|
MINNESOTA
STATE PLANNING SELF-EVALUATION REPORT Submitted September 12, 2001 Contact Person: From September 14 to December 17, contact
person is A.
Achieving a Comprehensive, Integrated and
Client-Centered Legal Services Delivery System in Minnesota As
was noted in presentations to the LSC Board during its June 2000 Minnesota
visit and in LSC’s Building State
Justice Communities, state planning in Minnesota goes back to 1980. The
six LSC-funded programs in the state received a special planning grant to
identify areas for coordination and cooperation. The providers worked with the
newly created Legal Assistance to the Disadvantaged (LAD) Committee of the
Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA) to create the Minnesota Legal Services
Coalition State Support Center (Center) and the position of Director of
Volunteer Legal Services, now the Access to Justice Director
(ATJ),
at the MSBA. The
Minnesota Legal Services Coalition (Coalition), comprising the seven regional
programs serving all 87 Minnesota counties, continues to work with the LAD
Committee and other stakeholders to ensure that Minnesota’s programs
continuously assess and improve services for low-income Minnesotans.
Coalition program directors, Center staff, the ATJ Director, Legal
Services Advocacy Project (LSAP) staff, and representatives of other providers
including volunteer attorney programs meet at least six times each year to
ensure ongoing coordination and cooperation.
From the outset, the Coalition leaders and their boards agreed that
working collectively, while preserving local input and control, would best
serve client needs. In
1995, in response to the pending cuts in LSC funding, the Minnesota
Legislature requested the Minnesota Supreme Court to create a joint committee
including representatives from the Supreme Court, the MSBA, the Coalition, and
other providers to prepare recommendations for state funding changes or other
alternatives to maintain an adequate level of funding for civil legal
assistance. The Supreme Court established the Joint Legal Services Access
& Funding Committee, directing it to make recommendations to the Court and
the Legislature by December 31, 1995. The Court appointed a liaison from the
Court and 29 Committee members representing the legislature, the federal and
state judiciary, lawyers in private and public practice, legal services
program staff, and the public, including the client community. The Joint Committee
developed a number of principles, including: ·
The legal services programs should continue to strive to
offer low-income people a level playing field, access to all forums, and a
full range of legal services in areas of critical need. ·
Legal services should be structured to ensure that
populations with special needs, such as American Indians, migrant and seasonal
workers, people with disabilities, and financially distressed family farmers,
continue to have access to legal services. ·
Adequate state support services, such as training,
community legal education materials and mechanisms for information sharing,
should continue to be available to all legal services providers, including
volunteer attorney programs. The
Committee report concluded that, “While
the Coalition programs and others are already a national model of coordination and cooperation, the programs
should continue to search for areas in which they can achieve additional
efficiencies and improve client services through increased coordination and
cooperation.” Reflecting the Joint
Committee’s principles, the goal of the Coalition is to provide a full range
of high-quality legal services to poor persons in civil cases in a manner
which enables clients to (1) assert and enforce their legal rights; (2) obtain
effective access to the courts, administrative agencies and other forums which
constitute our system of justice; (3) obtain the basic necessities of life;
and (4) assure equal opportunity.
The Coalition also has
worked together to define statewide objectives, although each individual
program’s objectives may vary slightly based on locally-defined needs and
funders’ requirements. Statewide
objectives include: ·
Providing
a full range of legal services including individual case work, complex
litigation, community education and advocacy and legislative representation,
so that persons with individual or common legal problems may be benefited most
cost-effectively; ·
Increasing
the capacity to provide high-quality legal services for persons unable to
afford counsel in a manner which will benefit as many poor persons as
possible; ·
Concentrating
resources in case areas which reflect clients’ greatest needs and in areas
which require special expertise and knowledge; ·
Taking
affirmative steps to ensure that disadvantaged persons who historically have
had disproportionately less access to the legal system (such as disabled
individuals, minority-race persons, persons in sparsely populated areas, and
seniors) have effective access to legal services; ·
Establishing
a statewide framework to encourage cooperation and coordination among
providers of low-income legal services and to enable programs to respond
most effectively and comprehensively to emerging areas of client need; ·
Working
with local attorneys, state and local bar associations and the Minnesota
Justice Foundation in administering volunteer attorney programs to increase
access to legal assistance, particularly in areas of traditional private
practice, and to enable local attorneys and law students to participate and be
recognized for their services to low-income people; ·
Encouraging
the development of effective alternatives (such as training staff of battered
women’s shelters to assist women in obtaining Orders for Protection) to
address the legal needs of disadvantaged Minnesotans and to encourage and
enable persons to help themselves; ·
Implementing
quality control and legal work management systems and providing necessary
training, support and facilities to staff, and judicare and volunteer
attorneys to ensure professional development, high-quality and
cost-effective services; and ·
Providing
salaries, fringe benefits, reimbursement for expenses and other compensation
at levels sufficient to retain experienced staff, and judicare and volunteer
attorneys. 1)
What
are the important issues that impact upon low income people in Minnesota?
How is Minnesota responding to these issues? Low-income
people in Minnesota face important and
emerging issues. ·
Minnesota’s
minority population grew 72 percent between 1980 and 1990, the fourth highest
rate of increase in the country. Preliminary
2000 Census figures show that minorities now represent 12 percent of the
state’s population, more than double that in 1990.
Minnesota’s black growth rate is first among the 47 states whose
figures have been reported. The Asian growth rate is the fourth fastest. More
Hmong live in St. Paul than any other United States city, according to new
figures from Census 2000. The
surging minority population accounted for over half the state’s overall
growth. · 43.7 percent of the nonwhites in Minneapolis and
St. Paul live in poverty, the highest percentage of people of color in poverty
in the 25 largest metropolitan areas in the country. ·
Many
minority-race individuals face discrimination in employment, housing, health
care, family law, public assistance and education. ·
Legal
immigrants in Minnesota make up an increasing percentage of the state's
population. For the past 16
years, more than 40 percent of the immigrant arrivals have been refugees from
Southeast Asia, Russia and, more recently, East Africa.
Minnesota has the second largest Hmong population, the seventh largest
Cambodian population and the eleventh largest Vietnamese population in the
United States. The Chicano-Latino
population in Minnesota grew from about 54,000 in 1990 to about 143,000 in
2000, not including migrant farm workers.
Half of the Somalians who have immigrated to the United States since
the early 1990s live in Minnesota; this is the largest group in the country.
The Somali population is estimated at close to 50,000. ·
Housing
vacancy rates in Minnesota are among the lowest in the country.
There are also significant barriers to fair housing in the Twin Cities
area, according to a new report, Regional
Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing, prepared by the Legal Services
Advocacy Project in collaboration with the Institute on Race and Poverty, the
Urban Coalition and the Wilder Research Center.
The report identifies private sector practices and public sector
policies that need to be changed to eliminate the barriers; it also identifies
constructive strategies to address the barriers.
·
Welfare-to-work
issues pose many challenges. These
include issues with the government programs such as sanctions for alleged
non-compliance and time limits as well as barriers facing low-income clients
in the workforce. These
legal barriers are holding people back from receiving the education and
training, transportation, childcare and other services they need to find and
maintain a living wage job. There
are also an increasing number of employment discrimination issues. ·
Legal
issues relating to state and tribal court jurisdiction are increasing. ·
To earn
a living, American family farmers must have quite a bit of knowledge about
their legal rights and obligations in a complex scheme of federal farm
programs. With the USDA reorganization and passage of the 1996 Farm Bill,
everything farmers once knew about credit changed. The eligibility criteria
for loans tightened, so fewer farmers are eligible for credit. The average
farmer cannot navigate through that maze on his or her own. Family farmers
have substantial unmet legal and advocacy needs either to preserve their
livelihood on family farms or to facilitate a transition to non-farm living. Minnesota programs use
several strategies to address these and other critical issues.
For example, programs use community education to ensure that vulnerable
clients are aware of their legal rights and obligations; negotiation and
litigation where appropriate; and legislative and administrative rule-making
representation where appropriate. Measuring success depends on the strategy
used. Success at the legislature
can be measured by the number of favorable laws passed or harmful laws
defeated. Community education may
be measured by the increase in requests for service by affected populations in
some instances and reports from community organizations about problems avoided
in others. Litigation results
often speak for themselves. With
both litigation and policy changes, constant monitoring is needed to ensure
enforcement and to watch for unintended consequences. Much of what is being
done specifically with respect to immigrant communities is addressed in
section A.4. For Coalition programs,
welfare-to-work issues are a high priority.
With national foundation funding, LSAP has done significant policy
analysis on welfare-to-work issues. Recently
released reports include Mixed Messages
and Missed Opportunities: Welfare Sanction Policy in Minnesota and MFIP at the Midpoint: Challenges and Opportunities for Self-Sufficiency.
These reports form the basis for action plans for work with DHS and
county welfare departments and for individual client service throughout the
state. Legal
aid staff serve on local committees throughout the state that are working to
ensure that clients receive all necessary services and benefits as they move
off of MFIP and as time limits are reached. Recent litigation by MMLA resulted
in a settlement providing for language access for DHS programs. Local programs are
testing ways to identify and eliminate all the civil legal barriers facing
families trying to leave welfare. In light of clients approaching the five-year limit on receipt of TANF
benefits, MMLA took the lead in developing a new intake form to identify any
sanctions that have been imposed on clients to make sure exemption and waiver
issues are properly identified and followed up. This form was distributed to all advocates for use statewide.
LSAP and the State Support Center regularly convene a statewide Income
Security Working Group. The Coalition programs continue to successfully use a
single statewide toll-free number for clients that is printed on DHS notices
and forms. Programs
are increasingly handling employment-related matters.
An Unemployment chapter was added to the Volunteer Attorney Desk
Manual. Volunteer Lawyers Network is testing an employment law screening
project similar to its statewide bankruptcy screening efforts.
LSAP was successful in the 2001 Legislature in obtaining an exception
so that domestic abuse victims can more easily get unemployment benefits. Significant fair housing
work is being undertaken throughout the state. Efforts include vindication of
civil rights of many protected-class people through a significant increase in
professional fair housing legal advocacy and growth in media, community-based
organizations' and government attention to fair housing issues encouraged by
legal services. Current special focus work includes challenging minimum income
tenant screening practices, discrimination against section 8 recipients,
municipal redevelopment practices, and reasonable accommodation for persons
with disabilities, especially as these problems hurt families of color. Significant advocacy is also ongoing with respect to
availability of affordable housing. Housing
discrimination and affordable housing strategic thinking and planning are key
topics at statewide Housing Task Force meetings and on the e-mail list.
Trainings have also been done for volunteer attorneys.
Staff attorneys work closely with the nonprofit Housing Preservation
Law Project where appropriate to save affordable housing. During the June 2000
visit, the LSC Board heard from a tribal court judge and others about the
challenges of serving Minnesota’s Indian population. Every time a new
decision comes down with respect to tribal jurisdiction, it leads to a
multitude of new questions. Anishinabe
plays an important role in advocating for the rights of affected individuals
as the law evolves. Other
Minnesota programs are also increasing their representation of Indians. The three Coalition
programs whose service areas include significant family farming developed the
Minnesota Family Farm Law Project (MFFLP) in the mid-1980s in collaboration
with the Farmers’ Legal Action Group (FLAG).
As the LSC Board heard during its June 2000 visit, MFFLP staff, backed
up by contract and judicare attorneys and Minnesota Department of Agriculture
farm advocates, provide significant community education and individual
representation. FLAG uses a
combination of education, backup support to local legal aid staff and private
lawyers, impact litigation, and administrative and legislative technical
assistance. FLAG, a national organization headquartered in St. Paul, receives
state and IOLTA funding to support its Minnesota work.
Together MFFLP and FLAG respond to the evolving needs of family farm
clients. 2)
What are the components of Minnesota’s delivery system? The
overall delivery system consists of the following major components. ·
The Coalition
programs include staff, volunteer attorney and judicare components
covering all 87 Minnesota counties. The
programs provide individual and group representation, brief advice, community
legal education and pro se support, and they engage in community
collaborations to ensure the widest possible access to high quality legal
services. ·
The Coalition’s jointly-funded State Support Center coordinates training and support functions. The
Center publishes a twice-monthly newsletter for legal services staff and
approximately 2,500 volunteer lawyers. It conducts numerous CLE-accredited
trainings each year, and coordinates regular statewide task force meetings and
email lists in the areas of family, juvenile, housing, government benefits
(including Social Security), consumer, immigration and seniors law.
The Center coordinates the production and statewide distribution of
community education and self-help materials in English and other languages.
The Center also coordinates extensive statewide technology efforts
seeking to enhance the ability of the programs to work together efficiently to
better serve clients. The
Center’s services are available to all LSC- and state-funded programs. ·
The Legal Services
Advocacy Project (LSAP), housed within a non-LSC-funded Coalition program,
provides statewide legislative and administrative policy representation on
behalf of eligible clients. LSAP
also does policy research and reports. LSAP
staff helped to create and are key participants in statewide coalitions of community organizations that
collaborate on a comprehensive approach to welfare-to-work and economic
security, affordable housing, and other issues critical to low-income clients.
·
Approximately
21 other programs in Minnesota
provide legal assistance to low‑income persons in civil cases.
Most provide services in single counties or to special populations,
including immigrant and refugee communities and Indians. These programs help
to meet many critical legal needs, for example for immigrants. They also
leverage significant resources, including pro bono service, that would not be
available to Coalition programs. The
Coalition programs actively cooperate and collaborate with these organizations
and have worked to eliminate any duplication of services. ·
The Loan
Repayment Assistance Program - Minnesota has existed for 10 years to
assist low-salaried, high-debt-load attorneys working for public interest
organizations repay their student loans. Originally founded by law students,
LRAP-MN has performed a critical service in support of legal aid and other
public interest law organizations in Minnesota.
The LRAP-MN board includes representatives of the private bar, all the
Minnesota law schools, law students, legal aid programs and others.
The single statewide LRAP program means that this resource is available
to employees of all Minnesota providers irrespective of where they went to law
school. ·
The Minnesota
Justice Foundation coordinates pro
bono services by students at all four Minnesota law schools.
MJF provides free law clerks to volunteer lawyers, student interns to
legal aid providers and other public interest agencies, and free student
assistance for staff and volunteer lawyers statewide. MJF's role is expanding as Minnesota’s law schools
implement policies and programs to provide as many law students as possible
with public service opportunities during law school.
In its first two years, the Law School Public Service Program has
already dramatically expanded public service opportunities for law students
and volunteer assistance for legal aid providers and their clients.
Within three to five years the law schools are expected to pay for most
of the expanded services out of their operating budgets.
MJF and the LAD Committee recently began a new program to involve law
faculty called Legal Scholarship for Minnesota Communities. ·
The
MSBA’s Access to Justice program
provides critical coordination and support for pro bono, resource development
and statewide communication. The
MSBA seized the opportunity to serve as the first statewide pilot project for www.probono.net
and built civil law and law student practice areas.
Minnesota lawyers have also had access to the national asylum and death
penalty practice areas. The Minnesota-specific areas are in the process of
being incorporated into the statewide client and advocate lawhelp portals,
funded in part by LSC. The MSBA
provides critical support for initiatives like the 2001 campaign to increase
state legislative funding and to enhance IOLTA interest rates.
The MSBA also staffs a Pro Se Implementation Committee, which is a
collaborative effort between the organized bar and the courts.
Legal aid staff are active members of this committee.
The MSBA will be collaborating on the client lawhelp portal. ·
The organized
bar and individual lawyers are important to the success of Minnesota’s
integrated delivery system. As
noted above, virtually all providers rely on volunteer or judicare lawyers to
help meet client needs. Individual
lawyers and their employers also contribute significant dollars as well as
time to providers throughout the state. The
organized bar provides critical support for pro bono and for enhancing legal
services funding. ·
The Courts
are an important part of the partnership in Minnesota.
Increasingly, self-represented people are seeking legal information at
the courthouse and attempting to handle matters on their own.
Legal aid providers are working closely with the courts, including
seeking cooperation from the courts on the lawhelp/mn client portal. 3)
Has this system created mechanisms to assess its performance in
relationship to commonly-accepted external guides such as the ABA Standards
for Providers of Civil Legal Services to the Poor, the LSC Performance
Criteria or some other set of objective criteria?
What is the protocol for undertaking system performance review and when
was a review last undertaken? Coalition
programs identify projected outcomes and past results in their LSC
applications. In addition, many
local funders of Coalition programs, including United Ways, monitor programs
regularly for effectiveness measured against outcome objectives defined by the
funders and their grantees. Beyond
these individual program reviews, and to assure that each component of the
system is integrated and operates with the highest quality, the Coalition is
developing a statewide peer review system. The Coalition appreciates the
initial technical assistance support from LSC in doing the research and
developing the plan. The initial
research is now complete. The
report and a three-year work plan were submitted to LSC. Preliminary meetings
have been held with local foundations and a proposal will be written this fall
to the one that expressed serious interest as part of its Organizational
Effectiveness Initiative. The
lead consultant who will coordinate the reviews has been identified, and he
will be meeting by conference call in September with the Coalition Directors,
the ATJ Director and Support Center staff.
The
Coalition programs have identified their goal as raising the level of
integration and cooperation among programs to that of a “virtual statewide
law firm.” As reflected in the peer review report to LSC, the Coalition
expects to use materials from several states that have experience in
comprehensive program evaluation. All
Minnesota programs have and use the ABA Standards for Civil Providers and for
Pro Bono. The Coalition also
expects to use the Legal Practice Standards developed and implemented by SMRLS.
The SMRLS standards have been shared with other Coalition programs and
will be reviewed as the possible basis for statewide standards during the peer
review process. LASNEM and LSNM are already considering adoption of the SMRLS
standards. The starting point for
the statewide systemic peer review process will be questions similar to those
in Program Letter 2000-7 and the Coalition’s goals and objectives as
described above. Creative
projects are testing new methods of improving client outcomes.
One SMRLS project in a rural county provides any civil legal services
that domestic abuse victims need to move from welfare to work and break the
abuse cycle (without which they could not successfully return to work).
This is a highly resource-intensive project that couldn’t have been
done without McKnight Foundation funding.
In the first year, 16 of the 18 clients served have not returned to
abusive relationships and are successfully meeting their welfare-to-work
requirements. This success level
is far beyond what project staff had hoped.
There is a similar welfare-to-work project in St. Paul.
The challenge will be to continue and replicate this successful model
with limited ongoing resources. The
IOLTA board and Legal Services Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court (that
allocates state funding and attorney registration fee revenue for legal
services) are exploring collaborating on a quality review process to
complement the Coalition’s peer review process. As part of this effort,
these two boards are looking at ways to get case statistics, outcome
measurements, revenue and expense information, and staffing information for
all programs similar to what the Coalition programs provide.
The LAD Committee is very interested in having better information about
all programs statewide to assist with the planning process. The IOLTA/LSAC
effort is in early stages of exploration and should help with quality
improvement beyond the core programs. The
Coalition and MSBA will collaborate in this effort. 4)
Does Minnesota’s statewide system work to ensure the availability of
equitable legal assistance capacities to clients -- regardless of who the
clients are, where they reside or the languages they speak?
How does your system ensure that clients have equitable access to
necessary assistance including self-help, legal education, advice, brief
service, and representation in all relevant forums? Please describe what steps
you anticipate taking to ensure equitable access in the coming years. Since
1982, Minnesota programs have operated on the principle that there must be
equitable access to legal assistance statewide.
That is a major reason that the Coalition programs have collaborated on
state legislative funding (85% of which is distributed on a poverty population
basis to the Coalition programs); submitted a single statewide proposal since
the inception of the IOLTA program; received statewide grants from The
McKnight Foundation for nine years of funding for systemic work on domestic
abuse and child support issues; received five years of funding from The Bush
Foundation for statewide technology initiatives (see below); and much more. The
programs agree that all programs to the maximum extent feasible must provide
all forms of service. Some
services that cannot be done by LSC grantees, like legislative and
administrative representation and some group representation, are provided at
the statewide level by LSAP, its parent program MMLA, and in collaboration
with private attorneys. When the 2000 Census results are final, the funding formula
will be changed to reflect the new poverty population distribution. In the
past, the formula has been adjusted for undercounts in the Indian and migrant
communities. Once the Census figures are available and have been reviewed,
consideration will again be given to appropriate formula adjustments. The
State Support Center housed within SMRLS and a statewide Community Legal
Education Project housed within MMLA provide extensive community legal
education booklets and fact sheets in English and other languages. These
materials are available on paper and they will all be available on the new
client web portal, which is being designed to allow for navigation in
languages other than English and for persons with disabilities. Programs have
taken advantage of the NLADA arrangement with Language Line for those
instances where staff members are unable to handle calls in a particular
language. Increasingly, programs have hired bilingual staff and provided
language training for other staff. For
example, LSNM sent one staff person to intensive language school in Central
America and held Spanish classes for their entire Moorhead office staff.
Efforts are being made to attract recent law graduates from immigrant
communities. Legal aid offices
also employ recent immigrants as paralegals and outreach workers.
Both funding for
translation and accuracy of translated materials are major challenges.
Recently, MMLA settled a lawsuit with the Minnesota Department of Human
Services on linguistic access for clients to DHS programs and services.
