|
Minutes of 1/28/00 Meeting Tampa Airport Office of the Florida Bar 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Present: Sheila Seig (Bay Area Legal Services), Barbara Prager, Vice-Chair, (Legal Aid Services of Broward County), Scott Manion (Legal Services of North Florida), JoNel Newman (Florida Justice Institute), Leslie Powell (Legal Services of Greater Miami), Valory Greenfield (Florida Legal Services, Miami), Glenn Shuman (Withlacoochee Legal Services), Sally Schmidt (Florida Rural Legal Services), Treena Kaye (Central Florida Legal Services), Barbara Burch (Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County), Christopher Jones (Florida Institutional Legal Services), John P. Cunningham (Gulfcoast Legal Services), Chuck Elsesser (Florida Legal Services). Absent: None 1. Members introduced themselves and explained why they were interested in participating on the collaboration committee. The members agreed that consensus would be sought on all decisions and the minutes would reflect any strong dissenting opinions. Chuck Elsesser agreed to take notes during the meeting. 2. John Cunningham gave an overview of the statewide planning process, the structure and timeline of the planning process, the creation of various committees, and the role of the collaboration committee. 3. Committee members discussed the concept of energetic affirmative advocacy. We discussed whether this was more of a structural issue or an issue of values. Some members expressed concern that the LSC restrictions were a significant contributing factor to malaise, burn-out, etc. Others countered that although the restrictions resulted in certain very specific limitations, there are still plenty of opportunities for energetic affirmative advocacy. 4. Committee members also felt that we each know very little about what other programs around the state are doing. This seems to be at the core of the problem. Before we can set up an effective statewide delivery system, we need to know more about what is going on in other programs around the state. 5. The discussion then centered on creating a vision of what an effective statewide delivery system would look like. One member suggested that each program designate a contact person for any referrals from other programs. We also discussed increasing the use of technology and developing a resource handbook of legal services advocates around the state that would include information about significant litigation and areas of expertise. We also discussed the need to work together on a face-to-face basis and not rely solely on technology. One member discussed a regional collaboration on education cases that was working effectively, and there was general agreement that collaborative models that have seemed to work around the state were generally issue driven, for example, the Emma Lazarus Project. 6. Committee members have discussed their perceptions of the problem – i.e., why collaborative efforts have not worked. Some of the reasons were fear of LSC restrictions, case load demands, lack of responsibility by casehandlers in field programs for the big picture, and the state support program not being responsive to the field programs. Members expressed the feeling that what existed now on a statewide basis was a "two-tiered" system. Other concerns included lack of communication and adequate orientation for new staff, high turnover of attorneys, and the reality that we have less access to national support centers and resources such as Clearinghouse Review. 7. The committee identified the following problems with present collaborative efforts. These opinions were essentially expressed by a few members of the committee, and the committee did not have sufficient time to reach a consensus. The problems identified with Workgroups included: • it takes a long time to get something done • the work is done by a handful of individuals • the work is driven by staff from the big programs • there is no accountability • there is a lot of turnover • the big programs and/or experienced attorneys do not participate • people/programs are not serious about the time commitment • workgroups are too bureaucratic, inflexible and stagnant • too much time is spent on travel 8. The committee also identified some of the positive aspects of workgroups, which included an opportunity for networking and training, participation by a wide variety of programs, opportunities for both seasoned and new attorneys, and some good litigation or other projects resulting from the workgroups. 9. The committee also discussed the companion delivery system. Committee members expressed the opinion that although the companion delivery system was created to do restricted activities, field programs are looking to the companion delivery system, particularly FLS, for greater backup and expertise. Conversely, FLS is frustrated that sometimes field programs are not doing what they should be doing. One member expressed the opinion that there was not sufficient interaction between the field programs and the companion delivery programs. 10. Members agreed to obtain input from "stakeholders" such as workgroups chairs, FLS and other staff prior to the next meeting. The next meeting of the Collaboration Committee will be scheduled for later in March. The committee members liked the location for ease in making flight connections. The committee would like to eat together, if possible. Sheila Seig will investigate getting sandwiches or pizza delivered to the meeting room. Review of Recommendations of
Collaboration Committee 1. Inter-Program/Statewide Communication Recommended Responses/Solutions: A. Annual meeting of legal services programs and
companion programs B. Comprehensive and detailed legal services programs
and companion programs directory (Should also be available on web site) C. Visits to legal services programs by companion program representatives D. Designated contact person at each program Recommended Responses/Solutions: A. Provide to all program directors the Collaboration
Committee assessment re: internal program communication, including current situation,
impact on staff and clients, root causes, and potential responses/solutions
Companion Sub-Committee Lack of accountability in the companion system - One means for addressing accountability is the "written project plan" or "contract arrangement". It has been described that Southern Legal Counsel is employing something like this in a couple of projects. It would formalize the relationship - requiring the companion system and the local programs to commit in writing to certain projects, tasks, time commitments, etc. in writing with some defined outcomes. It must be remembered that this does not necessarily create better advocacy per se - it simply creates accountability - but greater accountability may be a necessary first step to utilizing the companion system in creating better advocacy. Staffing/Resources - The Companion System should not be a static model with x number of attorneys assigned to x number of specialties. It should be able to expand, contract and shift resources as the need arises. It should be easier for staff attorneys in local programs to move in and out of the system as particular needs arise. If the "written project plan" approach is adopted that approach would identify resources and staffing necessary to complete the project. It would be necessary to identify the necessary resources within the companion system to staff the project or to move people around or bring new people in if necessary. In addition it may be necessary to increase resources in the Companion System. Choice of Companion Delivery System Projects I - The projects must flow from work being done by people in the field offices. The idea of creating "written project plans" around the needs of particular clients of particular programs was discussed favorably. The difficulty it presents is how to fairly allocate companion resources. It was mentioned for example that SLC may be spending a large amount of time on one project which would create a dilemma when the next project comes in and there are no resources left. However, at the present time "overutilization" of the companion delivery system does not appear to be the crisis. Therefore maybe this project based approach could be explored on existing projects and future projects could be built around it. Choice of Companion Delivery System Projects II - The model identified here fits well with the suggestion of other subcommittees that the collaborative effort could be jump started by a FBF run project which would meet with staff attorneys throughout the state and through those discussions identify ongoing work which is particularly suited to collaborative work with the companion system. Each of those collaborative projects would determine particular staffing needs which could then drive the staffing of the companion/backup system. That model in turn could fit well with the suggested model of work groups which perform a role simply of convening and training attorneys involved in particular substantive area projects. Oversight/ Review of Companion and Staff Program relations - There needs to be a greater role for the Bar Foundation and processes such as these Energetic Affirmative Advocacy committees to review the ongoing working relationship. Other committees are speaking about greater communication amongst program staff. Possibly an institutionalization of this EAA review process could be built into that structure. It should incorporate clearly delineated standards for measuring the success of the companion delivery system and should regularly assess the degree to which those standards are being achieved. There should be the ability to move resources and restructure if the system is not achieving the desired goals. This oversight also needs to be able to identify true successes and publicize them. Currently there is absolutely no way that staff in various programs learn of the different ideas being tried by other programs, the measurable goals identified and the results achieved. The role of the Companion System needs to be clarified. There is a lot of confusion between what some people view as the "companion system" and state wide backup. It appears the "companion system" was a small expansion of existing resources FLS, FJI and SLC to do restricted work. The theory was that newly restricted programs would create a "demand" for someone to do restricted work. However, not unexpectedly in retrospect, the demand has been for backup assistance in unrestricted work. As a result the role of traditional state wide backup such as FLS and the companion system (FLS, FJI and SLC have become irretrievably blurred and confused. We would urge that there be a redefining of the companion system - possibly eliminating the distinction between statewide backup and companion services - certainly making statewide backup and companion services available for a broad range of services. All of the above ideas really address assisting the staff programs in doing unrestricted work. There is a hope that as restricted possibilities are identified in the course of these projects the can be more easily assumed by the companion system. However, there remains a glaring gap in this plan in that staff programs have not to a great extent "demanded" that the companion delivery system take on restricted work. * *It is not totally clear the extent to which this is true. For example, even in our tiny group there was an example of a companion system rejecting restricted work. Since under the current system such rejections are unreviewable and unknown to the broader community it is impossible to know the extent to which there has been a demand for restricted work. Several other examples of rejections of restricted work come to mind. Certainly, a few rejections could easily chill any later requests. Florida Institutional Legal Services which handles prisoners cases has received numerous referrals of individual restricted cases. On the other hand, there have been virtually no requests for the handling of attorneys' fees cases despite the fact that most housing cases potentially generate attorneys fees and that the threat of attorneys fees can be powerful leverage.
