Access to Justice: Self-Represented Divorce Litigants in California

A Best Practices Report

August 2006

Rachel A. Rubin and Adam Engelhart UC Hastings College of the Law

By

Table of Contents
Preface and Summary of Recommendations .................................................................................. 3 Needs Assessment ............................................................................................................................9 Service Delivery ............................................................................................................................ 13 Program Outreach.......................................................................................................................... 30 Access, Language and Literacy ..................................................................................................... 39 Program Staff................................................................................................................................. 43 Quality Assurance.......................................................................................................................... 50 Conclusion and Acknowledgments ............................................................................................... 54 Appendix A: Descriptions of Counties.......................................................................................... 56 Appendix B: Intake Forms .............................................................................................................66 Appendix C: Accessible Documents..............................................................................................71 Annotated Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 73

Preface and Summary of Recommendations

Services for Self-Represented Litigants in California
Over the past twenty years in California, the number of self-represented litigants has more than tripled. In 1980, approximately 24 percent of litigants in divorce cases selfrepresented.1 In 2005, the courts reported that approximately 80 percent of parties in family law cases represented themselves.2 In response to these growing numbers and their major impact on the California courts, the state enacted the Family Law Facilitator Program in 1997. California Family Code section 10000 requires each of the states 58 counties to maintain an office of the Family Law Facilitator that offers services to help with child and spousal support, health insurance, child custody, visitation and divorce.3 Each county individually assesses its needs and may provide services beyond the minimum statutory requirements.4 Family Law Facilitators work with one another, with various state agencies, and with non-profit organizations to improve access to the courts for selfrepresented litigants. The California Courts maintain an online self-help center that also works as a clearinghouse and a resource to direct litigants to services in their counties.

Frances Harrison et al., Californias Family Law Facilitator Program: A New Paradigm for the Courts, J. OF THE CENTER FOR CHILDREN, FAMILIES & THE COURTS, 2000, at 61 [Hereinafter, Harrison]. The following terms all refer to litigants who are not represented by legal counsel and who represent themselves; they are interchangeable: self-represented litigants, pro se litigants, litigants who appear in propria persona. For more information on the resources from which this report was compiled, refer to the Annotated Bibliography infra.
2 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF

CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM: A REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE (2005) 1.
3

Family Law Facilitator Act, CAL. FAM. CODE 10003 (1997): This division shall apply to all actions or proceedings for temporary or permanent child support, spousal support, health insurance, child custody, or visitation in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage, legal separation, or exclusive child custody, or pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act (Part 3 (commencing with Section 7600) of Division 12) or the Domestic Violence Prevention Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200)).
4

Family Law Facilitator Act, CAL. FAM. CODE 10004-10005 (1997).

The Judicial Council of California, the Administrative Office of the Courts, Family Law Facilitators offices and other organizations have published studies on the success of court-based self help centers and on the best ways to meet the needs of litigants.

Methodology Over a period of eight weeks in the summer of 2006, we gathered data from the California Courts, the Judicial Council of California, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and multiple Family Law Facilitator programs and court-based self-help service centers regarding access to justice for self-represented litigants. We examined print, online and other media resources for self-represented litigants, as well as studies, empirical data, program evaluations, and reports to the California Legislature about court-based self-help programs. In addition, we conducted telephone and in-person interviews with California Administrative Office of the Courts staff, Family Law Facilitators, self-help center staff, and self-represented litigants who used the self-help centers. We examined existing Family Law Facilitator programs and courtbased self-help centers in San Francisco, Placer, Orange, Los Angeles, Fresno, Butte, Glenn, and Tehama Counties 5 to identify the best methods of service delivery, office management, and the related ethical and practical issues. These counties represent the wide variation in demographics and needs of self-represented litigants in California. This report is not a comprehensive study of all 58 county programs. Though the majority of our research focused on California programs, we also examined best practice reports and materials from other states and from national conferences.

See Appendix A for short descriptions of these counties.

Goals of the Report The goal of court-based self-help programs is to provide equal access to justice for all litigants, regardless of location, socioeconomic status, or education. A successful program educates litigants about the justice system and gives them the tools and support they need to achieve a just and fair result. 6 We sought to identify the best practices from some of the most successful and innovative programs in California. For the purposes of this report, we define success primarily from the point of view of the self-represented litigant: what are the most efficient and effective ways to help her understand her options, the judicial process, and to reach a fair resolution of her case? Second, how can court-based self-help centers ease the burden placed on the court by the increasing number of self-represented litigants? Because of the broad variety of needs of self-represented litigants, this report primarily addresses the best practices to assist and improve access for self-represented litigants in divorce proceedings. However, some best practices will also apply to parties who seek help with other matters, such as child or spousal support or child custody issues. This report surveys and evaluates services currently available, as well as recommends future improvements. We modeled this report after the Best Practices for Programs to Assist Self-Represented Litigants in Family Law Matters from the Circuit Courts of Maryland Family Divisions & Family Services Programs Pro Se Best Practices Workgroup report.7 The Maryland report divided best practices into categories, including Needs Assessment, Service Delivery, Program

6 7

Harrison at 62.

MARYLAND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST SELFREPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS (2005).

Outreach, Access, Language and Literacy, Program Staff, and Quality Assurance. We have adopted these categories for our report. We hope that this report will serve as a useful tool for California and other state family courts to evaluate and implement measures to improve access to justice for pro se litigants. Recommended Practices We discuss recommended practices in each area of pro se assistance in the body of this report. The following are our principal recommendations by area, along with references to the pages of the report in which we discuss them: Needs Assessment Carefully examine the pro se population to determine which services they use and require, and reassess the program regularly to ensure it meets customers needs. Meet with litigants one-on-one to address individual concerns and needs. Service Delivery Offer a broad range of services, including one-on-one assistance, workshops, printed materials and forms, a website, a reference library, and referrals to other organizations. Operate in a functional, well-designed office with sufficient space and resources to provide all necessary services. Provide a childrens waiting area or attended childcare at the courthouse. Program Outreach Locate the self-help center at or very near the courthouse. If this is not possible, locate the center close to major transportation routes and public transit.

 Post information about the program where center users can clearly see it, both in the center and in local libraries, social-service centers, and other court offices. Access, Language and Literacy Create versions of handouts and forms that are accessible to customers with low levels of literacy. Have a central, statewide program to translate materials to avoid duplication of effort. Provide multi- or bi-lingual staff. Provide services accessible to persons with disabilities. Program Staff Conform to statutory guidelines, and act in conformance with state, local, and court codes of ethics; A licensed attorney with experience in family law oversees the program, manages the office and oversees program staff; Provide regular training and educational opportunities for attorneys and program staff, including o Formal training process and regular, mandatory training sessions and conferences; o Staff development and continuing education seminars; o Access to legal information, studies, and best practice reports about self-help service providers. Ensure that attorneys and staff have access to all necessary resources, including a law library, modern technology, program evaluations, best practices reports, or other studies on self-help centers;

 Ensure that each program has sufficient funds to support at least one attorney and one full time legal assistant. Programs should have sufficient funding to provide all necessary services to litigants. Quality Assurance Establish a data collection regimen to collect basic data on all litigants and more detailed data on a randomly selected sample thereof; Collect narratives of litigants experiences with the system, both in cases where it worked well and cases where it did not; Ensure all program materials are consistently correct and up to date; Establish procedures for dealing with litigants complaints.

Needs Assessment
Needs Assessment is the planning and triage component of pro se service. Court-based self-help programs conduct needs assessment on two scales. On the large scale, planning, they consider the needs of the community and decide which services will best fill those needs within their funding and resource limitations. On the small scale, triage, they screen litigants in order to provide each litigant with all necessary information and services.8

Large-Scale: Needs of the Community Self-represented divorce litigants have a broad range of needs, and self-help centers should provide adequate services to meet these needs. It is up to each program to identify the needs of its customers,9 and to continually, meaningfully evaluate the services it provides. The California Administrative Office of the Courts points out that although the legal paradigms for family law are based on a divorce model for the dissolution of a traditional marriage, many families in todays family court no longer fit this description. Family relationships are far more varied and complex . . .10 Court-based self-help centers respond to these needs and provide service in various ways, including one-on-one assistance (either in person or over the phone), printed materials like forms packets, help with completing forms, assistance via video- or teleconferencing equipment, workshops, and clinics.

8 9

BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS (2005) 8.

Self-help service centers refer to those who use their services as customers and not clients to emphasize that they are not in an attorney-client relationship and are still pro se litigants. We follow this terminology.
10

GREACEN ASSOCIATES, LLC, DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE PRACTICES IN FAMILY LAW CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT: A MANUAL PREPARED FOR THE CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN, AND THE COURTS (2005) 5.

Large-scale needs assessment begins even before the programs are established, to determine which services the community requires and the most common types of cases in which litigants self-represent.11 The majority of self-represented litigants need: Help with forms: Self-help staff can explain how to complete all necessary forms, including what specific information is necessary and how to present it to the court; One-on-one services; Explanation of legal processes: stages of the case, filing deadlines, waiting periods, how to arrange for service of process, courtroom procedures, etc. 12 In Los Angeles, Sutter, and Fresno counties, data from the 2001-2002 fiscal year regarding the family law self-help centers showed: 13 70% of customers needed help with a divorce, legal separation, or nullity about 70% had at least a high-school education14 about 30% had documents reviewed in the center 33% of customers received telephone assistance, and 65% one-on-one assistance Courts that have not established pro se assistance programs can use data gathered from the general pro se population to plan the services they will offer. In this case, the data indicate that the population is mostly fairly well-educated and requires mostly brief consultations about forms and procedures.

11 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF

CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, EQUAL ACCESS FUND: A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE (2005) 55.
12

Id. at 56.

13 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF

CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, FAMILY LAW INFORMATION CENTERS: AN EVALUATION OF THREE PILOT PROGRAMS (2003) 55. For similar data from 1999-2000 regarding the Family Law Facilitator program, see Harrison at 89-97.
14 This

data was not available for Los Angeles county.

10

Programs should also consider the needs of litigants with limited literacy or language skills.15 Small-Scale: Individual Litigants (Triage) Litigants who visit self-help centers generally want to talk with someone one-on-one who can explain the process, rather than read documents or use interactive technology.16 At the San Francisco self-help center, an attorney or staff member screens each customer. Customers eligible for assistance fill out an intake form (possibly with volunteer assistance) with their basic data and information about their case, and sign a disclosure form that informs them they are only receiving legal information, not advice or representation.17 Volunteers and staff then provide appropriate assistance based on the type of case. If the self-help center cannot help the customer, they provide appropriate referrals.18

15 We 16 17

address this in the Access, Language and Literacy section infra.

FAMILY LAW INFORMATION CENTERS: AN EVALUATION OF THREE PILOT PROGRAMS at 55.

Please see the Program Staff section infra for further discussion of the customer-center relationship and related ethical issues.
18

MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM 120. We discuss referrals in the Service Delivery section infra.

11

Recommendations
Carefully examine the pro se population to determine which services they use and require. Reassess the program regularly to ensure it meets customers needs. Hold one-on-one meetings with litigants to address individual concerns and needs. Establish efficient and consistent processes to screen incoming customers. Have sound knowledge of other programs and services, whether court-based or independent agencies, to which self-help centers can refer litigants.

12

Service Delivery
The means of service delivery necessarily vary between centers based on community needs, staff, space, and funding limitations. Geographic, transportation, and language barriers impede access to justice, but technology and creative solutions can successfully overcome these obstacles.

Services Provided
One-on-one Services The primary mode of service delivery in most centers is one-on-one assistance, though the type and extent of one-on-one interaction with customers varies. Data collected through customer satisfaction surveys, anecdotal information, and interviews shows that the overwhelming majority of customers are most satisfied with service if they receive one-on-one instruction from an individual staff member rather than a computer or a form. 19 Divorce cases can be complex and emotional, and a one-on-one interaction is often the most comfortable mode of service for a litigant. However, the volume of customers makes it extremely difficult for a center to operate strictly on a one-on-one basis. A center must use a combination of services in order to meet customer needs. Some of those additional services follow.

19

Interviews with Diane Bras, Placer County Family Law Facilitator, and Placer County clinic participants, in Auburn, Cal. (June 23, 2006) [hereinafter, Diane Bras interview]. MODEL SELF HELP PILOT PROGRAM includes charts and discussions of customer satisfaction statistics for many county programs. FAMILY LAW INFORMATION CENTERS: AN EVALUATION OF THREE PILOT PROGRAMS 55.

13

Clinics Many self-help centers offer regularly-scheduled clinics. Some operate on a drop-in basis and others by appointment only. Clinics offer general assistance for all types of family law cases, though some centers offer clinics for divorce litigants only. In a drop-in clinic model, customers arrive at the Family Law Facilitators office in the morning and sign onto a list.20 The staff or volunteers then meet with customers one by one and asks each to explain why they came to the clinic and where they are in the divorce process. The staff member then reviews the facts of the case, explains the divorce process and discusses the customers options. Then the staff member helps the customer fill out the forms, then explains the filing process and the next steps in the case. If the customers case is more complex or requires follow-up, the staff member may refer the customer to the Family Law Facilitator herself or may arrange for an appointment at a later time. Staff members should be sure to explain other options to the customer, such as mediation, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), or other social services that are available. Diane Bras, the Family Law Facilitator for Placer County, notes that it is important to choose a set time to offer clinics and to stick with it.21 In Placer County, drop-in clinics were offered certain days of the week in the morning. That schedule changed, and over a year later litigants would still appear for the originally scheduled clinics. The center would not always be able to help them, and the litigant would have to return at a later date.

20

It is important that this list is easy to find, and that customers understand the clinic process. See Program Outreach infra for more on signage.
21

Diane Bras interview.

14

Workshops Workshops educate litigants on the legal process and help them prepare case materials. Many self-help centers provide workshops on various aspects of family law cases such as form completion, understanding community property, or an overview of the divorce process. Some hold workshops in the evenings for litigant convenience. Others are available on video or DVD for purchase or viewing in a center. Los Angeles County offers the Divorce Workshop Series, which consists of three separate workshops, each lasting about four to five hours, covering all pleadings required to start and complete a dissolution of marriage.22 In Butte County, an attorney will hold a workshop that, through the use of real-time videoconferencing, enables selfrepresented litigants in Tehama and Glenn Counties to receive simultaneous assistance. However, a staff member should be available at all locations to which the workshop is broadcast in order to answer questions in person. Most workshops include a lecture format and a question and answer period. Participants in Los Angeles and other counties report that these workshops are most effective when conducted in small group formats.23 Some centers ask litigants to meet with staff members before the workshop to fill in as much basic personal information on their forms as possible. In others, litigants prepare forms as part of the workshop and meet with staff members afterwards to review their work. This varies depending on the topic of the workshop and needs of the litigant. Centers can hold workshops on site or at rotating locations around the county. Some centers hold workshops at other community agencies, which is a good way to coordinate services with that agency and to reach out to the community it serves.
22 23

MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 180. Id. at 76.

15

Centers should consistently evaluate workshop offerings and curricula to ensure they continue to meet customer needs.

Videoconferencing Centers should also take advantage of technology to improve one-on-one assistance. Videoconferencing workshops is a good way to make efficient use of attorney time and limited staff resources. This way, one attorney can conduct a videocast workshop that serves groups of customers in multiple locations at once. Butte, Glenn, and Tehama Counties have used videoconferencing equipment, which is normally used to broadcast workshops, to conduct oneon-one sessions as well. If a volunteer at one location is unable to answer a question, she can reach the staff attorney at the other location who can then use the videoconferencing equipment to help the customer face-to-face.24

Forms, Instructions, and Other Written Information Forms and step-by-step instructions allow customers who do not need one-on-one assistance to find necessary information and to fill out their forms with minimal staff involvement. It is important that customers are able to take home instructional information, worksheets, court procedures, and handouts on other services. Litigants should have easy access to all forms needed to complete any type of divorce, including child or spousal support materials, as well as checklists and instructional materials that explain how to fill out the forms, where and how to file the forms, and other basic information. The court in Riverside County includes the checklist used by court staff to review a litigants materials in the forms packet it provides to
24

Id. at 42.

16

self-represented litigants. Centers should have hard copies of all necessary forms and all instructional materials that are available online. Because California divorce law is driven by standardized forms, instructional materials, document assembly packages and other methods of assisting litigants can be completed economically.25 The Judicial Council of California and other organizations have developed instructional materials, though many of these materials were initially designed for attorneys and judges, and so were not particularly understandable to the average litigant. The Judicial Council, as well as many court-based self-help centers, continues to work to simplify these forms. They have adopted plain-language, larger fonts, more graphics, and simplified instructions so the forms are understandable on a fourth grade reading level.26 Centers should make efforts to present all material as clearly and simply as possible for litigants. Written program information should also inform litigants of the neutrality of the office, particularly that there is no attorney-client relationship between the Facilitator and the litigant, that Family Law Facilitators provide only legal information and not legal advice, that the center serves both parties, and that the use of the center does not influence the neutrality of the court.27 Forms, checklists, and instructions should also be available in multiple languages. In addition to forms and handouts in languages other than English, some centers produce materials in a medium common in particular cultures. For example, the Spanish-language Centro

25

BONNIE ROSE HOUGH, DESCRIPTION OF CALIFORNIA COURTS PROGRAMS FOR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS (2003) 46, 49 [hereinafter, Hough].
26

See Appendix B for an example. Microsoft Word can calculate a statistic called the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, which gives an approximation of the level of education that is necessary to understand a document. Many other programs can do so as well.
27

Hough at 49.

17

de Recursos Legales in Los Angeles County produced a foto-novella [sic],28 which is a short magazine that tells a story with pictures. This one tells the story of a customer getting help from the center.29 Some centers also maintain a reference library with legal self-help books or videos for litigants to use on site. There are some excellent instructional books published by Nolo Press,30 which explain the divorce process and include all necessary forms.

Public Workstations Centers should have public workstations available. The customers can use the workspaces and written materials at the center to fill out forms, and then have the center staff check their work. Interviews in Butte, Glenn and Tehama Counties show that these stations are helpful to customers and enhance the efficiency of the office.31

Public Computers Access to public computers that are monitored by a staff person, either at the self-help center or in or near the courthouse, can be very helpful to litigants. Computers provide litigants with easy access to legal forms and resources and help the centers run more efficiently. A list of helpful websites, including the California State Courts Self-Help website,32 should be posted at the computers. Litigants can use the computers to fill out forms using programs such as EZLegal

28 29 30 31 32

MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 79. Id. e.g., ED SHERMAN, HOW TO DO YOUR OWN DIVORCE IN CALIFORNIA (28th ed. 2005). MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 43. California Courts Self-Help Center, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp (last visited August 7, 2006).

18

File, HotDocs, or fillable PDF forms developed by the Administrative Office of the Courts. These documents can then be printed on site and reviewed by self-help center staff. The computers should be accessible during all court or center working hours. Public access computers can also make a self-help center run more efficiently and may allow the staff to help more people in one day. Litigants can have their forms prepared by the time they meet with a staff person, who only needs to review them rather than walk the litigant through the forms line by line. Centers that maintain public computers should always have a staff person or volunteer available to answer questions or to assist with technical difficulties. This persons primary responsibility should be computer aid, particularly if a majority of the populations served are not experienced computer users. Centro de Recursos Legales, the Spanish-language self-help center in Fresno County, installed an I-CAN! module33 in its center, but found that it was not a practical solution because the amount of staff time required to help customers . . . turned out to be prohibitive.34 Computer workstations and internet sources should not replace one-on-one meetings with self-help center staff or printed materials available at the center. Though no comprehensive study regarding self-represented litigants and computer usage has been conducted, anecdotal evidence shows that many self-represented litigants may not be able to access information via the Web

33 The

I-CAN! program is a kiosk and free web-based service developed by the Legal Aid Society of Orange County and jointly sponsored by different local, state, and public agencies and organizations. It is designed to provide convenient access to legal services and information. See ICAN! Legal Self-Help Project, http://lstech.org/projects/ tig_2001_37 (last visited August 7, 2006) and California State Plan Update 2003, http://www.pic.org/StatePlan/ calupdate.pdf.
34

MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 78.

19

site due to low literacy levels, lack of access to computers, or low levels of comfort with using computers.35

Electronic Document Filing Customer-friendly electronic document filing and preparation can make it easier for litigants to file court documents. For example, California courts use a program called EZLegalFile,36 where users enter the necessary personal information onto a web site, which then prints properly-formatted PDF court forms.37 Self-represented litigants can prepare these forms on their own and file them with the court, or they can prepare them at the self-help center and staff can review the information. This can ease the burden on litigants and staff because, at the very least, the electronic document generation system ensures the parties names and basic information is consistent throughout the forms.38 However, it is extremely important that these systems are user-friendly and are designed from a users perspective, or they may impede, rather than improve, access to justice. Litigants should be able to access electronic document filing systems both from the center or the countys website and from public computers available at the center or courthouse.

35 36 37 38

Id. at 148. Some courts also use a similar program called HotDocs. http://www.ezlegalfile.org/.

Interview with Bonnie Hough, California Center for Children, Families, and the Courts, in San Francisco, Cal. (June 20, 2006) [hereinafter, Bonnie Hough interview].

20

Kiosks Computer-driven kiosks located in courthouses or libraries were a relatively popular means of service delivery as Family Law Information Centers and Family Law Facilitators programs developed. Centers would place a standalone kiosk with a computer with Internet access and a printer in a courthouse, for example, so a litigant could fill out and print his forms. The problem, however, was that many litigants were uncomfortable using a free-standing computer to handle a personal legal matter. Others did not know that kiosks were available. If a kiosk was broken, or if the litigant had a question on a form or on how to use the program, there was no self-help center staff person available to answer their questions. The only location in which the kiosk system is consistently used and has received a positive response is in Orange County, where one kiosk location has a staff member on hand to answer questions about kiosk use.39 The vast majority of litigants surveyed who used the attended I-CAN! kiosks in Orange County found them easy to use. However, courts with unattended kiosks did not find the system effective.40 Also, if the law or forms change, kiosks need updating, which can demand a significant cost. If a center does use a kiosk system, the best practice is to have an attendant available to answer litigant questions and to solve technical problems.

39 40

Bonnie Hough interview. Id.

21

Web Site The Judicial Council of California maintains a comprehensive online self-help center at www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp, which serves as a resource for litigants and attorneys who wish to learn more about the self-help process or to find service providers. The website provides step-bystep instructions for common proceedings, and also simple, concise explanations of areas of law. All of the information on the site is accessible at a 5th grade level. 41 There are thousands of links to other resources, and the entire site is available in Spanish. Links are added as web pages are translated into other languages. A litigant can follow the links on the site to locate the Family Law Facilitator in their county, and to find other free or low-cost legal help.42 Each county should maintain a website for self-represented litigants. This website should include web links and contact information for all self-help service providers, explanations and comprehensive lists of services provided, eligibility to use the self-help center, limitations on services, all necessary forms, where to go for more information, mobile service center schedules, links to EZ Legal File, fee schedules, etc. 43 Family Law Facilitators offices and other courtbased self help programs must be sure that the information available on these sites is correct and up to date. Centers should review and update these websites at least yearly.

41 42

Hough at 51.

Family Law Facilitator in Your County, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/selfhelp/lowcost/flf.htm (last visited August 7, 2006).
43

Many local courts have also developed helpful resources for litigants representing themselves. Examples include: Santa Clara: http://www.scselfservice.org/default.htm; Ventura: http://courts.countyofventura.org/ venturaMasterFrames5.htm; Los Angeles: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/familylaw/ and http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/probate/index.asp?selfhelp=1, Sacramento: http://www.saccourt.com/index/family.asp, http://www.saccourt.com/index/ud.asp, and http://www.saccourt.com/index/smallclaims.asp; Stanislaus, http://www.stanct.org/courts/familylaw/index.html and Shasta: http://www.shastacourts.com/familylaw.shtml. Hough at 52.

22

Telephone Assistance Telephone hotlines or available telephone assistance can help overcome geographic or transportation barriers.44 Telephone assistance facilitates efficient case management for individuals who may not be able to reach the center because of work, lack of childcare, or a disability.45 Bi-lingual staff members or volunteers available by phone will help litigants who may come to the center at times when no one is able to provide services in their language.46 A hotline may also be a way to conduct triage on a case, screen customers, or to provide basic information such as office hours, location, directions, and services provided. Centers can employ the use of volunteers to staff hotlines or to provide telephone assistance. Some self-help centers provide scripts to handle telephone calls for different legal issues.47 This ensures consistency and accuracy of service. If a call is too complicated, the volunteer can arrange for the litigant to come to the center, or can refer the litigant to a trained staff member. A telephone hotline can also serve as a referral service to various local social services organizations. Los Angeles County maintains InfoLine, which provides litigants with referrals to a wide range of social services.48 The Self-Help Regional Assistance Project (SHARP) in Butte, Glenn and Tehama Counties serves customers in rural areas who live far from the selfhelp centers. The SHARP reports that over 51 percent of contacts are made over the

44 45 46 47 48

MODEL SELF HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 9. Id. Id. at 211. Id. at 209. DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE PRACTICES IN FAMILY CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT at 53.

23

telephone.49 Courts outside of California have started to take advantage of telephone services as well. In Alaska, self-help centers provide services exclusively over the phone. 50 Providing telephone assistance requires adequate staffing and has a greater risk of misunderstanding because people do not always accurately describe their situation. For example, sometimes people say they received a subpoena when in fact they were served with a summons. Without seeing the paperwork, the response of the telephone staff would be vastly different, and most likely incorrect.51 An effective script, good interview techniques, and trained staff can effectively minimize this problem.

Mobile Access Projects In some larger counties, Family Law Facilitator offices or Family Law Information Clinics maintain Mobile Access Projects, which are vans that travels to shelters, prisons, or libraries in towns that are far from the courthouse, or where litigants may not have easy access to public transportation or computers. In Yolo County, court staff travel to the Department of Child Support Services office in a low income housing area to provide assistance to litigants to save them the long commute to the courthouse. In Santa Clara County, the family law facilitators office takes the courts CourtMobile [van] to the DCSS office.52

49

MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 42. FUTURE OF SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGATION at 25.

50 THE 51 52

Id. at 37. DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE PRACTICES IN FAMILY CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT at 116.

24

Referrals Family Law Facilitators offices should maintain a strong network of local and state-wide service providers in order to offer a litigant the full range of services available to her. This range of options is particularly helpful to those litigants who may have trouble coming into the office because of work, child care issues, or other reasons. The San Francisco pilot self-help center referred about 16 percent of its customers to other agencies. The most common referral targets were lawyer referral services and other legal self-help centers.53 Centers should coordinate a referral system with other court-based programs, non-profits, bar associations, pro bono or low cost attorney services, unbundled legal service providers,54 legal referral services, and social services providers. 55 Self-help center staff should be familiar with the referral network and should provide customers with written materials about the service to which they are referred, including contact information, location, available services, and eligibility. Los Angeles County, for example, refers customers to InfoLine, a community based social services referral hotline. San Diego and San Mateo Counties provide customers with a binder of attorneys who are willing to provide unbundled legal services. Office Space A functional, well-designed office space is an extremely useful tool to improve efficiency, and ease of use for both staff and litigants, and may improve the quality and volume of services
53 54

MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM 122.

Unbundled legal services are more affordable, discrete service representation for litigants who do not want or cannot afford an attorney to handle their entire case. Many counties encourage attorneys to provide unbundled legal services, and encourage self-represented litigants to take advantage of them. For more information on unbundled legal services, see http://www.unbundledlaw.org/. THE FUTURE OF SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGATION also contains a good discussion of the pros and cons of unbundled legal services throughout.
55

It is important that all other service providers to which court-based self-help centers refer customers are competent and reliable sources of help. Centers should be familiar with the strengths and weaknesses of other local or statewide programs and inform their customers.

25

available. Courts and self-help service programs should work together to ensure that centers have adequate space and resources to provide all necessary services to litigants. The physical space of the office dictates which services a center can provide. For example, Diane Bras, the Placer County Family Law Facilitator, began with only a desk and a small office in which she met with customers one on one. As demand increased, she was no longer able to handle the volume of customers. She soon enlisted two part-time volunteer paralegals who were able to screen cases and help customers fill out forms at tables in the hallway. Customers signed up on a list at one end of the hall and waited for their turn with the paralegals or Ms. Bras. Demand continued to increase, and soon Ms. Bras was given a few computers that she put to public use. Five or six customers at a time were able to fill out forms or learn about the judicial process. Ms. Bras was available to help the customers with the computers, and then would review their documents. She won the Placer County Individual Public Service Award for her dedicated efforts. However, a small office and a hallway still did not efficiently serve the needs of the many litigants, and was a challenge to Ms. Bras and her volunteers as well. The Placer County Family Law Facilitators office is now in its own office across the hall from the court clerks window. Ms. Bras and two full-time paralegals share one end of the space, and there are multiple public use computers at the other end. On most days when the office holds a drop-in clinic in the morning, two part-time paralegals also help customers. There is a small room down the hall that Ms. Bras uses to hold workshops. The Family Law Facilitators office will soon move to another courthouse that is building a new office space for the program. It will include a larger waiting area (customers currently wait in a hallway), two larger workshop

26

rooms, more workspace for the paralegals and Ms. Bras, as well as public computers and printers. The office will also be equipped with more modern technology and videoconference equipment so the Placer County Family Law Facilitator customers and staff can view and broadcast workshops from other locations or counties.

Childcare Litigants often must bring their children with them to the courthouse because they are not able to afford or locate appropriate childcare. It is not feasible for litigants to supervise young children while at the same time pay attention to the court staff and correctly fill out their paperwork. Unsupervised children create frustration for other court users, court staff, and the parents. Valuable time is wasted, and safety is compromised.56 Further, children are often not allowed in courtrooms during a hearing. Without child care, a parent cannot efficiently complete his or her case. Self-help centers should work with and encourage courts to provide properly staffed childrens waiting areas in all facilities.57 The San Francisco Family Law Facilitators office is located in the Superior Court courthouse. There are multiple childrens waiting areas, stocked with books and toys, some of which have an attendant and some of which do not. Courts and court-based self-help centers should continue to work together to provide attended childcare at the courthouse. The California Judicial Council Task Force on SelfRepresented Litigants encourages courts to to provide funding to staff these [childrens] waiting rooms.58 Suzanne Clark Morlock, the Director of the Self-Help Access Program of Butte,
56 JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF

CALIFORNIA TASK FORCE ON SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS, STATEWIDE ACTION PLAN FOR SERVING SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS (2003) 26.
57 58

Id. Id.

27

Glenn, and Tehama Counties suggests that centers in courthouses that do not offer child care should request funding and trained volunteers who could supervise children.59 Because not all courthouses or self-help centers are able to provide childcare, it is important that staff members and volunteers make parents aware that they must find their own solution.

Recommendations
Offer a broad range of services, including o One-on-one assistance, either via drop-in clinics or by appointment, in person or over the telephone; o Workshops designed to educate litigants about the various stages of the divorce process and to help them complete necessary forms; o Information regarding all types of available assistance, including ADR and mediation; o Technological solutions to geographic, transportation, or other barriers, including real-time videoconferencing capabilities, telephone assistance, information online, rotating workshop locations, or Mobile Access vans; o Hard copies of all necessary forms and step-by-step instructions for form completion, sample completed forms, handouts about the self-help center and other social service providers; o Access to a reference library for litigants;

59

Id. at 192.

