- 31 -
full $60.00 per day charge for our service". Similarly,
the record does not explain how recipients are selected
for a particular grant category; that is, why one recipient
receives a 25-percent grant and another receives a 60-
percent grant. The record does not state whether
participants are ever turned down for a grant, or whether
individuals may be denied "grants" in one category but
awarded a smaller "grant". Finally, the record does not
state Keswick's out-of-pocket cost of providing such
"grants" or discounts. In short, on the basis of the
information provided in the administrative record, we are
unable to fully evaluate the financial impact on Keswick of
providing the grants to participants in the daycare
program, and we are unable to evaluate the impact on that
program of the loss of the funds contributed by petitioner.
Our difficulty in evaluating the impact of
petitioner's funds is further complicated by the fact that
the administrative record suggests that there are other
funding sources for the grant program. In describing how
petitioner's funds are used to defray 50 percent of each of
the 31 grants for 1999, Keswick's letter states that the
Cuddeback funds are "thus supplementing our existing grant
program." Keswick's letter regarding the use of Cuddeback
funds in 1996 makes the same statement. Thus, it appears
that the grant program is not funded entirely by
petitioner. This is confirmed by Keswick's letter of
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011