posted on: Monday, May 11, 2009

By Niki Jagpal

Since its establishment by Congress in 1974, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is the “single largest provider of civil legal aid for the poor in the nation.” Over 900 offices nationwide and 137 independent nonprofit legal aid programs receive 95 percent of LSC funds to support equal access to justice and much-needed legal aid services for lower-income U.S. citizens. Since 1996, in each appropriations cycle, the LSC has fought against a cumbersome appropriations rider that the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies keeps inserting, which would have disproportionate impact on lower-income families that need a variety of legal services. Although the federal government provides less than 50 percent of the monies that the LSC disburses to support legal aid for Americans, each rider has included one especially troublesome restriction: it would prevent any program that receive LSC funds from using any non-LSC funds, including funds from foundations, from any programmatic work that is not allowed to be funded using LSC monies.

New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice continues its fight against this unnecessary and inequitable federal restriction. In 2005, NCRP was among a large number of nonpartisan nonprofits, private foundations and other stakeholders that filed an amicus brief in Velazquez v. Legal Services Corporation, a case that Brennan continues to litigate. The 2005 signatories included numerous private foundations such the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Gimbel Foundation, and the Community Foundation Serving Boulder County. These and other foundations joined with the nonprofits in support of the Brennan Center and its partner stakeholders’ effort to remove the restriction on the use of non-LSC funds.

On May 4, 2009 NCRP joined with more than 60 colleague agencies to submit a letter to four members of the Congressional Subcommittee in support of ensuring legal aid availability to our nation’s lower-income citizens. As the factsheet produced by the Brennan Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Alliance for Justice, the Center for Law and Social Policy, the National Legal Aid and Defender Association, The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America and OMB Watch noted, “The restriction interferes with choices of state, local and private charitable donors about how to spend their money.” The organizations recommended a no-cost amendment to the LSC rider, which included, among other changes, the removal of “the application of the LSC restrictions to state, local, private and other non-LSC funds that legal aid organizations receive.” Other signatories to the letter include the Poverty & Race Research Action Center, the Ella Fitzgerald Charitable Foundation and the Independent Sector.

On May 7, 2009, the Obama administration’s FY10 budget called for removing the restriction on using non-LSC funds for this critical work. As noted by the Brennan Center’s press release, “The President’s Budget recommends that Congress remove three funding restrictions that have been placed for the last 13 years on independent legal aid organizations that receive part of their funding from the federal Legal Services Corporation (LSC).” Obama’s budget proposes that Congress allow the close to $500 million in non-LSC funds, including private foundation dollars, that have been inaccessible for nearly 15 years to any group that receives federal LSC funds.

NCRP is honored to have been a signatory to the letter and will continue to support the Brennan Center and other groups that engage in critical work to demonstrate the important role foundation funding can play in ensuring a more just and equitable access to the courts and legal services for our country’s lower-income citizens. Ensuring equal access to our justice system is essential to protecting the basic civil rights of those who lack financial means or knowledge to protect their fundamental rights. Safeguarding legal rights within our justice system by explicitly prioritizing the needs of our economically marginalized is a prime example of targeted universalism in action.

Niki Jagpal is research & policy director at NCRP.