ATTACHMENTS

 

ATTACHMENT A

Questionnaire on

State Advocacy, Coordination and Support

 

INTRODUCTION

 

1.         Does your state have state support units or programs?

2.         If yes, what are their names and addresses?

3.         What are their funding levels?

Who funds them?

4.         Do they engage in the following:

a.         Direct Litigation?

b.         Advice and assistance on litigation?

c.         Administrative rulemaking advocacy?

d.         Legislative advocacy?

e.         Training on substantive issues?

f.          Monitoring and analysis of legal developments affecting low-income persons?          

g.         Task forces and meetings of advocates?

h.         State newsletters and/or information dissemination network through electronic means?

i.          Community Legal Education?

j.          Communication and coordination with national substantive entities?

 

SECTION ONE

 

STATE LEVEL ADVOCACY

 

A.        Representation in Courts and Judicial System

 

1.         Is there a system to identify at the trial level cases of statewide importance or significant impact affecting low-income persons in the state?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

2.         Is there a system to provide co-counseling on cases of statewide importance or significant impact if the principal attorney needs assistance?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

3.         Is there a system to identify appeals that may provide precedents of statewide importance or significant impact?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

4.         Does your state develop advocacy teams for appropriate advocacy projects involving cases of statewide importance or significant impact?

If yes, describe how such projects are identified, who is responsible for coordination and ensuring leadership for the team:

 

            5.         Does your state have a system to assist pro bono and other private attorneys on cases of statewide importance or significant impact? 

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

6.         Does the system attempt to reach out to private attorneys who may not be participating in a PAI or formal pro bono program?

If yes, describe how it is done: 

 

7.         Does your state have a system to identify and coordinate Amicus work in cases of statewide or significant impact?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

8.         Does your state have a system to provide technical assistance to individual attorneys on particular cases, including over-the-phone assistance?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated?

 

B.        Representation before Administrative Agencies in Agency Adjudicatory Forums

 

1.         At the initial hearing level, is there a system to identify administrative cases of statewide importance or significant impact affecting low-income persons in the state?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

2.         Is there a system to provide co-counseling on administrative cases of statewide importance or significant impact if the principal attorney needs assistance?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

3.         Is there a system to identify appeals from an initial hearing to an appeals body or to court in administrative cases that may provide precedents of statewide importance or significant impact?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

4.         Does your state have a system to assist pro bono and other private attorneys on administrative cases of statewide importance or significant impact? 

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

5.         Does the system attempt to reach out to private attorneys who may not be participating in a PAI or formal pro bono program?

If yes, describe how it is done: 

 

6.         Does your state have a system to provide technical assistance to individual attorneys on particular administrative cases or matters, including over-the-phone assistance?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated?

 

C.        Representation before Administrative Rulemaking and/or Policy Making Bodies.

 

1.         Does the state civil legal assistance system provide advocacy or representation before State Administrative Agencies when they are engaged in rulemaking and/or policy making?         

 

2.         If such advocacy is provided, who undertakes such advocacy?

 

3.         Is there a system to identify issues of statewide importance or significant impact on which such administrative advocacy should be undertaken? 

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

4.         Is there a system to coordinate statewide administrative advocacy?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

5.         Does your state have a system to assist pro bono and other private attorneys on administrative rulemaking or policy matters of statewide importance or significant impact? 

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

6.         Does the system attempt to reach out to private attorneys who may not be participating in a PAI or formal pro bono program?

If yes, describe how it is done: 

 

D.        Representation/Advocacy before State Legislative Bodies

 

1.         Does the state civil legal assistance system provide advocacy or representation before State Legislative Bodies?

 

2.         If such advocacy is provided, who undertakes such advocacy?

 

3.         Does your state maintain an office at the state capitol, which has responsibility for legislative advocacy?

If yes, describe with whom it is affiliated and how many staff it has?

 

4.         If not, does your state maintain some physical presence at the state capitol during legislative sessions?

If so, describe how this is done?

 

5.         Are staff who lobby registered lobbyists?

 

6.         Is there a system to identify issues of statewide importance or significant impact on which such legislative advocacy should be undertaken? 

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

7.         Is there a system to coordinate statewide legislative advocacy?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

8.         Does your state have a system to assist pro bono and other private attorneys on legislative matters of statewide importance or significant impact? 

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

9.         Does the system attempt to reach out to private attorneys who may not be participating in a PAI or formal pro bono program?

If yes, describe how it is done: 

 

E.        Representation/Advocacy on Other Matters of Public or Private Entities

 

1.         Does the state civil legal assistance system provide advocacy or representation on other matters affecting the rights and interests of low-income persons?  Examples: court rules;  judicial resource allocation; Workforce Investment Board; private contractors carrying out state policy; and the like. 

 

2.         If such advocacy is provided, who undertakes such advocacy?

 

3.         Is there a system to identify issues of statewide importance or significant impact on which such advocacy should be undertaken? 

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

4.         Is there a system to coordinate such statewide advocacy?

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

5.         Does your state have a system to assist pro bono and other private attorneys on such matters of statewide importance or significant impact? 

If yes, describe the system, who is responsible and how it is coordinated:

 

6.         Does the system attempt to reach out to private attorneys who may not be participating in a PAI or formal pro bono program? If yes, describe how it is done: 

 

SECTION TWO

STATEWIDE COORDINATION AND SUPPORT

FOR PROVIDERS OF CIVIL LEGAL ASSISTANCE

 

A.        Monitoring and Analysis of Legal Developments Affecting Low-Income Persons

 

1.         Does your state civil legal assistance system or support entity monitor and keep abreast of state legal developments affecting low-income persons?

Judicial developments?

Administrative developments?

Legislative developments?

If yes, describe how it is done and who does it:

 

2.         Does your state civil legal assistance system or support entity analyze recent case law and pending or recently enacted legislation and regulations that impact clients?

If yes, describe who does it and how it is coordinated:

 

3.         Does your state civil legal assistance system or support entity disseminate the analyses and information about state legal developments to:

LSC funded program staff?

Non-LSC funded program staff?

Private attorneys participating in PAI programs?

Other private attorneys?

Described for each, how this is done:

 

4.         Is there a statewide newsletter for staff and other advocates?

 

5.         If so, what topics are covered?

Case developments?

Legislative and regulatory developments?

Staff news?

Important events affecting clients?

Training opportunities?

Substantive resource information?

Reports on studies or program evaluations affecting low-income persons?

 

6.         If so, who receives the newsletter?

Staff in LSC-funded providers?      

Staff in non-LSC providers?

Private attorneys participating in PAI plan?

Other private attorneys?

Others?

 

B.        Statewide Meetings of, or Communications Among, Advocates on Substantive Issues and Delivery Matters

 

1.         Does your state civil legal assistance system or support entity provide forums for advocates to discuss common issues, problems, subject areas, client constituencies, techniques of advocacy and strategies to make the most effective and efficient use of resources, such as:

 

a.         Periodic statewide meetings of staff?

            If so, how often and who attends?

 

b.         State task forces?

If so, what task forces, how often do they meet and who attends?

 

c.         Electronic listservs and related techniques?

If so, what are they and who is involved?

 

d.         Regular meetings of management and supervising attorneys on advocacy topics?

If so, how often do they meet?

 

2.         Who is included in such forums?

 

Personnel from LSC-funded providers?

Personnel from non-LSC funded providers?

Private attorneys participating in PAI or pro bono programs?

Private attorneys outside of formal programs?

Attorneys working for government entities?

Corporations?                                              

Labor unions?

Human services providers?

 

C.        Statewide Information Dissemination Network

 

1.         Does your state civil legal assistance system have an efficient state-of-the-art statewide information dissemination network?

 

2.         Does the system provide e-mail access for:

LSC funded providers?

Non-LSC funded providers?

Pro bono programs?

Law school clinical programs?

Specialized legal advocacy programs?

Staff working in community based organizations?

 

3.         Does the system have a civil legal assistance web site?

 

4.         If so, does the web site provide up-to-date information affecting low-income persons about:

State case law developments?

State legislative developments?

State regulatory developments?

Other state policy developments?

Studies or evaluations about low-income persons?

 

5.         Does the web site provide information relevant to the delivery of civil legal assistance in the state?

 

6.         Does the web site provide information about community education materials and approaches?

 

7.         Does the web site provide information about community economic development projects?

           

8.         Does the system provide:

                                    Statewide electronic library of briefs and forms?

Information on best practices?

Practice and substantive manuals?

Proprietary texts?     

Client information materials?

 

9.         If so, is the system accessible to all institutional providers and private attorneys who provide civil legal assistance to low-income persons in the state?

 

10.       Does the system have a coordinated statewide research strategy integrating Internet usage, on-line services, proprietary sources, and other resources?

 

D.        Statewide Liaison With All Major Institutions affecting or Serving Low Income Persons in legal matters

 

                        Does the state have a coordinated and systematic statewide liaison with all major institutes affecting or serving low-income people in legal matters, such as:

State and local courts?

Federal Courts?

State Administrative agencies?

State legislative bodies?

Alternative dispute resolution  bodies?

Other public or private entities providing legal information, advice or representation?

 

E.        Coordinated Statewide Research Capacity   

 

Does the state have coordinated statewide research on:

Relevant demographic trends in the state?

New and Emerging legal problems?

Changes in the nature of the legal problems affecting low-income persons?

 

F.         Coordination with Other Advocacy Groups  

 

1.         Are there other non-legal advocacy groups working on statewide low-income issues in your state?

Domestic Violence Coalitions?

Welfare Rights Groups?

Child Advocacy Groups?

Elderly Advocacy Groups?

Housing Assistance Groups?

Consumer groups?

Health and/or nursing home groups?

Immigrant groups?                                                                           

Anti-hunger groups?

Community development groups?

 

2.         If  yes, does your state civil legal assistance system coordinate its efforts with the efforts of the other advocacy groups?

How do you ensure a coordinated advocacy strategy?

 

3.         Are you aware and do you work with any of the groups listed in the attachment at the end of the questionnaire?

 

G.        Community Economic Development

 

1.         Does the state system or support entity track and coordinate community economic development initiatives?

 

2.         If yes, describe how that is done and who is responsible:

 

3.         Does a provider, state support entity or the state system provide assistance to local program staff on economic development projects?

If so, who does it and what type of assistance is available.

 

 

 

H.        Community Education

 

1.         Does a provider, state support entity or the state system track and coordinate community education initiatives and programs?

 

2.         If yes, describe how this is done and who is responsible?

 

3.         Does a state support entity or the state system  provide assistance to local program staff on community education?

If yes, who does it and what type of assistance is available.

 

4.         Does the state system ensure that community education materials produced by one program are shared with other programs?

If yes, describe how this is done:

 

SECTION THREE

COORDINATION AMONG STATES AND NATIONALLY

 

A.        Other States

 

1.         Do providers and/or the state support entity in your civil legal assistance system work with providers in other states to:

Ensure coordinated responses to common legal problems?

Learn from the experiences of other states about improving the provision of civil legal assistance?

 

2.         If so, explain how this is done and who has responsibility for making sure that such coordination occurs:

 

B.        Coordination with National civil legal assistance entities

 

1.         Do providers and/or your state support entity in your state system work with national entities and institutions involved in improving civil legal assistance and participate in national efforts to achieve equal justice for all?

NLADA?

CLASP?

ABA?

MIE?

Other entities?

 

2.         If so, does your state civil legal assistance system or state support entity coordinate these efforts to make sure that the state is in ongoing communication with all key national entities?

