MEMORANDUM

To: Persons Responding to LSC Program Letter 2000-7

From: Don Saunders, Director of Civil Legal Services

Re: Suggestions Regarding Self-Evaluation Process

Date: April 13 , 2001

The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance on fulfilling the next step of the LSC-driven component of your state planning process, specifically the development of a response to PL 2000-7, the most recent LSC Program Letter, which was issued in December. In the following pages we offer suggestions for responding to the letter. This memo also briefly addresses some of the broader issues raised by PL 2000-7.

The memo does not attempt to provide a critique of the strengths and weaknesses of the LSC planning process. We recognize that enormous effort has been committed throughout the community in responding to the process and that some concerns exist about various steps that have been taken by LSC along the way.

However, much good has been accomplished for clients through state planning across the country and 2000-7 provides an opportunity for states to evaluate their progress toward the goals set out in the letter. And, of course, LSC recipients must respond to the letter regardless.

We hope that LSC will provide many states engaged in competition this year with three-year grants given their significant progress toward developing state justice communities. Providing an outline of that progress should help make LSC's decision that much easier. Many planners have also told NLADA that they are finding it useful to begin a process of evaluation to determine the next steps to take in implementing plans to improve the delivery of legal services within their states.

Obviously, the nature of these questions makes responding to 2000-7 a challenge for many states and programs. The questions probe some of the most sensitive and painful issues encountered by many states during the formal state planning process of the last three years. NLADA and CLASP have worked with many states as they have addressed state planning issues, both with respect to the LSC process and as they struggle in a broader context to create the best possible delivery system beyond the confines of LSC funding and its inherent restrictions. We have learned much through working with many of you and, based upon that learning, this memo is meant to suggest approaches to key issues as you engage in the evaluative process under PL 2000-7.

Obviously, states are in many different stages of development of their individual state justice communities. It is unlikely that any one approach will be relevant to every state. Some states are well beyond the conceptual framework set out below. However, many states have yet to work out some of the fundamental principles critical to the process.

It is also true that many states have undergone a difficult process of interaction with LSC during the last several months, particularly with respect to the issue of program configuration. In interactions with the Corporation they have addressed many of the questions contained in the
self-evaluation. However, in some cases, much work remains to be done in a very short time period to effectuate difficult business reconfigurations of service areas.

It is important to note that if resources are stretched too thin to effectively respond to 2000-7 in states working on mergers, waivers of the July 1 deadline can be sought from Bob Gross. It is likely that a waiver would be granted upon a showing of merger-related need. Otherwise, unless very good cause can be shown, states should proceed with responding by July 1.

A FRAMEWORK FOR RESPONDING TO THE THREE QUESTIONS

The letter calls for states to engage in a self-evaluation process regarding the status of their state planning process with respect to three key questions:

1) Extent to which a comprehensive, integrated client-centered legal services delivery system has been achieved;

2) Extent to which the intended outcomes of the system have been achieved;
and

3) Are the best organizational and human resource management configurations
and approaches being used?

Much of the detail contained in these questions is state-specific. The following recommendations are meant to provide an overall framework for your approach to the draft that will allow you to present the best possible statement of the success of your process to date, the buy-in of the critical stakeholders and your hopes for the future. We also provide advice on some key general, overarching principles that have created problems in some states.

I. A NARRATIVE APPROACH FOR QUESTIONS 1 AND 2 (COMPREHENSIVE DELIVERY SYSTEM AND OUTCOMES)

• Approach the first two broad questions as two sides of the same coin. Draft a narrative response that addresses all of the components of both of the questions, but do not simply list the questions and the corresponding specific answers. It is artificial to divorce the intended outcomes of a delivery system from the delivery system itself. An integrated narrative provides the clearest picture of the state justice community you are developing;
• In the strongest terms possible, show what your state-based system looks like. Present a concise description about where you have been and where you are going. Use the specific questions as a road map through which you are able to articulate the shared vision in your state about the delivery system and hoped-for positive outcomes for clients.
• In delineating the components of your delivery system, describe the standard to which you aspire (e.g. effective delivery of training statewide) and the indicators you have adopted to gauge your progress toward reaching that standard (e.g., Who is responsible? How is it funded?).
• Use the first two sets of questions to guide the content of your overall narrative. If you adopt this approach, LSC will be flexible about the structure of the program letter and its 10-page rule for each question. Of course, the combined narrative for these two parts should not exceed 20 pages.

Carefully match the articulated vision and delivery system to the goals set out in prior Program Letters 98-1 and 98-6.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES FOR THE NARRATIVE

There are several principles that need to be addressed in creating a framework for articulating your accomplishments in developing a truly integrated state justice community. 2000-7 poses a series of specific narrow questions designed to guide a response. For many of these questions, a national perspective is not helpful, as the answers are deeply rooted in the planning experience in a given state. (For example, what are the important issues that impact upon low-income people within your state?).

However, there are a number of issues of common concern to the community inherent in the questions on which a national perspective might be helpful.

DESCRIBING THE STATEWIDE COMPONENT OF THE DELIVERY SYSTEM

Many states have struggled with the principles inherent in moving from a "service area" approach to a state-based system. Much of their thinking has revolved around how several programs can work together in a more coordinated fashion, keeping the sole focus and control of resources and decision-making on the local level.

This approach has led LSC to include these lines in 2000-7:

"However, it continues to be apparent that in many states and territories, the legal services delivery system remains a fragmented set of disconnected services. In many states we continue to find a wide divergence in the availability of services, client access capabilities and civil equal justice resources."

To both respond effectively to 2000-7 and to create an integrated statewide system requires states to come to grips, in real terms, with a fundamental vision that is significantly different than the one that has driven this system for many years. While the development of strong local programs and components remains a critical part of building a state justice community, planners must be able to articulate clearly a system of responsibility and accountability that creates a capacity to act in concert at the statewide level. In doing so, you should consider the following framework:

VISION

• Because LSC believes that a shared vision is central to creating state justice communities, all planning and operational decisions must be based upon a shared vision of a comprehensive state justice community that drives the process.
• In the past, successful planning has accepted the LSC analysis of the issues and reports and not challenged its underlying assumptions. Planning documents, by and large, have accepted the idea that state planning will produce more effective delivery systems and have consistently delivered their message within this framework.
  
  The vision should be clearly articulated. The various responses to the self-evaluation of individual components of the delivery system should be consistent and indicate how each part of the system ties in to the statewide vision.
• The vision should be stated as closely as possible to the terms of 98-1, 98-6 and 2000-7.
• The self-evaluation should stress specific indicators throughout the planning process that show buy-in to the vision by critical players, both LSC grantees and the broader stakeholder community. The report should stress how behavior has been modified to reflect the vision, particularly in states that have never operated well in concert in the past.
• You should accentuate the positives that your state has achieved toward the vision and present an overall message that the state is on track in addressing the issues laid out in 98-1.
• However, no state has achieved all of the goals of developing a fully operational state justice community. LSC realizes this. When recognizing areas of shortcoming in achieving the vision, look at these issues as opportunities and next steps in the process, with clear lines of responsibility and timelines for response. If necessary, stress the need within the process not to force issues too quickly at the risk of doing serious harm.

2) STATEWIDE RESPONSIBILITY

• In a state with multiple grantees, you must demonstrate a willingness to create a system that shifts responsibility and resources to an entity or entities with authority to implement the state vision by strategically addressing the elements of a state justice community at the statewide level;
• Such a system can be divided into discrete components. Under the statewide vision, resources and authority must be funneled from multiple grantees to a given entity charged with the responsibility for administering and evaluating each component. Under the LSC process, the components of a comprehensive, integrated, coordinated, client-centered statewide justice system at least include: advocacy, preventive legal education, intake, technology, pro se, resource development (and "relatively equal allocation"), pro bono, training and evaluation. A local grantee may be the best entity to perform a statewide function (evaluating legal work statewide, for example), but must act in a statewide capacity when doing so;
• All components do not have to be placed within one entity, but be cautious about allocating joint responsibility for any one particular component. Joint initiatives in resource development, pro bono or other areas may be good ideas. One entity, however, should have ultimate responsibility for carrying out the planned activity, even if it is being worked on among two or more entities;
• You might consider charging one specific group or entity (i.e., Access to Justice Board; IOLTA program, etc.), composed of a wide range of stakeholders, with the overall responsibility for the delivery system, even if the actual components are being administered by other organizations;
• Individual grantees must cooperate with the pursuit of these statewide goals, both in making their own staff available to administer some of the tasks and in allocating financial resources to the collective effort to ensure that the entity(s) responsible for carrying out the statewide plan are sufficiently funded to do the job;
• States with a single LSC grantee must address the statewide components listed above as well. They must ensure that each area of integrated delivery is addressed at the state level, must ensure the meaningful involvement of a wide range of appropriate stakeholders and otherwise act with a statewide, integrated vision in implementing the planning process. Resource allocation decisions must be made pursuant to the same vision of statewide delivery. The only difference from multiple grantee states is that multiple grantee states must take the additional step of working out joint responsibility agreements among recipients.

3) FUNCTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY WITHIN THE STATEWIDE SYSTEM.

• Clear means must be described to hold every part of the delivery system accountable for its share of the responsibility, be it staffing or financial support. Real accountability is impossible without the means to enforce the goals and initiatives envisioned by the planners. Whether multiple LSC grantees should enter into memoranda of understanding with the entity ultimately responsible for administering the plan, contribute a fixed percentage of funding to the statewide effort or develop some other means of supporting the effort, real authority must be placed within a statewide system to enforce the plan with the various local delivery components. While LSC ultimately holds the enforcement hammer through its ability to sanction non-complying grantees, a healthy system should settle these matters at the state level under clear guidelines.
• Accountability must work in both directions. Representative boards responsible for statewide activities must have appropriate participation and buy-in from the LSC grantees it holds accountable to the plan. The statewide entity(s) must also be accountable to local components of the delivery system for effectively carrying out the functions assigned to it.
• States are generally better off vesting these responsibilities in existing structures if they exist. However, some states need to devote considerable time and resources to developing entities capable of performing these functions. Some states have never had strong bar support, good IOLTA leadership, a capable former LSC-funded state support or training entity or other entities capable of being effective state actors.

4) QUALITY, OUTCOMES, EVALUATION AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES.

• These topics are all interconnected and two major points need to be understood here:
  1. only a handful of states have done much on this whole panoply of issues, particularly as they relate to state-based outcomes and the evaluation of the effectiveness of state-based delivery systems;
  2. the approach LSC will take in developing performance measures remains unclear at this point. LSC has signaled its intention to conduct its own, concurrent process considering performance measures as you work to comply with 2000-7. This initiative is outlined in part three of 2000-7.
• That said, the 2000-7 process is all about evaluating the progress toward improved outcomes for clients and more effective state-based systems that take every client in the state into account. Therefore, respondents must walk a careful line between admitting their shortcomings in the process of evaluating outcomes or striving impossibly to cite accomplishments that few, if any, states can fully document at this time.
• The major assumptions in this entire process is that, on average, and after the costs of transition, client services will be more effective and efficient than they were prior to the state planning process, that it is possible to improve delivery systems and that states need to seize their opportunities through this process to be better than they were before.
• It may take more than one or two years to really see that payoff in expanded access and enhanced outcomes. Most of what we see today are structural changes, role changes, new technologies and new systems. It takes a huge effort just to get these new structures conceptualized, brought into being and off the ground.
• Most of what has actually been measured or boasted about are modified inputs and activities rather than changed outputs or outcomes. We are still waiting to see whether even the new money and new systems advanced states have achieved result in more clients served, increased extended services, higher rates of "wins" or improved client outcomes expressed in terms of less violence, better educational success, more income and jobs or longer tenancies in safer housing.
• The few national studies looking at results do not help very much. The Case Service Reporting system gives little detail as to client outcomes. The hotline outcomes project is moving in that direction, but it still has a ways to go before clearly articulating the kinds of outcome data you would need.
• State planners should be cognizant of the above realities and not feel obligated at this point to provide hard, concrete evidence of improved outcomes for clients. You should recognize very strongly the need to include quality, evaluation and outcome measurements within your processes. The 2000-7 report should highlight what steps the planning process is considering, with specific time lines, to address this issue.

You might draw upon both some existing tools and the work of other states in analyzing these issues. For example:

Standards. Obviously, the SCLAID and Pro Bono Committee standards, though significantly dated in some respects, provide some guidance for determining questions of quality. Likewise, the LSC standards are important to be integrated into this new statewide system in a response. These standards were, however, based upon a vision of a local provider system and, thus, are not relevant in many aspects to this new approach.

NLADA and CLASP's Project for the Future of Equal Justice has a discussion draft (see www.equaljustice.org/compdft.htm ) provides the most relevant, current analysis of the components of an effective statewide delivery system. The Project has also developed a set of draft standards for hotlines. Also, NLADA has access to most of the state planning documents produced to this point and upon request will provide planners, with good examples from other states on areas pertinent to the 2000-7 report.

Evaluation. Massachusetts has probably gone the farthest of any state in defining the elements of a statewide delivery system as a whole and in developing a means of evaluating the effectiveness of that plan. Bob Clyde, from Ohio, and Linda Rexer, from Michigan, are leaders within the IOLTA community of developing peer review systems to evaluate the quality of their grantees. We can provide you with examples of these approaches, and others, if you so desire.

Outcome and Performance Measurements. IOLTA and Pro Bono leaders Lorna Blake and Hannah Cohn in New York, Mark Braley in Virginia, Paul Doyle in Florida, Lisa Melton in Texas, along with Bob Clyde and Linda Rexer have also done considerable work in developing state-specific outcome measures for their respective states. Again, we will be happy to share the results of their work with you upon request.

5) RELATIVE EQUITY

The concept of relative equity is used throughout 2000-7 to describe what LSC is looking for in its vision of state justice communities.

There are four general areas of inquiry related to the concept of relative equity throughout a state-based delivery system. These are equity of access, availability, diversity and funding. The concept is based in the underlying premise driving this process: that the planning process must encompass every potential client within a state.

Many programs are confused about what this concept means in the real world. We have had a number of conversations with LSC as to the meaning of the term, and the following analysis attempts to distill many of these conversations. Planners should tread cautiously as they approach this issue, as the potential for divisiveness within the state justice community is great.

Skepticism exists in many circles about the efficacy of any vision that addresses every client in a system that has sustained itself for many years using the rhetoric of what we cannot do - meet 80% of the need. Many in our community also see this term as a "call for numbers" emphasizing limited legal assistance techniques to the exclusion of all else - The Platte River argument (a mile wide and an inch deep).

Planners should define relative equity in terms of their own realities to avoid the potential for disruption. If you accept the vision of a state-based system responsible for every client in the state, the issue is unavoidably on the table. We suggest that you develop your own state responses to the question, as serious options are available to you that avoid the potential for disruption around the questions.

Here are some suggested approaches:

a) Access and availability. If you have a hotline or other innovative approaches to expanding access, focus on those. If not, address how you will improve the way that the system provides brief services and advice. However, do not limit relative equity in these areas simply to limited legal assistance techniques. Do not fear including how the delivery system addresses systemic issues or provides full service to individuals needing more than limited assistance.

Again, we are somewhat limited in hard outcomes-based data indicating how limited assistance supports full service, but the anecdotal evidence from states where this has worked (Hawaii, New Hampshire, Washington, New Jersey, etc.) is significant.

LSC shares a commitment to full service representation, but an over-emphasis on intake, pro se and other limited assistance techniques in 98-1 and 98-6 has certainly led many to believe otherwise. You should feel comfortable in articulating the opportunities these techniques provide to help many more people while also expressing in detail your commitment to allocating significant resources to extended representational service. Indeed, well over 50 percent of the casework of programs historically has been devoted to brief service and advice. Doing that work more efficiently is not a major shift in emphasis for most recipients.

States should view the concepts of relative equity in access and availability as positive, aspirational goals of what we should strive for, rather than always talking about our work in terms of what we cannot do. Equity of access does not mean that every poor person with a legal problem gets a lawyer. The goal is to ensure that every one in need has access to some assistance.

While full access seems unrealistic to many, you can adopt a vision of providing some service to every poor person in the state who has a legal problem as the ultimate goal in an integrated system while still devoting considerable resources to attacking systemic problems and intensive individual representation where needed.

b) Diverse client communities. 2000-7 also emphasizes relative equity in serving diverse client communities. Huge growth in culturally diverse client populations is a reality for most legal services providers. While no one national response is appropriate to state and local needs, a number of programs across the country have addressed these changing needs in creative ways and can serve as models to states trying to improve their service to heretofore underserved populations.

NLADA also has done considerable work in areas related to meeting the needs of the ever-growing diverse client community. Issues related to cultural competency, outreach to linguistic minority communities and shifting of priorities and resources are significant challenges in many parts of the country. The products of our several training events on this topic can be made available at your request. We have also negotiated an agreement with Language Line Services pursuant to which NLADA members can receive interpretation services at a significant discount. In addition, there are a number of successful outreach models across the country that we can share with you. A number of articles have also been produced within the community addressing the issue. See especially the spring issue of the MIE Journal. Please let us know if we can provide more direct assistance as you tackle this challenging issue.

c) Resource Equity. This concept has troubled planners more than any other in their discussions regarding the next phase of state planning. In 2000-7, LSC expresses its approach as follows:

"A hallmark of an integrated delivery system is its flexibility to deploy resources in geographic or substantive areas so that quality of services is improved, funds are increased and outcomes for clients are expanded in areas where they are weak. In this context, then, relative equity considers the system's various capacities throughout the state, from region to region, and directs necessary resources to locales where improvement of any sort is required to assure that all low-income people in the state have similar degrees of access to the full spectrum of equal justice services."

States should recognize up front two very important points in this analysis: 1) that per capita spending cannot be equalized exactly across the state or a region within a state and the needs of every client in the state cannot be met at current funding levels. Avoid the extremes and skepticism that this approach engenders. LSC does not believe that funding equalization is the only way to address this issue. States clearly have the ability to consider "resources" in the broader concept to include means of addressing the issue beyond transfer of financial resources; and 2) this issue must be embraced and taken over as part of the state planning process, not driven by LSC.

Planners should approach the question as an integral part of the vision of their state-based delivery system. Define for yourselves what the term means in a good faith effort to address resource inequities in your own state.

The touchstone principle of a state justice community should be to maximize funding available to the overall delivery system from every source. Local contributions should not be endangered by threatening to divert certain sources (County Commissioners, local philanthropists, etc.) to other purposes or locations.

At the same time, if a truly statewide vision is adhered to, programs in privileged areas with respect to fundraising possibilities should recognize that the state planning process must take
into account funding disparities or the "state" vision becomes a farce. If planners and grantees participate in this effort in good faith, they should be able to define the terms of what relative equity of funding means within a given state.

Various approaches can be taken to address the issue. For example, a relatively well-funded program could contribute to the statewide part of the delivery system at a higher level to reflect disparate budgets. A program with senior staff could take the lead in the training effort or provide mentors or co-counsel to resource-poor areas. Service areas could be redrawn to enhance funding for a challenged program. Planners likewise should always be aware of the potential of pro bono services in addressing statewide allocation issues.

Funding reallocations also may be a good way to address the problem in a given state. State planners can address this issue through the flexible use of LSC (in statewide programs), IOLTA, state funding or other sources. Perhaps a priority could be given in future resource development campaigns to address the needs of funding in rural parts of the state. Again, no one answer is appropriate nationwide. The obvious argument that will be raised in high resource areas if funding redistributions are used is that they serve as a disincentive to local fundraising, as local dollars will be offset by the loss of other types of funding.

That concern is real and must be addressed. However, pointing out the disincentive problem alone should not end the discussion, as a lack of alternative strategies suggests a lack of buy-in to a vision that includes every poor person in the state. As a part of that system, it is a program's responsibility to contribute to maximization of the overall resource picture and to ensure that some parts of the state are not left completely behind.

This area may represent the ultimate test of a state's vision. If states cannot address it in good faith in response to 2000-7, LSC will likely view that as a failure of the process. Then state planners will likely lose some control to LSC on these critically important statewide decisions, at least with respect to LSC funds. That is the worst resolution of the question. Do not challenge the concept. Rather, use a wide array of strategies to avoid the potential disruptions that can occur if the discussion only centers on shifting pots of money.

II. QUESTION 3 (ORGANIZATIONAL AND HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONFIGURATIONS)

This area has been a critical issue recently in many states, less relevant in others. In a number of states engaged with LSC in the 2002 competition process, negotiation around program configuration has absorbed a great deal of the energies within the planning process. These states will be in the process of handling upwards of 70 business consolidations in a very short period of time during the rest of this calendar year. Again, if you need a waiver of the July 1 deadline to concentrate on those issues, you should seek one.

Otherwise, the heavy focus on consolidation issues by LSC will be concluded, for the most part, during its April 2001 process.

As of July 1, 2001 most states in which configuration has been an issue will have finalized negotiations with LSC on it. To date three different driving forces have been behind LSC's push for consolidations of service areas in different states. In responding to the configuration questions of 2000-7, figure out which, if any, of these concerns remain relevant in the development of your own state justice community and briefly highlight how your process to date has addressed them.

These three LSC concerns are:

1) In some states, merger has been driven by a belief that too many programs have existed and the analysis has been about efficiency, duplication, geography and demographics. The 2000-7 questions most clearly track that line of reasoning and most states should be able to reply based upon their extensive work with LSC over this question in the past.

2) In others, where one or more programs are considered to be historically weak and under performing, it has been about quality. Your narrative response to the first two questions of 2000-7 should outline your systems for ensuring program quality. Individual program quality concerns do not seem relevant to the set of inquiries contained in question 3.

