Center for Court Solutions
Center for Court Solutions
Who We Are What We Offer Key Topics Partner Courts News & Events Contact

 

 

 

 


Step 3: Identify Potential Solutions

 

Potential strategies for improving pro se/pro bono services are listed below. Courts should consider these strategies in the context of their own legal culture and resources and adapt as appropriate.

1.      Set policy for court staff assistance to litigants.

2.      Systematically revise existing courtroom and jurisdiction-wide policy and practices.

3.      Establish Self-Help Centers to provide accessible assistance to pro se litigants.

4.      Improve the court process for pro se litigants through technology.

5.      Triage services based on needs.

6.      Address literacy and language issues.

7.      Expand pro bono services.

8.      Provide for limited scope representation.

9.      Provide judicial and staff training.

10.    Provide assistance for pro se litigants after a decision.

11.    Conduct program evaluations.

 

1.  Set policy for court staff assistance to litigants.

The development of polices to guide court staff about what information they may and may not provide to litigants has been one of the most effective means of assisting self-represented litigants. A number of states have written policies differentiating legal information and legal advice. Known examples of these policies exist in California, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, New Jersey, New Mexico, Utah, and Wisconsin. Michigan was the first state to address the issue, and chose to create a training curriculum rather than adopt a formal policy. The Michigan Supreme Court approved the curriculum, which won the NACM Achievement Award in 1998, giving it the same authority as a formal policy. New York recently adopted this approach, implementing an official training curriculum on the topic. California prepared a handbook for staff entitled May I Help You?, adopted a sign that is to be used in lieu of any other signage in Clerks’ offices, and broadcasts live video training sessions for all court staff throughout the state. Iowa’s policy includes more than 20 pages of questions frequently asked by self-represented litigants and appropriate answers. The Florida legislature enacted a statute, mandating that “the clerk of circuit … provide ministerial assistance to pro se litigants.” Other states have also followed California’s lead in adopting the facilitator model of one-on-one assistance in which court staff members are specifically designated to provide assistance to self-represented litigants. The CCJ/COSCA Task Force report and Resolution 31 has often been cited in the development of these efforts.

Examples and Resources

 

 

Return to TOP

 

2.    Systematically revise existing courtroom and jurisdiction-wide policy and practices.

 “A truly self-help friendly court must change not only the processes that lead up to the courtroom, but also the way the courtroom itself is conducted” (Summit on the Future of Self-Represented Litigation, Appendix 2-A: Effective Practices in Pro se Access to Justice Innovation, p. 11). Several process and system changes can be made to better serve the increasing numbers of pro se litigants in the courtroom. Improved processes and forms, a redefined judicial role, and the provision of courtroom attorneys are a few key features of an integrated pro se assistance effort.

 

Improved processes and forms. Standardizing and simplifying processes and materials is a critical first step in creating a more universally beneficial court environment. Detailed forms, written instructions, and educational workshops based on simplified, standardized procedures allow self-represented litigants to become more fully prepared and develop more accurate expectations of the hearing process. The San Francisco County Superior Court’s ACCESS self-help project, for example, arranges for a consolidated pro se case calendar so litigants may attend a 1.5 hour workshop on the settlement process, possible options, and other information the day of their hearing. Other courts that have become more proactive in specialized case calendaring and case management include the Fourth Judicial District Court in Hennepin County, Minnesota; Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland; Maricopa County in Arizona; and Alameda and Los Angeles Counties in California.

 

Judicial role. The boundaries of judicial neutrality also need to be clarified in the face of increasing numbers of pro se litigants. Many judges still fear that providing self-represented litigants with information or guidance in court violates or compromises judicial neutrality and impartiality. However, unless judges conduct proceedings in a manner that affords self-represented litigants some measure of special attention regarding rules, process, procedure, and submission of evidence, the full facts of the case will likely not be heard. This would particularly bias a case in which only one party is self-represented. Judicial neutrality, in essence, requires directive action in cases with one or more self-represented parties (see Zorza, 2004, in Examples and Resources, below). Rephrasing the authoritative Code for Judicial Conduct may help eliminate or attenuate the concern judges have regarding this matter, reassuring them that directive action is often necessary for a fair trial in pro se case hearings. The Minnesota judicial branch, for example, has created guidelines for the handling such cases.

 

Self-help attorneys. Trained, volunteer attorneys can be stationed in the courtroom to help guide self-represented litigants and facilitate and expedite court hearing processes. By conducting a “readiness review” of self-represented litigants prior to their appearance, attorneys can identify litigants with crucial missing paperwork, incomplete forms, or who are otherwise improperly equipped for a hearing. Attorneys can help pro se litigants finish preparations for simple matters in time for their hearing. If more extensive assistance is required or if the issue is more complex, attorneys may refer pro se litigants to the self-help center (see Establish Self-Help Centers to provide accessible assistance to pro se litigants, below.) or to full or unbundled legal services (see Provide for limited scope representation, below). Caution should be exercised, however, to ensure that the program structure makes appropriate services available to all, and does not favor one side over the other. Furthermore, pro se litigants cannot reasonably be expected to prepare effective post-hearing written orders or judgments typically handled by legal counsel. Again, a system of self-help attorneys may help bridge this gap by preparing such orders and judgments for the self-represented.

Examples and Resources

 

Standardization

     Judicial role

 

Self-help attorneys

   

Return to TOP

 

3.    Establish Self-Help Centers to provide accessible assistance to pro se litigants.

Self-help centers are invaluable centralized resources for self-represented litigants that collectively offer a wide range of services. According to Rasnow (2005a), the most effective self-help center programs have an easily accessible main hub located adjacent to the filing clerk’s office in the courthouse, with branch centers reaching communities in need. A mobile self-help unit, equipped with computer terminals, internet access, forms, informational materials, and assisting staff, could also provide assistance to self-represented litigants in underserved areas on a rotation basis (for links to programs in California and Georgia, see Examples and Resources, below). Additionally, some states (like Minnesota) provide users with information on public transportation to increase the self-help center’s perceived accessibility in the community. In some jurisdictions, however, a physical self-help center is implausible. For example, Alaska’s geographical scope and inclement weather prompted the state to establish an assistance program that successfully provides information and services almost entirely via telephone, the Internet, and email.

Rasnow’s (2005b) best practices indicate that physical facilities should be equipped with several important features: multilingual signage; signage and intake forms disclosing the types of assistance offered (e.g., legal information only; no legal advice provided); work stations for manual form completion; reference libraries; sufficient computer and printing equipment with internet access and form completion programs for the population being served; multimedia stations to view informational films; video conferencing equipment for remote access; program evaluation forms for self-help center users; and a proximal children’s waiting room. Additionally, these centers should be flexible enough to accommodate large groups and families when workshops are conducted. (For more information, see Rasnow, 2005a and 2005b). Although staff members and volunteers without any legal background can assist with daily operations, emerging consensus strongly recommends that the program be supervised by at least one experienced attorney. Ideally, several attorneys and paralegals would be involved with the center to ensure that non-legal staff provides program users with accurate and complete information.

The self-help center may provide information regarding court procedures, how to file pleadings, and what forms to complete. Services may also include internet access to self-help resources and materials (e.g., Nolo.com and LawHelp.org), referral to other community resources such as mediation or unbundled legal services, staff or computer program assistance in forms completion, and a “readiness review” of pleadings prior to filing. Mandatory or recommended educational courses and workshops on common topics may also be offered on-site.

Examples and Resources

   

Return to TOP

 

4.    Improve the court process for pro se litigants through technology.

Case management and networking. Technological advancements are revolutionizing the internal processes of the court system and legal aid provider programs. More integrated, centralized, real-time case management and networking systems enhance database and registry record accessibility, providing judges and other court staff with complete, up-to-date information needed to track judgments and make decisions (see Alteneder, Genz, Hertz, Hough, Jacobs and Rawdon, 2005, in Examples and Resources, below). The Massachusetts Trial Courts (MassCourts) have implemented a comprehensive case management system that allows more accurate information about the number and types of cases involving self-represented litigants to be obtained. Furthermore, instead of retaining more cumbersome hard copies of manuals, referral lists, and other quickly outdated information, legal aid providers can maintain to-the-minute listings electronically, accessible throughout the network. If checks are necessary to ensure no legal conflicts (e.g., one lawyer providing information to both parties in a case), they can be conducted on a system-wide level much more effectively.

Online payment, e-filing, and forms completion. Efficient e-filing and online ticket and fine payment systems appeal to court users while also reducing court workload (see Paying Fines and Fees Online). Programs available free of charge to courts in California help litigants begin a divorce or paternity case, prepare papers for landlords and tenants in eviction cases, prepare forms for the guardianship of a person or estate, and prepare a small claims action. The Legal Services Corporation’s Technology Innovation Grant Program funded the development of a computer kiosk and web-based legal services system designed to provide convenient and effective access to vital legal services for lower-income court users. This Interactive Community Assistance Network (I-CAN!) program can create properly formatted pleadings, provide court tours, and educate users on the law and steps needed to pursue their matter in court (for more information and links to existing I-CAN! legal projects, see Examples and Resources, below). EZLegalFile.org, another California innovation, similarly assists users in filing or responding to family law, small claims, unlawful detainer, domestic violence and guardianship case paperwork. Several states, such as California, Indiana, Maryland, and Montana, utilize the relatively inexpensive and flexible HotDocs platform to assist litigants in completing declarations, agreements, and attachments to Judicial Council forms (for more HotDocs information and links, see Examples and Resources, below). Interactive Court Forms are also available on court websites so users can access and complete forms without necessitating a trip to the courthouse.

Telephonic- and internet-based assistance. In addition to making the active court process easier for self-represented litigants and court staff alike, technological innovations have also helped expand educational public outreach efforts and increase public access to the courts and court information. Legal hotlines provide the self-represented litigant with immediate access to free, brief legal advice from attorneys (for examples, see AARP’s listing of Legal Hotlines and Washington’s CLEAR legal hotline project). Self-help websites provide around-the-clock access to instructions, forms, referral lists, and other information, which can be reviewed at the user’s leisure and from remote locations (see links to Alaska, California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Georgia, and Washington legal assistance websites in Examples and Resources, below). The communicative capacity of the web also allows self-represented litigants to obtain real-time assistance from self-help staff or attorneys with document preparation, website navigation, and other issues (such as LiveHelp and LiveJustice).   

Educational workshops and videoconferencing for pro se litigants. Mandatory or recommended multimedia educational workshops can provide self-represented litigants with more personal instruction and informational assistance (see sample workshops links in Examples and Resources, below). Instead of simple lectures, workshop instructors can utilize videos and PowerPoint presentations to more efficiently and consistently present the material. Also, pro se litigants in attendance may more effectively retain information presented in such a mixed format. Videoconferencing technology may also be incorporated, allowing instructors to present a workshop in multiple locations simultaneously. This may be especially useful in reaching remote rural sites. The interactive capability of videoconferencing makes personalized assistance with forms completion, document preparation or question-answering possible despite barriers of geographical distance or inclement weather.

For links to technological assistance providers or further guidance in expanding services and outreach through technological innovations, see “Technological assistance and guidance for courts and legal aid providers,” the last category listed under Examples and Resources, below.

Examples and Resources

Case management and networking

  • Alteneder, K., Genz, M., Hertz, M., Hough, B., Jacobs, H., & Rawdon, G. (2005, March). Paper seven: The role of technology in the access solution. Paper presented at the Summit on the Future of Self-Represented Litigation, Chicago, IL.

  • The MassCourts Project Press Release and MAXIMUS Client Success Story article

Online payment, e-filing, and forms completion

Telephonic-       Telephonic- and internet-based assistance

Educational workshops and videoconferencing.

     Technological assistance and guidance for courts & legal aid providers

 

 Return to TOP

 

5.    Triage services based on needs

The most effective legal assistance program is equipped with efficient triaging procedures that direct self-represented users to the help they need and reduce improper filings. For example, such programs are structured to immediately identify the complexity of legal matters, whether the litigant is capable of self-representation, and whether the case involves family violence or abuse (see Greacen, 2005). That is, most pro se litigants may be capable of pursuing simple legal matters in court, but only those with more advanced legal understanding and ability may be competent enough to self-represent in moderately complex cases. Complex cases or litigants with mental illness, retardation, language barriers, or other restrictions that may hinder their ability to self-represent may require legal counsel or additional services. Court programs that provide complete sets of multilingual materials, bilingual legal aid staff, and court interpreters may provide the level of service needed to accommodate linguistic minority pro se populations satisfactorily (see Address literacy and language issues, below).  Finally, abuse cases may need immediate attention and guidance to protect against power imbalances and intimidation.

The most Staff members may require procedural training for in-person triaging. In lieu of formal training, detailed scripts may be followed for telephone intake. Forms completion programs, such as EZLegalFile, I-CAN! and HotDocs, can serve a triaging function as well, guiding users through appropriate steps and forms (see Improving the court process for pro se litigants through technology, above).

Examples and Resources

 

 Return to TOP

 

6.    Address literacy and language issues

The average citizen should be able to easily understand court forms and procedures. Courts can reduce the complexity of the law and procedures for pro se litigants by simplifying steps and modifying forms. California, for example, has published Plain Language Works for Pro Per Litigants, which provides tips for creating “plain language” court forms that are easier for low-literacy litigants to read and understand. Forms and entire websites can also be translated into different languages for jurisdictions with non-English speaking communities. For example, Alaska and California have developed entire Spanish-language versions of their self-help websites. The North Carolina Court System website includes a searchable database of judicial forms in English or Spanish. Finally, websites can incorporate screen readers for visually impaired and illiterate populations. The Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County self-help website includes streaming video and audio in several languages for self-represented litigants seeking orders of protection.

To assist courts in addressing literacy and language issues, some professional organizations offer training workshops on how to write in plain language and provide translation services for forms, instructions, or other documents (for an example, see Transcend). Courts unable to consult with professional organizations due to funding constraints may want to consider establishing a Supreme Court standing committee to manage the process.

Additionally, courts and legal aid providers in jurisdictions with larger non-English-speaking communities may want to recruit bilingual staff and volunteers. For example, San Francisco Superior Court’s ACCESS self-help program hires bilingual staff to translate materials offer assistance to users in their native language. The collaborative efforts of the East Bay Asian Consortium, the Alameda County (CA) Bar Association's Community Projects Committee, and Family Bridges, Inc. brought the Legal Language Access Project to fruition, facilitating language access between local low-income linguistic minorities and the legal community.

Examples and Resources

 

 

 Return to TOP

 

7.    Expand pro bono services

Pro bono legal services include (but are not limited to) the voluntary provision of legal services to low-income individuals who are otherwise unable to obtain representation on their own, without expectation of compensation. Many firms have attorneys who take cases on a pro bono basis. In larger firms, pro bono coordinators usually conduct the intake and assign the case. Firms may focus on a select type of case or restrict services to a particular local area. Independent pro bono programs also are available in some areas. These are freestanding programs or are associated with bar associations or other entities that do not receive LSC funds.

Low bono legal services accommodate people who cannot afford to retain a lawyer but who do not qualify for legal services. A range of services falls under the "low bono" umbrella, including one-time referrals or assessments provided for a set fee, legal seminars for the public on a certain issue, such as divorce, firms providing assistance for a reduced fee to clients who meet certain economic standards, and legal assistance programs for specially situated people, such as the elderly. (For more information, see Provide for limited-scope representation, below.)

Pro and low bono program and clinic services can be expanded to accommodate the increasing numbers of self-represented litigants. Courts can encourage pro bono activities by:

  • Adopting the ABA Model Rule 6.1

  • Adopting a pro bono resolution

  • Providing free or low cost CLE’s in return for pro bono services

  • Providing loan assistance/forgiveness programs for pro bono attorneys

  • Assisting local legal firms to create a pro bono policy

  • Conducting recruitment campaigns to provide easy access and entry into pro bono service

  • Encouraging judicial leadership and initiating judicially endorsed programs

  • Issuing standardized attorney incentives, such as tax deductions or priority scheduling

Additionally, recruitment tasks have become simplified through the use of database listings and mass e-mailing. Interested attorneys can be directed to an informational website that provides detailed instructions on how to get started in pro bono service, training materials and examples, and reference listings of experienced pro bono attorneys and other resources (for more, see Hertz and Gray, 2005 in Examples and Resources, below). For example, Pro Bono Net serves as a national web-based resource, actively promoting volunteer lawyer service and education. New York has created an online search engine for pro bono opportunities statewide. Finally, the Maryland State Bar Association and the Maryland Legal Services Corporation collaborated to create the state’s Pro Bono Resource Center online, offering users resources, volunteer opportunities, training programs, and breaking news in the field.

Furthermore, videoconferencing, telephonic, and other internet innovations allow attorneys to work from remote locations (see Improving the court process for pro se litigants through technology, above). Several states are adopting the hotline approach to providing legal advice and information. For example, Hawaii’s Domestic Violence Clearinghouse and Legal Hotline (DVCLH) provides legal assistance and advocacy for the state’s victims of domestic abuse. California’s Senior Legal Hotline provides free legal advice and brief services via telephone or e-mail. Informational materials are available to download directly off of their website. The AARP Foundation’s Legal Hotlines website features a directory that allows users to search for legal hotlines by state, service area, funding sources, eligible client profile, hotline type and software.

Examples and Resources

 

 Return to TOP

 

8.    Provide for limited scope representation.

Courts are recognizing that pro se litigants are often unable to pay for full service representation, but still need some source of information or assistance in pursuing their legal matters. By unbundling legal services, pro se litigants are provided with another option—limited scope representation.

Limited scope legal representation consists of an attorney-client relationship in which the agreed upon scope of services provided are limited to certain tasks. These service agreements are often referred to as “unbundling,” “discrete task representation,” “partial representation,” or “limited representation.” In general, services may include advice and counsel, limited court or administrative appearances, and assistance with documents and pleadings. Each of these categories may be further broken down into discrete tasks, and a lawyer may provide a combination of services. The ABA recently published the Handbook on Limited Scope Legal Assistance: A Report of the Modest Means Task Force, which provides descriptions of common types of unbundled services, case studies of lawyers that have successfully implemented this legal services model in their practices, and practical “how-to” information for setting up an unbundled service practice including ethical, disciplinary, and functional limitations.

A number of states, including California, Colorado, Florida, Maine, Oregon, and Washington, have aggressively encouraged limited scope representation through rule changes, bench and bar education, and other concrete efforts. As of July 2004, a total of 17 states have adopted or proposed adopting some form of the revised language and commentary for ABA Model Rule 1.2 concerning limited scope representation. Another 13 states have adopted or proposed adopting Rule 6.5 placing less stringent disqualification requirements on lawyers who provide limited scope legal assistance in the context of non-profit and court-annexed programs (see Greacen, 2004, in Examples and Resources, below).

In recognition that judicial acceptance of limited scope agreements between lawyers and clients is critical to their acceptance by the bar, California developed an educational pamphlet entitled 20 Things Judicial Officers Can Do to Encourage Attorneys to Provide Limited Scope Representation, which outlines the need for general support, adjustments to in-court practices, review of court processes, forms and papers, and ongoing quality control. California also developed a Risk Assessment Package for lawyers with sample fee agreements and other materials that provide guidance on how to provide unbundled services safely and appropriately.

Examples and Resources

 

Return to TOP

 

9.    Provide judicial and staff training.

Courts may want to consider developing materials to help trial judges manage proceedings in which self-represented litigants appear. Practical advice for judges about how to structure their in-court interactions with self-represented litigants in ways that are fair (in both appearance and reality) to opposing parties, that provide sufficient information for judges to make informed and just decisions on the merits, and that permit judges to conduct proceedings efficiently is emerging in the literature (for recent articles, see Examples and Resources, below). The NCSC Best Practices Institute’s Judicial Management of Cases Involving Self-Represented Litigants outlines the general skills that judges should have when dealing with self-represented litigants as well as specific actions that judges should take before, during, and after court hearings. The American Judicature Society is developing a bench book entitled “Ethical Guidance for Judges in Self-Represented Litigation.” The Judicial Council of California recently convened an “Interactive Policy Forum on Judicial Management of Cases Involving Self-Represented Litigants,” a two-day brain-storming workshop in which judicial officers from around the state discussed practical issues, best practices, and policy recommendations on this topic. The ideas generated by the workshop will be developed into a judicial bench book that may serve as a model for other states. For information on the AJS and Judicial Council of California projects, see the State Justice Institute Grant Database.

Of all the judicial barriers to effective pro se litigation, communication is one of the most significant. Ledray and Chase (2005) assert that improved cultural and communication skills, including eye contact and providing explanations for hearing procedures and decisions, can positively impact pro se litigants’ perception of fairness and recollection of and compliance with judicial orders. Aha! Process, Inc. offers a Culture of Poverty workshop that addresses effectiveness of various communication styles in court proceedings with impoverished pro se litigants.

Effective assistance programs also choose to provide manuals and formal training to staff members, volunteers, and other non-judicial parties involved in program operations (for examples, see Selfhelpsupport.org). The “what” and “how” of communications between program personnel and pro se litigants are clarified by defining impartial, neutral behavior in the context of court system policy (for more, see Systematically revise existing courtroom and jurisdiction-wide policy and practices, above); by differentiating between legal advice and legal information (for more, see Set policy for court staff assistance to litigants, above); by issuing tips on how to provide consistent levels of professional service; and by educating personnel on cultural diversity and communication skills issues, such as training on how to work with interpreters and how best to serve self-represented litigants with disabilities and special needs. Furthermore, self-help staff should be aware of appropriate triaging procedures for various cases and scenarios (see Effective triage, above).

