[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33842-33849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13189]



[[Page 33842]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 LSC-funded 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-LSC-
funded 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 re-examine 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

[[Page 33843]]

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 self-help; 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:
    <bullet> Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current 
approach;
    <bullet> Establish goals to strengthen and expand services to 
eligible clients; and
    <bullet> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ LSC will provide guidance at a later date on the format for 
this report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 low-income 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 low-income persons within the state? How can these 
resources be preserved and expanded?
    7. Where there are a number of LSC-funded 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:
    <bullet> Are client-centered, providing ease of access to legal 
services and prompt, high quality assistance or referral;
    <bullet> Use specialization to enhance case evaluation and 
provision of advice, brief service and referral assistance;
    <bullet> Make effective use of technology; and
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 33844]]

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:
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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 low-income 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:
    <bullet> Statewide coordination and/or production of pro se and 
community education materials, such as brochures in multiple languages, 
videos, cable-access TV programs, and projects designed to take 
advantage of new technologies such as computerized pro se programs and 
the world wide web; and
    <bullet> 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 co-counseling 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:
    <bullet> Assess how a statewide approach can address the needs for 
these services of staff and pro bono attorneys throughout the state; 
and
    <bullet> 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 re-enlisting 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:
    <bullet> Renewed efforts to involve the Bar, the judiciary and 
other leaders in the legal community in promoting private attorney 
involvement;
    <bullet> 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;
    <bullet> Providing greater opportunities for attorneys to assist 
programs with training, co-counseling and mentoring staff; and
    <bullet> Providing greater opportunities for law schools, corporate 
counsel, government attorneys, and other professionals to engage in pro 
bono activities.

[[Page 33845]]

6. Development of Additional Resources
    What statewide financial resources are available for legal services 
to low-income 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 non-financial 
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 LSC-funded 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:
    <bullet> Size, complexity, cultural and ethnic diversity/
homogeneity of client population.
    <bullet> Geographic, physical, and historical distinctions and 
affinities within the state.
    <bullet> Variation in local client needs and ability to respond and 
set priorities accordingly.
    <bullet> Assessments of programs' performance and capacity to 
deliver effective and efficient legal services in accordance with LSC 
and other professional criteria.
    <bullet> Ease and efficiency of client access to services and 
opportunities for improvement.
    <bullet> Capacity to efficiently and effectively conduct community 
legal education, pro se and outreach activities.
    <bullet> Level, uniformity, and plans for further development of 
technological capacity.
    <bullet> Current levels of private bar involvement and potential 
for expansion.
    <bullet> The availability of training, expert assistance, and 
information about legal developments.
    <bullet> Current funding sources and potential to expand resources 
available to all programs.
    <bullet> Cultural and ethnic diversity of program leadership and 
management.
    <bullet> 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

[[Page 33846]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Legal Services Corporation Act, Section 1007(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 multi-year 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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 45 CFR 1634.11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
    <bullet> Assess the strengths and weaknesses of the current 
approach;
    <bullet> Establish goals to strengthen and expand services to 
eligible clients; and
    <bullet> 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 low-income 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 low-income 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

[[Page 33847]]

legal services to eligible clients within a comprehensive, integrated 
delivery system? \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ States with only one LSC-funded program need not answer this 
question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
Sec. 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 attorney-client 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 Sec. 1006(f) of the LSC Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 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)

[[Page 33848]]

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/non-expendable 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 
LSC-funded 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

[[Page 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Executive Director/(or functional equivalent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of Governing/Policy Board Chairperson (Or other organization 
official authorizing this application)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Title
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date

[FR Doc. 00-13189 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P