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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT