Each state has a unique set of circumstances, relationships, and resources which will inform how best to engage with these JFA materials and tools. In general, justice for all demands an ongoing process of improvement that includes shared oversight; information gathering; assessment; planning and prioritization; and implementation.

The ongoing process should be informed by current realities but driven by the ultimate vision of a system in which every person has access to the information and assistance they need to address essential civil legal needs, when and where they need it, and in a format they can use.

How much initial time and resources are dedicated to each step will depend on a state’s unique circumstances. For example, some states may have funding to hire a consultant to oversee a comprehensive planning process, while others may not have the resources for extensive information gathering and assessment stages. Some states may already have up-to-date legal needs studies, inventories of available legal resources and services, and sources of community and user feedback. Information gathering and assessment may be relatively easy for these states. States without an existing access to justice committee or other body may need to spend more time initially creating a shared oversight structure or other support systems. The model process should be adapted to the circumstances, resources, and needs of the state.

Shared Oversight - Assembling the Team

In general, it will be helpful to assemble a working group to review the JFA framework and tools and to agree on a planning process, assigned responsibilities, and timeline. The working group could be an existing access to justice committee or subcommittee, with partners added as necessary to provide additional perspective and input.

Early questions to consider regarding oversight may include:

• Can an existing leadership team, working group or subcommittee oversee the planning process, or will a new one need to be created?
• Do new partners need to be invited to participate in the process?
• Is the right team assembled to ensure engagement and buy-in for later implementation of agreed-upon priorities?
• How and how often should the working group or subcommittee communicate to a larger group of access to justice partners in the state, including but not limited to an existing access to justice committee?

The team will be responsible for overseeing the planning process.

Information Gathering

During the information gathering stage, partners assemble, update, and share information regarding the current landscape for access to justice work in the state. Ideally, information gathered would include:

• Legal needs, including recent legal needs studies, intake statistics, and court case statistics
• An inventory of currently available legal information, resources, and services
• User and community experiences and feedback, which can be attained by existing or new surveys, focus groups, community meetings, and community advisory counsels
• An understanding of the formal and informal networks by which low-income individuals and other vulnerable populations get information and assistance (including non-legal community-based organizations), for example through geospatial analyses of the services and networks currently available
• Population characteristics using publicly available data sets

In states without existing data or capacity to engage in significant information gathering, this stage can be as simple as a facilitated meeting, set of meetings, or portion of a meeting during which diverse access to justice stakeholders share what they do know about the needs of low-income litigants and the availability of resources and services in a jurisdiction. This discussion could be organized around the questions asked in the JFA diagnostic tool, discussed in more detail below.

Assessment

The assessment stage includes an analysis of a state’s progress toward justice for all using the JFA framework and the available data and information. Assessment stages should involve diverse partners collaboratively evaluating the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats in working toward justice for all. For example, assessments could take the form of a formal written report, informed by feedback from and discussions with partners, or they may be simply documented in minutes from facilitated meetings.

Some states may find the JFA diagnostic tool a useful basis for discussion and analysis during the assessment stage. Based on the JFA framework, the tool asks users questions about their satisfaction with the range of resources, services, relationships, and support systems necessary for achieving justice for all. The tool provides a customized report based on answers to the questions, with a curated list of potential access to justice activities a state may want to prioritize, including useful links to additional resources, best practices, and examples. The tool may be particularly helpful in states in the early stages of coordinating access to justice work and where stakeholders are unsure about where to focus future coordinated efforts.

Planning and Prioritization

The planning and prioritization stage will use the assessment as a basis to reach consensus on priority activities, including meaningful and achievable commitments to outcomes over a designated period (typically one to three years). Ideally, the planning and prioritization process will include:

• participation by important JFA partners, including but not limited to access to justice committee members
• agreement on the factors and principles used to prioritize collaborative work
• a written plan that includes
  • timelines for completing prioritized work
  • assignment of responsibilities for overseeing and completing the work
  • performance measures for tracking progress on work (which then can be used to inform the next cycle of assessment and planning)
• agreement on how to use and revise the plan as a part of ongoing governance and oversight

You can find examples of access to justice commissions’ strategic plans on the ABA website.

Implementation and (Revisiting) Shared Oversight

During the implementation and shared-oversight stage, the appropriate oversight body should track and report on the progress in implementing the agreed-upon priorities. This will often happen through an established access to justice commission. Proper oversight and reporting systems are what distinguish plans that result in meaningful progress from plans that gather “dust on shelves.” Ongoing oversight may include working groups to oversee, monitor, and report on specific priorities in the plan. In some states, it will make sense for the working groups to be a subcommittee of the access to justice committee. The oversight structure should include regular progress reports and suggestions for necessary adjustments.  This doesn’t have to be a cumbersome process. For example, the access to justice commission or other oversight committee can simply start each meeting with a rearticulation of their strategic priorities and then dedicate a portion of each meeting to reporting on progress related to those priorities.

As implementation is occurring, shared oversight and shared learning should inform the next cycle of assessment and planning, resulting in serial improvements.