Impact of federal budgeting on legal services for the poor
Gerber discusses the impact of federal budgeting on legal services for the poor from the 1970s, under Nixon and Carter, through the 1980s, under Reagan and Bush. After giving a brief overview of how federal budgeting in the 1970s made it possible to create a number of services for legal aid and describing how this worked in North Carolina, Gerber describes how budget cuts under Reagan severely limited the effectiveness of such programs. Her comments reveal legal networks and their obstacles in North Carolina.
Citing this Excerpt
Oral History Interview with Ellen W. Gerber, February 18 and March 24, 1992. Interview C-0092. Southern Oral History Program Collection (#4007) in the Southern Oral History Program Collection, Southern Historical Collection, Wilson Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Full Text of the Excerpt
In 1977, when Jimmy Carter was, in the years leading up to Jimmy
Carter's presidency, legal services was in its heyday so to
speak. I don't know that you know this, but it became what it
is today, the Legal Services Corporation Act, it was literally the last
act signed into law by Richard Nixon of all people. It just shows you
how far to the right the country has moved in some ways, because, in
those days, even though Richard Nixon didn't begin to match
the conservatism of a Ronald Reagan or George Bush, and you know, there
were reasons he was forced into it but regularly never signed it.
- KRISTEN L. GISLASON:
-
But still it got done.
- ELLEN W. GERBER:
-
It got done. O.K., so Congress began to mandate at some point in the mid
70's, '76, Congress mandated that there should be
access to legal services for the poor for everyone in the United States.
So they upped the budget, increased the budget in order to provide for
them. They set an arbitrary and very funny figure of $7.00 per
poor person. The sort of formula by which they appropriated money. But
at any rate, that was Congress' idea, and so at that time
then in the late 70's, well, it must have been about
'76 or so, that we got legal services in North Carolina. The
bar worked on and founded it. So in the late 70's legal
services of North Carolina opened offices all over the state under their
auspices so that there were the three original offices that had been
funded even before the corporation act, under the old OEO, Charlotte,
Winston-Salem, the Office of Economic Opportunity and that was under one
of the original antipoverty programs and legal services fell under that
in the Johnson era. We were and the bars were able to apply and
that's how the bars of each of those cities applied for a
grant, started a legal services office in their city. So those offices
have to this day remained independent in the sense that they are funded
directly from Washington.
Legal Services of North Carolina is the fourth grantee of the state, and
it's funded, and then it funds and oversees all
the rest of the programs in the state, Burlington to
Asheville, all of those. Those are all under aid service in North
Carolina with which we are affiliated but we're still funded.
So that has all grown in the state, since I've started
practicing, you know, we had developed offices all over the state. We
developed consistent training programs throughout the state. There were
national training programs that were wonderful. As a new lawyer I went
to new advocate training in Atlanta with others from the Southeast
region. There were office support back-up centers established; consumer
law, housing law, family law, welfare all over the, you know that you
call on to assistance and then do publications aimed at legal services.
There was a training coordinator in D.C. There were all these things
that were established based on this money that Congress was
appropriating and supporting and the bar supported it, everything was
well immersed.
In 1980 when Reagan was in office, Reagan and Meese, collectively and
individually, hated legal services. They hated them because when they
were out in California, trying to do their dirty work in California, and
to cut programs for the poor, legal services, CRLA, California Rural
Legal Assistance, which is what legal services was called out there,
legal services out there fought them bitterly and won in the courts and
prevented them from doing these cuts. And the net result was that they
were implacably opposing legal services when they came to Washington. I
read an interview with Ed Meese in the American
Lawyer and the chief said, in his view, legal services offices were
run by lesbians who used their power to recruit so they could seduce
young women attorneys. That was in print, that's in print.
Those guys were really something. So from Reagan's first
budget on, they recommended zero funding for legal services. When Jimmy
Carter left office, the funding nationally was something around
$316,000,000. It was cut back in 1982 to $277,000,000
nationally. You're talking about inflation, think of
inflation. It just reached in 1991 the level it was when Jimmy Carter
left office. So, and in addition to cutting off
funding, so, again not only are the numbers cut absolutely, but if you
think of what inflation was during that decade, the numbers are cut more
in half and worse.
In addition to cutting the funding, they also installed in Washington, a
corporation board that was opposed to legal services, hated us. And so
they restaffed the office with people that hated the programs and they
changed their focus, instead of assisting programs by providing training
and publications and you know you'd have a monitor visit, the
monitors would come down and check you out, and they were there to help
you, to make your program better. Under Reagan and now Bush, the
monitors were out to sabotage you, their whole focus was how they could
dig up dirt to hurt you. They never had any helpful suggestions. Just
the most awful stuff like the tax IRS fund while they would pick a
program that was particularly effective, like a farm workers program and
they would monitor them to death, hoping to reduce their effectiveness.
They hated farm workers most of all. This is again the hangover from
what California did against the farm workers. The farm workers are the
most vulnerable minority in this country, this little group of migrant
workers. You know, they were minorities to begin with and secondly
they're "vagrants" in a sense. You know,
they have nobody to speak for them, so legal services all over the
country where there are a lot of farm workers, including North Carolina,
is very effective in enforcing laws that Congress and the states have
passed to protect these people, which always went unenforced because of
such difficulty. And legal services would go to court and have the farm
workers plan to be slaves and that they're not getting the
minimum wage. That sort of thing, the housing doesn't meet
the standards of the state, the drinking water isn't, you
know there are all kinds of those things and so if there is ever a hot
spot that the critics focus on is its farm workers. So you have all that
sort of problem going on and in '82, '83 our
office, like every office all over the country, had to face the fact
that our budget had just plummeted.