If yes, explain how this is done and who is responsible:

 

C.        Coordination with national substantive advocacy entities

 

1.         Do providers in your state and/or your state support entity work and coordinate with national entities and organizations involved in advocacy on substantive issues affecting low-income persons?

Obtaining advice and assistance on cases or matters?

Obtaining and disseminating information about national developments?

Receiving newsletters?

Using manuals and other materials?         

Participating in audio conferences?

Participating in listserves?

 

2.         If providers do work with national entities, with what entities to they coordinate?

Welfare Law Center?

FRAC?

National Consumer Law Center?

National Housing Law Project?

National Senior Citizens Law Center?

National Immigration Law Center?

Native American Rights Fund?

Migrant Legal Action Program?

National Employment Law project?

Center for Law and Education?

National Economic and Development Law Center?

National Center for Youth Law?

National Health Law Program?      

Legal Counsel for the Elderly (AARP)?

National Center On Poverty Law (Clearinghouse)?

CLASP?

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities?

Families USA?

Bazelon Center on Mental Health Law?

Childrens= Defense Fund?

Center for Community Change?

National Low-income Housing Coalition?

Farmworker Justice Fund?

NAACP Legal Defense Fund?

MALDEF?

Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights?        

Child Care Law Center?

National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty?

National Veterans Legal Services Project?

Farmers= Legal Action Group?                                           

National Women=s Law Center?

National Partnership for Women and Families?

NOW Legal Defense Fund?

Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund?

Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund?

 

2.         Do providers and/or state support entity participate in substantive advocacy activities (such as lobbying or rulemaking) before:

Congress?

Federal agencies?

Federal Executive departments?

If so, do providers or state support entity work in coordination with national substantive advocacy entities (such as those listed previously)?

 

3.         Does your state civil legal assistance system or support entity coordinate these federal advocacy efforts to make sure that the state is in systematic communication with all key national entities?

If yes, explain how this is done and who is responsible:

 

 

 

 

 

ATTACHMENT B

 

THE IMPORTANCE OF STATE LEVEL ADVOCACY

 

Historical Perspective

 

State level advocacy has been a critical component of civil legal assistance from the early days of the federal legal services program.  The Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), which funded the federal legal services program until 1975, recognized that state level advocacy was necessary when it funded a number of new state support programs in the late 1960s.  During the 1970s state support initiatives, including state level advocacy, developed in a majority of states.

 

State level advocacy was necessary in order to protect the interests of low-income persons because many critical decisions affecting the legal rights of such persons were made at the state level, either by state legislative bodies, state administrative agencies, the Governor’s office or the state court system.  Family law, consumer law, landlord-tenant law and significant employment and labor laws were enacted at the state level.  States helped finance and administered critical federal programs, such as AFDC, Food Stamps, Medicaid and Unemployment Insurance and often determined eligibility levels and grant amounts for these programs. Many states also operated their own welfare “general assistance” programs, supplemental SSI programs, mental health and public health care programs.  Many federal programs gave states wide discretion on who to serve and what services to provide including child care and social services block grant programs.  States have substantial responsibility for education and many states had state housing finance agencies.  Most civil legal aid cases are tried in the state court system and state court rules and procedures provide the framework for most litigation. In short, among governmental entities, state governmental entities have played the most significant role in funding and enacting programs and policies affecting low-income persons.               

 

Recent Devolution

 

Since the mid-1970s and most significantly, since 1995, the role of states has substantially increased as a result of devolution, the now-common description of the shift in responsibility from the federal to the state level for social programs.  Because of devolution, state level advocacy has become even more essential to ensuring that the rights and interests of low-income persons are protected and enhanced.  Moreover, devolution has created fundamental changes in the way civil legal aid will be able to provide legal assistance, necessitating different ways of provide legal assistance as well as a need for new and different training and much more effective coordination and collaboration among a range of providers.

 

The prime example of devolution is the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) that eliminated the federal AFDC program that provided cash assistance to low-income families with dependent children. More specifically, under the old AFDC program, the federal government set the eligibility criteria and made the basic rules that governed the administration of the program, and then states received federal matching funding for every recipient enrolled in the program.  Under the new law, the federal framework and eligibility criteria were eliminated and replaced by a block grant program known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).  This fundamental structural change gives States almost total discretion to shape their programs of cash assistance, employment and training, child care and related health care services States can now determine who will receive assistance, what form that assistance will take and under what conditions it will be available. Devolution also is central to changes made to the food stamp and Medicaid programs, assistance to legal immigrants, and uses of Federal child care funds. 

 

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 further expands the shift of authority over low-income programs to State and local governments.  It created a significant new child health block grant, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).  An important new array of Medicaid options is also available to States.  For example, for the first time, States have the option to implement a presumption of eligibility of certain children and the ability to provide children continuous eligibility over the course of the year.  Expanded managed care options are a part of this new package. Taken together, the SCHIP program and the Medicaid managed care discretion create something akin to a block grant with substantial state discretion and limited federal protections. In addition, the new law creates an Awelfare-to-work@ block grant program for States and cities, with grantees given substantial flexibility over program design.

 

Congress also fundamentally changed the job-training program by eliminating the old Job Training and Partnership Act and replacing it with the Workforce Investment Act of 1988.  Under WIA, many key decisions about the use of federal job training funds are left to state and local officials. The governor of each state appoints a statewide Workforce Investment Board that will assist the development of a statewide plan governing the use of WIA funds. The state designates local Workforce Investment Areas that receive 85% of all federal funds that come to a state for job training. In addition, each state must establish a performance-based certification system to determine which training providers will be allowed to receive reimbursement with funds made available for adult and dislocated worker training.  

 

Finally, local flexibility has increased substantially as a result of changes made in Federal housing laws.  Housing legislation relaxed longstanding Federal rules governing which households should be aided when housing vouchers, certificates, and public housing units become available through normal turnover or for other reasons.  The legislation gives the nation=s 3,300 local public housing authorities (PHAs) the authority to alter program admission rules and rent structures.  PHAs will be able to use this flexibility to design innovative ways to revamp housing programs in ways that complement and support State and local efforts to move families from welfare to work.  But PHAs also will be able to use their new authority to shrink housing aid for the poor over time and shift a growing proportion of rental subsidies to lower-middle-income families with incomes up to $35,000.

 

Policies that flow from devolution have fundamentally changed the legal structure in which many poverty law advocates have effectively functioned in the past. PRWORA, for example, eliminated many of the federal statutory and regulatory protections that had been the basis for significant welfare and other litigation prior to the enactment of PRWORA.  In addition, many states eliminated any state duty to provide income maintenance assistance, child care or other vital services.  Recent Supreme Court decisions on federal private rights of action have limited opportunities to challenge state policies and practices as a violation of federal law.[1]  Finally, States have the discretion to make decisions that are not based on standard criteria or are not uniformly applied to all recipients.

  

Even more significant, since individual representation will no longer rely upon a clear legal right that the state has violated, representation of clients will be based on fact specific situations.  This is because states have substantial discretion and state welfare agencies can make decisions that are not based on criteria or are not uniformly applied to all recipients. Lawyers, paralegals and lay advocates will seek to persuade agency officials or caseworkers that the client should be assisted, client should not be terminated, client should receive child care, the work placement is inappropriate based on the faces of the specific individual.[2]  Thus, for example, when faced with agency placement processes, legal services attorneys and paralegals will now make arguments based on a client's particular situation and not on some law or agency rule, i.e., advocates will have to cut the best deal possible.  On the other hand, helping clients who are unhappy with their work placements or who feel that they are being treated or sanctioned arbitrarily will likely necessitate showing that the particular placement or program in which the client is enrolled is not suitable for that client.  In either case, such advocacy will require a much greater familiarity with the actual services available to participants as well as the opportunities and options that exist for those placed in work placements.  And it will require more extensive factual investigation about, and presentation on, a recipient's family situation, educational background, skills and employability. In short, we are moving from a system of advocacy based on applying federal law and rules to state agency practices to a system that is fact-based and relies on effective and persuasive presentation of facts and options to agency decision makers. [3] 

