strategic plan report goals 4 and 7b: accountability, accessibility, effectiveness and efficiency...
TRANSCRIPT
Strategic Plan ReportGoals 4 and 7B:
Accountability, Accessibility, Effectiveness and Efficiency
December 11, 2014
Goal 4: Ensure Justice System and Gov’t Entities are Accountable & Accessible
STRATEGIES:
Increase meaningful access to courts and gov’t agencies for persons with limited English proficiency
Explore our role in increasing meaningful access to courts and gov’t agencies for specific vulnerable populations
Decrease financial barriers to courts
Improve legal community’s awareness and understanding of needs and skills of low income individuals and communities
PERFORMANCE MEASURES: Cases (e.g. #/% who secure
language access and/or fee waiver)
Advocacy (e.g. improving laws, regulations, policies, practices)
Collaboration (e.g. establish additional effective partners to better serve clients)
Education (e.g. # of community legal education activities provided)
Leadership (e.g. # of staff serving on boards of organizations with similar mission to Legal Aid)
Goal 7: Maximize Organizational Effectiveness, Efficiency & Accountability
Performance Measurements:1) Groups are identified2) Plan to address needs implemented3) #/% of clients served in identified groups4) Outcomes achieved for those groups
Timeline for Potential Changes:• By 2/2014: Develop organizational plan• By 6/2014: Develop implementation plans for groups
identified• By 12/2014: Implement and allocate resources as necessary
Strategy B: Develop plan to address the needs of particularly vulnerable populations
Vulnerable Populations Process
Final Vulnerable Populations (4)Staff Experience and Enthusiasm
Recommended Vulnerable Populations (5)Decision Making Criteria Organizational Capacity
Selected Vulnerable Populations (8)Multidisciplinary Team External & Internal Data
Possible Vulnerable Populations (25+)Legal Needs Assessment Potential Impact
Strategic Plan Goal 7B + LSC Technology Initiative Grant
Decision Making Criteria:1) The number of clients who need our services 2) Potential benefit if we provide the service (#,
type, degree)3) Potential harm if we don’t provide the service (#,
type, degree) 4) Availability of alternative effective quality
program and service providers5) Expertise and capacity of staff and volunteers6) Ability to produce outcomes and long-term
impact for clients and low income communities7) Availability of resources to cover delivery of
service8) Ability to leverage work we’re already doing for
clients and low income communities
Formerly Incarcerated – application of decision-making criteria
People who were formerly incarcerated
Criterion Plus Minus Neutral
1 – Number
2 – Benefit
3 – Harm
6 – Outcomes
4 – Alternatives
5 – Capacity
7 – Resources
8 - Leverage
Non-English Speakers in Cleveland
Ashtabula 91,664 15,693 17% 8% 4,990 1,325 27%Cuyahoga 1,179,251 198,765 17% 13% 133,321 25,924 19%Geauga 87,526 6,860 8% 27% 10,438 1,825 17%Lake 214,690 19,126 9% 13% 16,344 2,459 15%Lorain 273,351 36,325 13% 12% 21,280 4,518 21%Total 1,846,482 276,769 15% 13% 186,373 36,051 19%* Population 5 years and over for whom poverty status is determined
Total*
In Poverty (@ 100%)
Number Percent
Among those in poverty, what
percent speak a language other than
English at home?
County
Population Vulnerable Population: Language other than English Spoken at Home
Number
Among those speaking a language other than English
at home, what percent are in
poverty?
Total
In Poverty (@100%)
English Speakers
87%
Non-Eng-lish
Speakers 13%
Total Poverty Population
Above Poverty
81%
Below Poverty;
19%
Non-English Speakers
Legend
Fewer than 30 Non-English Speakers
Percent
0% - 9.9%
10% - 19.9%
20% - 29.9%
30% - 39.9%
40% - 100%
City of Cleveland
LASC Service Area Counties
Percent in Poverty among those Speaking a Language other than English at Home
0 10 205 Miles¸
DRAFTData are estimates from the 2008-2012 American Community Surveyfor County Subdivisions and Census Tracts (Table b16009). Boundaries are from the 2010 Census and NODIS @ CSU.Produced by Brian Mikelbank, Levin College of Urban Affairs, CSUMarch 2014
Legend
intakes
0
1 - 49
50 - 199
200 - 399
400 - 799
City of Cleveland
LASC Service Area Counties
Intakes: Non-English Speakers
0 10 205 Miles¸
DRAFTData on the non-English speaking population are estimates from the2008-2012 American Community Survey for County Subdivisions and Census Tracts (Table b16009). Boundaries are from the 2010Census and NODIS @ CSU. Intake data are from Legal Aid Society of Cleveland's PIKA data system.Produced by Brian Mikelbank, Levin College of Urban Affairs, CSUMarch 2014
Legend
< 30 Non-English Speaking Poverty Population
Concentration
0.00: No intakes
0.01 - 0.74: Less than expected
0.75 - 1.25: Expected intakes
1.26 - 5.52: More than expected
City of Cleveland
LASC Service Area
Intake Concentration:Non-English Speaking Intakes to
Non-English Speaking Poverty Population
0 9 184.5 Miles
¸DRAFTData on the non-English speaking population are estimates from the2008-2012 American Community Survey for County Subdivisions and Census Tracts (Table b16009). Boundaries are from the 2010Census and NODIS @ CSU. Intake data are from Legal Aid Society of Cleveland's PIKA data system.Produced by Brian Mikelbank, Levin College of Urban Affairs, CSUFebruary 2014
Sources: ACS 5-year estimates for 2009 to 2012 (Tables S1701 & B16009) & Legal Aid Society of Cleveland data 2009-2012Produced by Rachel J. Perry, Strategic Data Analytics, LLCMarch 2014
Vulnerable PopulationSub-Committees
African Americans
People who were Formerly Incarcerated
People with Disabilities
People with Limited English
Proficiency
Advocacy Group
Dashboard Tool
Going Forward in 2015Creating goals - linked to Strategic Plan
Committees/Chairs accountable for work
Examples from recent meetings:Damian Calvert shared experience of being
incarcerated
Probate courts’ adherence to McQueen decision granting the right to counsel for ward at the guardianship review hearing
Language access plans for Cleveland and/or Cuyahoga
Educational disparity for African American & white children