the ada: building access in boston? cheryl weiner, b.a. boston university school of public health...
TRANSCRIPT
The ADA: Building Access in Boston?
Cheryl Weiner, B.A.Boston University School of Public Health
Abilities ExpoSeptember 2003
Boston, MassachusettsProject funded by the National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research, United States Department of Education
About the ADA
Passed July 26, 2000
Establishes clear comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability
Includes: employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, health services, voting, and access to public services
Goals of the ADA:
Provide national mandate to eliminate discrimination against individuals with disabilities
Provide standards to address discrimination against individuals with disabilities
To ensure Federal Government is central enforcement agency
Use congressional authority to address major areas of discrimination faced by people with disabilities.
The ADA and Building Access
“No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” ADA Section 302 (a)
What is a Public Accommodation?
Any place, building, or outdoor space which a member of the public can enter with or without a fee including:Service establishments: doctor and dentist offices, gas stations, storesPlaces of entertainment: restaurants,theaters, stadiums, museumsPlaces of public gathering: auditoriums, convention halls, stadiums
What are the requirements for public accommodations?
New buildings must meet all of the ADA Access Guidelines (ADAAG) unless state standard is stricter
Existing public facilities must be made accessible if "readily achievable," i.e. "without much difficulty or expense"
“Readily achievable" alterations are: ramps, curb ramps, rearranging furniture, widening doorways, putting tactile markers on elevators.
Is the ADA reaching its intended populations?
Some gains, but most have focused on wheelchair users
Few changes for those with mobility impairments who do not use wheelchairs
Wayfinding barriers continue to exist for those with visual impairments
Why the Delay?
Few facilitators (environmental factors) exist to improve access
Lack of consistent methods to measure access
Few incentives for buildings to change
Lack of legal enforcement
A Pilot Study on the Functional Access of Persons in the Boston Area
A study comparing the functional access of public buildings for persons
with and without impairments
Conducted by The New England Regional Spinal Cord Injury Center at Boston
University Schools of Medicine and Public Health
Goals of the Study:
To compare the performance of people with impairments to people without impairments
To compare between and among performances of individuals with different types of impairments
To identify barriers and facilitators to functional access
Research team members:
1: (WC) mobility impaired wheelchair user
2: (MI) mobility impaired, cane user
3: (VI) visually impaired
4: Control, no known impairments
Hypotheses:
1. Control will report highest performance for all measures
2. WC user will do better on all outcomes than MI and VI
3. Those reporting more barriers will have a lower rate of task performance than those who do not
Design:
Functional access compared at 30 buildings and facilities in Boston area in 4 categories: Civic institutions: police stations, courthouse Educational buildings: colleges & universitiesTransportation facilities: bus and commuter rail stationsCultural/recreational facilities: gyms, movie theatres, museums
Developing “Challenge Protocol”
Parallels ADA priorities:
Accessible approach/entrance
Access to building-specific goods and services
Usability of restrooms
Additional access (such as drinking fountains and public telephones)
“Challenge” Protocol
Tasks performed by each team member:Enter buildingUse restroomsUse public telephonesUse drinking fountainsAccess seatingSite-specific tasks varied according to building type
Main Outcome Measures:
Functional access based on:
Experience of team member
Number of tasks performed
Time and distance to complete building challenges
Reports of barriers and facilitators for each building challenge
Analysis:
Summary measures of tasks completed
Comparisons of tasks completed among team members
Barriers and facilitators reported including: structural, amenity, interpersonal, wayfinding, and other factors
Structural Barriers:
All team members reported wayfinding barriers, BUT VI and control reported higher percentages (59% and 58%) than MI (26%) and WC (10%) due to poor signage, lighting and confusing layouts
Amenity, interpersonal and other barriers less frequently encountered
Facilitators
Overall, facilitators were high compared to barriers
WC and VI reported the most facilitators
MI reported lowest facilitators
Though results are statistically significant, differences may be due to different reporting standards between subjects
Hypothesis One Findings:Control will report highest performance on all measures
Control reported high task performance, but task performance was high for entire team
No significant differences were detected between time and distance among subjects
Control’s performance score (100%) did not differ greatly from MI (98%) and VI (97%)
WC reported lowest performance score (81%)
Hypothesis Two Findings:WC user will do better on all outcomes than MI and VI
WC did not perform better
WC also reported more barriers and facilitators
This is despite the fact that architectural improvements have been made for wheelchair users
Hypothesis Three Findings:More barriers equal lower task performance
WC reported more barriers and had lower task performance
Control and VI reported fewer barriers and had high task performance
MI reported high number of barriers but had high task performance
Conclusions
Barriers and facilitators are crucial to understanding what restricts or enables access for persons with impairments
Perceptions of barriers and facilitators vary according to impairment
Further research and action is needed to improve functional access for people with varied impairments & functional access
Rising to Action
Strength in numbers – people are out there making a difference and so can you!!!
Contact your federal and state agencies and congress people
Know your rights!!!
Strategies for becoming an effective advocate
Document and file complaints of violations
Educate business owners about the law and compliance measures
Commission functional access surveys for public accommodations
Ways continued
Encourage others to make their voices heard
Go to the press
Seek legal recourse or mediation services if necessary (after thorough research)
Organizations making a difference:
Adaptive Environments: promotes accessibility and universal design through education programs, technical assistance, training, consulting, publications and design advocacy to enable every individual to participate fully in all aspects of society.
More Organizations
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities: advocacy-based coalition of national disability organizations furthering self determination, empowerment, integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all aspects of society.
Organizations Continued
Access Board: Federal agency dedicated to developing and maintaining accessibility requirements for the built environment, transit vehicles, telecommunications equipment, and IT equipment. Also provides technical assistance and training and enforces accessibility standards.