28

o Websites with links, contact information, and litigant eligibility requirements for state and local service providers; o Access to public computers with internet access monitored by a staff person; o Available electronic document filing, either through the center or court website o Public workstations where litigants can fill out forms or read materials; and o A strong referral network of local and state-wide self-help service providers, attorney referral services, and social service providers. Ensure that all forms and printed materials are stored in a conspicuous place and welllabeled so litigants can easily pick up all necessary materials at once. Offer all services and materials in Spanish or any other non-English language spoken by a significant portion of center users. Operate in a functional, well-designed office with sufficient space and resources to provide all necessary services. Provide a childrens waiting area or attended childcare at the courthouse. Make continuous efforts to modernize and improve service delivery.

29

Program Outreach
Even the best programs will not provide optimum access to justice unless the centers and program materials are accessible and easy to understand. Usability is the key to an effective center. Programs for self-represented litigants must constantly evaluate the ease with which litigants learn of the service and the litigants ability to access available services.

Written Information about the Program Litigants often come to self-help centers in a time of crisis,60 and the centers give them a large amount of information. Litigants in crisis may forget part of what they heard, and the many forms and judicial system may be confusing. It is therefore important that centers provide litigants with written information about the program.61 This information should include the centers hours of operation, services provided, limitations on those services, and who is eligible to participate.62 These materials should be routinely distributed to all litigants who use the centers. Court clerks should also routinely distribute the material to self-represented litigants. Self-help center directors or Family Law Facilitators should work directly with court clerks and other court staff to be sure they understand and can describe the services provided, and that they consistently refer litigants to the self-help programs. Centers can post flyers at local libraries, shelters, or other centers with basic program information.

60

BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS at 11. program outreach materials should be available in multiple languages depending on the needs of the county.

61 All 62

Id.

30

Online Information As more litigants turn to the internet for information on self-representation, court-based self-help service centers must take advantage of the internet as an outreach tool. It is important that self-help sites are easy to locate on a court, state or county webpage. All court-based selfhelp programs should ensure their website is linked to related programs. These websites should appear in national, state, and local directories for self-help service providers, as well as on family court websites.

Other Outreach63 Self-help centers should reach out to litigants through referrals from other self-help service centers and non-profit organizations. A strong network of local and state-wide self-help service providers works to the advantage of the providers and the litigants.64 Centers can work with local colleges, universities, paralegal schools, and vocational schools to recruit volunteers and conduct outreach. 65

63

Outreach to the community is a very important part of the job of self-help service centers. Centers should make all possible efforts to build relationships with community organizations and to conduct outreach within the confines of their limited resources. Some centers have expressed concerns that broader outreach programs will further overburden the staff. This is a legitimate concern, but is more of a funding issue. Centers should continue to engage in basic outreach efforts. Free and low-cost services for self-represented litigants is clearly a large, unmet need in California.
64

Fresno County points out that coordination with and outreach with other organizations was crucial to the development of the self-help project. Members of the other organizations could sit on an advisory committee along with program and court personnel. This established meaningful relationships within the community. Coordination with other organizations may also bring in more volunteers. MODEL SELF HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 84.
65

Id.

31

Self-help centers can work with organizations that serve non-English speaking populations to help establish trust of the courts and of court-based programs in those communities. In rural counties where there are fewer organizations with which to collaborate, some centers work with church social services programs, or other programs that coordinate juvenile, family, or criminal matters within the same family.66 Center staff can participate in interviews with local television or radio stations to raise awareness of the program. 67

Location Self-help centers should be located at or very near the courthouse. This is more convenient and efficient for the court, for the self-help center staff, and for litigants. A centralized location not only makes things simpler for the litigant, but may speed the resolution of the case. First, litigants will be able to find the center more easily if it is located at the courthouse than in another part of the county. Second, it is often a burden on litigants to make multiple trips to multiple locations. This location may also improve the completeness of the litigants materials if she is able to go directly from the self-help center to the filing desk. This eliminates some possibility of the litigant misplacing documents, and any missing forms can be obtained easily at the center. Further, if the center is at the courthouse, court personnel will be more aware of its existence and available services, and may make referrals more easily.68

66 67 68

Butte, Glenn and Tehama Counties have been successful with these tactics. Id. at 48. San Francisco County has had some success with this method. Id. at 122. Id. at 9.

32

In 2005, nearly 60 percent of local action plans reported that self-represented litigants had serious problems getting to locations where services are available. Most of the large and medium-size courts proposed geographic solutions such as outpost facilities or mobile vans. Smaller courts tended to rely more on technological solutions such as telephone help lines, videoconferencing, and Web sites.69 Some counties have had attorneys conduct workshops in one location and broadcast that workshop simultaneously in other locations.70 Programs also record these workshops and make DVDs or videos available at area libraries.71 Though more and more litigants take advantage of online filing tools such as EZ Legal File,72 most still file their documents at the courthouse, so it remains important that the main office of the self-help center is physically located at the courthouse. Many self-help centers maintain multiple office locations, depending on the size of the county, funding, and need.73 Other semi-rural counties, such as Butte, Glenn, and Tehama Counties, work together on a regional service model.74 The Self-Help Regional Assistance Program shows how services can be provided to litigants in rural areas through the innovative

69 70

Id. at 19.

Id. at 6. For further discussion on overcoming transportation or geographic barriers, please see Service Delivery above.
71 The

Placer County Family Law Facilitators office prepared a DVD for pro se divorce litigants that is available at local libraries, domestic violence shelters, other legal service organizations, and can also be ordered through the office itself. It contains the same material a litigant would learn if the litigant attended a basic pro se divorce workshop. DVD: How to do Your Own Divorce (Placer County Family Law Facilitator n.d.) (on file with authors).
72 73

See Service Delivery above.

Multiple locations may raise attorney supervision issues. Often self-help centers have only one attorney on staff, and additional locations are staffed only by paralegals and volunteers. Family Law Facilitators or managing attorneys can work particular days of the week at the various locations. In situations where a self-help center does not have a managing attorney and that center is located next to a Family Law Facilitators office, the Family Law Facilitator may take on a supervisory role or make herself available to the center if need be. MODEL SELF HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 71.
74

Id. at 22.

33

use of technology, program coordination, and staff resources.75 Regardless of the number of locations, it is best if the primary self-help service offices are located at or very near the courthouse if there are multiple county courthouse locations. If counties have separate self-help service centers and Family Law Facilitators offices that are both located off-site, it is advantageous to locate them next to one another. For example, in Fresno County, the Spanishlanguage self-help center is located about one mile from the courthouse. It is located across a courtyard in the same building complex as the Family Law Facilitators office. Litigants can use the clerks office in the family law facilitators office to file documents so they do not have to travel to the courthouse.76 In more urban areas such as Contra Costa County where there are five separate self-help centers, not all services are offered in all centers.77 Though public transportation is quite good in the San Francisco Bay Area, options are limited outside of major transit corridors, and the distance between the centers has proven difficult even for litigants with private transportation.78 Limited funds control the availability of services, so it is important that all service centers are located near a clerks office where litigants can file papers, and that each center is aware of services provided by the others to facilitate referrals. Court web sites should allow litigants to find the center most convenient for them, and explain which services are offered at each site.

75 76

Id. at 25.

Id. at 61. Fresno county reports that though litigants were initially concerned about the remote location of the center, the proximity to the Family Law Facilitators office and the clerk mitigated this concern, particularly for repeat visitors. In Fresno, the majority of litigants using the self-help center were handling family court cases, so may have been familiar with the location already or were still able to handle all of their court business at once. This situation was advantageous for the Family Law Facilitators office and the self-help center, because they could provide seamless referrals. Id. However, this referral benefit would exist if the centers were located at the courthouse as well.
77 78

Id. at 137. Id.

34

If the Family Law Facilitators office and/or the self-help center are located away from the courthouse, it is best if they are located close to a highway or major road, and easily accessible by public transportation. As courts modernize, remodel and relocate, it is important that they designate sufficient office space for a self-help center or a Family Law Facilitators office.79

Security A benefit to locating court-based self-help centers in the courthouse is security. Divorce litigants in particular may be in a violent or threatening situation. The peace of mind that comes with the added security while they fill out forms or get help with their divorces may encourage more litigants to use centers located in the courthouse. Some litigants who used the Fresno county remote locations complained about the lack of security for this reason.80 Signs Most clinics operate on a walk-in basis. It is thus extremely important that directions and information are posted in places where clinic users will see them. 81 These signs should be clear and readable. They should identify the program, where it is located, the hours of operation, services provided, who is eligible to participate in the program, and directions to clinic sign-in

79

Currently, the Family Law Facilitators office in Placer County is located in a small office at the Family Court in the town of Auburn, which is the county seat. The south end of Placer County is currently the fastest developing section of the country. The family court in Roseville, the major town in south Placer County, is expanding and is constructing a larger office with workshop space and more modern technology for the Family Law Facilitator. This coordination of effort to improve access to service and to broaden the scope of available services is a testament to the success of the program as well as the increasing need and numbers of pro se litigants. Diane Bras interview.
80

MODEL SELF HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 61.

81 The

ease with which customers located the center may be a question to include on customer service questionnaires.

35

lists, workshop rooms, etc. These signs should be displayed such that litigants can see this information even when the program is closed. Signs that clearly articulate program policies, such as who is eligible to use the services, should be posted in a visible location. Litigants should be able to understand these policies at the time they seek assistance. Signs should clearly delineate the scope of services provided and the centers policies on major issues. 82 Programs should also post information and sources litigants can use when the center is closed or when clinics are full. This information should be posted in a clearly visible place, preferably near the signs with basic clinic information. 83 This includes telephone hotlines, websites, lawyer referral services, or other programs within the courthouse to which they can turn.84 Signs should also be in Spanish or another non-English language spoken by any major percentage of clinic users. In situations where a self-help center is located in the same building as the Family Law Facilitators office, it is important that there are adequate signs (in multiple languages if necessary) to direct users between offices. Though the two offices are located across a courtyard from one another in Fresno County, signs are limited, which makes access more difficult for litigants.85 This is a problem that is easily solved, and will greatly improve customer experience at the centers.

82 83 84 85

BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS 10. Id. at 11. Id. MODEL SELF HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 61.

36

Court personnel, particularly security guards or court clerks, should be aware of and able to direct litigants to the self-help center but should not be relied upon in lieu of adequate signage. There should also be clear signs directing users to shelves, e.g., with forms, information, pamphlets of other service organizations, etc.

