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 IU public opinion lab survey UWCI/CSC legal needs of the poor study ABA legal needs study Florence Roisman article Alan houseman article) What knowledge do we have about these needs here? Does this reflect what we know in our community? ILS, pro bono committee, other providers? (10 minutes)

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 Lake 64,748 (13.3%) Jasper: 2,014 (7.2%) LaPorte 9,954 (9.5%) Newton 1,247 (8.5%) Porter 7,750 (5.4%) Pulaski 1,190 (9%) Starke 3,211 (13.7) Total: 90,114 (15.8% of state pov. pop.) District 2 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 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 Cass: 3,883 (10.1%) Fulton: 1,728 (8.5%) Howard 8,173 (9.6%) Miami: 3,524 (10.7) Tipton: 1,132 (6.8%) Wabash 2,628 (7.8%) Total: 21,068 (3.7% of state pov. pop.) District 6: Blackford: 1,341 (9.4%) Delaware: 15,777 (14%) Grant: 9,339 (13.2%) Henry: 5,186 (10.5%) Jay: 2,319 (10.6%) Madison: 14,423 (11.1%) Randolph: 3,443 (12.4%) Total: 51,828 (9.1% of state pov. pop)

Poverty – Judicial Districts 7 & 8 Clay: 2,590 (9.7%) Parke: 1,709 (10.6%) Putnam: 2,331 (7.7%) Sullivan: 2,362 (12.2%) Vermillion: 1,604 (9.5%) Vigo: 13,602 (13.5%) Total: 24,198 (4.2% of state pov. pop.) District 8: 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 Fayette: 2,907 (11%) Franklin: 1,672 (7.7%) Rush: 1,667 (9.2%) Union: 674 (9.2%) Wayne: 10,094 (14.2%) Total: 17,014 (3% of state pov. pop.) District 10: Greene: 3,466 (10.4%) Lawrence: 4,247 (9.3%) Monroe: 12,313 (12%) Owen: 2,196 (10.8%) Total: 22,222 (3.9% of state pov. pop.)

Judicial Districts 11 & 13 District 13: Total: 44,551 Daviess: 3,764 (13.1%) Dubois: 1,660 (4.2%) Gibson: 2,737 (8.5%) Knox: 5,136 (13.6%) Martin: 1,188 (11.1%) Perry: 1,757 (9.5%) Pike: 1,463 (11.5%) Posey: 1,940 (7.2%) Spencer: 1,746 (8.5%) Vander.: 20,033 (12.1%) Warrick: 3,127 (6.2%) Total: 44,551 (7.8% of state pov. Pop.) District 11: 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 Dearborn: 3,401 (7.4%) Jefferson: 3,197 (10.7%) Ohio: 377 (6.8) Ripley: 2,711 (10%) Switzerland: 1,128 (13.4%) Total: 10,814 (1.9% of state pov. pop.) District 14: 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: 8% TANF: 3% Ss / SSI: 6% Workers comp: 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 Non-citizens 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?