STAFF ISSUES GOAL: Avoid staff attrition ("burnout") and improve staff recruitment Proposals: * Establish a statewide Loan Forgiveness program with a
grant from the Florida Bar Foundation which would allow staff to change programs within
the state and retain the forgiveness assistance. Alternatively, each local program will
publicize its loan forgiveness program to other programs in order to help them determine
ways they can provide the assistance. * to allow local program staff to learn more about the
statewide program, including skills in handling impact cases and legislative efforts; GOAL: Improve statewide awareness of individual programs Proposals: GOAL: Remove time constraints to allow for increased collaborative efforts. Proposals: GOAL: Increase collaborative training efforts * The Collaboration Committee recognizes the importance of training in alleviating staff burnout as well as allowing for improved collaborative efforts. Staff burnout will be alleviated as staff learn and better understand complicated legal and administrative matters, including LSC restrictions and the companion delivery system. Skills training and substantive training will also allow more attorneys to increase involvement in impact work. This professional growth will also work to alleviate staff burnout. For these reasons, we make the following proposals regarding training and support the efforts of the Training and Technical Assistance Action Committee. Proposals: Every skills and substantive training event, including support staff training, will incorporate the following: *S Core Values and historical information about LSC and
poverty law as it relates to the training area; * Information as to how the companion delivery system and collaboration can work in each substantive area. COLLABORATION ACTION COMMITTEE I. DESCRIPTION OF COMMITTEE PURPOSE: The Collaboration Committee will develop recommendations to increase collaborative efforts and projects among providers and their staffs that will encourage energetic affirmative advocacy for low income clients in Florida. Included in the deliberations of this committee will be an examination and development of recommendations concerning collaborative efforts previously and presently pursued through statewide workgroups and the companion delivery system. II. COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Barbara Burch Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County, Inc. 423 Fern Street, Suite 200 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-655-8944 bburch@legalaidpbc.org John P. Cunningham, Chair Gulfcoast Legal Services, Inc. 641 First Street South St. Petersburg, FL 33701 727-821-0726 johnc@gulfcoastlegal.org Chuck Elsesser Florida Legal Services, Inc. Miami Advocacy Office 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 450 Miami, FL 33137 305-573-0092 elsesser@gate.net Valory Greenfield Florida Legal Services, Inc. Miami Advocacy Office 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 450 Miami, FL 33137 305-573-0092 valory@floridalegal.org Christopher Jones Florida Institutional Legal Services, Inc. 1110-C NW 8th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 352-955-2260 chris-jones@excite.com Treena Kaye Central Florida Legal Services, Inc. 315 Magnolia Avenue Sanford, FL 32771-1915 407-322-8983 treenak@cfls.org Scott Manion Legal Services of North Florida, Inc. 2119 Delta Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32303 850-385-9007 HN2008@earthlink.net oNel Newman Florida Justice Institute, Inc. 2870 First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Blvd. Miami, FL 33131-2310 305-358-2081 jonel10637@aol.com Leslie Powell Legal Services of Greater Miami, Inc. 3000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 500 Miami, FL 33137 305-576-0080 lesliep@lsgmi.org Barbara Prager, Vice-Chair Legal Aid Service of Broward County, Inc. 609 Southwest First Avenue Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 954-765-8950 bprager@legalaid.org Sally Schmidt Florida Rural Legal Services, Inc. 423 Fern Street, Suite 220 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561-820-8902 sally@frls.org Sheila Seig Bay Area Legal Services, Inc. 829 W. Martin Luther King Blvd. Second Floor Tampa, FL 33603-3331 813-232-1343 sseig@bals.org Glenn Shuman Withlacoochee Area Legal Services, Inc. 220 SW Broadway St. Ocala, FL 34474 352-629-0105 wals@pig.net III. GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEMS/OPPORTUNITIES EXAMINED BY THE COMMITTEE: The Committee reviewed how true collaboration can enhance energetic affirmative advocacy for low income clients: Vision of Collaboration *all categories of staff, from legal services programs and other organizations, working together on common issues – drawing from and building upon each other's different roles, perspectives, skills and experience *day-to-day "routine" work enhanced by accessible back-up and support from experienced advocates within local programs, companion programs and the private bar *systemic advocacy accomplished through joint contributions of local and companion programs or within an individual program The Committee examined the attributes of energetic affirmative advocacy taken from the Project Directors' Retreat and noted that the list lacked any reference to skills or tasks that are unique to lawyering. The Committee believes that the missing element is a Standards of Practice. The Committee identified a number of core values that need to be in place for collaboration to be effective. Core values of collaboration *mutual investment and responsibility *recognition of and mutual respect for different roles and experiences *community (being part of larger legal services, client) *result-oriented (e.g., not for its own sake, but for the sake of making a difference in clients' lives) The Committee agreed to concentrate its work around the existing tools for statewide collaboration by advocates: Workgroups and the Companion Delivery System. Summary of root causes of the "problems" 1. Diminished Affirmative Advocacy b narrow reading of LSC restrictions *actual reading of LSC restrictions (e.g., there really are things that LSC grantees cannot do) *natural chilling effect of restrictions *some lack of mutual trust/respect between direct service and "impact" oriented staff *historical attitudes of competition rather than collaboration between some programs 2. Resources *Congressional animosity b loss of LSC funding *IOTA interest rate down, grants are being cut * FBF - lack of diversification of funding strategy *lack of state appropriation *lack of multi-program collaboration 3. Staff Issues • lack of shared values re: purpose of legal services and Standards of Practice • loss of back-up centers • loss of experienced, supportive colleagues • hierarchical organizational model • misunderstanding of what collaboration means (e.g., thought of as something on top of regular work) • lack of clear priorities coupled with uncontrolled intake schedules • high turn-over • focus on numbers and different types of numbers from multiple funders • time management inadequate 4. Communication A. Inter-Program/Statewide Communication • sheer volume of work • increased administrative responsibilities for leadership • lack of development of middle program leadership • restrictions • no expectations about how to work with other programs • limited contacts among staff statewide B. Internal Program Communication • short-term grant funded staff disconnected from rest of the program • everyone is too busy • actual personality conflicts • differing work styles and work ethic • management not bringing people together 5. Workgroups • bureaucratic, exclusive and rigid structure; move at glacial speed • no incentive for staff to participate • lack of commitment by programs • leadership and accountability issues • work less well where not issue driven • perception that due to restrictions workgroups could no longer be effective • too few meetings 6. Companion Delivery System • accountability inadequate • lack of understanding as to the role, functioning, capabilities and resources of the companion program • field not getting to the companion programs with issues • no clear articulation of FLS' role as a companion vs. state support program • some companions understaffed • lack of clarity about whether companions exist primarily to do restricted work or to assist programs with non-restricted work summary of problems selected to be addressed The Committee had four subcommittees to examine in more detail Staff, Communication, Workgroups and the Companion Delivery System. Research undertaken/issues studied The Committee considered the Report of the Project Directors Association's Committee on Advocacy, which contained the results of the Survey of Field Programs in 1999. The Committee also considered the examples of what is and is not energetic affirmative advocacy, which were generated by the project directors at a retreat in February 1999. Subcommittee members consulted with colleagues outside the Committee. IV. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED SOLUTIONS: The Committee does not see these solutions as complete. It does recommend that they be taken together in order to achieve the type of collaboration needed for energetic affirmative advocacy. 1. Staff Issues there must be a statewide orientation of all staff to the importance/expectation of energetic affirmative advocacy. The Committee recognizes the importance of training and collaboration with more experienced lawyers in alleviating staff burnout. Training is one of the structures that must be in place for increased collaborative efforts. We propose that skills and substantive training events incorporate the following as appropriate: • core values and historical information about poverty law • information on case, time and stress management as it relates to the substantive or skill area • interactive breakout sessions pairing experienced with inexperienced staff from different programs • information as to how the Companion Delivery System and collaboration can work in each substantive area • time allocated at training events for advocates to share their experience with a particular client problem, to discuss and develop strategies on specific issues and to conduct roundtable discussions to report on ongoing advocacy projects The Committee also noted that today compensation, pension benefits and working conditions are important issues in the recruitment and retention of committed advocates. These are local program and statewide issues. 