Copyright 1999 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
SEPTEMBER 29, 1999, WEDNESDAY
SECTION: IN THE NEWS
LENGTH:
6898 words
HEADLINE: PREPARED STATEMENT BY
JOHN
ERLENBORN
VICE CHAIR OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS
AND JOHN MCKAY
PRESIDENT
OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
BEFORE THE HOUSE
JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
BODY:
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Chairman and
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to testify.
The Legal Services Corporation ("LSC" or "the Corporation") welcomes this
opportunity to address the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Commercial and
Administrative Law which has oversight responsibility for the Legal Services
Corporation. The Legal Services Corporation is a private, non-profit
corporation, created by Congress to seek to ensure equal access to justice for
all by supporting the provision of civil legal assistance to those who otherwise
would not be able to afford it. For Fiscal Year 1999, Congress appropriated $300
million for LSC, $289 million of which the Corporation is using to fund 257
grantees throughout the nation and its territories. The Corporation uses less
than 3% of its total appropriations for its own management and administration.
On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Corporation and its Management Team,
we are pleased to report on the record of accomplishment the Corporation has
compiled over the past six years. We take particular pride in the Corporation's
implementation and enforcement of the Congressional restrictions enacted in
1996, as well as our management initiatives to promote the highest and best use
of federal funds in every state and encourage competition for legal services
grants. The LSC Board and staff are committed to its mission as defined by the
LSC Act: to promote equal access to our system of justice for low-income people
throughout the United States.
In his remarks in August, Chairman Gekas
stated that this oversight hearing would be about accountability: a careful
review of the facts to assure Congress and the American people that LSC funds
are used to serve the poor and guarantee them access to the courts. He also
urged that accountability for these goals by all professionals in the civil
equal justice community be part of the next era of LSC. We are here to
demonstrate, by our record since 1996 and by our open and complete cooperation
with the fact-finders looking into the case service reporting issues, that
accountability - and credibility - are central to the present era of LSC.
Record of Accomplishments, 1996-99
1. Competition. The role of LSC is to
manage and oversee the federal funds that support the direct provision of legal
services by some 257 grantees across the nation and its territories. Since 1996,
the Corporation has used a system of competition for grants to promote the
economical and effective delivery of legal services, as required by ' 1007(a)(3)
of the Legal Services Corporation Act. We encourage local legal services
providers and others to compete for available grants by broadly circulating
information about the availability of grant funds and by providing outreach and
technical support to potential applicants.
In the competition process, LSC
evaluates applications according to established quality standards and awards
grants to the applicants best able to provide high-quality legal services in
accordance with applicable legal requirements. LSC also uses the competition
process to promote increased volunteer private attorney involvement and to
expand public-private partnerships, through which other resources can be secured
to build upon federal funding. During the grant period, LSC works with
successful applicants to improve areas identified in the competition process as
requiring development.
In 1999, our fourth year of competition, we received
grant applications from 169 applicants for 217 service areas in 41 states and
the District of Columbia. There were multiple applicants in five (5) service
areas. These FY 2000 grant decisions will be made this November. Seventy-three
current recipients whose grants were not up for competition this year were
subject to a grant renewal process to ensure their continued compliance with
grant conditions. Competition has resulted in improved legal assistance to our
client community. First, it ensures the most effective and efficient applicant
in each service area is awarded the grant to deliver legal assistance to
low-income persons. While competition between more than one applicant for a
service area is rare, the process has allowed for several changes in legal
services providers in the last four years. Most recently, a new applicant
successfully competed with an LSC grantee of long-standing to take over the
provision of legal assistance in a large, metropolitan area in the mid-west.
Second, the competition process identifies weaknesses and strengths of programs.
When necessary, programs are visited, short funding periods are initiated and
improvement efforts are undertaken. This process has led to important
improvements and, where reform was not forthcoming, to the replacement of
providers. Third, through the use of technology, LSC is developing the capacity
to analyze application data in order to identify significant statistics
regarding the programs; for example, where programs are most successful in
leveraging non-LSC funding. Finally, the state planning process, which is a
component of the competition process and will be explained in more detail below,
asks programs and other legal services providers in each state to work together
to more effectively deliver services. Competition has already led to the growth
of centralized intake systems, to more consumer education and
self-representation projects, and to more effective pro bono efforts. 2. State
Planning. LSC, as a major funder for equal access to civil justice in every
state, has a duty to stimulate the most effective means of delivering legal
services to low-income and vulnerable people. We are committed to effective and
meaningful partnerships with our grantees and the broader civil justice
community. We are also obligated to ensure that our investment promotes the
efficiency and effectiveness of client service and complements the efforts of
other civil legal services providers.
Beginning in February 1998, the
Corporation has required all grant recipients to participate in a process to
develop and implement a comprehensive, integrated statewide delivery system, in
every state. The goals of this process are to ensure the following: that
programs= efforts are coordinated with all providers in a state to meet pressing
client needs; that there are enough opportunities for training and information
sharing between programs; that programs are keeping up with and using new
technology; and that programs are working together to increase resources and
develop new initiatives to expand the scope and reach of their services. In
concert with all stakeholders, each LSC-funded program must, therefore, assess
the strengths and weaknesses of the current approach in their state, establish
goals to strengthen and expand services to eligible clients, and determine the
major steps and a timetable necessary to achieve those goals. Our overall
objective in this process is to promote the highest and best use of federal
dollars in every state system. LSC will continue to review program configuration
in all states and promote program collaboration and/or consolidation where it
appears that federal funds could be used more effectively and efficiently by
programs or joint efforts serving broader areas or entire states. In addition,
while configuration is often the most visible component of the state planning
efforts, it is only one of several strategies to available to achieve these
goals. Therefore, LSC will seek to identify, test, and evaluate other new
strategies to enhance the effectiveness and quality of legal services, and to
promote use of promising strategies.
3. Regulations. Development of
regulations is a major function of the Corporation and is vital to the oversight
of the grant system. Since 1996, LSC has revised and issued final rules
affecting 24 parts of its regulations. For example, in 1996, the Corporation
issued three rules affecting timekeeping requirements, prohibiting
representation in drug-eviction cases, and establishing a system of competition
for its grants - all before the 1996 legislative reforms became law.
Subsequently, the Corporation approved 14 regulations by July 1996 to place into
effect the 1996 legislative reforms passed in April of that year. Since that
time, the Board and LSC Management have worked diligently to see that all the
Congressional reforms are promptly implemented through regulation and that
policy guidance in other areas is kept up to date and is in full conformance
with the law.
4. Enforcement of Congressional Restrictions. We are committed
to ensuring that laws passed by Congress are fully complied with by our
grantees. In 1996, Congress imposed new, and expanded existing, restrictions on
the types of activities in which LSC grantees may engage to refocus the LSC
delivery system on serving individual clients with particular legal needs. Legal
services attorneys are not permitted to initiate or participate in class
actions. They may not challenge or engage in any activity to
reform the welfare system. They may not engage in direct or
grassroots lobbying on behalf of their clients, although they are permitted to
use non-LSC funds to respond to written requests of officials for information or
testimony and to participate in public rulemaking processes. For cases and
claims initiated after April 26, 1996, they may not collect court-awarded
attorneys' fees. Litigation on behalf of prisoners and representation of
undocumented and other categories of aliens are also prohibited. Other
requirements addressed redistricting, cases involving eviction from public
housing of individuals charged with or convicted of drug violations,
administrative lobbying, and the direct solicitation of clients. Unlike past
efforts to redirect the work of legal services, these provisions apply to all of
the funds of a recipient, with few specified exceptions.
The Corporation has
made every effort to ensure that these restrictions are followed by all of our
grantees and that the mandate of Congress, as enacted in LSC's FY 1996
appropriations legislation, is being carried out. This Administration has not
hesitated to take strong actions when grantees have failed to comply with the
law or LSC regulations. Fiscal sanctions have and will continue to be imposed,
where necessary and appropriate, up to and including termination of the grant in
its entirety. For example, in 1997 LSC investigated the Texas Rural Legal Aid
("TRLA") for its involvement in a lawsuit challenging absentee voting by
non-resident military personnel in a local election. Although TRLA promptly
withdrew from that case, LSC determined that TRLA had violated the legal
restriction against claiming attorneys' fees and, therefore, admonished the
program and recovered the $7,500 in costs related to the filing of the case. In
1998, the Corporation withdrew funding from the Legal Aid Society of Alameda
County based on its determination that the program lacked the management and
leadership capability necessary to ensure compliance with the law and
Corporation policies. The lack of proper oversight at the program had been
documented by the Corporation's Office of Inspector General and in an on-site
review conducted by LSC's compliance specialists. Another legal services
provider was found for the Alameda service area. Most recently, LSC recovered
$17,000 in LSC funds from the Farmworker Legal Services of North Carolina
("FLSNC") based on its investigation finding a violation of the law by the
representation of aliens who were never present in the United States. LSC also
directed that its migrant funding
grant be withdrawn from FLSNC and
administered directly by the Legal Services of North Carolina under strict
procedures to improve management, administration, and oversight of the migrant
funds.
The sum of these actions are indicative of LSC's commitment to active
grant management to maximize the use of its federal funding and ensure the
integrity of the programs entrusted to it.
5. LSC Response to Lawsuits
Challenging Congressional Restrictions. The Corporation has vigorously and
successfully defended its regulations and the underlying statutory provisions in
two lawsuits challenging their constitutionality, Legal Aid Society of Hawaii v.
LSC (U. S. District Court, District of Hawaii) and Carmen Velazquez et al. v.
Legal Services Corporation (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York).
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit ruled on May 19, 1998, in favor of LSC on the appeal in LASH. It
unanimously reaffirmed the ruling of the U.S. District Court in Hawaii that the
application of LSC restrictions to a recipient's non- LSC funds does not violate
the plaintiffs' First Amendment rights of free speech and association. Retired
Justice Byron White wrote the opinion for the panel, which concluded that LSC's
regulations complied with precedents set in the 1991 Rust v. Sullivan case
regarding restrictions on federally-funded programs. The Supreme Court has
denied certiorari in that case.
On January 7, 1999, the Second Circuit
upheld as constitutional virtually all of the statutory restrictions on the use
of funds by LSC's grantees that were challenged in Velazquez v. Legal Services
Corporation. In Velazquez, the panel was divided solely with respect to a
proviso to the restriction on litigation involving welfare reform. The majority
found that the proviso to the exception for "suits-for-benefits" that bars
challenges to existing welfare reform laws impermissibly discriminates on the
basis of viewpoint - that is, it permits representation only if it favors the
status quo over change. The dissenting judge on the panel would have found the
entire welfare reform provision - including the "suits-for-benefits" proviso -
to pass constitutional muster under Rust - a view shared by the Corporation and,
it appears, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Second Circuit has
denied rehearing and the Corporation expects to pursue its partial appeal of
Velazquez to the Supreme Court.
6. Compliance Monitoring. The Corporation's
FY 1996 appropriation also mandated a new system for oversight of program
compliance. The principal mechanism for checking grantee compliance with all
statutory and regulatory requirements and restrictions is now the grantee's
annual audit. These audits are conducted by Independent Public Accountants
("IPAs"), under the guidance and oversight of LSC's OIG. LSC Management retains
responsibility for interpreting applicable law and regulations, investigating
complaints, and enforcing compliance. Management worked cooperatively with the
OIG to implement the new system, which is now fully in place.
The results to
date demonstrate general, substantial compliance by grantees with the new
Congressional requirements and restrictions. As reported by the OIG in its
Recipient Audit Reports for 1998, the IPAs did not report any cases of
noncompliance with statutory prohibitions or restrictions on the types of
matters for which legal assistance may be provided.(1)
The CSR Issue
The
Corporation acknowledges that serious questions have been raised concerning the
accuracy and validity of the case service report (CSR) data submitted annually
by our grantees. The Corporation is aware that problems exist in the statistical
reports received and is making every effort to identify and correct those
problems. The problems identified stem, in part, from a lack of clarity in some
of the Corporation's case reporting guidelines and, more generally, from
insufficient attention by grantees to the existing reporting and documentation
requirements.
It should be kept in mind that the issue is largely one of
grantee compliance with technical, administrative guidance on how and when to
report certain activities. In no instance has the Corporation, its Inspector
General, or the General Accounting Office, identified any fraud or intentional
misrepresentation by any of the grantees in their compilation and reporting of
this data. Nor have these or any of the financial and compliance audits
conducted under the auspices of the OIG indicated that taxpayers' dollars were
being grossly misspent by the grantees. In its public reporting of activities,
which includes CSR data reported by its grantees, the Corporation did not
intentionally deceive or mislead the Congress in order to secure for itself and
its grantees increased funding, nor did it attempt at any time to hide from the
public or Congress the problems which were emerging in the CSR system and its
efforts to correct these deficiencies. Rather, the Corporation views the issues
concerning the CSR data to be akin to those encountered by many government
entities as they attempt to meet the goals envisioned by the Government
Performance and Results Act ("GPRA").
1. Self-initiated Review of CSR Data.
The Corporation's review of its CSR data was an outgrowth of its ongoing
oversight responsibilities and became integral to its voluntary strategic
planning process.
Although not subject to the Government Performance and
Results Act , the Corporation shared the aspirations of that law to rationalize
the budget and appropriations processes by tying funding into objective measures
of the agency's performance. In November 1997, the LSC Board adopted its first
Strategic Plan for FY1998-2003. That plan is currently being revised - as are
the initial plans submitted by many governmental entities. As recently reported
by GAO, most federal agencies are far from meeting the goals set by GPRA for
performance data on which the Administration and Congress can rely in setting
budget amounts and appropriations levels. Nonetheless, the Corporation, having
embarked on the path laid out by GPRA, recognized the need to assess the data
currently available on grantee activity for its accuracy and adequacy as a
measure of the Corporation's performance. This task fell initially to the
Inspector General, who planned to perform numerous site visits during 1998 to
assess the CSR system. Two factors shaped the planning process at that time: the
forward looking nature of the objective - that is, how will the system function
in the year 2000 and beyond as a performance measure - and the focus on systemic
problems rather than the accuracy of any particular data submission. Hence, the
plan was to identify the types of errors to which the current case reporting
system may be prone in order to eliminate those errors system-wide. It was not
designed to validate or test the accuracy of the national totals of cases
handled by grantees in 1997.
2. The CSR Problem Assessment. What the
Corporation and its Inspector General found when they began the assessment of
the CSR system was a 20-year-old reporting structure, the guidance for which had
not been updated since 1993. The reporting system rested on the definition of a
"case." However clear and meaningful the definition of a case may have been in
the past, it was evident that the definition had not kept pace with the changes
in the service delivery systems. As the pace of the evolution of service
delivery systems and the configuration of grantees accelerated following the
funding cutbacks and program reforms in 1996, and spurred on by the
technological revolution, the reporting of grantee activity solely on the basis
of "cases" was becoming increasingly inadequate, resulting in inconsistent and
inaccurate reporting.
Moreover, routine, on-site reviews of grantee activity
reports has been lacking since 1995. Because the grant activity reports of which
the CSRs were a part were neither a statutory nor regulatory requirement, the
IPAs were not charged with determining grantee reporting compliance. During 1996
and 1997, the Corporation's enforcement capacities were devoted primarily to
compliance with the 1996 legislative reforms, following up on compliance
referrals from the Office of Inspector General, and investigating complaints.
Its staff oversaw the transition efforts in 1996 to ensure that the LSC funded
programs properly and timely withdrew from some 630 class actions, 428 cases
involving prisoners, 2,991 ineligible alien cases, and otherwise conformed their
policies and practices to the law. There were few resources available to
systematically oversee administrative requirements such as CSR data.
Nonetheless, in early 1998, the Corporation did investigate a complaint which
had been referred by its Inspector General alleging a grantee was purposefully
inflating its CSR data. While that investigation did find problems with the
grantee's reporting of cases, it did not find any intentional misreporting,
fraud or mismanagement, and the system errors were corrected by the grantee
prior to the submission of its 1997 CSR data.
