Eric Angel, Acting Executive Director

Legal Aid’s work with low-income clients facing foreclosure was highlighted in an article in today’s Washington Examiner.  Many thanks to the Neighbors in Need Fund of the Community Foundation for the National Capital Region for the support that helps to make this work possible.

Monica Bell, Liman Fellow

In recent years, the District has cut millions of dollars from its budget for critical services to the low-income community, such as homeless services, affordable housing, childcare services, adult education, mental health services, domestic violence resources, public libraries, and civil legal assistance. The District faces a Fiscal Year 2011 budget shortfall of at least $175 million, which potentially places the social safety net, and the people it serves, at even greater risk.

Legal Aid has joined over sixty other District organizations to endorse “Better Choices,” an initiative led by the Fair Budget Coalition, SOS (Save Our Safety Net), the Metro Labor Council, and Jobs with Justice to urge the District government to take a balanced approach to coping with the budget crisis.  Increasing revenue through progressive tax policy is an essential component of such an approach.  Doing so will ensure that the burden of the budget crisis no longer falls disproportionately on the District’s low-income residents, but rather, is shared across the economic spectrum.

Executive Director

A very disappointing “exposé” from the Center for Public Integrity (CPI) has been circulating over email lists. See: Poor Help: Federal Legal Aid Vulnerable to Fraud, Questions of Conflicts and Intimidation. The report is disappointing because it describes an instance of fraud in which a Maryland Legal Aid Bureau employee stole millions from the program — taking money desperately needed to serve poor clients. The conduct of this employee is inexcusable and especially shameful because the money could have been used to stop evictions, protect women from domestic violence or represent children in dependency proceedings.

The report was also disappointing because it paints a false picture of the network of legal aid programs and the incredible work that they do. In an effort to sensationalize the theft in Maryland, CPI linked the story to a report prepared by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to Senator Grassley (a leading opponent of legal services) that contained recommendations to strengthen monitoring of grants made by the Legal Services Corporation.

The CPI reporting on this issue is incomplete and misleading.

First, while the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is the largest funder of civil legal assistance in the United States, the majority of programs do not get LSC money. The Legal Aid Society of the District of Columbia is not an LSC grantee. Most legal aid is provided by independent non-profits that raise their money from private foundations and the local bar. We care about what happens to LSC and its grantees, however. Our funding is inadequate to serve all clients who need our help and our colleagues who do get LSC money are an important part of the service network.

Second, the CPI story leaves the impression that there is rampant fraud throughout the legal aid community that goes unchecked by the Legal Services Corporation. CPI cites three examples of fraud among the thousands of programs that provide civil legal assistance. These instances are terrible, but they are rare and do not characterize the legal services movement. A quick Google search of “law firm embezzlement” reveals hundreds of recent stories of thefts from corporate firms, but no one would suggest that these criminal acts taint all corporate law firms.

Legal aid programs are mission driven organizations. Staff make great sacrifices do this work because they are deeply committed to justice and to working to end poverty. The starting salary for a Legal Aid lawyer in DC is $42,000, one fourth what a starting lawyer could make at a law firm (and our lawyers are as good as any lawyer in a corporate firm.) Our offices are humble, support is limited and there are very few perks beyond the love of the work. What Legal Aid lawyers do is hard and emotional, but the impact is enormous.

The reporting goes on to insinuate that there was something unseemly about having LSC staff attend the ABA Equal Justice Conference, which attracts hundreds of legal services and pro bono lawyers, because the ABA chose to have the conference at an Arizona resort. The conference center was chosen by the ABA because it was affordable, despite its description as a “resort.” It was not the posh junket suggested by the article.

Third, the report fails to even acknowledge the legacy of assault by business groups and right wing legislators on LSC. The program has been a cause célèbre in conservative circles for years with periodic efforts to cripple or eliminate the program. Cuts, restrictions and endless audits and investigations are designed to demoralize and keep legal services lawyers from doing their jobs. One has to wonder if the spate of bad press, Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigations and other reports is not tied to a concerted effort to defeat the reauthorization of LSC pending in Congress.

The embezzlement in Maryland damaged the cause of equal justice, but the way in which it was reported is far more harmful. The reporting fails to acknowledge that this fraud is an outlier and that some of the attacks on LSC are politically motivated. Stories like these continue to put legal services programs and their dedicated staff on the defensive.

If the reporters wanted to understand the real shame of the theft, rather than talk to the Senator Grassley or read OIG reports, they should have talked to the clients of legal services lawyers and tried to understand the importance of equal justice lawyering. While the attacks on legal services get all the ink, almost no one is writing about the family whose home was saved from foreclosure, the woman who got a civil protection order, the child who was adopted, the senior who had a Medicare problem fixed or the parent who was reunited with a child by a legal aid lawyer. Those are the real stories of legal aid.

Below is a list of the locations, times, and dates for the scheduled budget briefings (some have already been sent to the FBC listserve by the event sponsors). Please note that some briefings ask for an RSVP and questions to be submitted in advance. That doesn’t mean you can’t ask questions at the briefing, but it helps give agency directors an idea of the types of questions people are interested in.

Department of Mental Health

April 8th, 3-5pm

64 New York Avenue, N.E., 4th Floor Conference Room

• Submit questions to Shannon Hall at shall@dcbha.org by April 7th

Department of Human Services

April 13th, 10am-12pm

True Reformer Building, 1200 U St. NW

• RSVP to Katie Kerstetter at kerstetter@dcfpi.org by April 11th

Department of Disability Services

April 13th, 4-6pm

True Reformer Building, 1200 U St. NW

• Submit questions to advocacy@arcdc.net by April 12th

Child and Family Services Agency

April 14th, 4-6pm

DC Primary Care Association 441 4th Street, NW, Room 1114, Washington, DC 20001

• Submit questions to Yolanda McPhail-McKinley at yolanda.mckinley@dc.gov by COB Friday, April 9th

Department of Housing and Community Development and DC Housing Authority

April 15th, 12-2pm

Coalition for Nonprofit Housing and Economic Development, 1432 U St. NW

• RSVP to http://cnhed.wufoo.com/forms/please-rsvp-to-cnheds-budget-briefing/

Department of Health Care Finance

April 15th, 10-11:30

DC Primary Care Association, 1411 K St. NW

• RSVP to Anastacia Arons at Aarons@dcpca.org by April 12th

• Send questions to Jenny Reed at reed@dcfpi.org by April 12th

Executive Director

With the Mayor poised to release his proposed budget on April 1 and the prospect that the growing projected gap between expenses and funding needs, advocacy groups are gearing up for the budget process.   There are a number of important events coming up that address the needs of low-income or other vulnerable communities.

Defeat Poverty DC:   A broad coalition, including Legal Aid, has come together to push poverty reduction onto the political landscape.   The campaign launch event is March 24 at 9:00 at the True Reformer Building.   For more information, see our prior blog posting on the event.  

 Also on March 24, activists concerned about how the government disposes of surplus property will have a briefing.  The Demand the Plan Campaign event is March 24^th, 6:30-8:30 PM, Reeves Center, 14th & U Sts, NW.   The event will cover:  “How the absence of a facilities plan has assisted the give-away of public property and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions in wasteful leases; How this plan could help under-served communities get the resources they are demanding and deserve; What DC residents can do in the next 60 days to pass legislation requiring the plan, and hold the city accountable to carrying it out.”  RSVP or for more information contact Parisa (parisa@empowerdc.org) at Empower DC.  (202) 234-9119, . 

The ARC of DC and the D.C. Fiscal Policy Institute are holding a forum on What’s in the Proposed 2011 Budget for the DC Department on Disability Services? on Tuesday April 13, 2010,  4:00 PM – 6:00 PM at   1200 U Street, NW – True Reformer Building, Marsh Conf. Room (U St./ Cardozo Station on the Yellow/Green Line).   Please send any advance questions for the Department Director to advocacy@arcdc.net or 202-636-2963 by 12 noon on Monday, April 12^th.  Sign language interpreter services will be provided.   More info at:  www.arcdc.net · www.dcfpi.org

With the District’s budget in free fall, the next few months will be critical to preserving safety-net programs.   Please consider attending this important briefing:

 ******************************************
What’s In Store
For FY 2011?

 A forum on the D.C. budget outlook
for fiscal year 2011.

 ******************************************

 Monday, March 8, 2010

Registration and Coffee: 9:00 a.m.
Program: 9:30 – 11:30 a.m.

Charles Sumner School, Great Hall
1201 17th Street NW

Speakers include:

•  Ed Lazere, Executive Director, DC Fiscal Policy Institute
• Eric Goulet, Budget Director, Council of the District of Columbia
• Fitzroy Lee, Chief Economist, Office of the Chief Financial Officer
• Dawn Slonneger, Chief of Staff, Office of the Honorable Vincent C. Gray
• T.J. Sutcliffe, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, The Arc of the District of Columbia

 R.S.V.P. requested to Tina Marshall, marshall@cbpp.org

Sponsors:

The Arc of DC
DC Fiscal Policy Institute
Fair Budget Coalition
Think Twice Before You Slice

Staff Attorney

 With Council about to undertake planning for the FY 2011 Budget Year, the Legal Aid Society and other members of the Fair Budget Coalition will be the voice for DC’s most vulnerable residents. This year, Fair Budget advocates will be encouraging Council members to consider the needs of our client community as we trudge through another year of budget cuts and decreased services that have pushed an already struggling population further into economic despair.

