Legal Services Corporation

Latest Developments


BUDGET: The U.S. Senate Budget Committee did not pass a Budget, but rather relied upon a budget agreement adopted last year for a total dollar figure for federal expenditures. Thus, there was no mention of any specific appropriations in the Senate’s budget efforts.

APPROPRIATIONS: The Senate Appropriations Committee allocates federal spending among 12 appropriations bills.

The U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies marked up and passed by voice vote (without controversy) the CJS bill that funds the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) on April 19, 2016.

The full U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee quickly followed suit with a unanimous vote for passage on April 21, 2016.

The Senate CJS bill would fund LSC at $395 million—a $10 million increase over the current year’s funding of $385 million.

Last year the Senate bill had LSC at $385 million—$10 million less than this year’s bill.

This Senate CJS bill has stalled and not yet gone to the Senate floor for a vote, in part due to a longstanding water dispute between Alabama and Georgia. While this water dispute, which reared its head in Justice Department language in the CJS bill, is unrelated to LSC, it nonetheless is holding up Senate progress on LSC funding.


BUDGET: On March 16, 2016, the U.S. House of Representatives Budget Committee passed a Budget that called for the complete elimination of LSC.

APPROPRIATIONS: The U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies marked up and passed by unanimous voice vote (without controversy) the bill funding LSC on May 18, 2016.

The House bill would fund LSC at $350 million—a $35 million decrease from the current year’s funding of $385 million.

Last year the House bill had LSC at $300 million—$50 million less than this year’s bill.

The House CJS bill is scheduled for full committee markup and passage on May 24, 2016. Full Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal Rogers predicted “smooth sailing” for the House CJS bill in full committee and on the House floor. That said, we are vigilant for amendments, common in recent years, that could be deleterious to LSC.


The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) ensures “Equal Justice Under Law” by enabling access to the justice system for vulnerable Americans. LSC, the central foundation for the legal aid system, provides the backbone for America’s civil legal aid and pro bonosystem. 93.7% of LSC’s total budget is awarded in grants to 134 civil legal aid programs with over 800 offices nationwide. At least one LSC grantee is present in each of the fifty states.

Funding and Need

LSC funding is down. The current Fiscal Year 2016 LSC appropriation is still 15.7% lower than it was in 2010 (inflation adjusted), even after three consecutive appropriation increases of 5.4%, 2.6%, and 2.6%. Compare LSC’s $385 million in Fiscal Year 2016 to LSC’s average $664 million (inflation adjusted) in the 1980s.

The need is up. Over the past decade, the number of people qualifying for assistance has increased about 25%.

Legal-services needs far exceed LSC appropriations. Because funding is down and needs are up, studies indicate 50-80% of clients are turned away due to a lack of resources.

Clients and Services

Annually LSC grantees provide direct services to nearly 1.9 million people in all households served. These constituents struggle to get by on incomes at or below 125% of federal poverty guidelines. In 2016, federal poverty levels are $11,880 for an individual and $24,300 for a family of four. According to the Census Bureau’s latest figures, over 95.2 million Americans—one in three—qualified for civil legal aid at some point in 2014. 

Several groups in particular are beneficiaries of legal aid services: military and veterans, older Americans, rural Americans, women (constituting nearly 70% of clients), and natural-disaster victims.

LSC’s legal aid grantees routinely help these people with family law matters (custody, domestic violence, support, guardianship, name change, adoption), housing matters (subsidized housing, renters, natural-disaster displacement, foreclosures, realty), income maintenance (food stamps, Social Security, disability, unemployment, veterans benefits), and consumer issues (collections, bankruptcy, debtor relief, contracts, warrantees, deceptive practices).

Pro Bono 

LSC is the framework through which most pro bonoservices are delivered. Pro bono work totaled 10.7% of cases closed in 2014 (highest % ever), up from 6.5% in 2008. In many rural areas, there are not enough lawyers to provide pro bono assistance. LSC increasespro bono efficiency with its Pro Bono Innovation Fund (PBIF), first funded in FY2014. The 80,000+ pro bonocases annually are critical but totally insufficient to replace federal LSC funding.

Cost-Benefit Analyses

Numerous cost-benefit analyses demonstrate the valuable return on investment that LSC provides. For example, in March 2015 the Tennessee Bar Association published a new report entitled “Economic Impact of Civil Legal Aid Organizations in Tennessee.” The report and chart reveal $11.21 of economic benefit per dollar invested. 

Benefits accrue from the likes of preventing foreclosure and domestic violence. These accomplishments are measureable public goods. The savings for the communities, the direct client and family benefits, and the well-recognized economic-multiplier effect guarantee the value received for LSC appropriations.

Effective Leveraging

Government programs commonly work best when they leverage other funds. Many programs require an equal matching amount of money from nonfederal sources—a 1:1 ratio. The LSC does much better. For LSC, the federal expenditure amounts to 25% of all legal aid funding in the US—a 3:1 ratio. The federal appropriation leverages three times that amount by accessing alternative funding, such as Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts (IOLTA) funds, state/local grants, foundations, contributions, and individual donations and by engaging pro bono partners.

Example of the Fruit of LSC Funding

Nicole Perez, an attorney with Legal Aid of Los Angeles, spent a year and a half saving an elderly disabled widow of a Vietnam veteran from foreclosure. The elderly woman’s husband had suffered from the effects of Agent Orange poisoning, but had been denied benefits. Nicole and her colleagues successfully blocked the forced sale of the house and managed to get the $45,000 in retroactive benefits and nearly $1,500 in ongoing monthly payments from the VA, ensuring the elderly widow would be financially secure in her home.

Appropriations Request

The ABA supports strong federal funding for LSC and recommends that Congress appropriate the President’s budget request of $475 million for LSC for Fiscal Year 2017.  

Key Points

  • Demand is up about 25% over the past decade, but funding is down 15.7% since 2010.
  • 50-80% of clients are turned away due to a lack of resources.
  • Pro bono work is nowhere near a substitute for federal legal aid funding.
  • Numerous cost-benefit analyses demonstrate LSC’ valuable return on the federal investment.
  • LSC effectively leverages federal appropriations, obtaining 300% as much from nonfederal sources.


See the tab at the right for links the general ABA One-Pager on LSC Funding and other resources.

Teleconference on Funding for LSC

During this teleconference ABA Day participants had the opportunity to hear more about the Legal Services Corporation from Justice Nathan L. Hecht, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, James J. Sandman, President of the Legal Services Corporation, and Eric S. Fins, Senior Legislative Assistant to Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, III.

To access a recording of this teleconference, click here

ABA Policy

The ABA supports a strong, federally funded, community controlled program to provide legal aid for the poor. The ABA favors substantial private bar involvement in the delivery of legal services and actively encourages pro bono participation by individual attorneys, law firms, and corporate general counsels.

Updated as of:

March 1, 2016