Depending on the population in particular counties, DHS will be making
notices and other critical information available in the following languages:
Cambodian, Hmong, Laotian, Russian, Somali, Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic,
Serbo-Croatian, and Oromiffa (spoken in Ethiopia).
The Coalition programs are committed to striving toward similar
accessibility, depending on populations in their service areas.
The Center is working on a timeline for translating materials into
languages besides Spanish. Many
statewide materials are already available in Spanish. Recognized
nationally at the LSC 2000 Migrant Conference, SMRLS has been the LSC migrant
farmworker Minnesota and North Dakota grantee for many years. During the growing season the offices in St. Paul and Fargo
are supplemented with staff who circuit-ride.
Special calendars and other publications in Spanish are widely
circulated to call attention to the availability of legal services.
Where other programs provide occasional representation to this
population, the SMRLS staff always stands ready to assist. Since
SMRLS hired a Hmong attorney to work on VAWA issues in St. Paul last year, the
number of Hmong clients served has tripled. SMRLS has Somali volunteers
working in its Mankato office; one was a judge in Somalia for many years. They are involved in extensive outreach activities to the
growing Somali community in south central Minnesota.
MMLA also has Somali, Pakistani, Ethiopian, Hispanic and Hmong staff.
LSNM does outreach to Spanish-speaking populations, and uses a
bilingual staff social worker to serve domestic violence victims, and do
violence prevention work with Hispanic teens.
SMRLS has a weekly radio show in Spanish. The LSC Board’s June 2000
visit to the SMRLS Immigration and Citizenship Project, housed at the United
Cambodian Center, helped strengthen this community-based collaboration.
This project served over 1,000 persons from 60 countries in the past
year. Coalition programs work
closely with the Minnesota Hmong and Hispanic and other minority bar
associations. The MSBA convenes a
regular Minority Bar Summit. LSC-funded
programs cannot assist some immigrant clients. Minnesota is fortunate to have
the Immigrant Law Center of MN (ILCM), MN Advocates for Human Rights, Centro
Legal, and a number of volunteer attorneys through other programs that bring
considerable additional resources. Because
of local program decisions and immigrant settlement patterns, historically
there have been more immigration services in the SMRLS service area. MMLA has
staff in Minneapolis and Willmar to handle immigration cases and to work with
MMLA staff on the immigration overlay with other types of cases. ICLM
and Centro Legal paralegals are co-located at LSNM’s Moorhead office as part
of the Northwest Immigration Project. LSNM
has bilingual intake staff and Spanish-speaking Judicare attorneys, and a
contract immigration attorney. Volunteer
Lawyers Network and the ILCM received two ABA mini-grants to pilot a volunteer
attorney clinic at a neighborhood center where the client population is
largely immigrants. A group being convened by the State Support Center and the
MSBA is in the process of providing immigration materials for the probono.net
civil law library. This will
serve as a resource to staff who do not regularly deal with immigration issues
and immigrant clients and should improve the ability of volunteer attorneys to
respond statewide. ILCM
recently received funding for a statewide needs assessment and strategic
planning project around immigration legal services and other legal needs of
immigrants. Project staff met
with the Coalition directors in May and are now seeking local input around the
state. Coalition and other
programs work closely with the MSBA Immigration Section.
The MSBA New Lawyers Section has co-sponsored several recent CLE
programs to encourage more volunteer lawyers to handle immigration-related
cases. Services to immigrant and refugee communities remain a significant
challenge. Strategies are being
developed for resource development and statewide services.
Initial contacts have been made with local foundations that expressed
interest in a statewide approach once the ILCM study is complete. The
statewide Minnesota Disability Law Center, a component of MMLA, is the
designated protection and advocacy program for Minnesota.
MDLC has advocates located throughout the state, co-located with local
Coalition offices wherever feasible. MDLC
provides extensive training and community legal education, advocates on behalf
of clients at the Legislature and before administrative agencies, and
collaborates with client-based community organizations throughout the state.
MDLC is active in the National Association of Protection and Advocacy
Systems and is a partner in the new web portal project.
While Minnesota programs do much work with people who are
institutionalized, MDLC’s efforts have made Minnesota a national leader in
deinstitutionalizing and providing community services for persons with mental
retardation and mental illness. With
Foundation funds, the St. Cloud office of CMLS has demonstrated through a
rural pilot project that domestic violence victims are far more likely to
access legal services when they are offered at the local shelter than when
victims need to call or visit the legal aid office.
Other rural programs are now using this model as well. The
LSC Native American grantee, Anishinabe Legal Services, recently supplemented
its LSC funds with VAWA and McKnight funding to open offices on the two more
remote reservations it serves. Coalition programs and specialized programs
like the Indian Child Welfare Law Center make special efforts to reach out.
LASNEM, with Blandin Foundation support, has significantly increased the
number of American Indians served. Outreach
efforts include maintaining regular office hours in remote communities on the
Leech Lake Reservation and extensive community education efforts.
An enrolled member of the Leech Lake Band serves as an outreach
paralegal in Grand Rapids. IOLTA funding was obtained and is administered by MMLA to
help pay the salary for a staff attorney who serves the Indian population
living on the Mille Lacs Reservation. MMLA
also carries on a special outreach project to Indians living in Minneapolis.
SMRLS serves the American Indian population in and around St. Paul through its
American Indian Center office. The
Coalition programs work closely with the Minnesota American Indian Bar
Association, and Anishinabe serves as a statewide resource.
The advocates described above now communicate informally when planning
trainings or about handling specific cases.
With the goal of further identifying the needs of Indian people on a
statewide basis and then crafting a strategy to better address those needs,
the Coalition is considering beginning an Indian Law Task Force and/or
starting a specific email list. Indian Law materials will also be posted in
the new advocate web library. The
Coalition programs receive some special funding to serve seniors.
This funding is terribly inadequate and services are provided by
Coalition programs far beyond the resources provided through the Area Agencies
on Aging. MAO Senior Support Services supplements these services in the metro
area. The programs work closely with the Minnesota Board on Aging, especially
the Legal Services Developer and the Senior Linkage Line, and Area Agencies on
Aging. Regular Seniors Task Force
meetings and an email list provide the opportunity to share materials and case
advice and strategies. While
statewide grants are extremely helpful, it remains a challenge to maintain
high levels of all services in resource-poorer areas of the state and to be
sure that smaller programs are not taxed beyond their ability to contribute.
Bigger programs tend to carry the burden of funding advocacy, for
example at the Legislature. And the bigger programs also often manage statewide
initiatives. Experienced staff
throughout the state take seriously their responsibility to provide mentoring
and training and to write and edit the statewide community legal education
booklets. Co-location of MDLC and
immigration staff in some rural offices is helpful. The
advent of the probono.net civil law practice area has better equipped rural
volunteer attorneys to more easily take on family and housing law cases in
particular. In the past several
years, Minnesota programs have been successful in matching urban volunteer
attorney resources with client needs throughout the state. Volunteer Lawyers Network in Minneapolis does phone
bankruptcy screening and advice for clients statewide and full representation
for bankruptcy cases venued in the Twin Cities (the majority of Minnesota
cases). The MSBA’s Law Firm Pro
Bono Roundtable has expanded its case acceptance in the past four years
through the use of email to circulate case requests from anywhere in the state
to large metro area firms. The
use of the probono.net New Matters feature has expanded this further and now
includes many solo and small firm practitioners as well. In the coming year,
the LAD Committee will be looking at how to enhance rural pro bono as part of
its emphasis on reinvigoration of pro bono. 5)
How does the legal service delivery system employ technology to provide
increased access and enhanced services to clients throughout Minnesota? What technological initiatives are currently underway and how
will they support the integrated statewide delivery system? Implementation
of the Coalition’s Statewide Technology Plan, with funding from The Bush
Foundation and LSC among others, represents a major step toward achieving the
Coalition’s goal of becoming a virtual statewide law firm that uses
technology to increase access and enhance services to clients. The plan sets
forth a three-stage process continuing through 2009. Phase I of the
implementation, is largely complete. An
LSC technical assistance grant enabled the state to begin planning for
implementation of Phase II, which is now underway. Initiatives completed under
Phase I of the Plan include the following: ·
Bringing every office up to a baseline level of
technological capacity; providing every staff member with desktop Internet
access and an individual e-mail account; ·
Developing a private website information geared toward
legal services staff, such as staff announcements, special training materials,
etc; ·
Developing a public website to create a legal services
presence online, providing office and program information, legal education
information, and other information for clients and advocates; ·
Creating e-mail lists and web forums for Task Forces and
Coalition programs;
·
Developing technology planning, education and support to
enable all staff and management to use technology as an effective tool to
improve service to clients; and ·
Providing all advocates with on-line legal research
capacity, including online subscription to Westlaw research, online updates of
recent developments in poverty law, and links on the statewide website to free
online research resources. The
Phase I evaluation found that users are happy with the overall implementation
of the technology plan to date and believe that it has significantly improved
their program’s capacity and their own individual capacity to serve clients.
Many users consider the implementation of the plan to have made a profound
difference in the way they do their jobs which ultimately significantly
benefits clients. Many users commented on the effectiveness of the new
technology in promoting closer relationships among providers. Phase II of the Statewide Technology Plan,
supported in part by an LSC grant, a new three-year
$800,000 grant from The Bush Foundation, smaller grants to individual
programs, and seed money from The McKnight Foundation, includes several major
efforts. These include: ·
Streamlining the intake and legal work management
processes with the stated goal of adoption of a single legal work management
system. Pilot projects are
currently underway. ·
Developing
and launching a statewide legal portal for clients and advocates. The client
portal will include basic legal information in English and other languages for
low- and moderate-income individuals, pro se support materials (including
forms in cooperation with the courts), information about legal services
offices as well as other legal providers for low- and moderate-income
individuals, and referral information to other community resources. The advocate portal will meld the current Coalition web site
with probono.net/mn. ·
The
Coalition and a wide range of collaborators are working toward creating a
special online area for victims of domestic abuse, including an online form
preparation tool as well as an extensive educational resource library that
would include referrals to legal resources, shelters, and court information. Technology is improving client service,
mentoring of less-experienced staff, and legal outcomes for clients.
Two examples highlight these points. ·
An attorney in a small rural office recently faced a
court hearing in which he needed to prepare pleadings for a matter in which he
had little expertise. He was able
to put a request on the email list and receive materials from the most
experienced practitioners in the state (from other programs) within an hour.
Similarly, as the probono.net (and new advocate portal) library grows,
the best materials are more widely available to produce higher quality work in
less time. ·
A staff
attorney from Judicare of Anoka County was representing a client in a child
support case appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals by the adverse party,
who wanted to reduce his child support in a joint custody arrangement.
The attorneys for both parties submitted briefs and prepared for oral
argument. The day before oral
argument, the attorney utilized the program’s subscription to Westlaw
research and discovered a favorable, not-yet-published case decided one week
earlier. At oral argument she was
able to cite that case, which proved determinative, and the client prevailed.
Access to the online research enhanced the quality of legal services
that the client received. The contract for computerized research services was a result
of the collaboration between the programs.
Without this collaboration, the cost of the online research services
would have been prohibitive. 6)
How has the legal service delivery system expanded its resources to
provide critical legal services to low income clients including hard to reach
groups such as migrant farmworkers, Native Americans, the elderly, those with
physical or mental disabilities, those confined to institutions, immigrants
and the rural poor? Please see
extensive discussions at A.4, B.2 and B.4.above. 7)
What steps have been implemented within the legal services delivery
system and among client communities to identify and nurture new leaders?
Do the existing leaders reflect the diversity within Minnesota and
within client communities that your delivery system serves? Do Minnesota’s
equal justice leaders reflect the gender, race, ethnic and economic concerns
of important but sometimes overlooked groups within your state? Does
the leadership provide opportunities for innovation and experimentation; does
it support creative solutions to meet changing needs; are new ideas welcomed;
are clients nurtured as leaders? Has the leadership been given sufficient
authority and resources to implement needed changes? With development of new
leadership in mind, the 2001 Legal Services Annual Statewide Conference,
Taking Our Work to the Next Level, focuses on skills. During this two-day
retreat, in addition to trial and negotiation skills, the program includes
sessions on Advancing Your Career in Legal Services, What Managers/Supervisors
Need to Know About Employment Law, Client-Centered Management: Producing
Effective Results for Clients, and Community Outreach and Collaborative
Partnerships. As part of this Conference, the Coalition intends to begin to
offer new statewide recognition for years of service (probably 5 or 10 years
plus) and for special team projects during the past year.
Minnesota also hopes to host an MIE legal work supervision conference
in the next year. Project
directors have encouraged legal aid staff to be active in the MSBA, for
example, serving on the Board of Governors, LAD and Pro Se Committees, and on
Section Councils. Legal aid staff
attorneys have twice served as chair of the MSBA Family Law Section.
The SMRLS Deputy Executive Director served last year as co-chair of the
MSBA’s Professionalism Committee. Annually,
the MSBA presents the Bernard P. Becker Awards to two legal services staff
people and one law student volunteer for demonstrated commitment to provision
of zealous and skilled legal representation for low-income and disadvantaged
clients. Legal aid staff are
encouraged to serve on Supreme Court Task Forces; recently an MMLA supervising
attorney was reporter for a Supreme Court group that overhauled all juvenile
court rules and procedures. While current leadership
is not as reflective of Minnesota’s diversity as the programs might wish, it
is generally reflective of the senior bar.
Over half of the Coalition’s supervising and managing attorneys and
two project directors are women. The SMRLS Deputy Executive Director is an
African-American woman. The
majority of the non-Coalition program project directors are women.
Members of the communities they serve (Indian, Latino) lead specialized
programs. Having a number of
smaller programs provides many leadership development opportunities and more
diversity. As discussed above, significant efforts are being made to hire
staff from communities of color including recent immigrant communities. The
hope is to nurture new leaders from among this group.
Several programs bring in diversity consultants to assist with internal
leadership and diversity development work.
Programs reach out regularly to minority bar associations and minority
law student organizations when they are recruiting for lawyer positions and to
client community organizations when recruiting for other staff openings.
Another longer-term step
in creating future legal aid lawyers and leaders is the Minnesota Justice
Foundation’s Law School Public Service Program (LSPSP) described in section
A.2. The LSPSP exposes the majority of law students to client
community needs and involves them in direct client service.
Innovative projects to involve law students are encouraged and attract
applicants for positions after graduation.
Current leaders appreciate that involving students takes time, but it
is a good investment. Minnesota has a high number of NAPIL fellows and most stay
with legal aid in Minnesota when their fellowships end. A major law firm recently endowed an MJF staff position at
the University of Minnesota Law School. The
LAD Committee and MJF are actively seeking other ways to sustain this program. Two recent Annual
Statewide Conferences focused on client and community involvement and
leadership development. These
were entitled Building Stronger Community Partnerships (1998) and Working
Together to Protect Our Families (2000). The latter was a collaboration in
which the close to 500 participants included approximately 200 from domestic
abuse advocacy and child protection programs. The State Bar Foundation
supported scholarships for advocates from domestic abuse programs with budgets
too small to pay for the conference. Most
of the scholarships went to rural programs and volunteer advocates, many of
whom were from communities of color. A group, led by the State Support Center with recently-renewed McKnight
Foundation funding, continues to work together to pursue strategies identified
at the conference for improving communication/collaboration within and among
those systems. Programs
make efforts to ensure that the client and other community involvement is
significant. Eligible clients serve on all LSC and state-funded legal services
boards of directors. Clients or non-attorney community members serve as
president, treasurer and secretary of the SMRLS board; treasurer of the MMLA
board; chair of the LASNEM board; secretary of Anoka Judicare; treasurer of
the CMLS board; and vice-chair and treasurer of the Anishinabe board.
Clients also serve on the Supreme Court’s Lawyer Trust Account Board
and Legal Services Advisory Committee (state funding distribution).
Client and community groups were actively involved in designing and
implementing the MSBA’s campaign to increase state legal aid funding in
2001. Their presence as planners,
witnesses at hearings, and key communicators made a significant impact on
legislators. 8)
What
do you envision will be your next steps to achieve a client-centered
integrated and comprehensive delivery system within your state or territory?
How will clients be actively involved in the determination of these next
steps? Minnesota
was fortunate to have two staff people selected to attend LSC's "Client
Centered Conference" held in Harrisburg.
Upon their return, they made a preliminary report to the project
directors. As a first step in
increased client involvement, the directors began to discuss the best ways to
involve clients as participants in annual legal services statewide
conferences. Client involvement in an
organized way has been more of a challenge in recent years since the demise of
the Minnesota Clients Council. The
MCC used to send a representative to all Coalition directors meetings. The Directors have been discussing the best ways to
reincorporate formal client input in statewide Coalition meetings, visioning
and planning efforts. Locally
clients and community group representatives actively participate in program
needs assessments and priority setting through surveys and/or focus groups. The
LAD Committee is considering asking the MSBA to appoint some representatives
from the client community as adjunct committee members. This issue will be
addressed in more detail in the coming year at Project Directors and LAD
meetings. Legal
aid staff are increasingly involved with local community organizations
including collaborative projects, in-service cross-trainings, and board
service by legal aid staff. These
relationships ensure significant client community input.
For a recent statewide project, a feasibility study for the
Internet-based order for protection process, focus groups including clients
were held all over the state. 9)
What
has been the greatest obstacle to achieving a statewide, integrated,
client-centered delivery system and how was that obstacle overcome or,
alternatively, how does Minnesota plan to overcome that obstacle? The principal obstacle,
even in comparatively resource-rich Minnesota, remains lack of resources to
provide appropriate access to all eligible clients who need services and to
others who may not be eligible but cannot afford to hire a private lawyer.
Remarkable partnership efforts led to: (1) An
attorney registration fee increase to support legal services, which now adds
close to $1 million per year to the pool available to providers. This was the first of its kind in the nation.
(2) An increase from the legislature to the base funding for legal
services of an additional $600,000 per year beginning in 1997 and another
$1.25 million per year beginning in 2002 for a total state appropriation of
$7.734 million per year. [An example of the materials used in the 2001 effort
is attached as Appendix B.] (3) Recent successes with significant
increases in interest rates and reductions in service charges and transaction
fees on many IOLTA accounts by major banks.
Minnesota is still far short of the resources necessary to provide full
access. The
Coalition programs are hopeful that progress will be made in the coming year
to enhance the statewide Minnesota Legal Aid Foundation Fund that already has
over $1 million in hand or pledged. The
MSBA committed to hiring a fund development consultant this year to explore
the best ways to build this endowment fund further.
The MSBA is committed to continuing staff support to build on the 2001
legislative success and go back for further increases in 2003.
An extensive database will be built capturing all the contacts from the
2001 campaign. See attached
Appendix B for one package developed for the 2001 campaign. One major obstacle,
overcome in Minnesota many years ago by the Coalition programs, is the
suspicion and mistrust of individual programs when each program competed
separately for funding. Cooperation
and collaboration on non-fund raising issues came naturally once the decision
was made by the Coalition programs to approach collectively major funding
sources such as the legislature, IOLTA and major foundations rather than
individually compete for limited funding. The LAD Committee
and the Coalition programs are working together to overcome some
dissatisfaction among smaller programs about statewide funding.
Those programs reap the benefits of work done largely by the Coalition
programs and the MSBA (for example, legislative funding, the attorney
registration fee, and the new Foundation Fund) but are raising questions about
the allocation. Under the 1981 statute, state funding is distributed 85% on a
poverty population basis to the Coalition programs and 15% through a
competitive grant process to other programs serving eligible clients.
The attorney registration fee is similarly allocated. Newer lawyers are
being paid relatively low salaries and have high student loans.
Lack of resources makes it hard for programs to hire and retain good
people. The LRAP board, Coalition
programs, the law schools and the LAD Committee are working to expand LRAP-MN
(see section A.2). They are
pleased that Minnesota’s newest law school, with encouragement from a
Coalition project director, has pledged to provide loan repayment assistance
for its graduates in public service careers.
Another school is considering establishing an endowment for loan
repayment assistance. Programs
are working closely with LRAP-MN and the law schools to expand this resource. The Coalition
programs and some of the smaller programs have recently raised salaries and
revamped benefit packages to allow for more flexible benefits including
retirement accounts. The
Coalition programs have also begun to explore moving toward a uniform
compensation package by sharing compensation and personnel policies with each
other. This will be followed by
discussions at upcoming meetings. As noted above, the
Coalition programs are working hard on how to best utilize technology on a
statewide basis to enhance the client-centered delivery system. There are
significant details that need to be discussed and agreed upon before the
well-defined vision of a virtual statewide law firm becomes reality.
As the Coalition programs begin testing with the ultimate goal of
implementing a single legal work management system statewide, the programs are
confident that this initiative will dramatically improve client service and
intra and inter-program efficiency. 10)
Has
any benefit-to-cost analysis been made in terms of creating a
comprehensive, integrated and client-centered legal services delivery system
in Minnesota? If yes,
what does the analysis show? As
noted above, the 1995 Joint Legal Services Access & Funding Committee
carefully analyzed the delivery system at that time and determined that
Minnesota’s system indeed was comprehensive, integrated and client-centered.
The Committee also made a number of recommendations about how the
system could be even better. Otherwise, no specific cost-benefit analysis has
been done. The MSBA collected and
presented to the Legislature information about the results that legal aid
obtains for clients. For example, legal aid secures about $4 million each year
in new child support orders, primarily on behalf of families on public
assistance, and thousands of disabled Minnesotans obtain over $5 million each
year in new federal disability benefits with Legal Aid’s help. Funders such as The Bush and McKnight Foundations have
evaluated the Coalition’s statewide collaborative approach and responded
favorably. They believe that our
system is comprehensive, integrated and client-centered.
One of our project directors has had very preliminary conversations
with faculty at the Harvard Civil Rights Project about whether they and some
law students might be interested in undertaking such an analysis for
Minnesota. 11)
What
resources, technical assistance and support would help Minnesota meet its
goals? The Coalition programs urge LSC to look at
ways to support loan repayment assistance, offset rapidly rising health
insurance costs, and fund retirement plans.
While programs and the Bar are attempting to address these on the state
level, and while these are essentially resource issues, there may be creative
solutions at the national level through group purchasing or federal support
beyond the basic field grants. Minnesota
programs also face a significant challenge in finding adequate and affordable
translation services for community legal education and other client materials
including the new lawhelp/mn web site. Perhaps
there are ways to address this from a national perspective as well. B.
The extent to which Minnesota has achieved its intended outcomes of a
comprehensive, integrated client-centered legal service delivery system,
including but not limited to, service effectiveness/quality; efficiency;
equity in terms of client access; greater involvement by members of the
private bar in the legal lives of clients, and client-community empowerment.
1)
In terms of the issues impacting upon low-income persons within your
state, what strategies have you designed to address these issues and how do
you plan to measure your future success in addressing your objectives? For
a full discussion of
strategies designed to address identified client needs, see section
A.1. The
Coalition programs continually communicate and assess existing and
emerging client issues through Director meetings, task forces that meet
regularly and include legal services staff and other advocates, web site and
e-group activity, statewide trainings and conferences.
Through these vehicles, they
often employ
multi-faceted approaches. Ongoing strategies include multi-year statewide
projects funded with both private and public money;
statewide task force efforts;
legislative action;
technological approaches;
creating
community coalitions,
collaborations, and partnerships;
presenting community
education sessions and disseminating materials;
and co-counseling
with legal
services and private attorneys
and other justice community advocates.
The
nature of “success
measurement”
depends upon the strategies used. Advanced Coalition
technology allows statistical and numerical measurement of a continuum
of case-related factors and matters.
Outcome standards are frequently utilized, and often required by
grantors. Increases
in funding or grant
money can be quantified. Surveys, interviews and input on advisory
boards and projects measure client satisfaction.
Elimination
or decrease of
problem areas are determinable. LSAP studies how legal and policy
changes affect clients. Their
staff includes a Ph.D-candidate policy analyst. For
an overall analysis
of whether the Coalition objectives and client issues
have been addressed, Minnesota’s
legal services programs are implementing
a peer review
process which will assess all facets of service delivery.
2)
Has the legal services delivery system expanded access and services
through coordination with providers throughout the state?
Can this be quantified? The
Coalition has articulated
various goals and projects
to enhance services
and access. See
A.1 for further details.
Much of the
information can be quantified. Additional cases accepted
and clients served can be shown using
computerized case management reports.
Through The Bush Foundation technology project, Minnesota programs are
considering legal work management systems with one goal being improving and
standardizing quantification efforts. The Center and MMLA’s statewide
community education project track the numbers of informational materials
distributed. Increased
numbers of people using pro se systems, pro bono attorneys, and program
referrals could be calculated. Statistical information is kept for various
private funders about the extent of statewide project impact,
such as The
McKnight Foundation family law effort designed to expand
services to poor women and children, particularly victims of domestic
violence. Access
to information through technology can be measured to some extent with website
hits and requests for information, and additional numbers of attorneys
registering for probono.net.
Services expanded by co-locating staff in other program offices, like
the Northwest Immigration Project, can
be shown through both clients served and broadened program priorities. 3) Has the quality of services provided by the legal services delivery system improved? How? Minnesota
continually strives to improve the quality, quantity, and appropriateness of
services provided. Statewide training, resources, and technology have significantly
improved
the ability of practitioners
to handle cases and educate or empower clients.
The Coalition web site and
probono.net provide training materials, research opportunities, and support
for volunteer and Judicare attorneys. Staff
and other justice community advocates can work together on major projects or
communicate to broaden the expertise and experience available to solve
problems or meet client needs. Cooperative
applications for funding
and impact projects
have expanded the alternatives
available to meet client needs. For
clients with limited English proficiency, hiring bilingual staff has improved
the quality of services delivered. SMRLS,
for example, has 21 bilingual staff members. The Courts recognize the value of
these staff people – they request their interpreting services when the
courts cannot find other interpreters (which is far too often).
4)
Since
1998, has there been improvement in the relative equity of client access
throughout the state for all low income clients regardless of who they are,
where in the state they reside, what languages they speak, their
race/gender/national origin, or the existence of other access barriers?
How is this equity achieved? Minnesota
has the luxury of a head start in statewide planning
and building a justice community,
having begun serious cooperative efforts in 1980. The
Supreme Court’s Joint Committee articulated client “access to all forums,
and a full range of legal services in areas of critical need” as a principle
in 1995. A longstanding Coalition
objective is “taking affirmative steps to ensure that disadvantaged persons
who historically have had disproportionately less access to the legal system
(such as disabled individuals, minority-race persons, persons in sparsely
populated areas, and seniors) have effective access to legal services.”
Joint fundraising for special client needs, and disbursement of other
money based on poverty population, are great access equalizers.
While the
Minnesota programs strive for continual improvement in the relative equity of
client access throughout the state, progress has been ongoing for many years,
and not just since 1998. All
programs routinely partner with each other, related service providers, bar
associations, the Minnesota Justice Foundation, the law schools, courts and
private attorneys to increase access. The Coalition programs continually assess client needs, and the nature of clients they serve. Because of the growth of immigrant, refugee, and non-English speaking clients, for instance, programs have been expanded since 1998 to meet their emerging needs. Offices have implemented Language Line, hired bilingual staff, and expanded special projects for Hmong, Somalian, Chicano-Latino, and other populations. The Coalition has created materials in more languages, and addressed the needs of new clients through joint projects, legislative activity, and partnerships with non-LSC programs. In the past three years, programs have utilized justice communities to better serve seniors and children. In rural and urban Minnesota, advocates worked together to establish a network, support system, and statewide organization for grandparents raising grandchildren, and other kinship caregivers. Child protection, domestic violence, and legal services staff continue to work together after identifying and beginning to address significant service barriers at last year’s “Protecting our Families” legal services-sponsored joint statewide conference, attended by about 500 advocates. 5)
Since
1998, has there been improvement in the relative equity in terms of the
availability of the full range of civil equal justice delivery capacities
throughout the state? What
mechanisms have been developed to ensure such relative equity is achieved and
maintained? Since 1998, has there been improvement in the relative equity in
the development and distribution of civil equal justice resources throughout
the state? Are there areas of the
state that suffer from a disproportionate lack of resources (funding as well
as in-kind/pro bono)? If so, is
there a strategy to overcome such inequities? Again,
with the opportunity for coordinated statewide service delivery and planning
for over a decade and a half, Minnesota maintains a full range of delivery
capacities throughout the state. Equitable funding by poverty population is
perhaps the most significant factor in achieving and maintaining program
parity. Equity
has perhaps increased since 1998 in expanded statewide training, technology
development, joint foundation funding, and statewide pro bono projects.
6)
Does this legal services delivery system operate efficiently? Are there
areas of duplication? The
LAD Committee believes that Minnesota’s delivery system works efficiently
with relatively little duplication. A
cornerstone of this system is the statewide Coalition meetings and
communication among the Coalition programs and with others, in part through
the LAD Committee. Since 1982, project directors and others have made a
significant investment of time and other resources to work together to ensure
the best results for clients. There
are at least six to eight full-day meetings each year for business and
visioning. An active e-mail list and special conference phone calls provide
for regular communication and decision-making between meetings. Individual
directors/programs take on responsibilities for the common good. For example,
LSNM has agreed to manage the peer review process; MMLA works closely with the
LRAP program and handles statewide budgets, statistics and production for the
annual IOLTA proposal; SMRLS houses and handles administration for the State
Support Center. One goal of
the new web portals is to cut down on duplicative community education
materials and practice forms; individual program web sites will all be housed
within lawhelp/mn as well. Lawhelp
will also cut down on duplicative efforts of the MSBA, the Coalition and First
Call for Help that now all maintain separate legal referral data bases. 7)
Has the system expanded the way it involves private lawyers in the
delivery of essential services to low-income persons?
Does the system effectively and efficiently use the private bar to
deliver essential services to low income people?
Minnesota
has played a leadership role with respect to pro bono for many years.
The MSBA and Arrowhead Lawyers Care were honored on separate occasions
with the Harrison Tweed Award. Two
Minnesotans have been named NAPBCO Coordinators of the Year, and numerous
private lawyers have been recognized. Minnesota
had the highest percentage of eligible firms originally participating in the
ABA’s Law Firm Pro Bono Challenge and the firms continue this high level of
participation. The
LAD Committee and local programs are pleased with the implementation of
probono.net/mn and the response from volunteers.
The MSBA has completely moved its loose-leaf Volunteer Attorney Desk
Manual to the web site and is beginning to reduce the number of paper
subscriptions to the Coalition’s twice-monthly newsletter.
The 3M pro bono project with SMRLS is regarded as a model in the
corporate community. Private
lawyers play key roles in brief advice clinics at community and pro se service
centers, full representation of individual clients, appellate representation,
class action representation, legal training of clients and legal services
attorneys, and public policy work either independently or in collaboration
with a non-LSC provider. Minnesota
programs have made very effective and conscious use of a combined staff-judicare
model in several different settings: a 22-county rural area, a single very
isolated rural county, and a first ring suburb with a long history of judicare
involvement. Over the years, reliance on staff components has increased,
particularly for public benefit cases. Judicare components continue to be
effective for family, housing, consumer, unemployment and similar matters.
Programs also use contract attorneys for some farm law representation and to
fill other gaps in rural areas. Their
expertise in property, tax and business law is often utilized to address those
issues in staff cases. They may
work with staff attorneys as co-counsel and provide or receive legal support
on case development. The first
point of contact with clients is generally trained intake staff, to ensure
eligibility, needs assessment, and responsiveness to critical legal matters.
Legal staff routinely screen applicants for public benefit entitlement
or poverty law issues before a client is referred to Judicare.
