After the Elections — Institutional Implications

I promised some discussion of post-election access to justice institutional implications.  Here, somewhat later than I had hoped, it is.

Institutional Stability

The first point is obvious.  The LSC and SJI Boards stay the same, as a practical matter for at least five years, and they can continue to build on their directions.  This is good news for self-represented innovation, for outcome measures, for technology, and, of course for access in general, with LSC able to move forward with its Strategic Plan and its Technology Summit.  Both have major transformative potential.

DOJ gets to keep its Access Initiative, and we will reap the ongoing benefits of both public and behind the scenes leadership.  I will be writing soon in a different post about the leadership issue at DOJ.


The consensus seems to be that budgets remain uncertain, with sequester still a risk, but there is a general sense that broader disruptions are not so likely given the leadership configuration.  So programs should be able to plan with far more certainly than had there been a different election result, but with a caution that there might need to be sequester-driven additional retrenchment, particularly by those programs with a heavy reliance on LSC money.

Impacts on courts remain similarly uncertain, but not major in the short term, except for those that receive major federal funding.

Stay tuned.


About richardzorza

I am deeply involved in access to justice and the patient voice movement.
This entry was posted in Court Management, Funding, Legal Aid. Bookmark the permalink.