The issue briefings are scheduled to begin this week and present an opportunity for advocates to have a conversation with council staff about the current crisis facing poor District residents in areas such as housing, health care and income support programs. Fortunately, Legal Aid, along with several other members of the Fair Budget Coalition, have created solutions to help the city resolve some of the economic challenges it faces. These solutions include changes to the welfare to work program’s job training component that would make it possible for those living on welfare to obtain employment that pays a livable wage. Hopefully, Fair Budget’s advocacy at the issue briefings and committee hearings will have a positive impact on the shaping of the FY 2011 budget for the sake of low-income individuals and families that live and work in the District.

The schedule for the issue briefings is as follows: 

• January 22 – Hunger & Nutrition
• January 29 – Tax and Revenue
• Feb. 5 – Workforce Development and Income Support
• Feb 12 – Youth and Families
• Feb. 19 – Housing
• Feb. 26 – Health

Briefings are tentatively scheduled to be held in Rooms 103 or 104 of the Wilson Building -1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. All interested parties must send an RSVP to Kristi Matthews  and indicate which sessions you wish to attend.

Staff Attorney, Public Benefits

Today’s Washington Post includes an important article on the barriers many low-income residents face to accessing our city’s safety-net programs.  The story reveals what residents who participate in these programs already know, which is that Income Maintenance Administration (IMA) service centers – where residents apply for Food Stamps, Medical Assistance, and other assistance programs – are under-staffed, over-whelmed, and unable to meet the increased demand for services.

As noted in the article, the Mayor closed two IMA services centers last year in an effort to save money.  This has increased the burden on the remaining service centers at a time when the number of District residents who need assistance has risen dramatically.  For example, the number of people enrolled in the District’s Food Stamp program has increased 22% since 2007.  The article also notes that the administration pledged to fully staff the remaining service centers, but has so far failed to honor that pledge.  The result is that residents – many of whom are elderly, pregnant, or disabled – must often wait for entire days for the assistance they need to apply or recertify.  At the end of the day, many are turned away without being helped and are told to come back.

Many Legal Aid clients tell a similar story.  Legal Aid assists clients who have been denied or terminated from Food Stamps, Medical Assistance and/or TANF – not because they do not qualify – but because of problems with the application and recertification process.  Notices are not mailed or received, application/recertification papers are lost, and recipients are unable to communicate with case-workers.  Those without the assistance of an attorney or case manager undoubtedly face a more difficult process of gaining access to the benefits they need and deserve.

Reducing IMA’s capacity to serve its clients is yet another way that the Mayor’s efforts to close budget gaps have disproportionately burdened our city’s low-income residents.  Rather than making it more difficult for those in need to access the District’s safety-net program, the Mayor should focus on policies that reduce barriers to assistance.  A major step towards reducing these barriers would be for the Mayor to fulfill his administration’s pledge to the city’s low-income residents by adequately staffing all IMA service centers.

Executive Director

Despite high hopes, when Congress acted on the budget for the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) it provided only a modest funding increase and left intact many of the restrictions on the use of the funds. Programs that receive LSC grants have severe limits on their ability to assist immigrants and prisoners, pursue class action litigation, or work for regulatory or legislative changes. Even privately raised funds are governed by the restrictions.

Legal Aid does not receive an LSC grant, however, we do support our colleagues that do. LSC is the largest single funding source for legal aid in the country and it is critical that the program receive adequate resources and that grantees have the flexibility to meet the needs of their clients across the continuum of services that lawyers can provide.

The recession has highlighted the critical role of legal assistance and the need for there to be a robust and flexible network. Increased poverty, overwhelming foreclosure rates and a dramatic need for assistance with regard to unemployment insurance claims has swamped programs leaving thousands of people without counsel when they need it the most. The consequences for individuals and communities has been devastating.

The Civil Access to Justice Act of 2009 (S. 718, H.R. 3764) has been introduced in Congress to reauthorize LSC. If passed, the bill will remove many of the most onerous restrictions and authorize a substantial increase in funding from $420 million to $750 million.

The Brennan Center for Justice is leading an effort to garner support for the legislation. For more information visit the Brenan Center Webpage. If you wish to sign a letter of support, contact Emily Savner at emily.savner@nyu.edu before January 29, 2010.

