Transcript Indiana Legal Services, Inc. Priorities Setting Process

Indiana Legal Services, Inc.
Priorities Setting Process
Setting Priorities for the Delivery of
Legal Assistance to the Low Income
Community
Setting Priorities
Agenda
What Legal Needs?
Presentation of information
Discussion of legal needs
Discussion of how to address these legal needs
What does this mean in our community?
Who is currently addressing these needs?
What needs that are not being addressed?
What issues are particularly important here?
Rank the legal needs in order of import
What Can We Do?
How should ILS use its resources to address
these legal needs in this district?
How should other providers use their
resources to address these legal needs?
How can providers coordinate their work?
Other Options?
Are there alternative service models that
could be used to address some needs?
Are any of these legal problems best suited
for advocacy and/or coordination on the
state level?
Are there other resources that could be
garnered to address these needs?
Who Are the Poor in Indiana?
6,080,485 people in Indiana
498,600 (8.2%) live below the poverty level
(Estimated)
219,858 (14.1%) of children live below the
poverty level (estimated)
Poverty - Judicial Districts 1 & 2
District 1







Lake
Jasper:
LaPorte
Newton
Porter
Pulaski
Starke
District 2
64,748
2,014
9,954
1,247
7,750
1,190
3,211
(13.3%)
(7.2%)
(9.5%)
(8.5%)
(5.4%)
(9%)
(13.7)
Total:
90,114
(15.8% of state pov. pop.)




Elkhart: 13,366 (7.9%)
Kosciusko: 4,006 (5.7%)
Marshall: 3,216 (7.1%)
St. Joseph: 25,836 (10.3%)
Total:
46,424
(8.1% of state pov. Pop)
Poverty - Judicial Districts 3 & 4
District 3









Adams: 3,220 (9.8%)
Allen:
27,912 (8.9%)
Dekalb: 2,096 (5.4%)
Huntington: 2,279 (6.2%)
LaGrange: 2,538 (7.8%)
Noble:
2,507 (6%)
Steuben: 2,031 (6.6%)
Wells:
1,434 (5.4%)
Whitley: 1,469 (4.9%)
Total:
45,486
(7.9% of state pov. pop)
District 4








Benton: 750
(7.7%)
Carroll: 1,250 (6.3%)
Clinton: 2,589 (7.9%)
Fountain: 1,553 (8.4%)
Montgomery: 2,777 (7.8%)
Tippecanoe: 12,388 (9.8%)
Warren: 629
(7.6%)
White
1,945 (7.7%)
Total:
23,881
(4.2% of state pov. pop.)
Poverty – Judicial Districts 5 & 6
District 5:






Cass:
Fulton:
Howard
Miami:
Tipton:
Wabash
District 6:
3,883
1,728
8,173
3,524
1,132
2,628
(10.1%)
(8.5%)
(9.6%)
(10.7)
(6.8%)
(7.8%)
Total:
21,068
(3.7% of state pov. pop.)







Blackford: 1,341
Delaware: 15,777
Grant:
9,339
Henry: 5,186
Jay:
2,319
Madison: 14,423
Randolph:3,443
(9.4%)
(14%)
(13.2%)
(10.5%)
(10.6%)
(11.1%)
(12.4%)
Total:
51,828
(9.1% of state pov. pop)
Poverty – Judicial Districts 7 & 8
District 8:
District 7:






Clay:
2,590
Parke:
1,709
Putnam: 2,331
Sullivan: 2,362
Vermillion: 1,604
Vigo:
13,602
(9.7%)
(10.6%)
(7.7%)
(12.2%)
(9.5%)
(13.5%)
Total:
24,198
(4.2% of state pov. pop.)








Boone: 2,015 (4.7%)
Hamilton: 4,478 (3%)
Hancock: 2,176 (4.1%)
Hendricks: 3,256 (3.7%)
Johnson: 6,033 (5.8%)
Marion: 104,179 (12.7%)
Morgan: 4,648 (7.3%)
Shelby: 3,234 (7.5%)
Total:
130,019
(22.8% of state pov. pop.)
Poverty –Judicial Districts 9& 10
District 9:
 Fayette:
 Franklin:
 Rush:
 Union:
 Wayne:
District 10:
2,907 (11%)
1,672 (7.7%)
1,667 (9.2%)
674
(9.2%)
10,094 (14.2%)
Total:
17,014
(3% of state pov. pop.)




Greene: 3,466
Lawrence:4,247
Monroe: 12,313
Owen:
2,196
(10.4%)
(9.3%)
(12%)
(10.8%)
Total:
22,222
(3.9% of state pov. pop.)
Judicial Districts 11 & 13
District 13:











Daviess: 3,764
Dubois: 1,660
Gibson: 2,737
Knox:
5,136
Martin: 1,188
Perry:
1,757
Pike:
1,463
Posey:
1,940
Spencer: 1,746
Vander.: 20,033
Warrick: 3,127
District 11:
(13.1%)
(4.2%)
(8.5%)
(13.6%)
(11.1%)
(9.5%)
(11.5%)
(7.2%)
(8.5%)
(12.1%)
(6.2%)
Total:
44,551
(7.8% of state pov. Pop.)





Bartholomew: 4,959 (7.2%)
Brown: 1,171 (7.5%)
Decatur: 1,972 (7.8%)
Jackson: 3,687 (9%)
Jennings: 2,640 (9.9%)
Total:
14,429
(2.5% of state pov. Pop.)
Poverty-Judicial Districts 12&14
District 12:





Dearborn: 3,401
Jefferson: 3,197
Ohio:
377
Ripley: 2,711
Switzerland: 1,128
District 14:
(7.4%)
(10.7%)
(6.8)
(10%)
(13.4%)
Total:
10,814
(1.9% of state pov. pop.)







