Upload
alexandra-james
View
219
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Results from a DBTAC study on municipalcompliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and the effects on civic participation by citizenswith disabilities.
Paul M.A. Baker, Ph.D. Southeast Disability and Business Technical Assistance Center (SEDBTAC), Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP)Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, [email protected] James White, Ph.D. Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP)Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, [email protected]
Prepared for the 2011 RESNA Annual ConferenceJune 5 –8, 2011
Toronto, Ontario
Accessibility & Community Participation Project
Accessibility
Functional Access
Community Participation
Physical Access
ADA Implementation &
Oversight
Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University (NIDRR Grant # H133A060094) © 2010 All Rights Reserved.
The Experience of A
ccessibility
Site Reviews:Physical & Functional
Accessibility
Policymaker & ADA Coordinator
Interviews
Community Participation
Survey
Project Overview Multi-phase ADA compliance study
- (1) assessment of actual compliance with ADA requirements regarding physical barriers and program accessibility;
- (2) policy impact of community decision-makers that are not necessitated by the settlement agreements
- (3) community participation of persons with disabilities
Project Civic Access (PCA)– The U.S. Department of Justice PCA program works with local
governments to improve accessibility for individuals with disabilities under ADA titles II and III
– 170 settlement agreements with 156 localities in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
Study: Actual (Assessment) and Policy (Context Interviews)
Research Approach
Participatory Action Research (PAR)– Partnership between those affected by an issue and scientists– Research focus stimulated by persons with disabilities– Research methods informed by persons with disabilities– Research findings owned by and relevant to multiple stakeholders
Mixed team of researchers with and without disabilities– Southeast DBTAC– Southeast DBTAC Affiliate Leadership Council– Syracuse University– Georgia Institute of Technology
Cross-disability local research teams conduct site reviews
Research Setting and Strategy
Originally 8 states in the Southeast Now 14 communities in 7 states* with varying degrees of accessibility
– Department of Justice Project Civic Access communities– Comparable communities without settlement agreements
5 Title II Site Reviews/community (survey, use services, evaluate accessibility)
– City Hall (raise issue to City Council)– Civic Center / Auditorium (attend event)– Public Library (search for book)– Park (have a picnic)– Police Services (emergency evacuation procedures)
Target of 4 policymaker interviews per community
50 community participation surveys per community
Policy Research Overview Public administrators and policy makers contacted, from each of six
low compliance and six control cities or counties, and one county public library system
Interviews queried status of ADA coordinators; understanding, perceptions and mechanics of compliance; accessibility of municipal services; levels of civic engagement/participation, and municipal sensitivity
External factors, including “churn” in city positions/job responsibilities, complicated identification of correct individual
A number of entities and individuals refused to take part in the interviews, often on legal advice
In each location a minimum of four individuals were identified and contacted, with an average of five phone or e-mail contacts made, per person: a very lengthy process!
Results SummaryCity/County/Library Completed
InterviewsSnapshot Analysis
Durham, NC (A) 3 Highly cooperativeGreensboro, NC 2 CooperativeBiloxi, MS (A) 2 Limited cooperation (impact of Katrina)Tupelo, MS 0 Refusal to cooperateMemphis, TN (A) 0 Refusal to cooperate, advice of counselKnoxville, TN 0 Unable to cooperate, ADA related lawsuit pendingBirmingham, AL (A) 2 Highly cooperativeMontgomery, AL 1 CooperativeCoral Gables, FL (A) 0 Refusal to cooperate, interview deniedNorth Miami Beach, FL 1 CooperativeFlorence County, SC (A) 1 CooperativeAiken County, SC 1 Uncooperative, information obtained outside
Daviess County PL, KY (A) 2 CooperativeHardin County PL, KY 0 Refusal to cooperate
A = Agreement
Does your city/county have an ADA Coordinator(s) in office now, and was the role appointed or competitive?
City/County/Library ADA Coordinator Appointed/CompetitiveDurham, NC (A) Yes CompetitiveGreensboro, NC Yes AppointedBiloxi, MS (A) Yes AppointedTupelo, MS No response UnknownMemphis, TN (A) Yes AppointedKnoxville, TN Yes CompetitiveBirmingham, AL (A) Yes AppointedMontgomery, AL Yes AppointedCoral Gables, FL (A) Yes AppointedNorth Miami Beach, FL No UnknownFlorence County, SC (A) Yes AppointedAiken County, SC Yes CompetitiveDaviess County PL, KY (A) Yes AppointedHardin County PL, KY No response Unknown
A = Agreement
What kind of training/qualification does the ADA Coordinator have, to help in knowing how to implement the law?