Another important aspect of the devolution of authority on this broad range of issues and programs is the growing extent to which States and localities will not only have new authority in designing program rules, but will also have the authority to coordinate eligibility and administration across programs.  However, many State and local officials, as well as civil legal assistance programs, often work in only one of the program areas in which a set of important policy interactions is now emerging.  For example, a number of issues and questions concerning the relationship between TANF and Medicaid eligibility stem from State TANF officials and welfare advocates= limited understanding of the new Medicaid eligibility rules for families with children, and health advocates= lack of familiarity with TANF.  Similarly, State welfare and local housing officials rarely work together and may also have vary limited knowledge about each other=s programs; this is also true of housing and welfare advocates.[4]  Many key issues and options, however, will entail cross-program knowledge and assessment and information exchange. 

 

An even more significant aspect of the devolution of authority is that states now can decide wider questions of social policy that for the last 60 years have primarily been addressed by federal policies and programs.  States can decide:

 

!         What its social policy should be.

 

!         What antipoverty programs, early childhood education, housing, employment and training, health and child care should be pursued.

 

!         What should be done to assist families in low-wage jobs.

 

This new discretion to rethink social policy at the state level presents an opportunity to consider realistic policy proposals that will answer the questions posed above and to develop long-term strategies to successfully promote such policies.  Such policy advocacy will require a much more fundamental rethinking of policies and programs together with knowledge about what has and has not worked in the past.  It will no longer be effective for policy advocates oppose policy changes on either legal or moral grounds or to focus only on preventing State (or local) policies which harm welfare recipients. Instead, policy advocates working on welfare reform will need to consider what policies should be in place to provide necessary education and training for workers with low skill levels, secure work for those able to participate in the labor force, provide necessary health and child care, encourage savings and asset accumulation, ensure economic security, secure habitable and affordable housing, prevent teenage pregnancy and promote family responsibility and stability.[5]  More than new policies approaches are necessary for policy advocacy to be successful in the new environment of devolution.  The advocates will have to collaborate effectively with a broad range of community, business and civic organizations and leaders in order to develop the support necessary to successfully promote and implement innovative and workable policies.

 

In short, to represent low-income persons in 2001 and beyond, each state must have the capacity to engage in a full range of state level advocacy, ensure widespread coordination and collaboration throughout the state and provide training and support to the state and private advocates working on poverty law issues.

 

 

ATTACHMENT C

 

 

LEARNING FROM THE PAST

 

The civil legal aid support system that was developed by the Office of Economic Opportunity during the 1960s and expanded by LSC during the late 1970s was unique in the history of civil legal aid in the entire world.  No other legal aid system had a federally funded system of support and training.  What ultimately evolved was a group of national support centers in most of the key areas of substantive poverty law (welfare, housing, consumer, elderly, family, education, children, aliens, Native Americans, etc.), five regional training centers each housed in a state support unit, and a number of state support entities.  These state support entities varied in organizational structure and size.  Some were independent organizations with funding from a variety of government and private sources.  Some were smaller and funded primarily by LSC.  Others were components of local programs and varied in size and responsibility.  Still others were entities formed by LSC-funded project directors and funded through program contributions. These too varied in size, funding and responsibility.  A few states carried out state support activities through joint ventures among two or more programs. Some states did not form separate entities but organized state support as critical components of a statewide program or through one large program in the state.

 

This unique system of national and state support has been the subject of continuous controversy since its inception in 1965 when OEO made the first grant for a national back-up center on welfare law. The controversy largely involved the critical work that support entities did to train and assist local advocates in bringing major poverty law litigation; at times the controversy involved the direct advocacy of support entities at the national and state level.  While the charges about support were overblown and often untrue, they had a cumulative effect on the perceptions among the staff and members of Congress. In 1995, Congress stopped funding for support and LSC was forced to eliminate grants for support to state and national support entities, the national clearinghouse and training entities.  Considerable funding for state support was lost - $10 million in LSC funds. Now that system must be funded from non-LSC funds, including IOLTA funds, state and local government funds, other federal grants and funds from private sources, including private foundations. 