2. Communication all programs should act to improve inter-program and internal communication. The Committee finds that many harmful misperceptions that now exist throughout the state are the result of insufficient communication and, at times, a communication void. To achieve a statewide awareness of individual programs the Committee proposes: • a statewide newsletter, managed by the Florida Bar Foundation, which includes staff biographies, events, and community projects, including work performed by non-casehandlers; the newsletter should also include regular history and poverty law "core values" segments • a regular (possibly quarterly) litigation docket produced by FLS with monthly updates provided by each local program • an expanded FLS website with links to each program's website, if any, and for each local program to include downloads of its available literature on its website • visits to programs by companion program staff • an annual meeting of all providers coordinated by FLS • a designated contact person at each program • program newsletters • co-counseling within programs and between programs • off-site program retreats annually • bi-monthly meeting of all staff • greater involvement of support staff 3. Workgroups collaborative advocacy efforts should be developed within the structure of issue-driven task forces. The Committee recognized that workgroups have played an important role in the statewide system and have been the primary vehicle for accomplishing the important collaborative functions of training, networking, impact litigation or projects, development of community education materials, and legislative and administrative advocacy. Looking at the functions of workgroups as presently structured, the Committee determined which of those functions could be better done on a regional or statewide basis as follows: A. Training - This function is probably best done on a statewide basis. Having trainings on a regional basis would require trainers to repeat their training around the state. B. Networking - This would include strategizing on common issues, roundtable discussions where advocates talk about ongoing litigation, projects, etc. This could be done both on a statewide or regional basis. For some substantive areas (such as housing), there may be enough advocates within a region to form regional task forces. However, some regions may lack experienced advocates in a substantive area. Some substantive areas (such as health) have fewer individuals around the state working on these issues. For more specific areas (such as nursing home issues), there may only be a handful of advocates involved in these issues on a statewide basis. Therefore, certain substantive issues would clearly work better if networking was done on a statewide basis. On the other hand, regionalizing collaboration activities may result in more opportunities for mentoring and would allow advocates to meet more frequently on shorter notice. C. Impact Litigation or Projects - In some situations a problem may arise that is common to a geographical location. For example, a specific home improvement contractor may be preying on low income homeowners in Dade, Broward and Palm Beach Counties. Getting together on a regional basis to decide how to best address the situation makes the most sense. In other situations, advocates may identify a problem that exists statewide. For example, DCF may have implemented a food stamp policy that is not in compliance with federal law. It would be important to disseminate information about that kind of issue on a statewide basis to identify clients and to develop appropriate strategies for resolution. D. Community Education Materials - Many workgroups have developed community education materials that are provided to all programs statewide for distribution to clients. These materials are now updated as needed by the workgroups. Since updating these materials can be done via e-mail, geographic location is not really an issue. E. Legislative and Administrative Advocacy - We defer to the recommendations of the Legislative and Administrative Advocacy Committee on this issue. However, LSC restrictions have limited to an extent the role that some members of the workgroups can play with respect to these issues. Based on this analysis, the Committee agreed that it would make sense to come up with a statewide structure of issue driven task forces united in a substantively oriented umbrella group that would provide opportunities for both statewide and regional collaboration. Description of issue-driven task forces Issue-driven task forces would facilitate collaboration by allowing their members to network and to mentor each other. These task forces would also be the primary vehicle for impact litigation and impact projects. The task forces would be formed by advocates working on the same issues within various programs. The task forces could have as few or as many members as were needed. Task forces would be open to all legal services and legal aid programs in Florida and volunteer lawyers, including those programs currently identified as part of the Companion Delivery System. Task forces could be either statewide or regional depending on the nature of the issue. Unlike the current workgroup structure, task forces would be created to address a specific issue and would by their very nature be of limited duration. Funding for these task forces should be made available to defray associated costs so that programs can afford to send participants. Local