ILNews

Legal Service Corp. requests substantial boost in funding to meet growing need

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In the budget released March 4, the White House recommended the Legal Services Corp. receive a federal appropriation of $430 million for the fiscal year 2015.

LSC, the national agency that provides funding to legal aid offices around the U.S. including to Indiana Legal Services, applauded President Barack Obama’s proposed 18 percent increase over current funding. Along with the appropriation, Obama’s budget contains a new $56 billion “Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative” which will give additional support to legal aid.

“The President clearly understands the importance of adequately funding civil legal assistance, even in these tough financial times,” said LSC Board Chairman John Levi.  

However, the administration requested $430 million for fiscal year 2014, but Congress appropriated $365 million.

While the congressional appropriation gave a welcomed increase over the $340 million allotted in FY 2013, the LSC pointed out if funding had kept pace with inflation, the agency’s appropriation this year would top $600 million.

The same day the White House unveiled its budget, the LSC asked Congress for a higher increase to $486 million for the coming FY 2015. This is the same level of support it requested the year before.

“Our request to Congress balances record-high demand for civil legal aid against the realities of the federal budget environment,” said LSC president James Sandman.

Nearly 93 percent of the proposed appropriation, more than $451 million, would be devoted to basic field grants that fund the delivery of civil legal assistance to low-income households, according to the LSC. Also, $5 million would be used for IT grants; $1 million for student loan repayment assistance to legal aid lawyers; $19.5 million for management and grants oversight; ad $4.2 million for the Office of Inspector General.

In addition, the LSC is requesting $5 million to expand its Pro Bono Innovation Fund, an initiative first funded by Congress in FY 2014. This fund supports new and innovative projects that enhance pro bono efforts around the country.

 

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT