CLIENT ACCESS COMMITTEE Attending: Kent Spuhler - FLS Maria Soto - LSGMI Catherine Altman - CFLS Nadine Anderson - Daytona Beach Wilson Arnes - GOALS Merribeth Bohanan - LSNF Joan Bolles - BALS Lisa Brody - GCLS Sr. Catherine Cassidy - FIAC Bruce Levine - LAS Dade Co. Marcia Lockhart - TRLS Brian Mackey - Miami Gloria Sanders - Bushnell Cathy Tucker - LAS of Orange Co. Lesleigh Varner - LAS of Palm Beach Co. Not Attending: None 1. Introduction - Committee members paired up and interviewed and introduced each other. Part of the interview also included getting information on how "the needy cousin" could get legal help. Committee members were able to learn about the many different ways that clients access our delivery system. 2. Review of Overall Planning Process - History, Mission and Goals, Structure and Process - Kent briefly went through the history of the planning process and the committee reviewed the materials sent out by Alice. The commitment of the project directors and The Florida Bar Foundation was emphasized. The LSC statewide planning requirements were also reviewed. 3. Overview of the Existing Legal Services Delivery System and Client Intake Systems - Kent presented a overview of the existing delivery system and provided maps of the service areas of the general service programs. The responsibilities and geographic areas of focus of the "companion delivery" programs was also discussed. The committee then discussed the various client access decisions that are made fairly independently by each program - basic eligibility, program case priorities, case selection criteria, current staffing and workload impacts. Most committee members expressed that they did not realize how different client access is across the state. 4. Review and Discussion of Client Access Committee's Scope of Responsibility, Mission and Goals -After a brief discussion of the committee's responsibilities, mission and goals, the members divided into four small groups. For the largest part of the afternoon, these groups discussed sought small group consensus on: a. What is your vision of success for this process and
client access? The small groups then reported back to the full committee on the results of their work. These results will be typed-up, distributed to the members and will be the starting point for the work of the focus groups. {Now Attached} 5. Committee Focus Area Groups - After a good deal of discussion relating to the information presented earlier in the day and the work product of the small groups, the committee selected four focus area groups and then member volunteered to serve on the groups: a. Intake and Brief Advice Marcia Lockhart - Convenor b. Case Selection and Referral Cathy Tucker - Convenor c. Special Needs Populations Lisa Brody - Convenor
Nadine Anderson d. Community Education/Outreach Catherine Cassidy -
Convenor 6. Resources for focus Area Groups - The many sources of information on client access, both within Florida and national were briefly discusses. It was agreed that as focus area groups identified information needs, they would contact Kent. Kent will respond from the information that he is aware of but will also let other committee members know of the information request. The FLS Website, soon to be up and running, will also be used to solicit information. 7. "Next Steps" and Deadlines - The committee agreed on the following "next steps" and deadlines: a. Kent will provide all members with the results of
the small group discussions by February 4, 2000. 8. Meeting Evaluation - There was consensus that: a. What worked well: b. What could be improved: 9. The Meeting Adjourned - Focus area groups met briefly to plan their first conference calls.
CLIENT ACCESS COMMITTEE FOCUS AREA GROUP NOTES FROM 1/25/00 MEETING QUESTION #1: WHAT IS YOUR VISION OF SUCCESS FOR THIS PROCESS AND CLIENT ACCESS? GROUP #1 Centralized statewide intake and referral system (1-800 #). Local walk-in clinics for clients with special needs. Providers agree on areas of substantive law. Providers also share information and co-counsel with each other. There should be a community education component which should include substantive legal rights education, referral information, outreach to special needs populations, and a 1-800# for telephone advice. GROUP #2 The ability to reach everyone and everyone have access to us (this should develop a strong trust relationship). GROUP #3 The community should have a broad knowledge about services (name recognition). All eligible (income & case) clients would receive assistance. Better coordination and collaboration among providers to provide a holistic approach to services. Recognize & identify the needs of clients and different service models in urban areas vs. rural areas. Expedite client access; i.e. centralized computer system, libraries, etc. GROUP #4 Have a holistic approach to serving clients. Work with churches, community groups, non-profit organizations, etc. to provide outreach and education on services. Focus on specific issues and do them well - be clear with client population and groups. Offices should be friendly but safe. Specific emphasis on availability for people with special needs. Cross-communicate with other legal services programs and non-profits via e-mail, telephone, etc. to refer clients (will take the burden off the client). Use technology for community education. Lawyer to lawyer access. "Advocate of the Day" (Jacksonville) is a good model for quick access to attorney. Client gets response the same day he/she makes contact (engenders trust). By 2001 all providers have an educational component for the community and other agencies (use of videotapes already broadly available and build an information clearinghouse as well as public service announcements and a toll-free phone number). Each provider should have an intake person available at least 2 hours each day. Use Internet to list provider offices, areas of substantive law, etc. and network within and among offices. Provide materials for interagency trainings on LSC restrictions and requirements. Priority setting with client input taken seriously. Engender good morale within offices by doing positive things. QUESTION #2: WHAT ARE THE PRIMARY BARRIERS TO ACHIEVING THAT SUCCESS? GROUP #1 Resources; politics/history; grant-driven restrictions GROUP #2 Not enough client/organization resources (i.e., funding, staff). Community breakdown (client groups & agencies); cultural differences; transportation. Education/Self-sufficiency - break the cycle of dependency through training. GROUP #3 Dispel myth of lack of funding for advertising by educating providers on awareness of media outlets (Penny Saver, etc.). Language barriers; availability of attorneys (specifically family law). Lack of funding; limited resources. Pervasive attitude of inability to handle referrals. Problematic access - rural vs. urban access; accurate i.d. of legal problems; awareness of other resources. GROUP #4 Voice mail. QUESTION #3: WHAT ARE YOUR SUGGESTIONS FOR OVERCOMING THOSE BARRIERS? GROUP #1 Streamline intake to free up resources. Honest, complete, inclusive communication. Seek grants that fit our mission as well as seek funding that has less restrictions. GROUP #2 Better utilization of lay persons/volunteers. Availability of information in different forms (realize everyone does not have access to technology). Form focus groups that know what is needed and who is providing services by attending other agency meetings and developing a positive working relationship with these agencies. Engender cultural diversity by encouraging staff to attend and hold community events as well as learn another language. Training, empowerment to break the cycle of dependency. GROUP #3 To promote name recognition, become active in the bar association, prepare articles for the newspaper, appear on television shows, encourage media outlets to promote services, advertise on buses & public transportation, prepare posters and ad campaigns, participate in community groups, outreach to social service agencies, educate the clerk of court staff, and get name & address on summons. To ensure clients receive services, collaborate with local attorneys (informal/formal resource bank), mentor volunteer attorneys, provide self-help (pro se) clinics, hire development directors for fundraising (grants & private). To achieve a collaboration among service providers, we must overcome self-centeredness, provide a statewide model for standard information and referral (toll-free number). Delivery models should include a clinic system as well as a system for outreach to non-traditional locations; i.e, churches, public housing, etc. A centralized computer system should ensure client access. The system could utilize public facilities (such as a library) and include a centralized and standardized information and referral systems. GROUP #4 [Suggestions included in visions] CLIENT ACCESS COMMITTEE Attending: Kent Spuhler - FLS, Maria Soto - LSGMI, Wilson Arnes - GOALS, Merribeth Bohanan - LSNF, Joan Boles - BALS, Lisa Brody - GCLS, Sr. Catherine Cassidy - FIAC, Bruce Levine - LAS Dade Co., Marcia Lockhart - TRLS, Brian Mackey - Miami, Cathy Tucker - LAS of Orange Co., Pat Vail - FLS Not Attending: Catherine Altman - CFLS, Nadine Anderson - Daytona Beach, Gloria Sanders - Bushnell, Lesleigh Varner - LAS of Palm Beach Co. 1. Welcome and Reminder on Ground Rules - Everyone was welcomed and reminded of the agreed ground rules for participation at committee meetings. 