Hello Client Intake and Access Workgroup Members,

First and foremost, we want to acknowledge that it has been a significant amount of time since you have heard from us. We want to lay out a few of the reasons we have hit roadblocks on advancing the workgroup and ask for your input about our collective next steps.

As you know, the Access to Justice Board Delivery System Committee, State Plan Action and Resource Committee (SPARC) convened the Client Access and Intake Workgroup to advance Strategy 3 of Goal 3 to improve access to and the effectiveness of existing intake mechanisms. In 2018, we held two workgroup meetings and one stakeholder forum. We developed a working definition of intake: Intake is the process by which a person learns about and requests services from legal aid, is assessed for eligibility and nature of the legal problem, and legal services are initiated.

The overwhelming response from the stakeholder meeting was to start with seeking input and guidance from client communities, speaking both with people who have accessed our statewide delivery systems and those who have not. The Co-chairs attempted to determine a pathway forward to advance this priority but we have hit the following obstacles:

1. When we communicated our intent to prioritize client engagement from the outset to SPARC, questions surfaced about how client engagement related to this strategy could overlap with other parts of the state plan, specifically with regard to Goal 2, Strategy 2. (Goal 2:  The Alliance will work to ensure that low-income communities and individuals understand their legal rights and responsibilities and where to seek legal assistance. Strategy 2: Communicate with low-income communities in ways that are accessible to low-income persons regardless of limited literacy, limited English proficiency, disability, or limited access to technology.)  We have yet to get a clear picture of what efforts are or will be undertaken within the scope of client engagement for other parts of the state plan, but we want to be sure that efforts on this front are coordinated and not duplicative.

2. The Co-chairs (Joanna Otero, Eva Wescott, and Catherine Brown) share concerns that we may not be the best people to lead this workgroup. We frankly have not had time or capacity to create a roadmap to advance the workgroup’s goals. We recognize that we have been unable to provide timely communication about our struggles to the larger workgroup. Also, the Co-chairs recognize that our involvement in this work is necessary, but that we may not be in the best position to lead because we all work so closely with the centralized intake system, CLEAR, either at NJP or with volunteer lawyer programs.  Our institutional allegiances make it difficult to be as objective as we think our group facilitator(s) needs to be.

At this point, we have the following questions:

1. The State Plan communicates a broad vision of how our statewide delivery system could function at its best. The goals are lofty and require an investment of time and resources that we believe may not be best suited for a subcommittee of volunteers, like ours.  The Alliance for Equal Justice has prioritized financial investment toward Goal 1 – Race Equity and we are taking important steps forward in our commitments to understand and undo racism in our justice systems. The Co-chairs believe that we need a similar investment of resources to systematically advance the other goals of the state plan, with a focus on a coordinated client engagement plan. Specifically, we are of the mind that this workgroup, and the state plan as a whole, needs professional project management, and likely a paid facilitator, to inventory Alliance efforts to achieve the State Plan's goals; to meaningfully and thoughtfully engage stakeholders and partners in State Plan strategies; and to track and evaluate these individual and collective efforts to keep the plan moving forward. We seek input on this idea. Does this make sense to others? If this does not resonate with people, do you have ideas about who has the capacity to continue to advance the work on a volunteer basis?

2. Does it make sense to recommend that SPARC consider a client engagement strategy/workgroup that approaches seeking guidance from client communities with all goals of the state plan in mind, rather than only our specific workgroup?

Thank you all for your input and your patience with us. We hope to find a way forward with these goals and hope to connect with many of you in the coming weeks.  Please be in touch with any or all of us with additional comments you might share about how to move forward with this workgroup.  Based on what we hear from the group, we may be back in touch with additional information about next steps, including the possibility to schedule a conference call meeting later this summer for further discussion.

Eva Wescott

Joanna Otero

Catherine Brown