Docstoc

Divorce Attorney in Mid-Valley Oregon

Document Sample
Divorce Attorney in Mid-Valley Oregon Powered By Docstoc
					    OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE




        Civil Legal Assistance
        State Grant Program
Progress Report for July 2003 - June 2004
       and Final Program Report



         Attorney General Hardy Myers
         Oregon Department of Justice
        Crime Victims’ Assistance Section
              1162 Court Street NE
             Salem, OR 97301-4096

                  October 2004
           For more information or to receive a hard copy of this report, please contact:


                                       Nancy Greenman
                                 Oregon Department of Justice
                               Crime Victims’ Assistance Section
                                     1162 Court Street NE
                                    Salem, OR 97301-4096
                                     (503) 378-5344 ext. 7
                                  nancy.greenman@state.or.us




Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                1
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
                               EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This program awarded $1,498,260 in non-competitive State Criminal Injuries
Compensation Account funds to domestic and sexual violence providers serving victims
in all thirty-six counties. Program objectives are to enhance the safety of victims of
domestic and sexual violence through providing legal services to victims who may not be
able to afford or access them on their own and, secondarily, to encourage collaborative
efforts to expand legal expertise regarding victims of domestic and sexual violence
throughout community systems. The grant term began in July 2000 and was extended to
end June 30, 2004. This report details program results for the final year of the program,
from July 2003 through June 2004, and also reports cumulative results reported since the
program’s inception, in July 2000.

Part I summarizes program objectives, implementation and activities. The 31 grant
awards ranged in size from just under $10,000 to almost $269,000, which was shared by
programs serving victims in the Portland area. Grantees contracted with local attorneys
and referred appropriate clients. The program specified guidelines for screening attorneys
and clients, and required that an eligible client have experienced an act of sexual or
domestic violence within the year prior to being referred. Grantees reported results of
grant-funded activities for each three month period throughout the grant. Quarterly
reports indicate that an average of 180 clients statewide received funded legal services in
each quarter from July 2000 through June 2003. From July 2004 through June 2004, the
number of clients served per quarter has steadily decreased, as grant funds were
exhausted. Services most frequently provided were: marital dissolution, custody and
parenting-time orders, restraining orders and the initial consultation to determine client
legal needs.

Part II discusses client feedback. Although only 11 client feedback surveys were
collected during this last year, results are similar to the total of 191 clients reporting on
services received since the beginning of the grant. Clients overall report satisfaction and
express gratitude for help that some describe as life-saving. Part III, the conclusion,
summarizes overall program results and grantee strategies for continuing services now
that funding has ended.




Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                    2
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
PART I: Civil Legal Assistance (CLA) Grant Program Summary for FY 2000-04

Program Background, Objectives & Requirements
These state grants were first issued to private non-profit domestic violence and sexual
assault programs in July 2000, and were reissued the following year for the 2001-2003
biennium. The grant termination dates were subsequently extended through June 30,
2004. The fundamental purpose of the program was to enhance the safety of victims of
domestic and sexual violence through providing legal services to victims who may not be
able to afford or access them on their own. The secondary objective was to encourage
collaborative efforts to expand legal expertise regarding victims of domestic and sexual
violence throughout community systems.

The grant guidelines required that, in order to be served, the client have experienced an
act or acts of sexual or domestic violence. When first issued, the grant required the most
recent violent act(s) to have occurred within six months of the legal services being
funded. However, after grantee feedback strongly urged that the period be lengthened,1 it
was increased to twelve months. The grant specified the range of allowable services, and
established criteria for screening both clients and attorneys. Screening criteria for
attorneys included: ability, experience representing domestic and/or sexual violence
victims, data collection, communication & bilingual communication skills, and adequate
support staff to ensure compliance with grant requirements. Screening criteria for clients
included: the severity and potential lethality of the violence involved (priority should be
given to clients most at risk); the ability of the legal process to resolve the client’s
particular problem; the ability of the client to follow through with the legal action; the
clients’ financial situation; and the impact of the case on the grantee’s resources.

Grantees were required to submit reports on a quarterly basis. Two earlier reports,
submitted by DOJ in October 2002 and January 2004, covered the content of data for the
funding periods of July 1 2000 through June 2002 and July 2002 through June 2003,
respectively.2 This report focuses on the period from July 2003-June 2004, the final year
of the program, and also includes cumulative data for the entire program. Part I of this
report discusses the content of grantee quarterly reports, including numbers of clients
served, type of services provided, challenges and accomplishments. Part II discusses the
Client Feedback Forms that are given to all clients served by these monies, and includes
quantitative and qualitative information on client response.3 Part III, the conclusion,

1
  As one agency wrote, “As you already know, women are not ready to do a court battle for
some time after leaving an abusive relationship. The change to a year will help a lot.”
2
  Both reports are available upon request to Department of Justice/ Crime Victims’
Assistance Section, 1162 Court Street NE, Salem, OR 97301-4096, Attention: Civil Legal
Assistance Program. They can also be accessed electronically at:
www.doj.state.or/CrimeV/Grant_Program_Annual.htm.
3
  In December 2002 grantee agencies were surveyed as to their experience with the
program to date, and their recommendations for its future. Results of that survey can be
found in the January 2004 DOJ report (see footnote 2, supra.)

Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                3
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
summarizes overall program results and grantee strategies for continuing services now
that funding has ended.