As these concerns surfaced,
the Corporation decided as an initial step to reissue the 1993 CSR Handbook in
May, 1998, with additional guidance on particular areas which were considered to
be most prone to error. In general, programs were directed to review their own
reporting procedures and practices to ensure they conformed to the Handbook and
to ensure that all branch offices were aware of and were following these
procedures. Programs were reminded not to report financially or otherwise
ineligible clients, referrals of ineligible cases or cases for which no legal
work was performed, and cases wholly funded with non-LSC funds. Recognizing that
the guidance would not affect the 1997 CSR data which had already been submitted
by the grantees, the Corporation sought to heighten the awareness of grantees to
the CSR requirements and focus their attention on potential problem areas. As
previously reported to Congress, a number of grantees did voluntarily submit
corrections to their 1997 CSR data during 1998. During the course of the year,
as more information became available to the Corporation about the nature and
scope of the problems with the CSR data, LSC undertook substantial revisions to
the CSR Handbook, which was issued in November, 1998.
3. On-site Reviews.
The Inspector General began the field work for the six programs selected for the
CSR audits in April, 1998, and completed the field work by November, 1998.
Following government auditing standards, the OIG established the criteria by
which the grantee's CSR system would be audited and the results reported. The
following chart identifies the six programs reviewed by the OIG, the month in
which the field work was completed, the month in which the final report was
issued, and the error rate attributed to closed cases:
Program Field Work
Final Report Error Rate for
Visited Completed Issued Closed Cases
Legal
Services of
Northern Virginia May 1998 October 1998 13%
Gulf Coast Legal
Foundation (Houston) June 1998 July 1999 22%
Legal Action of
Wisconsin, Inc. July 1998 August 1999 6%
Legal Aid Society
of San
Diego October 1998 March 1999 68%
Prairie State Legal
Services (IL)
November 1998 May 1999 6%
Legal Services of
Greater Miami, Inc. November
1998 March 1999 76%
In the course of these audits, the Inspector General
identified a number of common causes to errors in reporting the number of closed
cases. Most, but not all, programs had failed to timely close cases, thus
counting a case as closed in 1997 when it should have been closed in a prior
year. Another error common to many programs was the counting as a case
applicants for service who were referred to another provider or who otherwise
did not receive legal assistance which met LSC's definition of a case. Most, but
again not all, the programs had counted some cases more than once - although the
reason for the duplication varied. For example, one program counted the same
case as closed at the time it referred the case to the provider of its private
attorney involvement ("PAI") program and again when the PAI provider closed the
case. Another program counted as separate cases subsequent client contacts even
though it involved the same legal issue. Most programs also had a higher error
for their open case count than for their closed case count. For all programs,
the primary contributor to the open case error rate was the grantee's failure to
timely close cases. Finally, while not included by the Inspector General as a
misreported case for CSR purposes, the lack of adequately documented financial
eligibility, particularly with respect to a client's assets, and the absence of
signed citizen attestation forms were noted in a number of the reports.
The
audits conducted by the Government Accounting Office and reported in June, 1999,
confirmed the Inspector General's findings as to the factors causing systemic
errors in grantee case reporting. The GAO visited five large programs: Puerto
Rico Legal Services, Inc., Legal Services for New York City, Legal Aid
Foundation of Los Angeles, Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago, and the Legal
Aid Bureau, Inc. in Baltimore, Maryland. Overall, the GAO deemed questionable
approximately 34% of both open and closed cases reported by the five grantees.
The percentage of questionable cases for individual programs ranged from 7% to
42%. A problem common to all programs was the untimely closure of cases,
although again the extent of the problem in any particular program varied from
under 4% in one program to over 30% in another. The GAO audits also confirmed
that documentation problems, as noted by the earlier Inspector General reports,
were widespread. Overall, the GAO questioned between 5-9% of the cases reported
because of the lack of adequate financial eligibility documentation and between
7-24% of the cases for lack of citizenship or alien status documentation. It
should be noted that GAO concluded only that the case files failed to contain
the documentation necessary to confirm the eligibility status of the clients
served; it made no determination as the eligibility or ineligibility of any
these clients.
4. LSC's Corrective Action. As the audit information
rolled out during 1998 and well into 1999, the Corporation gained a fuller
understanding of the extent of the CSR data problem and its complexities. Even
though quantifiable data was lacking during most of 1998, the Corporation had
sufficient information to begin taking actions to address the problems. As
previously noted, the Corporation reissued its CSR instructions to all grantees,
calling their attention to problem areas known at that time. Recognizing that
more action was needed to improve the CSR system, LSC has provided additional
written guidance to the field, including a substantial revision to its CSR
instructions, conducted training sessions on that guidance, required all
grantees perform a self-inspection of their CSR data, followed up with grantees
where corrective action was found necessary, and has increased its on-site
presence to test grantee compliance.
However, at the time it released the
Factbook in June, 1998, summarizing the 1997 CSR data along with other
information gathered from the grantees, LSC had only the preliminary feedback
from the Inspector General on the site visit in Northern Virginia, information
from two complaints investigation, and some anecdotal information concerning
problems in a limited number of other grantees. None of this information
suggested a nationwide problem in case reporting errors or provided any basis on
which to extrapolate the findings to the case data compiled nationally.
Indeed, at no time during 1998, did the Corporation have sufficiently
quantifiable data to consider amending the national case statistics reported in
the Factbook. In particular, during the summer months when the House
Subcommittee and Committee were marking up the Corporation's FY99
appropriations, the Factbook contained the best and most current information
available to the Corporation and the public as to the level of activity as
reported by its grantees. Moreover, it was not evident at the time what effect,
if any, the CSR data had on the deliberations on the appropriations levels for
the Corporation and its grantees.
Number of Fiscal House Committee House
Floor Action
Year Cases* %Change Year Appropriations* % Change
Appropriations* %Change 1992 1.56 1994 $415 $415
1993 1.62 3.5% 1995 278 33%
278 33%
1994 1.69 4.3% 1996 141 49% 250 10%
1995 1.66 1.7% 1997 141 No
Change 250 No Change
1996 1.43 14% 1998 141 No Change 250 No Change
1997
1.46 2.5% 1999 141 No Change 250 No Change
* All amounts in millions
Although firm information in the way of final reports was lacking, the
Corporation was receiving useful information from the Inspector General's
visits. This information was used to identify areas which needed to be corrected
by improved policy guidance and more effective training at the grantee level. In
November, 1998, the Corporation substantially revised the CSR Handbook to
address the problems which had surfaced over the year and to emphasize to the
grantees the importance of accurate case statistical reporting. The primary
revisions that were made applicable to 1998 CSR data to be reported in March
1999 were the clarifications on the timely closing of cases and management
oversight of case service reports. Grantees were again reminded not to count as
cases activities solely supported by non-LSC funds, clients not eligible for
LSC-funded assistance, and applicants that are referred without other legal
services being provided.
In addition, a number of changes were to be made
effective for the 1999 CSR data to be submitted in 2000. In general, all
grantees were expected then to have fully automated their case management
systems, have procedures to screen for duplicate cases, and separately reporting
cases handled by PAI providers from those handled directly by the grantee.
Another significant change was the requirement to report all cases which would
be eligible for LSC services, regardless of funding source. It has been
suggested that this change may cause an artificial increase in the number of
cases reported through the CSR system. The purpose of the change is to achieve
better accuracy and more consistency in the reporting of work facilitated by LSC
funding. Our grantees have successfully leveraged their federal funding by
attracting other private and public sources of funding. Grantees use their mix
of funding in a variety of ways, and the current CSR system does not
consistently collect and identify much of this effort on behalf of eligible
clients. The revised reporting requirement should bring more uniformity to the
collection of data as that relates to the eligible population. By using the
grantees' funding information, we will be better able to factor from this more
complete universe of data the work that can reasonably be attributed to LSC's
funding.
