• sr911

    And that right there is why I am glad we are not wading into anything too political due to not being defined as a social justice organisation. It is still a very useful and cautionary tale regarding watching whose toes you step on and not putting all of your eggs in one basket. We have enough problems with funding even without the risk of political games being played so I do not want to think about the mess that would be a threat if we were just another social justice group. About the most polarized stance we take is being supportive of law enforcement officers which makes sense on multiple levels not the least of which is the fact that we work closely with them on nearly all of our cases. Then again, given that a lot of our cases involve missing military personnel, we tend to have a more moderate or conservative base of support so being pro-law enforcement is not a huge deal.

    This was a good article. It’s nice to see the more practical and useful side of things being covered on NPQ.

    • ruth

      But our version of an answer to this would be to double up on your sources because I damn sure would not be driven by the values of one funding source over our own. Its not the first time legal services organizations have been told who they can and cannot serve but those directions may not serve the best interests of those they are there to serve, but thankfully they are a creative field and there have been a million ways that they have found their way forward without selling their souls.

      So maybe you want to take it back about our practicality