2. Review of New Planning Timeline, the New Plan for Provider Staff Input and the New LSC Technology Grant Opportunity - During the discussion on the revised planning timelline, many of the committee members raised concerns that the work of the action committees and the recommendations being made for change might not ultimately result in any real changes being made. The members sought assurance that the process provided in the timeline was not going to be used to thwart meaningful change. The commitment of the PDA and the Foundation to the planning process was reiterated and the focus of LSC on the Florida planning process was discussed. In further discussion on the timeline and provider staff input, the committee suggested that the process could be strengthened by: 1. Holding the provider staff input meetings on the draft of the plan on a regional basis so the staff of several programs could meet together and discuss the draft plan. The committee also felt it would be helpful if members of the coordinating committee could facilitate the regional provider staff input meetings. The committee felt that this process would give greater focus to the importance of the plan and the provider staff consideration of the plan. The recommended process would encourage freer staff participation and encourage staff to consider the plan as a statewide plan and not just review it in terms of how it would impact their particular program. 2. A provider program staff person should be added to the Oversight Committee since that committee is making the final decision on the plan and a staff member participating on the committee would provide greater confidence that all the work of staff members in the action committees and the recommendations developed are clearly considered by the Oversight Committee. Kent assured the committee that their recommendations would be presented to the coordinating committee at their next conference call meeting at the end of April 2000. Kent reviewed the new LSC Technology Grant opportunity with the committee. The committee briefly discussed the planned grant application by CFLS, TRLS and WALS for developing a regional intake system and the less clear plan by the Technology Action Committee to develop an application for a statewide technology grant. It was pointed out that the time frame of the grants did not work very well with the Florida state planning process but the planned grant applications would generally work with the likely recommendations of the Client Access Action Committee. It is hoped that if the grants are received that LSC will be flexible in possible modifications to the grant activities to more closely follow the state plan as finally developed. 3. Subcommittee Focus Area Groups Summarize Their Recommendations and Respond to Questions - The subcommittee recommendations were sent by either e-mail or fax to all committee members prior to the meeting. Unfortunately, some wrong e-mail addresses prevented a couple of members from receiving the subcommittee reports but they were provided copies at the meeting. Each subcommittee, Intake and Brief Advice, Case Selection and Referral, Community Outreach and Education and Special Needs Populations, briefly reviewed the research they had done, the issues they addressed and their recommendations. Other committee members asked clarifying questions on what issues does the current system present, what changes were considered, what was the basis for the proposed recommendations, how could pro bono resources be used and what would be measures of success. 4. Core Elements of Recommendations to the Coordinating Committee - There was a good deal of commonality in the recommendations of the subcommittees. As a result the committee was able to fairly quickly come to consensus on the core elements of the committee recommendations to the coordinating committee. Kent will draft the specific language of the recommendations and circulate the draft to the committee members for comment and revision prior to submission to the coordinating committee. The core elements of the committee recommendations are: 1. Recognize the access for special needs populations is of crucial importance and committee recommendations are to improve the efficiency of client access so more resources can be devoted to providing access to special needs populations. Without special focus on special needs populations, these needy clients often have no access at all. 2. Connecting with the client community is a core value that must be given greater value in the delivery system and must be a clear part of staff work and not considered an optional add on to work expectation. 3. A regional approach to client access should be implemented through the establishment of Regional Intake Centers (RIC) with regional agreements on client intake, brief advice, case selection and referral systems. RIC will be staffed by attorneys and non-attorneys, will establish regional client intake hotlines, will maintain regional client intake data bases and use technology to make referrals of clients. RIC will also establish a variety of client access points through agreements with community-based organizations, human services organizations, public libraries, etc. The RIC would supplement, not replace, direct client access to local programs and local program outreach. 4. Regional advisory councils should be put in place to negotiate the regional systems among the programs. 5. Minimum core services should be agreed to in each region with local programs still retaining the ability to provide differing additional services in response to special client needs and/or grant opportunities. 6. Within regions, staff talent and expertise would be shared, including mentoring, to assist building core service capacity in every program. 7. Client access should be expanded through improving language capability, assisted access through community based groups and human services organizations and greater community connectedness. 8. Quality control components must be developed on a regional level which would include data collection, referral follow-up to ensure service was provided and a client complaint system. 9. On a regional basis the special needs populations should be identified and specific plans for outreach and services to these populations should be developed. 10. On a statewide level support services should be provided in the areas of: client education materials, expanded program directory with more information on services provided, information sharing on program and regional special projects, information sharing on best practices, technology support, training on community education and developing community connectedness, training on diversity, and pro bono capacity development for assistance in core service areas, intake and brief advice services, and mentoring. 5. Next Steps - 1. Kent will present the committee's recommendations on the provider staff input process and adding a staff person to the oversight committee to the coordinating committee at is end of April conference call; 2. Kent will circulate a draft of the committee recommendations to the committee members on or before April 21, 2000 and committee members will provide comments and suggested revisions to Kent on or before May 5, 2000. 6. Implementation Strengths and Challenges and Evaluation of the Meeting - The committee ran out of time to begin discussing some of the strengths and challenges that exist in implementing the committee recommendations. Also, the members did not have time to comment on what went well and what could be improved in evaluating the meeting. Members will be asked to provide their thoughts in these areas with the circulation of the minutes.
CLIENT ACCESS COMMITTEE STATE PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS I. Committee Purpose: Ideally, all low income persons in Florida would have equal access to the legal assistance that they need to appropriately address the legal problems and improvement opportunities that are before them. The purpose of the access committee is to explore and develop recommendations on how to maximize the use of existing resources to move toward this ideal of equal access, both as to availability and nature of legal assistance, on a statewide basis. The committee's vision is a holistic approach to serving clients with an emphasis on serving special needs populations and a strong and broad community connectedness. There will be greater commonality of services and community education available to clients but regional and local capability to respond to special needs and opportunities for client service will also be strengthened. Client-based organizations and community services organizations will be integral parts of an expanded client access system. Expanded use of technology will provide more efficient client intake and referral on a regional and statewide basis. II. Committee Members Are: Years In Cmte E-Mail Name Position Program Legal Svcs. Position Address Telephone FAX Spuhler, Kent Exec. Director FLS/Tally 27 chair
kent@floridalegal.org 850-385-7900 850-385-9998 III. Problems/Opportunities Examined by the Committee: Client access currently is through a "patchwork" system of many legal services and legal aid programs with autonomously developed, and most often different, client intake and case priority and selection criteria. On the positive side, the current system allows local response to local client needs, language barriers, local resource opportunities, including pro bono, and the "local practice" culture in the courts and legal community. On the negative side, low-income residents in different parts of the state have vastly different access to legal assistance, community education and pro se assistance. There is no ability to assure a client in one part of the state that their legal needs will be met in another part of the state. Overall, the response to decreased, or stagnant, general service funding has been an increase special grant funding and these funding sources describing more of what services are available to clients. This has also caused, in many instances, a general disconnect from the clients' community and a movement away from holistic and comprehensive client access and services which are fundamental to client-centered energetic affirmative advocacy. Many special needs populations, especially the unpopular that do not engender special funding, have greatly reduced access. Without special access plans and efforts, these special populations are in danger of having no access at all. Florida is a large and diverse state with many different ethnic groups, languages, and urban and rural populations. The programs in Florida have developed expertise and special projects to respond to the challenge of providing client access to the delivery system. However, inadequate communication and sharing of resources, and the lack of common minimum core legal assistance availability and of consistent referral policies have limited the delivery systems ability to provide client-centered energetic affirmative advocacy. Effective client access for our client community is very much dependent on development of client trust which requires greater consistency, predictability, client connectedness and flexibility. The committee in exploring client access and in reaching the above conclusions reviewed the legal services/legal aid programs in Florida and their geographic service areas, the client intake and brief service systems of several provider programs both within Florida and in other states, including some statewide systems, the case priorities/case selection criteria of many of the provider programs and their case referral policies in relation to the statewide referral agreement, the programs' responses to The Florida Bar Foundation's SAR supplemental questionnaire on community education and client outreach, and a review of outreach projects and intake procedures for special needs populations from within Florida and around the country. The research completed is more specifically described in the attached subcommittee focus area group reports. IV. Summary of Proposed Solutions: The committee's work has lead the committee to conclude that the delivery system has two overreaching challenges that must be met in order to achieve client-centered energetic affirmative advocacy. First there needs to be an increased recognition of the crucial importance of access for special needs populations. Without a special focus on reaching and providing needed legal services to the many special needs populations in Florida, these needy clients often have no access to legal assistance at all and suffer unrestrained abuse of their legal rights. Second, the building of client community trust is at the core of effective client access and expanded and a broad client connectedness is necessary to build this trust. Building a client connectedness must be a clear part of staff work and recognition and not an optional add-on to work expectation. The size and diversity, ethnic populations, languages, urban/rural populations, of Florida make a single statewide client excess system impracticable and such a system would lack the flexibility to respond to the differing client needs in Florida. However, a regional approach to client access with regional agreements on client intake, brief advice, case selection and referral systems would provide the advantages of greater sharing of limited resources, increased efficiency, greater commonality of availability of services, increased ability to target special need's populations, and expanded client access points while maintaining needed local flexibility and opportunities for local resource development. The committee recommends that Regional Intake Centers (RIC) be established in three (3) to five (5) Regions in Florida. Regional advisory counsels would be established with representatives from the provider programs (including pro bono programs) and clients in the region. RIC will be staffed by attorneys and non-attorneys, will have regional client intake hotlines, will provide client telephone intake, brief advice and client education/pro se materials and extended service referral, will use technology for referrals and access to community education/pro se materials, and will maintain a regional client intake data base with client referral follow-up. RIC will establish a variety client access points through agreements with community-based organizations, human services organizations, public libraries, etc. The RIC will assist in the development of holistic client intake protocols. The RIC would supplement, not replace, direct client access to local programs but would free up resources for expanded client outreach, especially to special needs populations. The regional advisory councils would establish minimum core legal services to be provided by the programs in the region to provide regional commonality of availability of service and greater certainty on client referrals. Local programs would maintain flexibility to provide differing additional services in response to special client needs and/or funding opportunities. Information on these additional services will be provided to and maintained by the RIC. Within regions, staff talent and expertise will be shared, including mentoring, to assist all programs within a region to develop core service capacity. Client access will be expanded through coordinated efforts to improve language capability, to expand assisted access through community-based groups and human services organizations, and to build client trust through greater community connectedness, community education and client empowerment. On a regional basis, the special needs populations will be identified and specific plans for outreach and legal services will be developed. Quality control components will be developed on the regional level which will include data collection, referral follow-up and a client complaint process. On a statewide level, support services should include: client education materials, training on community education and developing community connectedness, training on diversity, training on technology, technology support, pro bono capacity development for assistance in core service areas, RIC services and mentoring, an expanded statewide program directory with information on regional and program services available and regional and program staff expertise, and information sharing on best practices and special projects. While inadequate resources are viewed as a significant barrier to the implementation of the recommendations, the committee believes much can be achieved within existing resources through reallocation and changes in existing staff work responsibilities. The committee believes the greater barrier is the historical pattern of program autonomy in Florida. However, the committee has concluded that the suggested regional collaborative approach, while abridging local autonomy to some degree, maintains the advantages of local program client and community connections while improving client access and staff ability to provide client-centered energetic affirmative advocacy statewide. Unfortunately, the committee did not have sufficient time to fully explore how the proposal would be evaluated for success or to develop a proposed implementation time frame. Some thoughts on evaluation are included in the subcommittee reports which are attached. The committee's recommendations have implications for the following other committees: a. VISION - The critical importance of providing access to special needs populations, the core value of a client connectedness and the development