Chapter 1

Managing Call Volume

A. Number of Calls

The number of calls received from persons desiring legal assistance by each of the programs surveyed ranged from 50 to 26,000 calls a year. This wide range reflects in part the different ways in which programs handle the initial call. Many hotlines use support staff and/or paralegals to answer client calls and collect demographic and preliminary case information prior to the client speaking with an attorney. Larger programs, such as the Coordinated Legal Education Advice & Referral (CLEAR) hotline of the Northwest Justice Project in Seattle, and Coordinated Advice and Referral Program for Legal Services (CARPLS) in Chicago, use an Automatic Call Distribution (ACD) phone system that places callers in queue for five to ten minutes. At CLEAR, callers may leave a message or hang up if an attorney is unavailable to take the call. At CARPLS, callers can choose to leave a voice mail message immediately or wait in queue for five minutes. If no one answers the call after the queue wait, callers are transferred to a voice mail box. Some programs count all calls in their totals, including those that are administrative or for brief information, while others count only calls that are routed to an attorney.

B. Callback Procedures

There is still considerable debate as to whether using a callback system is a good idea. A callback system is defined as any system in which the client is not connected to an attorney at the time of the initial call, but must wait to be called back later. However, hotlines that use some type of callback system outnumber those that do not by a margin of about two-to-one. Of the programs not using callbacks, many stated that they also did not even use voice mail in conjunction with their hotline because of their inability to keep up with the callbacks. On the other hand, at Legal Aid of Central Michigan (LACM), all incoming calls are handled by unpaid students, many of them law students doing it for course credit. Four to five students are on duty for every hotline shift which is sufficient to ensure that there is always someone available to take the next call. The Legal Aid Foundation of Long Beach (LAFLB) also uses law students to handle calls. They have an Automated Call Distribution system that allows clients to be placed in a queue for up to 60 minutes, although no one has ever waited longer than 30 minutes. Even hotlines with an ACD system usually allow clients to leave a message on voice mail so they also must make a limited number of callbacks.

The inefficiency of callbacks was cited as a problem by CLEAR, CARPLS, Legal Hotline for Older Texans, and North Central West Virginia Legal Aid Society. The complaint is based on the time wasted on unsuccessful attempts to call clients back, compounded by then sending letters to clients never reached by phone. However, the West Virginia program made a change in their callback procedure that has increased its effectiveness. Legal assistants answer client calls, take demographic and preliminary case information, and schedule a 15-minute phone appointment with an attorney. Appointments are scheduled for that same morning in half-hour to hour intervals depending on the issue. This gives the attorney a chance to become familiar with the client's information before returning the call, and it keeps clients focused on the important aspects of their case, since the appointment is supposed to last for only 15-minutes.

Many of the hotlines using callbacks are able to return most of the calls on the same day. Nearly all hotlines return calls within 48 hours, except in periods of unusually heavy volume. For instance, the Legal Aid Society of Hawaii (LASH) has instituted an immediate callback system to eliminate the “phone tag game” that often accompanies delayed callbacks. Callers are put on hold for the next operator. If the call is not taken after ten minutes, the operator takes a message and gives it to the next available hotline staff person. The callback wait is under ten minutes. This is possible because their phone capacity will allow for no more than three to four clients to wait on hold. Additional callers are told to call back and are given the intake hours of operation.

Managers of a number of programs feel that callbacks are vital in prioritizing cases, as well as managing workflow and absences. These programs include AARP Legal Counsel for the Elderly in Washington, DC, the Legal Hotline for Older Michiganians, the Proyecto Derechos del Envejeciente in Puerto Rico, and CARPLS. CARPLS employs a number of mechanisms to make callbacks as effective as possible. They concentrate the bulk of their attorneys on staffing the hotline during intake hours in order to minimize the need for callbacks. Callbacks are done in the afternoon and the office is open until 8:00 p.m. every Wednesday to contact hard-to-reach clients. In addition, CARPLS has pulled one line out of its system and given that number to all current clients and leaves that number for all return messages. Clients do not have to wait through the hotline queue system again, thus lessening the opportunity for phone tag. A callback system may work better for senior hotlines than for those serving the general population. Older clients are easier to reach as they are more likely to be at home during the day.

One additional advantage of a callback system may be to lessen the rate of burnout for hotline attorneys by reducing the stress associated with handling cold calls. A callback system puts the attorney more in control of the conversation because of the opportunity to prepare for it. AARP LCE in Washington, D.C. uses the callback system almost exclusively and has not had any hotline turnover in years.

C. Controlling Volume

The number one response to how programs control the volume of calls was limiting intake hours. Examples include:

One hotline found that limiting the hours of intake also limits the number of clients because many callers do not call back if they do not connect on the first try. If instructed to call back the next day, only 50-60% do so. When told on Friday afternoon to call back on Monday, only 10% call back. Some hotlines close intake when the backlog reaches a certain point. In other situations a heavy volume may just increase the lag time in getting a callback. The longer the delay the more likely the initial problem will have resolved itself. Of course, the resolution may not always be in the client’s interest.

Some programs never limit intake hours or close the hotline due to a backlog of calls.

These programs include:

Instead of limiting intake hours, SALA will narrow its case acceptance criteria when the flow of calls is particularly heavy or when the open case list is lengthy.

Limited outreach was also cited as a way to control volume. The Legal Hotline for Older Michiganians, the West Virginia hotline, and CARPLS have used this method. For example, CARPLS' hotline number is not published. Clients must be referred from an affiliated legal-service provider. All admitted that this practice limits access to the neediest clients and was not a client-friendly mechanism for volume control.

For many hotlines the problem is not too many calls but too few. A number of hotlines are trying to increase volume through more effective publicity both to the public and to other agencies. In order to publicize their service, the Legal Helpline for Older Kentuckians undertook a massive publicity campaign to reach their largely rural audience through ads on the popular sports show “Voice of the Wildcats” and other programs. They also distributed flyers, bookmarks, and refrigerator magnets through libraries and nutrition centers. Through these and other efforts, they were able to increase the number of calls tenfold. The Tennessee hotline persuaded the telephone company to include the hotline number with its bill on a one time basis and doubled their call volume. The Texas Nursing Home Advocacy Project also noted the dramatic increase in calls following a publicity event. Publicity may be particularly important for regional or statewide hotlines that need to encourage local legal offices to switch to a central hotline.