Special_report_to_congress.txt

LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION

SERVING THE CIVIL LEGAL NEEDS OF LOW-INCOME AMERICANS
A SPECIAL REPORT to CONGRESS�APRIL 30, 2000

I. Summary
Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is a private, non-membership,
nonprofit corporation in the District of Columbia. The Board of
Directors of LSC is composed of eleven voting members who are
appointed by the President of the United States with the advice and
consent of the Senate. By law, the Board is bipartisan: no more
than six members can be of the same political party.
LSC plays a central role in providing low-income Americans with
access to legal assistance and information concerning critical
civil legal problems. Created in 1974, LSC is charged by Congress
"to provide equal access to the system of justice in our Nation for
individuals who seek redress of grievances" and "to provide high
quality legal assistance to those who would otherwise be unable to
afford adequate legal counsel."
For 1999, LSC grantees reported closing 1,038,662 million1 civil
legal cases relating to issues such as domestic violence, child
custody and visitation rights, evictions, access to health care,
bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims, and many other
issues that millions of low-income Americans face throughout their
lives. Without the funding provided by LSC, many of these
individuals would have no other source of legal assistance for
these problems.


II. The National Legal Services Program
Legal Services Corporation funds local legal services programs
to serve clients in every state, county, and congressional district
in the United States as well as in Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands,
Guam and Micronesia. In addition, special service areas are funded
for two populations with special needs - Native Americans and
migrant workers. Eligibility for services is determined on a
case-by-case basis pursuant to grantee eligibility criteria
established under parameters set forth in LSC regulations. Each
grantee establishes a maximum income eligibility level, not to
exceed 125 percent of the current official Federal Poverty Income
Guidelines.
In 1996, Congress implemented a number of new accountability
requirements including competitive bidding for Legal Services
Corporation grants. This system of competitive bidding eliminated
the right of grantees to a hearing to contest a funding decision
awarding a grant to a competitor, ensuring LSC can award grants to
the best applicants without unnecessary administrative barriers.
Additionally, new compliance monitoring procedures, which use
outside auditors to monitor grantee compliance with regulations and
to perform comprehensive yearly oversight of grantee activities,
were formulated. Another new provision adopted in 1997 prohibits
any local program that has been found to engage in a substantial
violation of the law or its grant conditions from being considered
for an LSC grant in future competitions.
Also in 1996, other new requirements were adopted governing what
legal services programs can do and whom they can represent. These
new guidelines have refocused the LSC delivery system on serving
individual clients with particular legal needs. With the
1 For a complete explanation of the number of cases closed for
1999, see Section V, 1999 Case Statistics.
implementation of these restrictions, legal services attorneys
are not permitted to initiate or participate in class action
lawsuits. They may not challenge or engage in any activity to
influence welfare reform. They may not collect court-awarded
attorneys' fees. Litigation on behalf of prisoners and
representation of undocumented and other categories of aliens is
also prohibited. Other new requirements address redistricting,
cases involving eviction from public housing of individuals charged
with or convicted of drug violations and participation in
government rulemaking and solicitation. Unlike past laws
restricting the work of legal services, these provisions apply to
all the funds of a recipient, with very few specified
exceptions.
All local LSC-funded programs are administered by local boards
of directors (or other governing bodies, in certain instances), a
majority of whose members are appointed by local bar associations,
and provide legal assistance to individuals pursuant to locally
determined priorities that respond to community conditions and
needs. Based on these priorities, local programs hire staff,
contact local attorneys, and develop pro bono programs for the
direct delivery of legal assistance to eligible clients. LSC
requires each legal services program to spend an amount equal to at
least 12.5 percent of its annualized grant to encourage
participation by private attorneys in the provision of legal
assistance to poor individuals.
The legal services delivery system offers a model of efficient
resolution of disputes and avoidance of unnecessary litigation.
Only a very small percentage (9% in 1999) of LSC-funded cases are
resolved by the decision of a court, and the majority of these are
family law cases that require a court determination.
Rather than litigating cases, legal services lawyers
consistently find other, more efficient ways to solve problems for
their clients. Under tremendous pressure from the demand for their
services, they know they must use their limited resources wisely.
As in past years, nearly threefourths of cases in 1999 were
resolved through advice, referral, or brief services.