of common core minimums of legal assistance availability. b. COLLABORATION - The Regional Intake Centers and Advisory Boards, Sharing of expertise and mentioning to develop core capacity in all program service areas, Developing pro bono capacity to assist Regional Intake Centers. c. LEGISLATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ADVOCACY - Regional development of ongoing relationships with community-based organizations, human services organizations and special needs populations. d. RESOURCES - Sharing and developing new resources for the Regional Intake Centers, Resources for expanded technology for community-based organizations and human services organizations to improve client-assisted intake. e. TECHNOLOGY - Regional client intake hotlines, referral systems and data bases, Statewide community education material availability, Statewide information sharing, Statewide technology resource, Technology training. f. TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE - Community education and development on client connectedness training, Technology training, diversity training. Intake and Brief Advice Subcommittee Client Access Focus Group Committee Purpose: make recommendation for client intake and brief advice systems. Committee Members: Catherine Altman, Managing Attorney, Central Florida Legal Services, Palatka Bruce Levine, Staff Attorney, Put Something Back Pro Bono Project, Miami Marcia Lockhart, Pro Bono Coordinator, Three Rivers Legal Services, Gainesville General Description of problems/opportunities examined by group: The group discussed the disadvantages of a statewide intake system because of the diversity of state. Not only is the state different based on language and culture, but also large urban areas vs. sparsely populated rural areas. Currently, Florida is divided into many legal aid and legal services providers. The differences in program services reflects the needs of the client population as well as the funding sources. The positive side to this setup is that local offices know and understand the client populations, handle language barriers, use local private resources and funding, know the local judiciary, bar and general legal system. The down side is that residents in different parts of the state receive different services and there is often duplication of intake processes. One could call the present system a "patchwork" of methods of delivery and services rendered. This committee looked at several different intake and advice/brief service systems throughout the state and in a few other states. (see Appendix I) Summary of Proposed Solutions This committee believes that the state could well be served if divided into no less than four regions - Northwest (Tallahassee west through the panhandle), North, Central and South. Each region has an Intake Center with a toll-free number. Each Regional Intake Center [R.I.C.]has to have an understanding of the local area, ability to provide translation, ability to refer to local service agencies and other providers, etc. Applicants call the R.I.C. where an intake paralegal screens them for eligibility. The caller then has the opportunity to speak with an intake attorney who gets the details of the problem. Each R.I.C. is equipped with standardized computer intake systems that are compatible statewide. Applicants can fax, copy, call, etc. their documents to the R.I.C. from a variety of public access points, including libraries, courthouses, health departments, etc. The R.I.C.s have made contracts or confirmed availability with these public access points to enable access to the services. Clients needing Advice Only are provided that advice by the intake attorney. Those needing referrals to other service agencies, pro se programs, small claims court, etc. are sent localized information (e.g., pamphlets on pro se programs, landlord/tenant law, small claims mediation from the various counties and circuits). Clients needing more than Advice Only are referred to their local legal services office. The intake information is sent via computer and the cases are handled from the local offices. Local walk-ins are handled from the local legal services provider but all data is kept on the standardized intake system. This system will require standardized statewide priorities. Standardized advanced technology will allow electronic information transfers, adequate phone systems. The use of intake paralegals would be beneficial and the use of volunteer attorneys, in both the intake offices as well as for case referrals would enable expansion of legal services. Volunteer attorneys could provide brief services to callers (opinion letters, sample documents, pamphlets, referrals, etc.). This system requires that the R.I.C. have multi-lingual personnel. This system may be too costly making it infeasible. Alternatively, if the status quo is maintained and each program handles intake within the office (whether by phone, appointment, clinics, whatever), we must ensure that all clients throughout the state are served with standardized, quality legal help. To that end, the following criteria should be met: language barriers must be overcome written and other materials (informational and self-help) must be available and provided client privacy must be respected in all intake processes outreach must be available to clients with transportation, physical and other disabilities programs must collaborate to provide a high standard of services programs must collaborate to provide similar services to all clients, no matter where they live in the state programs would benefit from a standardized computer intake system A combined system, using local office intake with some statewide specialized hotlines, might also be feasible. For example, Atlanta Legal Aid has a Hotline for Senior Citizens which provides Advice and Brief Service on a variety of issues. Georgia Legal Services has a housing hotline, which similarly provides advice and brief service where possible and referrals to local programs when necessary. This group believes that many difficulties exist with a centralized intake system for the following reasons: the state's programs have become very competitive and grant-driven; this may affect a coordinated intake system as well as referral system because the various funding comes with localized priorities and requirements telephone intake can be beneficial, but it is often difficult to understand a client's problem with the benefit of seeing the documentation; Florida Rural's video intake system could ideally take away this problem but in reality it may not be working rural and urban clients have very different needs and those differences must be met with different intake systems Appendix I Legal Services of North Florida This is a multi-county, urban/rural program with main office plus satellite rural offices. Presently handles initial intake in the office (weekly office hours), by telephone, by fax/mail with monthly outreach to non-staffed rural counties. Non-attorney staff handles initial interview (application for services and intake facts sheet detailing problem). Some intake at senior center (two counties) and an evening advice clinic (Tallahassee only). Attorneys review intake in weekly meetings; cases assigned for handling, advice, etc. LSNF is working on a plan to handle most intake over the telephone (particularly rural counties) and will handle all "advice only" cases through the Tallahassee office using volunteer attorneys. Clients will call office during certain hours 2/days per week and attorneys will either call back or send advice letter. Program is concerned about a statewide intake system that would become too automated and take away from the local needs of the clients. Program is always trying to improve intake process, particularly concerning rural clients. Vermont Statewide Program Vermont operates statewide telephone service that specializes in advice and brief service (operation for three years). The 30-year-old statewide legal aid program now emphasizes full service representation, referring brief service and quick advice cases to Law Line. In addition, a couple of local programs and clinics exist. Law Line and Legal Aid work collaboratively by sharing information, training, and educational resources to use legal resources. Law Line specializes in advice, brief service, and community education. Legal Aid focuses on full services representation in addition to policy advocacy and limited advice and brief services cases. The initial point of contact is a Legal Aid screener in one of the five local offices or by telephone (toll-free number). The screener enters information about the potential client, including eligibility information and a problem description, into a customized case management database. Based on detailed screening guidelines the screener then makes a referral to a local resource, assigns the case to a Legal Aid advocate, or refers the case to Law Line for advice and brief service. The programs have collaborated to develop compatible case information systems and are nearing completion of an electronic information transfer system. Where to call is a source of confusion for clients and the programs are working to educate the client population about the services. The preliminary review shows an increase in overall cases and a broadening of priorities over this period. Plans are to look more closely at the types of services provided, the legal issues involved, the geographical spread, and the relationship of full service to limited service cases in various legal areas. Three Rivers Legal Services This multi-county, urban/rural program schedules weekly appointments in it's Gainesville and Lake City (satellite office). Residents of other counties can come into one office or have the initial interview by telephone. Volunteer law students from the University of Florida handle telephone intake. Non-attorney staff or volunteers handle intake in the offices. Applications are completed, clients determined eligible and additional information is obtained either on intake memo or specific intake forms. In-house applicants see an attorney immediately after the initial interview process. Telephone applicants with problems that may require more than advice or brief service are sent applications for signatures. Cases are then assigned at weekly staff meetings. Some clients are seen at an after-hours weekly advice clinic in Gainesville only. A circuit riding paralegal handles domestic violence and dissolution of marriage intake in several rural counties. Volunteer law students in the Gainesville office handle dissolution of marriage intake either in house or by telephone. This intake system is a good use of volunteer law students and frees attorneys from traveling to the various counties for initial intake; it allows clients with transportation problems easy access. The biggest problem is that TRLS may have lost "touch" with some outlying communities as our presence has changed. TRLS is looking toward community outreach projects as the most important means of "reconnecting" to the community. The difficulty of using law student volunteers is the "student crunch time" when students are on break, studying for finals or have projects due. TRLS must handle these times with staff. TRLS is concerned that while many clients are technologically advanced, the majority of our client population does not have access to technology nor the ability to use greatly sophisticated systems. Language barriers exist in the communities we serve, but not to the extent they exist in south Florida communities. Large law-firms are non-existent. Legal Services of Greater Miami This is a metropolitan program with one main office and 9 neighborhood offices. Intake is handled daily in the main office and part-time in the neighborhood offices. In addition, LSGMI has an office in Key West. Paralegals handle intake under the supervision of a staff attorney. Cases are run through a case acceptance procedure and assigned to a staff attorney, referred to the legal aid program or the pro bono project. This is a county with a very large population that is very diverse and has many language barriers. The staff is multilingual. Clients are interviewed over the telephone when they are unable to get to an intake site. Put Something Back Pro Bono Project This metropolitan project is primarily a referral program with a main office and five intake sites. PSB does not have staff to handle applications over the phone but do so for homebound clients. This is primarily a referral program that sends clients to volunteer attorneys, Legal Services of Greater Miami (public benefits, landlord/tenant, etc.) or the Legal Aid Society of Dade County (primarily family law). Many of the clients who come are referred from LSGMI or LADS. The three programs work together, along with private law firms and volunteer attorneys, to meet the diverse needs of Dade County. Legal Aid of the Palm Beach County Bar This is a metropolitan program with one main office. Intake is handled by staff and volunteer attorneys. Cases are referred to staff and referrals are made to volunteer attorneys. A part-time south county office may no longer be in use. Previously outreach was handled in many different areas, but because of the high number of "no-shows", the offices were closed. Florida Rural Legal Services also handles intake in the county and makes referrals to legal aid of appropriate cases. Clients are interviewed over the telephone only when they are unable to get to an intake site. Legal Aid Society of the Orange County Bar This is a metropolitan program with a main office and five outreach offices. Clients call into the main office, are screened for eligibility by staff and then referred to the appropriate office for further intake. Sometimes clients do not make their appointments. Washington D.C. Bar The D.C. Bar uses law firms to staff weekly advice and brief service clinics. While this frees legal aid staff from some intake, it keeps these volunteer attorneys from accepting case referrals. Florida Rural Legal Services Multi-county program covers a large rural area; has offices located in each county with toll-free numbers for residents to call. Each branch office has it's own set of priorities, determined by local funding sources as well as other local legal resources. Most of the intake is handled initially over the telephone. 80% of the intake is by telephone. F.R.L.S. believes each county has different set of problems, language barriers being a major difference; must have bi-lingual staff. Georgia Legal Services Multi-county program covers all of state except metropolitan Atlanta. Each office has a toll-free line and much of the intake is handled over the phone. The state has a Housing Hotline operated out of the G.L.S. office in Atlanta which provides Advice and Brief Service. Atlanta Legal Aid has an elder hotline providing Advice and Brief Service to senior citizens statewide. Paralegals are the primary intake handlers. G.L.S. feels that their services are patchwork, but that their system is more fluid because they have standardized computer hardware and software and priorities. South Carolina Legal Services There are 6 programs in South Carolina, 2 of which are now hooked into a centralized telephone intake system. This system is too new to determine how it is working. CLIENT ACCESS COMMITTEE Case Selection and Referral Subcommittee Report SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERS: Brian Mackey, Maria Soto, Catherine Tucker, Lesleigh Varner. Purpose: To describe a model for determining a minimum level of civil legal services available to all income eligible residents of Florida while encouraging additional legal services that reflect the variety of needs, resources, and history of local communities. Description of the committee's discussion and investigation: We identified current delivery systems, and their case selection criteria or litigation guidelines or priorities for providing civil legal services, and the methods of case referrals among programs. Generally, there are similarities in financial income eligibility. Sometimes pro bono programs are part of the resources available (and should be part of any system description). We noted that there was no readily available means of describing in practical detail the types of legal services available through current providers. Many programs report case type information to a funding source, but the information is not converted for use by programs to determine the types of specific legal services available through other programs. We identified some impediments to establishing case selection criteria on a statewide basis, such as limited resources, funding commitments and restrictions, historical areas of casework, geographical limits to resource delivery such as location of courthouse, client and available attorneys. We agreed to propose a model and describe a process for achieving the model. We wanted to learn more about the current delivery system, the legal problems that are covered and where there are gaps, to see if this gave us any further insight into how to achieve a statewide model. Among the areas we identified for improvement in the current referral system are: an understanding of each program's case acceptance criteria, the initial and ongoing communication between referring and receiving programs, the definition of each program's role in referring and receiving cases, an exploration of options to encourage and support referrals such as payment of costs and mentoring, and the identification of appropriate alternative resources within the receiving program's area if the case is rejected. The current system would benefit from honesty, clarity, timeliness, consistency, flexibility, and creativity. Summary of proposed solution, A Model: The State of Florida will be divided into three regions, Northern, Southern, and Central. Each region will have an Advisory Group consisting of providers of civil legal services to the poor, client representatives, and pro bono programs. Each region will have a computerized centralized intake system. The Advisory Group will design the centralized intake system for its region so that it incorporates: all providers, the case types as agreed to, all geographic areas within the region, all clients without regard to INS status or other non-financial limitation, and all types of representation (advice, individual, class action, legislative advocacy, etc.). The Advisory Group will discuss, negotiate and propose an agreement among all providers for determining a minimum level of legal services and local options, as well as a process for referrals among providers. The agreement will provide for coordination of referrals among regions. Process for implementation: Advisory Groups will be formed in each region. Programs will provide the descriptions of their services so that the Advisory Group can determine if an existing minimum level of services is available. Where distinctions are identified from a pattern of consensus, programs will provide a description or discussion of the distinction and describe the assistance or resources that would enable the program to provide additional services. Based on the above, the Advisory Group will recommend ways to improve communication in the making, receiving and reporting on referrals currently being made among programs. A description of the types of legal services currently provided by programs will be created which includes in practical specific language the legal issues where individual representation of meritorious claims is available. Based on the information provided, programs through their representatives on the Advisory Group will agree to discuss and negotiate a common core of legal issues for individual and group representation and to discuss and negotiate how to determine local options.