Program Implementation
Developing Partnerships with Attorneys. From inception, successful implementation
of this program required grantees to develop a workable relationship with attorneys who
not only understand the dynamics of sexual and domestic violence, but who were also
willing to work within financial and other program requirements. The challenges of this
process and the lessons learned are detailed in the October 2002 DOJ report (see footnote
2). Briefly, common issues and elements addressed by grantees included: establishing
mutual trust among the various parties (clients, attorneys & grantee agencies), clear
communication among parties, clarity of eligibility criteria and a clear and consistent
screening process. Education of community partners who referred clients for services
was also a common concern. Efforts put into relationship-building yielded important
results. One grantee final report notes:
     One major outcome of the CLA [Civil Legal Assistance Program] Grant was an
     enhanced relationship between LASO [Legal Aid Services of Oregon] advocates and
     advocates from referring programs. Since all cases were referred by one of the six
     victim services providers that participated in the … grant, the level of
     communication between LASO and the victim services agencies increased
     significantly during the course of the grant. This communication took place both at
     the time of referral and during the course of ongoing representation of clients.
     LASO attorneys also made many telephone and in person contacts with shelter staff
     to ensure that the nature of the grant, the process for referring clients and the scope
     of representation that could be provided by LASO were understood by advocates.

Successful implementation also required determining a formula for allotment of the
funding that matched the grantee’s client community’s needs. Attorney availability
presented an additional challenge in the smaller, more isolated communities, where
grantees reported that some abusers quickly retained the only readily available counsel,
thus forcing victims to look far beyond the community for legal help.

Program Activity
A total of $1,498,260 was awarded through this program to thirty-one grantees serving
victims in all thirty-six counties. Some of the grants covered multiple agencies, as in the
case of Multnomah County, where funding was divided among six agencies. Other single
grants served multiple counties, as in the case of Central Oregon Battering and Rape
Alliance (COBRA), which is headquartered in Bend (Deschutes County) and also served
Jefferson, Grant and Crook counties. Funding was disbursed on a prospective, not a
reimbursement basis, and according to a formula set forth in grant guidelines.

The grant was originally scheduled to terminate in June 2003, but a number of factors
resulted in the termination date being extended through June 2004. Legal actions, once

Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                               4
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
begun, often take more than the anticipated time to conclude, or give rise to other, related
actions. Additionally, the overall decrease in funding available for domestic and sexual
violence services prompted some grantees to reserve these valuable dollars for victims in
most dire need. Table A, on the next page, indicates which grantees extended grant
activities beyond the initial termination date and are thus included in this final program
report.

Number of Clients Served. Table A shows clients being served in each quarter of
funding since the beginning of the program in July 2000. These are not unduplicated
numbers, but rather represent the clients actively served during any given quarter. That is,
a single client could have been served in multiple quarters and would be counted in each.
Additionally, when a single grantee served multiple counties, the totals for all counties
served have been entered in the grantee’s resident county. Thus, because COBRA is
located in Deschutes County the totals for victims it served in Gilliam, Jefferson and
Crook Counties are all shown in Deschutes. The totals for counties served by multiple
programs are reported in two ways, depending upon the grants. The Multnomah County
award was made to Raphael House, which acted as the fiscal agent for and facilitated
referrals from five additional agencies (Bradley-Angle House, Portland Women’s Crisis
Line, Salvation Army, Volunteers of America and the YWCA), all of whom submitted a
single report. Lane and Washington Counties each had two separate awards, whose data
were reported separately.

As Table A shows, after a slow start – with 72 clients served from 7/00-9/00 -- the number
rose to average some 196 served per quarter through June 2003. That is, in each quarter
of the grant period from 10/00 through June 2003, nearly 200 victims around the
state received active representation. The importance of that representation to each of
these women is documented in Part II of this report. As one victim stated:
           “I think [this program] is incredibly valuable and as a victim you
           are frightened and feel it is all your fault. To have someone strong
           stand up and support you with the backing of state law helps
           tremendously in fighting back.”
During this past year, as grantees exhausted available funds and ceased to serve clients,
the numbers served per quarter began to decline. The importance of the services to
clients, however, remained the same. As one victim served in this last year wrote:
            “Great, great program. It‟s a great help – there should be more
           programs like this.”


                             Table A is found on the following pages.




Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                   5
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
                                                                   Table A: Clients Served Through Civil Legal Assistance Grants5
                                                                                         7/1/00 – 6/30/02 (shaded portion)
                                                    (Note: N/A indicates that grantee’s award has been fully expended and is no longer available to serve clients)
                               7/1/00-      10/1/00- 1/1/01- 4/01/01- 7/1/01- 10/1/01- 1/1/02- 4/1/02- 7/1/02- 10/1/02- 1/1/03- 4/1/03- 7/1/03-                          10/0/03-     1/1/04-   4/1/04-
     Counties                  9/30/00      12/31/00 3/31/01 6/30/01 9/30/01 12/31/01 3/31/02 6/30/02 9/30/02 12/31/02 3/31/03 6/30/03 9/30/03                           12/31/03     3/31/04   6/30/04   TOTAL
Baker/MayDay                        5          5        0       1        5       10       4       8       0       0        1       1       0                                0            0         1        41
Benton/CARDV                        8           7            8       8        8        8            9         8        10         8             N/A                              N/A                       82
Clackamas/CWRC                      0           1            1       2        1        4            3         7        18        23        24      N/A                           N/A                       84
Clastop/ CWRC                       2           3            6       8        7        0            9         4         6         4         1        1           2           2           0        4        59
Columbia/ CCWC                      1           1            1       8        2        5            6         9        10         6         6        2           2           2           1        6        68
Coos/ CCWCS                         0           0            1       0        4        0            6         5        13        19        18       11           7           2           1        1        88
Crook /COBRA                                             see Deschutes
Curry/ Oasis                        0           4            5       9        9       12            5          3        0         0         2          2        4            3            0       2         60
Deschutes/COBRA                     0           2           10       9       11       10           19         15       19        22        20         31        19          15           16      N/A       218
Douglas/ BPA                        0           3            2       0        0        2            2          5        3         2         0          0        6            8            6       7         46
Gilliam/ Haven –                                          total combined with Wasco
Grant /COBRA                                           total combined with Deschutes
Harney/HHOPE                                    5            1       0        0        0            0         0         3         3         5          3         1               N/A                        21
Hood River/ Help Hands              0           6            0       0        0        2            2         0         2         1             N/A                              N/A                        13
Jackson/ CW                         0           7            5      21       24       10            9         5         5         5        11         10                         N/A                       112
Jefferson/COBRA                                         total combined with Deschutes
Josephine/ WCST                     0          2             9       8                 1           13          6        8         1         5           8                        N/A                        61
Klamath/ KCC                        0          15                    6        4        4            1          2        3         2         2           1                        N/A                        40
Lake/ LCCC                          3          1             2       2        3       10            9          5        7        10         8         N/A                        N/A                        60
Lane/ SASS & Womensp                0          0        12                    6        5            6         12       16         8         7           8        6               N/A                        86
Lane – Siuslaw                      5          10            7       8       11       12           10         10        9        10         7          10                        N/A                       109
Lincoln/My Sister’s Place           0          1             1       0        1        1            3          2        1         0         3           0        2           6           1        6         28
Linn/CARDV                                                 total combined with Benton

      5
          Numbers are not unduplicated client counts, but rather clients actively being served during any given quarter. The same client may be counted as served during multiple quarters.

      Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                                     6
      Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

      cva11629
                         7/1/00-   10/1/00- 1/1/01- 4/01/01- 7/1/01- 10/1/01- 1/1/02- 4/1/02- 7/1/02- 10/1/02- 1/1/03- 4/1/03- 7/1/03-   10/0/03- 1/1/04-   4/1/04-
      Counties           9/30/00 12/31/00 3/31/01 6/30/01 9/30/01 12/31/01 3/31/02 6/30/02 9/30/02 12/31/02 3/31/03 6/30/03 9/30/03      12/31/03 3/31/04   6/30/04   TOTAL
Malheur/Project Dove          3       4         5        3       3        7      9       7       2        6       4       7       7         2        0         2        71
Marion/Mid Valley            10       10       15       17      23       30     34      15       3        1         N/A                         N/A                    158
Morrow/DVS                                   total combined with Umatilla
Multnomah/Raphael etc.        0       1        20       17      23       30     34      15      43       29      39      37      31        30         19      14       382
Rape Crisis Center           19       50        0        0       0        0      1       1       2        1       4       3       2         1          2      8         94
Polk//Sable                   5       3         6        1       2        4      1       4       6        6       3     N/A                     N/A                     41
Sherman/Haven                                  total combined with Wasco
Tillamook/WCC                 2                                                          1       3        3       2       6       5         2         3       2         29
Umatilla/DVS                  2       10        2        7       5       12     18      26      12        7      10      10       4         0         3      N/A       128
Union/Shelter from Storm      5       4         8        8                7      7       4       1        5       4       2       5         4         ?      N/A        64
Wallowa/Safe Harbors          1       1         3        3       4        6                        N/A                                          N/A                     18
Wasco/ Haven                  0       0         0        0       5       12      8       3       2        1       4       9      16             N/A                     60
Washington/DVRC - Funding through another grantee until 1/1/02                   1       4      10        5       6       1                     N/A                     27
Washington/SAWERA                Funding began 7/01              5        7      3       3       7        6       4       2       5         7         7       8         64
Wheeler// Haven                               total combined with Wasco
Yamhill – Henderson Hse       1       8        18        7       1        1      4       4       4        8       8       6                     N/A                    70
        TOTAL                  72        164       142      159   167   212    236     193     228     202     208      171     124        84         59      52      2,482




      Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                              7
      Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

      cva11629
Types of services funded. A review of quarterly reports, both for this past year and for the
grant as a whole, indicates that the most frequently used services among those allowable
under the grant have been: marital dissolution, custody and parenting-time orders, restraining
orders and the initial consultation to determine client legal needs. Clients have also been
represented in legal status, stalking orders, sexual assault, housing, paternity and child abuse
matters.

With each quarterly report, grantees are asked to submit a summary of a currently funded
case. The following are a representative sampling taken from the summaries submitted
during this last year.6

    “‟X‟ was a recent immigrant with a young child. She had endured years of verbal
    abuse by her husband. S he obtained a restraining order after husband threatened to
    kill her and then sexually assaulted her. A LASO attorney represented her at the
    FAPA hearing. The client‟s restraining order was continued. She was awarded
    custody of her child, and husband was awarded supervised parenting time… LASO is
    now representing client in obtaining a divorce.

