Adult community is extremely frustrated because H.R. 12455 has yet to receive final passage.

I, again, seek your leadership in the forthcoming Conference with Senators and Representatives. I urge the Conference to make specific reference to a Senior Adult exemption in the language of the Bill. Congress has been sensitive to the complexities of problems that Senior Adults encounter. However, this factor was overlooked in the rush to pass the Title XX legislation. The Conference now has the opportunity to demonstrate the unique differences of social service benefits for Senior Adult recipients by a stated Senior Adult eligibility exemption. A Senior Adult exemption would in no way interfere with the present goals of Title XX services.

I am confident that Congress is fully aware of the cost of living acceleration since the established ceiling for Title XX funds. I urge that the Conference increase the fund ceiling to provide for the cost of services in present day standards.

The Administration has attempted to develop a climate positive to respective State Title XX social services in its Block Grants proposal. But this is a form of revenue sharing. I urge you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the Subcommittee on Public Assistance to reject the Block Grant proposal. The bottom line of the Block Grant proposal can reduce immeasurably Title XX social service programs up to 25%.

The funding principle guidelines established in the Title XX legislation should not be changed. I seek your leadership, Mr. Chairman, as a member of the Conference on II.R. 12455, to consider additional State options without changing the funding formula for Title XX social services.

STATEMENT OF MARY DOUGLAS DICK, NATIONAL LEGAL AID AND DEFENDER

ASSOCIATION

My name is Mary Douglas Dick and I am a member of the staff of the National Legal Aid and Defender Association (NLADA), testifying for the Association. NLADA is the only organization that devotes all its resources to improving, expanding, and strengthening legal assistance and defender work for the poor in the United States. Our activities include the development of standards for legal aid and public defender programs, publication of journals and newsletters which provide current information and news about the legal services programs throughout the country, and the filing of amicus briefs in civil and criminal cases. NLADA testified before the Subcommittee on Public Assistance in regard to HR 12014. At that time, Frank N. Jones, our executive director, pointed out particular difficulties facing legal services programs caused by certain regulations governing Title XX. Today, at your invitation, my goal is to communicate to you our opinion that, should HR 12175 become law, far fewer poor persons will obtain the legal counsel crucial to the just disposition of their interests. I intend to make three points: First, the expansion of legal services is greatly needed. Second, Title XX has, throughout the last year, strengthened such services. Finally, Title XX, as signed into law, achieved a balance between local, state and federal decision-making. HR 12175 would, we believe, eliminate this balance by tipping the administrative weight of the program to state governments, to the detriment of the provision of legal services.

Statistics clearly reflect the vast unmet need for civil legal services throughout the country. For example, according to a July, 1975 study by the Bureau of Social Sciences Research, legal services are available to approximately seventeen million poor persons out of a poverty population of twenty-nine million poor persons nationwide.1 (see Attachment A) The BSSR study also finds that while there is a ratio of one private attorney for every 893 persons, there is a ratio of less than one legal services attorney for every 10,000 poor persons. Yet, 23% of the poor have at least one civil legal problem in a year.

There is no doubt that the advent of the Legal Services Corporation has boosted hopes for increased funding levels throughout the legal services community. However, for the time being, the Corporation cannot possibly close the gap between the poor person's need for legal services and available attorneys.

1 "The Legal Services Program: Resource Distribution and the Low Population," Leonard H. Goodman and Margaret Walker, p. 86.

2 Ibid.

And while appropriations for the Legal Services Corporation are steadily increasing, the need for increased resources continues to far outstrip available Corporation dollars. Moreover, while Corporation funded programs are the most financially secure, they are a minority. To be specific, there are 265 Corporation funded programs. NLADA has on its membership rolls an additional 685 nonCorporation funded member offices that exist only because of contributors and other public monies, such as those available through Title XX. And although there are far more non-Corporation funded legal services programs, these programs receive only 37% of all available legal services monies."

