ONTARIO_LEGAL_AID_SERIES.txt

PRESENTATION OF RANDI YOUELLS, LSC VICE PRESIDENT FOR PROGRAMS
FOR THE ONTARIO LEGAL AID SPEAKER SERIES
Thank you for inviting me to your wonderful Country and the
beautiful city of Toronto to talk with you about the subject that
has been the primary focus of my professional life over the last
twenty-seven years-the provision of high quality legal services to
people who could not otherwise afford legal aid. As did many of you
in this room, I started my legal aid journey fresh out of law
school in 1975. As I was sworn in as a licensed attorney in the
state of Iowa-which is a small rural farming state located in the
midwestern part of our country-I optimistically and mistakenly
believed that my "life in legal services" would be a short one. I
truly believed that in my lifetime I would witness the eradication
of poverty and injustice. I believed that I would see the day when
no person-be they American or Canadian-would go hungry at night. I
believed to the very core of my soul that the human race was on the
brink of a new era in which intolerance and bigotry and prejudice
would no longer exist. But as we all know today that young women
who started her life in legal services in 1975 full of hope and
promise-and just a wee bit naïve-was not correct about what the
future would hold.
Today, in the offices of the Legal Services Corporation of Iowa
young attorneys are providing legal assistance to the children and
the grandchildren of the clients I tried to help 27 years ago.
Today, in our country, hundreds of thousands of people live in our
streets. Today, millions of children go to bed hungry at night.
Today, just like 27 years ago, racial and ethnic bigotry remains
the central reality of most of our clients' lives. Today-just like
yesterday-thousands of people daily knock on the door of legal
services and they are told, "no one is home. And that is the
reality that brings us here on this beautiful September day.
Because we are older and wiser-and perhaps more damaged and more
battle-scarred-we know that the promise of legal services has not
been fulfilled. But perhaps because within all of us there
continues to live younger more idealistic lawyers-a whisper of the
lawyers we were at the beginning of our professional lives-we are
here today because we are not ready to let go of the "promise" of
legal services. We are not ready to call it quits. We are not ready
to stop believing that we can build a world-class legal services
delivery system in both of our countries.
That's what I will speak to you about today. Although most of my
remarks will be devoted to the steps we have undertook within my
country to revitalize a struggling legal services delivery
system-steps that we often colloquially refer to as state
planning-state planning has always been for me but a tool. The
overarching goal has always been-and will always be-the creation of
world class legal services delivery systems in which no client or
potential client is turned away. After all, in a democracy, the
halls of justice must always stand wide open and everyone must be
welcome to walk through them unimpeded and unchallenged.
Let's start with a history lesson. Legal services programs in
the United States began in the 1960's as special model projects
initiated by the federal government's Office of Economic
Opportunity. They were infused with the idealism and spirit of the
Kennedy years and strengthened by President Johnson's vision of a
Great Society. Under President Nixon, who signed the Legal Services
Act of 1974, they became an institution and, over time, a familiar
part of the legal landscape in every U.S. state and territory.
Until very, very recently, LSC programs were organized and
operated pretty much as they had a quarter of a century ago. They
were locally focused and passionately promoted "local control."
Many of the staff made legal services their careers. Some of the
programs' managers stayed with one program for their entire
professional lifetimes. In some programs, board membership
terminated only with the member's death. The kinds of cases
handled, the strategies for addressing the legal needs of service
area residents, and the client community itself remained pretty
much the same in most LSC programs until the 1990's. And, while the
idealism and vision of a new world remained part of our mantra, its
place of honor receded, as legal services became business as usual
for many grantees.
Several events in the mid-1990's brought an end to this way of
life for the legal services community in my country. The Congress,
which controls our funding levels, began to include many members
who did not support the purpose and goals of a federal civil legal
services program. Consequently, funding appropriations diminished
or failed to keep up with the cost of living. Then, in the middle
of the decade, a vigorous effort to do away with legal services
resulted in a funding bill that carried significant restrictions,
including one that prohibited programs from seeking attorney's
fees. Additional restrictions prevented our grantees from doing
much of the work they had previously handled-representing prisoners
in civil litigation, representing certain groups of immigrants,
representing clients in class action lawsuits. The Congress also
told LSC that it could not continue to fund its grantees
"presumptively" and that it must begin to distribute its funds on a
competitive basis. This union of significant funding declines,
restrictions and competition began to inexorably change the way
that legal services in the United States operate.
As a funder and as an organization concerned with seeing that
low-income people who struggle with critical civil legal
emergencies such as evictions and domestic violence, have access to
