Institutions of higher education are clearly obligated by law to provide access to all aspects of their programs and activities. This means that in addition to interpreting in the classroom for students who are deaf, the institution would be required to provide interpreters, as needed, for supplementary academic activities or support services, for co-curricular activities, continuing education courses, and public functions. Who will be responsible for arranging interpreters on request for these varied purposes? Where (what budget?) will the money come from to pay for those interpreters? The federal government doesn't care who makes the arrangements or from what line-item the money is drawn, so long as the interpreter is present, as needed and appropriately requested, by the person with a disability.

Some institutions have developed a one-stop-shopping approach by assigning a pot of money to be used in covering interpreter fees to be administered by a single entity within that institution-often the office that serves students with disabilities on an on-going basis. That office is also charged with making the arrangements for provision of interpreters in any and all settings associated with the institution's programs and activities. There are two very practical advantages to such a system. The availability of "one-stop shopping" to access necessary auxiliary services makes it easier for consumers with disabilities in any subgroup within the campus community to find their way to the appropriate source of assistance in a timely fashion. Moreover, the office that regularly arranges interpreter services for students who are deaf is most likely to have ready knowledge of, and access to, the local population of interpreters who can be contacted for filling assignments on either a recurring or isolatedevent basis. However, depending on the size and complexity of the administrative structure within the institution, this system may be unworkable on some campuses.

The student-centered disability services office is generally housed (administratively) in either the Student Affairs or the Academic division. Giving responsibility to service providers in such circumstances for arrangements needed by and for other structural units can be tricky. For example, having someone in Student Affairs (paid with funds from that division's budget) spending time in making arrangements on behalf of an institutional employee may blur both the lines of authority and the tracking of time and energy as a reflection of institutional expenditures. In response to this concern, some institutions have developed alternatives to the single-source arrangement. Some assign responsibility for student/classroom-related activities to the office serving students with disabilities and all other requests go through an ADA coordinator. Others assign responsibility for any employee-related assistance to the human re sources office, and all other requests go through the students' disability services office. There is no "one right method" for making such arrangements. Whatever system is workable within the institutional environment is acceptable, so long as it gets the job done!

There may, however, be a wrong method! Several years ago I visited a campus that had decided that any accommodations needed in the classroom were the responsibility of the disability services office and anything that occurred outside the classroom needed to be provided by the individual unit planning the activity. In my closing interview with the Provost, I suggested the following scenario:

I am the swimming coach for this institution. I am recruiting high school athletes for next season. I have a top prospect-top in his event for the last two years at the State finals. He is deaf. If I recruit this athlete, either my team or the athletic department is going to be asked to pay for interpreters for this student for all practices, for away trips to swim meets, and so on. We don't have any money available in our budget for that-we barely have enough to buy water softener for the team's towels. I can't afford to recruit this kid. I'll pass him by and look at the next prospect on my list.

My question to the Provost was, "What just happened here?" He turned pale and replied, "The coach just discriminated against that student on the basis of his disability." My response was, "You are almost right. This institution has just discriminated against that student on the basis of his disability."

Experience indicates that any time the financial responsibility for payment of interpreter services is forced back down the line to individual units, the likelihood that individuals who are deaf will be discouraged from participating, or denied access to accommodation, increases dramatically. This may be the result of conscious decision or the unintended consequence of misunderstanding on the part of personnel involved. Institutions would do well to examine both their current policies regarding arrangements for interpreter services and their monitoring system of the adequacy/appropriateness of such policies in order to assure compliance with both the spirit and the letter of the law.

Jane Jarrow is president of Disability Access Information and Support (DAIS). An expert in disability services, she has been providing technical assistance and training to service providers on access and support services for persons with disabilities in higher education and has co-authored or authored numerous books and articles in the field of disabilities in higher education over the past 15 years.