Technology Committee of
Florida's State Planning Initiative Members present: April Charney, GCLS; John Dubrule, GCLS; Camille Garcia, FLS; Don Isaacs, FRLS, Chair; John Little, LSGMI; Nancy Martin, CFLS; Barbara O'Stean, FLS; Michael Spillane, LASPBC; Joann Tucker-Hall, LASOCBA; Ron Wilhoite, BALS, Vice Chair Members Not Present: Andy Atkins; Alan Hill, TRLS Summary The initial meeting of the State Planning Initiative Technology Committee was held on January 26, 2000 at the Airport Marriott in Tampa, Florida from 10:00am to 3:00pm. The members discussed existing problems for which technology might provide a solution or at least help alleviate the problem. The members also discussed ideas for recommendations that the committee will make to the coordinating committee. Ron Wilhoite agreed to distribute a list of contact information (see below) and minutes of the meeting. Existing Problems/Opportunities and Proposed Recommendations Internet email. Committee members quickly resolved that a fundamental need is for every staff member to have an individual Internet email account. Most staff around the state have an account, but committee members are aware of staff that do not have an email account and staff that must share an email account. Email, as well as the Internet, should be accessible at the desktop for staff that work primarily in a fixed office. "Staff" includes advocates and support staff. Collaboration. Several committee members noted that lack of collaboration among staff is a problem, both around the state and within programs. The existing state workgroups are not effective. The time and expense of travelling to meetings limits the number of meetings and often prevents advocates from attending. We believe email lists for various groups will provide staff an easy, efficient way to collaborate. FLS is setting up email lists for each of the State Planning action committees through eGroups. FLS should also create an email list for each existing workgroup. The lists can be changed over time as needed. Chat rooms were mentioned as another means for staff to collaborate. Workgroup chairs should consider setting up chat rooms, with technical assistance from FLS if needed. We believe videoconferencing will allow for effective meetings without the time and expense of travel. The hardware and high-speed connections necessary for videoconferencing to work will cost money, but each program should set a goal of acquiring the ability for staff to videoconference. Videoconferencing will likely become a standard way to participate in some court proceedings. Each of the above technologies will allow staff to participate on a national and state level in existing forums and new forums that are likely to crop up. Minimum technology standards. We agreed that there should be a set of statewide minimum technology standards. Technology plans. We will consider recommending that programs have technology plans that are available to all other programs. High-speed Internet connections. Most members agreed that an "always on", high-speed Internet connection is a fundamental piece of technology programs need. Online research, videoconferencing, and other activities will either require these connections or benefit from them. Training and technical assistance. Most members felt they and their programs need help in these areas. Client access. One or more members should meet with the Client Access committee to spot areas in which technology might help. Role of Florida Legal Services. Several members felt FLS should take a leadership role in technology and needs the resources to do that effectively. For example, FLS is creating a website. The committee members agreed a website could benefit advocates and clients, but will take time and effort to maintain. Survey of existing technology. The committee will consider undertaking a survey of existing technology in programs throughout the state. Case management software. Most committee members expressed dissatisfaction with their current case management software or felt their CMS could do more to increase productivity. Next Meeting The committee will meet again in March, at a date and location to be announced by the Chair. Member Contact Information April Charney, GCLS aprilc@gulfcoastlegal.org John Dubrule, GCLS johnd@gulfcoastlegal.org 727-821-0726 x146 Fax 727-821-3340 Camille Garcia, FLS camille@floridalegal.org 305-573-0092 Fax 305-578-9664 Alan Hill ahill@trls.org Don Isaac, FRLS, Chair don@frls.org 941-334-4554 John Little, LSGMI johnlittle@floridacdc.org 305-576-0080 x346 Fax 305-573-5800 Nancy Martin, CFLS nancym@cfls.org 321-636-3515 Fax 321-631-8929 Barbara O'Stean, FLS barbara@floridalegal.org 850-385-7900 Fax 850-385-9998 Michael Spillane, LASPBC mspillane@legalaidpbc.org 561-655-8944 x249 Fax 561-655-5269 Joann Tucker-Hall, LASOCBA jtucker@legalaidOCBA.org 407-841-8310 x3138 Fax 407-648-9240 Ron Wilhoite, BALS, Vice Chair rwilhoite@bals.org 813-232-1222 x108 813-232-1403
Summary of March 30 Desired Outcomes: Reach agreement on technology "vision of success", e.g., what it would look like if technology was effectively serving the ability of legal services programs and staff to provide energetic affirmative advocacy on behalf of legal services clients Reach agreement on what the problems/opportunities are that our committee will address Review research regarding what other states are doing vis a vis technology Develop a preliminary list of solutions to address problems including plans for implementation and outcomes measurements. 1. Values: The group identified the following values to guide our use of technology on behalf of clients: face to face meetings still important, client-centered, flexible to change, user friendly, technology not to depersonalize relationships, customer satisfaction 2. Vision of Success: The group identified the following "vision of success". We have divided the "vision" into two categories: one from the program's perspective and one from the client's perspective. Management/advocacy-oriented: As a result of effective use of technology, advocates and managers will be able to: access relevant work product of other legal services advocates (e.g., pleadings, briefs) through integrated document assembly and case management systems, easily utilize client intake material to generate pleadings and other legal documents, draw upon expertise of other advocates locally, statewide and nationally (through e-mail list-serves, web-pages, etc) ,increase their advocacy skills and professional development generally through technology-based training, written materials, other resources; stay up to date on legal and policy issues relevant to their client communities, solicit information from other staff and clients about specific issues (e.g., companion programs looking for certain kinds of clients or cases), analyze intake data, open and closed cases in order to analyze effectiveness and spot emerging trends, efficiently produce reports to funders, use technology with skill and proficiency, gather client stories for use on legislative campaigns, etc. Client-oriented technology vision: As a result of effective use of technology, clients will be able to: enter any legal services program and be referred to the appropriate service provider (seamless intake system), easily access services regardless of geography, age, physical ability etc. (easy access to legal services), learn about legal rights and policy issues that affect them; will feel empowered and able to more readily take on issues on their own, get up to date information about the status of their case, provide input to legal services programs about issues that concern them and/or that they would like to see addressed by legal services 3. Issues to be addressed by technology committee: The group next identified five major areas which get in the way of providing energetic affirmative advocacy for clients and for which technology can provide a solution. (Note that some of comments are more general and go beyond what technology has to offer but are included in this summary as a way of conveying the extent of the group's discussion.) The five areas addressed are: 1) mix of technology within programs; 2) collaboration within and between programs; 3) use of existing technology; 4) client access and 5) case management. A complete list of comments generated in each category follow. A sub-committee of the group will organize the material, eliminating duplicates and combining similar comments in preparation for a full committee conference call on April 19. 4. Application for LSC Technology Grants: The group considered whether the Florida community should apply for an LSC statewide technology grant. Don Isaac will call Glen Rawden to explore what the significance of the April 6 early application date. Because of the extremely short turn-around time, it is not possible for the group to file an early application but could submit a letter of interest if that is necessary. If we are not significantly disadvantaged by waiting until the May deadline, the sub-committee will closely review the application guidelines and develop a statewide technology proposal for submission on behalf of the Florida community. 5. Next Steps: a) April 3 - Ellen - write up meeting notes; send to full committee & access committee b) April 3 - Don - Call Glen Rawden at LSC re scope of LSC technology grant - specifically what are consequences of not getting proposal in by April 5 date c) Ron - Convene subcommittee to develop draft proposal and recommendations (Ron, Nancy, Camille, and Michael); d) April 19 - Don - Set up conference call for committee to review draft recommendations (April 19, 9:00 a.m. - 11:00 a.m.) Mix of Technology within programs Current Situation: mix of technology among programs Impact on staff & Clients: inefficient use of staff time (e.g., class action request for clients from FLS, changes in law impedes flow of info within and among programs, inability to manage program if don't have up-to-date info, lack of accountability; how one program measures up against others. Root causes: not sharing information about technology, money, no commitment to statewide collaboration, not prioritizing technology, no technology plan within individual programs Responses/solutions: ongoing commitment to review/evaluate emerging technology within programs statewide minimum technology standards so can effectively share information (to be determined individual program technology plans available to others individual program yearly technology budget comprehensive vision of technology infrastructure identify key individuals within state with expertise re particular applications vehicle for share information re resources (e.g., post on web page) Collaboration Current Situation: Collaboration among advocates around state limited; collaboration within programs limited Impact on staff, clients: clients not represented to fullest; not drawing on knowledge /experience around the state, advocacy skills not developed Root Causes: internal management not geared for collaboration, lack of forum for collaboration (e.g., how and where will collaboration, workgroups? Elsewhere?) no perceived need among staff re why need to collaborate Responses/solutions: email lists for groups around state with FLS role in administering and letting staff know re groups telephone conference calls - eliminates/lowers costs for travel, FLS, universal high-speed Internet connections Not using what we have now effectively Current Situation: Not using what we have now effectively Impact on staff, clients: don't get efficiencies that technology can provide (e.g. automated pleadings) waste of time, low productivity Root Causes: lack of standards for employees regarding what is required of them technologically in order to serve clients effectively, not enough training, doesn't make connective between how technology helps do job better, lack of leadership and vision re how technology helps individuals and clients. market economy; technologically proficient people in high demand Responses/solutions: training: that 1) includes big picture (e.g., values/vision of legal services) and how technology is integral part of how we serve clients; 2) geared at different learning styles; 3) formal with enough resources provided, minimum standards for employees regarding use of technology, user groups: regular access and relationship from which can get support, every office has manuals, designated full-time CRP in every program, full-time computer support person to support program CRPs, training of CRPs re how to train others, FLS leadership role in technology with resources necessary to do so, FLS- statewide website with resources necessary to develop/obtain relevant, timely and useful content. Client Access Current Situation: not serving as many clients as are eligible for services Impact on staff, clients: not all eligible people have access because of priorities, geography, lack of information re services "not reaching all who could," frustration among some clients re status of case (whether/when accepted; what's going on in case, long waits for service; in waiting room; on phone lines), frustration interacting with casehandler (some intake staff rude to clients) Root Causes: language, access to telephone limited,lack of public relations re programs,money - not enough staff or local programs Responses/solutions: mobile offices to provide intake - take intake to clients with real-time access to legal services program every program has statewide 1-800 number language line – to provide interpreter services diverse staff – also to provide/relate to diverse clients video-based intake systems strengthening/developing partnerships with other agencies, groups serving same client communities "one stop" centers at other agencies more readily frequented by potential legal services clients working with other CBOs to help them get and be able to use technology shared intake protocols so client doesn't have to repeat information when referred Referrals Impact on staff, clients: not adequate resources to refer clients to, one legal services program angry at another because don't take cases referred, not enough pro bono Root Causes: no uniform priorities, no written referral agreements, no mandatory pro bono requirements Responses/solutions: shared intake protocols and case management so client doesn't have to repeat entire intake when referred to other provider, list of all pro bono attorneys, and what they've done, website: post all program priorities, statewide priorities on some core issues .