the justice system, LSC was not willing to accept the "guide path
to oblivion" that some had designed for our future. In 1997, LSC
began to initiate a series of efforts that we believed would ensure
that services to clients did not falter in a time of decreasing
resources and limited opportunities. Needless to say, most of 'the
field,' as we refer to the collective entity that constitutes our
grantee programs, was already frightened and concerned because of
the funding drops, new restrictions and competition fears. When, in
1998, LSC announced its intent to launch an initiative that would
require massive restructuring of the national legal services
delivery system, the announcement was also quite frightening and
was not greeted, in many quarters, with open arms.
So, what has LSC done to restructure the American legal services
delivery system since 1998? The most innovative and certainly the
most difficult part of our strategy to move our grantees into new
approaches to serving clients-and the one that has received the
most attention (both good and bad)-is the State Planning strategy
that we launched in 1998. As it was conceived and as it has played
out, LSC's State Planning Initiative is a
new visioni for legal services in which eligible clients in
every state are afforded an equal opportunity to avail themselves
and ultimately to attain high-quality civil legal assistance. In an
effort to foster more consistent levels of statewide service and to
eliminate "service gaps" that leave clients in geographically
remote areas underrepresented compared to their urban counterparts,
LSC has asked each of its grantees to undergo a fundamental
paradigm shift in their program vision. Program leaders have been
instructed to abandon the parochial thinking of "What's best for
clients in my service area?" and asked instead to consider "What's
best for clients throughout my state?" and ultimately, "What's best
for clients throughout the United States".
I think that it is important for you to know that LSC initially
stressed the importance of state planning in 1995 when it asked its
recipients in each state to participate in the development of a
plan for the design, configuration, and operation of LSC-funded
programs in their states. The 1995 Program Lettersii were primarily
developed it response to funding cuts and restrictions that had
crippled legal services in our country. These early planning
documents laid the foundation for what was to come in 1998 in that
they began to set forth a vision for legal services delivery and
enumerated the issues and criteria that state planning should
address. However, except for a handful of states, the 1995 calls
for state planning were largely ignored and to be honest LSC did
little during this time period to promote nationwide strategic
planning.
In 1998, the State Planning Initiative was re-initiated. LSC
Program Letters 1998-1iii and 1998-6iv directed programs to plan
for the creation of comprehensive, integrated, coordinated legal
services systems and defined the terms of such systems. Grantees
were required to submit a report outlining their state plans by
October 1, 1998. Their plans were to include responses to the seven
initial central tenets of State Planning:
(1) development of intake, advice, and referral services; (2)
effective usage of technology; (3) increased access to legal
self-help and prevention information; (4) coordination of legal
work, training, information, and expert assistance; (5) engagement
of pro bono attorneys; (6) development of additional state, local,
and private resources; and (7) optimal configuration of service
areas.
LSC did not confine its "directives" to what a plan should
include. It also laid out the parameters of the planning process
itself. LSC instructed its grantee programs to collaborate with a
range of local, state, and national stakeholders, including state
and local bar associations, Interest On Lawyers Trust Account
(IOLTA) administrators, state judiciaries, client groups, pro bono
commissions, state legislatures, non-LSC-funded legal services
programs, and a host of others. LSC required its grantees in each
state to work with each other and with other equal justice
stakeholders to develop justice communities that best respond to
clients' most compelling needs, ensure the most strategic and
cost-effective use of all available resources, and maximize the
opportunity for clients statewide to receive timely, effective, and
appropriate legal services.
In 1999, guided by the belief that access to quality legal
services is critical to a fair adversarial justice system and
committed to making significant improvements in the delivery system
the LSC Board of Directorsv approved and enacted its own strategic
plan-Strategic Directions 2000-2005-which was adopted in January
2000. The twin objectives of Strategic Directions 2000-2005 were to
dramatically increase the number of low-income Americans who can
access the civil justice system and to ensure that all clients
receive quality legal services. Strategic Directions 2000-2005 was
developed as a forward-looking document. It reinforced the State
Planning Initiative already in place by calling state planning its
"most important strategy".
In 1998, LSC's goal-a goal shared by many of our partners in the
American equal justice movement like the American Bar Association
and the National Legal Aid and Defender Association-was to obtain a
critical mass of new ideas, funds and partners into the national
legal services community, and to assist thousands of clients who
were being denied access to civil justice because funding was
diminished, because programs were failing to keep up with
technological and other innovations, and because many of our
grantees worked in isolation within states and across state lines.
