A 2014 study by the Boston Bar Association found that civil legal aid service providers turn away 64% of income-eligible cases, for lack of funds. That means that over 30,000 low-income residents in Massachusetts, facing eviction, domestic violence, and other crises, faced them alone. The BBA Report made special note of family law cases, which are turned away 80% of the time.
Is technology a big part of the solution for this tremendous need? Massachusetts Appleseed thinks so, and is embarking on a new direction for our organization to look at the models by which low-income people are provided legal services and how technology can make a real difference in access to justice. We are excited to be building relationships with leaders in the access to justice and technology community. Appleseed is in a unique position to convene and collaborate with the many outstanding organizations and academic institutions in Massachusetts tackling the issue of access to justice — coordinating efforts and advocating for solutions to our local challenges is what we do! And while technological solutions will not be enough alone to solve the challenges of overburdened and underfunded civil legal aid and court systems, we believe that innovative technology approaches will allow for real expansion of services over time, without increasing costs.
Here are some examples of the work that we are launching:
- The Cell Phone Project: There are currently 56 Trial Court facilities across the state with active cell phone bans. This project is aimed at understanding why these bans were initially put into place, their impact, and possible solutions. Our preliminary research has already shown that these bans are extremely burdensome to unrepresented litigants and have a harmful effect on access to justice in Massachusetts. Cell phone bans can present a variety of serious practical and access to justice problems for unrepresented litigants. Litigants with evidence stored on their phone cannot access it, or any legal aid materials available online. Individuals with a language barrier cannot use a translation service. Parents won’t be able to coordinate with childcare; no one can get in touch with their employer.
“The lack of cell phones for pro se litigants is an enormous information disadvantage for them. They have no way to check what opposing counsel is telling them” – Liliana Ibara, Greater Boston Legal Services (included in preliminary report)
Too often, litigants are unaware a cell phone ban exists until they arrive at the courthouse, often by means of public transportation, leaving them with no safe space to store them. Many hide their phones in bushes and other areas around the courthouse so as not to miss their session. Some rely on vendors near courthouses that will store cell phones for a fee, but others cannot afford these fees or are forced to use money they had planned to use for public transit fare home. And even more litigants simply turn around and go home.
“It’s horrible, I can’t believe it. I was going to use it to show the original traffic violation. There’s nothing on the notice saying cell phones aren’t allowed and there should be. It’s also going to make people late to their court appointments!” – Anonymous Litigant, Boston Municipal Court (included in preliminary report)
Click here to read our completed report on this issue, Cell Phones in the Courthouse: An Access to Justice Perspective.
- LawHelp Interactive Evaluation: Massachusetts Appleseed was selected from a competitive pool of applicants to conduct the 2017 annual evaluation of LawHelp Interactive. A project of Pro Bono Net, LawHelp Interactive is a national platform that creates court forms and documents online that are used by legal aid advocates, pro bono lawyers, court staff, and individuals representing themselves. This project officially launches Massachusetts Appleseed onto the national stage as a skilled research outfit, an important access to justice player, and experts in the nexus between technology, legal system, and a user-centric approach. Beyond recognition and exposure, the LHI evaluation offers us a chance to make a substantive contribution to access to justice efforts that stands to benefit litigants, courts, and advocates not only in Massachusetts but across the country. By asking the right questions and applying rigorous research methods, Appleseed’s evaluation will help LHI assess its progress toward its institutional objectives and create a model for assessment to be used by the organization for many years to come.
- Court Service Centers: In 2014, Massachusetts opened its first Court Service Centers as part of an effort to build a bridge between the Court and self-represented litigants. Court Service Centers are locations within state courthouse where self-represented litigants can more easily obtain access to informational resources, forms and other assistance that facilitates their experience with the courts. At present, there are six centers in operation in courthouses in Boston, Greenfield, Springfield, Worcester, Lawrence, and Brockton. The Massachusetts Appleseed Center is partnering with Court leaders, staff and other members of the justice community to expand access to justice by creating a ‘virtual’ Court Service Center. Our research role will involve analyzing data, interviewing stakeholders, and studying policies and procedures used in comparable settings to make recommendations about the content and design of an ideal virtual CSC for Massachusetts. Through this ambitious initiative, Massachusetts Appleseed will contribute to a significant shift in the way Massachusetts residents are able to access justice, one which is not based only on location, and one which takes advantage of readily available technology.
- Language Access: An estimated 22% of the population in Massachusetts speaks a language other than English at home. State and Federal law prohibit discrimination on the basis of national origin and the United States Supreme Court has held that language access is a proxy for national origin and that national origin discrimination includes failing to provide Limited English Proficient (LEP) individuals “meaningful access” to recipient programs. Thus, an individual who has a limited ability to read, write, speak, and understand English and is engaging with a state agency has the right to: (1) use public programs and communicate in their preferred language; (2) receive vital written materials in their preferred language; and (3) be provided with language interpreter services that are free and adequate. Massachusetts Appleseed is planning to begin a research project later this year examining the extent to which certain state agencies in Massachusetts are fulfilling their legal obligation to provide “meaningful access” to LEP individuals and to identify any gaps that may exist and recommend and advocate for improvements where necessary.
Each year, the Massachusetts state legislature passes a state budget that provides funding for various state programs, agencies and departments for the following year. The budget process begins in January, when the Governor files his budget recommendations. In April and May the Massachusetts House of Representatives and Senate each pass their own separate budget proposals and in June, a Conference Committee made up of three Senators and three Representatives, is appointed to iron out the differences between the House and Senate budgets. A joint budget is sent to the Governor by July 1st and the Governor has ten days to approve, amend or veto each line item.
