Description of Committee Purpose:

Each recommendation was measured against the standard of energetic affirmative advocacy. Energetic affirmative advocacy was defined as representing all clients, whether in direct service or impact cases, in ways that reflect a high level of legal practice skill as well as a willingness to learn, challenge assumptions and take risks. It is an inclination to consider and, if necessary, address directly the underlying causes of a client's problem. It is maximizing resources and building strategic alliances on behalf of clients by working with other advocates, community groups, and providers from around the state. It is working with individual clients in ways that recognize and affirm their wholeness as individuals and community members.

In order to make recommendations, the committee reviewed the current system in Florida for legislative/administrative advocacy for low-income clients by legal aid and services programs. The committee identified a variety of areas for improvement.

One area of concern with the current system for providing legislative/administrative advocacy is its unwieldy structure and disjointed parts. Advocates in Tallahassee are charged with the responsibility for advocating positions on key issues, but there is often little support or "buy-in" from the field with supportive stories and clients willing to testify. At the same time, advocates in the field who have viable issues are unsure how to get advocacy efforts started - Do you get workgroups approval first? How about the PDA committee? Which approves priorities? Do I just call FLS directly? Does my Director or our Board have to hear this first? Many opportunities for "filtering" or blocking these issues exist to the point where many staff simply give up and assume that there is nothing that can be done.

The current system is too slow and too removed from the client and client groups and advocates who first confront an issue that might be subject to resolution through legislative/administrative advocacy. There are many hoops to jump through - LSC regulations, project directors, workgroups, PDA committee, FLS priority process, etc. There must be a system created so that an advocate can quickly know whether FLS or a companion delivery system advocate can help. If so, in which forum and when? If not, guidance for the advocate and what she can do, or what the client/client group can accomplish on their own (or with supportive education and/or training on how to do "pro se" legislative/administrative work). What other groups could they work with? Which local politicians might be approachable?

The sharing of information between clients, field programs, and FLS staff is very poor in the current system. Most field programs do not have active intake systems that enable staff to solicit information from clients on a broad range of problems impacting the low-income community. Most programs solely depend on a client's capacity to identify legal issues. Field programs are generally not identifying potential legislative/administrative advocacy issues or compiling client stories for FLS on these issues. FLS could do a better job in collecting and disseminating to all programs in the delivery system information about legislative/administrative issues of statewide importance. In many programs information as to legislative/administrative advocacy activity is shared only at the upper echelons of local programs and FLS. The sharing of information in the current system takes too long. By the time an issues goes from an advocate in the field, to a workgroup, to a PDA legislative committee, to the PDA, then to FLS, a year or more has passed. Often a client is out of touch and an advocate has lost their initial enthusiasm. The process is currently too slow to be an effective remedy for clients.

In the current system advocates are not receiving consistent and uniform instruction from project directors about legislative/administrative advocacy under LSC restrictions. Advocates do not receive adequate information to understand their programs capacity to identify potential legislative/administrative advocacy issues and their obligation or even relationship with the companion delivery system.

In summary, the current system in Florida for providing legislative/administrative advocacy presents barriers to energetic affirmative advocacy. The current system is too unwieldy and disjointed. The process in place takes too long. The current system is too removed from clients and "first time" advocates in field programs. The sharing of information in the system is in need of much improvement at all levels.

Recommendation One: A Florida Clearinghouse for legislative/administrative advocacy should be created.

A. Composition:

1. Would be made up of one advocate from each legal service and legal aid program and the companion programs.

2. The advocate would be selected because he/she has an interest in this approach.

3. The advocate would demonstrate a willingness to serve as a liaison between the Clearinghouse and the individual program's advocates.

4. The liaison would be the focal point in the individual program for information that needs to be communicated to someone on the staff of FLS who has been designated as the "point person" for legislative/administrative advocacy activities statewide.

B. Duties of the program liaisons:

1. Gather information from their individual field program advocates, both proactively and passively, about clients' legal problems needing legislative/administrative remedies.

2. Pass information along in a timely fashion to the statewide point person in the FLS office in Tallahassee.

3. Communicate with its program advocates the need to identify clients related to issues selected in Tallahassee as appropriate for legislative/administrative advocacy.

4. Attend periodic statewide meetings quarterly for the purposes described above.

5. Convey information from statewide point person to individual program advocates about action taken on issues referred from individual program to Tallahassee, and about legislative/administrative agency developments that Tallahassee is aware of.