This was a tremendous change for our grantees and for the delivery
system that we funded. However, the state planning initiative was
also a big change (as some would say, a huge paradigm shift) for
LSC as an organization. For years LSC had defined itself by the
very traditional roles of funder and regulatory agency. The state
planning initiative required LSC to become something different,
transforming itself into an agent of change and an equity partner
capable of effecting large-scale reformation in a moribund delivery
system. And, as any one versed in organizational psychology or even
experienced in managing a large organization knows, such
transformations do not come easy, they are seldom painless, and
they require the staff of the organization leading such a
transformation to put themselves on the line in ways that often are
unfamiliar and unpleasant. LSC was no exception and, today, within
the walls of LSC you will find employees who still do not
understand or support the state planning initiative. Indeed, in
recent internal budget battles within LSC, projects essential to
the creation of world class delivery systems- such as the
development of a new measurement system to measure our work and the
work of our grantees in terms of outcomes for clients and projects
to ensure that the delivery system is inclusive and
multi-culturally competent-were summarily removed from the first
drafts of the budget by the staff who prepare the budget. Funding
for these projects was ultimately restored, but not without the
intervention of the LSC President and the Board of Directors. And
even today, some staff-including staff that work for me-at times
mention that they do not support LSC's state planning initiative
and believe that our state planning work is beyond our central
mission. Fortunately, many other staff do not see it in the same
way.
The creation of a world-class delivery system involved more than
"state planning", per se. LSC also launched companion
initiatives-the quality initiative, the diversity initiative,
technology initiative grants, to name just a few -that worked
hand-in-glove with state planning to promote the development of
high-quality delivery systems. One of the most important companion
projects was and continues to be competition. At the same time that
LSC was launching its state planning initiative, Congress required
LSC to cease funding its grantees "presumptively" and to begin to
fund programs on a competitive basis. Today, LSC has been providing
funding on a competitive basis for seven years. In reality, there
has been very little actual "competition" for our federal funds.
There are many reasons for this lack of "real competition." First
and probably foremost, as we all know, providing high-quality legal
services to low-income persons is not as easy as it looks. It
requires systems and practices and mindsets and commitments that
may be foreign to many other non-profit providers of human
services. Moreover, the fact that Congress has placed numerous
restrictions on legal services funding in the United
States-restrictions that then attach to non-LSC funds-causes many
organizations that might otherwise seriously consider applying for
LSC funds to choose not to do so. However, the fact that the
competition process has not resulted in widespread "competition"
for funding does not mean that it has not been successful. Indeed,
I feel that the competition process has been successful in ways
that I would not have ever envisioned when I was hanging out in
legal services programs in Iowa and New Jersey in the seventies,
eighties and nineties. Why? Because the first step in setting up a
system of competition was to develop standards and benchmarks that
we would use to evaluate programs and assess applicants'
eligibility. And this was an important-and perhaps in American
legal services-quite revolutionary development. The fact that
benchmarks exist means that there is a standard that all grantees
must meet before they are funded by LSC. It means that LSC has a
regular means of gathering important qualitative and quantitative
information on all our grantees against which we can evaluate their
services and their improvement. But it also means that there are
aspirational goals for "perfection" that define a high-quality
legal services program. We have found that many of our grantees
work hard to attain those aspirational goals. Competition was
designed to improve quality. And I think that will be its lasting
legacy; the fact that is has improved quality over the last seven
years and it will continue to do so. Each year the legal services
delivery system in the United States gets better at the business of
competition as LSC refines and improves the process and as our
grantees, individually and collectively, become the kinds of
high-quality legal services programs of which we can all be
proud.
Competition, in and of itself, is now a major tool used by LSC
to develop a worldclass delivery system. We use it to push our
grantees toward stronger and more aggressive delivery of services
to clients. It allows us to create more forceful means of
conditioning our grants. It allows us to measure program
performance in more sophisticated ways. But linking competition to
state planning has expanded the impact of both of these initiatives
in powerful ways that we were not able to envision in 1998. Let me
explain.
When an applicant seeks federal funding from LSC and as they
become grantees, they are required, as a condition of continued
federal funding, to pursue state planning with all other LSC-funded
grantees, The penultimate goals is the establishment of
"communities of justice" in every state. The core elements of the
planning/competition link are as follows:


•
Grantees must commit to not only providing quality legal
services within their service area but also to working with other
legal services providers to develop a comprehensive, coordinated,
integrated delivery system;


•
Grantees must commit to join with other equal justice
stakeholders to establish statewide delivery systems
capable-aspirationally-of serving every eligible client in a state,
despite geographic, cultural and physical barriers that
exist;


•
Grantees must commit to utilizing new technologies,
self-help materials, new intake systems and multi-cultural staff to
reach underserved clients;


•
Grantees must prove to LSC that their service area
boundaries are as relevant to clients and their communities as when
they were first "drawn" or they must work together and with us to
redraw them;


•
Grantees must work collaboratively with groups and
organizations they may have historically considered to be
competitors for scarce funds (such as other nonprofit human and
social services agencies and non-LSC funded legal services
programs) or unlikely partners (judges, legislators, bar
leaders);


•
Grantees must leverage additional resources to expand
services to lowincome person; and


•
Here's the kicker-grantees must do all of this or risk
the loss of their federal funding.


As I noted earlier, the state planning initiative was a huge
shift in thinking for the legal services community. But initially,
most grantees thought that like many other projects begun by LSC,
they only had to wait it out and it too would disappear into the
ozone or Ethernet or wherever legal services ideas go to find their
eternal rest. But LSC quickly began to prove we were serious about
planning. We highlighted model systems in our literature and
program visits. At LSC Board meetings, local events and national
conferences, we showcased exemplary planning and implementation. We
developed technical assistance funds for creative planning projects
and obtained a $15.6 million commitment from Congress to underwrite
sophisticated hardware, Web-based and telephonic systems to expand
services for clients. Internally, LSC staff worked aggressively to
calibrate units within the Programs Division so that every
programmatic effort advanced the creation of high-quality delivery
systems. For example, grant-award decisions and visits to assess
program quality also focused on the efficacy of statewide systems
and collaborative efforts with other agencies serving the client
community. As a result, over time, and with much gnashing of teeth
the "elephant did begin to dance" and LSC, its grantees and the
federally-funded legal services delivery system began to evolve
from a piecemeal, Great Society experiment to carefully chosen
nonprofit corporations working together to serve poor clients in
every jurisdiction.
The most enduring legacy of the state planning initiative-at
least in terms of its first four years-has probably has been its
success in fostering cooperation among stakeholders. In 1998, 10
states had designated state planning bodies dedicated to
strengthening legal services. Today, 36 states have such bodies;
most others are in the midst of creating one. An essential function
of these bodies is establishing public-private coalitions to
maximize grantees' ability to leverage their federal investment.
For example, last year in 2001, the engagement of judges,
legislators and private bar members helped spawn appropriations for
legal services in 25 states totaling $68.5 million - almost three
times more than states appropriated in 1997. Meanwhile, private bar
campaigns quadrupled their fundraising from $5.3 million in 1997 to
$23.6 million in 2001. Ten years ago when I was a legal services
program director in Iowa, the private bar was either our adversary
or a somewhat disfavored cousin in the family of legal services.
Just like families with unsavory family members, legal services
programs tolerated the presence of private lawyers in our pro bono
models of delivery because we had to-not because we thought they
were doing anything useful. Today, in most parts of our country,
the partnerships between legal services programs and the private
bar are deep and true. Private lawyers have an enhanced
understanding of the importance of our work. We, in turn,
understand the vital role they play in helping to assure that no
client goes unserved. Ten years ago, a judge was someone you saw
behind the bench when you went to court. Today, judges from all
levels, including Chief Justices of state Supreme Courts, speak out
about the need for quality legal services for poor Americans and
work with us to try to respond to the problems that are being
presented to the United States justice system as a whole as the
number of self-represented litigants grows exponentially.
State Planning also has improved access for the fastest-growing
client subgroup: non-English speakers. Over the last several years
LSC has partnered with other associations like the African-American
Project Directors Association to promote inclusion and
multi-cultural competency. Today, legal services advocates are
increasingly bilingual; 22 percent of employees at LSC-funded
programs in my country speak more than one language. In addition,
self-help, multilingual computer kiosks have overcome language
barriers to help Native Americans living on reservations - and
Vietnamese and Spanish immigrants in California - enforce their
legal rights without knowing a word of English.
And I personally believe that the quality and effectiveness of
advocacy also has improved over the last four years. The "prime
directives" of state planning emphasize quality, training, holistic
legal services and cross-program advocacy, and LSC and its grantees
have paid increasing attention to the quality of the services we
provide to our clients.
How does this relate to Canada and, specifically, the initiative
you propose to launch to address issues that trouble your legal
services system? Legal services programs in Canada are about the
same age as ours, and serve a similar client community. You face,
just like us, certain problems:


