Legal services programs in Florida funded by federal taxpayers through grants
from the Legal Services Corporation continue to pursue activities that, in some
cases, violate federal rules governing grant recipients. And even when the
legal services programs' actions are technically legal, their activities often
work against the best interests of the poor, especially those who reside in
public housing.
Legal Services Exaggerates Number of Cases
Florida Rural Legal Services (FRLS), which received over $2.5 million in federal taxpayer dollars for fiscal year 1999, greatly over-reported the number of new cases it undertook in 1997 to the federal Legal Services Corporation (LSC). Legal services programs that receive funding from LSC are required to provide statistics to LSC each year on the number of open and closed cases that the programs had at the end of each year. These case reports, in turn, are used by LSC to compile statistics that are included in reports that LSC is required to submit to Congress each year. FRLS, after having its case report questioned by auditors, reduced its claimed 1997 open cases from 44,993 to 5,552. This reduction is believed to be the largest such reduction in LSC history. Only 12% of the claimed 44,993 open cases were valid. Although LSC had already reported the inflated case numbers to Congress, LSC officials failed to inform Congress that its numbers were wrong. This is especially significant because Congress bases its LSC funding level based on the number of cases handled by legal services programs nationwide.
See Karen Gullo (Associated Press), “Legal Aid Funding Draws
Fire,” The Miami Herald, April 8, 1999
Legal Services Files Suit Over Public Housing Trash Cleanup Bills
In yet another example of legal services hindering the reform and improvement of public housing, the federally-funded Gulfcoast Legal Services program filed suit in 1998 in federal court alleging that it is not ‘fair’ for the Clearwater Housing Authority (CHA) to charge a fee to public housing tenants to pick up trash left by residents at the Jasmine Courts public housing complex. According to one CHA official, “it looks like a bomb went off,” describing the trash accumulated in the complex by residents. Specifically, legal services had originally asked the federal court to overturn both an $80 fee for roof repairs and a $16 fee for trash cleanup added to tenant Teresa Kidd’s May 1998 rent bill. Although the CHA removed the roof repair fee, which had been added to Kidd’s rent bill in error, the housing agency refused to back off on the cleanup fee. Notably, cleanup and maintenance fees are conditions contained in the leases that CHA tenants sign before they move in. The CHA considers the trash cleanup fee especially important because it spent $400,000 to landscape the complex.
See David Sommer, “Suit Challenges Subsidized Rent Practices,”
The Tampa Tribune, August 8, 1998.
Legal Services Opposes Moving Public Housing Tenants Into Subsidized Private Housing
Central Florida Legal Services, which receives taxpayer dollars from the federal Legal Services Corporation, is representing a Sanford public housing tenants group that opposes being moved into subsidized private housing. The Sanford Housing Authority (SHA) wants to demolish three dilapidated public housing complexes and develop the site into affordable homes, apartments and condominiums, as well as low-rent office space for start-up businesses and a job skills center to aid local residents. According to SHA officials, however, no demolition will occur until every family in the complexes has moved into a new home. SHA has been working with private landlords to move the public housing tenants into private housing that, combined with federal housing subsidies, would allow the residents to pay approximately the same rent as they presently pay. Despite this apparent win-win situation, legal services is looking into possible ‘violations’ of fair housing laws on the theory that the proposed move is discriminatory, since a high ratio of African-Americans is involved as well as many families with large numbers of children. Instead of trying to sabotage such innovative attempts at subsidized housing reform for its client base, legal services should be working to help foster these efforts, if its claims to help meet the needs of the poor are to be believed.
See Elaine Backhaus and Gary Taylor, "Residents Ready to Fight to Keep Sanford Homes," The Orlando Sentinel, May 15, 1999