LSC has now formally released its Technology Summit Report.  While I have previously blogged on the careful and inclusive process here, and here and here and here and here, I thought it would be most useful to make general comments rather than summarize this very important Report, which has the potential to shape access and collaboration strategy and investments for the next decade.  I will focus on the implementation and funding strategies for the already quite well known components, as well as for the initiative as a whole.  (Disclosure, I have been part of the planning process and steering committee for the Summit, and it must therefore be emphasized that I very much speak only for myself in my response to the Summit Report.)

Implementation of the Triaging Portal

The Triaging Portal concept is very ambitious, assuming connection to all service agencies, full information, tools, triage, self-correcting algorithms, etc.  The plan is to develop work cooperatively with courts and others to secure funding to support three statewide pilots, to be selected competitively.  The vision is far more ambitious that the websites currently required by LSC for its grantee networks.  Key issues: finding states with a sufficient level of collaboration and integration between legal aid, courts, the bar, and ideally social service agencies to commit to this cooperative approach, particularly in the context of differing institutional roles; getting national funders committed to the same pilots; developing the pilots so that the technology can be deployed nationally, but without dumbing-down to a lowest common denominator; getting consensus on triage protocols; leveraging TIG money without running into opposition from the existing structure.

Implementing Document Assembly

As the Report points out, this is a relatively mature technology, to which perhaps the principal bar to full deployment is the lack of full systems of standardized forms in all too many states (a problem treated as beyond the scope of the report.)  The main implementation strategy here appears to be encouraging funders to support fully adoption and integration of document assembly data into other aspects of the delivery system through development of standards, tags, etc.  The approach urged would be to condition funding upon commitments to an integrated vision, to a collaborative system that would ensure full court and legal aid use, to rules mandating acceptance of the products, and to a broad input process.  (While the language of the Report does not support this, I would go further and condition all access funding on such an efficient approach; tolerance of the status quo is unacceptably wasteful. In any event failure to meet such a standard should disqualify states from consideration as pilot projects.)

Implementation of Mobile Strategy

The mobile strategy lists a number of possible applications and application areas, recommends seeking funding for converting current websites, replicating existing applications, and developing the listed possible applications, encourages use of hackathons and developer engagement systems, and recommends a campaign to have telecom companies exclude access to justice usage from billed totals.

The challenge here is to build a far stronger capacity within the access community.  While access to justice organizations were very early to market with use of the world wide web, we have been far slower in the mobile area, and we need both capacity and mindset.  We have to think far more about how to be proactive in the far wider use of the far larger range of information that can be accumulated and used by a mobile device.  Making at least minimal information available over mobile devices should be required of grantees, to help ensure that broader capacity is developed.

Implementing Business Process Analysis

I think it is safe to say that the area of the Report that goes furthest in expanding the prior debate is that dealing with business process analysis, a concept that has been largely absent from the public sector discussion.  As the Report puts it: Business process analysis involves the disciplined “mapping” of how a task or function is performed, using standard conventions for depicting different aspects of the process. This can lead to standardization, efficiency, division of labor between organizations, etc.  It represents a major change from the “craft” orientation of much of our delivery system, in which the lawyer or advocate builds everything from scratch every time, and often does not learn from the experience of colleagues.

The strategy is to obtain pro bono consulting support from the private sector for pilot projects, and thereby develop an internal group with the skill to provide ongoing help from within.

However, the development of the strategy will need to address the real resistance within the delivery system, at all levels.  Components of the strategy may need to include specific funding incentives for adoption of the process, status rewards, investment in sophisticated research and evaluation (itself requiring agreement upon outcome measures), major promotional and educational efforts, and possible use of the LSC grant process.

Implementing Expert Systems

For the expert systems/checklist strategy, the Report recommends the development of a tool that can enable knowledge to be coded into an application to create customized information for client and advocate.

It may be that it will be helpful to develop additional focus in the identification of possible products and methods.  Moreover, exploring the relationship to both triage and document assembly (both of which use such logic, and need tools to do so) might result in a significant saving of resources.

Overall implementation.

I quote in full the first section on overall implementation, since the new group it envisions is crucial to success in this ambitious multi-organizational agenda.

The Report also generally addresses issues of outreach, potential funders, replication, and communication.

Establishing a group of the kind described above would represent a major innovation in access coordination and integration — in some, but only some, ways a national technology-focused analog to the highly successful state level access to justice commissions — and would have huge implications for the future.

A thousand congratulations to LSC for its vision and commitment.