The Corporation followed up the issuance of its 1999 CSR Handbook
with a training sessions in December 1998, March and April 1999, and with
additional written guidance issued in February, March and July, 1999. In order
to test the effectiveness of the Corporation's efforts in 1998 to correct
deficiencies in the CSR system, the Inspector General decided to concentrate on
1998 data in six audits planned for 1999. The Corporation augmented these audits
by dedicating its compliance staff resources in 1999 to perform on-site follow
up on CSR audit referrals by the Inspector General's Office or the GAO and to
conduct compliance reviews at additional locations. To date, the Corporation's
compliance staff has conducted six on-site visits to programs to evaluate their
CSR systems and has plans to visit six other programs by years' end. In
addition, they have completed follow up reviews at four programs and plan on at
least one more follow up review before the end of the year. Most recently, the
compliance staff has been on- site at the Legal Aid Bureau of Maryland to work
through procedures to ensure the access to materials necessary to a review of
CSR compliance without implicating privileged materials.
Recognizing that
even with the increase in the Corporation's physical presence at its grantees,
it could not expect to cover all or even a significant percentage of its
grantees. Therefore, in May, 1999, the Corporation directed all of its grantees
to conduct a detailed self- inspection of the grantees' 1998 CSR data. The
grantees were to certify to the Corporation by July 1, 1999, that their 1998 CSR
data were substantially accurate - defined as 95% correct.
The
self-inspection process served to focus grantee attention and resources on their
CSR systems. The majority of the grantees were able to certify their submissions
of 1998 data according to the Corporation's requirements. However, 60 grantees
are currently unable to certify as to the accuracy of their 1998 CSR data,
including many of the Corporation's largest programs. Each of these programs was
required to identify the primary factors contributing to their error rates and
to advise the Corporation as to what action they intend to take to correct these
problems in the future. The Corporation is currently following up with each of
the programs still experiencing deficiencies to ensure effective action is being
taken to correct their CSR systems. LSC is also going on-site at both certifying
and non-certifying grantees to test the validity of the self-inspection process.
Based on the certifications submitted, the Corporation has estimated the
number of closed cases in 1998 to be approximately 1.1 million. In estimating
the number of closed cases, the Corporation has adjusted downward all certified
data submitted by its grantees by the maximum 5% error tolerance allowed and,
further, has adjusted downward the data submitted by the non-certifying grantees
by the particular error rates reported by or attributed to these programs. Thus,
based on its current information, the Corporation is confident that the count of
1.1 million closed cases does not overstate the level of this activity in 1998.
In September, 1999, the GAO critiqued the Corporation's corrective actions
to date and concluded that its actions were not sufficient to correct the
problem. Based on a telephone survey with some 80 grantees, the GAO concluded
that certain policy areas require more clarification, that more effective
communication and training on the new CSR policies are required, and that the
certification process could be improved by more adequate sampling in the
smallest programs and more uniformity in the certification process. The
Corporation generally agrees with these recommendations and is moving to
implement them as expeditiously as possible.
The Corporation has
recently begun receiving feedback from the Inspector General based on the site
visits in 1999 to the Monroe County Legal Assistance Corporation in New York,
the Philadelphia Legal Assistance Center, the Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. in
Baltimore, Maryland, the Legal Services of Eastern Missouri, Inc., the Legal
Services of North Texas, and the Volunteer Lawyers Project of the Boston Bar
Association. These reports indicate that, with the exception of the Boston
program, the CSR error rates for 1998 data continue to be unacceptably high.
Untimely closing of cases, counting as cases applicants who receive no
substantive legal assistance, and counting duplicate cases continue to be an
issue. It is apparent from the persistence of the first two types of error that
LSC's guidance may have come too late in the year to have had the intended
effect on reducing or eliminating these problems. The Handbook was not expected
to have had any significant effect on duplicate cases as the systematic
screening for such errors was to go into effect in 1999. In addition, a new
problem area involving the failure to take the applicant's name during intake
has arisen; however, this appears to be isolated to two programs and has not
been encountered elsewhere. On the positive side, the Corporation is encouraged
by the Boston program's clean CSR audit.