City/County/Library Training/Qualifications
Durham, NC (A) Member of Assoc. of ADA Coordinators
Greensboro, NC Runs a call center: includes disability questions
Biloxi, MS (A) None
Tupelo, MS Unknown
Memphis, TN (A) Unknown
Knoxville, TN Unknown
Birmingham, AL (A) Masters degree in special education, history of working with disabled
Montgomery, AL Training in ADA law and requirements for compliance
Coral Gables, FL (A) Unknown
North Miami Beach, FL Unknown
Florence County, SC (A) Unknown
Aiken County, SC Worked as ADA coordinator for a college
Daviess County PL, KY (A) State ADA coordinator is able to train and advise staff
Hardin County PL, KY Unknown
Please describe the ADA Coordinator role in terms of bureaucratic structure and reporting line
A = Agreement
City/County/Library Bureaucratic Structure/Reporting Line
Durham, NC (A) Mid-level Manager reports to Assist. Director of General Services
Greensboro, NC Works in Public Affairs Dept. reports to City Manager’s Office
Biloxi, MS (A) Downtown Services Manager reports to the Mayor
*Tupelo, MS Unknown
*Memphis, TN (A) Low/Mid-level Manager reports to Labor Relations Manager
*Knoxville, TN Mid-level Manager reports to Community Development Dep. Director
Birmingham, AL (A) Mid/High-Level Manager reports to Mayor’s Chief of Staff
Montgomery, AL Under Public Works Dept. reports to Public Works Director
*Coral Gables, FL (A) Unknown
North Miami Beach, FL Unknown
Florence County, SC (A) Unknown
Aiken County, SC Well Positioned in County Admin reports to Assist. County Admin.
Daviess County PL, KY (A) Appointed by Library Board Reports to Library Board
*Hardin County PL, KY Unknown
A = Agreement *= Interview Denied
Is there a city/county disability commission or committee?
A = Agreement
City/County/Library Commission/Committee
Durham, NC (A) Mayor’s Comm. on Persons with Disabilities , Parks and Rec Comm.
Greensboro, NC Mayor’s Comm. for Persons with Disabilities, Para-transit Comm.
Biloxi, MS (A) Mayor’s Awareness Committee
Tupelo, MS Unknown
Memphis, TN (A) Mayor’s Advisory Council for Citizens with Disabilities
Knoxville, TN Mayor’s Council on Disability Issues
Birmingham, AL (A) Committee meets once a month
Montgomery, AL Mayor’s Advisory Committee for Improved Accessibility
Coral Gables, FL (A) Coral Gables Advisory Board on Disability Affairs
North Miami Beach, FL No
Florence County, SC (A) Unknown
Aiken County, SC Yes
Daviess County PL, KY (A) Used to be: No contact since we moved
Hardin County PL, KY Unknown
A = Agreement *= Interview Denied
Please describe any ADA compliance specific training programs in place or planned for staff/elected officials.
A = Agreement
City/County/Library Compliance Training
Durham, NC (A) Train employees with slide show/interactive exercise
Greensboro, NC Unknown
Biloxi, MS (A) Trained during 5 year ADA process – Not now
*Tupelo, MS Unknown
*Memphis, TN (A) Unknown
*Knoxville, TN Unknown
Birmingham, AL (A) Part of report to Department of Justice
Montgomery, AL ADA related staff attend ADA continuing education programs
*Coral Gables, FL (A) Unknown
North Miami Beach, FL Unknown
Florence County, SC (A) Unknown
Aiken County, SC New manager training quarterly, compliance training every 3 years
Daviess County PL, KY (A) None
*Hardin County PL, KY Unknown
A = Agreement *= Interview Denied
Please describe the level of interest on the part of elected officials in issues that impact the disability community.
A = Agreement
City/County/Library Level of Interest
Durham, NC (A) Council approves; have broad support from financial committee
Greensboro, NC Active disability community with reg. attendance at council meetings
Biloxi, MS (A) The Mayor is concerned about the impact
*Tupelo, MS Unknown
*Memphis, TN (A) Unknown
*Knoxville, TN Unknown
Birmingham, AL (A) Had council member in wheel chair; now council chambers are accessible, and awareness seems high
Montgomery, AL Medium interaction
*Coral Gables, FL (A) Unknown
North Miami Beach, FL Unknown
Florence County, SC (A) Unknown
Aiken County, SC Elected officials intermittently attend commission meetings
Daviess County PL, KY (A) Board member is attorney for mental health organization
*Hardin County PL, KY Unknown
A = Agreement *= Interview Denied
What would the city find useful in terms of additional guidelines or support from the Department of Justice?
