ILNews

ILS grant to prevent homelessness

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Legal Services has received its first grant from the Homeless Prevention & Rapid Re-Housing Program, part of Title XII of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, said Norman Metzger, ILS' executive director.

United Way of Central Indiana, which allocated approximately $6 million in stimulus money to 20 organizations, awarded the $100,000 grant to the Indianapolis office. ILS had requested $430,000 and will revise the grant budget accordingly.

"Landlord-tenant eviction cases, hearings before the housing authority for people who could (be evicted from) public housing, hearings for township trustee relief for rent vouchers, and probably consumer-related issues" are among the types of cases Metzger said the money would go toward.

While the money is not meant for mortgage foreclosure defense cases, the money could be used on cases where tenants may become homeless if their landlords are in foreclosure for rental properties, said Ron Gyure, resource development director for ILS.

Statewide in 2008 ILS handled 1,037 housing cases, Metzger said. Of those, more than half were what ILS considered to be private landlord-tenant cases.

The Indianapolis office projected they would have 75 landlord-tenant cases for 2008, but ultimately handled 110, Gyure added.

Of the central Indiana grantees, which received a total of approximately $6 million, ILS was the only legal services agency.

While ILS has been reaching out to community organizations such as one of the grantees, Horizon House, for at least the last 20 years, Metzger said, the grant will encourage other agencies to refer clients to ILS when they have legal issues.

Gyure said ILS is in negotiations for additional grants from the $16 million in HPRP funds that were allocated to the state of Indiana to be distributed through continuums of care (United Way of Central Indiana is the continuum of care for Indianapolis).

"There's been a need in the last four to six months of people experiencing homelessness for the first time, or experiencing the threat of homelessness for the first time," said Stephen Byers, managing attorney of ILS' Indianapolis office. "People are at the point where they need to do something. The money couldn't have come at a better time."

So far, Metzger said ILS has received a letter announcing the grant, but ILS has not yet signed a contract. Grantees have been told they will be able to access the funds starting Oct. 1 to reimburse expenses, he added.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT