ILNews

Legal service nonprofits look to private dollars as public funds shrink

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The alteration the Indianapolis Legal Aid Society made this season to its letters soliciting donations reflects a strategic decision by the nonprofit to go after higher contributions and underscores the need for service organizations of any kind to be aggressive.

Each year, ILAS runs its annual dollar campaign by sending a letter and a dollar bill to potential donors. The organization then asks the individuals to return the dollars with the hope they will reach into their wallets and add more.

John Floreancig Floreancig

This year’s letter, in addition to explaining what ILAS does and touting its ability to handle a case for $100, encourages donors to give specific amounts. About 350 donors were mailed special letters asking for high dollar contributions, while another 7,600 donors were invited to give the equivalent of a billable hour or an amount that would help a certain number of clients.

“If we can show the bar we really can help people for $100, maybe a donor will say, ‘I’ll help 500 people,’” said John Floreancig, general counsel at ILAS.

The legal aid society has to be more upfront about its need since its main source of funding, the United Way of Central Indiana, decided to reduce the appropriation made to ILAS by $126,000, or roughly one-third.

To cover the shortfall, ILAS has to look for money from other sources, especially private individuals. However, Floreancig conceded that whether central Indiana is willing to give more support to another legal service provider is unknown. That’s why ILAS is trying to aggressively position itself in a competitive nonprofit market.

Individual donors – inside and outside the bar – are becoming more important for all legal service nonprofits as money from federal and state sources shrinks. Complicating the fundraising effort is the confidential nature of the work the legal aid attorneys do and the little understanding non-lawyers have about legal aid.

Yet, experts in philanthropy contend the obstacles are not insurmountable. The key is educating the public and offering a compelling reason to contribute.

While many people may agree that providing access to the judiciary is important, they will not necessarily give financial support to the effort. Individuals who have been helped by legal aid or know someone who was in a difficult situation and received free legal assistance will be more likely to give because they have seen evidence that the organization is serving a need, said Kris

Kindelsperger, senior executive consultant with Johnson Grossnickle and Associates.

Indianapolis Legal Aid Society has hired Johnson Grossnickle and Associates to help develop a plan for its fundraising efforts. The nonprofit has already determined it wants to reach outside the legal community for donations.

The legal service providers will have to explain to potential donors what they do, why the services are necessary and the impact the organization has, Kindelsperger said, because many times the clients helped can be invisible to other sectors of the population.

Funding sources

One way to cultivate donors from outside the legal community is by building relationships. During the ILAS’s 2012 dollar campaign, board members made personal appeals to colleagues, which increased donations to a record high of more than $150,000.

Chuck Dunlap Dunlap

In Evansville, a trivia night competition to raise money for legal services has started to attract non-lawyers as well as increase awareness among attorneys. The Evansville Bar Association sponsors this event and other activities to solicit contributions for the Evansville Legal Aid Society and the Volunteer Lawyer Program of Southwestern Indiana.

Jean Blanton, attorney at Ziemer Stayman Weitzel & Shoulders LLP and Evansville Legal Aid Society board member, said the funds raised by the bar association give the nonprofit flexibility.

The ELAS gets 50 percent of its budget from the city-county government and 50 percent from the United Way of Southwestern Indiana. However, Blanton said, the funds come with strings attracted and can only go toward certain expenses.

Conversely, donations from the bar association can be used as the nonprofit wants. For example, ELAS upgraded computer equipment with the money from the bar.

Long-term, the funds from the government could hamper the agency’s ability to meet the increasing need. As Blanton explained, the attorneys and staff who work at ELAS are considered government employees, receiving salaries and benefits comparable to other public-sector workers.

This helps to entice people to take the lower-paying legal aid positions, but with no budget increases coming from the municipality, ELAS may not be able to add more workers. Even though the organization could possibly find a new funding source to hire another employee, that worker would not receive government benefits like the other attorneys and staff members get.

seiler Seiler

Evansville is not the only place feeling the crunch of government cutbacks. According to Chuck Dunlap, executive director of the Indiana Bar Foundation, federal and state appropriations have been falling as the demand for services has skyrocketed.

Legal Services Corp., the federal agency which provides grants for legal assistance, has recorded a $60-million cut in funding from Congress during the two years since fiscal year 2011. In fiscal year 2013, Capitol Hill budgeted $340.9 million to the organization.

The 12 pro bono districts in Indiana are given money from the state’s Interest on Lawyer Trust Accounts. But with the recession and the drop in interest rates, the amount in the fund has sunk from $3 million to $300,000.

One bright spot: The state’s Civil Legal Aid Fund, which supports legal aid providers around Indiana, was given a $500,000 bump in 2007 to $1.5 million. The money in this pot comes from the Legislature and is administered by the Indiana Supreme Court.

The Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic, located in Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, cobbles together funding from federal and state sources along with donations from individuals, corporations and churches.

Contributions from private sources comprise about 10 to 15 percent of the clinic’s $2 million annual budget, said Josh Abel, executive director. In the past, these donations totaled 25 percent of the yearly budget. The percentage has dropped despite the dollar amount remaining steady because funding from other avenues has picked up.

Abel said the clinic does not have as strong an individual donor base as other nonprofits like domestic-violence shelters and food pantries. Non-lawyers do not always understand why people need civil representation and often are confused why public defenders are not providing the service.

To educate people, the clinic puts the spotlight on the individuals it helps rather than identifying itself as a legal service organization. Stories of protecting victims of domestic violence and assisting immigrants fleeing persecution are more likely to resonate with potential donors.

The clinic has worked to create programs that are responsive to the community’s needs, Abel said, and that attracts contributions.

Room for one more

Still, getting contributions even from the legal community can be difficult. At the Hammond Legal Aid Clinic in northern Indiana, executive director Kris Sakelaris has found it easier to ask attorneys for pro bono help than to ask for money.

The clinic was established in 2003 by Mayor Thomas McDermott Jr., an attorney and recipient of the Randall T. Shepard Award for pro bono work. Its entire budget is appropriated from the mayor’s discretionary fund.

Sometimes attorneys make donations or clients may include a few dollars in a thank-you note, but otherwise the clinic does not put much effort into soliciting contributions.

A former magistrate in the Lake Superior Court, Civil and Family Division, Sakelaris has friendships with many local attorneys and knows whom to call when the clinic needs help. Making a request for pro bono services is more likely to bring a yes than putting a hand out for money, she said.

As ILAS prepares to escalate its fundraising activities, the question is raised as to how that will impact donations among the other legal service providers.

Both Kindelsperger and Tim Seiler, director of The Fund Raising School at the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, agreed that donors do not usually stop giving to one nonprofit to shift their money to another organization.

In addition, central Indiana has not hit a saturation point in terms of giving, Seiler said, although he conceded others hold the opposite view. National studies show individuals give an average of 1.7 percent to 2.2 percent of their disposable household income to charities, which to Seiler indicates there is room for nonprofits to solicit more contributions.

“Our experience is that central Indiana has a lot of very generous individuals and organizations,” Kindelsperger said. “It is a community that is philanthropic by nature. It’s not easy to raise money, but one of the obstacles is not that people aren’t philanthropic.”•
 

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. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

  2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

  3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

  4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

  5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

ADVERTISEMENT