No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutThe Implementation of the ADA By Local Government THE RECOGNITION OF DIFFERENCE: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT 10A A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University , . in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Regional Planning Y .. by Jessica Danielle Skintges � r August 1995 I Abstract The Americans with Disabilities Act (1990) prohibited discrimination against people with disabilities and furthered the efforts to reinvent government services. This thesis traced the effects of mass production and bureaucracy on the lives of people with disabilities, demonstrating the devaluing of these people which ultimately led to their segregation in the 1800s. The case studies focused on the present attempts(1976 to 1994) of the City of Ithaca's government and residents to integrate people with disabilities through the implementation of the ADA. The implementation of the ADA shows that: 1. Ithaca's government action empowers residents rather than serve them. 2. Missions guided actions, but budgets were still guided by rules. 3. Mechanisms were in place to judge action by outcomes not inputs. 4. Citizens wants and input guided many of the government actions. 5. Actions were taken so that Ithaca could be active instead of reactive because they developed strategic planning actively sought citizen input. 6. Government action incorporates residents opposition to current policies and practices. These conclusions were based on five criteria Osborne and Gaebler in Reinventing Government suggested to judge whether not a initiatives reinvent government. Reflective in this thesis is the shift from one paradigm of the economy and governance(the mass paradigm)to another(the tailored paradigm). The mass paradigm encompassed mass production, mass consumption, bureaucracy, centralization and limited citizen participation. The tailored paradigm encompassed craft production, flexible specialization, micro governance, and citizen participation. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH On the eve of finishing this piece, the first of its length, Jessica Skintges knew she had used all she learned since she was in sixth grade. Somehow her sixth grade science class kept coming to mind in the last months of writing. She attended an open middle school in Columbia, Maryland where all the teachers obviously were committed to passing on as little racism and sexism as possible to the students and were committed to each other. They were playful and yet took the students and their education very seriously. This playful seriousness has been the cornerstone of her writing. Whenever she would get stuck in her thinking, she would just play with the words until they said what she wanted them to say. Middle school echoes through her thesis in other ways as well. Middle school was the first place she received a-lot of information about people with disabilities through an awareness program. Throughout the three years she saw this program, she noticed how easy it was for her to think about disability history and what made sense currently. For the first time, she developed relationships with people with severe disabilities. During her eighth grade year, she had two jobs in which the clientele were people with disabilities. The first was through a student job program in which she worked as a teacher's aid at a neighboring school for developmentally disabled people. The second was during that summer. She iii IV worked for a week as a part of a group that took people with developmental disabilities on vacation. In middle school she had no clue that she herself was disabled other than having a few learning disabilities. No one had told her there was a label for why her body shook or the way her voice screeched when excited, or why sports and writing came hard to her. Other people knew and assumed her parents knew. In ninth grade her eighth grade teacher invited her to a workshop about"handicap"being only a word, not a limit. Her parents were perplexed. By this time her family was living on Long Island and going to such a workshop in Maryland would take a lot of travel and money, so the reasons for going came into question, and the decision was made for her not to go. She thought she had been invited because of her ability to think well about the topic. High school began her search for rigor. Prior to high school she was in remedial reading and language arts. Her step-mother noticed how bright she was during middle school even though she received bad grades. When she went to high school her step-mother and she decided she would be in regular classes and she would study several hours a night. She learned how to study and compensate for her learning disabilities. At the Knox School (in New York) in tenth grade she had a great history class which demanded from the students that they work hard. The eleventh grade history class built on that ethic of hard work by requiring students to be accurate with everything from content to format. However, this V teacher left before she could take the eleventh grade history class, and his replacement set much lower expectations of the class. From that moment on, she searched for rigor that she finally found in writing this thesis. It wasn't until she was eighteen that anyone told her that she had cerebral palsy. She was told by her rehabilitation counselor her senior year of high school (she went back to Maryland for her senior year). She spent the next two and a half years at Warren Wilson College in North Carolina. There she studied sociology, became interested in local economics, and explored what it meant to have cerebral palsy. After two and a half years, she transferred to the University of Maryland at Baltimore County in order to study urban sociology. As she studied this topic, she explored the disability movement academically and personally. She wrote two papers on civil rights policies on disabilities a year after the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. These two papers began the background research which was used in her thesis. She decided to go to Cornell's Department of City and Regional Planning, because she wanted tools to be able to act on sociological theory in a concrete way. She wanted to explore economic development and community organization. By this time, disability had become her passion. She decided to combine her search for equity for everyone with her search for equity for her own people and approached her planning education always with one question in mind: for whom are planners making cities accessible: This is dedicated to Nicholas, Antoinette, Eric, Tim, Douglass and my niece or nephew who will be born in the next few weeks. You live in a different time than those of us who have come before you. May all your differences be cherished and celebrated. May you always celebrate other people's differences. This is also dedicated to all the people who always accepted my differences and encouraged me never to give up on my dreams, especially my parents. A ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I must thank many, many people who supported me in many ways to write this thesis: the people who I worked with to implement the Americans With Disabilities Act, the faculty and students at Cornell, my family and my long-term friends. Leslie Chatterton allowed me to use what I learned from our project to be used as the basis for my writing. The actual collection of material was only possible because I was so accepted into the texture of the Ithaca Department of Planning and Development. If she had never hired me as her intern/consultant, I would never have gained access to all the materials or people who made this thesis possible. Furthermore, Leslie became my mentor and taught me skills with joy. She brought me into the process and made me a partner in the venture of implementing the ADA. She believed in me and held me to high standards —who could ask for a better mentor. I will always be in debt to her for the wealth of knowledge I gained from her. The respect and welcoming of the Ithaca Department of Planning and Development made my job easy. My time with them will never leave my mind. I will always look forward to staff meetings and encourage organizations to hire interns, because of the year and a half I spent working for the City of Ithaca. Vii viii Not only did city staff embrace me and my work, so did the members of the Disabilities Advisory Council. They spent countless hours with me, talking about our work together. Brenda Kuhn acted as a continual sounding board from the beginning of my time at Cornell about issues facing our people. If she had never told me about Leslie Chatterton's work, I never would have met her my first spring, which eventually led to my internship. Brenda also supplied the citizen participation chronology and gave me all her notes from years of work with the disability community. The faculty at Cornell required me to think through completely the relationship between accessibility and cities, for which I will always be thankful. I would like to thank Susan Christopherson for pointing out to Pierre Clavel the idea of the"Recognition of Difference." Without this idea, my case study would not be put into such a large and timely context. My appreciation to Pierre Clavel, my advisor, is bigger than I could ever write. Pierre spent hours, from the moment I arrived at Cornell to the time I defended, assisting me in refining my ideas until my thesis became one complete and elegant thought. I must thank KC Parsons for supporting as my minor member. He supported me in turning my internship into a thesis. I put on paper a first analysis of my case study, because of his agreement to be my advisor when I was an intern for the City of Ithaca. Eric Clay helped me refine my ideas over and over again with his understanding of the marriage between accessibility, equity and cities that was never faltering. Eric lent his grasp of theory to me and for that I will always be in debt to him. No work is ever done in isolation, but as a result of everything going on in a person's life. My friends' and family's support of my endeavor never wavered. My mother asking me to explain my thesis over and over again so she could tell her friends what I was doing always clarified my thoughts. Late night phone calls to my father got me through nights I could not sleep. It was always good to discuss the theoretical framework with him at two in the morning. Both of my parents' confidence that I would finish allowed me never to doubt it. Finally, the support of my friends was amazing. The friends I made at Cornell first and foremost modeled the fact that writing such a task was possible. The fun we had and the support we lent one another to finish our projects so we could continue with our dreams was great. Linda Schade supported me unendingly. We spent hours plotting out my thesis over meals. In the end, Kim Dupchecks read my final draft and worked with me to clarify my final ideas. The hours of preparation for our defenses were some of the most intense work I did on my thesis. My friends who I have known since high school or before turned out to be a great source of knowledge in the end. Four of them spent time proof reading so that I could polish my thinking. Jill Severt-Kong's deft perceptions which she wrote down as she edited softened many of my rough edges. Robert Height spent hours holding my hand as I revised Chapter 1 for the 28th time. Drew Newmen's comments prepared me for my defense and again furthered my own understanding of the relationships between my theory and case studies. Betsy Hyman only read the first seven pages; her comment made all the difference. Ann Forno's enthusiasm the last two weeks of writing helped me to keep writing with joy. I would like to thank the following people for their unwavering support at various times: Kathy Luz, Anna Korteweg, Nancy Currin, Patrick Walkishaw, Dan Cogen, Tim Everts, Mary Lear, Margo Hittleman, Philip Bennett, Joann Miner, Wendy Kohli, Jeffrey Parish, Joe Halloran, Judith Geller, and Jan Blacka. I never would have continued to remember how important writing this thesis was without them to listen to my doubts. I would like to thank myself for never sacrificing my passion just to get it done. O w Oro O G' - O O T G T O p O c, 3 on w 0 y T s� 3 o N u v Al ,�. O O O N O ''✓ fa yon O ovO a o � „o- o °� o �oo � ° p � y ,d � y ['' r v v 3 It O w G N 4) W n On on O T O y y y«+ v p u' O p � p �, r+ .y � w f7p cyd •b,�n � � v'd � O O O H -O .p 7' i cad �yGj ✓ N � : 0 ci 'O A -0 N .+ N N Y -0 N T p' v O G O y cd y p ro r r ,o u o�n o 3 ° R Q .0 A O -o �, ,r. xi Table of Contents BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH iii DEDICATION vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS vii LA LUCHA xi TABLE OF CONTENTS XII LIST OF TABLES xv CHAPTER 1 1 THE RECOGNITION OF THE VALUE IN SDm ARTTY TURNS TO THE RECOGNITION OF VALUE IN DIFFERENCE 1 CHAPTER 2 8 ECONOMIC AND GOVERNMENT PARADIGMS EFFECT ON PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 8 PARADIGM SHIFTS AS THEY RELATE TO THE ECONOMY AND GOVERNANCE 8 THE MASS PARADIGM'S EFFECT ON PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 10 Mass Production 13 Bureaucracy 15 The Disability Industry 16 THE TRANSITION FROM THE MASS PARADIGM TO THE TAILORED PARADIGM. 23 THE TAILORED PARADIGM'S EFFECT ON PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 24 Craft Production and Flexible Specialization 24 Reinvented Government 25 The Disability Industry and the Tailored Paradigm 26 CHAPTER THREE 30 CIVIL RIGHTS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES 30 THE PASSAGE OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 30 PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND ACCESSIBILITY 31 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 32 aii AN OVERVIEW OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT REQUIREMENT ON GOVERNMENTS ACTIVITY 34 OVERVIEW OF DISABmrrY MOVEMENT 35 CHAPTER FOUR 38 EFFORTS BY THE CITY OF ITHACA TO INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY 38 EARLY EFFORTS 40 THE SECOND STAGE OF ACCESSIBILITY INITIATIVES 41 THE TIERD STAGE OF ACCESSIBILITY INITIATIVES 43 PROCESS AND RESULTS FROM ACCESS®ILrTY SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY THE CITY OF ITHACA 44 1985 SURVEY 44 Citizen Participation 44 Survey Questions 45 Results 46 Final Report 47 Transition Plan 47 Action Taken Based on Recommendations 49 Buildings: Percent of Recommendations in Priority 50 Public Input 51 Percent of Recommendations in Priority 51 1993 SURVEY 51 Citizen Participation from the City's Point of View S2 Survey Questions 52 Results 53 Final Report and Planned Actions 54 PRELD,CNARY CONCLUSION 55 CHAPTER FIVE 56 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION 56 CHARACTERISTICS AND STATISTICS ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE DAC 59 DAC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 60 PROCESS AND PROCEDURE 64 PRELRONARY CONCLUSIONS 65 CHAPTER SIX 66 IS ITHACA REALLY RECOGNIZING DIFFERENCE? 66 THE APPLICATION OF THE 6 CRITERIA TO CASE STUDY 67 Government Action Empowered Residents Rather Than Serve Them 68 Missions Guide Actions and Budgets instead of Rules 69 Initiatives are Judged by Outcomes not Inputs 72 Customers'Wants and Input Drive Government Action 74 Actions are Active instead of Reactive 76 aiii Government action incorporates residents opposition to current policies and practices 78 CONCLUSION 81 APPENDIX A 83 COMPARISON OF EFFORTS TO INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY BY CHOCK AND CHATTERTON 83 COMPARISON OF EFFORTS BY CHOCK AND CHATTERTON TO INCREASE ACCESSIBILITY 84 APPENDIX B 86 1985 SELF-EVALUATION SURVEY 86 APPENDIX C 92 RAW DATA RESULTS FROM 1985 SELF-EVALUATION SURVEY 92 APPENDIX D 96 1993 SELF-EVALUATION SURVEY 96 CITY OF ITHACA 97 APPENDIX E. 109 RAW DATA RESULTS FROM 1993 SELF-EVALUATION SURVEY 109 APPENDIX F 118 RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 1993 SELF-EVALUATION SURVEY 118 Policies 119 Notice 120 Poster 121 Pamphlet/Audio Tape 121 Stationary 122 Agendas/Meeting Notices/Legal Ads 122 Up-dating the Self-evaluation. 123 Training 123 BIBLIOGRAPHY 125 aiv ' LIST OF TABLES CHART I: PRIORITIES SET IN THE TRANSITION PLAN 50 CHART II: ACTION TAKEN BASED ON THE TRANSITION PLAN 51 CHART III: ACTION TAKEN BASED ON THE TRANSITION PLAN 52 zv Chanter 1 The Recognition of the Value in Similarity turns to the Recognition of Value in Difference The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibited discrimination against people with disabilities. By targeting discrimination, it was similar to other civil rights legislation. In keeping with our liberal rights based traditions, it assumed that fundamentally people are the same and deserve equal treatment. Past legislation, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, required equal treatment within the assumption that everyone is essentially the same—regardless of race, gender, or disability. The ADA, however, took civil rights a step further by requiring those providing goods, services, and employment to recognize and act upon the different ways people with disabilities acquire information, communicate, and use the environment.' The leap from the color blindness of the 1960s to the recognizing strength in difference in the 1990s resulted not only from developments within the prevailing model There is precedent for this argument in the field of gender discrimination. The argument moved from treating all people alike regardless of their relation to the child-bearing process to making special accommodations of the fact that women get pregnant. Similar arguments have been made with height requirements in order to accommodate the fact that women are shorter than men. Note,however,that the claim is not that there is strength in being shorter or differently-heighten,but that society benefits when everybody participates and height should not be a barrier. 1 2 of civil rights, but also from a shift in the dominant paradigm of governance and the economy at large. "Strength in difference" is the theme of most race and gender issues in the 1990s. The current argument presented by the disability rights activists also embraces this theme. Although many people may not see the assets of having a disability the way they see the assets of having a different cultural approach or being the sex which gets pregnant, disability rights activists do see it this way. Having a disability can be an asset. The limits a disability and society places on a person forces a different perspective. For example, a person who uses a wheelchair brings the perspective of a different height and a different reaching range. This perspective, if acted upon by changing the built environment, makes life easier for many people by making light switches and outlets more reachable. If a student has a hard time writing, he may ask for the teacher to repeat the main points. This benefits the whole class, because most teachers go too fast, and most students do not slow them down.' Many disabilities cause people to slow down and think before they act, an asset to any project. The deaf community argues that they have their own culture with its own language, theater, poetry and storytelling. (Shapiro 74-104) Regardless of the perspective disability brings, it is clear that we now value these people because they are people first and disability is just one of their characteristics. In The Second Industrial Divide (1984), Piore and Sabel proposed that during the 1980s the dominant economic paradigm of mass production and mass consumption was in crisis ]I have found this to be true in the last eight years of my education. The questions I asked of teachers to repeat information benefited the whole class. 3 and it was likely to shift to flexible specialization and consumer differentiation. Nine years later, Osborne and Gaebler in Reinventing Government describe a similar change from mass governance towards more tailored solutions to public sector problem. (Osborne and Gaebler 12)Mass governance refers to governing by bureaucracy, centralization, and regulatory policies in the name of efficiency. Although Osborne and Gaebler never label their observations a paradigm shift, I place their work in such a context. I do this because the two works together point to changes in the political and economic climate and it allows me to place the significance of the ADA in a larger context. Mass production and mass government models operate on the idea that it is most equitable and profitable to play to people's similarities; this idea assumes that all people have the same wants that can be fulfilled with the same products and services. I label this the"mass paradigm," a principle which addressed the people's common needs en masse. Flexible specialization and tailored solution models operate on the idea that it is most equitable and profitable to play on people's differences; this assumes that although people have similar basic wants, they have a variety of ways of fulfilling them. It was this change in the political and economic climate as well as the action that produced and followed the change in climate that fostered and enabled the passage of the ADA. Piore and Sabel described one possible challenging paradigm as one which recognized value in flexible specialization and consumer differentiation. (Fiore and Sabel, 28-35) Osborne and Gaebler not only described a similar shift within the realm of government, they also prescribed criteria by which to judge government efforts which I used to judge 4 movement from the old model to a new one of micro governance and citizens participation. (Osborne and Gaebler 207) I label this the"tailored" paradigm, a principle by which individual needs are addressed. The tailored paradigm provides flexibility for changing output to meet different needs. This"craft production" is possible because of new technology, primarily computers. Computers allow plants to change their output by reprogramming. (Fiore and Sabel 260) Hence, a tennis shoe plant can perform short runs of different types of shoes without physical adjustment in the equipment. Due to the flexibility of technology, industries are able to provide differing products to meet the needs of different consumers. The rise in different telephones was . due to deregulation policy, the ability of manufacturers to produce different telephones, and consumers having obvious different needs(a household has a different need then a small company and a small company has a different need than a large company). Government has also become more flexible and to some extent this was because of the use of computers. Planning Departments can produce maps at a rate never before possible. Governments are able to survey residents and tabulate results at a speed that makes it much more advantages to do so. This speed allows citizen participation of many more people than ever before. Governments which have embraced the tailored paradigm work in many new ways from budgeting procedure to service provision. My work builds on Piore and Sabel and Osborne and Gaebler's theories and shows that flexible specialization, consumer differentiation, micro governance and citizen 5 participation taken together demonstrate a recognition of the inherent value of difference within the public and private sector. This recognition can be seen by comparing the implementation of ADA to the implementation of past laws at the local level. Osborne and Gaebler's criteria can be applied to the comparison to show movement towards micro governance and citizen participation. Although all ten of their criteria could be used to judge whether a government has embraced a new standard, because I investigated only one initiative, I used the following relevant criteria: 1. Government action empowers residents rather than serves them. 2. Missions instead of rule guided actions and budgets. 3. Initiatives are judged by outcomes not inputs 4. Customers' wants and input drive government actions 5. Actions are active instead of reactive because they are guided by long term budgeting and strategic planning as well as citizen input One indicator that local governments were embracing a new way of governance would be to determine if they were including these criteria in their approach and implementation of ADA where they did not use such methods with earlier implementation of anti- discrimination legislation. Employing action that incorporate such criteria(deliberate or not)demonstrates movement from one set of assumptions to the next. Osborne and Gaebler did a good job of describing the inner workings and changes in government. However, their discussion lacked regard of the effect changes outside government had on governance styles. They miss the fact that many government initiatives began because of questions raised by citizens organizations outside the government structure. Those involved in such challenges to local government, have not 6 traditionally been involved in the past Residents have not only raise the initial questions, but they have become apart of designing and implementing local government policy which answer their questions. Examples of such challenges would be residents concerned with environmental issues challenging governmental planning practices or residents concerned about government fostering inclusion or exclusion of people from services challenge governments general policies and practices. Therefore I add a sixth criteria to their five: 6. Government action incorporate resident opposition to current policies and practices. Sherry Arnstien in The Ladder of Citizen Participation described levels of citizen participation in government ranging from token participation to citizen control. These levels will be used to judge the amount of government action has incorporated resident opposition to current policies and practices. What follows is addressed to people interested in the big picture and the little picture, structural change of the economy and governance and the change in actions and attitudes of local governments towards people with disabilities. By applying the above criteria, I examine changes over the last fifteen years by the government of Ithaca, New York and local residents' efforts to implement anti-discrimination legislation. Through these two case studies, I discuss Ithaca's movement towards a new way of government. Most of the data about efforts in Ithaca was gathered through participant observation and through interviews with key informants. I worked as an intern for the City of Ithaca's ADA coordinator for the first year and a half of implementation efforts. 7 Chapter 2 provides a theoretical framework by explaining paradigm shifts and how the particular one described by Piore and Sabel and Osborne and Gaebler relates to people with disabilities. Chapter 3 provides the historical background needed to understand the case studies. This includes information on the ADA and previous anti-disability- discrimination legislation, and background on the nationwide disability rights movement. Chapter 4 tells the administrative side of Ithaca's attempt to increase access to people with disabilities. Chapter 5 describes the citizens' story of the fight for equal rights. These chapters look at implementation of the ADA and previous legislation to depict the differences in implementation. Chapter 6 analyzes the data presented in the two case studies using Osborne and Gaebler's criteria for the recognition of difference and answers the questions: how much has the local government of Ithaca changed and do these changes constitute a recognition of difference? Chapter 2 Economic and Government Paradigms Effect on People with Disabilities PARADIGM SHIFTS AS THEY RELATE TO THE ECONOMY AND GOVERNANCE Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, applied the notion of paradigms (patterns or models)to the understanding of the way the world works. Usually one paradigm prevails as the dominant one, and it becomes dominant by being the"set of assumptions about reality that explains the world and solves problems better than any competing paradigm." (Clavel 2) As technology begins to disprove the assumptions of one paradigm, a new paradigm will develop which incorporates the new discoveries. As technology changes, dominant paradigms change. New technology allows people to ask questions for which the dominant model provided unsatisfactory answers or no answers at all. The new technology which answers these questions shape the model for the new dominant paradigm Building on Kuhn's notion, Piore and Sabel believed that a technological paradigm drives a cultural vision of efficiency. (Fiore and Sabel 44) Possible technological paradigm 8 9 choices are dependent on available technology and policy decisions regarding how to use that technology. In other words, technology and policy decisions share a dialectical relationship. New technology is constantly being developed, but whether and how it is used on a widespread basis depends largely on policy choices by national governments. There are lots of choices about how to best use the technology, however, no previous choice determines a future paradigm. The strength-in-difference model presented here is one set of answers to the questions currently being explored with success. Economic and governance paradigms change when technology allows the people involved to ask questions which had no answers under the previous explanation for the distribution of resources and the way policy is decided and enacted. For these ideals to change, the people involved including producers, customers and those outside the current system must raise questions and provide answers. The answers which work over and over again become the new paradigm. In between the time people began to ask questions and the time answers are seen as valid, broad-based solutions, the dominant paradigm is in chaos and no one is sure which answers will become the new one. Piore and Sabel can this juncture a divide. In the instance of going from the mass paradigm to the tailored paradigm the questions became: How do we as a country provide for the greatest number of people? How do we include the greatest number of people as productive members of society? Is it more efficient to take into account people who fit this one able-body mold and have the rest on welfare or are we at a juncture in history where society can incorporate people's 10 differences and have it be efficient? This lead to questions such as: How should one take into account the inescapable fact that people are different? To what degree should one acknowledge differences? To what degree should one allow that difference to make someone more or less privileged or valued? According to both books, the dominant paradigm of governance and economy has been in chaos from the late 1960s and early 1970s to beyond 1993, beyond the publication of either book. (The Second Industrial Divide was published in 1984 and Reinventing Government was published in 1993). In order to examine the ADA as a indicator of a new standard, one needs a history of the Industrial Era in relation to the lives of people with disabilities. The next section applies the version of the dominant paradigm as presented by Piore and Sabel and Osborne and Gaebler to the lives of people with disabilities. I chose to apply the paradigm to this population to demonstrate the influence basic assumptions about efficiency have on people's lives. THE MASS PARADIGM'S EFFECT ON PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES Piore and Sabel discussed the divide between the industrial era and the eras before and after by describing the dialectical relationship between technology and policy. I take a different tack and discuss these changes in relation to people's lives. The dominant paradigm which explain mass production and bureaucracy affected people's lives tremendously. For many people, these new systems were a way out of poverty and fear, but for many more it brought new types of oppression—for all it brought new fears. The Industrial Era changed people's lives in good ways. Millions of people who once would 11 have died because of injury, illness and unsanitary conditions now live very healthy lives due to medical advances, new drugs and sanitary regulation. As the paradigm solidified, the willingness to see people's similarities, and their ability to contribute allowed many more people into the mainstream regardless of their religion, national origin race, or gender. Life in many ways in 1995 was better than it was 150 years earlier due to this idea that it is more efficient to play to people's similarities. The world saw many inventions which changed the way people set up their lives. The worst invention was nuclear armament which touched almost everyone in some way. The best allowed people to live very diverse lives and still know how other people lived. Automobiles, airplanes, radios, televisions, and computers allowed people and information to travel at a pace never possible before. This affected family structure, education, business, government all aspects of life. Other inventions just changed how people went through their daily life. With widespread electrification people could work and play all hours of the day and night. Work and play have been altered in ways that few would have ever imagined. People with disabilities are an illustrative population to explain the effects of the paradigm which ran governance and the economy, because during this time a person's value was defined by their productivity. At the same time, governance became increasingly responsible for social welfare. Because people with disabilities had little value in this new society, mechanisms were developed to remove"unsightly" people from local communities. These mechanisms were developed by state, county, and local governments. 12 Bureaucracy echoed throughout the walls of the institutions in which many people with disabilities were forced to reside. Not all of these institutions were run by governments, however, all institutions incorporated bureaucracy and were influenced by the state run systems. Government assumed that it was more efficient to sustain people with disabilities than to enable them. This never benefited people with disabilities as can be seen by the death rates in institutions. The death rate at an asylum in Rome New York ranged between 31 to 49 per 100 a year in the early twentieth century, a much higher rate than the general public where the range was between 15-19. (Furgeson 140) Policy decisions were based on the assumption that it would be more expensive to have people with disabilities in the workplace than to keep them separate and on welfare. Furthermore, sustaining people with disabilities was policy as long as it did not encourage an increase in the people with disabilities. Many policies aimed at reducing people with disabilities. Through the eugenics movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s, Spencer's theory of Social Darwin's applied Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest was applied to the human condition. Some people were more fit then others and those less fit would whither away. This idea was applied to all undesirables and culminated with the Holocaust as a way to ensure their elimination. Behind Alexander Graham Bell's(a leader of deaf education) notion of integration of the deaf into the"mainstream"was this idea. (Shapiro, p.97)He had noticed that deafness was hereditary, though it skipped generations. He thought that if deaf people married each other than they would increase the population of 13 the deaf, therefore if people were integrated than the likelihood of passing on deaf genes were lessened. Bell was an aberration; most eugenics supporters advocated for the separation and sterilization of people who were weaker, such as the feebleminded (now labeled developmentally disabled). Until recently, state laws required people who were mentally retarded to be sterilized if they intended to marry. The eugenics movement defined weakness by looking at the parts of people and not the whole person. This mirrored the"vision of efficiency" used by industrialists. The mass paradigm encompassed and linked mass production, bureaucracy and disability. Two main ideas inform the mass paradigm: 1) efficiency is reached by reducing production to its smallest component and 2) efficiency is reached when large quantities of the product or service are produced and consumed. These ideas permeated all solutions to problems faced in the economy, government and in mechanisms governing the lives of people with disabilities. The next section explains the underlying structure of mass production and bureaucracy in order to look at the lives of people with disabilities under the same lens. MASS PRODUCTION Mechanization shaped the Industrial Era in many ways. New technology allowed for mechanization and offered new ways of producing goods. Mechanization allowed for production to be reduced to a series of tasks requiring minimum skill. The most useful way to use the large labor force became to narrowly train them in one task. In order to sustain this technology and mode of production, factories needed to maintain high output levels. Large parts of the markets needed to be captured in order to make this efficient. 14 This need gave birth to the modern private corporation which merged smaller businesses and set up rules of production and sales. With larger markets, the best strategy was to produce standard products. All this translated into rigid specialization, meaning that plants and corporations specialized in one product (i.e. washing machines or automobiles). As farming became a less viable option for many, because of mechanization, customers responded and inadvertently encouraged this new type of production by buying ready- made products instead of making them or living without them. In fact, I would say their agreement with this model of production, eventually led to the growth of cities. People could not make enough money to afford this more convenient style of living on the farm or in small towns, therefore they moved to the city to work in jobs which paid enough to afford this life style. People began to prefer "perfect," machine-made products to their own and stopped believing in their ability to adequately produce them. This did not happen in a vacuum. People were both looking for a more efficient way of working and advertisers held campaigns with similar messages. When this model failed to provide enough to live on for the majority of the population in the United States during the Great Depression, policy makers chose to intervene in order to keep mass production intact,but in a way that did not harm the country. Prior to the Great Depression government held laissez faire economic policies which kept the government away from curbing any economic activity. The new role for government in the"New Deal' era solidified the bureaucracy that started with the Progressive Era. 15 BUREAUCRACY Bureaucracy within the government sector began prior to the Great Depression, but the anti-Depression measures solidified this way of governance. The mass paradigm began in the government sector during the late 1800s with the birth of the Progressive Era as a reaction to boss run local governments. Boss run governments were characterized by politicians guaranteeing jobs for votes and by an enormous amount of graft between governments workers and specific ethnic groups. (Osborne and Gaebler 13)The early solutions developed to prevent corruption of government action included professionalism of government positions and entrenched procedures in rules and regulations. (Osborne and Gaebler 13; Clavel 1) These solutions became encased in the Keynesian economic policies as the Federal government tried to encourage the recovery from the Great Depression. Centralization of services was a byproduct of the programs which resulted from these policies. All the services in all the states followed the same rules and each program was under the guidance of one federal agency. Economies of scale came into play. The programs were only economical if implemented en masse. The services were needed to ensure income to millions of people in order to have the required effect of recovery. Although post Depression recovery projects were very tailored towards specific regions, the employment policies and practices treated people the same. Programs that addressed housing for families targeted specific people who were similar while excluding others (original public housing was for whites only). The rules and regulations made it impossible to meet any particular person's needs and created an atmosphere where those implementing the regulations treated everyone the 16 same. This bureaucracy in the system stemmed from both the new methods of efficiency and strong concern about corruption of these new programs. Division of a product into even more specialized tasks again became the most apt way of running an institution. Professionalism separated people by their training. As professionalism continued, all levels of government separated their functions into different departments: planning, accounts, inspections. Rules and regulations boiled policies and programs down to the finest details and, therefore, reinforced the separation of tasks. THE DISABILITY IND USTRY Over the last 200 years, an industry has formed to meet the needs of people with disabilities or the perceived needs. (Albrecht 15)The disability industry's foundation is directly linked to the recognition of similarity among people. The concepts which shaped mass production and bureaucracy, also built the disability industry. Reducing things to their smallest components influenced the disability industry from redefining the idea of "handicap," to separating from the mainstream people with disabilities to the physical layout of institutions by separating people based on productivity levels. Prior to mass production, the word handicap referred to a person in poverty. The word comes from a time when beggars would stand outside city walls with their cups in hand asking for money. Mass production tied the word handicap to a person's ability to perform tasks. 17 The major idea behind mass production was to break down a task to its smallest components in order for work to be efficient. If one part were made incorrectly, however, then the whole product failed or was defective. If a product had a defect there had to be an analysis of the costs and benefits of investing more time and energy into making it conform versus making another. If the product were of high value and the defect slight, then it may have been worth repairing or overlooking the flaw. But more and more often the disposal of a product for even a minor flaw was the first instinct. Products came to be valued not by how well they were made, but by how difficult it would be to replace them. Likewise, with people, some disabilities were worth overlooking or repairing. But as the recognized roles people performed became more and more standardized, people came to be valued not by the quality of their contribution but by how difficult it would be to replace them. The benefit of investing in"flawed" people rather than replacing them came to be seen as not worth the cost. So if somebody's foot or vocal cords did not work,then they were failures and defective. The mass paradigm separated people into institutions under the idea that it is most manageable to separate by like components, thus focusing on the ways in which a person with a disability is like other disabled people instead of like other neighbors in his or her community. Prior to the establishment of large institutions(late 1800s), families had three methods of dealing with a family member with a disability. First, the family member could stay at home. Often localities would financially assist in maintaining the family unit if the family itself could not afford to keep the person at home. (Ferguson 26) Second, the family member could stay with a community member. For example, a local resident would 18 take in a person with (what is now called) mental retardation and provide care for them. The family and local government would reimburse the person for their expenses. Local officials oversaw this process and would locate where people would stay. The third alternative were almshouses run by municipal governments. Almshouses had a dual mission. First, they were to provide a subsistence living for those who could not work. Second, they were to be work houses for the impoverished. This duel mission translated into harsh conditions for all residents. Local officials feared that the poor would use almshouses as an alternative to work. To keep this from happening, almshouses provided little provisions thus swinging from a theory of rehabilitation to a theory of punishment. (Ferguson 31-2) Almshouses were the predecessors to large institutions. Almshouses housed people with all types of disabilities as long as they were poor. Institutions separated out different types of disabilities: there were schools for the blind, institutions for the"insane," and institutions for"idiots." The conditions of almshouses and institutions were deplorable. People lived chained to iron balls and left naked. Institutions were also separated by short term and long term care. After World War I, long after long-term institutions were established, short term institutions such as hospital and rehabilitation centers were developed to handle the onset of disabilities. Prior to World War I, hospitals only provided medical care for the poor, after World War I began to provide care for everyone. 19 The idea of separating people with disabilities not only separated people by disability type, but also by ability. If people were thought to be able to produce anything at all, they worked for institutions either in sheltered workshops or as custodians for less functioning inmates or were hired out to do menial work for local employers. Wards in institutions themselves were separated by ability. The disability industry also encapsulated the idea of economies of scale. As stated above, prior to the mass paradigm, people stayed in their own community. Centralization of the disability industry followed the same path as many other governmental agencies. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, New York state had established boards to run the system of care for the disabled in institutions. As the state took over care, institutions grew larger embracing the theory of economies of scale. At that time, institutional care was seen as the proper care. Leaving people with severe disabilities at home was seen as dangerous to the family and community and harmful to the person with the disability. This belief fueled the need for larger institutions. In this industry can be also seen the rise of professionalism. Only certain educated people were capable of providing adequate care. In truth, only the top administrator at these institutions had special training (usually training as a physician). Along with the professionalism and the boards, came rules and regulations. Institutions existed for sixty years, before the federal government passed any laws to prepare people with disabilities for employment. After World War L veterans encouraged the federal government to set up a vocational rehabilitation program. This action by veterans began 20 the federal involvement in regulating the lives of people with disabilities beyond VA hospitals. From the late 1920 until recently, the federal legislation took the lives of people with disabilities out of the private realm of families and local communities to the public realm. Bureaucracy surrounded these policies and made a dehumanizing vision of these people into a dehumanizing process. Some of these programs are very familiar to people such as Social Security Disability Insurance, other are less well know such as Rehabilitation Services. Until recently, these programs encouraged people with disabilities not to be a part of the work force by making funds available only to those who could not work. Vocational Rehabilitation assisted only the mildly disabled, because they were deemed employable. Not that this was all the fault of the rehabilitation services, businesses just would not hire people with disabilities. In the early 1960s, Edward Roberts was refused rehabilitation funding because he was seen as unemployable. Only after much media coverage did Roberts receive funding. Roberts was a quadriplegic who spent several hours a day in an iron long. He finally got into Berkeley where he lived in the infirmary and eventually began the independent living movement. By 1976, he was in charge of the California Rehabilitation Services. (Shapiro 42-55) Roberts' story disproves the theory behind the Vocational Rehabilitation policy that only the less disabled were employable. I postulate that alongside the rise in federal programs for people with disabilities, came the rise of classification of different disabilities. In the 1800s, people were lumped into groups 21 such as idiot, blind, deaf, etc. Now there are a million different diagnoses and hundreds of specialists to diagnose and treat them. A part of the reason diagnoses increased was the increase in medical attention to disabilities with better technology not only to keep people alive after the onset of disabilities, but also to treat them after onset. However, the classification of disabilities was encouraged by national programs which required very detailed and rigid descriptions of people's conditions. Through this one sees how technology and national policy are informed by a paradigm. Many other models of people with disabilities could have been proposed, but the mass paradigm dominated. Through rules and regulations people became their disability. National programs and classifications had large affects on anyone's life who came in contact with people with disabilities. The need to document disabilities in order to get aid from the government tied people to the medical system. This gave doctors a permanent clientele and a"godlike" mystique for doctors became the only ones who could give people a decent life. Medicalization of disabilities emphasized the seriousness of differences. This system took the control of people with disabilities' lives from them and their families to strangers who may or may not even know their names. Families with a member with disabilities spent huge amounts of time working with agencies to get the "care" the member needed. The social construction of disability during the Industrial Era emphasized people's differences which lead to a greater segregation. Segregationist policies continued until the mid 1960s. People with disabilities lived in institutions, schools, and nursing homes. In 22 the 1960s, people began to question the usefulness of these institutions. Reports began to show the terrible conditions of institutions and nursing homes. The passage of Section 504 Of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act and the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 was the first national attempts to integrate people with disabilities. Section 504 prohibited any entity which received federal money from discriminating against people with disabilities. However, the implementation of Section 504 led to separate"but equal" programs in local governments. The segregation of the past allowed local governments to discard the needs of people with disabilities as governments' role expanded. Local governments did not need to include the blind or deaf in public meetings, or worry about someone with a mobility impairment traveling in public buses. Now with the passage of the ADA, local governments must figure this out and many want to given the recent integration. The policies which guided the lives of people with disabilities did not encompassed Osborne and Gaebler's criteria of new government. Government disempowered people with disabilities by encouraging institutionalization. Rules guided social policies set up to "help", never allowing the flexibility to have people decide their own fate. Policies were definitely judged by input and not outcome. If someone had been concerned about output, the death rates in institutions would have implied something was wrong. The policies were not guided by the wants of customers (people with disabilities and their families), but instead guided by the professionals who supposedly knew what was better. Long term budgeting and strategic planning only happened for the life of institutions, but 23 institutions did not empower people. There was no citizen input to the early policies surrounding the lives of people with disabilities. THE TRANSITION FROM THE MASS PARADIGM TO THE TAILORED PARADIGM. Questioning of the mass paradigm started during the late 1960s. This is evident from the attempts to include people with disabilities in particular parts"mainstream" society. People began developing alternative models to large institutions and the centralization of the disability industry. Community-based group homes were developed for people with mental and developmental disabilities. People with disabilities of all kinds began asserting their right to live independently and to be included in all aspects of life. They began demanding that they be in control of their lives, not the so called"experts." The most disabled demanded that they be trained and that Rehabilitation Services not deem them unemployable. "Independent Living Centers" were set-up by people with disabilities to assist each other to find housing and break down other barriers to inclusion. In the late 1970's and early 1980s, new technology helped them see their vision to fruition. New aluminum tubing, originally used for gliders, was used to make light-weight wheelchairs. (Shapiro 211-212) These chairs people could put in their car without assistance from other people. Cars were adapted so that people who have limited use of their legs and arms can drive. Technology became the great liberator. (Shapiro 219) Computers were developed to assist people in most every aspect of their lives. Some allowed people to talk who had no voice. Some allowed people to be able to read who 24 could not see by scanning information in to the computer and the computer would then read it to the person. Some allow people who cannot use their hands to type, type by voice or by gazes of the eye with an eye-gaze system first developed for"Israeli and U.S. jet fighter pilots." (Shapiro 221) THE TAILORED PARADIGM'S EFFECT ON PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In the questioning of the mass paradigm institutions for people with disabilities, the elements of the tailored paradigm developed as it developed in other areas of government and the economy. The passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act signified the solidification of these elements into an actual new tailored paradigm. Piore and Sabel's hethesis that a new paradigm develops from the dialectical process is seen here. Technology of assistive devices, community-based living and independent living culminated in the ADA which guarantees people with disabilities inclusion in society. ADA mandated new employment and government practices. Places of public accommodation, transportation and telecommunications must be accessible. CRAFT PRODUCTION AND FLEXIBLE SPECIALIZATION The vision that drove craft production of the 1800s was"independent craftsman linked by dependency on one another's skill." This has been reclaimed in flexible specialization. Flexibility is"the capacity continually to reshape the productive process through the rearrangement of its components." (Fiore and Sabel 269) Specialization is when"the of possibilities arrangements is bounded and the aim of redeployment limited." (Fiore and Sabel 269) Computerization has been use to further production along this road. Just as 25 mechanization was central to mass production, computerization was central to flexible specialization. Flexible specialization changed the nature of firms on the macro level in three major ways. 1) Firms became invested in their location, committed to the communities where they were located and were they did business. (Fiore and Sabel 269) (Ben and Jerry gives grants to community groups where their stores are located.) 2) Competition is encouraged for the sake of innovation, but is limited by the need for firms to share resources. This impacts wages and working conditions most. (Fiore and Sabel 270) and 3)Firms employ broadly trained labor. If production needs to be flexible, so do those running it. Flexible specialization also changed nature of firms on the micro level in four ways. 1) The hierarchy of firms were flattened. (Fiore and Sabel 281) 2)Lower level supervisors were given more authority. (Fiore and Sabel 281) 3) The cost of producing small lots went down. (Fiore and Sabel 281) 4) Firms downsized. (Fiore and Sabel 281) Craft production and flexible specialization allows producers to provide product that fit people's differences. Firms redefined markets from geographic to differences among people, because they could with the new technology. For example, people who like to hike became a market instead of people who live in New York City. REINVENTED GOVERNMENT New ways of governing mirror many of the new ways of production,just as bureaucracy mirrored mass production. However, because government is responsible to for the social 26 welfare of it's constituency, the governance has added new elements to the tailored paradigm. The heart of tailored government is it's responsiveness to it's residents. This has caused governments to assess who are their residents in all their similarities and differences. From the descriptive evidence shown in Reinventing Government, one can see tailored governments are proactive and decentralized, and focused on earnings. Initiatives are mission-driven, results oriented, and consumer-concerned. Government encourage competition among services providers by acting within markets. Services are judged by their usability, not their inputs. Employee are empowered to run programs more efficiently and effectively, and programs in turn are defined by their capacity to empower the public. And the decision making process is open and largely accessible to the public. THE DISABILITY INDUSTRY AND THE TAILORED PARADIGM The tailored paradigm encourages the inclusion of people with disabilities. Through expanding markets by tailoring products to people's differences, craft production and flexible specialization itself supplied the tools for inclusion. The new products and the reconstruction of old products gave people with disabilities the tools to control their lives. Light weight wheelchairs, computers that read text to the blind, automatic and mechanical door openers, modifiers for doorbell so that lights go off and on when its pressed, keyboards that allow people with autism to communicate, assistive listening devices atl have been viable products to market only because of this recognition of difference. 27 New technology and wide spread marketing of old technology allows people to go where they want, communicate with others, live independently, participate in meetings, enjoy concerts, hear dialogue in movies and play. None of this technology diminishes a person's disabilities, they just limit the barriers that have traditionally kept people separate. Even though we now possess the tools for inclusion, many attitudinal barriers still stand in the way of people with disabilities ability to fully participate in society and reap equal benefits from it. These new tools will increase the visibility of people with disabilities and eventually that visibility may decrease attitudinal barriers. However, it will be a long, hard and often ugly road. We can see from other groups experience such as African Americans and women, as visibility increases(and economic stability decreases) hate crimes increase. The effects of the tailored paradigm are more than providing tools for inclusion: the disability industry itself has changed the environment, the institutions which guide people with disabilities, and the rest of the population, lives. First and foremost, the tailored paradigm in large part due to new technology as well as a new general respect for people's differences, has provided a climate for passage of the American's with Disabilities Act. The Act was sold to conservatives on the notion that people with disabilities just wanted to be workers and consumers, that people with disabilities did not want to remain on welfare and be a burden to the state. (Shapiro 121) The passage also depended on people's knowledge of the limits living with a disability can have, limits other people do not live with. Key members of Congress and President Bush experienced a disability themselves or through a love one. It was obvious to them what barriers stopped people 28 from joining the workforce and enjoying our culture. (Shapiro 105-125) This shared knowledge and the hope new technology offered, ushered in the ADA and embraced the tailored paradigm principle of empowerment of people to make their own decisions by supplying the proper environment. The tailored paradigm boils down to four basic principles: 1) Investment in community is important. 2) Competition is good to the point where innovation takes place. 3) Flexibility is important. 4) People make good decisions. The disability industry has incorporated these four basic elements of the tailored paradigm. Investment in community has become the basis for the independent living movement (explained in Chapter 3). People with disabilities are encouraged and are deciding to live in communities, not separate in institutions. Many living situations have been created to housed people with disabilities, from accessible apartments, to group homes, to home-care that allow people to stay in their community. Not only do people live, pay rent and employees, and lend money from banks in communities, people with disabilities make and spend their money in communities. They, like firms and households, are investing in communities. Competition is used by the disability industry to produce the best technology as well as the best services. Governments encouragement of competition among service provider (Osborne and Gaebler 76) directly effects the services provided people with disabilities, because many services are government funded to some extent. Now service providers have an incentive to provide good service. Governments balance the search for low-cost 29 service by attaching funding to outcomes. The death rates of institutions would deter governments from assuming that they provided good service. Firms in general have flattered hierarchies which means they are trusting people to make their own decisions. This is what disability advocates want most. People with disabilities believe they know what is best for them, Quadriplegics to people with mental retardation have been organizing to make their own decisions about where they live, who works with them, where they work and what work they do. Flexibility is the basis of the 5 criteria I choose from Osborne and Gaebler, because flexibility is at the heart of eliminating the barriers including people with disabilities. For some people who use wheelchairs to be able to work at a desk, they just need their desk raised by bricks. The ability to tailor the general principles of a program to include the needs of people with disabilities is the basis of the employment and government provisions of the Americans with disabilities act. The case studies that follow demonstrates the flexibility of the City of Ithaca's government as it worked to implement the Americans with Disabilities Act. Chanter Three Civil Rights for People with Disabilities Understanding actions taken to increase accessibility by the City of Ithaca and accordingly the data presented in the next two chapters, requires some familiarity with accessibility requirements on government entities since the mid-1970s, and the disability movement in the United States. Therefore, this chapter provides a context for the data presented later in chapter Four and Five which chronicles Ithaca's attempts to implement Federal legislation by the City's administration and local citizens. THE PASSAGE OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)broadens public opportunity by reducing barriers. The passage of such a law indicates a general recognition of difference, not simply differences created by physical and mental impairments. The nation as a whole is increasingly recognizing and respecting differences based on race, gender, age, ethnicity, and many other characteristics in addition to disabilities. Of course this is not true in every 30 31 institution or business. But the ADA does guarantee that governments in this country will not pass laws or create institutions that discriminate against groups of people. PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES AND ACCESSIBILITY- People with disabilities was the focus of my research, because so many barriers prevent or limit the ease with which they participate in and benefit from local government, and therefore are a good measure of the general tolerance of difference. Moreover, all other groups are represented within the group people with disabilities. For example, people with disabilities include African-Americans, European-Americans, working class, owning class, women, men, young people, and old people. Disabling conditions do not discriminate. Therefore examining the evolutionary process of people with disabilities participating in local government and local governments' implementation of ADA is one way of investigating the recognition of difference and the effect of paradigm shifts on governance. The United States Department of Justice defines a person with a disability as"an individual with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual." (ADA Handbook II-16) Approximately 16 percent of the United States population fits this description. (Pope and Tarlov 41)Examples of impairments include partial or total blindness, multiple sclerosis, cerebral palsy, mental retardation, paralysis, and arthritis. Ways in which disabilities limit life activities include the inability to walk up stairs, open doors, read printed material, hear conversations, walk to bus stops, write, or talk on the telephone. The percentage of people with disabilities is 32 increasing in the United States due to three reasons: 1)medical advances in the last half century have stopped many deaths, but have left many people with disabilities, 2) people are living longer and their bodies are deteriorating, and 3) due to the baby boom a larger number of people are disabled. (Skintges 17) Physical and mental impairments limit people's lives in similar ways as ethnicity and gender limits the lives of African-Americans and women. For all groups, it is not the impairment, ethnicity, or gender which is the limiting factor,but the fact that institutions, facilities, services, and programs are not designed in a way in which minorities can be served. For example, people need bus stops close to their homes or buses that stop on demand to limit the possibility of assault and to enable people with disabilities to get to and from the bus. Changing access for one group changes access for all groups. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITIZEN PARTICIPATION AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. Not only does inviting input from the disabled community make sense when addressing issues of access, the ADA mandates government to do it. Effective implementation of ADA requires strong citizen participation, because the general nature of the law could lead to wasted efforts if its beneficiaries are not directly consulted. If governments attempt to address all barrier removal without knowing what disabilities people in the communities have and what types of barrier removal would be useful, governments would waste time and money removing barriers that would not make their programs and services more accessible. For example, a non-disabled person may decide that the water fountains are 33 too high and want to replace them all. A person who uses a wheelchair may suggest that a cup dispenser would create the necessary accessibility. Another example, is the placing of curb cuts. A city may decide to save money by placing a single diagonal curb cut instead of placing two, each parallel to the other side of the street. These curb cuts, however, may not be used by a person using a wheelchair, because the single curb cut places the person in the middle of the street. So their city would waste money by building unusable curb cuts. The ADA's general mandate states that governments must include people with disabilities in programs and provide equal service to them. At the same time, ADA states that governments must treat each situation uniquely. It is from this dual mandate that governments need to consult with people in the community to tailor compliance to meet current needs. In Ithaca, the ADA coordinator could have prepared the self-evaluation survey of the city's programs, services, and benefits without consulting people with disabilities. She could have just consulted with department heads. Her understanding of barriers would have been limited, because neither she nor department heads have any apparent disability. The presence of a consultant with a disabilities and having the Disability Advisory Council gave her the support and information needed to stress certain points during interviews with department heads of which she would have not been aware otherwise. This example demonstrates how citizen participation can make ADA work. But can citizen participation work without such a measure as ADA? Could governments pay respectful 34 attention to the needs of people with disabilities and have citizen participation without it? Governments cannot fully recognize difference without including people with disabilities. If the paradigm shift truly centers on the recognition of difference, then people with disabilities must be included. Otherwise government misses the perspective of a significant segment of their constituency. People with disabilities bring many unique viewpoints to governments. Although a disability does not define a person, it does impact their world view. This view differs from other views in terms of how they see the physical environment. Changes in the built environment that would ease mobility for an able bodied person could drastically change the level of independence for a person with a disability. For example, ramps ease mobility for people pushing strollers and they allow people who use wheelchairs to enter a building independently. AN OVERVIEW OF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT REQUIREMENT ON GOVERNMENTS ACTIVITY Title II of the ADA and subsequent laws require government entities to provide programmatic accessibility. This means all programs and services must be equally usable by people with disabilities as by the general public and policies must not discriminate against qualified people with disabilities. Although physical accessibility is one element, the scope of programmatic accessibility is much more broad. For example, the following elements would make a public meeting accessible: accessible pathways, bathrooms, seating, podium, recognition of each speakers name each time he spoke; and all overheads explained in detail. Only removing physical barriers does not guarantee people with 35 disabilities equal access. Just requiring physical accessibility would be similar to a government mandating low income housing, but not providing any anti-discrimination legislation that would prohibit developers from using criteria other than income such as race or ethnicity to sell the property. To ensure programmatic accessibility, the Federal government requires that 1)government entities evaluate programs, services, and policies, and 2) develop a transition plan for any needed physical barrier removal. A major component of both the self-evaluation and transition plan is participation by people with disabilities. The City of Ithaca has conducted two self-evaluation surveys and people with disabilities have participated in different capacities during each survey. The self-evaluation and transition plan requirements date back to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In response to this early legislation, the city first conducted a self-evaluation in 1979. The 1985 self evaluation refers to this study, however, any evidence of the first study is missing from City Hall files. Therefore, the 1985 study is used as a baseline here and the 1993 study measures change since 1985. OVERVIEW OF DISABILITY MOVEMENT People with disabilities began to organize for the right to live independent lives in the 1960s. However, they fought for other rights long before the `60s. In the 1920's, disabled veterans began to fight for compensation and vocational rehabilitation for their disabilities from the United States government. It took 20 years for Congress to pass a bill that satisfied veterans. In the 1940's, when invited to work in the factories during the 36 Second World War, people with disabilities once segregated in the work place(if they worked at all)found that they could lead productive, integrated lives. This experience began the road to be enpowerment which led to the knowledge and strength to demand their rights in the 1970s. Several incidents led directly to the organization of people with disabilities around the issues of people rights and independence. In Berkeley, students with disabilities organized to ensure independent living for themselves. Up to this point, other people decided when they got up in the morning, used the bathroom and ate. The action of these students began the independent living movement. Now there are independent living centers throughout the country which work to insure independence through decreasing barriers and providing peer counseling. In 1972, on Long Island a woman who was deaf was denied access to a nursing programs. She sued the University and the court ruled in her favor. Her widely publicized case led people to rethink the capabilities of people with disabilities and organize around the issues of access to education and employment. The final push for the disability movement was with the passage of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Since 1918, Congress had amended rehabilitation legislation which provided vocational training for people with disabilities. In 1973 when the legislation was renewed, a legislative aide added a clause that prohibited any agency which received federal funding from discriminating against qualified people with disabilities. The House of Representatives and Senate passed it with no discussion about this nondiscrimination 37 clause. (Scotch 5)However, once passed it took three years for the Office of Civil Rights to approve regulations. As the months rolled by, people with disabilities realized the importance of this legislation and began to encourage the publication of regulations. By the final publication, people with disabilities were very organized and demanding their rights. They protested like other groups; they held marches and sit-ins. These three events, the Berkeley students fight, the woman's fight to be a nurse, and the passage of Section 504, started a movement of people working to have independent and equal opportunities. Chapter Four Efforts by the City of Ithaca to increase accessibility The City of Ithaca was chosen as the research site because of its active disability community and the efforts made by the city to increase access. Although Ithaca is not the most accessible city in the United States, it has made many more efforts than other cities and towns in the upstate New York Finger Lakes Region. The City of Ithaca is small with a population of 30,000. (Census Bureau) The 1990 census reports that 5.4 percent of Ithaca's population has a disability which limits their ability to work. (Census Bureau) In the general population, 50% of the population is between the ages 18 and 24;the median family income is $29,705; unemployment is 4.9%; and 56% of the population are in college and 93%who are 18 or over have at least a high school diploma. The primary industry is education; Ithaca houses Cornell University and Ithaca College. Many physical elements create barriers to people with disabilities: building stock, weather, and hills. Most of Ithaca's building stock was built prior to 1910 and most buildings have staired-entrance ways. Ithaca has several steep hills and snow falls from November to 38 39 April. Both aggravate the problems of people with disabilities living independent lives as much or more than the building stock. Snow removal is a general issue for the City of Ithaca as well as for accessibility advocates. The City of Ithaca's government employs approximately 450 people in 12 departments. The largest departments are the Department of Public Works(200) and the Police Department (81). (Gray)Many departments are responsible for providing accessibility through a variety of programs and services. For example, the Department of Public Works is responsible for building curb cuts; the Building Department is responsible for making sure that all buildings comply with building codes including those that address accessibility; and the Youth Bureau is responsible for providing recreational services to people with disabilities. The local government is run by a weak mayoral structure with a Common Council and semi-independent boards and committees with administrative powers. All major decisions must be passed by the Common Council made up of ten aldermen. The mayor only votes when there is a tie. Common Council members serve four year terms. The position of mayor is a part time job. As of 1994, the mayor's term increased from two to four years. Over the last twenty years, mayors have become more and more active. In 1973, the mayor had one citizen advisory board which advised the mayor on concerns of the public. Since then, mayors have established 17 advisory boards that remain active in 1994. In general, advisory boards are established as a result of community concerns. In 1990, Mayor Ben Nichols established the Disability Advisory Council which has assisted 40 the city in meeting requirements placed on local governments by the Americans with Disabilities Act. EARLY EFFORTS The City of Ithaca began to improve access for people with disabilities in 1979. (Chock 2) Regulations from Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1 973 mandated this action. The initial attempt included a survey known as Study of Whole City Accessibility and several physical innovation projects. These efforts were funded by a Community Development Block Grant of$7,000. The city took several steps to comply with Section 504 between 1980 and 1985 based on recommendations from the 1979 study. Projects included: 1. Examination of the accessibility of public transportation to meet Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. To meet transportation requirements, the city contracted with a private para transit company. This provided public transit to people who could not use the regular buses. (1980) 2. Common Council established a policy to hold all meetings in accessible locations. (1980) 3. The city made several physical changes using Community Development Block Grant funds. These changes included curb cuts, improvements for City Hall, and renovations for a community center. Barriers were.removed from City Hall so that a Council member who used a wheelchair could do his job. The city created an accessible parking space and a ramp at the side door so that he could enter the building. 41 In 1984, Thys Van Cort, director of the Department of Planning and Development, was appointed Section 504 coordinator. Every government entity or private agency federally funded was required to appoint at least one person by law. Van Cort designated deputy director Herman Sieverding the responsibility. As coordinator, Sieverding was responsible for oversight of compliance and contact person for any grievances of noncompliance. THE SECOND STAGE OF ACCESSIBILITY INITIATIVES In 1985, Sieverding contracted Carol Chock to prepare a second survey. The Revenue Sharing Act, as amended in 1976, sparked it. The Revenue Sharing Act reiterated the anti-discrimination requirements of federally funded programs and services. Under regulations released in 1983, all governments needed to prepare a"self-evaluation of all programs, activities, policies, and processes to determine areas of noncompliance with the handicapped innovations regulations." (Chock 2) (This study is fully examined in the next section.) This study was intended to focus on programmatic accessibility, but the primary focus became physical in nature. The final report, the Transition Plan, only addressed needed physical changes to make city programs m ore accessible. This gave no direction for how programs would be more accessible in general. There was no plan for staff training or programmatic changes. The only written report required was the Transition Plan. Chock surveyed all department heads about the accessibility of their programs and services,but Chock did not write these up nor was she required to do so. The law required the city to 42 keep the surveys to keep on record, but no coordinated follow-up effort was mandated or taken for seven years. Even with this heavy focus on the physical barriers, the City made few changes during the late 1980's. The city continued to make curb cuts. In 1990, soon after Mayor Nichols appointed the Disability Advisory Council, they asked for an update. Although many projects had been budgeted for,Ixft few had been completed. Common Council passed the Handicapped Accessibility Article and a grievance procedure as a part of the Human Rights Ordinance at the end of 1985. The purpose of this Article is: to ensure that the City of Ithaca does not discriminate against the physically handicapped in its provisions of access to public facilities or public meetings, in employment opportunities or in provision of services, programs, and benefits and to ensure that a formal grievance procedure exists for anyone who believes that such discrimination has occurred. (Chapter 4 of the 1975 Municipal Code, Ord. No. 85-15) Even with the ordinance, the city did little to pro-actively become accessible. In general, people in the city waited until someone insisted on an accommodation. The article stresses that the city will do what is reasonable and practical, not what is necessary to accommodate people with disabilities in terms of public meetings; public buildings; public services, programs, and benefits; and employment and contract opportunities. 43 THE THIRD STAGE OF ACCESSIBILITY INITIATIVES Based on the update and a decision by the Disability Advisory Committee and the Planning Department decided that the 1985 Survey the did not meet ADA requirements, and the City decided to do another accessibility survey to meet ADA requirements. Chatterton said that when the ADA was passed, a number of disability support organizations and the Ithaca Chambers of Commerce held a conference in Ithaca for local governments and businesses on the way ADA would affect them. Three people from the Ithaca Planning Department attended. On the way back, the planning director talked about handing the responsibility of ADA Coordinator (the same position as Section 504 Coordinator)to another department. Both Sieverding and Leslie Chatterton, the Neighborhood/Historic Preservation planner and the one who prepared the accessibility update, talked Van Cort into keeping the responsibility in the Planning Department. Van Cort delegated the responsibilities of ADA Coordinator to Chatterton. Chatterton worked hard on the self-evaluation survey and had many plans to increase accessibility based on it. She worked with planning intern Jessica Skintges to write and execute the survey. She and Ms. Skintges worked with each department head to complete the survey for each department. Based on survey results, Chatterton planned to hire someone to evaluate the physical elements, hold several training sessions for staff, rewrite the Handicapped Ordinance, procure a TTY(a telephone type writer) and assistive listening devices for City Hall and publish an ADA guidebook for city employees. However, Chatterton did not have time to implement her plans in a timely fashion due to 44 her other work responsibilities and because Ms. Skintges' internship finished in the fall of 1994. The process is very slow. (For a chart comparing efforts by Chock and Chatterton, see Appendix A.) PROCESS AND RESULTS FROM ACCESSIBILITY SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY THE CITY OF ITHACA The city has conducted two self-evaluation surveys (1985 and 1993) and has completed writing the Transition Plan(1985). The self-evaluation surveys asked department heads to evaluate their programs, services and benefits in terms of their usability by people with disability. In each survey, department heads were interviewed based on the survey instrument. The first self-evaluation survey involved 22 questions and the second survey involved 54 questions. In both efforts people with disabilities were included to differing degrees. 1985 SURVEY CITIZEN PARTICIPATION Chock attempted to include people with disabilities in the process. She contacted 127 individuals, agencies and organizations interested in the issue of accessibility. (Chock 70) The local paper ran a cover story on the study and other local media announced it. "Assistance and guidance were provided by Tompkins County Advocates for the Handicapped." (Chock 70) She held a public meeting for input in which was attended by 45 6 city officials, 22 members of the public and 4 reporters. Phone and letter responses were received from approximately 25 individuals. People with disabilities were asked to comment on physical accessibility of the city. Chock sent Tompkins County Advocates for the Handicapped a letter with a map of the city asking them to mark where curb cuts should be placed. Advocates compiled their members responses and sent a map back. Members of Tompkins County Advocates for the Handicapped toured the city with Ms. Chock. Chock never sought input on programmatic accessibility. (Thurston, 1994) When the Transition Plan was complete, three people with disabilities from the Tompkins County Advocates for the Handicapped sat on city's Budget Committee to allocate money for accessibility issues over three year period of time. They met twice a month for six to eight months. At the time, Sherry Thurston(a member of Advocates for the Handicapped)thought it would be executed. The first two years projects were done,but money ran out each year. The city promised it would do the projects in years to come_ SURVEY QUESTIONS Chock's survey asked 22 questions: 5 on general information; 11 on the accessibility of programs, services, and benefits; and 6 on employment related accessibility. (For survey instrument see Appendix B.) Programmatic accessibility questions asked about grievance procedures, eligibility requirements, use of programs by people with disabilities, communication with people with sensory impairments, non-structural change for the purpose of accommodation, availability of auxiliary aids, physical accessibility of t r 46 programs, barriers to programs, and with whom the department has contractual relationships. Almost all questions were in a yes-no, comment format. In questions with unfamiliar language about accessibility such as auxiliary aids examples were given. The survey instrument, therefore, was used as an educational tool to dispense information and not only to gather information. However, much information was asked for in each question; this cluttered the survey and the information it sought. REsULTs Chock asked fourteen department heads to complete the survey. Responses show more the opinions of department heads than the level of accessibility. Most department heads thought that their programs and services were fully accessible and in need of no changes. However, when asked to detail how they accommodate people with disabilities, their answers demonstrated that they did not really have the capacity to serve them. I judged the surveys by four criteria: 1. Department head understood the meaning of physical and programmatic accessibility; 2. Proactively working to include people with disabilities shown through policies and procedures. 3. Facility accessible. The surveys separated into four groups: 1. Completely Accessible: met all three criteria 2. Partially Accessible: met first criteria; but not working to include people with disabilities shown through policies and practices, but willing to develop policies and procedures when cases arise; facility may or may not be accessible. 3. Not Accessible: met none of the criteria 4. Not Used by the Public 47 Two departments, Office of Community Development and the Youth Bureau, demonstrated that they were completely accessible. Three departments, Department of Planning and Development, Department of Public Works, and Personnel Department, seemed aware of what they needed to do to accommodate people with disabilities, but not ready to make an investment without knowing for whom they would make it. Six department heads, Department of Finance, Police Department, Commons Advisory Coordinator, Building Department, Fire Department and the city's Chamberlain's Office thought they were accessible, but their survey show otherwise. Two departments had no public programs, services or benefits. So out of fourteen departments, three were accessible and six understood what it took to be accessible. (For the results of the raw data, see Appendix C.) FINAL REPORT The final report was entitled City of Ithaca: Report on Accessibility of City Programs, Activities, Services,and Facilities to the Handicapped, but the report only addressed physical accessibility. The introduction mentioned the importance of programmatic accessibility, but the text never evaluates or analyzes it in terms of the city. TRANSITION PLAN The Transition Plan prescribes physical barrier removal in city owned buildings, parking, and parks as well as for barriers pointed out by the public. (See appendix for Transition Plan) These recommendations were given priorities in four categories which were defined in the Transition Plan (p.76) as follows: 1. Top Priority—required by Code, not a major expense and/or a high usage area. 48 2. Medium Priority— situation presents difficulty. May be required, but presents a major expense and/or is in a low-usage area. 3. Lower Priority— not required by law, but would ease accessibility. May have met Code when built but is not up to new standards. 4. Implementation is extremely expensive. Should be considered only if specifically requested by residents. Desirable in future if funding is available. The physical survey and the public together recommended 133 actions to remove barriers. Two-thirds of all recommendations were taken from the site surveys and one-third were by the public. Out of all recommendations 55 percent were regarded as priority 1 — required by Code, not a major expense and/or a high usage area. This shows that over half of the barriers needing removal were either major barriers and/or easily removed. More of the recommendations by the public were regarded as priority 1 than those which came from the physical survey. This demonstrates that the majority of requests from the public were reasonable and/or easily remedied. i i I 49 Chart I: Priorities Set in the Transition Plan Priority survey public total percent of total Priority 1 45 28 73 55% Priority 2 16 8 24 180/0 Priority 3 16 5 21 1611/o Priority 4 7 5 12 9'/0 As Needed 3 3 20/a Total 87 46 133 990/0 ACTION TAKEN BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations spelled out in the 1985 Transition Plan were followed up in a 1992 report,Accessibility Survey Update. The update was conducted by Leslie Chatterton in the Department of Planning and Development based on a Disability Advisory Council recommendation. Chatterton sent each staff member responsible for City facilities a questionnaire and a copy of the Transition Plan. Chatterton investigated 126 of 133 recommendations. She used 4 categorizes to describe the responses in the Update : actions taken, no action, no response, and alternative actions. Action taken indicated that the prescribed recommendations was followed. No action indicated"a recommendation was considered but not implemented." (Chatterton, 1992 2) No response indicated hack of comment returned on the questionnaire." (Chatterton, 1992 2) Alternative action indicated that the recommendations was not followed, but a different solution was used to address the general concern. 50 Chart II shows the percent of action taken by priority on survey recommendations. Overall, it shows that 53 percent of all recommendations were acted upon. In terms of priorities, Priority 1 recommendations had more action taken (80%) than other priorities. This means many simple, inexpensive changes were made. However, in the other priority categories, less than fifty percent of all recommendations were acted upon. Few actions were taken if situations presented difficulties; if action was not required by law, but would ease access; or if implementation was extremely expensive. Chart II: Action Taken Based on the Transition Plan BUILDINGS: PERCENT OF REcoAafE.NDATIONS IN PRIORITY Priority 1 2 3 4 As Needed Totals Action 80% 42% 33% 23% 50% 53% No Action 90/0 32% 22% 8% 50% 18% No Response 11% 21% 39% 8% 18% Other 5% 6% 62% 11% Chart III shows percentage of action taken based on public input by priority categories. It shows that the majority of Priority 1 and 3 were acted upon; whereas Priority 2 was more evenly distributed among action take, no action and other. This again shows that actions relatively easy were acted upon whether or not they were required by law. S1 Chart III: Action Taken Based on the Transition PIan PUBLIC INPUT PERCENT OF RECOMMENDATIONS INPRIORITy Priority 1 2 3 4 As Needed Totals Action 72% 38% 100% 66% No Action 16% 25% 17% No Response 6%1 1 1 5% Other 6% 38% 12%- J I —t Overall, more of the recommendations by the public (66%)were acted upon than those recommended by the physical survey(18%). Equal percentages of public recommendations (17%)and survey recommendations(18%)were considered, but no action taken. Only 5 percent of all recommendations by the public were not responded to in the update, whereas 18% of survey recommendations were not. This shows in all the public recommendations where either easier to complete or given a higher priority. 1993 SuRvEY After an evaluation of the Update Survey and with a recommendation from the Disability Advisory Council recommendation, the Planning Department decided the Section 504 Self-evaluation Survey would not suffice for the ADA Self-evaluation Process. Hence, in 1993 Chatterton was given the task of preparing a second self-evaluation survey and Transition Plan. (For survey instrument, see Appendix D.) 52 CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FROM THE CITY'S POINT OF VIEW Chatterton turned to the Disability Advisory Council (which had been formed 2 years before) _ from the start for input. Throughout the process she kept them updated on progress. She asked members to critique both the 1985 Survey and the 1992 Update in order for her to understand some previous pitfalls. A subcommittee formed to advise her on the survey questions. Their concerns were incorporated into the survey form. Members were initially invited to attend interviews with department heads about the survey. Two members indicated that they were interested in attending. Not one interview, however, included a member of the DAC. Scheduling interviews among three people was a problem, fitting a fourth person or even remembering to let members know when interviews were scheduled became a problem. Once the surveying was completed, Chatterton presented preliminary recommendations poorly to the DAC. She read the recommendations without giving people time to digest the information. Then she left early to go another pressing meeting, allowing her intern to field any questions. SURVEY QUESTIONS Chatterton's survey asked 56 questions, 22 on general accessibility of programs, 3 on eligibility and advertising, 13 on participation of people with disabilities in programs, 18 on communications, and 3 on contracts. The topics in the general section were revisited in more detail in later sections. Chatterton and her intern decided to use the survey as an 53 educational tool and address certain topics in depth. Each question only asked for one piece of information, all follow-up information was asked as separate questions. RESULTS Chatterton asked 11 department heads to complete the surveys. The Personnel Department did not receive this survey, because Chatterton planned to write a specific survey to address employment. All surveys were followed-up with an hour interview in which the surveys were gone through question by question. This survey reflects the accessibility of programs offered by the City of Ithaca. I judged results of the survey by two criteria: 1. Proactively working to include people with disabilities shown through policies and practices. 2. Facility accessible. I separated departments into four categories according to if they met the two criteria: 1. Accessible: met both criteria 2. Bare Minimum Accessible: met both criteria in some fashion, but it was not reflected in their policies and training. 3. Partially Accessible: met one of the two criteria in some fashion, but no policies or training for inclusion of people with disabilities, and waiting for cases to arise before taking action. 4. Not Used by the Public According to this survey, 3 departments', the Youth Bureau, Office of Community Development and the Police Department, programs were accessible. Two departments, the Fire Department and the Building Department, met the bare minimum. Six departments, the Office of the Commons Coordinator, Department of Public Works, 54 Chamberlain's Office, the Office of the Mayor, and the Department of Planning and Development were partially accessible, and 1 had no contact with the public. The Office of the City Attorney had no public services, programs or benefits and therefore, did not need to be accessible to the public. (For raw data results, see Appendix E) The survey points to four major ways which the city government as a whole is not accessible. 