Recommendations
Locate the self-help center at or very near the courthouse. If this is not possible, locate the center close to major transportation routes and public transit. Post information about the program where center users can clearly see it. Programs should o Post signs in multiple languages to direct users to the center; o Provide signs where the program is located to clearly identify it in a manner that ensures users can identify the program even when it is closed;86 o Post information about where litigants can turn for assistance if the program is closed or if litigants are not eligible for assistance; and o Post signs that clearly articulate program policies, as well as instructional information such as how to sign into a clinic or to sign up for a workshop. Provide flyers or brochures with basic program information (such as hours of operation and services provided) to hand out to litigants who may return to the self-help center. Post information about the self-help center in local libraries, domestic violence shelters, other self-help organizations, and court-based programs.

86

BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS 11.

37

 Ensure the center or the countys website appears in local and state, and national directories of self-help providers. Work with local organizations, church groups, or social service providers to reach out to a broader community.

38

Access, Language and Literacy

Programs that successfully address access, language, and literacy needs will be able to help all customers who approach them. They will remove barriers to justice for customers with limited reading skills, who cannot speak English, or who are disabled. Recent trends of growth in pro se activity and increasing diversity throughout the United States make these needs more prominent than ever. Pro se litigants are less homogeneous than attorneys; they range from welleducated to only moderately literate in English. 87, 88

Language and Literacy Needs: Materials Spanish is the most common language spoken by customers who do not speak English in California. 89 Different geographic areas will have different language needs, as will litigants with different types of cases. Programs should examine their populations carefully and adjust their offerings as appropriate. If no data specific to customers is available, census or other demographic data can serve as an approximation. 90 The Spanish-language self-help program in Fresno County and the multi-lingual program in San Francisco County found effective ways to address litigant language needs, as well as possible pitfalls. 91 For example, the Fresno project prepared court materials in simple, accessible English (approximately a fourth-grade reading level), and then had volunteers translate them into Spanish. However, the Spanish translations themselves were not prepared in accessible language,
87 88 89 90 91

Harrison at 77. MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM 104-105. Id. at 215. For more on this topic, see Needs Assessment supra. Id. at 2.

39

and the center had to get new translation.92 The San Francisco center found that many litigants whose first language is not English nevertheless prefer to receive legal services in English,93 and that they were best able to reach out to non-English speaking litigants through collaborations with other community organizations serving non-English-language speakers.94 A significant portion of the pro se population is not well-educated.95 Therefore, programs should carefully prepare materials accessible to those with a low level of reading comprehension, ideally at a fourth- or fifth-grade reading level. 96 Translations appropriate to the community should be available, as should alternative formats such as Braille for commonly-used materials. Programs should also periodically reassess whether the existing translations adequately serve the community.

Languages A multi- or bi-lingual staff is essential to provide services to these customers. Each center can evaluate the language needs of its customers and should provide bi-lingual staff based on these needs. Though volunteers are extremely helpful to translate conversations or forms, staff are often better trained and experienced in the legal system and process and so can explain complexities or cultural differences between legal systems to the customer. A March 2005 Judicial Council of California Report to the Legislature points out that recruiting bilingual and

92 93 94

Id. at 78. Id. at 111. Id. at 133-135. at 104-105. example of such material, from the Placer County Family Law Facilitators Office, is in Appendix C.

95 Id. 96 An

40

bicultural staff should be a priority to provide efficient service and build trust in the community.97

Language Needs: Interpreters While it may note be feasible for all programs to provide interpreters for all litigants, they should make such interpreters available at the least. Some programs provide interpreters for hearings, but limited staff availability makes this consistently difficult.98 Nonetheless, courtprovided interpreters are preferable to litigants friends or children who may be unaware of court procedures or unfamiliar with the relevant terminology.99

Disability services Programs should ensure that their offices, materials, and personnel are accessible to people with disabilities. In San Francisco, over thirteen percent of the self-help centers customers had some sort of disability.100 Providing this access may involve making telephone help available (including TDD help for deaf and hard-of-hearing customers), ensuring full ADA compliance of offices, and providing materials in alternate formats.101

97 98 99

Id. at 210. See, e.g., Id. at 118. For more on this, see Program Staff infra. Id. at 103. Id. at 95.

100 101

41

Recommendations
Create versions of handouts and forms that are accessible to customers with minimal literacy. Have a central, statewide program to translate materials to avoid duplication of effort. Provide multi- or bi-lingual staff. Provide interpretation assistance during hearings if possible. Provide services accessible to persons with disabilities.

42

Program Staff
Qualified, knowledgeable staff in Family Law Facilitator offices and in Family Law Information centers is vital to the success of court-provided self-help services. These staff members must be consistently up to date on current law and court procedures, and must be able to convey that information clearly and concisely.102

Staff Qualifications
The best programs are run by a licensed attorney who trains and manages the nonattorney staff. In California, Family Law Facilitators must be licensed attorneys with experience in family law. Data shows that other programs managed primarily by attorneys have advantages over those that are not.103 Because of the amount and complexity of legal information given at a self-help center, an attorneys ability to understand and explain the law, ability to find relevant law and understanding of legal rules and ethics are invaluable to the staff.104 Attorney supervision also ensures that the information given to the public will be reliable and accurate.105 Though volunteers are an integral part of self-help programs, they should not be exclusively relied upon to perform the central daily operations of the program. Because volunteers often have high turnover rates, centers will continually need to train new volunteers.106 It is best that full-time paid staff handle these core operations and volunteers

102 103 104 105 106

BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS at 14. MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 208. Id. Id. Id. at 7.

43

support the paid staff. Volunteers can help with intake, basic form preparation or translation, or translation services 107 for customers, for example.

Family Law Facilitators In 1997, California Family Code section 10002 established an Office of the Family Law Facilitator in each of Californias 58 counties. Each office should be headed by at least one attorney licensed in California with mediation or litigation experience, or both, in the field of family law.108 The Judicial Council has adopted minimum standards for the office of the Family Law Facilitator.109 All centers should conform to these standards and statutory guidelines.110 The Facilitator should be covered by malpractice insurance, which is ideally paid for as part of his or her benefits package. This protection will not only encourage attorneys to become a part of the Family Law Facilitator program, but will protect those who are already a part of it. It is another way to make the program a viable career path. The Facilitator is also responsible for explaining the ethical and legal limitations on the role of non-attorney staff.111 In particular, the Facilitator should be sure the staff understands and conveys to the customers that no attorney-client relationship exists between the center or the staff and the litigant.
107

Often self-help service centers find that though volunteer translation services are helpful, they are not an effective substitute for bi-lingual center staff. However it is certainly a benefit to the center to have bi-lingual volunteers on hand. See Id. at 9.
108 109 110 111

CAL. FAM. CODE 10002 (2006) CAL. FAM. CODE 10010 (2006), CAL. R. CT. 5.35 (2006) CAL. R. CT. APP. C, DIV. V. (2006). For a more detailed discussion of the issue, see GAY CONROY ET AL., ETHICAL ISSUES FOR ATTORNEYS WORKING (2002).

WITH SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS

44

Funding A Family Law Facilitators office can provide the best help to the most customers when it has funds to support at minimum one attorney and one full-time legal assistant. These funds must be adequate for the staff to be able to provide direct assistance to customers with form preparation, document review, and more in-depth appointments or telephone calls. Programs can work with local law or paralegal schools to recruit student volunteers to conduct intake, prepare forms, and screen cases. Because pro se services are in such high demand, it is important that service providers have adequate staff to meet the needs of their customers. Nearly all studies conducted regarding customer service show that customers are most satisfied with one-on-one assistance with a staff member.112 For example, the Family Law Facilitator and staff in Los Angeles County would arrive in the morning to find anywhere from five to 100 people waiting to sign up for an appointment or to participate in the drop-in clinic.113 The appointment list for the drop-in clinic in San Francisco often fills up in a matter of minutes. Hence it is critical that a center has the staff capabilities to meet litigant needs. Programs can be creative in their sources of funding. Diane Bras points out that over half of the customers served have young children under five. 114 Thus any services regarding child support and child custody are eligible for Proposition 10 funding.115

112 113 114 115

See the various studies conducted in STATEWIDE ACTION PLAN FOR SERVING SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS. FAMILY LAW INFORMATION CENTERS. Diane Bras interview

Proposition 10, passed by California voters in November 1998, added a tax to cigarettes and other tobacco products. The revenues from this tax support information and services to promote early childhood development. http://www.ccfc.ca.gov/prop10facts.htm

45

Additional funding is available through partnership grants.116

Ethical Issues
The Facilitator must act within the statutory limitations of the program and must inform litigants of those limitations. Firstly, Facilitators and litigants do not have an attorney-client relationship, and Family Code section 10013 requires facilities disclose this fact in a conspicuous manner. Next, Facilitators are required to inform the customer that their assistance is also available to the other party. This allows facilitators to provide services to the parties without compromising the neutrality of the court.117 All court-based self-help programs must ensure that attorney and staff act within ethical guidelines of the state, county, and court.

Staff Development
To ensure high quality services, it is important that attorneys and staff remain up to date on changes in the law, have access to legal resources, are able to communicate with other programs, and have regular training and continuing education opportunities. The job of the Family Law Facilitator should be a viable and desirable career path, with continuing education and development. The Facilitator and all staff should complete a formal training process rather

116

The Equal Access Fund was created by the Budget Act of 1999 and has been continued in the Budget Acts of 2000, 2001, and 2002. Each of these budgets allocated $10 million to the Judicial Council to be distributed in grants to legal services providers through the Legal Services Trust Fund Commission of the State Bar (the commission). The budget control language provides for . . . ten percent of the funds remaining after administrative costs are set aside for Partnership Grants to legal services programs for joint projects of courts and legal services programs to make legal assistance available to pro per litigants. STATEWIDE ACTION PLAN FOR SERVING SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS at 62. See also EQUAL ACCESS FUND: A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE at 51 for more on Partnership Grants.
117

See CAL. R. CT. APP. C, DIV. V. (2006).

46

than a learn as you go process. This does not need to be a long process, but should educate staff in basic rules, ethics, and conduct. Continuing Education Each Family Law Facilitator must attend at least one training session per year provided by the Judicial Council as required by California Family Code 10010 and Rule 5.35 of the 2006 California Rules of Court.118 These sessions train facilitators in both substantive law as well as practical strategies for serving self-represented litigants.119 Staff should be encouraged to participate in local, state, and national conferences and to meet with representatives from similar programs to discuss program development, best practices, national trends, changes in law and procedure, and current issues.120 There should also be regular technical training on the use of new technologies. 121 Because many attorneys come into the Family Law Facilitators office with little background in management, and working in a court is quite different from most other legal environments, there should be ongoing training in administration and management throughout the Facilitators tenure at the court. Also, staff should be trained in office and clinic management so as to improve efficiency and effectiveness of services rendered.