•
Insufficient funding;


•
Outmoded delivery system;


•
Changes in client community;


•
Changes in the law;


•
Technological changes; and


•
The need to prepare for the future.


These are pretty serious problems. At times, they even appear
insurmountable. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to
address them in a proactive and "straight-on" manner. So I am going
to conclude my remarks today by offering you some guidance as you
give thought to launching your own planning initiative. Consider
them my personal lessons from six years in the planning
trenches:
First, although our state planning initiative is highly
replicable for any organization trying to effect rapid change
across a large and entrenched culture of individual programs or
offices, such change is only possible if you are willing to be
inclusive and collaborative in setting goals and processes, yet
firm and resolute in their ultimate enforcement.
Second, it is going to require massive change not only among
your providers in the field but within your own organization(s).
Historically, LSC directives were seen by grantees as antithetical
to their mission, so they resisted change while nonetheless
remaining largely dependent on the waning federal investment. In
order to overcome this obstacle we had to change the way we did
business. We ramped up LSC's profile by visiting programs and
participating in local meetings and national conferences to relay
our message, hear reactions and improve relationships. And this
same consistent message was repeated over and over again by key LSC
staff wherever they traveled-including the President, the other
Vice-Presidents, and the staff on the ground who were guiding
states through the planning process. You will have to be willing to
do the same. You will need-all of you will need-to be highly
visible personally and professionally. And you must recognize and
accept that doing so will take inordinate amounts of your time and
your energy.
Third, you will-let me repeat that loudly and firmly-you WILL
face resistance. Any effort to change a long-established system
will meet resistance. That is inevitable.
However, the good news is that you can slowly overcome this
resistance over time. But time-and timing-will be crucial. It won't
happen overnight and it won't happen without some setbacks. We
failed when we pushed willing, but unprepared grantees to
opportunities they were not ready to exploit. We also suffered more
than was necessary by not including willing grantees and other
equal justice stakeholders early on as our partners in the process
of effectuating change. We didn't realize how long it was going to
take before we would begin to see some successes. And then we
failed to celebrate those successes as important milestones and
victories. So, expect resistance. Commit to the long haul. And
celebrate your intermediary successes along the journey.
Fourth, tie planning to quality early on and stick with it.
Planning is not an end. It is a means to an end and you must
clearly and consistently articulate the "end" that you envision.
Talk quality all of the time. Vigorously promote those legal
services programs that provide high-quality legal assistance
holding them out as programs others should emulate. Establish and
share "best practices." Be willing to stick your neck out and hold
conferences and meetings on quality issues of interest to the legal
services communities. In the last several years, LSC has hosted
numerous conferences where advocates can share ideas, such as
Diversity in the Legal Services Community, Making Mergers Work, and
Creating Client-Centered Communities of Justice. Had we had more
money we would have facilitated more conferences. They are an
important mechanism to bring people together to find-and
define-common ground
Fifth, put your money where your mouth is. Set aside money
specifically for planning. Since 1999, LSC has awarded more than
$800,000 in technical assistance funds for State Planning projects.
And although we could have used lots more, this small sum did allow
us to publicly recognize high-performers and promote planning
models for others to emulate. But money is important for another
reason. Planning has "costs" and you need to be seen as an
organization that understands those costs and is willing to help
grantees and other stakeholders with some of the planning
costs.
Sixth-Familiarize yourself with Sol Alinksy's Rules for
Radicals. Not because you are going to use it. But because Mr.
Alinksy lays out what you can personally expect to happen to you if
you are in the forefront of this initiative. Mr. Alinksy instructs
his readers to pick an issue, find an adversary and make it
personal. And that may be you- at the wrong end of the personal
attacks. So get psychologically prepared and don't be blind-sided
by the venom. Although your journey is going to be difficult and at
times you will doubt yourselves, the benefits to clients are well
worth it and the satisfaction of hearing even the most recalcitrant
of adversaries say that the new system is better than the one that
went before is deeply rewarding. And remember what your Grandmother
probably said to you a long time ago-what doesn't kill you probably
