substantive law and skills

development, practice manuals and

related poverty law materials,

information on poverty law

developments and strategies, and cocounseling for less experienced staff and

pro bono attorneys. Communication,

planning and ongoing discussion

concerning major legal needs, poverty

law developments, effectiveness of

approaches, and commonalities in legal

work, helps ensure productive use of

resources. The use of new technologies

has helped maximize the effectiveness

of these efforts.

State planners should evaluate

current capacities for the provision of

training and related services essential

for the delivery of high quality legal

services. Planners should:

• Assess how a statewide approach

can address the needs for these services

of staff and pro bono attorneys

throughout the state; and

• Determine the steps necessary to

provide these services as effectively and

efficiently as possible.

5. Engagement of Pro Bono Attorneys

What is the current status of private

attorney involvement in the state? What

statewide efforts can be undertaken to

increase the involvement of private

attorneys in the delivery of legal

services?

In the past two years, several states

have been successful in enlisting or reenlisting the state Bar, the judiciary and

others in developing and supporting

private attorney involvement

throughout the state. These efforts have

helped local private attorney

involvement programs expand

participation rates and the range and

types of services available to clients.

State planners should evaluate the

current status of private attorney

involvement in the state and consider

how statewide strategies can increase

engagement of pro bono attorneys and

benefit clients throughout the state,

including areas of the state with lower

private attorney involvement.

Consideration should be given to:

• Renewed efforts to involve the Bar,

the judiciary and other leaders in the

legal community in promoting private

attorney involvement;

• Providing greater opportunities for

attorney participation in a full spectrum

of legal work, including advice and brief

service, negotiation, administrative

representation, pro se classes,

transactional assistance, and simple and

complex litigation;

• Providing greater opportunities for

attorneys to assist programs with

training, co-counseling and mentoring

staff; and

• Providing greater opportunities for

law schools, corporate counsel,

government attorneys, and other

professionals to engage in pro bono

activities.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33845

6. Development of Additional Resources

What statewide financial resources

are available for legal services to lowincome persons within the state? How

can these resources be preserved and

expanded?

In the past two years, many programs

have increased the resources available

to them through innovative grant

projects, local fundraising and other

efforts. Even more dramatic, however,

are the increases programs have

received in many states through

collective development and/or

expansion of statewide revenues such as

state appropriations, filing fee

surcharges, state fundraising campaigns,

state bar dues checkoffs and direct state

bar grants. Whether new or expanded,

these revenues have almost always been

the product of thoughtful planning with

programs and other stakeholders

working together.

State planners should evaluate the

possibilities for further statewide

resource development and develop a

statewide strategy to preserve, build,

and/or create new financial and nonfinancial resources in their state. Since

program efforts to build such statewide

resources are more successful when

many stakeholders participate, it is

especially important for planners to

involve a variety of community leaders

in these efforts.

7. Configuration of a Comprehensive,

Integrated Statewide Delivery System

Where there are a number of LSCfunded programs and/or the presence of

very small programs, how should the

legal services programs be configured

within the state to maximize the

effective and economical delivery of

high quality legal services to eligible

clients within a comprehensive,

integrated delivery system?

In most states, the present delivery

structure reflects national funding

decisions made in the 1970’s. In many

states, those decisions were not

determined by analysis of what delivery

structure would yield the most

economical and effective services to

clients throughout the state. Moreover,

those decisions were made before such

major developments in legal services

delivery such as IOLTA funding, private

attorney involvement, law school

clinical programs, hotlines, the

emergence of other civil legal aid

providers, and restrictions on recipients’

non-LSC funds; and before the

information revolution and the

opportunities it presents with personal

computers, E-mail, sophisticated

telephone technology, and the Internet.

In light of developments over the past

twenty-five years, and especially since

1995, it is time to take a fresh look and

re-evaluate those structures.

Re-evaluation is particularly critical

in states with a number of LSC-funded

programs and/or the presence of very

small programs. States with many

programs often suffer from

uneconomical and inefficient

redundancy of effort, or no effort at all,

in technology, training, fundraising, and

development of client services such as

intake, advice and referral systems or

client education materials. Similarly,

small programs often lack the resources

necessary to develop proper staff

supervision or appropriate

specialization, or to acquire current

technology necessary for maximum

effectiveness.

In addition, while individual

programs may excel, a large number of

programs or the presence of small

programs may result in unnecessary

diversion of the state’s resources from

client services to administrative

overhead. Each program, no matter how

large or small, must devote significant

resources to A–133 audits, state and

federal tax and wage reports, funding

applications, recordkeeping, personnel

policies, purchase and maintenance of

technology and equipment, and other

administrative tasks. Experienced and

accomplished lawyers spend time on

program administration when they

could be using their talents to represent

clients, train or mentor new lawyers and

otherwise lead their program’s legal

work.

Where these conditions exist, state

planners must consider whether

consolidation of programs would make

better use of resources available in the

state.

There is no magic number of

programs or a single delivery model that

fits all states. In some states, a statewide

LSC provider makes the most sense; in

others, a regional approach or other

configuration may be appropriate. Each

state must examine what configuration,

from a statewide perspective, maximizes

services and benefits for clients

throughout the state. Factors to be

considered include:

• Size, complexity, cultural and

ethnic diversity/homogeneity of client

population.

• Geographic, physical, and historical

distinctions and affinities within the

state.

• Variation in local client needs and

ability to respond and set priorities

accordingly.

• Assessments of programs’

performance and capacity to deliver

effective and efficient legal services in

accordance with LSC and other

professional criteria.

• Ease and efficiency of client access

to services and opportunities for

improvement.

• Capacity to efficiently and

effectively conduct community legal

education, pro se and outreach

activities.

• Level, uniformity, and plans for

further development of technological

capacity.

• Current levels of private bar

involvement and potential for

expansion.

• The availability of training, expert

assistance, and information about legal

developments.

• Current funding sources and

potential to expand resources available

to all programs.

• Cultural and ethnic diversity of

program leadership and management.

• Relative costs associated with fiscal

and administrative responsibilities and

potential savings in management, board

and administrative costs.

In making grants for FY 1999 and

beyond, we will look closely at each

state where there is currently a number

of LSC-funded programs and/or the

presence of very small programs to

assess whether careful consideration has

been given to consolidation of LSC

programs. We hope, and have faith, that

in these states, this planning process

will result in plans for merger and

consolidation of programs and

integration of services on a broader scale

than we have previously seen, and that

each state’s plan will result in a

configuration that is efficient and

effective in providing access to justice

for the state’s low-income clients.

Questions

LSC staff will be contacting recipients

to discuss this Program Letter. In the

meantime, if you have questions, please

contact the LSC staff member

responsible for your state.

Program Letter 98–6, July 6, 1998, State

Planning Considerations

Introduction

On February 12, 1998, the

Corporation issued Program Letter 98–1

calling upon all LSC recipients to

participate in a state planning process to

examine, from a statewide perspective,

what steps should be taken in their

states to further develop a

comprehensive, integrated statewide

delivery system. The Letter poses seven

questions recipients are to address in

their planning processes and requests

recipients to submit a report to LSC on

or before October 1, 1998. Many

33846 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

2Legal Services Corporation Act, Section

1007(a)(3). 3 45 CFR 1634.11.

recipients have asked LSC to provide

further guidance and additional

information about how the state

planning process will affect LSC grant

decisions. Recipients have also inquired

about the format for the October 1

report. This Program Letter responds to

these requests.

State Planning Considerations

The attached State Planning

Considerations have been developed to

provide recipients and other

stakeholders with more information

about statewide goals, capacities and

approaches recipients should consider

in their planning processes. A number

of other sources of information that may

assist state planners and upon which

these Considerations draw are

referenced in the Planning

Considerations. We hope these Planning

Considerations will help states develop

effective plans to strengthen their

delivery systems and services to clients.

We encourage recipients with any

questions about the State Planning

Considerations or planning process to

contact the LSC staff member

responsible for their state.

How the State Planning Process Will

Affect LSC Grant Decisions

The Corporation is directed under the

LSC Act 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.’’ 2 The state

planning process will provide

information that helps LSC exercise this

statutory responsibility.

1. Competition

a. Duration of Grants

The state planning process will

provide information that helps LSC

determine the duration of grants for

service areas in the 1999 competition,

i.e., service areas that are eligible for

grants of up to three years commencing

January 1, 1999.

In the 1998 LSC grant competition, we

determined that grants in several states

that were eligible for three year funding

would be made for a shorter period. The

decision to award grants for a shorter

period was made for two reasons: (1) To

encourage recipients in these states to

develop further their plans for a

comprehensive, integrated statewide

delivery system; and (2) concern that

the configuration of LSC-funded

programs in these states did not

constitute the most economical and

effective structure for delivering legal

services to the low-income community.

As with the 1998 competition, LSC

will take into account state delivery

plans and configuration of programs in

determining the duration of grants for

service areas now being competed.

Where LSC believes states need to

further develop their plans for a

comprehensive, integrated statewide

delivery system or where LSC remains

concerned about the configuration of

LSC-funded service areas, grants will be

made for less than three years.

b. Service Areas

1. 1999 Competition

The state planning process will not

affect decisions about the number, size

or configuration of service areas in

competition this year.

2. 2000 and Future Competition Years

Information received through the

planning process will affect future

decisions regarding the most

appropriate number, size and

configuration of LSC-funded service

areas to be competed for the year 2000

and beyond. This includes service areas

that become scheduled for those years

because of one or two year grant awards

made in the present 1999 competition.

2. Grant Renewals

The state planning process will not

affect decisions about the number, size

or configuration of service areas up for

renewal or the duration of grant

renewals, i.e., previously made multiyear awards which are now up for

renewal. Decisions on renewal of these

grants will continue to be based upon a

showing of the renewal applicant’s

continued ability ‘‘to perform the duties

required under the terms of its grant.’’ 3

Format for the October 1 Report

The attached Instructions for State

Planning Reports provide information

about the structure and format of the

reports due at LSC on or before October

1, 1998. Please contact the LSC staff

member responsible for your state if you

have any questions.

Instructions for State Planning Reports

Please submit reports to the Office of

Program Operations on or before

October 1, 1998. Reports should be no

longer than 35 pages and should contain

the name and telephone number of a

contact person(s). The report should:

A. Briefly describe the state planning

process and participants.

B. Address the following areas in the

order presented. In addressing each

area, please consider LSC’s State

Planning Considerations and:

• Assess the strengths and

weaknesses of the current approach;

• Establish goals to strengthen and

expand services to eligible clients; and

• Determine the major steps and a

timetable necessary to achieve those

goals.

1. Intake, Advice and Referral

How are intake and delivery of advice

and referral services structured within

the state? What steps can be taken to

ensure a delivery network that

maximizes client access, efficient

delivery, and high quality legal

assistance?

2. Technology

Is there a state legal services

technology plan? How can technological

capacities be developed statewide to

assure compatibility, promote

efficiency, improve quality, and expand

services to clients?

3. Access to the Courts, Self-Help and

Preventive Education

What are the major barriers lowincome persons face in gaining access to

justice in the state? What efforts can be

taken on a statewide basis to expand

client access to the courts, provide

preventive legal education and advice,

and enhance self-help opportunities for

low-income persons?

4. Coordination of Legal Work, Training,

Information and Expert Assistance

Do program staff and pro bono

attorneys throughout the state receive

the training and have access to

information and expert assistance

necessary for the delivery of high

quality legal services? How can

statewide capacities be developed and

strengthened to meet these needs?

5. Private Attorney Involvement

What is the current status of private

attorney involvement in the state? What

statewide efforts can be undertaken to

increase the involvement of private

attorneys in the delivery of legal

services?

6. Resource Development

What statewide financial resources

are available for legal services to lowincome persons within the state? How

can these resources be preserved and

expanded?

7. System Configuration

How should the legal services

programs be configured within the state

to maximize the effective and

economical delivery of high quality

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33847

4States with only one LSC-funded program need

not answer this question.

legal services to eligible clients within

a comprehensive, integrated delivery

system? 4

Form C—Assurances 2001 LSC Grant

Competition

If applicant is successful and receives

an LSC grant or contract,

Applicant Hereby Assures and

Certifies That:

1. It will comply with the Legal

Services Corporation Act of 1974 as

amended (LSC Act), and any applicable

appropriations acts and any other

applicable law, all requirements of the

rules and regulations, policies,

guidelines, instructions, and other

directives of the Legal Services

Corporation (Corporation or LSC),

including the LSC Audit Guide for

Recipients and Auditors, the

Accounting Guide, the CSR Instruction

Handbook and with any amendments of

the foregoing adopted before or during

the period of this grant. It understands

that successful applicants may be

expected to sign further assurances

before the awarding of the grant.

2. It will not use funds received from

a source other than the Legal Services

Corporation for any activity inconsistent

with the requirements of Public Law

106–113, Public Law 105–277, Public

Law 105–119 and Public Law 104–134.

3. If the Applicant is a non-profit

organization, its governing board will

set specific priorities in writing,

consistent with the requirements of 45

CFR Part 1620.

4. It agrees to be subject to all

provisions of federal law relating to the

proper use of federal funds listed in 45

CFR 1640.2(a)(1). Before the initiation of

the contract, the Applicant ’s employees

and board members will have been

informed of the federal law and its

consequences as required in 45 CFR

1640.3.

5. It has the legal authority to apply

for and receive a grant from the Legal

Services Corporation.

6. It will provide legal services in

accordance with the plans set out in its

grant application, as modified in further

negotiations with the Corporation, and

agrees to provide high quality,

economical, and effective legal

assistance, as measured by generally

accepted professional standards, the

provisions of the LSC Act, or a rule,

regulation or guidance issued by the

Corporation.

7. It will not discriminate on the basis

of race, color, religion, gender, age,

disability, national origin, or any other

basis prohibited by law against: (1) Any

person applying for employment or

employed by the Applicant; or (2) any

person seeking assistance from the

Applicant or other program(s) supported

in whole or in part by this grant.

8. It will provide the Corporation with

copies of the following policies

applicable to the employees, partners,

and applicants for employment funded

in whole or in part under this grant: its

Equal Opportunity Policy Statement,

including its Complaint Review

Procedure or internal means of handling

employee grievances; and its Sexual

Harassment Policy, including an

effective complaint procedure. Each of

these will have been reviewed and

approved by its governing or policy

board within the last three years. It will

notify the Corporation prior to the

implementation of changes to its Equal

Opportunity Policy Statement.

9. Notwithstanding grant assurance

number 10 below, and § 1006(b)(3) of

the LSC Act, 42 U.S.C. 2996e(b)(3), it

shall make available financial records,

time records, retainer agreements, client

trust fund and eligibility records, and

client names, except for those reports or

records subject to the attorney-client

privilege, to the Corporation and any

federal department or agency that is

auditing or monitoring the activities of

the Corporation or of the Applicant and

any independent auditor or monitor

receiving federal funds to conduct such

auditing or monitoring, including any

auditor or monitor of the Corporation.

10. It will cooperate with all

reasonable and necessary information

collection, including surveys,

questionnaires, monitoring, audit, case

statistical report (CSR) data, compliance

and evaluation activities undertaken by

the Corporation or its agents. During

normal business hours it will give any

authorized representative of the

Corporation or the Comptroller General

of the United States access to and copies

of all original records, books, papers and

documents pertaining to the grant in its

possession, custody or control, except

for that properly subject to the attorneyclient privilege, applicable rules of

professional responsibility or attorney

work product which may be withheld to

the extent consistent with grant

assurance 9 above. Access must be

provided to materials with information

otherwise available in the public record

(e.g. pleadings filed in open court) and

to program financial records (e.g.

negotiable instruments, vendor files,

travel records, journals and ledgers.) It

agrees to provide the Corporation with

the requested materials in a form that

meets the Corporation’s need for

information and, to the extent possible,

protecting the reasonable personal

privacy interests of its staff members.

Should it withhold records or

information on these grounds, it shall

disclose the withholding and the basis

therefor to LSC. LSC may require the

grantee to disclose the information if

LSC determines that the justification for

withholding it is inadequate. In the

event that records are unreasonably

withheld, the Applicant will be

responsible for all reasonable and

necessary expenses related to LSC’s

efforts necessary to obtain the release of

such records. It will not take any

retaliatory action against any employee

because of any cooperation with or

release of information to LSC

representatives.

11. It agrees to implement all specific

record keeping requirements contained

in the LSC Act, regulations,

appropriations act, other applicable law,

and other applicable LSC directives and

to implement, as required, any

additional specific record keeping

requirements that may be forthcoming

from the Corporation during the grant

period.

12. It will give written notice to the

Corporation within thirty (30) calendar

days after any of the following

occurrences which involve activities

funded by the grant:

a. A decision to close and/or relocate

any main or staffed branch office;

b. Change of Chairperson of the

governing/policy body;

c. Change of chief executive officer;

d. Change in its Charter, Articles of

Incorporation, By-laws or governing

body structure;

e. Receipt of any notice of a claim for

attorneys’ fees under the provisions of

§ 1006(f) of the LSC Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2996e(f). The Applicant will also

forward, upon receipt, a copy of the

pleading requesting these attorneys’

fees; or

f. Change in the Independent Public

Accountant performing the grantee’s

annual financial audit.

13. It agrees that, prior to any merger

or consolidation or other change in its

current identity or status as a legal

entity, it will provide the Corporation

with sixty (60) days written notice. If it

proposes to transfer its interests in its

LSC grant to another entity pursuant to

a merger or consolidation, it will seek

approval from the Corporation for such

transfer and will submit a Successor in

Interest Agreement for approval by the

Corporation.

14. In the event that the applicant

ceases to be a recipient of LSC grant

funds during the 2001 grant term for

whatever reason,

a. It agrees to provide the Corporation

with written notice at least sixty (60)

33848 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices

days before the Applicant voluntarily

ceases to be a recipient of LSC grant

funds during the term of this grant.

b. It will submit to the LSC, Office of

Program Performance, at the time that it

provides the written notice in (a) above

that it is voluntarily ceasing to be a

recipient of LSC grant funds or within

fifteen (15) days from being notified by

LSC that it will cease to be a recipient

of LSC grant funds, a plan for the

orderly conclusion of the role and

responsibilities of the applicant as a

recipient of LSC funds. The plan should

describe:

1. The immediate transition planning

with the new provider, particularly as

related to intake, accounting of all open

cases (including PAI cases) and transfer

of existing cases and contracts;

2. The disposition of the recipient’s

fund balance, if any, pursuant to 45 CFR

Part 1628. The applicant understands

that the LSC fund balance amount,

including any derivative income from

LSC-funded activities which exceeds

the 10–25 percent threshold amount

pursuant to 45 CFR Section 1628.3(d),

unless waived by LSC in writing, shall

be returned to the Corporation;

3. An accounting of all real property

purchased in whole or in part with LSC

funds. The applicant understands and

agrees to abide by any agreement it has

with the Corporation governing the

purchase of real property in whole or in

part with LSC funds. The accounting

should include:

i. The address and a brief description

of the property and the date it was

acquired;

ii. The total amount of funds

expended to acquire or improve the

property, including principal and

interest payments, and payment for

capital improvements;

iii. The total amount of LSC funds

expended to acquire or improve the

property, including principal and

interest payments, and payment for

capital improvements;

iv. The fair market value of the

property;

v. A statement indicating the

program’s plans for disposing of the

property; and

vi. Copies of any agreements or

contracts governing the disposition of

the property.

4. The total costs associated with

cessation of LSC funding, and funds

available to meet those costs, supported

by a budget detailing the planned close

out expenditures, and plans for securing

payment or reimbursement due under

contract from non-LSC sources; and

5. An accounting of all personal/nonexpendable property purchased in

whole or in part with LSC funds, which

has a current book or market value

exceeding $1,000. The accounting list

should include for each item of

property:

i. A brief description of the property

item;

ii. The date of acquisition of the

property item;

iii. The total amount of funds

expended to acquire the property;

iv. The amount of LSC funds

expended to acquire the property;

v. The fair market value of the

property;

vi. A plan for disposing of all such

property, pursuant to the 1981 Property

Management Manual for LSC Programs

or its duly adopted successor; and

vii. If the property is to be transferred,

an assurance that the program, acquiring

the property, will use the property in

connection with the delivery of legal

assistance to low-income persons.

c. It shall certify at the time it submits

the plan in (b) above that an

Independent Public Accountant will

audit the recipient’s 2000 financial

statements, internal controls and

compliance with applicable laws and

regulations in accordance with the LSC

Audit Guide for Recipients and Auditors

and Government Auditing Standards. It

shall submit to LSC’s Office of the

Inspector General an engagement letter

from its Independent Public Accountant

that includes an estimate of the LSCfunded portion of the total estimated

audit cost for FY 2000 under section

509(c) of Public Law 104–134, as

incorporated by Public Law 105–277

and Public Law 106–113.

d. It shall certify at the time it submits

the plan in (a) above that it will submit

Grant Activity Reports in a format

specified by the Corporation in a timely

manner;

e. It shall participate in an orderly and

professional transition of functions to

the new provider to deliver services in

the service area; and

f. The recipient understands and

agrees that, after it gives notice to LSC

or after receipt of notice from LSC of the

cessation of funding, the receipt of all

future installments after such notice

shall be contingent upon satisfactory

completion of all closeout obligations

imposed by the Corporation including

the obligations described herein.

15. It will give telephonic notice to

the LSC Office of Inspector General

(OIG) within two (2) working days of the

discovery of any information that

indicates the Applicant may have been

the victim of misappropriation,

embezzlement or other theft or loss of

any funds (LSC funds, non-LSC funds

used for the provision of legal assistance

or client funds). Such notice shall be

followed by written notice by mail or

facsimile within ten (10) calendar days.

Written notice of a theft of any property

other than funds will be provided to the

OIG within ten (10) calendar days from

the time of the discovery of the theft.

The required notice shall be provided

regardless of whether the funds or

property are recovered.

16. It will notify the Corporation

within twenty (20) days of any of the

following arising from an LSC funded

activity: a monetary judgment; sanction

or penalty entered against the program

for matters such as Rule 11 sanctions;

malpractice judgments; EEO claims; IRS

penalties; penalties arising out of the

Americans with Disabilities Act; or

voluntary settlement of any similar

action or matter; or any other matter

which may have a substantial impact on

its delivery of services.

17. It understands and agrees that it

will arrange for an audit and execute an

agreement with its auditor that meets

the requirements of LSC’s Audit Guide

for Recipients and Auditors. The

Applicant also understands and agrees

that if it fails to have an audit acceptable

to LSC ’s Office of Inspector General

(OIG) in accordance with LSC’s Audit

Guide for Recipients and Auditors, the

following sanctions shall be available to

the Corporation as recommended by the

Office of Inspector General: (1)

Disallowance of the cost of the audit as

a charge against LSC funds; (2) the

withholding of a percentage of the

recipient’s funding until the audit is

completed satisfactorily; and (3) the

suspension of the recipient’s funding

until an acceptable audit is completed.

18. It shall cooperate with the

Corporation in the Corporation’s efforts

to follow up on the reportable

conditions, findings, and

recommendations found by LSC, the

Government Accounting Office, and/or

the Applicant’s independent public

accountants to ensure that instances of

deficiencies and noncompliance are

resolved in a timely manner. Applicant

management shall expeditiously resolve

all such reported conditions, findings,

and recommendations, including those

of sub-recipients, to the satisfaction of

the Corporation.

19. It understands that the LSC Office

of Inspector General may remove,

suspend or bar an independent public

accountant, upon a showing of good

cause and after notice and an

opportunity to be heard.

20. It certifies that it has a computer

that meets or exceeds the following

specifications: Pentium/266mhz, or

equivalent computer system, 64

megabytes of Random Access Memory;

4 gigabyte hard disk drive; color

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Notices 33849

monitor; Internet access; and Netscape

4.7 or Internet Explorer 5.0 browser.

The applicant certifies that it has, or

will obtain, access to e-mail on each

casehandler’s desk before December

2001. The applicant further certifies

that, by the same deadline, access to the

World Wide Web will be available in

each office that houses more than three

persons. Each staff member will be

appropriately trained in the use of

applicable software.

21. It will submit, for each year of the

grant and for each service area for which

a grant is awarded, Grant Activity

Reports in a format and at a time

determined by the Corporation. If,

during the course of the grant year,

Grant Activity Reports no longer

accurately reflect actual activity (e.g.,

CSR, budget, and staffing data) of the

program, it will revise and resubmit

affected Grant Activity Reports to the

Corporation.

22. It is aware of and agrees that an

award of a multi-year grant under the

competitive bidding process does not

obligate LSC to disburse any funds that

are not authorized or appropriated by

Congress nor does it preclude the

imposition of additional conditions, by

LSC or the Congress, on any funds that

are so disbursed. During calendar year

2001, authority for LSC to disburse

some of the funds under the grant award

may be rescinded by Congress, or

sequestered, thereby reducing the actual

amount of funds disbursed under the

grant. Further, additional restrictions

may be imposed on the use of funds as

a result of such appropriation,

authorization legislation, or other law.

In subsequent years, the amount of and

conditions upon funding may be

changed to conform to Congressional

appropriation levels and legislated

restrictions. Such changes and

reductions, however implemented by

the Legal Services Corporation, shall not

constitute a termination or suspension.

23. It will maintain during the grant

period and for a period of six (6) years

from the date of termination of the grant

all records pertaining to the grant. With

respect to financial records, it will

maintain records and supporting

documentation sufficient for the

Corporation, or an independent auditor

selected by the Corporation, to audit

those records and determine whether

the costs incurred and billed are

reasonable, allowable and necessary

under the terms of the grant. In this

regard, the Applicant will permit the

Corporation or its auditor to review the

originals of all financial records and

supporting documentation, procedures

and internal control systems.

Additionally, the Corporation retains

the right to perform, or engage

independent auditors to perform such

an audit, whether during or subsequent

to the grant period.

24. It shall retain closed client files for

a period of not less than five (5) years.

We have read these assurances and

conditions and understand that if this

application is approved for funding, the

grant and all funds derived therefrom

will be subject to these assurances. We

certify that the Applicant will comply

with these assurances if the application

is approved.

lllllllllllllllllllll

Name of Executive Director/(or functional

equivalent)

lllllllllllllllllllll

Title

Signature

Date

Name of Governing/Policy Board

Chairperson (Or other organization official

authorizing this application)

lllllllllllllllllllll

Title

Signature

Date

[FR Doc. 00–13189 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7050–01–P

THE NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE

ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES

Meetings of Humanities Panel

AGENCY: The National Endowment for

the Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of meetings.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of

the Federal Advisory Committee Act

(Public Law 92–463, as amended),

notice is hereby given that the following

meetings of the Humanities Panel will

be held at the Old Post Office, 1100

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Laura S. Nelson, Advisory Committee

Management Officer, National

Endowment for the Humanities,

Washington, DC 20506; telephone (202)

606–8322. Hearing-impaired individuals

are advised that information on this

matter may be obtained by contacting

the Endowment’s TDD terminal on (202)

606–8282.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed meetings are for the purpose

of panel review, discussion, evaluation

and recommendation on applications

for financial assistance under the

National Foundation on the Arts and the

Humanities Act of 1965, as amended,

including discussion of information

given in confidence to the agency by the

grant applicants. Because the proposed

meetings will consider information that

is likely to disclose trade secrets and

commercial or financial information

obtained from a person and privileged

or confidential and/or information of a

personal nature the disclosure of which

would constitute a clearly unwarranted

invasion of personal privacy, pursuant

to authority granted me by the

Chairman’s Delegation of Authority to

Close Advisory Committee meetings,

dated July 19, 1993, I have determined

that these meetings will be closed to the

public pursuant to subsections (c)(4),

and (6) of section 552b of Title 5, United

States Code.

1. Date: June 23, 2000,

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,

Room: 415,

Program: This meeting will review

applications for Colleges, Universities,

and Education Programs I, submitted to

the Office of Challenge Grants at the

May 1, 2000 deadline.

2. Date: June 28, 2000,

Time: 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.,

Room: 415,

Program: This meeting will review

applications for Colleges, Universities,

and Education Programs II, submitted to

the Office of Challenge Grants at the

May 1, 2000 deadline.

Laura S. Nelson,

Advisory Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00–13102 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7536–01–M

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

U.S. National Assessment Synthesis

Team; Notice of Meeting

In accordance with the Federal

Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92–

463, as amended), the National Science

Foundation announces the following

meeting:

Name: National Assessment Synthesis

Team (#5219).

Date and Time: May 31, 2000, 8:30

a.m.–5:30 p.m.; June 1, 2000, 8:30 a.m.–

3:30 p.m.

Place: Renaissance Hotel, 999 Ninth

Street, NW, Washington DC 20001.

Type of Meeting: Open.

Contact Person: Thomas Spence,

National Science Foundation, 4201

Wilson Blvd., Suite 705, Arlington, VA

22230. Tel. 703–306–1502; Fax: 703–

306–0372; E-mail tspence@nsf.gov.

Interested persons should contact Ms.

Susan Henson at the above number as

soon as possible to ensure space