When PLE first got really rolling in Canada, the “free law class” was a definitive part of it. In fact, the very first sole-purpose PLE organization in Canada—the People’s Law School—got its start providing nothing but free law classes. The Toronto Community Law Program (now CLEO) got started soon after that, with the same idea: hold classes on legal topics and invite all of the public, at no charge. As other sole-purpose PLE outfits came on the scene, many put free law classes at the center of their programming as well.
That prominence has all but disappeared now. In the mid-1980s, CLEO all but scrapped its free law class program and is now an organization that devotes nearly all of its energy to producing and distributing print publications. The People’s Law School did a review of its programming in the 1990s and decided to refocus its efforts away the free law classes, although that program continues in speakers’ bureau form. In every other sole-purpose PLE organization that has taken up the free law class format, you can chart a significant decline in the number of classes offered as time has worn on.
Most class-format PLE work by sole-purpose PLE groups seems now to be workshops and training for intermediaries. Few offer classes for the general public, and most of those that do offer them only irregularly. Yet, other PLE providers—especially legal aid organizations—have kept free law classes at the core of their PLE efforts.
Why is this? Is this the result of a gradual negotiation of expertise between sole-purpose and non-sole-purpose PLE providers over the years? Did the free law class delivery strategy prove ineffective? Was it too costly?
I actually have some answers to these questions, but I will have to wait to disclose them in a formal article and after tending to my research ethics obligations. In the meantime, I would be interested to hear what those involved have to say about the disappearance of the free law class from independent PLE.
April 23, 2007 at 9:05 am
This discussion seems to reflect the bias towards law classes and workshops, and against “just print”, that I’ve noticed in PLEI forums over the years. Indeed, CLEO did not “discontinue” free law classes unthinkingly, but after much research and study about the most effective way that a province-wide agency can most effectively meet the legal information needs of low-income and otherwise disadvantaged communities throughout a province as large as Ontario.
Time and time again, community agencies tell CLEO that the most important service we can provide is easy-to-understand print materials on a range of important legal issues. Why? Because print has the advantage of being a very flexible medium and our materials get used in a myriad of ways. In fact, community agencies and legal clinics rely on our materials when they do community workshops and forums – their version of free law classes, you might say. And, although this isn’t what they were designed for, many of our pamphlets are now included in community college curriculum.
It’s worth noting as well that while our materials are developed as print publications, there has been a steady and dramatic increase in the number of people who access our materials online.
April 23, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Thanks, Julie, for leaving a comment.
I did not intend to convey a bias for free law classes or against publications. And I’m pretty sure I don’t have one.
Now, I have definitely heard a bias against print coming from some people and organizations that I’ve talked to. Nevertheless, time has pretty clearly turned sole-purpose PLE away from a free law class focus and towards the web, more print, and other programming.
I believe there are good—indeed, very good—reasons why province-wide PLE has moved away from the free law class. I have also heard very good arguments why print publications can be a dangerously alluring and sometimes ineffective medium for PLE. I hope to present the two sides of the argument in more depth either on this blog or as part of a longer article.
April 23, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Dear Ritchie,
You’ve started a very interesting discussion about the “disappearing free law class” and I look forward to hearing from you what you have gathered to be the cause. I was also interested in Julie’s comments about why CLEO decided to discontinue their free law classes.
In our case, it was quite simple: people stopped coming. We often had to cancel classes because of very low pre-registration or go ahead with a two or three people. Our free law classes – once the flagship of our PLEI programs – gradually became a waste of time for staff and our volunteer instructors.
There were a couple of reasons for this, I think. One was that, with the advent of the Internet, people were able to access information about the law much more quickly and effectively than by attending a free law class.
My hunch (and I would like to hear from others if they concur) is that demographics are at the bottom of the “disappearing free law class”. During the peak years in your bar chart, 1981/82, the first cohort of baby boomers would have been about 33 years old. Those same boomers are today about 60 years old.
The generation that came after them is much smaller numerically which may explain why attendance at free law classes started dropping during the 1980’s and into the 90’s.
The next generation is not only smaller in numbers but also turns to the Internet for information on all matters, probably including the law. Most of the baby boomers, as well, have come to rely on the Internet.
As you correctly observe, Ritchie, we still operate a Speakers Program. We will provide a volunteer instructor, usually a lawyer, to speak to almost any community organization that makes a request. These organizations include public libraries, seniors groups, parents’ groups, etc. The events are usually open to the public.
Our most frequently requested topic is writing a will, followed by power of attorney. These are seniors’ topics, for the most part. Organizations providing services to younger people don’t often ask for speakers on topics of concern to younger people.
I believe that this is further evidence that the free law class – though popular and effective in its time – has become something of an anachronism in the 21st century.
And Julie is right about what community agencies want. They want plain language booklets first and foremost, and not many seem interested in speaker placements. We have vigorously promoted our Speaker Program but not a lot of groups request a speaker, especially groups outside BC’s Lower Mainland.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong. Somebody rebut me, please!
Gordon