makes you stronger.
Seventh-Don't ignore the need to promote the value of planning
internally among all of your staff. One of the most stupid errors
that LSC made as we kicked off an era of planning was not to take
the time-and expend the energy-to make other offices and units
within our own organization understand the importance of what we
were doing and their vital role in helping promote and develop
world-class delivery systems. This set up needless competition for
scarce resources and created hurt feelings among some staff.
And, finally-keep your eye on the prize. Remember the person who
first decided to go to law school, think about that young excited
lawyer starting his/her first job, remember the neophyte attorney
newly admitted to the practice of law who was excited, scared and
enthralled about the future. We all cared deeply about justice when
we started this journey. And we care deeply about it today or we
wouldn't be here together in this room. We will settle for nothing
less than a world-class delivery system. And although we are a
little older and slightly grayer and certainly more jaded, and we
know now that we won't see it happen in our lifetimes, we still
believe-I still believe-that our collective dream of a justice
system that lets client walk through the doors of justice unimpeded
and unshackled, is a dream that we will achieve. One day. Together.
Here in Canada. And in the United States.
Thank you again for allowing me to be with you today.
i Twenty-five years ago, our government made a pledge to help
ensure that all persons have access to America's civil justice
system by enacting legislation that created Legal Services
Corporation. Over the past 27 years, LSC has helped millions of
low-income citizens solve important, sometimes life-threatening,
civil legal problems. Despite the success of LSC and its many
contributions to access to justice for lowincome Americans, its
achievements are overshadowed by the fact that so many in our
society continue to suffer injustice and are unable to gain access
to a lawyer for critical legal assistance. Until all members of our
society are afforded that access, this promise of our government
will continue to be unfulfilled. LSC is committed to promoting a
new vision of legal services that will achieve the goal of bringing
legal services to those currently denied access to the justice
system.
ii Program Letter 1995-1 directed LSC recipients to develop
plans to stretch scarce federal dollars in the most effective,
efficient ways possible. The letter also anticipated the passage of
congressional restrictions on the activities of LSC programs,
prompting LSC to instruct its programs to forge deeper bonds with
other stakeholders, including non-LSC funded programs, state and
local bar associations, IOLTA administrators, the judiciary, and
client groups. Program Letter 1995-4 provided a general outline as
to the issues and criteria that the state planning process should
address. Significant emphasis was placed on the integration of
LSC-funded programs into statewide legal services delivery systems
and the seven central tenets of state planning were identified.
iii Program Letter 1998-1, published on February 12, 1998,
called upon all LSC recipients to analyze any progress made toward
the development of the legal services model envisioned by state
planners. Programs were to evaluate whether all programs were
working cohesively to assure that urgent clients needs were being
addressed; whether sufficient capacities for training and
information-sharing existed; whether programs were moving forward
on technology; and whether they were collaborating to increase
resources and develop new initiatives to expand the scope of their
services. Grantees were also asked to examine whether the existing
program configuration was conducive to the most effective state
delivery system. Grantees were asked to examine their progress in
each of the seven principal areas of State Planning in a manner
that included assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the current
approach, establishing goals to strengthen and expand services to
eligible clients, and determining the major steps yet to be taken
and a timetable necessary to achieve those goals. LSC set a
deadline of October 1, 1998, for submission of state planning
reports.
iv Program Letter 1998-6, published on July 6, 1998, responded
to recipient requests for guidance and additional information on
what was expected in their state planning reports. It included
"State Planning Considerations" designed to address requests for
additional information regarding statewide goals, capacities, and
approaches recipients should consider in their state planning
processes. Program Letter 1998-6 stated that the State Planning
Initiative will provide information to aid LSC in exercising its
statutory responsibility to "insure that grants and contracts are
made so as to provide the most economical and effective delivery of
legal assistance to persons in both urban and rural areas."
v LSC is headed by an 11-member board of directors, appointed by
the President, and confirmed by the Senate. By law, the board is
bipartisan and no more than six members may be of the same
political party.