1. Pro Bono Innovation Fund Informational Webinar on 2016 LOI Process Monday, May 9, 2016

2. Agenda  Stats on 2016 LOIs  Explanation of 2016 review  Learning from our process  Next steps for invited applicants and others

3. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) 2016 Application Process LOI deadline March 18 th Notice of Invitation to Apply May 2 nd Application Instructions Issued Early May Application Deadline July 18 th Funding Decisions Announced First week of September

4. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Requests and Available Funding

5. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Applications/LOIs and Awards

6. Alaska, Hawaii and territories not to scale 2016 Pro Bono Innovation Fund LOIs Received

7. Themes from 2016 LOIs One-third of letters of intent propose to use volunteers for time- limited opportunities - intake, clinics, assisted self-help, and lawyer-of-the day programs. Other themes include rural delivery with mobile offices and technology (10 projects, 18%) and projects to strengthen pro bono with more centralized coordination and staffing (7 projects, 12%).

8. 2016 Pro Bono Innovation Fund LOI Stats 56 LOI submissions 43 different grantee organizations in 28 states. Total LOI request $11,850,814. Average LOI request $211,622. Smallest request is for $54,000 and largest request is for $522,000. 24 projects were invited to submit a full application to LSC.

9. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) LOI Selection Criteria Weighting/Scoring CategoryPercentageSub-Category Project Design 60 Need Statement - client needs and current gaps in service Project Goals, Objectives, and Activities Capacity, Interest and Recruitment of Pro Bono Volunteer Innovation(s) and Potential for Replication Proposed Performance Measures and Impact Organizational Capacity and Project Staffing 25Project Staffing, Leadership and Oversight Project Partners Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Adequacy 15Cost-Effectiveness and Budget Adequacy

10. 2016 Pro Bono Innovation Fund LOI Review Each LOI Application received 3 separate scored reviews by 2 LSC staff and 1 pro bono expert consultant. Reviews designed to score and capture feedback on project strengths and weaknesses. LOI applications are ranked based on weighted scores. Complete list was reviewed and vetted with LSC management and executive office. Captured additional feedback to applications, particularly those invited to apply that had important issues to address/develop in project application.

11. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Applicants Selected for Invitation High Scoring Applications: Substantive area of focus clearly aligned with an important strategic priority for the organization. (Parts of the project already in motion, under development, or happening.) Ensures clients in advice/assisted self-help setting will not “fall through the cracks.” Addressing a common, frustrating inefficiency in pro bono delivery. Pro bono activities makes highest and best use of the volunteer. Thoughtful and appropriate supports tailored to volunteer and pro bono activities (training, mentoring, call scripts). Project may lend itself to prototyping or piloting at a smaller scale.

12. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Applicants Selected for Invitation Lower Scoring Applications: Small scale impact or low leverage. Unclear that focus of project was grounded in client need and organizational priorities. (No aspect of the project had been tested/piloted.) Seeking to build a pro bono program that was not integrated with advocacy team or advocates who provide direct services, i.e. pro bono efforts in operations, administration, fundraising departments. Limited discussion of supports for volunteer (training, mentoring/staff support, technology call scripts). Outdated models of self help, assisted pro se, clinics, referral. Disjointed “replications” without indication of thoughtful foundation for the project.

13. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%)

14. Learning from our process Using the experiences of our grantees and applicants to continuously improve our processes to support the goals of the Pro Bono Innovation Fund:  Track applicants each year and develop outreach lists.  Look at level of engagement with LSC: webinar participation, feedback calls, seeking advice, Executive Director and management involvement.  Current grantee progress reports and feedback.  Ongoing solicitation of advice and feedback from Executive Directors and staff.  Clarus Research formative evaluation. (In-process with 2014 grantees)  Double amount of time for applicants to develop LOI & Full Application. (New for 2016)  Survey applicants immediately after application submission and at different stages of the process. (New for 2016)

15. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Learning from our process

16. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Learning from our process

17. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Learning from our process

18. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Learning from our process

19. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%)

20. Please provide additional suggestions or feedback to assist LSC with the continuous improvement of the Pro Bono Innovation Fund I think it would be helpful to have a conversation with LSC about strengths and weaknesses before submitting a full application if selected to do so. We are used to funders who work with applicants to make sure they submit the very best application that they can. We all need this funding to better our pro bono practice [and] … LSC should be making the process much more collaborative. Need more information sharing – we still don’t have information on the funded projects to replicate. Available descriptions of already-funded projects are somewhat vague, and in speaking with staff at other programs it seems that many projects are replicable but only in particular circumstances. It would save a lot of legwork if the descriptions included information about the groundwork that needs to be already in place to replicate the project and/or the circumstances in which the project developers think the model would be most impactful.

21. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Incorporating your feedback now 2016 Invitees Scheduling immediate feedback calls to provide guidance on areas of the applications to develop. Involving LSC’s Pro Bono Task Force member and pro bono expert consultant, Maureen Syracuse, for technical assistance. Available for technical assistance for applicants between May – June 2016. Application Instructions forthcoming.

22. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Incorporating your feedback now All Interested Applicants Framework to capture promising and replicable practices from current grantees. Adapting grantee Progress Reports to detail “what works.” All-day Grantee Meeting on May 11 th to discuss and report out on the same. Monthly webinar series to launch in the summer. Feedback calls this summer. Continue to improve our process and support for grantees: i.e. interest areas for FY17, peer-to-peer technical assistance.

23. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Next Steps Invited 2016 Applicants Please schedule your call during weeks of May 16 th and May 23 rd. Application Instructions will be released this month. Scheduling link will go out for web meeting in late May to go over application instructions. LSC Grants application live in late June. Deadline for full applications July 18, 2016. Interested Applicants Scheduling link will go out in late May for feedback calls. Pro bono webinar series will launch this summer. Contact us for more information and to continue developing your project ideas. Mytrang Nguyen, Program Counsel, Pro Bono Innovation Fund, nguyenm@lsc.gov nguyenm@lsc.gov

24. (59.8%) (57.7%) (56.4%) (56.7%) Thank you!