Quality is ensured by private attorney participation in Coalition
training programs, access to poverty law materials on probono.net/mn and
through local programs, staff mentoring, and program monitoring of case
status. Client satisfaction
surveys continue to be very favorable. Judicare panel members and contract attorneys contribute
significant pro bono time beyond the hours for which they receive minimal
compensation. Minnesota Lawyer, a major legal publication read by most
practicing lawyers in the state, produced a special section in August of 2000
called “For the Public Good.” A
copy is attached as Appendix C. In
addition to including the contact information for the civil legal services pro
bono programs, there were a number of feature stories about specifics such as
rural pro bono, bankruptcy projects and others.
The response to this publication was very good.
Minnesota Lawyer provided
reprints for use in recruitment. Despite
Minnesota’s success with pro bono, the LAD Committee and Coalition programs
believe more can and should be done. Having
been unsuccessful in persuading Minnesota’s Supreme Court to adopt required
reporting of pro bono, the LAD Committee needs to take a new approach.
The Committee’s primary project in the coming year is to begin
exploring ways to continue to build pro bono statewide. C.
Are the best organizational and
human resource management configurations and approaches being used? 1)
For calendar year 2001, what is the current configuration of programs (LSC
and non-LSC) that deliver services to low income clients -- i.e., what are the
components (size, areas of responsibility, governance) of the delivery system?
What are the funding sources and levels for each of these components of
the delivery system? As
described at the beginning of this report, the Minnesota Legal Services
Coalition comprises five basic field regional LSC-funded programs (one housing
the Minnesota and North Dakota Migrant program and the State Support Center),
an LSC-funded Indian program serving people residing on the three largest
Minnesota reservations, and a non-LSC-funded program serving 20 central
Minnesota counties and housing the statewide Legal Services Advocacy Project
and Minnesota Disability Law Center. These
programs form the core of the delivery system.
A
board of directors composed of lawyers, eligible clients and others who reside
in the community and are committed to justice governs each Coalition program. Local bar associations and the MSBA appoint a majority of
lawyer board members. Client
organizations or advisory groups often recommend client members. These locally
controlled boards oversee program finances, policies and operations and adopt
legal work priorities. Non-Coalition
programs have similar board structures; to receive state funding the programs
must have at least one eligible client board member. The Coalition programs’ collective budgets in 2000 were $21 million. The sources were:
Minnesota
Legal Services Coalition Programs: The
main office is in Cass Lake on the Leech Lake Indian Reservation.
With federal VAWA funds, Anishinabe opened a branch office on the White
Earth Reservation in 1999. With
funds from The McKnight Foundation, Anishinabe opened a branch office on the
Red Lake Reservation in 2000. Although
the two branch offices were opened with funds from time-limited grants, their
presence is important enough to justify subsidizing their operation with funds
previously reserved for the Cass Lake office.
The remoteness of these offices, however, increases the difficulty of
recruiting staff, requiring additional financial incentives. Anishinabe
employs 4.6 lawyers, two paralegals and three support staff. There is no specific volunteer attorney program because very
few private attorneys are located on the reservations but Anishinabe uses the
MSBA’s Pro Bono Roundtable when appropriate. Anishinabe’s service area
overlaps those of LSNM and LASNEM, and the three programs refer clients to
each other for representation in cases that fall outside particular program
case-acceptance priorities. Anishinabe’s leadership in federal Indian law
resulted recently in several favorable reported decisions of statewide impact;
in addition, staff conducted a day-long CLE regarding Indian law for area
attorneys and other Legal Services staff.
In 2000, Anishinabe closed 1,082 cases, a substantial increase from
1999 that reflects the stability of the current staff and a renewed focus on
direct client services and family law. Anishinabe
receives 34 percent of its financial support from LSC, compared to 62 percent
in 1995. Because of the nature of
its service area, Anishinabe does not receive any United Way funding. Judicare of Anoka County (JAC) serves low-income residents of Anoka County.
An estimated 16,900 people are eligible for services.
JAC is a combined staff and Judicare program established in 1975
through a joint effort with the Anoka County (21st District) Bar
Association. The MSBA requires membership in one of 21 local district bar
associations. Anoka is the only
single county bar association other than Hennepin (Minneapolis) and Ramsey
(St. Paul). The unusual strength
of this local bar is reflected in the long-standing structure of and support
for JAC. JAC
employs two lawyers, two paralegals and two administrative/support staff. The staff administers the program (including client intake,
eligibility screening and referral) and provides representation to clients in
more traditional poverty law cases. The
program closed 1,252 cases in 2000. A
panel of private attorneys represents Judicare clients after program staff
determines eligibility. If
clients have no preference for an attorney, the staff selects one based upon
expertise, location and availability. JAC
has approximately 60 attorneys currently on its panel handling about five
cases each per year. As part of the agreement to represent program clients, the
attorneys provide some pro bono
services. In 2000, panel
attorneys provided over 600 hours of pro
bono services in referred cases. The
21st District Bar Association asks that each member annually contribute five
hours of uncompensated time or $200 to JAC. JAC
receives19 percent of its financial support from LSC.
Legal Aid Service of
Northeastern Minnesota (LASNEM) serves low-income residents of an 11-county area in
northern and central Minnesota. An
estimated 58,869 people are eligible for services. LASNEM focuses on breaking down artificial barriers to
equality, opportunity and fair play, and promoting the concept that everyone
deserves a fair chance. Fully
staffed offices are maintained in Duluth, Brainerd, Grand Rapids, Virginia and
Pine City. Outreach offices area
also maintained in Aitkin, Hibbing, Ely, Walker, Inger, Orr, Squaw Lake and
Ball Club. A full range of
services is provided using a mixed staff, Judicare, and pro
bono delivery system. A
panel of Judicare attorneys delivers services in Koochiching County, the most
geographically isolated county in LASNEM’s service area, and pro bono services are provided by the Arrowhead Lawyers Care
Volunteer Attorney Program through a subgrant agreement.
More than 90 percent of the attorneys in the region participate in the
volunteer attorney program . LASNEM’s
staff consists of 19.6 attorneys, 4.5 paralegals and 18 administrative and
support staff. LASNEM closed
7,328 cases in 2000 and provided community education sessions throughout the
region attended by 2,288 persons. The
cases typically involved problems with housing, government benefits, income
preservation, and family and consumer matters.
In its attempt to reach the maximum number of clients, LASNEM works
with other agencies to avoid duplication of services using a continuum of care
service delivery approach. LASNEM
received 20 percent of its financial support from LSC in 2000. Legal Services of
Northwest Minnesota (LSNM) serves low-income residents of 22 counties covering
approximately 25,000 square miles in northwest Minnesota.
An estimated 79,700 people are eligible for services.
The population density overall is about 15 persons per square mile.
Only three cities exceed 10,000 in population.
The median household income is substantially lower than the state
average. Twelve counties are
among the 20 poorest in the state.
Offices
located in Moorhead, Bemidji and Alexandria provide services.
The Moorhead office provides program administration.
The program uses a combined staff and judicare system. Judicare panel
lawyers are reimbursed by LSNM at $45 per hour with maximum fees set for
certain types of cases. In 2000, LSNM closed 4,900 cases. The judicare lawyers handled approximately 36 percent of the
cases; the remaining 64 percent were handled by the three staffed offices.
LSNM has established a children’s unit, Kids Legal Aid Work
(KidsLAW), which focuses on issues having particular impact on children.
In 1999, LSNM created a domestic violence legal team to work with
victims, their families, domestic violence programs, and other service
providers in a holistic approach to help clients eliminate domestic violence
from their lives. LSNM
has 7 lawyers (down from 11 in 2000), 2 paralegals, a bilingual outreach
worker, 3 administrative and 8 support staff.
Volunteers, law clerks and legal assistant interns are also used
extensively. Staff provides administrative support, including client intake,
eligibility screening and referral. Staff
handle individual representation primarily in public housing, government
benefits and family law cases, and provide training, support and research for
panel lawyers. LSNM also provides
community education through both staff and judicare lawyers. Approximately
170 lawyers in the LSNM service area accepted referrals from the LSNM judicare
program in 2000, averaging 10.4 cases per lawyer.
Over $1,231,000 in lawyer time was donated by LSNM judicare panel
members last year. LSNM received
28 percent of its financial support from LSC in 2000. Mid-Minnesota
Legal Assistance (MMLA) provides legal advice and representation to
low-income clients in 20 counties in central Minnesota, through offices
in Minneapolis (3), St. Cloud, Cambridge and Willmar. An estimated 206,900
people are eligible for services. Efforts
to increase access for especially disadvantaged clients have been made by
securing funding for senior citizens projects, the Community Legal Education
Project, the Minnesota Disability Law Center, the Housing Discrimination Law
Project, and the Family Farm Law Project.
One component of MMLA, the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis, was
founded in 1913. MMLA delivered
services for Central Minnesota Legal Services (CMLS), the LSC grantee, on a
reimbursement contract basis until July 1, 1996. MMLA ended the arrangement
because the 1996 Congressional appropriation was interpreted by LSC to require
that Congressional restrictions on LSC funds be imposed on all the funds of any program which received LSC funds, even on a
sub-contract basis. Since over 83 percent of MMLA's funds were non-LSC, and
since MMLA's other funders did not share Congress's support of the
restrictions, MMLA's board declined to let a minority stakeholder control all
of MMLA's activities. This
decision was also part of ongoing planning within Minnesota to ensure that
clients statewide had access to some unrestricted services through MMLA’s
statewide projects. Following
termination of the MMLA/CMLS contract, CMLS hired additional staff to deliver
services within the LSC restrictions. (See
below.) The programs closely coordinate intake and priorities to prevent
client confusion or service disruption resulting from the change. The shift has gone smoothly. MMLA employs 64.5 lawyers, 27.4
paralegals and 37.5 administrative/support staff. MMLA closed 10,176 cases in
2000. The
statewide Legal Services Advocacy Project, which provides legislative and
administrative representation, is part of MMLA. MMLA
enjoys strong support from local bar associations, law firms and client
groups. The local lawyer volunteer program in Hennepin County, Volunteer
Lawyers Network (VLN), has had a referral relationship with the Legal Aid
Society of Minneapolis for over 27 years.
Central Minnesota Legal
Services (CMLS)
provides civil legal services within LSC restrictions to low-income persons in
the 20-county area also served by MMLA. The
two programs coordinate intake to avoid client confusion or delays in delivery
of service. CMLS emphasizes
services to families in crisis. CMLS employs 10 lawyers, 3 paralegals and 7
administrative/support staff and closed 1,062 cases in 2000.
CMLS staffs the volunteer programs in St. Cloud, Willmar and Cambridge.
