RECOMMENDATIONS
67 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 1751 (1999)
1. The recommendations are consecutively
numbered for ease of reference. Citations to these recommendations elsewhere
in this volume shall be as follows:
Recommendations of the Conference on the Delivery
of Legal Services to Low-Income Persons, 67 Fordham L. Rev. 1751, Recommendation
___, at ___ (1999) [hereinafter
Recommendations].
RECOMMENDATIONS
67 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 1796 (1999)
119. Assessment should address whether low-income people have access
to the information and assistance they need to resolve
their legal problems and to use the justice system to protect and promote
their legal, economic, and social interests.
120. Assessment should promote the effectiveness and enhance the capacity
of funders and providers in using their resources
to achieve these goals.
RECOMMENDATIONS 67 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 1797 (1999)
(iv) provide the ability to compare the effectiveness of traditional
and innovative delivery systems and
strategies; (v) assess the program's responsiveness to the diver-sity
of the community it serves; (vi) evaluate the extent and effectiveness
of stake-holder
involvement in delivery of services; (vii) explain to and document
for the public the bene-fits
of investment in legal services, including its cost-effectiveness for
government and society as
well as its intrinsic value in contributing to a more just society;
and
(viii) assist in strategic planning processes. (b) Quality of client
services. Assessment in this area
should: (i) evaluate client satisfaction, including: ease of ac-cess
to services, whether services respond to problems and needs, and clients'
perception of
quality; (ii) evaluate outcome and impact of services on cli-ents'
lives; (iii) assess quality and competence of the services pro-vided;
and (iv) evaluate how the program addresses diversity in
the interaction between program staff and clients. (c) Leadership,
management, and administration. Assess-ment
in this area should: (i) enhance program efficiency and productivity;
(ii) enhance the program's ability to raise funds and provide services;
(iii) assess the program's success in promoting and maintaining a diverse
staff, management, and gov-erning
body; (iv) enhance the program's ability to recruit, evaluate,
train, retain, and supervise staff; (v) enhance the program's process
for setting priori-ties;
and (vi) assist the program's governing bodies in fulfilling
their policymaking functions.
RECOMMENDATIONS 67 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 1798 (1999)
leadership, management, and administration. Areas in which useful data
could be collected include:
(a) administrative data, e. g., client characteristics, types of services
being provided, client outcomes, funding
sources, and staffing patterns; (b) existing government and organizational
statistics, includ-ing
community and court data; (c) surveys of clients, staff, and community,
addressing issues
such as client satisfaction, client understanding of infor-mation,
and client outcomes;
(d) focus groups of clients, staff, and community members; (e) information
regarding legal, social, economic, and polit-ical
contexts, such as changes in entitlements or other laws affecting clients;
and
(f) literature, such as legal needs surveys, cost-effectiveness studies,
model standards, other published reports, articles,
etc.
125. Local programs should be encouraged to collaborate with law schools,
social science faculties, and other academic institu-tions,
foundations, and non-profit research institutes and per-sons affiliated
with the American Evaluation Association to
set research agendas and undertake research.
126. In the interest of efficiency, programs should collect data useful
for evaluation as part of the ongoing operation.
RECOMMENDATIONS 67 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 1799 (1999)
to conduct research on legal needs and delivery of legal services.
128. The federal government (e. g., through the U. S. Census Bu-reau)
should track data on the need for legal assistance and
the amount of assistance provided, as is done in other areas such as
health, housing, and education.
129. In consultation with stakeholders, major funders should form a
consortium to fund (a) the development of model assess-ment
methodologies, and (b) a research grant program to as-sess the effectiveness
of different approaches to the delivery
of legal services.
131. Establish a library of existing data related to delivery of legal services.
132. Standardize national, state (including IOLTA), and local ba-sic provider data and make it available for research.
133. Encourage projects to share methodology and data collected on legal
services at every opportunity, including with staff,
community, other service organizations and the public, as well as at
conferences and through a common forum to be
created on the Internet.
134. Require sharing of official assessments with the programs' Boards of Directors and, to the extent appropriate, with staff.
135. Encourage relevant journals such as MIE and the Clinical Law Review
to invite submission of papers on the assessment
of legal services programs and to consider special annual issues on
assessment of legal services.
136. Issue periodic national, state, and local reports on legal needs
and available resources to address those needs.
privilege are protected; (b) respect the integrity of judgments involved
in local
decisionmaking;
RECOMMENDATIONS 67 FORDHAM LAW REVIEW 1800 (1999)
(c) recognize that the goal of assessment should not be uni-formity
of delivery systems;
(d) avoid undervaluing what is hard to assess, such as the quality
of justice;
(e) minimize the burden on clients and programs of data-collection;
(f) determine the priority to be given to assessment; and (g) avoid
undervaluing informal assessments.
138. Assessment should be sensitive to external factors that affect
the program such as changes in funding, political culture, and
the demographics of the community.
139. Goals and values used to design the assessment should be clearly
stated. Assessment should not be used as a device for
control and policymaking.
140. Assessment should recognize and avoid the risk of deterring creative,
zealous, or controversial advocacy. 50
Return to Fordham Recommendations Table of Contents