programs will share responsibility for their staff and costs for most regional efforts. The overall structure should be minimal at first but can evolve as needed. The Committee was concerned about issues of structure and leadership. We felt that there should be an umbrella structure organized according to substantive areas that would fulfill many of the functions of the current workgroups. These umbrella groups would meet once or twice a year and would serve a cohesive building role for the various task forces. The umbrella group would "drive" the issue-driven task forces. The Committee did not reach a consensus on whether the umbrella groups would have responsibility for making decisions about what issues the task forces should address, who would sit on a particular task force, how leadership would be established within a particular task force, or if the individual task forces would report back to the umbrella group at subsequent meetings. We agreed that some accountability was necessary, but some members felt the accountability issue should be left to the individual task forces and could even be formalized by written agreements between task force members like the project plan discussed in the Companion System. The Committee believes that a lot of the structural issues should be addressed in the regional meetings convened by the Bar Foundation and described in the Implementation Section. Unlike current workgroups, these umbrella groups would not have specific membership. An advocate who is on a particular task force would automatically be part of the larger umbrella group. Membership in the umbrella group would be open to all advocates who are interested in a particular substantive area. Meetings of the umbrella group would also provide opportunities for networking, professional development, and identifying impact issues and projects. Project Directors would have an important role to play in encouraging staff to participate in the collaborative task force efforts, in holding staff accountable for their participation, and possibly in authorizing the use of program funds for task force projects. 4. Companion Delivery System the companion system should be modified to increase collaborative projects and to strengthen accountability. The Committee's attention focused on the current state of usage of the companion system. We noted the following: • current goals are unclear (non-restricted work now being done, as well as restricted work) • there is a static quality to staffing which could be addressed by a more fluid system that could enable attorneys from general service programs to move into the system more easily depending on a particular need • most program staff are in the dark about the companion system referral process, activities, priorities The Committee is interested in the written project plan or contract arrangement, which would include individual roles, objectives, time and resource commitment of staff as a way of achieving accountability. Greater accountability is viewed as a necessary first step to utilizing the companion system in creating better advocacy. This structured model fits well with the suggestion that the collaborative effort could be jump-started by an FBF supported project which would initiate the creation of task forces by meeting with staff attorneys throughout the state and through these discussions identify ongoing work which is particularly suited to the companion/back-up system. As additional task forces are formed, the companion system programs could similarly be incorporated. The Committee proposes a greater role for the FBF and committees, such as these, to review the ongoing working relationship based upon clearly delineated standards for measuring the success of the companion system. There should be the ability to move resources and restructure if the system is not achieving the desired goals. Finally, the Committee urges that the role of the Companion System be clarified. The role of the traditional statewide back-up program FLS and the Companion system programs has become blurred. The recommendations for collaborative efforts in training, communication and issue-driven task forces, if implemented, should refocus all advocates on the possibilities for advocacy through a modified Companion System. Implications of committee recommendations on work of other committees The Committee believes that its recommendations have implications for the other action committees. Extent to which recommendations can or cannot be implemented within the current delivery system In order to get the new issue-driven task forces off the ground, further statewide input is needed. The Florida Bar Foundation (in conjunction with FLS) should facilitate regional meetings around the state in order to get input on the precise needs to be met by these task forces. Some of the topics for discussion might include the identification of issues that should be addressed by task forces, who might sit on a particular task force, how leadership would be established within a task force or within the umbrella group, as well as logistical issues and accountability. As time goes on, new issues for task forces will also be identified through FLS state support staff and through informal communications (e-mail groups, phone calls among advocates, etc.). May 2000 BACK to Action Committees Page |