posted on: Thursday, March 18, 2010

This week, as numerous foundation leaders visited Congress during the annual Foundations on the Hill event, I wonder how many of them were aware of the onerous restrictions placed on the use of their funds that limit severely lower-income populations’ access to legal services. At a meeting co-sponsored by the Brennan Center for Justice and the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights last week, a group of us convened to discuss the status of the restrictions placed on poor peoples’ access to legal services.

Established in 1974, the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is our country’s largest provider of legal aid to our nation’s most vulnerable populations. Focused on providing equal access to justice, the LSC works to ensure that the poorest individuals and households in the United States have access to legal aid programs. The restrictions enacted during the 1990’s were somewhat alleviated last year when President Obama included a notable increase in funding for the LSC in his budget plan and repealed the restriction on attorney’s fees. But much work remains to be done for the LSC to continue its critical work. Current restrictions apply to private and foundation funds provided to LSC-funded organizations and include restrictions on participating in class action suits, a powerful tool for collective voice and action. Isn’t it appalling to think that foundations who really want to help our nation’s most needy get equal access to justice are prevented from doing so by archaic restrictions placed on non-federal funds?

But all isn’t hopeless: enter the Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009, introduced by Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) in March of last year. The Act would increase poor peoples’ access to legal services by authorizing more funds for the LSC and also loosen some of the restrictions that keep LSC grant recipients from providing the much-needed services to their vulnerable clients. Is the bill perfect? Probably not; I’d say it’s necessary but insufficient but that I’m hopeful it will pass, allowing the approximately 60 percent of non-LSC funds to have the impact that those who provide them envisioned.

NCRP has consistently supported the Brennan Center’s efforts to remove the restrictions on the use of non-LSC funds because the values that undergird this work mirror ours: to ensure that those with the least wealth, opportunity and power are prioritized intentionally in philanthropy. As foundation assets have shrunk because of the recession, some funders have scaled back their LSC funding but others haven’t. Shouldn’t they all be outraged that the use of their funds to support lower-income populations’ access to legal services is being hampered unnecessarily by restrictions that remain in place since the Contract with America? Nonprofit advocacy is being unnecessarily restricted during a time when we need it more than ever (for more on this, see, e.g., the Brennan Center’s 2009 report Foreclosures: A Crisis in Legal Representation).

I’m honored to be part of the working group convened by the Brennan Center and the LCCR, and NCRP will continue to support efforts to remove the restrictions placed on non-LSC funds so that donors who care about our country’s most vulnerable can realize their vision and help us build a more just and equal legal system.

Niki Jagpal is research and policy director at the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (NCRP).