LSC Funds vs. Non-LSC Funds: How to Keep Them Separate and Stay Compliant

Legal Services Corporation (LSC) funds come with federal restrictions attached. Non-LSC funds (state grants, foundation support, private donations) come with their own rules and far fewer limitations. Running both through the same accounting infrastructure doesn’t simplify operations. It exposes the entire organization to the compliance consequences of the most restrictive funding source in the pool.

Why Separation Is a Regulatory Requirement, Not a Best Practice

The LSC Financial Guide, effective January 1, 2023, sets the standard for how grantees manage federal funds. Under 45 C.F.R. § 1630.5(c)(3), recipients must maintain an accounting system with fund accounting capabilities sufficient to demonstrate the proper allocation of costs to each relevant funding source. That requirement isn’t satisfied by a note in the general ledger. It requires systems that track income, expenses and time at the funding source level.

Unlike many restricted grants, LSC funding carries both financial restrictions and programmatic restrictions. The accounting system must therefore demonstrate not only where money came from but also that expenditures supported activities permitted under the LSC Act, LSC regulations and grant terms.

The policy rationale is straightforward. Congress restricts what LSC’s $560 million in annual appropriations can fund, from the types of cases grantees may accept to who qualifies as a client. When LSC and non-LSC funds cannot be clearly segregated through the organization’s accounting records and internal controls, it becomes difficult to demonstrate that restricted activities were supported exclusively with non-LSC funds. As a practical matter, organizations often must treat the pooled resources as though the most restrictive funding rules apply because they cannot prove otherwise.

The Accounting Infrastructure Fund Separation Requires

Separate bank accounts are the starting point. Many LSC recipients maintain separate operating bank accounts for LSC funds because doing so simplifies compliance and audit documentation, although the core regulatory requirement is the ability to account for each funding source separately. The LSC Financial Guide requires that LSC funds held for operating expenses be maintained in federally insured bank accounts, and the practical standard among compliant organizations is full account separation between LSC and non-LSC operating funds. Transactions should draw from the account corresponding to the funding source supporting the activity. When expenses are paid from the wrong account and corrected after the fact, those journal entries need documentation that clearly explains the error and the correction.

The chart of accounts needs parallel structure to support fund-level reporting. LSC expenses need their own account codes, distinct from non-LSC equivalents. Rent, salaries and supplies each need a coding structure that allows the organization to produce separate financial statements for LSC activity without manual reclassification at year-end. This isn’t double the administrative work so much as it is the minimum structure an audit requires.

Client intake is where the separation has to start operationally. Intake determines not only whether a client is financially eligible for services but also whether the matter itself can be supported with LSC funds under applicable restrictions. Whether a client qualifies for LSC-funded services determines which funding source supports that case from the moment intake is complete. Organizations that sort this out at intake avoid the far more difficult problem of reallocating case costs after the work is done.

Cost Allocation for Shared Expenses

Most legal aid organizations have costs that benefit both LSC and non-LSC programs. Executive director time, office space, administrative staff and technology are shared costs that need allocation methodologies that are reasonable, documented and applied consistently.

The LSC Financial Guide addresses cost allocation specifically because it’s one of the areas most likely to produce audit findings. The methodology chosen, whether based on headcount, time studies, square footage or another defensible metric, matters less than the discipline with which it’s applied. Changing allocation methods from year to year without a documented rationale signals to auditors that the numbers are being managed rather than measured.

Indirect cost rates require the same discipline. LSC regulations and grant terms govern how much overhead can be charged to grants, and organizations that apply indirect costs inconsistently or without a calculated rate create questioned costs that are difficult to resolve after an audit has begun.

Timekeeping as the Foundation of Cost Documentation

For employees working on both LSC and non-LSC matters, time records are the primary documentation used to support cost allocation. The LSC Financial Guide requires that timekeeping reports be reconciled with labor cost distribution reports at least annually before final fund allocation entries are made. That reconciliation needs to reflect contemporaneous records, not estimates reconstructed at year-end.

The LSC OIG’s August 2025 quality control review findings identified timekeeping as one of the most common deficiency areas across grantee audits, with 24% of reviews finding inadequate timesheet samples or missing certifications for part-time employees. For organizations whose single audit also covers LSC funds as a major program, timekeeping gaps create findings that affect both the LSC audit and the broader federal compliance review.

Documentation That Supports the Separation

The accounting separation only holds up under audit if the documentation trail supports it. Journal entries that move costs between funds require written explanations. Board minutes should reflect decisions about how shared costs are allocated. Bank reconciliations need monthly review by someone who understands the fund segregation requirements and can identify discrepancies before they compound.

The single audit process for LSC grantees tests exactly this documentation. Auditors testing compliance with LSC regulations need to see that the organization not only had the right policies in place but followed them. Policies that exist on paper but aren’t reflected in the records create findings that are harder to address than gaps in policy alone.

Build the Infrastructure Before the Audit Finds the Gaps

Fund separation that works is built into the accounting system, the intake process and the timekeeping workflow from the start. Organizations that patch it together reactively, in response to audit findings or funder inquiries, spend more time and resources getting to compliance than those that build it correctly at the outset.

James Moore’s nonprofit accounting team works with LSC-funded legal aid organizations on fund accounting systems, cost allocation methodologies and the documentation practices that support clean audit results. Contact us when you want an objective assessment of your current infrastructure.

All content provided in this article is for informational purposes only. Matters discussed in this article are subject to change. For up-to-date information on this subject please contact a James Moore professional. James Moore will not be held responsible for any claim, loss, damage or inconvenience caused as a result of any information within these pages or any information accessed through this site.