Recommendations of the Technology Committee Purpose of the Committee The purpose of the committee is to develop recommendations to effectively promote energetic affirmative advocacy and expand inter-program collaboration through the use of technology. An effective plan for technology includes computer hardware and software, telephone systems, Internet access, email, web pages, and fax machines. It also makes use of online collaboration, ongoing training, and case management software. A successful plan is also defined by its ease of use, ease of maintenance, and its ability to change with the needs of advocates and clients. Each recommendation is geared toward empowering both advocates and clients with the technology, training, and the resources to effectively accomplish their goals. Committee members April Charney, Gulfcoast Legal Services; Nancy MartinCentral Florida Legal Services; John Dubrule Gulfcoast Legal Services; Barbara O’Stean,Florida Legal Services; Camille Garcia, Florida Legal Services; Michael Spillane; Legal Aid Society of Palm Beach County; Alan Hill, Three Rivers Legal Services; Joann Tucker-Hall, Legal Aid Society of Orange County Bar Ass’n; Don Isaac, Chair, Florida Rural Legal Services; Ron Wilhoite, Vice Chair, Bay Area Legal Services; John Little, Legal Services of Greater Miami. Background for Recommendations In order to make recommendations, the committee reviewed the current use of technology in Florida by legal aid and legal services programs. The committee also reviewed information available on the use of technology by other programs and states. The committee identified areas that get in the way of providing energetic affirmative advocacy for clients, and for which technology may provide part of a solution. Mix of Technology. Programs have tended to acquire technology without reference to what other programs in the state are doing, and without the benefit of other programs' experience in acquiring and using technology. Some programs are fairly advanced, but some advocates and staff do not have desktop Internet access and individual email accounts. Lack of a basic communication tool such as email impedes the flow of information within and among programs. The committee believes there is a lack of commitment to statewide collaboration on technology, programs have failed to make technology a priority, and many programs do not have an ongoing plan for acquiring and using technology. Limited Collaboration. Collaboration among advocates around the state and within larger programs is limited. This results in clients not being represented to the fullest. Advocates are not drawing on the knowledge and experience of others around the state. The committee believes internal management is not geared for collaboration, there is not an effective forum for collaboration, and some staff do not perceive a need to collaborate. Not Using What We Have. As one committee member put it, "WordPerfect 2000 on a Pentium-class PC is an extremely expensive typewriter." Not using the technology we have to eliminate repetitive tasks such as producing letters and pleadings wastes time and results in low productivity. The committee believes there is a lack of standards for employees regarding what is required of them technologically in order to serve clients effectively. There is not enough training, particularly training that shows how technology helps us do our jobs better and serve clients better. The committee recognizes the difficulty programs have attracting and keeping technologically proficient people. Client Access. We are not serving as many clients as are eligible for services. Another committee is looking at this issue. However, we feel technology can help in some problem areas: inability to get to an office or a phone, lack of information regarding our services and lack of self-help information. Problems with Referrals. Referring a client to another program, to an appropriate service provider, or to a pro bono attorney can be a slow, cumbersome, haphazard process. Technology may provide at least partial solutions to this problem. Case Management, Document Assembly, and Knowledge Management software. Most committee members expressed frustration with their programs’ existing software, or lack of software, to handle these functions. We concluded that it will require a significant amount of time and research to determine if it is even feasible to undertake a statewide effort in these areas. Recommendations 1. We should create a statewide technology position or positions. This would probably need to be funded by the Foundation so LSC and companion programs can be served. We believe at least 2 positions would be needed to effectively cover the state. We think these staff should: * Develop statewide minimum technology standards. 2. Develop a statewide web site. FLS has already created several email lists and started the website. Staff with other responsibilities is currently doing this part-time. We believe FLS, or whichever entity handles these tasks, will need more than a part-time person to actively maintain useful content on the website. The website should contain pro se materials, information for pro bono attorneys, lists of advocates, workgroups, available email lists, training materials, and other information. With sufficient resources, the website could expand to include an online calendar of events, trainings, and conferences, a searchable knowledge base of issues, and a section of briefs, pleadings and other materials to download. 3. FLS and individual programs should provide more training on effectively using technology. A separate committee is looking at training. This committee feels it is important to emphasize the need for training to effectively use the technology we have. The committee believes there should be training, at least annually, for the computer responsible people in the offices throughout the state, in implementing and maintaining the minimum technology standards to be developed by the statewide technology person or persons. Training should be: * Ongoing. |