Supervising Attorney

As we’ve discussed on this bog previously, Legal Aid joins other legal services and anti-poverty advocates in opposing changes to the TANF program that would harm poor families. We are very concerned that the District’s 2011 budget proposal could include full family sanctions – termination of benefits to families who, possibly through no fault of their own, are not in compliance with TANF requirements. Many of the families who could be subject to these sanctions are struggling with physical or mental disability, domestic violence and other challenges. A letter signed by Legal Aid and 39 other organizations and individuals was sent to Mayor Fenty, the head of the Department of Human Services and others in the District government stating our firm opposition to such a proposal. The letter is copied below.

December 21, 2009

The Honorable Adrian Fenty
Mayor of the District of Columbia
1350 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004

Dear Mayor Fenty:

As you begin the difficult task of preparing your FY 2011 budget proposal, we, the undersigned organizations, are writing to strongly urge you not to include any proposals to increase sanctions or implement new administrative requirements that would make it harder for low-income families to access the District’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

More than 16,000 DC households — and one in three children — rely on the TANF program for support. In the midst of the current economic downturn, more families are turning to TANF for job training, supportive services, and financial support. The program is responding to the increased demand for services, and we need to make sure that it continues to be available to families who are working to transition back to work.

As part of the July budget gap-closing proposal, the Department of Human Services (DHS) budget included a proposal to increase sanctions for TANF families that had not met at least half of the work requirement after six months. Language in the Budget Support Act also would have allowed DHS to implement increased sanctions, including the authority to cut families off completely from benefits if they do not meet the work requirement after a certain period of time. That proposal was not included in the final FY 2010 budget, and we urge you not to include a similar proposal in the FY 2011 budget for the following reasons:

• Increasing sanctions does nothing to improve TANF’s poor-quality employment services and assessment process. The employment readiness services within DC’s TANF program generally are limited to the most basic resume and job search assistance and focus on moving recipients into employment as quickly as possible. As a result, many TANF recipients find these services unhelpful, and most TANF recipients who become employed can find only low-wage work (the average wage is $9 per hour).

Additionally, there is evidence that many recipients who would qualify for work exemptions or supportive services that could make them more employable are not receiving this assistance. For example, while an estimated 20 percent of TANF recipients have experienced domestic violence, fewer than one percent of recipients received a waiver under the Family Violence Option in FY 2008. Survivors face multiple barriers to employment including sabotage from their abusive partners, lack of adequate child care, and physical challenges due to injuries sustained from abuse. As these barriers increase, a survivor’s ability to obtain employment is diminished. This would have a devastating impact on survivors of domestic violence — of which there may be as many of 75,000 in the District.

Similarly, while the rates of disability among the TANF population are significant, the POWER program for individuals who can’t participate because of a disability has only about two hundred participants. • Increased TANF sanctions are unlikely to result in greater compliance with work requirements. Studies of other states find that sanctions do not lead to improved compliance, largely because the recipients most likely to be sanctioned are those with the greatest personal problems and barriers to work.

• Further sanctions would increase hardship for children in low-income families. The District’s TANF benefit — $428 for a family of three — is already low compared with the city’s high cost of living and benefits in other comparable cities. Lowering this amount will leave families with even fewer resources to meet their basic needs and will place low-income children in more desperate circumstances. Compared to TANF families who are not sanctioned, sanctioned households more often have trouble paying for rent, food, medical expenses, and utility bills.[1] Some studies have also found increased rates of child abuse and neglect among sanctioned families.[2] 
• Families would lose access to benefits. The Department of Human Services (DHS) already has the authority to reduce families’ benefits if they do not participate in the required number of hours of work activities.Other states have instituted practices, such as mandatory orientations and full-family sanctions, that have made their programs less effective at lifting children out of extreme poverty. In the 1980s and early 1990s, before many of these policy changes were implemented, about 80 percent of families nationwide who were eligible for AFDC (the precursor to TANF) were enrolled in the program. In 2005, only 40 percent of eligible families were receiving TANF.[3] If these changes are implemented in DC, many families could be diverted or removed from the TANF caseload and left without any form of assistance.

Instead of pursuing increased sanctions, we implore you to instead strengthen the TANF program by improving its assessments, job training, and supportive services. A full description of these recommendations can be found in a recent report published by SOME, Inc. and the DC Fiscal Policy Institute.   We urge you and your staff to work with TANF recipients, policy experts, and advocates to redesign the TANF program to provide services that truly help recipients gain the skills needed to leave welfare for work.

We thank you for considering this matter.