Over 500 lawyers participate in volunteer attorney programs administered by
MMLA's and CMLS's local offices and the VLN program. CMLS also provides
financial support through subgrants to VLN and to the MSBA's volunteer
efforts. CMLS,
with McKnight Foundation funds, is engaged in pilot projects testing methods
of enhancing services to domestic abuse victims in very rural counties and
providing assisted pro se services in Hennepin County.
CMLS staff, who are among the most experienced family law practitioners
in the state, are responsible for the training materials and forms for the
family law folder of the www.probono.net/mn/civil
library. They are also developing
the tenants’ remedies forms and materials. Southern Minnesota
Regional Legal Services
(SMRLS), established in 1909 as the Legal Aid Bureau of Associated
Charities in St. Paul, employs 63 lawyers, 25 paralegals, and 38 support and
administrative staff. SMRLS
closed 10,105 cases in 2000. SMRLS
provides representation to low-income residents of 33 counties in southern
Minnesota and to migrant farm workers throughout Minnesota and North Dakota,
through offices in St. Paul, Mankato, Winona, Albert Lea, Worthington, Prior
Lake and Fargo N.D. An estimated
242,400 people are eligible for services.
Each
office has senior citizen and active volunteer attorney projects.
Outreach offices are located at the American Indian/East Side office
and the Cambodian Legal Services project. SMRLS
coordinates closely with the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (ILCM).
SMRLS recently opened an outreach office in Rochester to serve a
growing immigrant and refugee population in fair housing, welfare, and
immigration matters. SMRLS
continues to work closely with the Legal Assistance of Olmsted, Dakota and
Washington County programs on family law and domestic abuse issues.
SMRLS also uses several circuit-riding and “growing season” offices
throughout Minnesota. SMRLS
works collaboratively with other legal services providers on projects
including a Citizenship Project with the ILCM; the Minnesota Family Farm Law
Project; the United Cambodian Association; and Ain Dah Yung (to serve American
Indian juveniles). Since
1994, SMRLS’s Education Law Project has assisted children of color who are
having problems in school. In
1999, SMRLS established a pilot project with the Ramsey County Public Defender
to work collaboratively with juveniles who are experiencing truancy or
delinquency problems and who are in danger of leaving school. SMRLS
has a Homeless Outreach Prevention Education project and a project designed to
educate and encourage landlords to rent housing to low-income persons who have
less than perfect rental histories. Removing
legal obstacles and helping people make the transition from welfare to work
required by the new welfare reform laws continues to be a major program-wide
focus. With a HUD grant, SMRLS
implemented a fair housing program throughout its service area in 1999. With
the financial support of The McKnight Foundation and the Department of
Justice, SMRLS works in collaboration with Minnesota’s other Coalition
programs in preventing domestic violence and addressing systemic issues on a
statewide basis. The Minnesota
Legal Services Coalition State Support Center is part of SMRLS. Other
innovative SMRLS programs include the SMRLS/3M Corporate Pro Bono Program and
the SMRLS Futures Planning, Diversity and Priority Setting processes, all of
which have received national recognition.
In 1997, SMRLS became one of the first legal aid providers in the
country to adopt comprehensive written general practice standards and
substantive area legal work expectations to guide its case handlers in
carrying out SMRLS’s mission. SMRLS
and ILCM are the largest immigration law practitioners in the state. Because of LSC restrictions, five former SMRLS staff persons
joined the ILCM in 1996 to handle cases on which SMRLS could no longer assist.
Using IOLTA and foundation funding, SMRLS and ILCM help refugees become
citizens and take cases generated as a result of immigration and welfare
reform. SMRLS continues to handle
cases for immigrants who remain eligible under LSC restrictions.
ILCM handles restricted cases such as those involving asylum and
deportation matters. SMRLS
has strong working relationships with local bar associations, lawyers and
client groups. Nearly 300
volunteer attorneys donated case representation time in 2000 through SMRLS’s
volunteer attorney programs. SMRLS
receives about 22 percent of its financial support from the LSC. Coalition Program Cooperation with Other
Programs As
noted above, there are 21 other civil legal services programs that provide
legal assistance to low‑income persons in civil cases.
Most provide services in single counties or to special populations,
including immigrant and refugee communities and Indians. These programs help
to meet many critical legal needs, for example for immigrants. They also
leverage significant resources, including pro bono service, that would not be
available to Coalition programs. The
Coalition programs actively cooperate and collaborate with these organizations
and have worked to eliminate any duplication of services. These programs are described in Appendix A. In
2000, the collective budgets of these programs were approximately $4.35
million for civil legal services projects. The sources were approximately as
follows: State
Appropriation 22.58% LSC 0% Other
Federal 1.70% United
Way/Foundations 37.93% IOLTA 12.88% Local 5.57% Other 19.13% 3)
Is there any identifiable duplication in capacities or services in the
state? How many duplicative systems -- accounting systems, human resources
management systems, case management systems, etc. -- currently exist? Does the service delivery system now in use minimize or
eliminate duplications that existed prior to October 1, 1998? Minnesota’s
programs are always seeking ways to minimize duplication of effort. As part of
these efforts, the individual programs have evaluated their current staff
composition and other options to see if they best serve their client
population. For example, both
Anoka Judicare and Anishinabe explored contracting with a nearby larger
program for specific services such as accounting or case reporting and
determined that this would not result in cost savings to their programs.
Anoka has one position that combines the duties of preparing
statistical reports, Judicare bookkeeping and legal secretarial duties.
The cost of contracting for some of the duties would not eliminate a
position, as the program still needs a legal secretary available during all
office hours. Likewise, Anishinabe has one person who serves as financial
administrator, fills in as receptionist and is the program’s network
administrator and general computer guru. Several
years ago, LSNM and the two major independent volunteer attorney programs
coordinated their purchase of Kemp’s Caseworks (aided by the MSBA’s Access
to Justice Director and a grant from the State Bar Foundation).
They were able to get a reduced price for the package and to do
training together. LSNM’s
administrator has provided in-state backup for all three programs. More recently SMRLS also began using Kemp’s, aided by
LSNM’s experience. These
current practices, which work quite well, are likely to be improved if a
single legal work management system is adopted after the pilot project
currently underway. The
Coalition programs have had an inter-program referral policy for 20 years that
works smoothly. With email and/or
fax, information is transferred quickly so that clients do not have to repeat
intake. Anishinabe, when it
refers basic field matters to LSNM and LASNEM, makes sure that the client has
to go through only one intake. MMLA, CMLS and Volunteer Lawyers Network meet
regularly to ensure the smoothest possible intake process for clients in
Hennepin County (Minneapolis), and the Hennepin County Bar Association has a
standing legal services coordinating committee that deals with access to all
legal aid, volunteer attorney, and pro se initiatives.
Providers in the Twin Cities work closely with the three law school
clinical programs to do intake for cases handled by the clinics.
If a single legal work management system is implemented, data will be
transferred even more easily between Coalition programs.
Law students will be able to do phone intake from metro locations and
enter data directly into rural office systems. As
noted above, Coalition programs have begun conversations about moving toward a
single compensation package. The
programs have talked about collaborating on a job fair once a year when
several are filling positions at the same time.
This might be modeled on the successful MJF summer intern interview
process. A
very successful project has been using group purchasing for Westlaw.
The negotiated rates are available to all state-funded legal services
providers. This has been a great
boon not only to Coalition programs but also to several of the smaller
programs that could not afford paper libraries. SMRLS
continues to explore ways to better collaborate with the three small county
legal aid programs in Dakota, Olmsted and Washington Counties.
The directors of those programs participate in Coalition meetings.
SMRLS local office staffs communicate regularly with county program
staff and priorities are worked out clearly to avoid duplication.
Generally, county programs emphasize family law and some private
landlord-tenant. They also run
the volunteer attorney programs in their counties and receive local funding
that would not be available to SMRLS. 4)
Since October 1998, what innovative service delivery
systems/mechanisms/initiatives been adopted in the state? Have any been
explored and then rejected? Many
innovative service delivery mechanisms are being tested and adopted.
A few examples follow. CMLS
received funding in 2000 from The McKnight Foundation for a collaborative
pilot project with the Hennepin County District Court Self-Help Center,
Hennepin County Bar Association Attorney Referral Service and the Volunteer
Lawyers Network. CMLS staff provide coverage for weekly hours at the
Courthouse to give advice to pro se litigants.
For this project, income guidelines were set initially at 200% of the
poverty level. Virtually all
those requesting advice fall within those guidelines.
ARS and VLN lawyers provide coverage at other times but do not provide
any family law information. Family
law is the area of greatest demand. Initial
evaluations by court staff indicate greatest satisfaction with the CMLS model.
The MSBA’s Pro Se Implementation Committee is looking at how to
implement similar programs in other parts of the state. In
a SMRLS McKnight-funded rural pilot project, a senior staff attorney is
testing providing all legal services necessary to remove barriers for domestic
abuse victims trying to move from welfare to work and trying to leave abusive
relationships. The preliminary
results are very favorable. Of 18
clients helped by the staff attorney with a wide variety of legal matters
(supplemented by volunteer attorneys for legal matters outside legal aid’s
expertise), 16 were no longer in abusive relationships and were working
towards self-sufficiency. A
similar holistic project is underway in St. Paul.
This type of service is extremely intensive and expensive; it is,
however, what the clients need. The
programs will be exploring how to implement this kind of effort more widely. Several
programs have implemented education and youth law projects over the past few
years. Based in part on the
Washington State Team Child model, these projects involve collaboration with
public defenders, the public schools, community groups, and the MJF Street Law
Project. All aim to ensure
that children remain in school and that the children and their families
receive the affirmative assistance needed to succeed.
SMRLS recently added a social worker-educator to its project. A
LASNEM foundation-funded videoconferencing pilot project will provide service
in remote reservation towns utilizing staff and volunteer attorneys and MJF
students in the Twin Cities beginning in late summer of 2001. Programs will
follow this closely to see how to use this model in other places. Recently
managers of a LASNEM office in Pine City and an MMLA office in Cambridge that
serve adjacent counties have discussed shared staffing, handling of emergency
cases, referral of cases
when clients move into the other program's service area and filling in for
each other during staff absences. For
several years, Judicare of Anoka County and Legal Assistance of Washington
County have had similar arrangements, especially for conflict case coverage.
The ILCM has co-located staff in the Legal Services of NW Minnesota
Moorhead office and the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis Downtown office (part
of MMLA). Access to these
immigration resources has greatly enriched services both to ILCM’s
immigration clients and to the immigrant clients of LSNM and MMLA.
These are simply three recent examples of the collaborative ways in
which Minnesota is creating a seamless system for clients while preserving the
values of locally-based programs. Coalition
programs have evaluated several times, most recently in the past six months,
whether to establish a seniors hotline program.
The consensus was that this would duplicate the Senior
LinkAge Line®,
a free telephone information and assistance service operated by the Minnesota
Board on Aging. The Linkage Line
makes it easy for older adults and their families to find community services,
including legal services. With a single toll-free call, Information and
Assistance Specialists connect callers to local services and are available to
make sure that the services or resources actually meet the caller’s needs. The Coalition programs
and others serving immigrants and refugees are eagerly awaiting the outcome of
the ILCM needs assessment and evaluation of services for immigrants statewide. Once that study is complete, resources will be sought to
expand services in the most effective ways. The Coalition programs
are beginning discussions about how the Legal Services Advocacy Project, State
Support Center and Community Legal Education Project can work even more
closely together. As a first step
beyond existing collaboration and cooperation, the three groups plus the MSBA
have begun regular communication about the most efficient and effective ways
to build and maintain the new lawhelp/mn web portals. In February of 2000 the
Coalition programs released a video entitled Justice
for All. The programs all
contributed to making of the video with SMRLS taking the lead on staffing for
the project. Two versions were
produced. One is for fundraising
and the other for community outreach (including some judges who could not
participate in a fundraising effort). Senator
Paul Wellstone and Congressman Jim Ramstad were happy to participate along
with a number of former MSBA presidents.
The majority of the 11 minute tape focuses on clients who agreed to
have their stories told. LSC was
given a copy of this tape previously. A
major statewide initiative undertaken since 1998 is the Minnesota Legal Aid
Foundation Fund. Volunteers for
the SMRLS Campaign for Legal Aid began exploring cy pres and other windfall
possibilities with federal and state judges and litigators who handle major
cases. They also began to look into planned giving strategies.
Feedback from large firms and the bench clearly indicated a preference
for a statewide approach. So
Campaign members undertook the preliminary development with the Minnesota
Foundation and worked with all of the Coalition programs to establish the
statewide fund. The first major
gift ($250,000) came from the firm handling the tobacco settlement in
Minnesota. An anonymous gift of
$750,000 over three years resulted from another settlement.
Several smaller gifts have also been received. None would have been made to a single provider.
The revenue from this Fund will be available to the Coalition programs
as well as other civil legal services providers including volunteer attorney
programs. As discussed above, the
MSBA continues in 2001-02 to provide staff support and funds to hire a fund
development consultant to make plans for the next steps. Appendix A Catholic Charities Law Center, provides sliding fee and some free legal services,
primarily in family law cases, to clients in the metro area who are ineligible
for Legal Aid or where Legal Aid has insufficient resources.
Staff and a panel of volunteer lawyers handle cases. Centro Legal provides civil representation to the low-income Latino communities in
the Twin Cities metropolitan area, and occasionally outside the Twin Cities if
staff is available. As most
clients are mono-lingual in Spanish, all staff are bilingual in Spanish.
Principal areas of expertise include immigration, family law and the
intersection between the two. Services
are tailored to meet the legal needs of the working poor and are available
either free or at very low cost based on a sliding-fee schedule.
Centro’s Proyecto Ayuda serves victims of domestic abuse.
The Legal Protection for Children program provides free legal services
to abused or neglected Hispanic children.
Originally spun off by SMRLS in 1981, Centro coordinates with SMRLS,
MMLA, VLN, the Immigrant Law Center, and Minnesota Advocates for Human. SMRLS
in Ramsey County and the Legal Aid Society and CMLS in Minneapolis have the
primary responsibility to provide legal assistance in low‑income
critical need cases. Centro
supplements these services. Children’s Law Center advocates for the rights and interests of children
in the judicial, child welfare, health care and education systems.
CLC uses a multi-disciplinary approach.
Besides providing legal representation of children in defined projects,
largely with volunteer attorneys, CLC develops technical assistance and
training for child advocates and engages in public policy advocacy. Chrysalis Legal Assistance for Women provides information, advice and lawyer
referrals to women in the greater metropolitan area, primarily in family law.
Volunteer lawyers provide the information and advice.
The only full representation is through referrals to lawyers some of
whom may offer reduced fees. There
are no financial eligibility guidelines for clients, who are asked to make a
small contribution to the program. Citizenship and Immigration Services, housed at the United Cambodian Center in St.
Paul, provides civil legal services and community legal education for
non-Latino immigrant and refugee families.
SMRLS subcontracts with UCAM and several SMRLS attorneys and paralegals
and Immigrant Law Center staff have offices at the UCAM. The
Farmers’ Legal Action Group in St. Paul provides free legal
services statewide to financially distressed family farmers including staffing
a toll-free phone advice line, publishing a quarterly substantive newsletter,
and providing training and legal backup for legal aid staff, farm advocates,
and many lawyers who provide volunteer and reduced fee services to financially
distressed family farmers. FLAG
works closely with Minnesota Family Farm Law Project staff and
contract/judicare attorneys who provide services to clients through or in
conjunction with Coalition program offices, principally in Moorhead, St. Cloud
and Mankato. FLAG's publications
are critically important to legal aid staff and volunteer attorneys working
with clients on complex farm law issues. The Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota specializes in legal services for refugees
and immigrants previously provided by SMRLS but restricted under recent
federal legislation. ILCM staff
all have extensive experience in immigration and poverty law and are fully
bilingual in Spanish. ILCM
assists eligible clients who request assistance with citizenship, regardless
of nationality. This is done on
individually and through organized meetings and intakes conducted in the
community. Law student volunteers
assist clients to prepare the citizenship application.
ILCM works with other agencies such as the Wilder Foundation and
Neighborhood House to give presentations on the naturalization process to
community leaders and agency staffs. ILCM
works with the Coalition programs and others to ensure appropriate referrals
and in collaboration with Centro
Legal on all facets of immigration and naturalization.
ILCM and SMRLS conduct a joint citizenship project. The
Indian Child Welfare Law Center in Minneapolis, incorporated in
1993, focuses on preservation of Indian families by representing extended
family members in proceedings governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act,
Heritage Preservation Act and Indian Family Preservation Act.
Legal advocacy is coordinated with Indian family services.
The Center coordinates with public defender offices and other civil
legal services providers as appropriate. The
Indian Legal Assistance Program in Duluth primarily provides criminal and juvenile representation to Indians
residing in the Duluth area as well as on the Fond du Lac and Nett Lake
Reservations. The program also
offers very limited civil representation and coordinates with LASNEM's Duluth
office. Legal Assistance to Minnesota Prisoners
(LAMP) in
Minneapolis provides civil legal
services to inmates at Minnesota prisons.
Coalition programs generally do not provide legal assistance to persons
incarcerated in these institutions.
LAMP is run by the State Public Defender’s Office and involves law
students in a clinical program. Legal Rights Center, Inc. (LRC) in Minneapolis is an alternative criminal and
juvenile defense program serving Hennepin County. There is close cooperation between LRC and
CMLS and the Legal Aid Society of Minneapolis. MAO Senior Services provides free or sliding-fee legal services to persons over 55 years of
age primarily in Hennepin, Ramsey and Anoka Counties.
MAO handles cases generally not within Coalition program priorities
(like low-income estate planning). Staff participate in the Coalition’s
Statewide Seniors Task Force and coordinate with Coalition programs in the
metro area. Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights runs a statewide refugee and asylum project
using volunteer lawyers to assist indigent asylum seekers who have fled
persecution. The program
coordinates with other immigration law services providers.
With a small annual project budget, the Project provided more than
$1,880,000 worth of legal services to more than 900 Minnesota residents
through its panel of 350 trained volunteer lawyers. The
Minnesota AIDS Project Legal Program provides legal information,
advice and representation to persons with HIV-related legal issues by using
volunteer lawyers coordinated by a full-time lawyer. The program coordinates with programs throughout Minnesota.
A second lawyer through a two-year National Association of Public
Interest Law (NAPIL) fellowship staffs a Family Legacy project. The
Minnesota Justice Foundation coordinates pro bono services by students at all three Minnesota law schools.
MJF is described in the opening section of this report. Community
groups originally developed
Neighborhood Justice Center, Inc. (NJC) in St. Paul with the assistance of
SMRLS. NJC primarily provides
representation to indigent persons in criminal and juvenile matters in Ramsey
County. The
University of Minnesota Law School, William Mitchell College
of Law and Hamline University Law School conduct clinical law programs that
result in some services to low‑income persons in civil matters. Intake
for the clinics is done through metro Coalition programs.
While there are full time faculty clinicians, several senior legal aid
staff also teach in the clinics. Volunteer Attorney Program and Northland
Mediation Service (VAP-Duluth) provides
civil legal services to residents of St. Louis, Cook, Lake, Itasca and
Carleton Counties. Created by
LASNEM in cooperation with the Eleventh District Bar Association, the program
is now separately incorporated. LASNEM
provided $22,500 to VAP-Duluth in 2000. A
referral system exists between the two programs. There are three non-lawyer
staff people. The goal of the
program is to provide legal services to those people who cannot be represented
by staff in LASNEM offices in Duluth, Virginia and Grand Rapids.
VAP clients are either those with whom LASNEM has direct conflicts or
clients LASNEM cannot serve. Representation includes advice, brief service,
representation before a court or administrative body, preparation of legal
documents, and negotiation of settlements.
VAP-Duluth also runs Northland Mediation Service, KIDS First, and a pro
se divorce program in the Duluth area. VAP-Duluth
and LASNEM have developed partnerships through the Violence Against Women Act
Project, the McKnight funded video-conferencing initiative which will use
VAP-Duluth attorneys to provide services to rural and reservation communities,
and the joint development of an assisted pro
se dissolution of marriage clinic. Volunteer
Lawyers Network (VLN)
administers a volunteer program in Hennepin County. While VLN primarily serves Hennepin County clients, they also
facilitate Hennepin County lawyers (half of the lawyers in the state) serving
client needs statewide. VLN
received a $15,400 LSC subgrant in 2000 from CMLS.
MMLA, CMLS and VLN have a long-standing history of coordination and
referrals. MMLA and CMLS staff
provide substantive law training to VLN volunteers.
VLN volunteers use MMLA and CMLS materials and manuals.
The MMLA Executive Director and an MMLA staff attorney sit on the VLN
Board to enhance communication and cooperation.
Regular meetings between MMLA and CMLS managers and VLN staff resolve
any questions regarding priorities and referrals.
MMLA office space is used as a VLN clinic location.
MMLA and CMLS staff consult with VLN volunteers on cases. A CMLS staff attorney is on VLN's Family Law Committee.
MMLA, CMLS and VLN have developed a coordinated intake system to handle
private landlord-tenant cases more efficiently and with less danger of clients
being lost in the process of referral between agencies.
MMLA, VLN and CMLS conduct coordinated priority-setting processes to
assure maximum efficiency in service delivery.
APPENDIX B APPENDIX C |