1. Working and Collaborating Across States Alison Paul, Montana Legal Services Association Ed Marks, Legal Aid of Western Ohio Liz Keith, Pro Bono Net Eve Ricaurte, Iowa Legal Aid

2. Introduction Why do we care?

3. Sharing Resources  Training Legal Aid University NTAP Training  Hosting web-based services Montana/Idaho case management NTAP Poverty Law Survey Tool Coming Soon: NTAP Listservs

4. Sharing Resources  Tech Support Maine and Montana examples  Other ideas Centralized back-up servers Help desk functions ?????

5. Cyber-Piracy Project  PTLA settlement with Legal Match brought issue to forefront of community  PTLA and NTAP worked to ensure lessons learned benefit entire SWEB community  Impact on local users, but required national strategy

6. Iowa’s Online Intake  Iowa created a Remote Intake system using ideas and groundwork from other programs.  To actually create the interview, Iowa used two sources of technology in a new way.  The intake questions are programmed into an A2J Interview, and the output is transformed to create a case in the Pika Case Management system

8. A2J Guided Interview for Intake (.a2j files) Case Management System Data Collection Interview Answers (.anx File) XSL Transform Transformed Answer Files Case Management System Answer File Data Now Available For Review in the Case Management System…. ….conflicts check ….attorney review ….processing

9. More of a Good Thing… Ohio’s Replication of Iowa’s A2J Intake Template

10. The “Script”…  The script from Iowa’s initiative is being used as the “starting point” for the Ohio intake initiative.  The script will be reviewed by all participating Ohio programs and will be edited based on the individual intake process for each program.

11. Ohio Web Intake

12. Full Circle  Lessons learned and materials developed by Ohio will benefit Iowa with updated interviews and other technological advances.

13. Website collaborations

14. Disaster relief post Katrina/Rita Learning from the NY 9/11 experience Conference calls of regional coordinators Disaster legal services content-sharing  Client and advocate content

15. Disaster relief post Katrina/Rita KatrinaLegalAid.org FEMAanswers.org wiki On the ground tech support Ad hoc resource sharing and support networking

16. Content translation collaborations  Why collaborate on translation? Do more with less: translation is expensive and time-consuming Ability to create something you can’t do on your own Higher quality result for users Serve more users!

17. Content translation collaborations  WashingtonLawHelp.org navigation translation Model Russian and Spanish content: http://www.probono.net/link.cfm?9355

18.  Shared content banks  Content sharing and adaptation Adapting substantive content  Federal resources  Medicare part D guide  LawHelp.org/NY Internet Fraud Document assembly replication Website content collaborations

19. Building Blocks of Website Collaborations  Common goals/needs  Knowing who’s who and who knows what  How can technology help?  Share and share alike

20. LiveHelp  A joint TIG-funded project of Iowa Legal Aid Montana Legal Services Association State Bar of Georgia Pro Bono Project Pro Bono Net Recently added – Arkansas, Louisiana

21. What is LiveHelp?  Provides virtual, live assistance for Web site visitors  Helps visitors find information and referrals  Doesn’t provide legal advice  Cross-platform capabilities

22. Where is LiveHelp being used?  Navigation assistance on MontanaLawHelp.org and IowaLegalAid.org since June 2006 Also on MontanaFreeFile.org and in conjunction with remote intake in Iowa  LawHelp.org/LA (October 2007)  GeorgiaAdvocates.org (December 2007)  ARLegalServices.org (January 2008 )  Staffed by VISTA volunteers, paralegals, interns, attorneys, and other willing (or drafted) staff members

23. How did the cross-jurisdictional collaboration come about?  Discussions among PBN, MLSA and ILA about LiveHelp as disaster legal services tool  Other cross-jurisdictional benefits  Supported by 2006 TIG grant

24. What did we want to learn?  What is involved from a technical perspective?  What knowledge and experience is needed on the part of the navigator?  How best to support cross-jurisdictional navigators?  What are the benefits and challenges of cross-jurisdictional support?