 

Courts may also choose to instruct court staff on how to optimize the use of assistance programs by defining or clarifying the roles of various personnel. Pro se litigants requiring more extensive attention may be referred to the self-help center for assistance, reducing court staff workload. Additionally, if the court elects to simplify and standardize case management procedures, forms, and instructions (see Systematically revise existing courtroom and jurisdiction-wide policy and practices, above), court staff will need to be appropriately trained.

Examples and Resources

 

 Return to TOP

 

10.  Provide assistance for pro se litigants after a decision.

Most self-help programs focus on providing assistance to pro se litigants leading up to the hearing process. Unfortunately, many litigants do not have access to sufficient information and resources to follow through with their cases.  Such information would include guides on what evidence is necessary in court and how to present such evidence, how to collect on judgments, how orders are enforced, and how to encourage compliance. A few states have developed materials to assist litigants through the post-judgment phase of a case. For example, California has drafted a pamphlet entitled “How Do I Collect My Judgment?” (for an electronic version of this information, see the California Courts online Self-Help Center page, entitled Collecting Your Judgment), which explains how to proceed through several phases of a civil judgment and the various legal documents that are necessary. Alaska’s Family Law Self-Help Center website provides all materials necessary for contested divorce and custody matters. Waukesha County Court in Wisconsin provides court users with downloadable post-judgment form packets and access to a limited scope attorney roster for further assistance.

Some states have experimented with a few preliminary judicial system changes to address poor compliance rates (see Zorza, 2005). For example, statistics show that only 41% of those ordered to receive child support actually obtain it in full. Thus, some courts in California and Florida are requiring financial information from the debtor to facilitate ensuing enforcement efforts. Other innovative jurisdictions, such as courts in Minneapolis, MN, have begun implementing automatic wage garnishment and license revocation to enforce child support orders (see Minnesota Child Support Online).  Zorza (2005) also suggests several options based on previous research that may be effective but require further investigation, such as automatic review hearings, enforcement-oriented mediation, and more advanced assistance for case winners from specialized self-help offices.

Examples and Resources

 

Return to TOP

 

11.  Conduct program evaluations

Hough’s (2005) review of self-help program evaluation literature revealed that self-help centers have exceeded initial service expectations. They are heavily accessed by the public, with high rates of customer satisfaction. These programs have also contributed to a more efficient and effective court system by simplifying and standardizing processes, forms, and procedures. Despite such progress, many pro se litigants remain unserved. By conducting frequent evaluations and using appropriate standardized tools to enable comparison, self-help programs can identify service shortcomings, legal topics that require more assistance, and underserved populations to target for improvement efforts. Positive aspects of evaluations can be used as leverage to obtain funding for program continuation or expansion. (See Hough, 2005, in Examples and Resources, below).

The availability of tools with which to conduct program evaluations has improved over the past two years. Selfhelpsupport.org has compiled a library of various survey instruments, evaluation tools, and resources to serve as templates and help guide current program evaluation efforts.For example, the Trial Court Research and Improvement Consortium (TCRIC), with a grant from the National Institute of Justice to the Maryland Administrative Office of the Courts, is testing an assessment process using seven survey instruments and a one-week, on-site visit by volunteer consultant teams in ten courts in Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland, and Minnesota. One of the primary benefits of using these tools is the ability of courts to compare the results of their assessment with those of other courts around the country. The California Administrative Office of the Courts, the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission and the Legal Aid Association of California developed a tool kit of eight different evaluation techniques that can be used to evaluate legal services and self-help programs. The tool kit includes an evaluation tool, description of how it can be used, and the pros and cons of its use. It also lists programs that have used the methodology and provides samples of reports where the results of techniques are reported. The California Judicial Council is conducted evaluations of its three pilot Family Law Information Centers and its five experimental models (focusing on technology, urban coordination, rural collaboration, Spanish-language, and multi-lingual assistance) of innovative Self-Help Centers.

Examples and Resources



Return to TOP

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

   Previous Step: Step 2: Determine Changes   << >>   Next Step: Step 4: Prepare Plan