118 119 120 121

CAL. FAM. CODE 10010 (2006), CAL. R. CT. 5.35 (2006) STATEWIDE ACTION PLAN FOR SERVING SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS at 51. BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS at 14. STATEWIDE ACTION PLAN FOR SERVING SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS at 5.

47

Family Law Facilitators and their staff should be trained in mediation and alternative dispute resolution so they are able to provide and/or explain the full range of services available to their customers.122

Resources The best programs will make continuous efforts to modernize their services. This includes providing staff access to law libraries, best practice reports, program evaluations, and the latest in research, techniques, and data. All California courts now have the capability to receive satellite broadcasts, so staff can attend training sessions or meetings without leaving their court.123 This has been a viable way to provide workshops to customers, and should be included in the variety of tools available to help staff.124 Each office should have written manuals, guidelines, videos, websites, computer programs, and referral sources on hand. The materials should include such information as when and how to refer customers to other support services, office management materials, ethical responsibilities, or limitations on service.

Referrals and Collaboration with Local Legal Service Organizations, Lawyers Court-based self-help centers that maintain a strong network with local non-profits, county services, local bar associations, professional associations, mediation programs, other community services and attorneys are able to provide the most comprehensive services to

122 123 124

BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS at 14. BONNIE HOUGH, SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN CALIFORNIA: HELPING LITIGANTS HELP THEMSELVES (2004).

Refer to the discussion on Service Delivery supra regarding Butte, Tehama, and Glenn Counties use of videoconferencing for workshops.

48

customers. A strong network with non-profits that serve multi-lingual communities, for example, is particularly beneficial for a small self-help service office with limited funds.

Recommendations
Programs should conform to statutory guidelines, and all program staff should act within state, local, and court codes of ethics. A licensed attorney with experience in family law should manage the program and its staff. Provide regular training and educational opportunities for attorneys and program staff, including o Formal training process and regular, mandatory training sessions and conferences; o Staff development and continuing education seminars; and o Access to legal information, studies, and best practice reports about self-help service providers. Ensure that the Family Law Facilitator position is a viable career path. Ensure there are multi- or bi-lingual staff members available to serve non-English speaking populations. Ensure attorneys and staff have access to all necessary resources, including a law library, modern technology, program evaluations, best practices reports, or other studies on selfhelp centers. Ensure that each program has sufficient funds to support at least one attorney and one full time legal assistant. Programs should have sufficient funding to provide all necessary services to litigants. 49

Quality Assurance
Quality-assurance practices gather data on the use of services, customer satisfaction, and the changing legal environment then use these data to implement new practices when necessary and to improve old ones.125 The California Administrative Office of the Courts, as well as all of the court-based self-help services centers studied here, recognize the importance of such practices: When self-represented litigants have improved access to the assistance they need, learn how to navigate the court system, and are better prepared to present their cases, the system can respond more appropriately to their needs and they will be more satisfied with their experiences.126 Data Collection It can be difficult for programs to collect client data, especially in busy, high-traffic offices, but collecting this data pays great dividends in the future. Good usage data allow programs to focus their efforts on the most effective methods of service delivery and on the changing needs of litigants. Client data can also help programs evaluate the means by which they reach out to underserved communities. The self-help pilot study in California prepared several data-collection instruments and required programs to gather client information at intake.127 Other programs have similar requirements, but there is no unified means of data collection.128 Also, there are problems with

125

MARYLAND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST SELFREPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS (2005)
126 127 128

DESCRIPTION OF CALIFORNIA COURTS PROGRAMS FOR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS at 62. MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 371. STATEWIDE ACTION PLAN FOR SERVING SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS at 29.

50

intake and exit surveys, including the fact that customers do not always accurately self-report.129 Furthermore, response rates can be very low. One study found only 31% of customers filled out the provided surveys.130 Family Law Facilitators and the Administrative Office of the Courts continue to improve means of statistical data collection. The Administrative Office of the Courts and Judicial Council of California Task Force on Self-Represented Litigants encourages self-help centers to adopt standardized methodologies to report and evaluate the quality and quantity of services provided.131 Other data are not amenable to form-based collection processes, but are still important to evaluate needs assessment and service delivery. These non-numerical data include: Customer satisfaction Programs effects on courts burdens Anecdotal data regarding individual users It is more difficult to get an accurate idea of these aspects of the program, because they are more variable and require more involved answers. Nonetheless, programs should regularly interview clients and other court officers to ensure they are satisfied with the service. Though there is not currently a uniform system to collect and report customer statistics, programs continue to improve their efforts to collect data effectively and consistently.132 Most programs collect customer information on intake forms, and some have customers fill out

129 130 131 132

e.g., a customer may say they were Extremely Satisfied with a particular service, but may not have been. MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM at 239. STATEWIDE ACTION PLAN FOR SERVING SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS at 29. See Appendix B for examples of program intake forms.

51

satisfaction surveys after workshops or one-on-one sessions. Others conduct interviews with customers. Placer and Riverside Counties have videos available to instruct litigants about the divorce process. Anecdotal information shows that the informational divorce videos are extremely helpful to litigants, particularly in their explanation of community versus personal property, or child and spousal support forms. However, for funding and research purposes, the centers need to collect empirical data. The Placer County Family Law Facilitators office asks each divorce litigant to watch How to do Your Own Divorce before coming into the clinic. In the summer of 2006, the Placer County Family Law Facilitators office began to interview divorce litigants who had watched the video in order to collect hard data on the usefulness of the video, as well as numbers of litigants who use it.

Information Provided It is vital that self-help programs give their clients up-to-date, accurate material. Misleading legal information can be worse than none at all; missing a deadline or using an outdated form can have serious consequences for a litigant. Programs should date all materials provided, such as forms, handouts, and web pages, and staff should monitor changes in the law and update materials promptly. In states with heavily form-driven litigation processes, such as California, programs should work with the authority that promulgates the forms (in California, the Judicial Council) to ensure they have the current versions.

52

Complaint Process Family Law Facilitator offices and Family Law Information Centers should maintain clear and effective procedures by which the public can complain about inappropriate behavior or misinformation provided by Facilitators or staff. 133

Recommendations
Establish a data collection regimen, collecting basic data on all litigants and more detailed data on a randomly selected sample thereof. Collect narratives of litigants experiences with the system, both in cases where it worked well and cases where it did not. Review program materials regularly to ensure they are correct and up to date. Establish procedures to address litigants complaints.

133

Harrison at 73; CAL. R. CT. 5.35 (2006).

53

Conclusion and Acknowledgments

We hope our readers find this report helpful and illuminating. The efficient and equitable administration of justice is never easy, but as we prepared this report, we became convinced that pro se service centers and procedures that accommodate unrepresented litigants result in more litigant satisfaction with the court system and a lower workload on court personnel. Court-based self-help centers are overwhelmingly successful and consistently busy, which demonstrates that they fill an important, previously unmet need for litigants. However, courts that provide these centers must give them their full support - in organization, staff, funding, and resources in order to reap the benefits. In return, the centers must constantly re-evaluate themselves and improve their methods of service delivery as the numbers of pro se litigants and center customers continue to grow. We note that much work remains to be done, and propose the following topics for future research in this area: Gather and analyze more detailed statistics on the pro se litigant population and their experience with pro se assistance programs; Analyze a broader range of programs nationwide; Compile detailed information on program costs and funding, and on the overall financial impact on courts and communities; and Study the interactions between pro se assistance programs and community legal help providers, whether provided by or independent of the courts.

54

Finally, we would like to thank the following people and organizations for making this project possible: James Turner, Theresa Rudy, and Thomas Gordon, HALT Miye Goishi, UC Hastings Civil Justice Clinic Bonnie Hough, Center for Children, Families, and the Courts, California Administrative Office of the Courts Diane Bras, Placer County Family Law Facilitator

55

Appendix A: Descriptions of Counties

The following nine pages are reproduced from MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM: A REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE (2005), by Californias Administrative Office of the Courts. For more information on self-help programs and the areas they serve, see the Annotated Bibliography at the end of this report.

56

Chapter 2

Butte County: Regional Collaboration Model

PROGRAM SNAPSHOT

MODEL TYPE: REGIONAL COLLABORATION MODEL

Red Bluff: Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (21 hours per week) Willows: Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. (21 hours per week) Oroville: Monday through Thursday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.; Friday 9 a.m. to noon (31 hours per week) Chico: Monday and Wednesday, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.; Friday 9 a.m. to noon (17 hours per week) Red Bluff, Tehama County: Court annex building (same block as courthouse) Willows, Glenn County: At the courthouse Oroville, Butte County: Court annex building (two miles from courthouse) Chico, Butte County: Court annex building (next to courthouse) Monthly Average (June 2003 September 2003): 1,220 (approximately 50% served in person and 50% by telephone) Managing attorney (.5 FTE ) Paralegal (1.0 FTE) Three Office Assistants (1.25 FTE) Average 3 at any time All areas of family law not covered by family law facilitator: dissolution, summary dissolution, motion for non child or spousal support. Guardianships including establishing, opposing, obtaining visitation in and alternatives to probate guardianship. Unlawful detainer (tenant and landlord), civil harassment, domestic violence restraining orders (petitions and responses), name changes, civil complaints and answers, change of venue motions, miscellaneous civil, small claims, collecting a judgment. Procedural information, assistance filling out forms, explanation of court orders, referrals to additional legal assistance, development of self-help materials, training and assistance for community organizations. One-on-one assistance by staff over the telephone; service to walk-in customers including forms packets, forms completion, workshop scheduling and providing additional materials; one-on-one assistance by legal staff via teleconferencing equipment; language interpretation via teleconferencing equipment; teleconferenced workshops focused on forms completion.