2% 20%


III. The Case Statistics Issue
LSC acknowledges that serious questions have been raised
concerning the accuracy and validity of the Case Service Report
(CSR) data submitted annually by our grantees.2 LSC is aware that
problems exist in the statistical reports received and is taking
steps to identify and correct those problems. The problems
identified stem, in part, from a lack of clarity in some of LSC's
past case reporting guidelines and, more generally, from
insufficient attention by grantees to the existing reporting and
documentation requirements.
It should be kept in mind that the issue is largely one of
grantee compliance with technical and administrative guidance on
how and when to report certain activities. In no instance has LSC,
its Inspector General, or the General Accounting Office identified
any fraud or intentional misrepresentation by any of the grantees
in their compilation and reporting of this data. LSC will
aggressively take steps to correct problems associated with the CSR
system, and will continue to make full and timely reports to the
U.S. Congress and the public. LSC views the issues concerning the
CSR data to be akin to those encountered by many government
entities as they attempt to meet the goals envisioned by the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).

Self-initiated Review of CSR Data
LSC's review of its CSR data was an outgrowth of its ongoing
oversight responsibilities and it has become integral to its
voluntary strategic planning process. Although not subject to the
Government Performance and Results Act, LSC shares the aspirations
of that law to rationalize the budget and appropriations processes
by tying funding into objective measures of the agency's
performance.
In November 1997, the LSC Board adopted its first Strategic Plan
for FY 1998-2003. The strategic directions adopted by the Board
will achieve LSC's vision3 by accomplishing two major strategic
goals: (1) By 2004, LSC will dramatically increase the provision of
legal services to eligible persons; (2) By 2004, LSC will ensure
that eligible clients are receiving appropriate and high quality
legal assistance. That plan is currently being revised - as are
the
2 "The conferees have concerns about the case service reporting
and associated data reports submitted annually by the Corporation's
grantees and the case statistical reports submitted by the
Corporation to the Congress, and the conferees direct the
Corporation to make improvement of the accuracy of these
submissions a top priority, per directions in the House report. The
conferees also direct the Corporation to submit its 1999 annual
case service reports and associated data reports to Congress no
later than April 30, 2000." Departments of Commerce, Justice, and
State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of
2000, Pub. L. No. 106-113, 112 Stat. 1501.
3 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 quarter century, LSC has helped millions
of low-income citizens solve important, sometimes life-threatening,
legal problems. Despite the success of LSC and its many
contributions to access to justice for low-income 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.
initial plans submitted by many governmental entities. As
recently reported by GAO, most federal agencies are far from
meeting the goals set by GPRA for performance data on which the
Administration and Congress can rely on in setting budget amounts
and appropriations levels.
Nonetheless, LSC, having embarked on the path laid out by GPRA,
recognizes the need to assess the data currently available on
grantee activity for its accuracy and adequacy as a measure of
LSC's performance. When the first Strategic Plan was published, and
adopted clients served as a performance measure, the LSC Inspector
General decided there was a need to determine the accuracy of the
grantees' reports on which the measure was based. A series of
audits of 1997 data was conducted in 1998 in anticipation of the
first performance report due in 2000. These audits examined the
accuracy of case statistical reports submitted by six grantees, and
the causes of identified deficiencies, rather than validating or
testing the accuracy of national or system-wide data.