25. LiveHelp Chat and Operator Interface  Canned chat is available for all sites in the project  Canned chat from one program can be copied and modified for use by another program  Review of chat topics and search terms used on all sites helps operators determine interests and needs of website visitors

26. Admins can  Monitor all sites  Access reports and data collection  View operator login information  Disconnect operators if needed  Alert others if there is a problem  Accept chats from states even if they are not listed as operators  Create or modify canned chats for all states  Create or modify surveys for all states  Change project settings, or just those of one state

27. Operators can  Send private chats to other operators who are engaged in a chat This is useful for training Helpful if there is information they can share about the visitor's question  Transfer a chat to any other operator who is logged in Useful for catching chats quickly Can be used to transfer to a navigator with special knowledge or skills, such as the ability to respond in a foreign language

28. How the Cross Jurisdiction Test was set up  Conference calls  Identifying willing navigators  Minor configurations in LivePerson  Scheduling joint shifts  Sharing of the most frequently used sites, the most often asked questions and the answers  Monitoring by both sites so that the navigator had backup  Use of the Spark IM system  LiveHelp Wiki

29. Experiences of the Cross Jurisdiction Navigators  From the site visitor’s perspective it is seamless  The learning curve is much shorter for a second, or third, state  Centralization of resources/forms helps  Serving as a navigator in one state makes it easier to recognize reliable online resources in other states, even if they are not housed by parallel services

30. Possible expanded uses  General “seat”-sharing and expanded coverage (hours, days, etc.)  Specialized multilingual assistance  Deliver substantive expertise in specialized area  Assistance in disaster legal services contexts  Others?

31. Interim Analysis of Potential Broader Usage within Legal Aid  Advocate Support for Pro Bono Attorneys  Pro Bono Advice or Information to Web site Users  Cross State Assistance  Multi-Lingual Support  Document Assembly Support  Low-Literacy User Support  Service Finding and Online Application Assistance  Diagnostic Software Support  As Assistive Technology Considerations

32. General LiveHelp replication  Key resources for replication:  MLSA navigator manual  ILA project management resources  PBN expanding replication support: Implementation, training, marketing and evaluation assistance 2007 TIG grant to coordinate and support additional replication initiatives

33. Cross Jurisdictional Advocacy How can we work across state and program lines to improve our advocacy efforts?

34. Service Area Offices serving 32 counties in western Ohio More than 30,000 requests for service received in 2007

35.  "Wherever you are, technology can go...”  Collaborative advocacy across traditional program boundaries  Local cases take on national significance Technology expands our capacity to engage in national advocacy

36. The Big Picture  Client-centered strategic advocacy  What’s the problem vs. where’s the client  Combine & deliver expertise regardless of proximity  Patterns and repeat offenders  Affirmative advocacy  Systemic impact

37. The Power of Data  Tsunami warnings from aggregate data  Discerning the signs  Documenting the history  Strategic data mining  Track the ebb and flow  Get ahead of emerging trends  Develop action plans

38. It’s about the clients

39. The virtual law office makes it possible Together, we do the community justice.  Remote access, wireless networks and mobile broadband  LegalMeetings and webinars  Web-based case management systems  Google documents & other web-based tools  Shared brief banks and document libraries  Web-based research systems

40. Technology Questions for Litigators and Program Leaders Together, we do the community justice.  What’s the task?  Who are the stakeholders?  Who are the leaders?  Who will have time and expertise to do this?  Where will the money come from?  Evaluation/Accountability/Timelines  Think strategically - Support the mission!

41. To Find out More  Alison Paul, Deputy Director, Montana Legal Services Association, apaul@mtlsa.org apaul@mtlsa.org  Ed Marks, Litigation Director, Legal Aid of Western Ohio, emarks@lawolaw.orgemarks@lawolaw.org  Eve Ricaurte, Managing Attorney Pro Se Projects/Eastern Iowa Intake, Iowa Legal Aid, ericaurte@iowalaw.orgericaurte@iowalaw.org  Liz Keith, National LawHelp.org Circuit Rider, Pro Bono Net, lkeith@probono.netlkeith@probono.net