ILNews

ILS budget likely to increase

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Thanks to a $40 million increase in funding for Legal Services Corporations signed by President Barack Obama Wednesday, an official at Indiana Legal Services Inc. estimates that the only Indiana-based organization that receives funding from LSC will receive up to an additional $300,000 to $350,000 in funds for the organization's 2009 fiscal year, which runs Jan. 1 to Dec. 31.

The $40 million, which brings the national total from $350 million to $390 million, represents an approximately 11 percent increase over 2008 LSC funds. However, $365.8 million of the $390 million is what the LSC will distribute to the 137 LSC-funded legal aid programs in the U.S., or a 9 percent increase for individual programs' funding.

Of the ILS's 2008 budget, approximately 65 percent, or $5.1 million, was from LSC, according to Norman Metzger, executive director of ILS. The organization also receives donations from United Way chapters around the state, foundations, and private donors.

He said in addition to helping the LSC-funded programs, the $40 million in extra funding will also go toward funding technology advancements, loan repayment assistance, LSC's national headquarters, and LSC's oversight of the programs that receive grants.

The amount ILS will receive for 2009 based on this increase is "just a guess," Metzger said, but is based on a formula that uses the percentage of Indiana residents who live below the poverty line as of the latest census, taken in 2000. The percent Indiana receives is not due to change until 2010 census numbers are available.

Metzger said the ILS will know for sure April 1 when they receive their direct deposit from LSC, and he also expects an e-mail or other notice from the LSC in the next few days explaining how the increase will affect ILS.

A more in-depth article about the increase will be in a future issue of Indiana Lawyer.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT