Why employers are the missing voice in the public service loan forgiveness debate
Few federal programs sit more squarely at that intersection of policy, workforce sustainability and access to justice like Public Service Loan Forgiveness.
While borrower experiences have shaped the public narrative, a critical voice has been largely absent from congressional debate: the employers who rely on PSLF every day to recruit and retain the public sector professionals that keep our justice system moving.
According to the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, PSLF is not used as a fringe benefit; it is a core workforce recruitment tool for employers. In a 2017 national survey of more than 3,300 legal aid and public defender professionals, 71% of top executives reported that PSLF is highly important for retaining experienced staff, and nearly two-thirds said it is essential for recruiting new hires. Record your PSLF story here.
As one civil legal aid executive surveyed put it: “The PSLF program is the most important economic recruiting tool we have. If it goes away, then we are placed in very difficult straits.”
Another public defender chief warned that without being able to offer student loan forgiveness, offices could revert to serving as short-term training grounds losing new lawyers just as they become more skilled.
These employer perspectives show what metrics from borrowers alone cannot: Without PSLF, entire segments of the justice system risk instability. That threat looms especially large in rural and underserved areas, where recruitment is already a challenge. NLADA reports that many rural offices simply would not be able to attract or retain staff without the promise of loan forgiveness.
For this reason, employer perspectives are increasingly sought by congressional offices to better understand whether PSLF really works. These voices are essential to illustrating that changes to the program affect not only individual borrowers, but also the operational capacity of the justice system itself.
On the individual side, the impact of PSLF is equally striking. According to NLADA’s data, 87% of respondents said PSLF made them much more likely to accept a future public-service job, and more than half said they would be very likely or certain to leave public service if PSLF were eliminated. For employers, that translates directly into turnover costs, recruitment lags, and loss of institutional memory. For communities, it means fewer experienced lawyers and a weaker capacity to deliver justice.
A call for more employer engagement
To ensure that policymakers more fully understand the vital importance of PSLF, the ABA is seeking real-world employer experiences with the program to recruit, retain and stabilize their delivery of services to the community, whether legal aid, public defenders, prosecutors, or others.
Stories are being collected through Quorum—a secure platform that can deliver them where they will be most effective.
Your perspectives are not merely a narrative. They are evidence of how federal policy translates into workforce capacity, organizational stability, and community impact.
We encourage employers and practitioners alike to participate and help ensure that the future of PSLF is informed by those who depend on it every day.
This report is written by the ABA Governmental Affairs Office and discusses advocacy efforts by the ABA relating to issues being addressed by Congress and the executive branch of the U.S. government. Follow @ABAGrassroots on social media.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
