January 4, 1994

 

 

MEMORANDUM FOR DISTRICT SUPERVISORS

 

From:     Charles E. Voelker, C.R.C. CEv Supervisor of Field Operations

 

Subject: Scholarships From Private Organizations Such as NFB

 

Because the question was raised recently by two district offices, I am recirculating this RSA Program Assistance Circular

(RSA-PAC90-7) issued March 7, 1990.

 

Please provide a copy to counseling staff.  RSB does not count these types of awards as a comparable benefit.

 

CEV : j w

 

PROGRAM ASSISTANCE CIRCULAR RSA-PAC-90- 7

March 7, 1990

TO:         STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCIES (GENERAL) STATE VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AGENCIES (BLIND) CLIENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

RSA REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS (REGIONS I - X) RSA SENIOR STAFF

SUBJECT:    Monetary Merit Gifts from Private Organizations

STATUTORY AND RE13TLATORY CITATIONS:

(1) Section 101(x)(8) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended

(2) Section 103(x)(3) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended

(3) 34 CFR 361.47(b)

(4)  34 CFR 361.42 (a) (4)

SUPPORTIVE GUIDELINES:

Based upon the kinds of questions that are arising, there appears to be a need to differentiate between the treatment afforded a monetary merit award provided directly to a vocational rehabilitation (VR) client by a civic, professional, or social organization and a comparable benefit or grant provided by a governmental institutional, or public entity.

Some of the confusion in the treatment of merit awards from private sources arises from the terms used by such groups in making their awards. For example, the term scholarship is frequently used. That term connotes the use of the gift for educational purposes and, while it may have been awarded on the basis of academic achievement, it may have been awarded by the donor without restrictions as to its use by the client.  Such monetary awards, if unrestricted by the donor as to use by the client, would not be considered either grant assistance within the meaning of Section 103(x)(3) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or a comparable benefit or service within the meaning of Section 101(x)(8). If, on the other hand, the award was restricted for a particular purpose, the nature of the restriction would have to be examined to determine whether Sections 103(x)(3) and 101(x)(8) Were applicable. For example, if the award was earmarked for "educational purposes" that qualification might be too broad to require the client to use it for any needed VR service. The gift might be used for travel abroad or some other enriching experience not otherwise affordable by the client. However, if the award was earmarked for use for college tuition costs or general college expenses, it would be considered an available comparable benefit or service that must be used, and thus would reduce the extent of the client’s need for that service or services from the VR agency.

 

I believe it is highly desirable to encourage philanthropic groups to contribute toward the betterment of students with disabilities. These organizations frequently solicit from their membership to enable them to make merit gifts available to deserving students. A practice to require that unrestricted gifts be used to pay for a service included under an Individualized Written Rehabilitation Program (IWRP) effectively denies the student the help intended by the organization and, in essence, defeats the purpose intended by the philanthropic group in making its award. It further denies the student the recognition intended by the organization.

 

Commissioner of Rehabilitation

INQUIRIES TO: Regional Coanissioners