Community Collaboration in Virginia Legal Aid Programs: A Constructivist Grounded Theory Investigation

Background and Purpose:

Legal aid refers to the provision of free civil legal services to low-income persons who cannot otherwise retain formally trained counsel.  Having proliferated in the 1960s to create positive social change, federal funding cuts and restrictions in recent decades have constrained legal aid programs’ capacity to collaborate with clients and address systemic concerns.  Scholars have encouraged poverty lawyers to take an expansive view of their role and to engage collaboratively with clients and low-income communities.  Much of this literature is conceptual, however, and the dearth of empirical evidence leaves programs with little guidance regarding how to increase collaboration.  This study advances understanding of how community collaboration occurs and how it can be enhanced in the legal aid context. 

Methods:

Twenty-eight intensive, semi-structured interviews and two focus groups were conducted.  Participants primarily included clients (n=13) and attorneys (n=13) associated with three distinct legal aid programs in the same region.  Most client participants identified as African American (85%) and female (92%), but wider variation was achieved in age and organizational role.  Attorney participants were predominantly White (69%) and female (62%) but varied in level of experience, organizational role, age, area of legal expertise, and type(s) of engagement with clients.  Participants were recruited through fliers in office waiting rooms and emails to attorneys via publicly available contact information.  Organizational gatekeepers and the researcher’s personal networks facilitated recruitment.  Interviews gathered participants’ stories of becoming involved in legal aid and experiences and perceptions of attorney-client collaboration.  Focus groups were used for member checking and to engage participants in analysis.  Interviews and focus groups were transcribed verbatim.  Constant comparison, initial coding, and focused coding were used to analyze the data. 

Findings:

Analysis led to construction of a conceptual framework with five major categories: living with (dis)advantage; accessing regulated involvement; coming together for justice; nourishing collaborative capacity; and navigating context.  Participants described gravitating toward legal aid through direct experience with unequal access to advantage or the desire to align their work with social justice values.  Scarce resources, restricted funding, and personal interests combine to shape how participants gain access to legal aid.  Once involved, five modes of attorney-client interaction predominate: individual cases, collective cases, policy advocacy, community organizing, and governance groups.  Participants reported that collaboration occurs and can be facilitated or hindered differently depending on the mode and timeframe of interaction.  Skills and attitudes such as empathy, group facilitation, and political analysis facilitate collaboration and build the capacity to collaborate.  Lastly, organizational environment and the social and political context exert influence on the enactment and efficacy of collaboration. 

Conclusion and Implications:

The findings suggest that even in a policy environment that constrains collaboration, human services professionals and grassroots community members can “scaffold” their efforts toward deeper and longer-term collaboration.  Issues of power and privilege must be recognized, and the organization must clarify the extent to which collaboration is prioritized versus more quantifiable outcomes.  Social workers have much to contribute in helping highlight both the need for collaboration and effective strategies for enhancing collaborative capacity.