A = Agreement
City/County/Library DoJ Support
Durham, NC (A) Real life interpretation of ADA; Funding for compliance of old buildings
Greensboro, NC In-house ADA training for department managers
Biloxi, MS (A) Hands-on training (e.g. regional seminars or conferences)
*Tupelo, MS Unknown
*Memphis, TN (A) Unknown
*Knoxville, TN Unknown
Birmingham, AL (A) Presentations from DoJ to see what other cities are doing
Montgomery, AL Unknown
*Coral Gables, FL (A) Unknown
North Miami Beach, FL Unknown
Florence County, SC (A) Unknown
Aiken County, SC Emphasis on problems about physical disabilities
Daviess County PL, KY (A) Contact with other ADA coordinators
*Hardin County PL, KY Unknown
A = Agreement *= Interview Denied
Preliminary Findings: ADA Coordinator is key Difficulties identifying policymakers/ADA coordinators
Difficulties interviewing some policymakers/ADA coordinators
Awareness: Difficulty in determining ADA compliance responsibility predictive indicator of general compliance attitude
Most ADA coordinators are appointed, not chosen through competition
ADA coordinators have no consistent training, and often have multiple responsibilities
Status of the ADA compliance person in the local government bureaucracy is important: most are mid-level; access to power is important
In many locations ADA coordinators’ responsibilities loosely defined: initiative and enterprise shown by the individual makes a big difference.
Despite a perceived lack of resources, some cities/counties show awareness of and sensitivity towards ADA implementation
Coordinators who are members of the ADA Coordinators Association more engaged and aware
None of the cities/counties had a firm grip on the costs associated with ADA compliance, beyond a general perception that it was expensive. Some saw it as an “unfunded mandate”
Elected officials reluctant to be interviewed, regarding ADA compliance as an area for specialists
Many requests for direct, relevant training and for help in interpretation of the requirements of the ADA: should become part of any recommendations for future action
Preliminary Findings: Confusion on ADA
Implications for Communities
Most locations that agreed to be interviewed were proactive in ADA implementation, but the goal of full accessibility is an ongoing challenge
Changing staff results in loss of institutional memory
Consider accessibility issues for all contact and staff members
Learn from successful communities
Provide tools and assistance to promote accessibility
Provide organizational power to ADA coordinators
Implications for Communities
Employment is key to greater community participation
Holistic understanding of persons with disabilities Awareness of laws do not necessarily mean
compliance Accessibility impacts:
– Job seeking, attainment, and success– Ability to contribute to one’s community– Ability to access and enjoy the life one desires
Policy Implications Major “disconnect” between Fed level and local level –
perception of program materials delivered and utility of these at odds
Available materials may not meet the needs of end-users – knowledge transfer/best practices sharing would be helpful
Awareness of laws does not necessarily mean compliance Basic “awareness” generally achieved, but education and
implementation needs are ongoing and continuous Policy changes should address requests for direct, relevant, local
training and for help in interpretation of ADA PCA/non PCA interpretation unclear – are cities compliant as a
result of enforcement or merely “putting out policy fires”
Next Steps …
• Complete analysis of responses, including comparative Matrix Analysis of policymakers /administrators perceptions (CDPSI);
Comparison of the accessibility results of the PAR field evaluators with the results of the policymakers awareness
Develop best practices recommendations Output: Policy briefs and papers, policy guidance, “best
practices” Outreach/Dissemination: Presentations for NARRTC, APPAM,
APSA, and Journal articles
Acknowledgements
Southeast DBTAC• Pam Williamson• Shelley Kaplan• Sally Weiss
Southeast DBTAC Affiliate Leadership Council• Rene Cummins • Donna DeStefano • Christy Dunaway • Karen Hamilton • Nancy Duncan • Christie Woodell
CACP• Ben Bellamy• Braeden Benson• Marshall SimsWorkplace Accommodations RERCWireless RERC
Burton Blatt InstituteSyracuse University• Meera Adya• Katie McDonald• Tal Araten-Bergman• Kari Inners• Kaitlin Powers
Thank you!Contact …
Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP) Atlanta GA, 30332
www.cacp.gatech.edu
Paul M.A. Baker, Ph.D. Director of Research
404.385.4618
Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University (NIDRR Grant # H133A060094) © 2011 All Rights Reserved.
This is a publication of the DBTAC: Southeast ADA Center (Southeast DBTAC), Burton Blatt Institute at Syracuse University, which is funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) of the U.S. Department of Education under grant numbers H133A060094. The opinions contained in this publication are those of the grantee and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Department of Education.