FO Recipient Always the HOH?

When writing a check for a FO disbursement, MLS requires that the recipient's name be recorded. Should the name of the HOH be used when the expense is for a spouse/minor, or should the spouse/minor's name be recorded?

In all our cases of recent memory, the HoH is the one who's name appears on the invoice/bill so that's who we record the FO disbursement to. I suppose there could be other cases for spouse or child. I don't recall any specific requirement that it cannot be a spouse or minor.

ckmcdonald wrote:When writing a check for a FO disbursement, MLS requires that the recipient's name be recorded. Should the name of the HOH be used when the expense is for a spouse/minor, or should the spouse/minor's name be recorded?

The instructions simply say "In the Fast Offering Recipient field, enter the name of the member receiving aid." So it is certainly correct to list spouses and children. I know that wards in our stake list spouses and children all the time. Of course, in many cases it's fine to list the HoH -- suppose there is a pharmacy bill that includes medicine for multiple household member; there's no need to write separate checks just to list separate recipients.

I have always listed the HOH in the past. I'm asking this question because recently, while creating a few FO disbursements for services received by minors, I asked myself if it was preferred to record the HOH instead of the actual recipient of the service.

I suppose the question to be asked is, why do we list the recipient? There is probably more than one reason but I would guess that the primary reason is to provide the Bishop with a historical record of who has received assistance.

If assistance is given to several individuals in a single family and all disbursements are recorded under the HOH's name, this provides less info to the Bishop of who exactly received the assistance. Using this example and reason would suggest that recording the name of the actual recipient, not the HOH, would be best.

Is there a reason why always using the HOH would be more appropriate?

ckmcdonald wrote:I suppose the question to be asked is, why do we list the recipient? There is probably more than one reason but I would guess that the primary reason is to provide the Bishop with a historical record of who has received assistance.

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. There can be reasonable arguments for always listing the HoH (it's the household that's receiving the financial assistance, even if it's on behalf of the spouse or a child) or for the individual member (we should list the specific member who received the aid).

But the real distinction is in reporting. What does the bishop want to see on a recipient report? Does he want to see a total of all assistance given to a family? Or is it helpful for him to know what portion of the assistance goes to the spouse, or a particular child?

So I think the answer to this question is simple: Ask the bishop how he would like the recipient to be listed, and follow his direction.