Initial Findings
What LSC found when it began the assessment of the CSR system
was a 20-year-old reporting structure, the guidance for which had
not been updated since 1993. The reporting system rested on the
definition of a "case." However clear and meaningful the definition
of a case may have been in the past, it became evident the
definition had not kept pace with the changes in the service
delivery systems. As the pace of the evolution of service delivery
systems and the reconfiguration of grantees accelerated following
the funding cutbacks and program reforms in 1996, and spurred on by
the technological revolution, the reporting of grantee activity
solely on the basis of "cases" was becoming increasingly
inadequate. This resulted in inconsistent and inaccurate reporting.
Critical legal services were now being provided, inter alia,
through Internet web sites, through toll-free telephone intake and
brief advice systems, through pro se clinics and projects, and
through stand-alone kiosks. An attorney representing a client
before judge and jury was no longer the norm of a "case" when
delivering critical legal services to low-income individuals.
The audits conducted by the General Accounting Office (GAO) and
reported in June 1999, confirmed the Inspector General's findings
as to the factors causing systemic errors in grantee case
reporting. 4 The GAO visited five large programs: Puerto Rico Legal
Services, Inc., Legal Services for New York City, Legal Aid
Foundation of Los Angeles, Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago,
and Legal Aid Bureau, Inc. in Baltimore, Maryland. Overall, the GAO
deemed questionable approximately 34 percent of both open and
closed cases reported by the five grantees in 1997. The percentage
of questionable cases for individual programs ranged from 7 percent
to 42 percent. A problem common to all programs was the untimely
closure of cases, although again the extent of the problem in any
particular program varied from under 4 percent in one program to
over 30 percent in another. Overall, the GAO questioned between 5-9
percent of the cases reported because of the lack of adequate
financial eligibility documentation and between 7-24 percent of the
cases for lack of citizenship or alien status documentation. It
should
4 GAO/GGD-99-135R LSC Case Reporting Problems.
be noted that GAO concluded only that the case files failed to
contain the documentation necessary to confirm the eligibility or
ineligibility of any of these clients.


LSC's Corrective Action
As these concerns surfaced, LSC decided as an initial step to
reissue the 1993 CSR Handbook in May 1998, providing additional
guidance on particular areas that were considered to be most prone
to error. In general, clearer guidance was provided to programs on
reviewing their own reporting procedures and practices, ensuring
they conformed to the Handbook and ensuring all branch offices were
aware of and were following these procedures. LSC reiterated
guidance on not reporting financially or otherwise ineligible
clients, referrals of ineligible cases or cases for which no legal
work was performed. Recognizing this guidance would not affect the
1997 CSR data, which had already been submitted by the grantees,
but wanting to improve the accuracy of future CSR data, LSC sought
to heighten the awareness of grantees to the CSR requirements and
to focus their attention on potential problem areas. As previously
reported to Congress, though, a number of grantees did voluntarily
submit corrections to their 1997 CSR data during 1998.
As the audit information became available during 1998 and into
1999, LSC gained a fuller understanding of the extent of the CSR
problem and its complexities. Even though quantifiable data was
lacking during most of 1998, LSC had sufficient information to
begin taking actions to address the problems. As previously noted,
LSC reissued its CSR instructions to all grantees, calling
attention to problem areas known at that time. Recognizing that
more action was needed to improve the CSR system, LSC provided
additional written guidance to the field, including a substantial
revision to its CSR Handbook (reissued in November 1998), and
conducted training sessions on that guidance. In addition, LSC has
required all grantees to perform a self-inspection of their CSR
data, has followed up on grantees where corrective action was found
necessary, and has increased its on-site presence to test grantee
compliance. 5