1) City Hall is not completely accessible even with the renovations made in the 1980s. (This was noted only by the Building Department head and the mayor.)2) City Hall does not have a TTY or an assistive listening device to make communication with people who are hearing impaired easier. 3)The city as a whole does not publicize the grievance procedure to staff or citizens. 4)All department heads were confused by how to handle an accommodation or renovation that would cause an undue hardship or administrative burden. FINAL REPORT AND PLANNED ACTIONS Ten months after the final interview, a report has not been issued. Chatterton and her intern have prepared, but not published, a guidebook for employees which address many questions discussed during the interviews. (For actual recommendations, see Appendix F.) However, the results and a Transition Plan have not been prepared. The physical surveying for the Transition Plan has not been completed as well. Even without these documents, Chatterton has many recommendations for the City of Ithaca to bring it into compliance. (See appendix) 55 PRELIMINARY CONCLUSION The data described in this chapter: 1)general initiatives taken by the City of Ithaca to increase accessibility since 1979, 2) process of and results from accessibility surveys conducted by the City of Ithaca, 3)change over time of citizen participation in the City of Ithaca's efforts to increase accessibility. The data shows: 1)the City of Ithaca made several efforts over fifteen years to increase access without ever truly achieving it, 2)the focus by the City of Ithaca and people with disabilities has primarily been physical accessibility and not programmatic accessibility as mandated by Section 504 in 1973 and the ADA, 3) citizens participation increases effectiveness of implementation. Chapter Five Citizen Participation In Ithaca, citizens have been organizing around the issue of disability since 1976. Over the last fifteen years the ways in which people have organized around this issue has evolved from recreational groups and support groups to a citizen advisory board to the City of Ithaca. This chapter examines the agendas and actions of these groups. The first advocacy group for people with disabilities, Tompkins County Advocates for the Handicapped, started in 1976 as a support group for parents of people with Downs Syndrome. This quickly evolved to a support and advocacy group for people with disabilities and their relatives. By 1983 they had forty members. They worked on such issues as an accessibility guide and raising awareness about disabilities in general. The accessibility guide rated the usability of local businesses by people with disabilities. This first group was instrumental in spreading the awareness of civil rights among people with disabilities. (Thurston: 1994) A second organization arose in the mid 1980s, Shot in the Dark, was recreational in nature for people who are blind. Their major sport was beepball baseball. They did a 56 57 great deal of fund raising to be able to participate in many tournaments and were a very visible group in the community. They did some education within the local schools and as they fund raised. The group's greatest contribution was raising the awareness about people who are blind in Ithaca and raising the awareness of the community at large that people with disabilities do what others do. (Thurston: 1994) The Mobility Support Group (MOB)began in the late 1980s at the Finger Lakes Independent Center and was supposed to be an advocacy group for people with mobility impairments, but a forum was soon needed to allow the opportunity to discuss their feelings. This led to Access Unlimited. "Very quickly it became obvious that we had difficulties and needs that could be best handled by a larger, more diverse group." (Kuhn 1993) Access Unlimited was an advocacy group supported by the Finger Lakes Independent Center(FLIC) in 1988. The Finger Lakes Independent Center was staffed by people with disabilities to reduce physical and attitudinal barriers. It pulled together as a coalition people with disabilities, able-bodied people and support services. They were very active in Ithaca to ensure integration of people with disabilities. They held a disability awareness day, worked in schools, met with mayoral candidates, and publicized the issue of disabilities. Access Unlimited worked to increase accessibility throughout the city, including in city government. They developed a list of inaccessible places and programs. (Kuhn: 1992) 58 Access Unlimited was the first group in Ithaca to address equal access to local government. Their pivotal action began by inviting mayoral candidates to discuss next steps to increase accessibility throughout Ithaca. This eventually led to approval by Mayor Nichols of the Disability Advisory Council in 1990. Members of Access Unlimited wrote a charter, passed it through Common Council and the Disability Advisory Council was created. (Kuhn 1993) In the summer of 1990, the Disability Advisory Council charter outlined six reasons justifying the creation of such a board. The reasons included: 1. The number of people with mental and physical disabilities in Ithaca who"wish to enjoy the same rights and privileges"" as the non-disabled residents. 2. The high likelihood that most citizens will acquire a temporary or permanent disability sometimes in their lives. 3. A number of barriers exist which prevent people with disabilities"the same access to buildings, communication, education, entertainment, education, housing, transportation and other privileges that non-disabled citizens possess." (Proposal to Create a Disability Advisory Council for the City of Ithaca) 4. The number of federal, State and local laws designed to protect the rights and privileges of people with disabilities. 5. No body existed to advise the city on "to how best advance and guarantee the rights of citizens with disabilities." (Proposal to Create a Disability Advisory Council for the City of Ithaca) 6. The city's own wish to ensure free enjoyment of all rights and privileges for citizens. In the beginning they tried to do projects as a group and they set up several committees. Eventually the group became a sounding board and a legitimizer for individual projects. "Proposal to Create an Advisory Council for the City of Ithaca Concerning the Rights and Concerns of Citizens with Disabilities." 59 CHARACTERISTICS AND STATISTICS ABOUT MEMBERS OF THE DAC' In the beginning, many people came to DAC meetings— members, liaisons from other city boards and guests. From the beginning, some members never could make meetings and they became consultants to the group used for special projects. Early DAC members were a diverse group of people. (This data is taken from resumes of the members in the first year.) Seven out of the 14 lived in Ithaca. Out of those that lived in Ithaca, the length of residency range from 6 months to 58 years with the average being 19. They ranged in age from 31 to 62 with the mean age being 44. They held a variety of training and jobs. All of them had a high school education, 5 had completed college,two had completed masters programs, and one had completed a Ph.D. program. Some members were retired and others could not work because of their disabilities. However, when they worked, they had a variety of jobs ranging from teachers and ministers to physical therapists and computer technicians. The majority of DAC members had white collar jobs. Two had blue collar jobs, one had a pink collar job, and others were outside the labor market. All but two had a mobility or sensory disability. Two had no disability at all. Members had similar histories of advocacy and citizen participation. Many sat on boards or local organizations or local governments. Almost all had been members of Access Unlimited and other disability related groups. These statistics show that the original members of the Disability Advisory Council were diverse in residency, education, 2 All data about the DAC meetings,including members resumes,agendas,meetings,were supplied by Brenda Kuhn. 60 education, disability and age, but they were similar in relevant experience and community affiliations. DAC GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The DAC defined their goals and objectives several times and in a variety of forms. They defined broad goals in their charge and progressively narrowed them into objectives and projects. These objectives and projects guided their actions, positions on policy and which lead to their influence. The original charge of the Disability Advisory Council was to: 1. Assess problems in the City of Ithaca that present the greatest obstacles to equal rights, access, and privileges for citizens with disabilities; and 2. Determine which problems and needs deserve the highest priority as well as those that have the greatest opportunity to be corrected. (Proposal to Create a Disability Advisory Council for the City of Ithaca) The charge evolved into a number of goals. The main goal was to increase access to city services such as City Hall activities, parks and emergency services. They made several recommendations to city staff about these goals. From 1990 until 1994, they have worked on six projects to further their goals: survey of government programs, activities, and benefits; snow and ice removal policy; TDDs for emergency agencies; automatic doors for City Hall; increasing access at parks; and parking enforcement. The simpler projects were executed quickly and with ease. Some dragged on for years and still are not resolved. For others, such as the survey they found a very responsive staff member who put a lot of time 61 in to meeting their requirements. They recommended the project and handed it over to her. A major recommendation which came from this goal was that the city perform a follow up report on the 1985 Transition Plan. The Transition Plan made recommendations regarding many physical changes to city buildings and parks to make them accessible that were never acted upon. In January of 1992, Leslie Chatterton, Ithaca's Historic Preservation Planner, published an accessibility survey study update which commented on the progress of each recommendation in the Transition Plan. This began the process of a second self-evaluation survey. A second recommendation was to change the snow and ice removal policy. Snow season lasts three to six months in Ithaca. If sidewalks are not clear of snow, people with disabilities have an impossible time leaving their house and walking anywhere. This includes going from cars to buildings. The lack of snow removal greatly impedes people with mobility disabilities. In 1990, the City of Ithaca had a snow and ice removal policy that made it mandatory for residents and businesses to clear snow within 24 hours after a snow fall. This policy was enforced by voluntary reporting. Once non compliance was reported, the Building Department cleared the snow. Violators were fined and charged for clearance done by the Building Department. This system did not adequately motivate people to keep sidewalks clear of snow during the winter. The DAC complained again and again to city staff. They reported violators and they suggested new policy. 62 The perception by the DAC was that the city was not listening nor willing to change the policy. In January of 1994, Common Council passed resolutions which changed the policy. The policy committed one half-time position to monitor the clearance of a the path of travel. In the winter this meant a half time position to monitor snow removal. A second resolution stated that the city would clear a sidewalks snow emergency path as well as a road emergency route. Furthermore, one of the two resolutions made the fines increase every time you received one such as parking tickets. Many of the changes originated in the DAC over the last four years in letters and conversation. For over a year(1990-2), the DAC in conjunction with Human Rights Committee tried to hire a CIVITAS worker to monitor snow clearance. They were more successful. The DAC was not included in the original drafting of the new policy. After the new policy was passed, the liaison from the Board of Public Works came to a DAC meeting, presented the policy and asked for input on an emergency snow removal route. He did not bring any written materials and the DAC has never received a copy of either policy. DAC strongly recommended that the City Police Department, the Sheriff's Department and the Tompkins Community Hospital acquire telecommunication devices or the deaf (TDD). This device makes it easy for people with hearing impairments or speech impairments to communicate using the telephone. They started working on this project at their third meeting by inviting the deaf coordinator from FLIC to speak to the DAC on the needs of the deaf community. They also did some background research on where TDD 63 already existed. One DAC member who was particularly knowledgeable about TDDs met with the appropriate officials from each agency about the acquisition of such equipment. By June of 1991, the Ithaca City Police and the Tompkins County Hospital had acquired TDDs. A fourth proposal from the DAC concerned the acquisition of automatic doors in City Hall. Automatic doors were recommended in the 1985 Transition Plan and even budgeted for, but never purchased. The mayor suggested that the DAC present a proposal. Two members did research, wrote a proposal, shepherded it through the right committees and by the next spring City Hall had automatic doors. Another recommendation has not been implemented. It sought to improve access to public parks. Early on the DAC was asked to participate in the temporary City Parks Council which was meeting to review parks. A DAC member, Jon Merritt, spent a great deal of time working with the Department of Public Works on this project. He wrote them letters and visited sites to explain what was inaccessible. The Department of Department of Public Works said that they would perform the needed changes, but they continually put the changes off due to snow or other reasons. A final project was to increase the parking enforcement of handicapped parking spaces. Often people without disabilities use handicapped parking spaces. This issue still has yet to be resolved to the satisfaction of the DAC. 64 By September of 1992, the DAC was working intensely on snow and ice removal, increasing access to a local park and handicapped parking enforcement. The DAC was attempting to work on curb cut additions and maintenance, affordable accessible housing promotion, the number of people with disabilities on city boards and committees, as well as changes needed in the rest rooms at Tompkins County Library. I say attempted to work on these projects, because they were in the"DAC Current and Proposed Projects" as projects needing work. PROCESS AND PROCEDURE In the DAC charge, a provision was made"to maintain a regular liaison with the mayor and appropriate city boards for the purpose of making recommendation as to these problems may best be resolved; and to meet on a regular basis to review how well problems have been resolved and received input from the community on new problems or potential problems effecting the rights and privileges of disabled citizens."' In the beginning many of the provisions made in the charge were followed. Liaisons from the appropriate boards and Common Council attended meetings. Members attended regularly as well. They worked to develop their agenda. However, eventually DAC members worked to accomplished their individual tasks. In some ways the DAC became a place for individuals with disabilities to take action with the 3 "Proposal to Create a Disability Advisory Council for the City of Ithaca." August, 1990. 65 backing of the group. To date, however, the DAC has done very little advising to the City as a group. Individuals have met with appropriate city staff and elected officials for their particular projects. But few ongoing relationships have formed to provide the infrastructure needed to have constant contact. To better relations with Common Council, a member of DAC would present concerns at Common Council meetings. This lasted about six months. The DAC struggles to take minutes at its meetings. Although, structurally, the DAC has had a difficult time, they have accomplished much. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS The data described in this chapter is: 1)the changes over time as people with disabilities work to increase accessibility in the City of Ithaca, 2) as citizens work to increase accessibility, there definition of accessibility expanded from purely physical to program which led to their involvement with local government. The data described in this chapter shows that 1) citizen participation through the DAC has changed Ithaca's policies and practices, 2)the road to citizen involvement is long and takes a lot of skills on the side of government staff and the citizens, 3) citizen involvement does not always empower the residents. Chapter Six, Is Ithaca Really Recognizing Difference? The Americans with Disabilities Act implies a recognition of difference on the national level. Are local governments also recognizing difference and if so, how? The two case studies about Ithaca shed light on the answers to these questions. These case studies, by looking at the ability of Ithaca's government and citizens to act within the new"tailored paradigm," give a snap shot of the extent to which such a recognition is imbedded in the culture, economy, and social structure. Four basic conclusions about the City of Ithaca arise from the two case studies: 1. The City of Ithaca's administration had learned a lot about providing accessibility to people with disabilities. This knowledge has translated into some action which broadened access to city programs by decreasing barriers. 2. The city's ability to act on the recognition of difference increased from ongoing input from the Disability Advisory Council. 3. Just the fact the Disability Advisory Council existed, influenced policy and action points to an increase in the recognition of difference on the part of citizens and the City of Ithaca. 66 67 4. Although the Disability Advisory Council had a large impact on the action taken by the city, members of the DAC have not been empowered by this experience. The recognition of difference manifests itself in many ways on the local level. In Chapter 1 I suggest six particular changes in administrative behavior and citizen participation that indicate such characteristics. These characteristics are: Characteristics of the Recognition of Difference by Governments 1. Government action empowers residents rather than serve them. 1 Missions guide actions and budgets instead of rules. 3. Initiatives are judged by outcomes not inputs 4. Customers wants and input drive government actions 5. Actions are active instead of reactive because they are guided by long term budgeting and strategic planning as well as citizen input 6. Government action incorporates residents opposition to current policies and practices. The above characteristics will lead to or follow from a general awareness of difference by the public and a perception that difference is good. Do the conclusions from the study show a that Ithaca is recognizing difference? THE APPLICATION OF THE 6 CRITERIA TO CASE STUDY The local government of Ithaca had given attention to the issue of accessibility for people with disabilities for 15 years by the time this thesis was written. In those 15 years, action evolved from symbolic to concrete. The approach, process, and outcomes of the two self- evaluations conducted by the City of Ithaca show the evolution over eight years. These 68 surveys show movement towards a recognition of difference. The ADA furthered and encouraged the general direction of Ithaca's policy trends to be inclusive' as can be seen in the rise of advisory council's in general over the last 20 years. Implementation did not change the direction of the trend, only changed the methods of inclusion of difference. The ADA just put more tools in the toolbox by encouraging flexibility. GOVERNMENT ACTION EMPOWERED RESIDENTS RATHER THAN SERVE THEM Did implementation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act empower residents rather then serve them? According to Osborne and Gaebler, governments that empower include residents in implementation of projects and put residents in positions of power. (Osborne and Gaebler 49-50) Osborne and Gaebler would ask did implementation change the amount that staff saw their customers as inactive recipients of programs, does ADA make residents less the client of government and make residents more able to take action? (Osborne and Gaebler 52) Throughout the last 15 years, as the City of Ithaca worked to implement federal legislation to increase accessibility, residents with disabilities have been included and with the advent of the Disability Advisory Council, residents have been put in the position of power. The implementation of Section 504 or ADA has done little to change the status of residents (with or without disabilities) in relation to government programs. Those programs where people are clients remain untouched except that they may be more usable by people with As this thesis was being finished,the mayor of Ithaca was asked to many to gay men. The mayor and Common Council fully stood behind the two men who wanted to marry. The only thing in the way of the ceremony Ras a political decision on the part of gay activists in New York. The Supreme Court was about to hear a case from Hawaii concerning gay marriages. The activists argued that the ceremony should not take place until after the court case is complete. 69 disabilities. So the City of Ithaca includes their residents in the process of decision making and implementation, but does not actually change its process, they have only added another layer of decision making. For example, the way that the Department of Public Works handles complaints in the same manner as it always have, but they may refer people to the Disabilities Advisory Board or the Office of the Chamberlain still bills the residents of Ithaca in the same way. Soon, however, will be able to talk to people on a TTY if they have any questions about their bills. MISSIONS GUIDE ACTIDNSAND BUDGETS INSTEAD OF RULES Mission driven programs are defined by Osborne and Gaebler as programs driven by their goals and not by rules or budgets. They provide the flexibility to meet new situations and provide permission to fail. Does the case study of Ithaca show a tendency towards this type of government? Ithaca's early attempts to increase access do not promote or follow such ideas. Latter attempts did. Chock's study was about following federal rules in order to keep funding. Once the requirements were met, her job was done. Each recommendation of the Transition Plan was budgeted in the traditional method and only a certain percent got completed. Did Chock or Chatterton follow a mission rather than fulfill a requirement? Chock's study fulfilled requirements whereas Chatterton's study shows a commitment to the spirit or mission of the law. Chock understood the law, but did not feel that the city took it seriously nor would her recommendation be acted upon. (Chock: 1994) Neither the commitment demonstrated by Chatterton or Chock's understanding bring the efforts to 70 increase accessibility of Ithaca into the realm of being able to act upon the recognition of difference. Osborne and Gaebler are talking about flexibility to meet the needs of unique situations, to do away with the rigidities of government. If the City of Ithaca had a more progressive budgeting process, perhaps a TDD and an assistive listening device would have been purchased shortly after they were ordered instead of not being purchased a year and a half later. It made a difference that Chatterton worked for the City of Ithaca and that she had a competent intern. This does not echo Osborne and Gaebler's stance transforming rule- driven personnel systems, but it does not refute it either. Chatterton, to date, has spent three years implementing the ADA whereas Chock spent six months in total to implement Section 504. The continuity provided by Chatterton as civil servant changes the nature of implementation. This gave the City of Ithaca the strength to meet the needs of its diverse constituency. This is contrary to the ideas of Osborne and Gaebler to overhaul the whole system to make government work well. Chatterton was a civil servant with the same budget constraints as all other employees. Chatterton approached the accessibility study the way that Osborne and Gaebler suggests building mission-driven organizations. (Osborne and Gaebler 130-136) She presented a mission statement in the letter that accompanied the survey to the department heads. This mission was emphasized during the interviews as well as guided the writing of the ADA Guidebook. 71 Chatterton viewed her role as a consultant on ADA to all other departments. She did not perceive ADA as solely her turf. She was involved in decisions about implementation,but not the only expert. She saw her job as training other people to think well about providing equal access of government provisions to people with disabilities. The hours of interviews began to create a culture around the mission of providing equal access. A common language began to develop between the ADA coordinator and department heads on the issue of access. Through those interviews the importance of equality and respect for people with disabilities was established. Throughout the implementation process, Chatterton's objective to respectfully serve people with disabilities was clear. Her work clearly was not just to fulfill requirements. Another sign of mission driven programs is an atmosphere that conveys permission to fail. (Osborne and Gaebler 135) Chatterton and DAC members made it clear that creating accessibility would be an ongoing learning process. Accessibility is a dynamic process in which mistakes were seen as a valid way of learning, because no one has all the answers for these new situations. Even if the City of Ithaca did not release Chatterton from traditional rules and budget procedures, the second survey embodied much more of a mission and more the spirit of recognizing difference than Chock's efforts. Although implementation of the ADA did not show great movement towards a new way of governance. In the long run, the ADA itself will require the City of Ithaca to provide information and programs in a more flexible manner in order to serve people with 72 disabilities. Flexibility is at the heart of ADA. The Planning Department will need to figure out how to give information found on maps to people who are blind. The Common Council will need to remember to say their names before they speak so that people who are blind can know who is speaking. As a reasonable accommodation, the Office of the Chamberlain will have to have all people who receive government benefits to pay at different time of the month if billing due dates conflict when a person receives their check. As people with disabilities learn their rights and become more integrated, Ithaca's government will need to learn to be more flexible and able to meet new situations in new ways. INITIATIVES ARE JUDGED BY OUTCOMES NOT INPUTS Many government programs are beginning to judge success of programs by outcomes instead of inputs, because `what gets measured gets done; if results are not measured, you cannot tell success from failure; if you cannot see success, you can't reward it; if you can't reward success, you're probably rewarding failure; if you can't see success, you can't learn from it; if you cannot recognize failure, you cannot correct it; and if you can demonstrate results, you can win public support.'(Osbome and Gaebler 146-154) Sometimes outcomes are measured by the final product and other times people use benchmarks to judge movement towards reaching outcome. (Osborne and Gaebler 14 1) Outcomes encompass accountability, performance, and results. (Osborne and Gaebler 14 1)Did any of the implementation of ADA or Section 504 judge success by outcome and not input? i 73 The surveys show a change in approach to success. The first survey demonstrated the concept of success being judge by inputs. As long as Chock's survey met federal requirements, the Section 504 coordinator did not pay much attention to the results. An update of the Transition Plan did not take place for seven years. Furthermore, the Transition Plan after the first few years was put aside. The 504 coordinator never instituted any way to measure progress. Not one department head during Chatterton's interviews said that there was a mechanism for updating the 504 survey. Although no deliberate mechanisms were devised to judge the second survey, institutional mechanisms of the DAC were in place to judge the second survey by its outcome. Chatterton planned to enact changes based on the outcome of the survey. The survey results will not just sit on the shelf as long as Chatterton is given time to continue working as ADA Coordinator. Prior to the survey, Chatterton planned on publishing the results and other pertinent information about respectfully serving people with disabilities in a guidebook for staff. Because of the existence of the DAC, Chatterton's efforts were judged by output. Chatterton reported her results and continued implementation to the DAC. If Chatterton does not follow through with projects, then the DAC will take action. They will meet with her or the mayor. This body that has a similar mission as Chatterton and therefore acts as a check and balance to the staff's effort to increase accessibility. Ithaca has not embraced measuring success by outcome in as much of a systematic way as perhaps other local governments. However, the increase in citizen advisory councils has 74 created mechanisms for accountability because they look at the performance and results of initiatives. CUSTOMERS' WANTS AND INPUT DRIVE GOVERNMENT ACTION Customer driven governments seek input from customers and give customers decision making power. (Osborne and Gaebler 169-186) Programs are user-friendly, transparent and "allow customers to meet their needs in a holistic way." (Osborne and Gaebler 192) Did Ithaca seek input from customers and give them decision making power? What was the effect of increasing access on making programs more user-friendly, transparent and holistic? This concern with customers is the center of Ithaca's ability to recognize and act on difference. The case studies illuminate these questions most and hit at the heart of the effect that implementing ADA has had on the governing of Ithaca. The study shows a change in both the amount of input asked by residents and the amount of decision power the residents have on the actions of the city. This can be seen from imputes of the two studies through to the implementation and action taken. The first study was initiated by the City of Ithaca whereas the second was initiated by the DAC. The first study only happened in order to keep federal funding whereas the second was to increase accessibility to people with disabilities. An interesting observation is that the members of Access Unlimited initiated the input, it was not sought by the government. Chock sought input and got little. Access Unlimited 75 sought to be heard and set up a committee which became central to the implementation of ADA. This is different from Osborne and Gaebler's investigations of listening to customers techniques. (Osborne and Gaebler 174-180) They all seem to be initiated by governments, not as a response to citizen initiatives. How much power did the DAC actually have? The City of Ithaca did not hand over decision making powers to them. DAC had the power to recommend action and those recommendations on the issue of implementing ADA were followed, however other recommendations such as those addressing snow removal were not explicitly followed. The structure of advisory boards are not to give then decision making power, but advisory power. This leaves the responsibility of advising to the advisory council. They need to have comprehensive recommendations with supporting information. This is not what Osborne and Gaebler meant when they say that governments give citizens the right to make decisions. Without increasing accessibility, Ithaca's government cannot be user-friendly or transparent. In order for the government to have input from residents with disabilities, the government must be accessible to its residents. All qualified people must be able to participate in government programs and gain access to it's benefits. Implementation of ADA and Section 504 are exercises in increasing access. Access to a certain level is a prerequisite to customer driven government. This is a process. Every act to increase accessibility increases the possibility for customer driven action. In the process of implementing ADA, more input will happen. 76 Ithaca is on its way to being customer driven. It invites input from those using its programs through citizen advisory groups and it is increasing accessibility so that people can give their input. However, citizen advisory boards have no decision making authority and in order for Ithaca's government to be truly customer driven this needs to happen. ACTIONS ARE ACTIVE INSTEAD OF REACTIVE Osborne and Gaebler define active governments as those which try to anticipate future needs and try to prevent future problems. (Osborne and Gaebler 229) To meet these ends, governments have set up Future Commissions, embarked on strategic planning, long-term budgeting, cross-departmental budgeting, regional government and other innovations to further their goals. Do any of the actions taken during this study point to a tendency towards anticipatory and preventive government? These changes are embodied in the spirit of the ADA. The first survey worked as a spring board for anticipating future needs only in terms of physical changes. The Transition Plan stands as a plan of removing the physical barriers for people with disabilities. This is the first wave of problems that people with disabilities face, but they face many more in trying to access government services. Outside of the actual interviews Chock performed, no preventive or anticipatory action was taken to make the actual services more accessible. The idea behind implementing the ADA is to make government more accessible to residents with disabilities. It is both anticipatory and preventive. Chatterton's early work was anticipatory while her latter work preventive. Her first actions wat to collect 77 information from the DAC and department heads. She sought information about future needs of the city from the DAC through their critique the Transition Plan Update and their opinions of the survey mechanism for the ADA Self-Evaluation. The survey gathered information about the current status of accessibility within the government to allow it to anticipate future problems. The results and recommendation from the survey provided the information needed for Chatterton set up preventive measures such as writing a guidebook on how to respectfully serve people with disabilities, training programs on ADA requirements for staff. The question of funding reasonable accommodations came up often during the interviews. The issues were who was responsible to pay, the department or the city and who would decide if the reasonable accommodation was not reasonable and caused an undue financial burden. Would there be one fund established that anyone could use if they needed a sign language interpreter or needed to put information in Braille? Would the department head or the mayor decide it was unreasonable. This issue was never completely resolved. The temporary solution, until a policy could be established went this way: if the department could afford the reasonable accommodation out of their budget, they would pay for it. ff they could not, then the request would go to the mayor and the Comptroller. If they could not find the money, then the division would be made by the mayor in advisement with the department head, legal council and Comptroller that the request was unreasonable. This shows a movement towards some intention of cross-department budgeting, but not much 78 GOVERNMENT ACTION INCORPORATES RESIDENTS OPPOSITION TO CURRENT POLICIES AND PRACTICES Arnstein provided a conceptual measure of citizen participation in the analogy of a ladder. The lowest rungs pacify the people,but contribute nothing to the to the decision making process. These rungs she labeled manipulation and therapy. The middle rungs are acts of tokenism such as informing, consultation and placation. the top rungs symbolize true citizen power such as partnership, delegated power and citizen control. To what extent did the City of Ithaca allow and respond to citizen participation as the city worked to include people with disabilities? To what extent did residents initiate participation and once a structure was set, who much power did they wield as residents worked to be included by government policies and practices? From 1985 to 1994, the City of Ithaca changed substantially in terms of the extent it allowed and responded to citizen participation as it worked to include people with disabilities. Furthermore, residents will to participate changed over that time. The change in initiative as well as action taken. During the implementation of the Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, participation of residents in the process was initiated by the city, not by citizens themselves. Chock sought out the Tompkins County Advocates for the Handicapped, the group did not initiate their own participation not the Self-evaluation Survey itself. Even though residents were used in identifying architectural barriers and participated in 79 budgeting for needed changes, Chock defined the ways citizens would participate in compliance efforts. This would fall on thR x�wrung of participation. By 1990, citizen participation took a different flavor. People with disabilities wanted to be involved in the governance process. Through Access Unlimited, they organized themselves to work on several objectives, one was to increase accessibility to city government. They initiated the first meetings with mayoral government which eventually led to an official advisory council. Within the confines of an advisory council, the DAC defined their tasks that they would take on. It was the DAC who recommended that the city update the Section 504 Self-evaluation Survey and then recommended that the city redo the Self-evaluation Survey. This is light years away from the participation people with disabilities were willing to commit to the city in the mid-1980x. Also the city's ability to absorb residents participation changed. Chatterton consulted the DAC on every step of ADA implementation. This consultation was more than just a rubber stamp, but it was not citizen control, it sat close to the wrung of partnership at times. She incorporated their concerns into the Survey itself, she consulted them on survey results and the actions that would lead from them, she asked for input on the outline of the ADA Guidebook for Staff. She fell short of including members of the DAC in the interviews of department heads. The DAC has worked to do much more than be apart of the efforts to comply directly with the ADA. They also have worked to remove barriers to people with disabilities participation in governance and to use city services, such as sidewalks and