 

The support system, in part because of its controversial nature, has been subject to continuous examination since the early 1970s, although most of the study has been on the national support centers and other national components and not on state support centers and activities.  The first attempt to focus on state support was the 1978 Support Study undertaken by LSC, which is reflected in the LSC document Support: Policies and Options for 1979 and Beyond (September 14, 1978). The study set out a set of activities for state support organized around the general headings of support, coordination and state level representation, but the LSC policy did not mandate that each activity be carried out in each state.  Subsequently core activities were developed through input from a state support working group.  Numerous LSC studies attempted to examine support throughout the 1980s, but none really focused on state support and none advanced state support.  Two non-LSC studies were done.  The Management Project of NLADA commissioned a paper on state support completed by Erica Black Grubb in November of 1983, The Role of State Support in Delivering High Quality, Cost-Effective Legal Services to Low Income Clients.  The National Organization of State Support Units did a subsequent study in 1991 entitled The Challenge of Leadership: Providing State Support Services in the 1990s.  A shorter version of the report was included in an article by Daniel M. Taubman, “The Role of State Support Centers in the 1990s and Beyond,” 25 Clearinghouse Rev. 75 (Special Issue 1992).      

 

Finally, in 1994, the Delivery Working Group (of the Project Advisory Group and NLADA) completed a comprehensive review of support that was presented to the LSC Board for its consideration just after the 1994 Congressional elections.  That study set out eight core functions of state and national support that remain relevant today:

 

THE CORE FUNCTIONS OF SUPPORT

 

1.         Advocacy

 

This contemplates conducting advocacy directly as sole or co-counsel, at the level at which the support program is located (state or national), and at higher or lower levels where such involvement has promise of being effective and an efficient use of resources in light of the likely effectiveness.  State and national support grantees are the focal points for such advocacy efforts because the two primary judicial, legislative, and administrative systems are centered at the state and federal levels.

 

Activities would include but not be limited to:

 

(a)       policy advocacy in all applicable forums

(b)       litigation

(C)       other advocacy, including brief advice and representation and participation in joint undertakings with non-Legal Services entities

 

2.         Coordination of and assistance to advocacy of others

 

This contemplates providing help to others in the Legal Services system who are doing advocacy, rather than doing it directly.

 

Activities would include but not be limited to:

 

(a)       brief consultation or other assistance

(b)       in-depth assistance

(c)        ongoing assessment (at the support entity's level of functioning) of new and continuing pressing needs of the client community; background analysis and strategy development for both new and existing major pressing needs

(d)       convening or facilitating meetings, task forces, and other vehicles for coordinating, guiding, and sharing information about advocacy

(e)       participating in advocacy coordination at other levels of the Legal Services community, and with others outside of that community working on similar issues

(f)         providing training to advocates (both staff and volunteers) in both substantive and skill areas

(g)       coordinating and facilitating policy advocacy of others

(h)        carrying out studies and preparing reports in furtherance of advocacy efforts

 

3.         Management, administrative and organizational assistance, coordination, and development

 

At both state (where there are at least two field programs distinct from the state support center) and national levels, this contemplates providing a variety of help to Legal Services programs and their administrative staff.

 

This would include but not be limited to:

 

(a)       brief consultation and advice

(b)       in-depth assistance, including on-site help

(c)        convening meetings, task forces, and other forums to address significant issues

(d)       providing training to staff and board members

(e)       providing assistance to program efforts toward recruitment and retention, such as negotiating insurance packages, conducting salary and benefit surveys, coordinating recruitment efforts within a state, sponsoring intern or fellowship programs, and more

(f)         assisting with organizational development

(g)       providing other administrative coordination, such as joint purchasing, negotiating discounts with suppliers, coordinating resource and staff sharing and collaboration, maintaining policy and procedure clearinghouses, preparing sample policies and procedures, and more

(h)        participating in the administrative and management coordination efforts of others

(i)         assistance in staying abreast of, disseminating information about, and implementing useful technological developments

(j)         emergent technical assistance - in any area - to programs in trouble

(k)        delivery research, studying and testing new ways of providing legal assistance, reaching underserved populations, addressing new problems or meeting familiar problems more effectively, carrying out support functions, and doing other Legal Services work

 

4.         Information dissemination to and sharing with staff, case handlers, and board members

 

This envisions state and national support centers as primary information distribution points.

 

Possible activities would include but not be limited to:

 

(a)       newsletters and other regular periodic mailing and issuances

(b)       occasional special memoranda, alerts and bulletins

(c)        holding and facilitating meetings, seminars, conferences, task forces, and other forums

(d)       maintaining electronic forums

(e)       preparing or finding useful audiovisual computer software and CD-ROM materials and maintaining a clearinghouse of same

(f)         maintaining a hard copy, fiche, and disc document and material clearinghouse

(g)       participating in the information dissemination efforts of other parts of the Legal Services system, and of outside advocates and others working on similar issues

(h)        training staff, board members and others about all of the foregoing

 

5.         Information dissemination to and sharing with the low-income client-eligible community

 

A central role of all Legal Services programs - and therefore of support - is to provide information to client-eligible people so that they may be relatively more empowered and may seek, wherever possible, to help themselves.  The nature of support's involvement in this activity will vary according to the pattern of involvement of other Legal Services programs and non-LSC entities for the particular substantive area, client population, or state.

 

Possible activities would include but not be limited to:

 

(a)       providing information to client-eligible people

(i)         preparing or securing community legal education materials; disseminating or maintaining a clearinghouse of same as appropriate

        (ii)            assisting in or supporting meetings and other in-person presentations

       (iii)            conducting or assisting training (in both skill and substantive areas)

 

(b)       gathering information from the client-eligible community

 

(i)         conducting structured task forces and advisory committees directed toward Legal Services programs, policy-makers, and others

        (ii)            conducting or facilitating focus groups, surveys, assessments, and the like

 

(c)        facilitating information exchange within the client-eligible community

 

(i)         furthering client-eligible access to electronic forums and other information-sharing technology

        (ii)            providing other forums for information-sharing

 

6.         Conducting and assisting necessary training

 

Much of the necessary training in Legal Services already has been referenced in the descriptive listings under the other core functions. 

 

Possible activities would include but not be limited to:

 

(a)       conducting necessary training

(b)       supporting or assisting training elsewhere in the Legal Services community, through:

 

(i)         assisting or facilitating local program training efforts

          (ii)          maintaining a clearinghouse of training materials and experts

          (iii)         conducting trainings of trainers for local efforts

          (iv)         developing training packages that can be used at other levels of Legal Services (state, local)

(v)        developing recommended core curricula for consideration by state and local programs

 

7.         Resource development

 

At both the state and national levels, support can play an important part in helping develop new sources of revenue for Legal Services.

 

Possible activities would include but not be limited to:

 

(a)       conducting various development efforts (state support only) such as annual and capital campaigns, major gifts and planned giving initiatives, and more

(b)       assisting fund raising efforts of other levels of the Legal Services community

(c)        providing training in fund raising

(d)       providing information about possible government grants

 

8.         Preserving and strengthening Legal Services as an institution

 

National and state support, given their leadership responsibilities, can collectively be responsible for advancing Legal Services' reputation and stature, preserving its independence, maintaining its integrity, and insuring its strength.

 

            Possible activities would include but not be limited to:

 

(a)       liaison and representative roles with government, the organized bar, the judiciary, major institutions impacting upon low-income people, and the public

(b)       Carrying out, coordinating, and supporting necessary public information and public relations activities.