Clark:
8,821 (9.5%)
Crawford: 1,500 (14.1%)
Floyd:
6,826 (9.6%)
Harrison: 3,032 (9%)
Orange: 2,493 (12.9%)
Scott:
3,201 (14%)
Washington: 3,211 (11.9%)
Total:
29,084
(5.1% of state pov. pop.)
Public Opinion Lab Survey – ’99
Who Did We Survey?
65% of households had a person employed
14% lived in subsidized housing
63% were women; 37% were men
62% white
28% African American
4% Hispanic
Housing Issues (‘99 Study)
37% owned their
home and 51% rented
14% had a dispute
with a landlord
18% lived in unsafe
housing
7% experienced
discrimination in
renting or buying
Subsidized Housing (’99 Study)
20% of people who
applied for subsidized
housing were turned
down because of bad
credit
45% of people who
applied for subsidized
housing were put on a
long waiting list
Utilities
24% had problems paying utilities
9% had utilities turned off
12% experienced problems with deposit
Consumer
26% were harassed by creditors
14% considered or declared bankruptcy
5% had wages withheld due to debts
10% had problems with used car dealers
9% had credit denied due to false info on
credit report
Employment (’99 Study)
15% had trouble finding or keeping
employment
Reasons:
Low pay
 Lack of education
 No jobs available
 Lack of training, transportation, child care

Public Benefits Problems
20% had problems with
public benefits:
Food stamps:
TANF:
Ss / SSI:
Workers comp:
8%
3%
6%
3%
Poor relief:
4%
Medicare:
4%
Medicaid:
7%
Unemployment: 3%
Of Those With Public Benefit
Problems:
Problems applying: 26%
Lost public benefit: 44%
Did not understand: 31%
Reached time limit: 40%
Unable to participate in
job training or search
because:



No child care
No transportation
No training or education
Family Law
Custody: 7%
Divorce: 4%
Visitation problem: 10%
Guardianship of child:
7%
Problems with county
collecting support: 24%
Chins: 4%
Not getting support: 30%
Can’t pay support: 7%
Problem getting child
support after state collects:
10%
Education Issues
Child placed below his/her level: 10%
Problems getting special ed services: 6%
Child suspended: 6%
School has inadequate resources:
10%
Farmworkers Had Other
Problems
30% experienced poor working conditions
33% did not get pay promised
25% did not have social security paid by
employer
23% had unsafe housing
Health Care
Problems
5% were denied hospital admission
25% did not go to the doctor when needed
because of lack of insurance
12% had problems with insurance coverage
10% had problems with Medicaid coverage
7% unable to get medical care because
doctors don’t take Medicaid
Language Barriers
11% of families have non-English speaking
member
6% of them had problems defending rights
Problems of Noncitizens
33% were taken advantage of by an
employer
44% were taken advantage of by a landlord
44% had problems getting information
about benefits or services
33% were threatened by an abusive spouse
ABA Study – Legal Problems of
Low Income Persons
Consumer:
17%
Housing:
17%
Community safety /
environment: 13%
Family law:
12%
Employment: 8%
Personal injury: 7%
Health:
6%
Estates/directives: 5%
Public benefits: 4%
Legal Needs of the Poor Study
Conclusions (’92)
Lack of funding
Lack of resources
Lack of awareness
Lack of access

Increase use of pro bono and pro se programs
Problems of special populations
Special Populations
Persons with disabilities
Victims of domestic violence
Homeless persons
Seniors
Persons with limited English proficiency
Children
Migrant Farmworkers
Persons who are institutionalized
Who Are Our Clients?
78% of families under
the poverty line have
one or more adults in
the workforce.
43% of poor children
are on TANF, compared
to 62% in 1994.
59% of mothers of
children under age one
work.
28% of TANF recipients
work.
Average income of the
poorest households has
decreased.
1/6 of all children are
poor and 1/5 of children
under 6 are poor.
Hispanic and black
children are twice as
likely as white children
to live in poverty.
25% of all children of
immigrants are poor.
Trends
By 2020 30% of the
population will be
elderly.
Hispanic population
will continue to grow.
Jobs will continue to
move from
manufacturing to high
tech and service.
Poor people have
more access to credit.
Affordable housing
stock continues to
shrink.
1 out of 3 African
American men is in
prison or on probation
or parole.
What Should We Do?
Address emerging
issues:






Access to employment
Consumer law issues
Access to health care
Education
Issues of
discrimination
Issues faced by
different “families”
Increase awareness of
rights, options and
services.
Facilitate access to
legal assistance so that
no one is left out.
Provide a full range of
civil legal assistance to
prevent and resolve
legal problems.
Moving From Presentation to
Discussion
Setting Priorities
What Does This Mean Here?
Does this information reflect our local needs? (10
minutes)


What are the local needs?
Does this reflect what we know in our community?
Who is currently addressing these needs? (10
minutes)



Indiana legal services, inc.
Pro bono committee.
Other providers?
Ranking Legal Needs
Are there needs that are not currently being
addressed?
(10 minutes)
Are there specific issues included in these
legal problems that are of particular concern
to this community? (15 minutes)
How would we rank these legal needs in
order of import? (20 minutes)
Addressing These Needs
How can ILS best address these legal
needs? (20 minutes)
How can other providers and the pro bono
committee address these legal needs? (20
minutes)
How can the providers coordinate their
work? (10 minutes)
Expanding Delivery Models
Are there alternative service models that could be
used to address some of these needs? (20 minutes)

Mediation; Advice hotline; Community legal education;
Partnerships with other service providers
Are any of these legal problems best suited for
advocacy and/or coordination on the state level?
(15 minutes)
Are there other resources that could be garnered to
address these needs? (10 minutes)
Conclusion
What Do We Do Next?