To: Kent Spuhler, FLS After some research, a great deal of discussion, recognition that the focus groups overlap in subject areas, our committee has agreed to present the following five (5) recommendations: 11. We recommend that the Florida Legal Service provide a full time resource person to facilitate the development and distribution of educational materials for the legal service client population of Florida. This would be a clearinghouse and educational bank for shared resources. Materials should be developed by experts and include educational information for special groups and should include Spanish and Creole language translations. Materials can be distributed by computer download or hard copies mailed or faxed. Lists of materials and updated information should be provided by the resource person. Materials should include brochures, flyers, tapes, videos and lists of resources. The resource person could also produce a quarterly or bi-annual newsletter. For the system to work, it is suggested that each office have an "info contact" person to facilitate distribution and collection of materials. Rationale: There is good educational material that has been developed but is not shared. We need to create a mechanism that will make these resources available to. all. Some materials may need to be developed. Florida legal service agencies could make greater use of radio and tv for community information. Let us "catch-up" to the media age! The Florida Bar survey indicates that legal service groups see the need for organized and shared community education. We note that there is some information available from the Florida Bar on the Internet. (C. Cassidy) 12. We recommend that each legal services office create a community outreach/education program or component consisting of but not limited to (1)informing individuals and groups of their rights, (2) writing manuals and other materials, (3) training lay advocates, and (4) educating groups for confrontations. This system or policy for active community outreach/education need not be a separate program in need of funding, but a policy to be integrated into existing programs, grants or services. Instead of a designated person in each office to do this outreach, we recommend that each person do outreach monthly that relates to the type of cases or work that they do regularly. Ideas for the types of outreach and community education and how to be most effective could be one of the jobs delegated to the resource person at Florida Legal Services we have recommended. Rationale: The principal of give a man a fish or teach him how to fish applies to this recommendation. For example, potential clients and service providers are able to be effective advocates with training on their rights. We want a holistic approach to our services, therefore we should attempt to provide assistance to communities to work from the inside out on the systemic problems that they face. In addition, outreach/community education would assist in the problem of legal services providers not reaching the desired population because our potential clients are not aware we exist or are not familiar with the services we provide. Furthermore, legal services presence regularly in these communities would hopefully engender trust among the residents of those communities. (Merribeth Bohanan) 13. We recommend that legal service agencies sponsor annual meetings or activities with indigenous groups and/or agencies that provide direct services to the same client community. Examples of agencies would include social services, educational institutions, local libraries, private and governmental agencies. Indoctrinate attendees with information on services offered by the local legal services providers. Provide a brief pamphlet with the areas of services with the names and addresses of the respective legal service providers. Rational: we need to develop support with other professionals that service our client community who can refer or advise prospective clients as to the appropriate provider of desired legal services. Legal providers will be able to inform clients of available services to assist them in non-legal areas. (Arnes Wilson) 14. We recommend that the annual "Florida Legal Services Provider Directory" contain more specific information. It should include a breakdown of the actual types of legal service provided by the particular legal institution. Other legal entities can make referral to the appropriate institutions where more than one organization exists in a county. Providers may contact individuals who have extensive experience in a particular subject area. Rational: Again sharing resources and expertise will enhance our service statewide to low income eligible client community (Arnes Wilson). 15. We recommend that we build on the resources already available. And pose the following question and response What outreach project resources are available and how to build on those resources which will lead to more access by clients? General outreach usually involving client intake and specialized projects are critical to making legal services better known and more accessible to clients. In preparation for this Recommendation, the 1998 Florida Bar Foundation Report and 1998 and 1999 Pro Se Projects and Services Directory were analyzed and broken down by topic and geographic location. A copy of this analysis is attached and incorporated into this Recommendation. The Florida Bar Foundation Report was broken into twelve topics: Immigration, Domestic Violence, Homeless, Public Benefits, Youth, Disasters, Disabilities, General Outreach, HIV+ , Elder law, Housing and Community Counsel. The Pro Se Services also included Elderlaw, Housing, Immigration, and Public Benefits. Additional Pro Se topics were: Consumer, Family, Education, and Wills. Next, the topics were broken down by the General Legal Services Programs service areas in which the project took place. In looking up a particular topic it is easy to identify what types of projects are being undertaken and where. Some projects are mentioned under more than one topic because of overlapping issues. Please note that the attached analysis is taken from three reports and is for example purposes only. Other projects during those years may have been reported elsewhere or never reported to any other source. If this last sentence is true it bolsters the premise that there needs to be a centralized updated list of outreach projects. It is recommended that every organization within the community of legal services organizations have access to information concerning ongoing outreach projects. Each organization could review the information to determine if any project would be applicable to its own particular client groups and in light of its own unmet needs. The Reporting Project organization could be contacted for preliminary assistance in developing and adapting its Project in the new geographic area with the Contacting Project organization taking on the leadership role and ultimate responsibility for the adapted project. It is well understood that not every topic will be covered in every defined geographic area on an annual basis. The need may not exist nor the resources. It is also understood that the list of topics may vary. However, it is believed that a central sharing of ideas will lead to more projects in more geographic areas and therefore better client access. An additional benefit is that the Contacting Project organization will expend fewer resources because of the initial development and assistance by the Reporting Project organization. The final component is the centralization of information concerning ongoing projects (to include projects completed during the year). There may be a variety of methods to accomplish this goal: quarterly reports complied and distributed by a designated organization. However, the most readily accessible to all would be an internet web site based informational bulletin board configured by topic such as the attached analysis or in any configuration deemed appropriate. It could be an open bulletin board that would be accessible not only to legal services organizations but the entire general public. If this was not preferred, it could be an authorized users only bulletin board. A third type of bulletin board could be a hybrid of the first two with some general project information given to the public and more specific information for authorized users. An additional benefit to the internet bulletin boards would not only be the ease of accessibility to project information but would allow the ability to post large amounts of text into PDF files. PDF files are condensed files which take less web space and can hold large amounts of information which can be easily disseminated. Text could include brochures or any work materials provided by the Reporting Project organization. A PDF file can be easily opened and read or downloaded and printed by pointing and clicking. The end result in using technology to post projects would be a tremendous saving in human resources. Like any internet web site, the bulleting board would need to be maintained by a webmaster. This Recommendation would propose that a legal services organization such as Florida Legal Services be approved to maintain the site, make decisions regarding the postings, and approve membership access (if needed). Every