C. Meetings of the Florida Clearinghouse for Legislative/Administrative Advocacy

1. Would take place at a central location quarterly.

2. Would be an opportunity for liaisons to learn how to work with the advocates in their individual programs to help them develop their ability to identify issues that could be addressed through legislative/administrative advocacy.

3. Would be a forum where individual program liaisons and the statewide point person (and perhaps representatives of natural allies) could work together to design an effective statewide communications system that meets the needs of individual program for relaying information about legislative/administrative advocacy both to and from Tallahassee (should coordinate with the Statewide Technology and the Training and Technical Assistance Committees).

4. Would be an opportunity to share effective approaches to working with natural allies on a community level around legislative/administrative advocacy issues (e.g. to educate the community and to help identify clients for legislative/administrative  

A. A faster, more streamlined "seamless" system of communication from clients - to field staff - to legislative/administrative advocates - and back again. A system where advocates in Tallahassee can quickly obtain support from clients and field staff on issues that they are working on. A system where clients and field staff can quickly access and get feedback on whether advocacy can be provided on either national, state, or local level. In such a system, a client group and staff attorney will be able to find out whether an issue can be advocated, in which forum, and by whom. If Tallahassee is not the appropriate or best forum, perhaps a local approval would be successful (witness the title loan work carried in a number of local jurisdictions after the State Legislative proved resistant). The key is using technology and communication to speed up the process and decision-making about the commitment of resources to legislative/administrative advocacy projects.

B. The system we recommend would operate in the following manner:

1. A client or client group would have a legal problem. The advocate in the field program would determine that the best solution or remedy the problem for the client would necessitate legislative or administrative advocacy.

2. The advocate would then meet with the program's legislative/administrative liaison and together they would complete a legislative/administrative request form. The form would contain a summary of the clients' problem along with a short explanation of why the matter cannot be solved at the program level and is better served by a legislative/administrative systemic approach. The form would also contain a statement as to the desired result/outcome.

3. The request form would then be sent by the legislative/administrative liaison to their project director and to the other members of the legislative/administrative clearinghouse. (We assume they will have a computer list serve of the members who will be able to be alerted easily). Liaison members then could begin sharing the problem with members of their program to see if they have clients also similarly affected. If so, they would pass that information along to the originating liaison. The project director would have the opportunity to review the situation and discuss the matter with others if appropriate.

4. If the project director has no objections within 30 days, the form would be sent on by the originating liaison to the designated staff member at FLS along with any other information gathered from other liaisons during the 30 day period.

5. FLS designated staff member will then pass the information along to the FLS statewide substantive contact who will in kind pass the information along to natural allies. FLS will then internally make a decision whether or not they will pursue this legislative/administrative issue.

6. If FLS says yes they will communicate their decision and course of action to the members of the legislative/administrative clearinghouse. The liaisons would then inform their individual program staff who would in turn contact client groups and human service providers. These groups would be requested to give client stories to the liaison that would send them to FLS. FLS would then look for legislative contacts and more stories and records. FLS would also provide periodic reports on the status and outcome achieved which would be shared with the clearinghouse liaisons that would in turn share them with their project directors and with the originating program advocate and client.

7. If FLS declines to take on the issue they will explain why not and suggest other options if available. They will communicate this to the clearinghouse liaisons that will in turn inform their programs that will in turn inform the client.

8. If FLS says maybe, they will explain why and also inform the clearinghouse liaisons of other options or other information needed. If more information is needed the liaisons will pass the information request along to the substantive staff advocate to collect and provide FLS. If FLS suggests other options the liaisons will pass the information along to their project director and to the staff advocate who will inform the client. The advocate and client could then explore the other options or trash the idea.

9. Communication flow charts explaining the process are attached.

Recommendation Three:

Project directors must achieve consensus on the consistent interpretation of the LSC regulations on legislative/administrative advocacy. This requires coherent, uniform instructions from project directors to staff about what is permitted and what is their obligation to work with the companion system in providing and obtaining information and clients on these issues. 

Recommendation Four:

Several other components in the overall delivery system are recommended to strengthen our proposed legislative/administrative advocacy proposal. Programs need to develop and implement outreach and intake strategies that enable staff to solicit information from clients on a broad range of problems impacting the client community. They should not solely depend on clients' capacity to identify legal issues. These outreach and intake strategies also need to provide compelling client stories regardless of the program's capacity to do the advocacy work. FLS or others may be able to help out clients by use of these stories. Programs also should gather information from the other human services organizations serving low-income clients, on priority concerns that may be potential legislative/administrative advocacy issues. These may provide valuable information for the program's liaison to pass on to FLS to assist clients when programs are unable to do so.