Hours:

Location:

Number of Customers Served:

Number of Staff: (As of May 2004) Number of Volunteers:

Case Types Served:

Types of services rendered:

Methods of Service Delivery:

23

Background

Butte, Glenn, and Tehama are three contiguous counties in the north-central part of California. Butte Countys population of 203,000 ranks near the midpoint among the 58 California counties. Glenn County at 26,000 and Tehama County at 56,000 are much smaller. The majority of residents of Glenn and Tehama counties live in rural areas, as do about 40 percent of Butte County residents. Compared with larger urban areas of the state and with the central valley region, these counties have proportionately more white nonHispanic residents (78 percent) and fewer Hispanic or Latino residents (13 percent), proportionately fewer people who speak a language other than English at home (14 percent), and proportionately more people older than 65 (15 percent). The three counties combined poverty rate is 19 percent, putting them in the poorest quartile of California counties.10 The Office of the Family Law Facilitator is one of the few sources on the demographics of the self-represented litigants coming to court. Customers of the family law facilitator in the three-county region are generally similar to the U.S. census population in ethnicity and in the language spoken (94 percent spoke English). Compared with the regions overall population, many more customers of the family law facilitator appear to be living in poverty. About 54 percent of customers report an individual monthly income of less than $1,000. Rural and semi-rural northern California are characterized by high unemployment, limited social services, limited public transportation, long distances to population centers, and an aging population. In providing services to residents, rural courts and local governments face the problems of extremely small budgets, a limited pool of attorneys and other professionals, and limited or nonexistent university and community services available to the public. As of July 2001, Butte County had 10 judges and 2 commissioners; Glenn county had 2 judges and 1 commissioner, and Tehama County had 4 judges and one commissioner. Butte County had 122 court employees, with about 20 in Glenn County and 42 in Tehama County. During the fiscal year 20022003, the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) reports case filings for the three counties as detailed in figure 2.1.

10

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census 2000.

24

Chapter 3

Fresno County: Spanish-Speaking Model

PROGRAM SNAPSHOT

MODEL TYPE: SPANISH-SPEAKING MODEL

Hours: Location: Number of Customers Served: Number of Staff: Monday through Thursday 8 a.m. to noon and 1:30 to 4 p.m. (closed Friday for workshops/training) City of Fresno, one mile from court; next to Office of the Family Law Facilitator Monthly average (February 2003April 2004): 194 Approximately 160 legal assistance and 34 interpretations per month Two full-time staff: the community resource manager and the court examiner 2 part-time clerical 24 interpreters 2 interns Assistance with completion of forms, procedural information, explanation of court orders, written materials translated into Spanish, document review, case management, referrals to additional legal assistance, and interpretation in court and custody mediation Family law (dissolution; custody/visitation; grandparent visitation; child support, spousal support, paternity, domestic violence); Probate (guardianship); Landlord/tenant (unlawful detainer); General Civil (civil harassment, elder abuse, name change); Immigration Individual assistance and workshops, interpreter services at court

Number of Volunteers:

Types of Services Rendered:

Case Types Served:

Methods of Service Delivery:

Background

Fresno County is located in central California and is the 10th largest county in the state. It covers about 6,000 square miles, and is the most productive agricultural area in the nation. The population of Fresno County is 799,407. Slightly more than 50 percent of the population resides in the city of Fresno, which is the largest urban area in the county and the location of the main courthouse. The county includes 26 other cities, predominantly small farming communities heavily populated with Hispanic migrant workers. There are nine outlying courts that range from Coalinga (65 miles southwest) to Reedly (20 miles east). In rural areas of Fresno County, the Hispanic population ranges from 65 percent to 98 percent of the total. As of July 2001, Fresno Superior Court had 36 judges, 8 commissioners, and about 461 employees.

59

Both economic and language barriers have created a critical demand on the court to provide services to a population of self-represented litigants who require legal information and education in Spanish. Currently, Fresno County is experiencing double-digit unemployment. Whereas the unemployment rate in California is just under 7 percent, Fresno County has peaked at almost 14 percent.12 The poverty rate in this county (24 percent) is 13 percentage points higher than the state average and double the national average. About 37 percent of Fresnos children live below the poverty line, compared with the statewide average of 18 percent. The median household income for Fresno County ($34,735) is less than that for the state of California ($47,493). Almost one-third of the population lacks a high school degree. Fresno County has one of the highest concentrations of Latino and Spanish-speaking people in California, with a 44 percent Latino population.13 About 41 percent speak a language other than English at home, and 77 percent of those speak Spanish. During the last six months of 2001, the Fresno Superior Court provided interpreter services for 19,051 mandated cases; 90 percent involved Spanish-speaking litigants. No interpreter services are mandated for most family law, probate, small claims, or other civil cases. During the fiscal year of 20012002, cases filings in these categories were as follows: ! ! ! ! Family law: 4,673 Probate: 910 Small claims: 5,051 Limited civil: 11,27514

In 2001, about 40 percent of the Spanish-speaking litigants in these cases required language assistance. As they attempt to navigate the process successfully, these individuals face huge challenges, which affect both their ability to seek justice and the courts ability to serve them efficiently. Prior to the establishment of the model self-help project Centro de Recursos Legales, the Fresno court had two assistance programs for self-represented litigants: the family law facilitator and Family Law Information Center. Combined, they provided a wide array of services in the area of family law. However, neither dealt with other civil issues, and neither offered services in Spanish. Furthermore, the Fresno Court responded to budget cuts by withdrawing funds from the Family Law Information Center, and it was closed at about the same time Centro de Recursos Legales was opened. This left the family law facilitator as the only family law self-help program

California Department of Finance, California Statistical Abstract 2004. Table c-2 Civilian Unemployment Rate by County (2003). 13 U.S. Census Bureau, Fresno County, CA, Table (1), American Community Survey Office, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Products/Profiles/Single/2003/ACS/CA.htm (accessed January 28, 2005). 14 Administrative Office of the Courts, 2003 Court Statistics Report (2004).

12

60

for non-Spanish-speaking litigants, and the facilitator program is basically limited to working on issues of child support. Some community legal services are available in Fresno County. Central California Legal Services provides assistance to individuals who meet the income guidelines on cases involving housing and other civil matters as well as domestic violence. Centro La Familia Advocacy provides assistance to income-qualified individuals in the family law area. Neither program is able to meet the demand for representation, particularly in family law. In addition, no services are available for those litigants who fall outside the income restrictions, yet cannot afford counsel. The goal of the Centro de Recursos Legales was to fill the gap in services to Spanishspeaking litigants and minimize the barriers they face by providing assistance in completing forms, education about the court process, workshops on various case types, and interpreter services at the court.
Description of Model Goals of Program

Centro de Recursos Legales was designed to provide court-operated, self-help legal assistance to Fresno Countys large Spanish-speaking population. The central goals of the project were as follows: ! Increase access to justice and education by establishing a Spanish-language selfhelp center that would include instructional materials and workshops in Spanish, and Spanish-speaking staff and volunteers. These services should extend to potential litigants in outlying courts as well as in the main court in the city of Fresno; Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the court system by providing Spanish-language document review of pro per forms and by building a volunteer interpreters bureau through extensive community collaborations; and Increase user satisfaction with the court process by making assistance available through the self-help center and volunteer interpreters bureau.

Focus Areas of Law

Originally, the primary focus of Fresno Countys pilot program was to help Spanishspeaking self-represented litigants in guardianship, unlawful detainer, civil harassment, and family law cases. The program expected about half of its customers to need assistance with family law; the Office of the Family Law Facilitator and the Family Law Information Center were expected to continue handling the remaining family law issues, particularly for English-speaking litigants. Due to the unexpected closure of the Family Law Information Center (FLIC), however, services for non-Spanish-speaking family law litigants on issues other than child support were virtually eliminated. The FLIC had been

61

Chapter 4

San Francisco County: Multilingual Model

PROGRAM SNAPSHOT

MODEL TYPE: MULTILINGUAL MODEL

Drop-in: Monday and Wednesday, 1:30 to 4 p.m.; Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, 8:30 a.m. to noon Civil harassment clinics: Monday through Friday, 1:30 to 4 p.m. Unlawful detainer settlement conferences: Wednesday and Thursday, 12:30 to 1 p.m. Unlawful detainer drop-in: Wednesday and Thursday, 1:30 to 4 p.m. San Francisco: Civic Center Courthouse Hall of Justice (2 traffic workshops per month) La Raza (2 workshops per month) Cameron House (4 workshops per year) Monthly average 778 customers for direct service Additional customers served through radio and television broadcasts and presentations at community agencies 1 full-time attorney (the director), 1 full-time clerk 73 (at time of second site visit): 53 law students, 18 volunteer interpreters and 2 attorneys Roughly 15 volunteers attend on a consistent basis Civil Harassment, Guardianship, Conservatorship, Unlawful Detainer, Name Change, Step-parent Adoptions, Elder Abuse Restraining Orders, Small Estates, Traffic, Small Claims, Family Law, Other General Civil Assistance with completion of forms, procedural information, preparation of orders after hearings, explanation of orders, referrals to other providers, written materials, document review, interpretation services Individual assistance, workshops, written materials, educational broadcasts

Hours:

Location:

Number of Customers Served: Number of Staff: Number of Volunteers:

Case Types Served:

Types of Services Rendered:

Methods of Service Delivery:

Background

San Francisco County is located on the north-central coast of California, on the tip of a peninsula bordered on the west by the Pacific Ocean and on the east by San Francisco Bay. It is an urban county covering about 231 square miles, with a population of 776,733. The population of San Francisco County is similar in size to the population of Fresno County, but its land area is only 1/25 that of Fresno County. San Francisco is part of a cluster of urban counties surrounding San Francisco Bay, with a combined population of more than 7 million. As of July 2001, the San Francisco Superior Court had 50 judges, 14 commissioners, and 524 employees. 97

San Francisco County is characterized by its wealth of community service organizations. Community-based organizations provide assistance help in housing (6), eviction defense (3), domestic violence (1), family law (2), and immigration (5); services are also available specifically for seniors (1) and children (1).22 Examples are the Volunteer Legal Services Program (VLSP) of the Bar Association of San Francisco, Asian Pacific Islander Legal Outreach, La Raza, Bay Area Legal Aid, Cooperative Restraining Order Clinic, and Cameron House. The court also has a history of close collaboration with community social service agencies such as Walden House (adolescent drug treatment), Rally (parent visitation service), Kids Turn (postdivorce counseling), Men Overcoming Violence, and La Casa de Las Madres. San Francisco has no ethnic majority. The largest ethnic group is white non-Hispanic (49 percent); the remainder includes Asians, 30 percent; Hispanics, 14 percent; and African Americans, 8 percent. Slightly more than 45 percent of San Franciscos citizens speak a language other than English at home. Among Asians, 35 percent do not speak English well or at all. This is also true for 25 percent of Hispanics and 16 percent of IndoEuropean individuals.23 By 2020, an estimated 36 percent of San Franciscos population will be Asian, and 20 percent will be Hispanic. Surmounting language barriers is thus a critical issue for the San Francisco Court. Without professional guidance, litigants cannot participate appropriately in legal processes conducted in a language that is at best unfamiliar and at worst incomprehensible to them. When judges, clerks, and bailiffs speak of restraining orders on encumbering property, orders after hearing, abatements, proofs of service, and other such terminology, they evoke blank stares and perplexing expressions on the faces of such litigants. Census data indicate that for both families and individuals, the percentage of San Francisco residents living below the poverty level is significantly lower than the comparable proportion in Fresno or in Butte, Glenn, and Tehama counties and in California as a whole. For example, the poverty rate in Fresno county is about twice San Franciscos rate. Nevertheless, the family law facilitator program in San Francisco reports that more than 80 percent of self-represented litigants seeking services have gross yearly incomes under $24,000. This is substantially under the median household income for San Francisco ($55,221) and for California as a whole ($47,493). About one-third of the facilitators customers are Hispanic; 30 percent, African American; and 13 percent, Asian. In fiscal year 20032004, the Office of the Family Law Facilitator in San Francisco provided services to more than 5,000 litigants who had no attorneys. Although 46 percent of the family law facilitators customers are either Asian or Hispanic, services are provided in English 78 percent of the time. In fiscal year 2002-2003, San Franciscos new case filings were as follows:
22 23

Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of organizations providing that type of assistance. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census 2000.