3) Finally, in some states reconfiguration has been about the failure of grantees to accept the vision of state-based delivery systems and to show real progress toward the goals of 98-1 and 98-6. Again, this concern should be addressed in your response to questions 1 and 2 and should not be of relevance here.

The last inquiry of question 3 also seems to be a component part of your overall delivery system and will probably be easily referenced in your narrative response to the prior two questions.

Areas in which NLADA/CLASP or others can help

People responding to 2000-7 are welcome to call upon any of us at NLADA and CLASP to provide assistance as you develop your response. In addition to our own experience, we work closely with many consultants familiar with the issues (and were assisted in this memo by John Arango, Bob Echols, John Scanlon, Gerry Singsen and John Tull). We are also familiar with good state planning responses from across the country and work closely with many partners at the national level who may be able to provide assistance. Specifically we can provide the following:

1) Stakeholder Involvement. Some states continue to struggle with stakeholder involvement. NLADA is happy to work with our national partners at the American Bar Association to help any state having difficulty with bar, judicial or law school involvement in the stakeholder community. Our State Planning Assistance Network is intently focused on helping states that most need it in two areas: 1) increasing resources through the involvement of the private bar; and 2) bringing bar leaders to the table as stakeholders prepared to deliver substantively on their obligations in any state-based delivery model. Our experience shows that in many states, the bar is not as engaged as it should be in either of these activities, and we will provide assistance if you need it in improving bar support.

The other area in which we can provide assistance with the bar is in the development of workable strategies to enhance the pro bono resource in any state. Our close working relationship with the ABA Pro Bono Committee and the extensive capacities of our partners at the Pro Bono Institute and Center for Pro Bono can be marshaled to assist those of you who need help in improving the pro bono component of your delivery system.

2) Mergers. NLADA has concentrated its efforts around the final configuration decisions in the 12 or so most affected states by direct engagement with them as they have responded to LSC's mandates to redraw their state configuration maps. We remain available to help any state, or find others who can help, through any difficulties relating to program mergers.

NLADA recently co-sponsored with LSC and MIE a training at the Equal Justice Conference called "Making Mergers Work" providing nuts and bolts advice to many programs anticipating significant reconfiguration in 2002. A great deal more work must be done over the next several months to assist states struggling with merger issues. NLADA stands ready to help any state get the necessary technical assistance to help them both respond to the 2000-7 question effectively and to deal with difficulties presented by reconfiguration in moving toward the broader vision incorporated in the Program Letter. We will continue to work with consultants in the field, MIE and LSC to ensure that adequate support and resources are made available to address these needs.

3) Materials and Technical Assistance. There are a number of questions in 2000-7 that require planners to assess specific critical components of their delivery systems. Again, few states are in a position to report in detail upon the impact of the process on the improvement of outcomes for clients at this stage. However, many states would benefit from innovative approaches and well-thought-through initiatives in other states. NLADA has a large compendium of good examples to make available to you in at least the following areas:

• Hotlines
• Client Involvement
• Private Attorney Involvement
• Holistic Delivery
• Resource Development
• New Leadership
• Delivery to Special Populations
• Consideration of Configuration Models
• Quality and Management of Legal Work

The Web site of the Project for the Future of Equal Justice (www.equaljustice.com) also has a wealth of useful information.

You definitely should review the March 29 LSC comprehensive analysis of its state planning initiative, Building State Justice Communities. This report highlights positive developments in 18 states that were selected "because, while they represent a range of local circumstances, resources and background, each has a broad vision for justice and the passion and commitment needed to achieve it." The report captures the "best practices" of the 18 states in the development of their individual state plans. It represents the best analysis of LSC's current thinking regarding success in the creation of state justice communities and you should carefully review it in considering strategies in your own state to improve your delivery system and in crafting your response to 2000-7.

We hope you have found this memo to be useful in analyzing your response to 2000-7. While the planning process has proven difficult in many states, you have committed extraordinary effort to seriously considering ways in which to improve the delivery of services to our diverse client communities. This self-evaluation process provides both an opportunity to reflect upon that progress and to state clearly your vision for the future in ways that not only satisfy LSC, but also can serve to unite the various stakeholders in your state under a common vision for the future.

NLADA and our partners at CLASP are available to help you both as you craft a response to 2000-7 and in your subsequent efforts to improve the delivery of legal services within your state. We are working closely with many stakeholders at the national level, including MIE, the ABA, LSC and a wide range of consultants offering specific help to states addressing these issues.

Please contact Don Saunders at d.saunders@nlada.org, or Linda Perle at lperle@clasp.org if we can be of assistance.