legal services organization could determine internal access to the bulletin board according to its own capabilities. It may be that all members are responsible to review the bulletin board on occasion and send project information to the web master. It is suggested that this may not be practical given time constraints and human nature. An organization may want to consider designating an individual to periodically review the bulletin board and identify projects which might be applicable and contact the appropriate personnel. The individual would also submit project information to the web master. The heart of this Recommendation is that periodic outreach projects can offer accessibility to clients on topics and/or at locations which are otherwise unavailable to them. Project resources already exist within Florida and this base can be built upon to increase client accessibility and services throughout the state. FLORIDA BAR FOUNDATION REPORT I Immigration II Domestic Violence III Homeless IV Public Benefits V Youth VI Disasters VII Disabilities VIII General Outreach IX HIV+ X Elderlaw XI Housing XII Community Counsel I IMMIGRATION 1 GLS Service Area a. FIAC-outreach activities p. FIAC-Impact advisory q. FIAC-Workplace Justice Project r. FICA/LUCHA Battered Migrant Women s. Lutheran Services-outreach t. Dade County Bar/Legal Aid Society/ "Put something back" Farmworker outreach. u. Dade County Bar-outreach v. American Friends-Central American Political Asylum Project w. St Thomas University Law Immigration Clinic x. Florida Rural Services-Farmworker outreach 2. FLORIDA RURAL LEGAL SERVICES Service Area a. FIAC- Fort Pierce and Immokalee outreach b. Legal Aid of Palm Beach- Immigrant advisory project c. Florida Rural Legal Services-farmworkers outreach d. FLS/Migrant Farmworker Justice Project-outreach 3. GOALS a. Greater Orlando Legal Services-outreach b. Legal Aid of Orange County-outreach 4. GULFCOAST LEGAL SERVICES Service Area a. Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc. Outreach 5. BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES Service Area a. Florida Rural Legal Services-Farmworkers outreach 6. LEGAL AID SERVICES OF BROWARD COUNTY a. Legal Aid Services of Broward County, Inc. Outreach to legal aliens who have not been naturalized. II DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 1. LSGMI Service Area a. FIAC/LUCHA – Battered Migrant Women 2. FLORIDA RURAL LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Heart of Florida Legal Aid – Outreach/domestic violence shelter 3. CFLS Service area a. Central Florida Legal Services Outreach b. Brevard County Legal Aid, Inc. Outreach 4. THREE RIVERS LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc. Outreach 5. LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA Service area a. Legal Services of North Florida Inc. Outreach III HOMELESS 1. LSGMI Service area a. FIAC – Immigrant Welfare (collaborating on Public Benefits Project) b. Lutheran Services Outreach 2. GREATER ORLANDO Service area a. Legal Aid of Orange County Outreach 3. GULFCOAST LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Gulfcoast Legal Services Outreach 4. NORTHWEST FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES Service Area a. Northwest Florida Legal Services Outreach IV PUBLIC BENEFITS 1. LSGMI- Service area a. FIAC- Immigrant Welfare (collaborating on Homeless Project) b. LSGMI Outreach 2. LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA Service area a. FLS – wages & public housing residents 3. WITHLACOOCHEE AREA LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Withlacoochee Area Legal Services, Inc. General outreach V YOUTH 1. LSGMI Service area a. University of Miami Law School – outreach activities b. University of Miami Law School – foster care clinic 3. FRLS a. Southern Legal Council Outreach 3. LEGAL AID SERVICES OF BROWARD COUNT Service area a. Nova Law School Outreach 4. GULFCOAST LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Clearwater Bar Foundation Inc. Outreach 5. CFLS Service area a. Central Florida Legal Services, Inc. Outreach 6. THREE RIVERS LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Virgil Hawkins Civil Clinic – UF College of Law Outreach: GatorTeam child b. Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc. Outreach 7. LEGAL SERVICES OF BROWARD COUNTY Service area a. Florida Legal Services, Inc. Outreach (Childhood First Project) VI DISASTER 1. LSGMI Service area a. Legal Services of Greater Miami- outreach: Hurricane Georges 2. GREATER ORLANDO Service area a. Greater Orlando Legal Services, Inc. Outreach: tornado victim relief VII DISABILITIES 1. LSGMI Service area a. Dade County Bar/Legal Aid Society/"Put something back" outreach 2. FLORIDA RURAL LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Southern Council Outreach: Mental Institute Case 3. THREE RIVER LEGAL SERVICES a. Southern Council Outreach: Mental Institute Case 4. LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA a. Legal Aid Foundation of the Tallahassee Bar Outreach: Alzheimer's and general 2. FRLS Service area a. Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, Inc. Outreach: (class action/significant litigation Project) 6. THREE RIVERS LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc. Outreach VIII GENERAL OUTREACH 1 1. LSGM Service area 1 a. Dade County Bar/Legal Services/ "Put something back" Outreach: Farmworkers b. Florida Justice Institute, Inc. Outreach: General Press Release 2. FRLS Service area a. Heart of Florida Rural Legal Aid outreach b. Lee County Legal Aid outreach c. Stetson College of Law (Lakeland) 3. GREATER ORLANDO Service area a. Greater Orlando Legal Services outreach b. Legal Aid of Orange County outreach 4. LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA a. FLS- community Education Training 5. BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Stetson College of Law (Plant City) 6. CFLS Service area a. Seminole County Bar Association Legal Aid Society b. Brevard County Legal Aid, Inc. Outreach to homebound or Institutionalized clients. 7. THREE RIVERS LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc. (Gainesville) IX HIV+ 1. FRLS Service area a. Legal Aid of Palm Beach Outreach 2. BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES Service Area a. Bay Area Legal Services Outreach X ELDERLAW 1. FRLS Service area a. Legal Aid Palm Beach Elderlaw Project 2. GULFCOAST LEGAL SERVICES Service area 3 a. Community Law Program (St. Petersburg) 4. BAY AREA LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Bay Area Legal Services Outreach 2. THREE RIVERS LEGAL SERVICES a. Three Rivers Legal Services, Inc. Outreach 5. CFLS 3 a. Seminole County Bar Association Legal Aid Society 6. NORTHWEST FLORIDA LEGAL SERVICES a. Northwest Florida Legal Services, Inc. Outreach 4 7. LEGAL SERVICES OF NORTH FLORIDA a. Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. Outreach XI HOUSING 1. JACKSONVILLE AREA LEGAL SERVICES Service area a. Jacksonville Area Legal Aid, Inc. Community outreach 5. LEGAL AID SERVICES OF BROWARD COUNTY a. Legal Aid Services of Broward County, inc. Outreach: Vista Volunteers XII COMMUNITY COUNSEL 1. FRLS Service Area a. Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. PRO SE SERVICE CONSUMER LAW ISSUES ELDER LAW FAMILY LAW HOUSING IMMIGRATION PUBLIC BENEFITS SCHOOL PROBLEMS WILLS #I CONSUMER ISSUES 1. LEGAL SERVICES OF GREATER MIAMI a. Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Self-help materials to clients, video/slide shows, clinics/workshops. (Small claims/garnishments). 2. GREATER ORLANDO AREA LEGAL SERVICES a. Greater Orlando Area Legal Services, Inc. Clinics/workshops, court based programs, consumer education. b. Legal Aid Society of the Orange County Bar Association Self-help materials to clients, clinics/workshops. 3. GULFCOAST LEGAL SERVICES a. Community Outreach Center/Community Law Program, Inc. Self-help/clinics/workshops b. Legal Aid of Manasota, Inc. Clinics/workshops (law issues). c. Clearwater Bar Foundation Clinics/workshops 4. FRLS Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, FL (consumer law) #II ELDERLAW 1. GULFCOAST LEGAL SERVICES a. Clearwater Bar Association Per Se Clinics/workshops 2. LSGM a. Florida Justice Institute, Inc. Self-help materials to older Floridians. Volunteer Lawyers Project for FED court Screening all Pro Se cases for merit/assigns attorney #III FAMILY LAW 1. GULFCOAST LEGAL SERVICES a. Clearwater Bar Foundation Clinics/workshops b. Community Outreach Center Community Law Program, Inc. Clinics/workshops c. Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc. Self-Divorce Clinic (non-domestic violence) 4. FRLS a. Family Court Services Clinics/workshops Wide range of family legal services 2. CFLS a. Central Florida Legal Services Self-help materials, clinics/workshops, Wide range of family legal services 2. LSGM a. Dade County Bar Legal Aid Society Court based programs Simple to complex cases/name change FAMILY LAW (Cont'd.) 2. WITHLACOOCHEE AREA LEGAL SERVICES a. Withlacoochee Area Legal Services, Inc. Clinics/Workshops Divorce 2. GOALS a. Greater Orlando Area Legal Services, Inc. (Kissimmee) Self-help materials/video/slides/clinics/workshops Divorce b. Greater Orlando Area Legal Services, Inc. (Orlando) Clinics/workshops Court based programs Divorce Family related legal problems c. Legal Aid Society of the Orange County Bar Assoc. Inc. Self-help materials to clients Clinics/workshops #IV PUBLIC BENEFITS 1. LSGM a. Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Self-help Materials videos/slides Public Assistance clinics/workshops 2. GOALS a. Legal Aid Society of the Orange County Bar Assoc. Inc. Self-help materials to clients; Clinics/workshops 2. GULFCOAST LEGAL SERVICES a. Community Outreach Center Community Law Program, Inc. Clinics/workshops Social Security #V IMMIGRATION 1. GOALS a. Legal Aid Society of Orange County Bar Assoc. Inc. Self-help materials/clinics/workshops #VI HOUSING 1. GULFCOAST LEGAL SERVICES a. Clearwater Bar Foundation Clinics/workshops b. Community Outreach Center Community Law Program, Inc. Clinics/workshops Mortgage foreclosure 3. FRLS a. Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, Inc. Mortgage foreclosure 2. GOALS a. Greater Orlando Area Legal Services, Inc. Real estate clinics/workshops Court based programs c. Legal Aid Society of the Orange County Bar Association Inc. Tenant Issues 4. LSGM a. Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Private, subsidized, public housing. #VII EDUCATION PROBLEMS 1. LSGM a. Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. Self-help materials/video/slide shows Pro Se clinics/workshops Florida Legal Services, Inc. Client Access Committee Special Needs Populations Sub-Group DRAFT Sub-Group Members Lisa L. Brody, Esquire, Gulfcoast Legal Services (Convener) Nadine Anderson, Client Member, Daytona Beach Gloria Sanders, Client Member Bushnell Definition of "Special Needs Populations" Those individuals/groups who could benefit from individually tailored programs that address issues/problems applicable to their needs in light of additional barriers that may exist. Research Used: Researched current existing outreach programs and intake procedures for special needs populations of a variety of legal services and legal aid organizations from around the country. It was the goal of our sub-group to identify those existing special needs populations within the state of Florida. Examined other organizations definition of special needs populations and ways that they have addressed the concerns of those constituents. Identified Special Needs Populations Elderly Disabled Homebound Prisoners Families of Incarcerated Individuals HIV/AIDS Domestic Violence Victims Child Support Homeless Veterans Non-English Speaking Migrant Minorities/Under-Represented Populations Tenant Groups Non-Profits Why Have These Populations Been Identified These populations have been identified due to barriers that exist that may prevent them from utilizing our services. Additionally, this listing represents populations that may unbeknownst to the individual or group have a substantive problem or issue that we may be able to address that would otherwise go unaddressed to lack of resources to retain private counsel and lack of awareness of the services that our delivery system may potentially be able to provide to them. Proposed Ways To Increase Access To These Constituents Elderly 2. Phone intake 3. Outreach to senior centers 4. Informational pamphlets distributed by Meal-On-Wheels 5. Outreach to congregate dining sites 6. Informational flyers at senior housing centers 7. Workshops at senior housing and senior centers 8. Home visits 9. Hotlines 10. Disburse information through commodity program Disabled 11. Phone intake 12. Home visit 13. Informational pamphlets distributed through Meals-On Wheels 14. Outreach to disabled housing centers 15. Workshops at disabled housing centers 16. Partner with disabled advocacy groups to disseminate information 17. Informational flyers and pamphlets Homebound Phone intake Home Visits Informational distribution through Meals-On-Wheels Partner with social service agencies to identify those individuals in need of assistance Prisoners LSC restricted programs should encourage use of companion delivery system Non-LSC restricted programs should encourage partnerships with prisoner advocate groups . (i.e. F.L.I.P) Use of informational pamphlets Partnership with other interested organizations to incorporate applicable information into informational newsletters that are distributed through the correctional system HIV/AIDS Phone Intake Home Visits Partnership with AIDS advocacy groups Outreach to advocacy groups Informational flyers and pamphlet distribution to advocacy groups Identify needs of HIV/AIDS populations, i.e. disability issues, social security, wills, living wills, housing, etc, and gear outreach towards those efforts Domestic Violence Victims Emergency phone intake Partnership with crisis centers and shelters to encourage referrals Informational/educational flyers at shelters and courthouse Outreach to shelters or crisis centers Grocery store bulletin boards Child Support Partner with clerks office Information distribution through identified sources, i.e. grocery stores, doctors offices Encourage advocates to look for this possible issue during intake Conduct pro se informational workshops Homelessness Partner with Social Services Agency Phone intake Outreach to homeless shelters Outreach to transitional housing Informational pamphlets to social services providers Participation/outreach on mobile medical units Partnerships with local housing advocates Veterans Outreach to veteran advocacy groups/VA Informational flyers specifically addressing the needs of veterans Non-English Speaking Have all information translated into appropriate languages Provide translation services Outreach to cultural centers Outreach to "Full Service Schools" (Schools that have social service providers in place to assist the clients) Informational flyers to ethnic restaurants Informational flyers and pamphlets to churches with large cultural populations Workshops within the community Advertisements within cultural newspapers Network with community groups ( Hispanic Alliances, AmeriCorp volunteers, etc.) Cultural groups Posting information in cultural restaurants Posting information in cultural churches, synagogues, etc. Work with full service schools Migrant Workers Outreach to migrant camps Work with full service schools Tenant Groups Outreach to housing complexes Conduct tenant rights workshops Non-Profits Identify and offer assistance to local CDC's and non-profits Conduct appropriate workshops for non-profits (for example "Obtaining Non-Profit Status) ANTICIPATED BARRIERS TO MAKING THIS HAPPEN Lack of Resources/Funding Lack of advocates and staff Lack of appropriate training Grant/Funding restrictions Limited materials into other languages (lack of translation capabilities) Lack of diversity training Lack of community involvement that exposes us to issues of interest to these populations HOW DO WE MAKE THIS HAPPEN/IMPLEMENTATION Project Development Create and Develop individually tailored "projects" that specifically address these populations Examples of Projects include: Pro Se Clinics conduct workshops in the community in those areas where the special populations exist addressing concerns that may be relevant to the specific population Wills On Wheels in conjunction with volunteer attorneys establish outreach times at AIDS advocacy centers to draft wills and living wills for eligible clients that are HIV+ SSI/Disability Project assist clients with necessary social security paperwork. If necessary provide appropriate representation. Grants Identify and apply for appropriate grants that will generate funding to deal with these specific populations. Examples of Grants include: Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) - would address needs of victims of domestic violence Title III - addresses the needs of Senior Citizens Ryan White - addresses the needs of AIDS/HIV clients Availability of Information In Numerous Forms Informational pamphlets and information translated into population appropriate languages. Ensure that all providers are equipped to accommodate those in need of reasonable accommodations. Engender Cultural Diversity Encourage staff members to attend and hold community events as well as learn another language Encourage and allow staff members the time and space in their workloads to become involved in community organizations Available Resource Library Pool Encourage the use of shared resources among programs particular with community education materials (i.e. pamphlets, videos, etc.) RESOURCES NEEDED FOR IMPLEMENTATION Training Conduct diversity training Conduct substantive training in areas where further knowledge is necessary to address the needs of the identified communities Utilization of Community Education Information pamphlets videos public service announcements encourage the use of a central community education bank Support from Administration advocates being granted the time and space in their workload to conduct outreach when necessary to address an identified population use of "comp time" or some other flexible time benefit to encourage advocates to become involved in community organization outside of the standard 9-5 work day. EVALUATION OF SUCCESS Through community involvement and pro-active recognition of the issues and concerns of "special needs populations" we will be better able to identify and address the needs of these clients. If we are able to this we will notice a hopeful increase in assistance to special needs populations. |