98

! ! ! !

Family law: 5,496 Probate: 2,978 Small claims: 6,221 Limited civil: 10,78224

The court has provided funding to the family law facilitator to supplement the funding under Assembly Bill 1058 for child support services. As a result, the facilitator is able to provide services in all areas of family law. Prior to the implementation of the model selfhelp program, the only court-based assistance to self-represented litigants in non-family law matters was provided by the small claims advisor. Without bilingual legal assistance, non-English-speaking monolingual self-represented litigants were often sent home to get a bilingual family member or friend to help them communicate with court staff. Alternatively, operations staff had to locate an interpreter to communicate with the litigants and to translate documents. The court estimates that locating interpreters, translating documents, ordering ongoing continuances, and providing services that are often misunderstood increase the demand on staff time between 20 percent and 30 percent. Interpretation services are not mandated by statute in most civil matters. The resulting frustration for both staff and litigants can be intense and lead to negative interactions.
Description of Model Goals of Program

The San Francisco ACCESS project (Assisting Court Customers with Education and Self-Help Services) is designed to provide self-help services to litigants who speak a wide variety of languages and to develop materials and techniques to address the needs of a multilingual, multicultural population. The original goals of the project were as follows: ! Increase access to justice for non- and limited-English-speaking litigants by providing a combination of direct legal information and education at the court, and creating connections to services in the community organized through collaboration with the many existing legal and social services; Increase user satisfaction with the court process by increasing non- and limitedEnglish-speaking litigants ability to exercise a meaningful voice in their proceedings and elevate their perception of procedural justice; and Increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the court system by reducing the time required to handle the needs of non- and limited-English-speaking selfrepresented litigants.25

24 25

Judicial Branch Statistical Information System (JBSIS). San Francisco Superior Court Multi-Lingual Self-Help Model Project. Project proposal (2002).

99

Chapter 6

Los Angeles County: Urban Coordination Model

PROGRAM SNAPSHOT

MODEL TYPE: URBAN COORDINATION MODEL

Location: Staffing: Target Population: Office in Central courthouse, but services provided to organizations countywide Managing attorney: 1.0 FTE Assistant attorney: .5 FTE Self-help service providers in Los Angeles County Coordination of activities among providers Communication and information sharing among providers Dissemination of best practices Support in the development of new self-help centers Resource development

Services Provided:

Background

Los Angeles County has 9.5 million residents, and it is one of the nations largest counties with 4,084 square miles, an area some 800 square miles larger than the combined area of the states of Delaware and Rhode Island. There are 58 court locations in Los Angeles County; 429 judicial officers, 160 commissioners, and 5,566 court employees48; and hundreds of thousands of self-represented litigants. More than 40 agencies provide some sort of services for self-represented litigants, but there is little or no coordination among them. As a result, customers often are not referred to appropriate services. Thousands of self-represented litigants receive assistance from these programs every month, but the need for services continues to be far greater than the programs can provide. Furthermore, many self-represented litigants speak limited English, making access to appropriate services and the court system that much more difficult. Selfrepresented litigants face a number of barriers. Navigating the court system can be difficult for highly educated individuals with ample resources, and it is all the more difficult for those with limited literacy and a host of poverty-related difficulties.
Description of Model

Unlike the four other self-help pilot projects, the Los Angeles Self-Help Management Project is not a direct service model. Whereas self-represented litigants are themselves the customers of the other projects, customers of the Los Angeles Self-Help Management Project are self-help service providers. The goals of the project are:
48

Numbers of judicial officers and court staff are reported as of July 2001.

173

Appendix B: Intake Forms

66

Appendix C: Accessible Documents

71

Annotated Bibliography
This is an annotated bibliography of sources used in this report. Not all of these works are cited; some were merely used for background, and others were found in the course of our research but not used directly. Many of these works are published online. In addition to the Bluebook (18th edition) citation, summary, and length, we have included the URL for ease of access. ABA STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES, SELF-REPRESENTATION IN DIVORCE CASES (1993). An extensive demographic, descriptive, and statistical study of pro se divorce litigants in Maricopa County (Phoenix), Arizona. 113 pp. ABA STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE DELIVERY OF LEGAL SERVICES, RESPONDING TO THE NEEDS OF THE SELF-REPRESENTED DIVORCE LITIGANT (1994). Recommendations to courts for improving service to pro se divorce litigants. 44 pp. plus appendices. GAY CONROY ET AL., ETHICAL ISSUES FOR ATTORNEYS WORKING WITH SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS (2002). http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/SH-tab7.pdf. A detailed examination of the ethical issues that arise in situations where attorneys are providing limited assistance to pro se litigants, in the unbundled-services and court-based assistance program contexts. 67 pp. CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE, ANNUAL REPORT (2004). http://calbar.ca.gov/ calbar/pdfs/reports/2004_Access-to-Justice-Report.pdf. Report of a commission responsible for improving access to civil justice and removing economic barriers to the judicial system faced by low to moderate income Californians. Includes a brief segment on the Equal Access Fund. 8 pp.
(CALIFORNIA) CENTER FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN, AND THE COURTS, A REPORT AND ANALYSIS OF

ACTION PLANS THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA: INTEGRATING SERVICES FOR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS INTO THE COURT SYSTEM (2003). http://courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/ SJIReport.pdf. A study of pro se litigation in California and a set of plans for addressing the needs of pro se litigants on a per-county basis throughout the state. 89 pp. BONNIE HOUGH, DESCRIPTION OF CALIFORNIA COURTS PROGRAMS FOR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS (2003). http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/equalaccess/documents/harvard.pdf. An overview of self-help programs and practices in California courts, with an emphasis on family courts. 30 pp. BONNIE HOUGH, SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN CALIFORNIA: HELPING LITIGANTS HELP THEMSELVES (2004). http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Trends/ ProSeCaliTrends2004.html. A description and survey of the multifacted approach California courts are taking to address the burgeoning growth in pro se litigation.

73

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, EQUAL ACCESS FUND: A REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE (2005). http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/ programs/equalaccess/documents/EAF_FullReport.pdf. Extensive report on the efficiency and effectiveness of the operations of programs funded from the Equal Access Fund including an assessment of the programs success in meeting the unmet needs of unrepresented litigants. 219 pp. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, FACT SHEET: PROGRAMS FOR SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS (2005). http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/reference/ documents/factsheets/proper.pdf. A very brief outline of the services available for pro se litigants in California. 4 pp. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, FAMILY LAW INFORMATION CENTERS: AN EVALUATION OF THREE PILOT PROGRAMS (2003). http:// www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/FLIC-full.pdf. Report on the activities and effectiveness of the activities of the Family Law Information Center pilot programs in Los Angeles, Fresno, and Sutter counties since their establishment in 1999. 140 pp. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, MODEL SELF-HELP PILOT PROGRAM: A REPORT TO THE LEGISLATURE (2005). http://courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/ equalaccess/documents/Self-Help_full.pdf. An extensive report on five pilot programs for assisting self-represented litigants in Butte, Fresno, San Francisco, Contra Costa, and Los Angeles counties. 448 pp. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF CALIFORNIA TASK FORCE ON SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS, STATEWIDE ACTION PLAN FOR SERVING SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS (2003). http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/ programs/cfcc/pdffiles/Full_Report_comment_chart.pdf. Report on best practices for courts in serving self-represented litigants, including extensive material on existing programs (starting at p. 46). 269 pp. JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF LOUISIANA TASK FORCE ON PRO SE LITIGATION, GUIDELINES FOR BEST PRACTICES IN PRO SE ASSISTANCE (2004). http://www.lasc.org/la_judicial_entities/ Judicial_Council/Pro_Se_Guidelines.pdf. Contains a brief nationwide survey of pro se statistics and practices and recommendations for courts in Louisiana. 176 pp. MARYLAND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS, BEST PRACTICES FOR PROGRAMS TO ASSIST SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS IN FAMILY LAW MATTERS (2005). http:// www.courts.state.md.us/family/bestpractices_selfrep.pdf. Brief outline of the practice areas used in Maryland to classify best practices, and the individual practices recommended in each. 15 pp.

74

MARYLAND JUDICIARY, PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND MEASURES FOR MARYLANDS FAMILY DIVISIONS (2002). http://www.courts.state.md.us/family/performancestandards.pdf. A detailed outline of standards for family courts in Maryland, with material pertaining to self-represented litigants throughout. 60 pp. MARYLAND LEGAL ASSISTANCE NETWORK, HELPING PRO SE LITIGANTS HELP THEMSELVES (n.d). http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/HelpThemselves.pdf. A brief outline of material on the demographics of pro se litigants and the services provided them by the legal community and the courts. 5 pp. NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS, THE FUTURE OF SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGATION: REPORT FROM THE MARCH 2005 SUMMIT (2005). http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/ Res_ProSe_FutSelfRepLitfinalPub.pdf. The proceedings and recommendations of the National Center for State Courts Summit on the Future of Self-Represented Litigation. 230 pp. DVD: How to do Your Own Divorce (Placer County Family Law Facilitator n.d.) (on file with authors). A how-to video from the Placer County Family Law Facilitators office on pro se divorce, used as an orientation for PLACER COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, SELF-REPRESENTED LITIGANTS ACTION PLAN (2003). http:// www.placercourts.org/ftp/placersrlap.pdf. An overview of self-help programs and practices in California courts, with an emphasis on family courts. 32 pp.

75