    “Y‟s abuser had threatened to take her son if she did not return home. She got a
    restraining order and temporary custody of the child was awarded to her. Her
    abuser continued to threaten to take the child and made life hell for her. She
    was referred to the attorney for consultation and has been able to figure out
    what her legal rights are.”

PART II: Data Collected From Client Feedback Forms.
A ten-question survey was distributed to all programs receiving funding, along with
instructions that it should be completed by each client served through CLA Program
funds. Successful administration and return of Client Feedback forms has depended upon
the cooperation of the attorney representing the client, because the attorney is in a position
to know when the case has been concluded, and to be able to give the client the form to
complete at that time. Table B, on the following page, describes the number of surveys
returned during six-month increments throughout the life of the program. As the table
indicates, after an initial start-up period (during which cases would have been begun but
not yet closed) the number of forms returned per six-month period remained generally
consistent until this final year of the grant, when dwindling funds caused a drop in the
number of victims served and thus in forms returned.




6
  In order to assure client privacy, the programs submitting the summaries are not individually identified in
this report. Cases quoted here are drawn from throughout the state.

Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                                8
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
            Table B: Number of Feedback Forms Return by Report Periods
                         (Period covered by this report is shaded)
                 Grant Period                      Surveys Returned
                 7/1/00-12/31/00                   10
                 1/1/01-6/30/01                    33
                 7/1/01-12/31/01                   26
                 1/1/02-6/30/02                    31
                 7/1/02-12/31/02                   34
                 1/1/03-6/30/03                    33
                 7/1//03-12/31/03                  187
                 1/1/04-6/30/04                    6
                                       TOTAL 191

Because grantees reported the number of clients served per quarter and not the
unduplicated number served overall, Table 1 cannot be used to calculate the overall rate of
return of the feedback forms. Given the complexity of many of the cases funded through
this program and the possibility of cases extending for many months (even years), the
same client may be counted in multiple quarters. For example, in the case summaries
quoted on the preceding page “X” has most likely been served in multiple quarters, and
since she is still being represented, would not have yet returned her feedback form.

Although it may not be possible to calculate what percentage of clients served have
returned completed feedback forms, an analysis of the surveys returned throughout the
grant discloses a uniformity of responses across reporting periods and geographical areas.
In addition to multiple choice answers, nine of the ten questions asked also include space
for respondent open-ended “Comments”. The majority of respondents (11 of 11 for this
period; 177 of 191 responding for the whole period) took the time to add their own
thoughts, and most did more than scribble a few words. Ten of the 11 clients returning
forms for this reporting period (138 of entire191) added comments to two or more of the
questions.

For this reporting period, as for the grant period as a whole, the overwhelming majority of
client experiences shared through the feedback surveys was positive. Specific comments
are quoted with regard to the question they answered, below.

Negative Feedback. Three of the clients served during this last year of the grant gave
negative feedback. Throughout the life of the grant 18 of 191 respondents provided
negative commentary to one or more of the questions. Two of the three responding during
this reporting period wrote one negative and several positive comments on their surveys.

7
  Thirteen of these forms were included in the January 2004 report. The remaining 5, received after that
report was completed, are included in this last report.

Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                               9
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
These responses are discussed with regard to the specific survey questions, below. The
third respondent commented only once, expressing worry that the lawyer to whom she had
been referred would not be able to help her win custody of her children.

The feedback form includes a place for respondents to request that DOJ call them to
discuss their experience with the program, and DOJ procedure has been to follow up on
negative feedback received. Where contact information is available, DOJ has contacted the
victim to clarify the context for the statement written and to take any appropriate action.
DOJ’s concern in each case is that both the grantee agency and the attorney involved are
complying with all grant requirements and providing the best services possible. In
responding to negative feedback, DOJ also respects client privacy.

DOJ did follow up with regard to the clients expressing concerns in this past year and
determined that, while the outcomes of the cases were in part or wholly disappointing to
the clients, the representation had been in compliance with the grant program
requirements. In fact, all three clients rated their outcomes satisfactory or better.

Note on language and translation: In October 2002, the Client Feedback Form was
translated into Spanish and distributed to all grantees. Since then, only two Spanish
language forms have been returned and none in this reporting period. For this reporting
period, as throughout the life of the grant, a number come from non-English-speaking
victims who have been assisted by translators. Other than the county of service, DOJ does
not collect demographic statistics on victims served so it is not possible to assess the cultural
competency of this program. However, quarterly narrative reports make it clear that grant
funds have served victims from a wide range of cultural and ethnic backgrounds.

The following discussion follows the format of the Feedback Form. It analyzes the response
to each of the ten questions asked. Multiple choice responses are presented by this report
period and for the program period overall.8 Open-ended responses are also reviewed and
tallied according to the overall tenor of response (positive, negative, neutral), again for this
report period and overall.9 Although the number of feedback forms returned for this period
is small, the content of the responses mirrors that of the program overall. Client comments
from prior grant periods can be accessed in the October 2002 and January 2004 program
reports (see Footnote 2, above).

Question 1: Please indicate the county in which you received legal services through
this program.
Although the question adds that this information is optional, in fact it was completed in all
but one of the 191 surveys returned. Table 1, below, shows how many surveys were
returned in each county throughout the life of the grant.

