1 / 39

Indiana Legal Services, Inc. Priorities Setting Process

Indiana Legal Services, Inc. Priorities Setting Process. Setting Priorities for the Delivery of Legal Assistance to the Low Income Community. Setting Priorities. Agenda. What Legal Needs?. Presentation of information Discussion of legal needs Discussion of how to address these legal needs

garrison
Download Presentation

Indiana Legal Services, Inc. Priorities Setting Process

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Indiana Legal Services, Inc. Priorities Setting Process Setting Priorities for the Delivery of Legal Assistance to the Low Income Community

  2. Setting Priorities Agenda

  3. What Legal Needs? • Presentation of information • Discussion of legal needs • Discussion of how to address these legal needs • What does this mean in our community? • Who is currently addressing these needs? • What needs that are not being addressed? • What issues are particularly important here? • Rank the legal needs in order of import

  4. What Can We Do? • How should ILS use its resources to address these legal needs in this district? • How should other providers use their resources to address these legal needs? • How can providers coordinate their work?

  5. Other Options? • Are there alternative service models that could be used to address some needs? • Are any of these legal problems best suited for advocacy and/or coordination on the state level? • Are there other resources that could be garnered to address these needs?

  6. Who Are the Poor in Indiana? • 6,080,485 people in Indiana • 498,600 (8.2%) live below the poverty level (Estimated) • 219,858 (14.1%) of children live below the poverty level (estimated)

  7. District 1 Lake 64,748 (13.3%) Jasper: 2,014 (7.2%) LaPorte 9,954 (9.5%) Newton 1,247 (8.5%) Porter 7,750 (5.4%) Pulaski 1,190 (9%) Starke3,211 (13.7) Total: 90,114 (15.8% of state pov. pop.) District 2 Elkhart: 13,366 (7.9%) Kosciusko: 4,006 (5.7%) Marshall: 3,216 (7.1%) St. Joseph: 25,836 (10.3%) Total: 46,424 (8.1% of state pov. Pop) Poverty - Judicial Districts 1 & 2

  8. District 3 Adams: 3,220 (9.8%) Allen: 27,912 (8.9%) Dekalb: 2,096 (5.4%) Huntington: 2,279 (6.2%) LaGrange: 2,538 (7.8%) Noble: 2,507 (6%) Steuben: 2,031 (6.6%) Wells: 1,434 (5.4%) Whitley:1,469 (4.9%) Total: 45,486 (7.9% of state pov. pop) District 4 Benton: 750 (7.7%) Carroll: 1,250 (6.3%) Clinton: 2,589 (7.9%) Fountain: 1,553 (8.4%) Montgomery: 2,777 (7.8%) Tippecanoe: 12,388 (9.8%) Warren: 629 (7.6%) White1,945 (7.7%) Total: 23,881 (4.2% of state pov. pop.) Poverty - Judicial Districts 3 & 4

  9. District 5: Cass: 3,883 (10.1%) Fulton: 1,728 (8.5%) Howard 8,173 (9.6%) Miami: 3,524 (10.7) Tipton: 1,132 (6.8%) Wabash2,628 (7.8%) Total: 21,068 (3.7% of state pov. pop.) District 6: Blackford: 1,341 (9.4%) Delaware: 15,777 (14%) Grant: 9,339 (13.2%) Henry: 5,186 (10.5%) Jay: 2,319 (10.6%) Madison: 14,423 (11.1%) Randolph:3,443 (12.4%) Total: 51,828 (9.1% of state pov. pop) Poverty – Judicial Districts 5 & 6

  10. District 7: Clay: 2,590 (9.7%) Parke: 1,709 (10.6%) Putnam: 2,331 (7.7%) Sullivan: 2,362 (12.2%) Vermillion: 1,604 (9.5%) Vigo:13,602 (13.5%) Total: 24,198 (4.2% of state pov. pop.) District 8: Boone: 2,015 (4.7%) Hamilton: 4,478 (3%) Hancock: 2,176 (4.1%) Hendricks: 3,256 (3.7%) Johnson: 6,033 (5.8%) Marion: 104,179 (12.7%) Morgan: 4,648 (7.3%) Shelby:3,234 (7.5%) Total: 130,019 (22.8% of state pov. pop.) Poverty – Judicial Districts 7 & 8

  11. District 9: Fayette: 2,907 (11%) Franklin: 1,672 (7.7%) Rush: 1,667 (9.2%) Union: 674 (9.2%) Wayne:10,094 (14.2%) Total: 17,014 (3% of state pov. pop.) District 10: Greene: 3,466 (10.4%) Lawrence: 4,247 (9.3%) Monroe: 12,313 (12%) Owen:2,196 (10.8%) Total: 22,222 (3.9% of state pov. pop.) Poverty –Judicial Districts 9& 10

  12. District 13: Daviess: 3,764 (13.1%) Dubois: 1,660 (4.2%) Gibson: 2,737 (8.5%) Knox: 5,136 (13.6%) Martin: 1,188 (11.1%) Perry: 1,757 (9.5%) Pike: 1,463 (11.5%) Posey: 1,940 (7.2%) Spencer: 1,746 (8.5%) Vander.: 20,033 (12.1%) Warrick:3,127 (6.2%) Total: 44,551 (7.8% of state pov. Pop.) District 11: Bartholomew: 4,959 (7.2%) Brown: 1,171 (7.5%) Decatur: 1,972 (7.8%) Jackson: 3,687 (9%) Jennings:2,640 (9.9%) Total: 14,429 (2.5% of state pov. Pop.) Judicial Districts 11 & 13

  13. District 12: Dearborn: 3,401 (7.4%) Jefferson: 3,197 (10.7%) Ohio: 377 (6.8) Ripley: 2,711 (10%) Switzerland: 1,128 (13.4%) Total: 10,814 (1.9% of state pov. pop.) District 14: Clark: 8,821 (9.5%) Crawford: 1,500 (14.1%) Floyd: 6,826 (9.6%) Harrison: 3,032 (9%) Orange: 2,493 (12.9%) Scott: 3,201 (14%) Washington: 3,211 (11.9%) Total: 29,084 (5.1% of state pov. pop.) Poverty-Judicial Districts 12&14

  14. Public Opinion Lab Survey – ’99 Who Did We Survey? • 65% of households had a person employed • 14% lived in subsidized housing • 63% were women; 37% were men • 62% white • 28% African American • 4% Hispanic

  15. Housing Issues (‘99 Study) • 37% owned their home and 51% rented • 14% had a dispute with a landlord • 18% lived in unsafe housing • 7% experienced discrimination in renting or buying

  16. Subsidized Housing (’99 Study) • 20% of people who applied for subsidized housing were turned down because of bad credit • 45% of people who applied for subsidized housing were put on a long waiting list

  17. Utilities • 24% had problems paying utilities • 9% had utilities turned off • 12% experienced problems with deposit

  18. Consumer • 26% were harassed by creditors • 14% considered or declared bankruptcy • 5% had wages withheld due to debts • 10% had problems with used car dealers • 9% had credit denied due to false info on credit report

  19. Employment (’99 Study) • 15% had trouble finding or keeping employment • Reasons: • Low pay • Lack of education • No jobs available • Lack of training, transportation, child care

  20. 20% had problems with public benefits: Food stamps: 8% TANF: 3% Ss / SSI: 6% Workers comp: 3% Poor relief: 4% Medicare: 4% Medicaid: 7% Unemployment: 3% Public Benefits Problems

  21. Of Those With Public Benefit Problems: • Problems applying: 26% • Lost public benefit: 44% • Did not understand: 31% • Reached time limit: 40% • Unable to participate in job training or search because: • No child care • No transportation • No training or education

  22. Custody: 7% Divorce: 4% Visitation problem: 10% Guardianship of child: 7% Problems with county collecting support: 24% Chins: 4% Not getting support: 30% Can’t pay support: 7% Problem getting child support after state collects: 10% Family Law

  23. Education Issues • Child placed below his/her level: 10% • Problems getting special ed services: 6% • Child suspended: 6% • School has inadequate resources: 10%

  24. Farmworkers Had Other Problems • 30% experienced poor working conditions • 33% did not get pay promised • 25% did not have social security paid by employer • 23% had unsafe housing

  25. Health Care Problems • 5% were denied hospital admission • 25% did not go to the doctor when needed because of lack of insurance • 12% had problems with insurance coverage • 10% had problems with Medicaid coverage • 7% unable to get medical care because doctors don’t take Medicaid

  26. Language Barriers • 11% of families have non-English speaking member • 6% of them had problems defending rights

  27. Problems of Non-citizens • 33% were taken advantage of by an employer • 44% were taken advantage of by a landlord • 44% had problems getting information about benefits or services • 33% were threatened by an abusive spouse

  28. Consumer: 17% Housing: 17% Community safety / environment: 13% Family law: 12% Employment: 8% Personal injury: 7% Health: 6% Estates/directives: 5% Public benefits: 4% ABA Study – Legal Problems of Low Income Persons

  29. Legal Needs of the Poor StudyConclusions (’92) • Lack of funding • Lack of resources • Lack of awareness • Lack of access • Increase use of pro bono and pro se programs • Problems of special populations

  30. Special Populations • Persons with disabilities • Victims of domestic violence • Homeless persons • Seniors • Persons with limited English proficiency • Children • Migrant Farmworkers • Persons who are institutionalized

  31. 78% of families under the poverty line have one or more adults in the workforce. 43% of poor children are on TANF, compared to 62% in 1994. 59% of mothers of children under age one work. 28% of TANF recipients work. Average income of the poorest households has decreased. 1/6 of all children are poor and 1/5 of children under 6 are poor. Hispanic and black children are twice as likely as white children to live in poverty. 25% of all children of immigrants are poor. Who Are Our Clients?

  32. By 2020 30% of the population will be elderly. Hispanic population will continue to grow. Jobs will continue to move from manufacturing to high tech and service. Poor people have more access to credit. Affordable housing stock continues to shrink. 1 out of 3 African American men is in prison or on probation or parole. Trends

  33. Address emerging issues: Access to employment Consumer law issues Access to health care Education Issues of discrimination Issues faced by different “families” Increase awareness of rights, options and services. Facilitate access to legal assistance so that no one is left out. Provide a full range of civil legal assistance to prevent and resolve legal problems. What Should We Do?

  34. Moving From Presentation to Discussion Setting Priorities

  35. What Does This Mean Here? • Does this information reflect our local needs? (10 minutes) • What are the local needs? • Does this reflect what we know in our community? • Who is currently addressing these needs? (10 minutes) • Indiana legal services, inc. • Pro bono committee. • Other providers?

  36. Ranking Legal Needs • Are there needs that are not currently being addressed? (10 minutes) • Are there specific issues included in these legal problems that are of particular concern to this community? (15 minutes) • How would we rank these legal needs in order of import? (20 minutes)

  37. Addressing These Needs • How can ILS best address these legal needs? (20 minutes) • How can other providers and the pro bono committee address these legal needs? (20 minutes) • How can the providers coordinate their work? (10 minutes)

  38. Expanding Delivery Models • Are there alternative service models that could be used to address some of these needs? (20 minutes) • Mediation; Advice hotline; Community legal education; Partnerships with other service providers • Are any of these legal problems best suited for advocacy and/or coordination on the state level? (15 minutes) • Are there other resources that could be garnered to address these needs? (10 minutes)

  39. Conclusion What Do We Do Next?

More Related