Voices from attorneys, judges and political figures around the country substantiate the great need for legal aid. From New York City, the senior attorney and director of the matrimonial unit of Community Action for Legal Services, Marjory D. Fields, states:

The gap has widened between the demand for free counsel in civil litigation, and our ability to provide representation. The poor have learned of legal services, but we have reduced staff. . . We are faced with constant pressure from legally indigent people in need of immediate assistance. How do we choose among tenants faced with eviction, welfare recipients whose benefits have been terminated, consumers whose furniture is being repossessed, and divorce defendants about to lose custody or have a child bastardized?*

In Flint, Michigan, Mennen Williams, Michigan Supreme Court Justice, stated that, in Michigan, 45 out of 83 counties have no legal aid programs and he further affirmed that, "At a time when the United States is turning out more lawyers than can be absorbed into the profession, a larger sector of our population, possibly even a majority of our population, does not have lawyers to service their needs"."

Judge Jack B. Weinstein sums up well the need for increased legal services, saying flatly,

As a judge, I cannot do my job in our adversary system unless all parties are adequately represented by counsel . . . Tens of millions of Americans are effectively denied many of their rights because they cannot freely consult with lawyers who can advise them and take necessary actions on their behalf-by mediation or by use of administrative or judicial remedies, widespread availability of legal counseling services is necessary or our system of laws won't work properly."

To a certain extent, Congress and HEW addressed the vast unmet legal needs that I have described by enacting Title XX. And, although we have never viewed the Title XX approach as the best way to meet such needs, in some areas of the country the effect of Title XX has been dramatic. In North Carolina, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Florida, Montana, Illinois, and many other states, Title XX funding was used by states to set up new legal aid and to strengthen and continue legal services programs that had received funding under Title IV-A.

One example of the positive impact of Title XX upon legal services has been the successful formation and funding of a state-level system for delivering legal services throughout the state of Virginia. I would like to outline Virginia's situation, and to emphasize the beneficial involvement of varied community and state organizations in last year's planning process that led to the acquisition of new resources for the provision of legal services and to a new and effective method of administering legal services funds.

The need for legal services is particularly pronounced in Virginia, whose population includes nearly 700,000 poor persons. The legal needs of these Virginians were met in 1975 and 1976 by thirty-nine full-time legal aid attorneys, indicating a ratio of attorneys to clients that far exceeded the national average at one for every 17,700 persons. Moreover, no organized legal aid services at all have been available in three-fourths of Virginia's political jurisdictions (114 out

3 Ibid.

Newspaper articles consisting of the text of a presentation given by Ms. Fields during a forum at the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. New York, N.Y. Law Journal. April 9, 1976.

The Flint Journal, Flint, Michigan, April 9, 1976.

New York, N.Y. Law Journal, April 1, 1976 (Supra).

U.S. Bureau of the Census figures for 1974. In addition, 410,000 of the poor are sixty. five years or older, and especially need legal assistance in the area of government benefits, adult protective services, consumer problems, problems growing out of medical treatment and in managing and disposing of their estates.

74-332-76-10

of 153 cities and counties). The existing legal aid offices have been funded by the Legal Services Corporation, with some contributions from cities, counties and private groups, and by other non-federal organizations.

The listing of legal services in the state's proposed plan sparked meetings of legal services project directors and members of local bar associations concerned about the limited availability of legal services in the state. It was decided to mount an effort to raise the required match money in local communities. Rather than working separately and eventually contracting with local county welfare departments, the project directors were interested in creating a central, nonprofit legal services corporation for the state. Such a corporation would contract with the state welfare department, which, in turn, would subcontract with each legal aid office, insuring the return of the local match money raised by each program and the payment of the 75% federal share.

Once a decision was made to attempt to form such a corporation, the project directors began discussing their plan with community groups. Since financial support depended on convincing proof of merit and need, project directors shared with such groups their aims, the nature of their services and the need for them, and their present financial obstacles. Legal aid personnel went to county boards of supervisors, contacted local bar associations for support, and raised money through private charitable organizations. Community groups and representatives of local bar associations spoke out for legal services at public planning sessions and contributed match money to local programs. In some cases, special events were organized, such as the New River, Virginia "Hike for Progress" whose proceeds were earmarked for legal services matching money. Moreover, the Virginia State Bar became an integral part of the plan to strengthen legal services delivery, and actively supported the information of what is now the Legal Services Corporation of Virginia. In fact, members of the State Bar comprise a majority of the board of directors of the new Corporation. In effect, Virginia's experience seems to exemplify the kind of broad based and creative planning effort that was intended by Congress in enacting Title XX.

The outcome of such wide support was that close to $200,000 in local match money was raised, thus gaining a total of approximately $512,000 for legal services. The new Legal Services Corporation of Virginia will channel this money to local programs. It is anticipated that 7,638 clients will be served in fiscal 1977 with these Title XX monies. Since, in fiscal 1976, approximately 17,500 clients were served, the additional money represents a 45% leap in the number of poor persons projected to receive legal counsel in 1977. A crucial element in this achievement was the personal and financial commitment of communities actively planning to provide needed services.

Since HR 12175 would eliminate the current requirement for 25% local or state match, we fear that it would eliminate the kind of involvement I have specifically described. The process of going to communities and seeking financial support can be indeed, often was-difficult for legal services programs and sometimes involves overcoming past prejudices and fears. Yet the process can, and often did, build a firm foundation of community trust and understanding. And, when this process did not or could not occur, legal services programs could

There are numerous advantages of the system whereby one central corporation acts as a conduit for funds. To name a few:

Contracting once with the state streamlines the contracting process, making it far more efficient.

A statewide non-profit corporation can provide technical assistance in management to local programs.

A statewide non-profit corporation can aid in the development of new legal aid programs in areas not now served.

Such a corporation can serve as a clearinghouse for information and resources.

approach the state legislature for financial support, again reasoning with the elected representatives of the state and educating them to the necessity of legal aid. Not only in Virginia, but in many states, legal services programs that obtained match monies had a valid and effective bargaining tool with state welfare departments, a means to insure inclusion in the state final plan. Without a match requirement, a state's Department of Public Welfare has sole discretion in deciding what resources to commit without relying on objective indications of community support, such as that provided by successful accrual of match money. Services such as legal services that can, on occasion, provoke controversy and bias are especially vulnerable to a limited decision-making process. Legal services programs nation-wide are, we feel, apt to lose state support without the financial anchor of a 25% match representing local sentiment or legislative will. I would like to conclude by making three additional points. First, HR 12175 opens the doors to financing several previously prohibited activities. Funds designed originally to provide special services to individuals unable to protect their own interests without such services may, with the passage of HR 12175, be used for a range of new services, and, indeed, many social services will be unable to compete with the plethora of new monetary demands made on the states.

Second, HR 12175 mandates that 75% of service recipients also be recipients of AFDC, Medicaid, or SSI. We feel that the 50% level established by Title XX allows for desirable flexibility in meeting the special needs of different areas of the country. The 75% requirement would particularly hurt the working poor in rural areas by making them ineligible for legal and other social serivces.

Finally, abandoning Title XX now means negating the thinking, planning, and practical experience that has gone into the program so far. Obviously, there have been rough edges to a new program having the scope of Title XX. We have testified previously to our concern with regulations that have caused severe problems with legal services programs.' But the friction between our views and those of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare has smoothed some of Title XX's rough edges. Many questions have been successfully resolved. For examle, clients no longer must sign a perjury statement in order to receive services; the eligibility determination process is now decided by individual states; and the data file question is being reconsidered.

We can work out our differences concerning regulations. That there have been differences does not mean that the concepts underlying Title XX do not have merit. In sum, we feel that Title XX can be a workable program. However, should the Financial Assistance for Community Services bill become law, it seems highly likely that legal services will be offered to fewer of the nation's poor and the country will, in effect, be taking a step backward, away from the goal of equal justice for all. Thank you.

Presently, for instance, the serious issue of confidentiality has again been raised in the State of Pennsylvania. All legal services programs have chosen to relinquish their Title XX federal financial participation rather than allowing HEW auditors to freely peruse client files. NLADA supports fully the stand taken by these programs. Without reexamining in full an issue that we have previously addressed, I would nonetheless like to quote from the testimony of President Edward Wright, past President of the ABA before the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Mr. Wright was chiefly responsible for drafting the present Code of Professional Responsibility. When asked by Senator Cranston: "Are the provisions of the Code of Professional Ethics intended to extend its duties and protections to every client, irrespective of whether he can pay for a private attorney?" Mr. Wright replied, "Absolutely, Senator." In a recent conversation, one HEW official unofficially justified the Pennsylvania action, stating, "An individual has to waive something when the public pays for a service." We disagree. But, as we have worked to modify regulations in the past, we will attempt to negotiate this issue to insure that services for the poor are not somehow "different."