8
 Except for question one, in which only cumulative results are reported.
9
 Except for questions 6 and 8, which ask for factual information, and not opinions, and for Table 9, which
doesn’t ask for comments.

Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                                 10
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
The number of surveys returned varies from county to county. Some account for only one
or two and others as many as a dozen. As noted above, this report does not attempt to
calculate the rate of return for individual counties. Furthermore, it reports total grantee
service in the county of each grantee’s principal location. Thus, services for victims in
Grant, Jefferson and Crook counties were provided through COBRA in Bend, and are
included in the total for Deschutes County. Similarly, Sherman and Wheeler counties were
served through Haven in Wasco County, and any Sherman and Wheeler County clients are
included in the Wasco County total.

            Table 1: Number of Completed Client Feedback Forms from Each County
                                         (7/00-6/04)
           County      # returned      County     # returned   County        # returned
           Baker            7          Harney           5      Morrow             1
           Benton           1          Hood River       5      Multnomah          25
           Clackamas        2          Jackson          7      Polk               3
           Clastop          6          Jefferson        0      Sherman            0
           Columbia         2          Josephine        5      Tillamook          3
           Coos             6          Klamath         11      Umatilla           11
           Crook            1          Lake            13      Union              14
           Curry            4          Lane             7      Wallowa            1
           Deschutes        2          Lincoln          0      Wasco              11
           Douglas          4          Linn             1      Washington         10
           Gilliam          0          Malheur         14      Wheeler            0
           Grant            0          Marion           1      Yamhill            4
                                       Unknown          1      TOTAL             191



Question 2. How did you find out about this program (you can mark more than one).
Table 2a, below, shows the choices respondents were offered as to where they heard about the
program, as well as the results. In this current reporting period (shaded columns), as in the
last, the great majority of respondents continue to hear about the program through their local
DV program, followed by a friend or family member and the local District Attorney Victim
Assistance Program (DA/VAP). Despite the small number of surveys returned during this past
year, the frequency of sources of referral are closely similar to those reported throughout the
program, with local domestic violence (dv) program and friends and family being the most
frequent source of referral. Three out of the 4 “Other” responses simply named the local DV
program through which the referral was made, thus bringing the true total of referrals from
DV programs to 7. Given the guidelines and screening process, it is not a resource that would
be widely advertised, lest it create false client expectations.




Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                              11
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
                           Table 2a: Source of Referral to Program
                          (data from current reported period is shaded)
        Source                          Total         7/00-6/02    7/02-6/03     7/03-6/04
        Local DV Program                11310            55           55              3
        Friend or Family Member          33              15           14              4
        DA Victim Asst. Program          21              12            9              0
        Through your attorney            11               9            2              1
        From a flyer or brochure         10               3            7              0
        Through AFS                       9               5            4              0
        Other                            48              26           18              4


Questions 2 – 10 of the survey invite respondents to add additional comments. Table 2b,
below, indicates the number of clients commenting on Question 2, as well as an analysis of
the overall tenor of their comments. The distribution of comments for this past year are
similar to those throughout the grant, though the comments themselves are brief. “This is a
good program,” wrote one of the positive responders. The other wrote, “Their (sic) great.”

Neutral responses simply stated the exact source of the referral, e.g., “Father-in-law and
[shelter program]”. There were no negative comments from surveys received this past year.

               Table 2b: Analysis of Open-Ended Comments on Question 2
     (“% of Respondents Commenting” represents the percentage of all feedback forms
                           received for that reporting period)
     Funding         Number (%) of                    Number (%)       Number (%)         Number (%)
      Period     Respondents Commenting                 Positive        Negative            Neutral
     7/00-6/02        19 of 100 (19%)                  11 (58%)          1 (5%)             7 (37%)
     7/02-6/03         18 of 80 (23%)                   7 (39%)          1 (5%)            10 (56%)
     7/04/6/03          5 of 11 (45%)                   2 (40%)             0               3 (60%)
       Total          42 of 191 (22%)                  20 (48%)          2 (4%)            20 (48%)


Question 3: Was the program and process of referral to an attorney fully explained to
you by someone from the domestic/sexual violence program? Comments?
As demonstrated by Table 3a, on the following page, the great majority of clients throughout
the life of the program have responded that the program and process were fully explained by
someone from the DV program.




10
  This number does not include the 11 respondents who listed DV programs as “other”. Because some of
those respondents also checked the “Local DV Program” box, the total is not cumulative.

Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                           12
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
                 Table 3a: Explanation to Client of Program and Process
                                Total            7/00-6/02         7/02-6/03      7/03-6/04
    Yes                       173 (91%)          91 (91%)          71 (89%)       11 (100%)
    No                         15 (8%)            8 (8%)            7 (9%)             0
    No Response                 3 (1%)            1 (1%)            2 (2%)             0
    Total Surveys                191                100               80              11

Table 3b reports the open-ended responses received in the “Comments” portion of this
question. This period there were only two.

      “[The advocate] helped me.” (positive)

      “Explained what attorneys do, what would happen on the stand.” (neutral)

               Table 3b: Analysis of Open-Ended Comments on Question 3
    Funding         Number (%) of                     Number (%)     Number (%)      Number (%)
     Period     Respondents Commenting                  Positive      Negative         Neutral
   7/00-6/02          24 of 100 (24%)                 15 (63%)           1 (4%)       8 (33%)
   7/02-6/03           14 of 80 (18%)                  8 (57%)          2 (14%)       4 (29%)
   7/03-6/04            2 of 11(18%)                   1 (50%)              0         1 (50%)
     Total            40 of 191(21%)                  24 (60%)           3 (7%)       13 (33%)


Question 4: Did you feel that your attorney was responsive to your needs and
knowledgeable about the dynamics of domestic/sexual violence? Comments?
Throughout the life of the grant, 82% of clients have consistently reported that their attorney
was responsive and knowledgeable. In this period two clients reported that their attorney was
not responsive and/or knowledgeable. Given the small number of client feedback surveys
received, these two caused the proportion of negative feedback to jump to 18%. Seven of the
eleven provided written commentary, some answering at length. Five respondents shared
positive information, including;
   “She is very good attorney. She helps with all the question I have and is good and
   knowledgeable about the lasts.”
   “Extremely responsive to my needs. His knowledge was very valuable to my case…”

Three respondents reported negative feedback. One wrote that although her attorney was
knowledgeable she [the client] was worried that her attorney was not strong enough to win
custody of the children. The second (who gave no contact information) wrote that her
attorney was representing her “poorly” (sic), but rated her outcome “good” and the program
“very good”. A third respondent answered “At first yes, but now, no.” She, too, rated her
outcome “good” and rated the program “great.”



Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                  13
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
In following up on these comments, DOJ spoke with the grantee program through which all
three clients had been served. The program, which primarily serves immigrant clients,
explained that “[W]e tend to help facilitate the sessions between client and attorney because
of the differing languages and cultural barriers. It has been our experience that our clients
can at times interpret their attorneys‟ behavior as unresponsive because they want the
attorney to act outside his capacity, i.e., to „fix‟ everything…Our client advocates work hard
to debrief their clients after attorney appointments and follow up often with them…”

                    Table 4a: Knowledge & Responsiveness of Attorneys
                                    Total        7/00-6/02      7/02-6/03   7/03-6/04
           Yes                   157 (82%)       82 (82%)       66 (82%)     9 (82%)
           No                     24 (13%)       15 (15%)        7 (9%)      2 (18%)
           No Response             10 (5%)        3 (3%)         7 (9%)          0
           Total Surveys             191            100            80           11

                Table 4b: Analysis of Open-Ended Comments on Question 4

    Funding          Number (%) of                    Number (%)    Number (%)    Number (%)
     Period      Respondents Commenting                  Positive    Negative       Neutral
   7/00-6/02         33 of 100 (33%)                    20 (61%)      5 (15%)       8 (24%)
   7/02-6/03        25 of 80 (30%)*                    15 (60%)*     7 (28%)*       6 (24%)
   7/03-6/04         7 of 11 (64%)*                     5 (71%)*     3 (43%)*           0
     Total           65 of 191(34%)                     35 (60%)     12 (21%)      14 (24%)
* Number is less than the total of the responses because 4 respondents gave both negative
and positive feedback.

Question 5: Would you have been able to resolve your legal issues without the help of
this program? Comments?
Eighty-six percent of respondents throughout the program’s duration – and all eleven
respondents served in this past year -- report that they could not have resolved their legal
issues without funded services (see Table 5a, below). The importance of these funds to the
victims and survivors they served is reflected in respondents’ open-ended comments,
summarized in Table 5b:
       “Legal issues are very complicated and expensive. Without this help I would have been
       stranded.”
       “No, because there would be no money, knowledge or transportation.”
       “I don‟t know the American system very well and also I don‟t have enough money.”

All of the open-ended response to this question was positive in this reporting period. Even
those whose experiences included negative aspects, expressed gratitude for the funds.




Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                14
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
                 Table 5a: Ability to Resolve Legal Issues Without Program
                                    Total         7/00-6/02         7/02-6/03     7/03-6/04
           Yes                     19 (10%)        9 (9%)           10 (13%)           0
           No                     164 (86%)       85 (85%)          68 (85%)      11 (100%)
           No Response              8 (4%)         6 (6%)            2 (2%)            0
           Total Surveys             191             100               80             11

                 Table 5b: Analysis of Open-Ended Comments on Question 5
    Funding          Number (%) of                    Number (%)       Number (%)      Number (%)
     Period      Respondents Commenting                  Positive       Negative         Neutral
   7/00-6/02         45 of 100 (45%)                    35 (78%)         3 (6%)          7 (16%)
   7/02-6/03           19 of 80 (24%)                  19 (100%)            0                0
   7/03-6/04           4 of 11 (36%)                    4 (100%)            0                0
     Total            68 of 191 (36%)                   58 (85%)         3 (4%)          7 (11%)


Question 6: Are there other legal services you think this program should provide? (If
yes, what other services would be useful?)
Throughout the grant term, Question 6 received the highest rate of client non-response.
Perhaps if the question had been rephrased to ask “Do you have other, unmet legal needs?”
respondents might have been more comfortable with it. (“I‟m not sure at this time.
Everything is a learning curve for myself at this time…,” one client commented.). The
question has been consistently successful in eliciting the unmet needs of respondents. For this
reporting period, suggestions included providing supervised visitation and separate
representation for children. (Note, the tenor of responses is not analyzed for this question,
because responses are wholly factual, listing services clients would like to see added).
                           Table 6a: Are Other Legal Services Needed?
                                   Total              7/00-6/02       7/02-6/03       7/03-6/04
    Yes                           51(27%)             25 (25%)        24 (30%)         2 (18%)
    No                            96 (50%)            48 (48%)        40 (50%)         8(73%)
    No Response                   44 (23%)            27 (27%)        16 (20%)          1 (9%)
    Total Surveys                   191                  100             80               11


