Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives were to determine (1) what efforts LSC and its grantees have made to correct problems with case service reporting, and (2) whether these efforts are likely to resolve the case reporting problems that occurred in 1997. Most grantees indicated that the new guidance helped clarify LSC’s reporting requirements, and virtually all of them indicated that they had or planned to make program changes as a result of the requirements. If the error rate was 5 percent or less, they could certify that their data were substantially correct. Grantees were not required to apply these new documentation requirements to their 1998 case data. They noted that approximately 30 of the 50 grantees with the largest caseloads were unable to certify their 1998 data. In our telephone interviews with 79 executive directors, 24 reported that they did not certify their 1998 data to LSC. As a result, we could not assess whether the number of certified programs and case closures that LSC estimated for 1998 is correct, lower, or higher than it should be. Grantees that could not certify their data wrote letters to LSC in which they described the errors they uncovered. We are also concerned that LSC’s instructions to grantees on how to conduct the self-inspections may have led some of the smaller grantees to select too few test cases to make a reliable assessment of the proportion of error in their case data. However, many grantees remain unclear about and/or misunderstood certain aspects of the reporting requirements. The validity of the results are difficult to determine because LSC did not standardize the way that grantees were to report their results, some of the grantees used samples that were too small to assess the proportion of error in their data, some grantees did not correctly follow LSC’s reporting guidance, and LSC had done no verification of the grantees’ self-inspection procedures. We do not believe that LSC’s efforts, to date, have been sufficient to fully resolve the case reporting problems that occurred in 1997. Recommendations

We recommend that the President of LSC clarify and disseminate information on the specific information on client assets that grantees must obtain, record, and maintain; clarify and disseminate information on the types of citizenship/alien eligibility information grantees must obtain, record, and maintain for clients who receive legal assistance only over the telephone; clarify and disseminate LSC’s criteria for single recording of cases; clarify and disseminate LSC’s policy concerning who can provide legal assistance to clients for the service to be counted as a case; explore options for facilitating correct and consistent understanding of reporting requirements, such as developing and disseminating a training video for grantee staff; develop a standard protocol for future self-inspections to ensure that grantees systematically and consistently report their results for open and closed cases; direct grantees to select samples for future self-inspections that are sufficient to draw reliable conclusions about magnitude of case data errors; and finally, ensure that procedures are in place to validate the results of LSC’s 1998 self-inspection, as well as of any future self-inspections. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO determined: (1) what efforts the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) and its grantees have made to correct problems with case service reporting; and (2) whether these efforts are likely to resolve the case reporting problems that occurred in 1997.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) LSC revised its written guidance and issued a new handbook to its grantees to clarify case reporting requirements; (2) based on telephone interviews with a sample of 79 LSC grantee executive directors, GAO estimates that 90 percent of grantees viewed the new guidance as having clarified reporting requirements, overall; (3) virtually all grantees said they responded to the new requirements by making or planning to make one or more changes to their program operations; (4) however, many grantees indicated that they were unclear about certain aspects of LSC's reporting requirements, particularly regarding: (a) the specific information required on client assets; (b) the information required for documenting citizenship/alien eligibility for services provided over the telephone; (c) the criteria for avoiding duplicate counts of cases; and (d) who can provide legal assistance to clients in order for the service to be counted as a case; (5) LSC initiated a self-inspection procedure in which grantees were required to review their 1998 case data and submit certification letters to LSC if they found that the extent of error in their data was 5 percent or less; (6) grantees who could not certify their 1998 data were required to develop corrective actions that would address the problems identified; (7) about 75 percent of the grantees submitted letters to LSC certifying that the error rate in their 1998 data was 5 percent or less, while about 25 percent of the grantees submitted letters to LSC indicating that they could not certify their 1998 data; (8) according to LSC, about 30 of the 50 grantees with the largest caseloads were unable to certify their 1998 case data; (9) GAO could not assess whether the number of certified and uncertified programs that LSC obtained for 1998 was correct, lower, or higher than it should be; (10) this is because LSC did not provide grantees with a standardized way of reporting their self-inspection results, and LSC's instructions on how to conduct the self-inspections may have led some of the smaller grantees to select too few cases to reliably assess the amount of error in their case data; (11) some grantees did not correctly interpret LSC's case reporting requirements; and (12) for these reasons, GAO does not believe that LSC's efforts to date have been sufficient to fully resolve the case reporting problems that occurred in 1997.