IV. What Is A Case?
A case is defined as the provision of permissible legal
assistance to an eligible client with a legal problem, or set of
closely related legal problems, accepted for assistance supported
by LSC or non-LSC funds in accordance with the requirements of the
LSC Act, regulations, and other applicable law. 6
5 The FY2001 budget request includes $1.54 million in additional
funds to provide 40 annual specialized on-site compliance reviews.
These on-site reviews will allow LSC management to identify program
weaknesses, engage in effective Corrective Actions Plans oversight,
and provide program-specific needed guidance and oversight. The
reviews will allow LSC to more effectively execute its compliance
function and ensure the accuracy of CSR reporting by its
grantees.
6 Legal Services programs may record and report the provision of
legal assistance as a case only if: (a) the client is financially
and otherwise eligible to receive assistance under the LSC Act,
regulations, and other applicable law; the client's case is within
program priorities (or is an emergency case accepted under the
program's emergency case acceptance procedures); the legal services
program has actually accepted the client for service through its
intake system or another established procedure for ensuring client
eligibility; (b) the type of legal assistance provided to the
client is not prohibited by the LSC Act, regulations, or other
applicable law (e.g. a class action); (c) the legal
Since 1997, LSC has significantly tightened its requirements for
what constitutes a case. A case that is eligible to be counted as
such must include some actual counsel and advice or other legal
assistance provided to the client. Thus, analysis and referral of a
case to another legal services provider cannot be counted, nor can
service where the client is accepted and work is done, but the
client withdraws or loses contact with the program before any
actual legal assistance is provided.
Programs have been required to screen their submissions for
"duplicates." A duplicate is not merely the submission of exactly
the same case twice by computer or other error, but also any
situation in which the same client returns to the program with the
same legal problem in the same year. The test as to how similar the
issue in two separate requests for assistance has to be before it
is counted as one case has presented significant borderline
problems, but there have been a large number of clear duplicates
eliminated from the case reports.
It has also been clarified that if a case fails to meet any
required documentation (financial eligibility, citizenship/eligible
alien status, within program priorities, etc.) it may not be
reported to LSC as a case. Especially for 1999, LSC has
substantially strengthened the documentation requirements for
reporting a case to LSC. As a result, numerous cases have been
excluded from reporting, even though the client received legal
service, because the case was not documented according to LSC
requirements. For many of these cases, it was overwhelmingly likely
that the client and the service would have been eligible to be
counted as a closed case but for the lack of proper
documentation.
Programs, however, are allowed to count closed cases for the
elderly and for battered women under the following specific
programs without financial eligibility information because these
Federal programs require that clients be accepted regardless of
financial circumstances: Title XX Social Security Act, Titles III
and IV Older Americans Act, and Violence Against Women Act.


V. 1999 Case Statistics
For 1999, LSC grantees reported closing 1,038,662 civil legal
cases relating to issues such as domestic violence7, child custody
and visitation rights, evictions, access to health care,
bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims, and many other
issues faced by millions of low-income Americans. The consequences
of such problems may be as serious as the loss of a family's only
source of income or homelessness. Left unresolved, they can cost
society far more than the expense of providing legal services to
address them. Other case types frequently encountered include
foreclosures, collections and repossessions, child support, and
wage claims. Without the federal funding provided by LSC to local
legal services programs, many, and
problem(s) of a client are not of a type prohibited by the LSC
Act, regulations, or other applicable law (e.g., an abortion
case).
7 In 1999, it is estimated that LSC grantees received
approximately $10.5 million in federal funds under the Violence
Against Women Act (VAWA) for use in rendering assistance in
domestic violence cases. It is estimated that in the year 2000 they
will receive approximately $11.5 million in VAWA funding.
6
Consumer

1%
possibly most, of these individuals with these problems would
have no other source of legal assistance.
Despite LSC's significant efforts to improve the data accuracy,
there may be occurrences of errors in documentation or substance in
this number. In January of this year, LSC instructed all programs
to conduct a Self-Inspection of a sample of closed cases prior to
submitting 1999 CSR data to LSC. The purpose of the Self-Inspection
process was to provide programs a means to verify, by reviewing a
sample of cases, that their 1999 CSR data satisfies LSC's standards
for accuracy. In addition, it provides LSC management useful
insight into the current nature and extent of the CSR data
issue.
Although the Self-Inspection was not constructed, or executed,
to yield a statistically valid assessment of the accuracy of the
closed cases for 1999, the Self-Inspection did reveal, LSC
believes, significant improvements in data accuracy from previous
years. Again stressing this process did not produce an extensive
assessment, LSC management submits that it is sufficient to
reasonably estimate the population of reported cases contains an
error rate of 11 percent.
In order to fulfill our pledge to the U.S. Congress and to the
general public concerning our commitment to providing the most
accurate and reliable data, we adjusted the number of cases
reported by LSC grantees (1,038,662) by the average estimated error
rate (11%). Accordingly, we submit a total of cases closed for 1999
of 924,000. For reasons that will be discussed in subsequent
sections of this report, we also highlight that this figure
represents only a portion of the work conducted by LSC grantees.
Nonetheless, it represents the most reliable, albeit conservative
8, estimate of cases closed in 1999 by LSC grantees.
8 The adjusted total of 924,000 is conservative because: (a)
some grantees did use Self-Inspection data to exclude

Leveraging Federal Resources
Federal funding to Legal Services Corporation provides the
national infrastructure for the
U.S. civil legal services delivery system. But for the federal
investment, the overwhelming majority of cases reported by LSC
grantees would not have been possible. In six states, the federal
investment represents almost the entire contribution for providing
civil legal services to low-income individuals.9 In another sixteen
states, LSC funding represents over 50% of the total investment in
the civil legal services system.10
Beginning with 1999 cases, another significant change is the
requirement for programs to report all cases eligible for LSC
services, regardless of the funding source. The prior rule mandated
that each case had to be at least partially funded by LSC funds, as
well as being LSCeligible. This new change is intended to make case
reporting more consistent among grantee programs as these programs
have varying mixes of LSC and non-LSC funding and varying,
legitimate methods of allocating LSC and non-LSC funding among
their activities that produce case closures.
As noted above, the LSC case count for 1999 includes all cases
that meet LSC eligibility criteria, regardless of the funding mix
of any particular grantee. LSC strongly encourages all its grantees
to obtain other funding for the client community that Congress has
legislated is eligible for LSC funding. The ability to leverage
other funds to represent LSC eligible clients is a factor LSC
considers in evaluating its grantees. LSC believes that the total
number of LSC eligible clients served by LSC grantees is of
considerable relevance.
It has been suggested that this change may cause an artificial
increase in the number of cases reported through the CSR system.
The purpose of the change, however, was to achieve better accuracy
and more consistency in the reporting of work made possible by LSC
funding. Our grantees have successfully leveraged their federal
funding by attracting other private and public sources of funding.
Grantees use their mix of funding in a variety of ways. The former
CSR system did not consistently collect and identify much of this
effort on behalf of eligible clients. In fact, because of this
inconsistency in reporting, the old system often produced
artificial variations in reported case statistics among similar
programs. The revised reporting requirement will greatly enhance
the accuracy of the data on services to the eligible U.S. lowincome
population and will produce more complete data on the work of
grantees that can be reasonably attributable to LSC grantees.
from their submission to LSC approximately 17,000 of the
insufficiently supported cases that made up the 11 percent error
rate, and (b) in the process of requiring more rigorous
documentation of cases, some cases that actually had sufficient
documentation, and many cases where the client was almost certainly
eligible, were excluded, resulting in a countervailing
undercount.
9 State-wide civil legal services' percentages of total funding
received from LSC: Alabama, 91%; Arkansas, 80%; Mississippi, 95%;
New Mexico, 83%; South Dakota, 89%; Wyoming, 84%. The SPAN Update:
A Guide to Legal Services Planning. January 1999. American Bar
Association: National Legal Aid & Defender Association.
10 Arizona, Iowa, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South
Carolina, Texas, Wisconsin, and West Virginia. The SPAN Update: A
Guide to Legal Services Planning. January 1999. American Bar
Association: National Legal Aid & Defender Association.


FUNDING FOR LSC GRANTEES -- 1999



Developing New Performance Measures
In addition to providing Congress and the public more reliable
and accurate statistics on closed cases, LSC is committed to
developing and to implementing by January 1, 2001, a new reporting
system to document and assess the work of LSC grantees. LSC has
contracted with an independent research firm to develop and
implement a pilot project at six LSC grantees that will gather the
necessary information needed to create a reporting system that
captures all the work of LSC grantees, not simply the traditional
"closed cases." This reporting system will detail and describe the
delivery of services that are not cases, services such as community
education, information through Internet web sites, self-help forms
and kiosks. The reporting system may also provide information on
the impact to the community and to the client by describing
non-"case" services' in the following manner:
¤ the type of innovative service provided, ¤ the number of
eligible clients receiving the service, ¤ the nature of the legal
problems addressed through the innovative service, and ¤ the impact
of the innovative service on the legal problems.
LSC also will develop systems for measuring the outcomes (or
benefits) of the assistance that the programs provide to eligible
clients. Outcome measurement may include an assessment of:
¤ the monetary impact of employment and benefits cases, ¤ the
effect on quality of life of health and housing cases, ¤ the impact
on minor children of assistance in family cases, and ¤ the
financial stability afforded in consumer/finance cases.
In addition to establishing a more complete reporting system,
LSC is committed to using economic analysis and performance
measures to evaluate the impact of federal funding and individual
grantee performance. Discussed below are two methods of analysis
currently under review to accomplish these goals. While LSC will
implement these performance measures on January 1, 2001, it will
diligently evaluate the chosen method of analysis prior to
implementation to ensure it provides useful and meaningful data. By
2001, LSC will require grantees to provide information that allows
LSC to comparatively analyze the cost per case among similarly
situated programs and similar types of services, i.e., brief advice
and referral. LSC statistics for CY 2002 will reflect the input of
all these performance measures.
The "Cost per Case" Model: The first methodology LSC is
developing and evaluating to assess the work of grantees is a
"cost-per-case" analysis. "Cost per case" is a rough quantitative
output measure of the efficiency of LSC programs' delivery of case
services to eligible clients. In the past, it has been computed by
dividing a program's annual LSC funding by its annual total cases
closed. The calculation uses all of a program's LSC funding, even
though LSC programs provide services to eligible clients that do
not meet the definition of a "closed case," as previously detailed.
While a "cost-per-case" analysis is limited in that it only
addresses quantity, and not quality of services, it does provide
some useful quantitative information. The raw cost per case figure
can be further analyzed to take into account the level of service
(from brief advice and counsel up to a court case).
Currently, LSC uses a "cost-per-case" analysis when it conducts
on-site evaluations of grantees. By comparing the "cost per case"
of a particular grantee over a period of time, LSC may gain useful
information on the workload and performance of a program from year
to year. LSC also uses a "cost-per-case" analysis to compare
similarly situated grantees. This measure does require LSC staff to
understand how services differ from grantee to grantee, so that the
differences in levels of service can be adjusted to arrive at
meaningful cost-per-case figures.
For example, grantee A receives $30,000 in LSC funds and serves
3,000 clients at a cost-per-case ratio of $100. The majority of
these cases involve the provision of advice and brief service,
traditionally not very time-consuming or labor intensive. Grantee B
also receives $30,000 in LSC funds, but only serves 500 clients at
a cost-per case ratio of $600. However, grantee B primarily handles
clients facing domestic violence, eviction from their residences,
or issues involving access to health care. Grantee B's cases
usually involve protracted negotiation or litigation. Given the
differences in the types of cases handled by these two grantees, a
simple cost-per-case analysis, without further definition, would
yield meaningless data in terms of the comparative value of
services provide by these two programs.
Another caution that must be raised with this particular
approach is that all LSC-funded programs engage in a wide range of
very important activities that do not fall within the definition of
"case," which would thus not be included in valuing the program's
services. LSC-funded programs use many means (newsletters,
pamphlets, speaking engagements, and web sites) to provide legal
information to low-income persons, helping them avoid legal
problems or aiding them in learning to handle problems when they
surface. Where appropriate, LSC grantees refer low-income persons
to organizations that can help the clients with their problems -
either to alternate sources of legal assistance or to other sources
of assistance, such as charitable organizations and social services
agencies. Through the provision of legal information, programs also
assist individuals in preparing to represent themselves in court.
Resources expended in supporting efforts such as community legal
education, outreach, state planning and resource development also
would not be factored into the program's "cost-per-case."
LSC is carefully studying how to refine the "cost-per-case"
analysis in order to use it effectively as a management tool.
Toward this end, LSC has recently initiated activities to develop
more appropriate strategies and mechanisms to gather and to
quantify data on all of the work -- cases and matters, regardless
of funding source -- being performed by its grantees.
The Cases Funded Exclusively with LSC Resources Model: The
second methodology LSC is developing is a model to estimate the
number of cases funded exclusively with LSC funds. To arrive at
this estimate, total cases reported by LSC grantees would be
augmented with an estimate of all cases handled by LSC-funded
organizations. These are cases traditionally not reported to LSC -
either because documentation LSC requires is not present in these
cases or because they are expressly handled with funding that
allows financial eligibility standards that are more lax than LSC
standards. This number would then be added to the total reported to
LSC (to produce a total caseload number) and then reduced by the
national rate of funding of LSC programs by other sources.
This process would yield an estimate for cases that are funded
exclusively with LSC resources. In using such a number, however,
several factors need to be kept in mind.


•
This figure would only be an estimate. We do not compile
an actual count of the number of cases that are not within LSC's
definition of a case.


•
The reportable and not reportable cases, on average, do
not take the same amount of time. Other funding sources may be
funding a different mix of cases that may, on average, take more or
less time than the average case for LSC-eligible
clients.


LSC will receive additional information on the ability of
grantees to leverage federal dollars using an estimate of cases
funded exclusively with federal resources, through this
methodology, although it is a less than perfect method of analysis.
LSC routinely evaluates its grantees on their ability to leverage
additional dollars from alternative sources to expand their ability
to provide critical legal services to low-income persons. For
example, as noted above, grantees often seek alternative funding to
expand services to women and children in potentially abusive
situations. Further, under its state planning initiative that
mandates all grantees within a particular state work together to
create a comprehensive and integrated statewide delivery system,
grantees are required to address how they will work together to
expand the resources available within that state to support legal
services.



VI. The Need for Legal Services
The need for legal services is overwhelming. Although we live in
a time of great economic prosperity, there are currently still 34.5
million Americans living in households with an income below the
poverty level.11 Some 10 million additional individuals with
incomes between 100 and 125 percent of the poverty level are also
potentially eligible for legal services. This means that almost one
out of every five Americans is eligible for legal services
assistance. America's children are particularly affected by
poverty. Even though the poverty rate has slightly declined, 18.9
percent of children are still poor.12 In order to ensure these
Americans are not left out of the justice system, a strong federal
role in supporting legal services is vital.
A 1994 study for the American Bar Association concluded that
approximately 80 percent of poor Americans do not have the
advantage of an attorney when they are faced with serious situation
where a lawyer's advice and assistance would make a difference.
Similar conclusions have been reached by state legal needs' studies
in a dozen states including Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois,
Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New
York, and Virginia, using a variety of methodologies for estimating
the unmet legal needs of the poor.
11 U.S. Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 1998,
http://www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p60-207.pdf
12 Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, Analysis of 1998
Poverty and Income Data, (September 1999).


Estimated Unmet Legal Need
Eligible Clients unable to attain needed legal assistance

Eligible Clients served by LSC Programs-- 20%
Because of limited resources, local legal services programs are
forced to turn away tens of thousands of people with critical legal
problems. A survey of selected programs in the spring of 1993, when
LSC funding was substantially higher than it is today, revealed
that nearly half of all people who applied for assistance from
local programs were turned away because of a lack of program
resources. Most programs are forced to limit the cases they accept
to emergencies or other situations that threaten the safety and
stability of the family or individual involved. Recent studies
estimate that between one and four million American women
experience an assault by an intimate partner each year, and 3.3
million children are exposed to violence by family members against
their mothers or female caretakers. 13

Client Demographics
Legal services clients are as diverse as our nation,
encompassing all races, ethnic groups and ages. They include the
working poor, veterans, family farmers, people with disabilities,
and victims of natural disasters. Many were formerly middle class,
and became poor because of age, unemployment, illness, or the
breakup of a family.
In 1999, as in the past, nearly three-fourths of LSC clients
were women, most of them mothers with children. Although the named
client is usually an adult, most LSC cases also involve and benefit
children. The legal problems faced by people living in poverty can
result in particularly serious, long-term consequences for
children.
13 According to an August 1995 Bureau of Justice Statistics
Special Report, Violence Against Women: Estimates from the
Redesigned Survey (NCJ-154348) and a report by the American
Psychological Association, Violence and the Family: Report of the
American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on
Violence and the Family
(1996).
Elderly people often require legal assistance because of their
special health, income and social needs, especially in coping with
the government administered benefits on which many depend for
income and health care.


Ethnicity

White -- Not of Hispanic Origin 38%
Black -- Not of Hispanic Origin 27%
Age
Under 18
60 & Over
2%18-59 85%



Gender

73.6%



VII. Conclusion
Established by Congress in 1974, LSC plays a central role in
providing low-income Americans with access to legal assistance and
information critical to resolving their civil legal problems. In
1999, for example, LSC grantees reported closing 1,038,662 civil
legal cases relating to issues such as domestic violence, child
custody and visitation rights, evictions, access to health care,
bankruptcy, unemployment and disability claims, and many other
issues faced by millions of low-income Americans. Despite LSC's
significant efforts to improve data accuracy, there may be
occurrences of errors in documentation or substance.
In order to fulfill our pledge to the U.S. Congress and to the
general public concerning our commitment to providing the most
accurate and reliable data, we adjusted the number of cases
reported by LSC grantees (1,038,662) by the average estimated error
rate (11%). Accordingly, we submit a total of cases closed for 1999
of 924,000. This number represents the most reliable, albeit
conservative, estimate of cases closed in 1999 by LSC grantees.
Recognizing that valid questions have been raised regarding the
accuracy and validity of the Case Service Reports (CSR) data that
LSC's grantees annually submit, LSC has committed itself to
ensuring that reliable data is provided.14 The decrease in the
number of closed cases for 1999 is, in large measure, the result of
LSC's new, more stringent reporting guidelines. For example, it has
been clarified that if a case file fails to contain any required
documentation
14 The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law held an
oversight hearing on Legal Services Corporation September 29, 1999.
The hearing heightened awareness of some of the problems LSC was
encountering in attempting to provide accurate statistics relating
to services provided by LSC grantees. Subcommittee Chairman Rep.
Gekas and Rep. Chabot informed LSC of their expectation that the
statistics provided by LSC to Congress concerning their grantees'
activities be accurate. For example, Mr. Chabot stated "Congress
certainly does look at the statistics that we are provided, and we
expect those statistics to be accurate when we are determining what
programs are going to be funded and at what levels, so we expect
those numbers to be accurate, and when they're not it disturbs us a
great deal, as it should." Legal Services Corporation: Oversight
hearing before the Subcomm. on Commercial and Admin. Law of the
House Comm. on the Judiciary. 106th Cong., 1st Sess. (1999).
(financial eligibility, citizenship/eligible alien status,
within program priorities, etc.) it may not be reported to LSC as a
case. As a result, numerous cases have been excluded from
reporting, even though the client received legal service, because
the case lacked the required documentation.
Unfortunately, the civil legal needs of all low-income Americans
are not being adequately met due to severe funding shortages at the
federal and state level. In FY95, Congress appropriated $402.5
million for grants to local legal services programs. Assuming
inflation remains at current rates through 2001, almost $450
million is required in FY01 to maintain the purchasing power (and
services) of the FY95 level. Unless the federal investment for
civil legal services is substantially increased, a large segment of
the U.S. population will continue to be without access to the
justice system. LSC's Budget Request for FY01 includes a modest
increase of $24 million for grants to local programs.
LSC is committed to continuing to improve the accuracy of its
case statistics, vigorously enforcing the Congressional
restrictions enacted in 1996, and creating new and more meaningful
ways to evaluate the work of legal services programs receiving
federal funds. We call on Congress, the private bar, and local and
state governments to support LSC in fulfilling its Congressional
mandate to provide low-income individuals throughout America with
real, meaningful access to our nation's justice system.