Question 7: Would you recommend this program to another survivor of domestic or
sexual violence. (If yes, what would you say? If no, please explain.)
Throughout the life of the program, its perceived success and enormous importance to those it
serves are perhaps most clearly reflected in the responses to this question -- both in the
percentage of those answering “yes” to this question, as well as in the very high number of
open-ended responses and in the strength of respondents’ words. As Table 7a shows, 94% of
respondents overall would recommend the program. Nine of the eleven respondents served this
period said that they would recommend the program. The remaining two made no response.

Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                      15
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
Open-ended comments received this time are as heartfelt as those received throughout the
program’s life:
    “Very good. Help a lot of people, they care about their clients. They want to help as
    much as they can.”
    “They are here to help and they really do help!!”
    “There should be more programs like this.”

                   Table 7a: Recommend Program to Other Survivors?
                                  Total           7/00-6/02          7/02-6/03       7/03-6/04
     Yes                        179 (94%)         93 (93%)           77 (94%)         9 (82%)
     No                           5 (2%)           5 (5%)                0                0
     No Response                  7 (4%)           2 (2%)             3 (6%)          2 (18%)
     Total Surveys                 191               100                80               11

               Table 7b: Analysis of Open-Ended Comments on Question 7
    Funding         Number (%) of                     Number (%)       Number (%)      Number (%)
     Period     Respondents Commenting                   Positive       Negative         Neutral
   7/00-6/02        84 of 100 (84%)                     75 (89%)         3 (4%)           6 (7%)
   7/02-6/03          50 of 80 (63%)                    48 (96%)         2 (4%)              0
   7/03-6/04          10 of 11(91%)                      8 (80%)            0            2 (20%)
     Total           144 of 191 (75%)                  131 (91%)         5 (3%)           8 (6%)


Question 8: Were there any obstacles or problems that made it difficult for you to use
the legal services provided by this program? (i.e. transportation, lack of translation
services, office hours, etc.) If yes, please explain.
The percentage of respondents reporting no obstacles to accessing the legal services provided
through the program has remained high – 73% this period and 83% overall. Only two
respondents offered suggestions as to barriers they’d like addressed. One wished there were
Sunday office hours, and the other replied “Time and pride,” adding, “Also information of
the program in the very begining (sic).” (Note, the tenor of responses is not analyzed for this
question, because responses are wholly factual, listing barriers experienced).

                   Table 8a: Barriers to Using Legal Services Provided?
                                Total           7/00-6/02           7/02-6/03       7/03-6/04
   Yes                         26 (14%)         13 (13%)            11 (14%)         2 (18%)
   No                         158 (83%)         84 (84%)            66 (83%)         8 (73%)
   No Response                  7 (3%)           3 (3%)              3 (4%)           1 (9%)
   Total Surveys                 191               100                 80               11




Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                     16
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
Question 9: Is there anything else you think is important for the Oregon Department of
Justice to know about this program?
Although most of the respondents had expressed themselves in response to one or more of
the preceding questions, 6 of the 11 also answered Question 9 (see Table 9b)11, most with
positive, often impassioned, remarks.
         “Great, great program. It‟s a great help – there should be more programs like
         this.”
         “I wish there was one in Florida that was as great and treated you like a person.”
         “Having this program available to me was a cornerstone in the reality of life
         without an abusive husband.”

                   Table 9b: Analysis of Open-Ended Comments on Question 9
      Funding            Number (%) of                    Number (%)          Number (%)          Number (%)
       Period        Respondents Commenting                 Positive           Negative             Neutral
     7/00-6/02              67 (67%)                       51 (76%)             4 (6%)             12 (18%)
     7/02-6/03                 26 (33%)                    20 (77%)             1 (4%)              5 (19%)
     7/03-6/04                  6 (55%)                    6 (100%)                0                    0
       Total                   99 (52%)                    77(78%)              5 (5%)             17 (17%)


Question 10: Overall, please rate your experience with this program:
 Excellent. My legal needs were met and the outcome of my case was good.
 Good. Most of my legal needs were met and the outcome of my case was acceptable.
 Satisfactory. Some of my legal needs were met, but the case outcome was not very good.
 Poor. My legal needs were not met and the outcome of my case was poor.

Respondents were asked to rate their overall experience with the program. Results are set
forth in Tables 10a & 10b. Ninety-one percent of respondents reporting this period rated their
experiences either excellent or good, which is in keeping with the responses to the preceding
questions. Three added written comments, one of which praised the grantee program:
          “Always provide what I need finicial (sic) help, advocacy and support group.”
The second stated that she had not yet reached an outcome, while the third commented,

           “Cops should try to understand how women feel!”




