Skip Navigation
News - AT Messenger
DATI Logo

Delaware Assistive Technology Initiative

. . . bringing technology to you

AT Messenger Logo - Bringing Technology to You

Vol. 7, No. 1 Winter 1999

Previous Issues

Subscribe to AT Messenger
Download PDF Viewer
Large Print (pdf)
Text Version

Financing Assistive Technology:

AT Purchased for Students Receiving Special Eduction Services Can Be Used to Facilitate Transition into Adult Services and Productive Adult Life

by Steve Mendelsohn, Esq. and Susan Goodman, Esq.

Transition from school to work or other post-secondary education activities has long been a vexing problem for the disability community. Both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the federal Vocational Rehabilitation Act (VR) provide for cooperation between the education and rehabilitation systems in the planning of transition from educational to adult services, including post-secondary education. However, practical experience indicates that implementation of this intended cooperation has been limited and difficult.

One area where the transition problem has been especially apparent is that of assistive technology (AT). Students transitioning from education programs have often been faced with the need to give up vital AT devices and services and to await provision of replacement devices and services by the rehabilitation system. A long interval without technology results in loss of employment opportunities or opportunities for maximum integration in a variety of activities.

The goals of successful transition would be better achieved if students whose technology was relevant to their post school goals could retain and use devices and services without interruption during the transition period. The goals of coordination and cost effectiveness would also be better served, in many cases, if such continuity was possible.

An analysis of why transition has not worked in many cases is beyond the scope of this report. One major factor, however, has been the fear on the part of school district administrators and rehabilitation agency officials that legal constraints might limit the authority of school districts to transfer title to AT devices to the rehabilitation agency and other post school service systems. Concerns have also persisted regarding the proper procedures and documentation to be used regarding any exchange of funds that would be involved.

In a important interpretation of the law issued on June 21, 1998, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) in the U.S. Department of Education has responded to an inquiry by Assistive Technology Funding and Systems Change Project (ATFSCP) Project Coordinator, Susan Goodman, with a clarifying letter on this issue. By emphasizing its commitment to effective transition services, the clarification goes a long way toward resolving some of the concerns that have inhibited coordinated and cost-effective use of publicly funded AT devices and services. In response, Judy Heumann, Assistant Secretary of OSERS, states:

"We agree that coordination between LEAs (local education agencies) and state VR agencies to enable students with disabilities to continue using assistive technology devices as they move from one program to another is an efficient, cost-effective means of facilitating transition from school to work related services and fully support the type of cooperation between the agencies to which you refer. We believe the EDGAR 1 requirements outlined above support this type of cooperation." Letter dated June 21, 1998 to Susan Goodman, from Judith Heumann, at p. 3-4 (quoting 34 C.F.R. § 80.32(c)(1)).

According to the Department, the regulations allow the continued use of equipment by students after leaving school and/or the transfer of its ownership to the rehabilitation system or other entities in all cases where the school district does not have a continuing need for the device. This decision rests within the authority of each school district but, as stated in the clarification letter:

"We presume that assistive technology devices purchased by LEAs are often customized or otherwise modified to suit the individual needs of a particular child with a disability, making it unlikely that the LEA would need the device once the child leaves school. In instances in which that is the case, the LEA is permitted to transfer the device to the state VR agency that is serving the former student for whom the device was originally purchased." Letter dated June 21, 1998 to Susan Goodman, from Judith Heumann, at p. 3 (quoting 34 C.F.R. § 80.32(c)(1)).

Ordinarily, federal regulations will only apply to equipment with a fair market value of $5,000 or more at the time of transfer. The Department does not indicate how fair market value will be determined but there are a number of simple and satisfactory ways of doing this including contacting the manufacturer, consulting Internal Revenue Service depreciation tables, asking local vendors for help, and so forth. In these cases it will be important to maintain documentation of how the value was reached, and what basis of depreciation was used.

Generally, the rehabilitation agency will have an obligation to transfer funds in payment for the technology only in those instances where State Education Agency (SEA) contributed funds to the original purchase of the technology. In those cases where the fair market value (at the time of transfer) is $5,000 or above, the SEA has a right to receive it pro rated share of this value. Thus, if the fair market value of a transferred device is $6,000 and the SEA has contributed 10% to its original purchase, the SEA would, in theory, be entitled to $600 reimbursement. Of course, the SEA is free to waive this reimbursement in any and all cases.

Another point made by the letter is that schools' authority to transfer ownership is not limited to state VR programs. While VR programs are specifically addressed by the letter (because of its focus on transition), ownership transfer can be made to any "activities currently or previously supported by a federal agency." Letter dated June 21, 1998 to Susan Goodman, from Judith Heumann, at p. 2 (quoting 34 C.F.R. § 80.32(c)(1)). This means that inter-district transfer of equipment can occur for students who move from community to community, or when equipment currently being stored by one district is identified as being needed by another. Both of these inter-district transfers can occur as freely as transition-transfer to VR program.

The clarification letter recognizes that state law also plays a role. It is possible that, aside from the federal regulations involved, your state may have laws or regulations bearing upon such transfers. Typically, this will not be a law barring the transfer but one that establishes procedural or documentation requirements regarding how it is to be done.

Many states are also likely to have provisions allowing education and rehabilitation agencies to enter into reciprocal agreements to facilitate such transfers. The federal law, likewise, encourages such agreements.

This article was reprinted from Tech Express, Vol. II, Issue 5, (September 1998) with permission from the Assistive Technology Funding & Systems Change Project.

Footnotes

1. Education Department General Administrative Regulations, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Contracts to State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments."

Back to article

Current Issue