The Corporation is also encouraged
by a number of programs which underwent audits of their 1997 CSR data that were
able to certify the accuracy of their 1998 CSR data. In addition, a number of
other programs, although they were not able to certify that their 1998 CSR data
met the 95% accuracy standard, reported promising reductions in their error
rates. However, clearly more needs to be done.
5. The Corporation's Future
Plans. While significant progress has been made, the Corporation agrees with GAO
and others that more needs to be done. The Appropriations Committee has made
clear its expectations that the 1999 CSR data will be reported to Congress by
April 30, 2000, and has issued a mandate to the Inspector General to validate
that data. The Corporation is committed to seeing that this problem is corrected
and to carrying out the directives of this Congress.
With regard to the
individual programs with continuing high error rates in their CSR data, the
Corporation will pursue the corrective action plans submitted by these programs
to ensure that the actions are promptly taken and effectively address the
problems identified. The Corporation is prepared to take additional steps as
necessary and appropriate with any program that fails to adequately address
their problems.
In accord with the advice and recommendations by the GAO,
the Corporation will do its part in assuring the grantees are provided full and
clear guidance on CSR reporting policies and that their case management systems
comply with operational standards to be issued by the Corporation. The
Corporation will seek to find more opportunities and more innovative methods of
ensuring that its guidance is adequately communicated to the necessary personnel
at each of its grantees.
The Corporation intends to continue its efforts in
the field to make compliance with CSR procedures a priority for all of its
grantees. However, in view of its limited resources, the Corporation will ask
programs to repeat their self-inspections in 2000 and certify as to accuracy of
the 1999 CSR data being submitted. The Corporation will incorporate into this
self-inspection process the improvements recommended by the GAO, including
adjusting the sample sizes required and providing more uniform reporting
mechanisms for the certifying and non-certifying programs. In addition, the
Corporation will endeavor to validate the self-inspection process in order to
have the requisite confidence in the data submitted. Finally, the Corporation
will adjust the timing of the submission of the 1999 CSR data to ensure its
compliance with Congressional direction to have the activity data reported to it
by April 30, 2000.
All of these efforts will be directed at ensuring the
accuracy of the 1999 CSR data. As great as these efforts are, the Corporation
has not lost sight of - and it urges the Congress not to ignore - its original
goal: the development of adequate and meaningful performance measures for its
strategic planning purposes. Throughout this process, the Corporation has been
mindful that however accurate the count of "cases" by its grantees, that alone
will not suffice to measure their performance or that of the Corporation. We
know that grantees provide a range of meaningful services to clients that is not
being captured by the definition of a case. Moreover, the current reporting
system fails to answer the question as to the benefits being received by the
clients and, more importantly, what need exists that is not being met.
As
with many other governmental entities, LSC is finding that these are not easy
questions to answer. Nonetheless, this Board and the LSC management is committed
to improving the reporting system to begin addressing needed performance
measures. As an initial step, we are canvassing all our grantees to determine
what additional sources of data currently exist and their experiences with
measuring service outcomes and unmet needs. The Corporation is assessing the
need for pilot programs to test and perfect new data collection mechanisms.
While this will require much time and effort on the part of Corporation staff
and its grantees, the benefits from the strategic planning process are
substantial and we remain committed to achieving its goals. This Committee has
our assurances that the design and collection of objective performance measures
are and will remain a priority of the Corporation.
CONCLUSION
We welcome
the Committee's interest in seeing that adequate accountability exists for the
funding and functions entrusted to the Corporation. More importantly, we share
the Committee's desire to assure the American people that the Corporation and
its grantees are working to ensure the goals of equal justice for the poor of
this Nation and maintaining their access to the courts throughout the land. The
Corporation and its staff have dedicated themselves to these principles and to
carrying out, to the best of its abilities, the mandates entrusted to it by
Congress. Through this process, Congress has provided LSC with a clear mandate
on its data collection and reports to Congress. As in the past, LSC intends to
fulfill this mandate.
1. "Results of Recipient Audit Reports for the Year
Ended December 31, 1998." Final Report No. AU99-016. July 1999.
END
LOAD-DATE: September 30, 1999