11
     A multiple choice “yes/no” answer was not available for this question, thus there is no “Table 9a”.

Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                               17
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
                         Table 10a: Rating Experience With Program
                                       Total           7/00-6/02        7/02-6/03         7/03-6/04
       Excellent                     113(59%)          52 (52%)         54(68%)            7 (64%)
       Good                          42 (22%)          25 (25%)         14 (18%)           3 (27%)
       Satisfactory                    8 (4%)           1 (1%)           6 (8%)             1 (9%)
       Poor                           11 (6%)           7 (7%)           4 (5%)                0
       No Reponse                     17 (9%)          15 (15%)          2 (1%)                0
       Total Surveys                    191               100              80                 11

                 Table 10b: Analysis of Open-Ended Comments on Question 10
     Funding           Number (%) of                  Number (%)        Number (%)         Number (%)
      Period       Respondents Commenting               Positive         Negative            Neutral
     7/00-6/02         38 of 100 (38%)                 23 (60%)           4 (11%)           11 (29%)
     7/02-6/03         19 of 80 (24%)                  12 (63%)           5 (26%)            2 (11%)
     7/03-6/04          3 of 11 (27%)                   1 (33%)               0              2 (67%)
       Total           57 of 191(30%)                  35 (61%)           9 (16%)           13 (23%)

Summary of feedback: The feedback form asks clients to evaluate both the quality and the
outcome of their experience. Presumably, the hundred and ninety-one responses received do not
include all clients served. On the other hand, there is no reason to believe that they represent
any specific group of clients served, e.g., only those whose experience was positive, or only
those from one cultural, socio-economic or geographic group. They are gathered from victims
served throughout the state, and include clients from diverse cultures and with a wide range of
literacy skills. Overall, the feedback received reflects the high value those served place on the
services received. A recent study analyzing the data used by the US Department of Justice to
report a decline in the incidence of domestic violence during the 1990s concluded that “the
increased provision of legal services” was the first of three important factors likely contributing
to the decline. “Because legal services help women with practical matters such as protective
orders, custody, and child support they appear to actually present women with real, long-term
alternatives to their relationships,” the authors conclude. 12 Many of above client comments
seem to illustrate this point.

The feedback responses overall also seem to reflect the skill grantees have developed in
screening and selecting clients most likely to benefit from legal assistance – and thus
maximizing the impact of grant funds. This is particularly reflected in the very high rate of
client satisfaction with case outcome (Question 10).



12
  See Farmer, Amy and Tiefenthaler, Jill. Explaining the Recent Decline in Domestic Violence.
Contemporary Economic Policy, 2003, vol. 21, issue 2, pages 158-172. The other two important factors
noted in the article are improvements in women’s economic status and demographic trends, most notably
the aging of the population.

Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                            18
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629
PART III: Conclusion.
The outcomes reported for this reporting period reflect those of the program overall: during
the past four years, the Civil Legal Assistance Program has met its first objective, by
enhancing the safety of hundreds of victims of domestic and sexual violence throughout the
state. In many cases, clients and/or grantees credit the program with saving lives. Grantee
reports and client feedback also indicate that the program has met its second objective of
collaborating to expand legal expertise with regard to domestic and sexual violence.13 During
the past year, as program funds have been exhausted, grantees seek ways in which to
continue to meet client civil legal assistance needs. In written reports, site visits and informal
conversations, several grantees have shared the following strategies with DOJ staff:
    Some attorneys who were retained through the program are currently donating time. As a
     rule, they are working pro bono to finish out the cases begun with program funds. In
     some cases attorneys are taking new cases on a pro bono basis.
    One grantee said it advocates strongly for its clients with Legal Aid. The grantee
     acknowledged that Legal Aid is overworked and may turn down cases simply because of
     lack of staff, but that it will continue to advocate for clients, because that is the advocate’s
     job. The final report on the Multnomah County CLA grant notes that LASO is continuing
     to represent 26 clients initially referred through the grant with non-CLA funds.
    Some clients who cannot afford a legal separation from the abuser seek safety by moving
     out of the area.
    Some clients who cannot afford the cost of a dissolution action attempt to meet their
     needs through less expensive (or pro se) restraining orders. The grantee describing this
     strategy acknowledged that it is of limited use, especially for women with children, since
     restraining orders will not cover custody in a long-term.
    Some clients represent themselves, sometimes supported by legal advocates, sometimes
     supported by self-help classes. Several grantees describing this strategy added that forms
     and procedures are not simple and often women do not have the information they need to
     achieve safety through the civil legal system even with these kinds of support. One
     program director observed that while women they represent struggle to raise funds for
     representation, husbands always manage to find money to hire attorneys.

To conclude, the data available strongly supports the conclusion that that the CLA Program
has continued to achieve its primary objective for many of the hundreds of victims served.
The program has also supported non-profit domestic and sexual violence service programs in
forming productive partnerships with local attorneys. As a result, attorneys throughout the
state have been educated as to the dynamics of domestic and sexual violence, the CLA
Program’s second objective. A review of the available data suggests that this program has
likely saved the lives of a number of the women and children it has served. Without doubt, it
has been highly valued by grantees and clients alike and will be sorely missed.
13
  On this issue, please see Part III of the DOJ January 2004 report, which discusses the result of the grantee
assessment undertaken in December 2002. (See Footnote 2, supra).

Civil Legal Assistance Grant                                                                                19
Program Report for 7/03-6/04 & Final Program Report

cva11629

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:21
posted:11/14/2010
language:English
pages:20
Description: Divorce Attorney in Mid-Valley Oregon document sample