parks. The rest 80 of the city has not been as responsive to the DAC as Chatterton. This is due to short comings on the side of staff as well as DAC itself. When the DAC had a concrete - proposal, their recommendations were followed. The automatic door openers and the installation of a TTY at the Police Department were implemented quickly. The less concrete recommendations were not taken as seriously. The city did not do well in addressing the concerns about snow removal and concerns about snow removal policies. This may be due to procedural mess ups. The DAC Charge specifies that the DAC was to identify and prioritize barriers to equal inclusion of people with disabilities in local government. They did this, however, they went to individual department heads, the mayor and Common Council with individual concerns. They never recommended a resolution to the Common Council which identified and prioritized barriers needing removal. If they had, Common Council could have passed such a resolution that would have guided the efforts of particular departments. The participation by the DAC on other activities then Chatterton's efforts to assess the level of accessibility falls on the wrung of tokenism as the DAC only informed and consulted. City staff throughout the early 1990s made requests for information and recommendations from the DAC. The city engineer in charge of curb cut installation early on requested recommendations from the DAC. In 1994, DAC members did not receive the request. They only knew about it from mail FLIC had received. The engineer says she sent it to the 81 DAC. Some of these were followed up immediately. In 1994, the DAC was asked to participate in a study of brick pavement for crosswalk material as the city tried to make crosswalks more visible. An intern did the study, worked with the DAC and then wrote a report for the Planning Department. Over the years other requests have gone unmet. It is clear that when the DAC has the expertise and the time to do research, recommendations are forth coming. However, when the DAC must do substantial research, their ability falls short, because they lack the resources, primarily time, to do such action. The ability of the DAC to act on their charge would be greatly enhanced if a staff member was in charge of doing research for the DAC. This would allow the DAC to state what information was needed, to evaluate information and make recommendations. The lack of such support makes the DAC's participation some high level of tokenism. CONCLUSION In general,the actions to implement ADA are far more anticipatory and preventive than those of the action to implement Section 504. This demonstrates the City of Ithaca is being affected by this new paradigm of government, but has yet to incorporate it into its every day routine. How much has the government of Ithaca changed and do these constitute a recognition of difference?From 1970 to 1994,the city government has changed tremendously. In general, the government has grown in staff and volunteer numbers and has hired many more professionals. The government's evolution can be seen in the changing and expanding way the city has implemented federal civil rights legislation for people with 82 disabilities. In the 1980s, the city only met federal regulations in order to keep federal funding, whereas in the 1990s they met federal regulations to better serve people with disabilities. In the 1980s, people with disabilities were only included in key parts of the self-evaluation;whereas in the 1990s, they were included in almost every part of implementation. Specifically Ithaca has met the criteria in the following ways. 1. In implementing the ADA, the local government of Ithaca met each of the criteria supplied by Osborne and Gaebler in some way, but not in others. Ithaca's government action empowers residents rather than serve them. 2. Missions guided actions, but budgets were still guided by rules. 3. Mechanisms were in place to judge action by outcomes not inputs 4. Citizens wants and input guided many of the government actions 5. Actions were taken so that Ithaca could be active instead of reactive because they developed strategic planning actively sought citizen input 6. Government action incorporates residents opposition to current policies and practices. In general, the city has not taken any radical steps to change the way Ithaca is governed, the have embraced the more subtle pieces. These pieces include citizen involvement, mission guided initiatives, and a mechanism was put in place to judge programs by their output (DAC). Slowly the government is building its ability to be active instead of reactive to issues of including people with disabilities. Some more radical steps are missing. The city did not empower residents to make their own choices, and yet broadened the choices they could make. Staffs view on the public as a whole did not change. The budget process stayed the same. In all, the City of Ithaca is on its way to a more tailored government, but has a long way to go. Appendix A Comparison of Efforts to Increase Accessibility by Chock and Chatterton 83 84 Comparison of Efforts by Chock and Chatterton to Increase Accessibility Chock's Efforts Chatterton's Efforts 1985 1. Chock was contracted to 1992 1. DAC recommended Update of conduct a Self-evaluation 1995 Transition Plan Survey and prepare a Transition Plan 2. Survey of Department Heads 2. Chatterton performed update 3. Physical Survey 1993 3. City decided that 504 Self. evaluation Survey did not meet ADA requirements. 4. Public input 4. Chatterton was given the responsibility of ADA Coordinator and perform the necessary studies for the city to come into compliance. 5. Transition Plan 5. Chatterton consulted the DAC about Section 504 Transition Plan and the 1992 Update 6. Budgeting 6. Chatterton hired Jessica Skintges as ADA consultantlintem 7. Passage on the Handicap 7. Skintges surveyed other cities Accessibility Article of the about their ADA Self-evaluation Human Rights Ordinance Survey 8. Chatterton and Skintges presented a preliminary plan of action on implementation of ADA requirements to the mayor and department heads 9. Skintges and Chatterton wrote Self-evaluation Survey based on the law, regulations and survey forms prepared by other cities. 10. DAC presented with a ruff draft of the Self-evaluation Survey 11. Chatterton and Skintges performed survey 12. Skintges and Chatterton established the Tompkins County ADA Resource Network 13. Skintges prepared ADA 85 Guidebook for staff based on survey results. 14. Chatterton presented a draft of the survey results and recommendations to the DAC 15. Chatterton ordered a TTY and assistive listening device 16. ADA Resource Network held a day long ADA conference for public and private employees 87 SELF EVALUATION Department Evaluation Sheet 1. Name of Department or Office. CITY ATTORNEY 2. Address or Location: 108 East Green Street Ithaca, New York 14850 3 . Describe the service/program/benefit provided by this Department or office: City Attorney provides legal advice to the Mayor, Common Council, the various Departments and Boards as well as representing the City in legal actions. 4 . List the buildings/facilities used or overseen by this Department or Office. [Include not only locations owned by the City of Ithaca, but also those used by your office for public meetings or contact.* Indicate those buildings/facilities for which this Department or Office is ultimately responsible. City Hall - Office on Third Floor 5. List any agencies/independent contractors contracting with your department or office to provide programs or services to the public. Indicate which of those agencies/independent contractors are located in buildings owned or leased by the City of Ithaca. Owned or Leased by City es no NONE 88 6. Is the public aware of the method necessary to submit a grievance to this Office/Department should they have any complaints concerning the provision of the service? Attach a copy of your grievance procedure. Yes No X 7. Are there any eligibility requirements for receipt of this service/program/benefit? Yes No If yes, describe the impact on handicapped persons: NOT APPLICABLE 8. Does the handicapped public use this service/program/benefit? Yes NOT APPLICABLE No If no, have employees of the Office/Department made efforts to identify and/or locate. disabled individuals who could take advantage of the service? Yes No 9. How does a person with impaired hearing or vision communicate their needs to this Office/Department? Describe: NOT APPLICABLE 10. Have any non-structural changes been made to improve the accessibility of this service and offer it in the most integrated setting (home delivery, provide service at alternative sites) ? If so, describe the changes: NOT APPLICABLE 89 11. What auxiliary aids are available in the provision of this service for persons with sensory, speaking or hearing impairments. Auxiliary aids include such items as tele- communication devices, video tapes, tape recorded materials, sign language interpreters, brailled materials, readers, etc. ? List the available auxiliary aids : NOT APPLICABLE 12. Is the public aware that auxiliary aids are available in the provision of this service? Does the public know if you require advance notice in order to have the aid available? If yes, describe how this information is communicated to the public and attach copies of any notices: NOT APPLICABLE 13. Is this service physically accessible? (Are parking lots, curbs, entrances, doors, doorhandles, counters, restrooms, etc. , accessible to disabled persons?) (Consult ANSI, UFAS or equivalent specifications for specifc requirements. ) If yes, describe briefly : City Attorney's office is accessible to handicapped individuals - it is in City Hall. If no, will this :;fi*vice be provided from ano'.:h--r location ur1ch is accessible? Describe and specify a timetable for providing the service at an accessible location. This change, if necessary, should be in place by October 17, 1985. 90 14. If this service cannot be moved to a more accessible location or provided in a manner which would make it accessible, describe the problems a handicapped individual would encounter in taking advantage of the service. NOT APPLICABLE 15. Are any handicapped individuals employed by this Department/ Office in the provision of this service? NO If yes, describe any structural or non-structural accommoda- tions made which allow for performance of the job by the handicapped individual: 16. List all lease and contractual agreements made by the Department/Facility/Division) such as employee collective bargaining agreements, health and insurance policies, road maintenance agreements, fire protection, etc. Have lessors and contractors included anti-discriminatory clauses in all agreements and contracts? Please attach copies of these agreements. NOT APPLICABLE 91 SELF-EVALUATION Employment Evaluation Sheet 1. Review position descriptions used for full and part-time employment in the Department/Facility/Office for employees providing this service. Eliminate all criteria not essen- tial to performance of the job (modification of work schedules, job restructuring) . Attach copy of position description. 2. Review the employment application for the Dept. /Facility/Office for employees providing this service. Eliminate questions related to physical or mental requirements that are not essential to job performance (mobility of the police dispatcher, height or weight of the bookkeeper general health of the applicant) . Attach copy of employment application. 3. Describe any recruitment and advertising techniques used by the Department/Facility/Office which would encourage handi- capped persons to. apply for positions relating to the provi- sion of this service (special recruitment materials, contact with trade schools and educational institutions, rehabilita- tion facilities which work with handicapped individuals, groups that work with or for handicapped individuals, etc. ) . NONE 4. Review the hiring process (job interviews, testing, physical examinations, work assignments, etc. ) for the Department/ Facility/Office for positions relating to the provision of this service. Describe the steps that will be taken to assure that all practices are administered equally to handicapped individuals. Accessibility to Handicapped persons. Job descriptions which are non-discriminatory. 5. Attach a list of the fringe benefits affor „ employees of the Department/Facility/ Office _ who pxov;: this service, such as job training, holiday lei pension plans, health and insurance benefits, etc. Exan :i,3 their applica- tion to see that they are available equal]. to handicapped employees. NONE 6 . Name of Department/Facility/Office CITY ATTORNEY'S OPFICE Appendix C Raw Data Results from 1985 Self-Evaluation Survey 92 ! - - - - - - WN - - - - - - a � � 7 $ � & klkJ _ r4 - - C4 C _ C _ v � § � = & ° 2 E .e 0 > m § � © J2 n n n � � C-4 N � C14 n n n n W) o � � k q CV) - ■ � R � » V � � � k �I § . � Gn = e / o > cc CL v R f 2 � [ : 2 7 \ § v C) = [ .§ ƒ / o § ■ / o k •- = © e § § % a = u m © � � : � § : o o K 2 & 3 12 tj $ a S a U m U a w U U 211 � � / , n # « in n %n %n %n %n _ S 2 � � � 7k � e � - � % a § / t Cl - C11 q N - « M - - - 2 ■ � g\ kn cc to Ch q - - - - - w n - - n ® - - $ Im § � k � CL. « _ « _ - # « %n _ - � %n « _ vi 00 ■ J � £ / uE it co G j[ & -2 E 0 \ > 0 � § \ 2 2 ° ° ° U a 5 7 ( / 2 E D 2 [ '§ / § d § \ E .e 'e co § § 2 co o % o - \ : § : 2 t o a 3 n a a U m U w U U _ gy m -t w %0 u Z C O e� id i W w in C O � V d � � C � N v 00 ON h M M V1 %n %n co a o N N N N N f11 %n N ^• f`I f4 v � � o v a E d � L C C fly co .. �. v p c `d 0 o u u 3 G E .0 o w G O va. a. G] aa°OucnV914tz .r N 97 City of Ithaca Americans with Disabilities Act Self-Evaluation Name of person completing form: Title: Telephone: Department: I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS A List all programs, services,benefits and activities that involve interaction between your department and the public. Types of interaction may include permit applications,public hearings, provision of written reports, response to telephone inquiries, walk-in questions, etc. In addition, list all boards, commissions, committees or agencies that your department is responsible for staffing.Please be inclusive. B. Are you familiar with the City's policy of nondiscrimination to ensure that people with disabilities are not excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of your departments services,programs and activities? Yes No 1. Is department staff informed periodically of and does staff have a working knowledge of the policy of non-discrimination on the basis of disability? (For example,through discussion at staff meetings, posted notice,training?) Yes No a. If Yes,how is staff informed? 2. Is the public informed by department staff of the policy of non- discrimination on the basis of disability? (For example, by posted notice,telephone or advertising.) Yes No If Yes, how is the public informed? 3. Does the department provide stab'training to ensure that all staff involved in any aspect of programs that serve the public have a working knowledge of the department's obligations under the ADA? (The purpose of such training should be to foster understanding of responsibilities, acceptance, and support of nondiscrimination pokes.) Yes No a) If Yes, name specific training resource (examples include video tapes, training programs by Program on Employment and Disability (Cornell University), Finger Lakes Independent Center, or Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities.): C. Does your department have a policy to hold public meetings only in accmble facilities? Yes No D. Does your department use any of the following alternative formats and auxiliary aids for effective communication with persons with disabilities: Yes No braille interpreters audio tapes readers _,large print dedicated staff assistant _assistive listening `closed caption television devices("ALDs"such telephone devices for the as an FM amplification system) deaf(TDD) 1. If Yes, are staff trained to operate auxiliary aids? 2. if Yes, are auxiliary aids available during all working hours? 99 E. List any written guidelines or procedures prepared by the department concerning the availability and use of auxiliary aids and alternative formats. (Examples may include written instructions, posted notices, etc.) F. Does the department have policies to ensure that all future construction and renovation work will be carried out in accordance with ADA Accessibility guidelines? Yes No G. A decision that ADA compliance would result in fundamental alteration in the nature of a particular program or be an undue administrative or financial burden can only be made by a department head. Is there any procedure for preparation of a written statement and/or review? Yes No 1. H. Is the department involved with hiring or firing full or part time employees, seasonal employees,temporary employees, students or interns? Yes_ No (If no, no corrective action is needed.) If yes, analyze the following aspects of employment to make certain that no discrimination based on disability exists: recruiting, advertising and processing applications for employment; hiring, upgrading, promotion, award of tenure, demotion, transfer,layoff;termination, right of return from layoff and rehiring; retaining employees after onset of disability, rates of pay or any other form of compensation and changes in compensation; job assignments, job classifications, organizational structures, position descriptions, lines of progression,and seniority lists; leaves of absence, sick leave or any other leave; 100 fiinge benefits available by virtue of employment, whether or not administered by the recipient; department and financial support for training, including apprenticeship, professional meeting, conferences and other related activities, and selection for leaves of absence to pursue training, including social and recreational programs; and any other term, condition of privilege or employment. H. Are your aware of the City's complaint process for the general public or employees with disabilities and others should they experience diffx* in gaining access to services, programs or activities listed above? Yes No 1. If Yes, how is the public informed of the complaint process? i.e. reference to the City s ADA Coordinator, posters, addendum on public notice or taped material. 2. If Yes, provide the name, position, and phone number of the person to whom the public or employees can submit such complaints. 3. Describe what happens to a complaint after it is received. Generally, what steps are undertaken to resolve it, for example, to what committees or personnel is it referred for evaluation. 4. Identify the individual responsible for making final administrative, financial, and policy decisions. Does the department have a procedure for ensuring that such decisions are made properly and expeditiously? I. Has the department established and implemented emergency evacuation procedures? Yes No 1. If Yes, how is this information (including the warning that an evacuation is necessary) communicated to employees, the public and those who are visually and hearing impaired. 101 II. PROGRAM ACCESSIBILITY A. Recruitment and Advertising 1. Do recruitment and advertising procedures ensure opportunities for the selection and participation of people with disabilities? This applies to program participants, employees and those who serve on citizens advisory boards, commissions and committees. (Recruitment and advertising procedures may include notifying the City Clerk of job opportunities to advertise on the cable access network, statement of encouragement at the bottom of all public notices, posting public notices on local community bulletin boards and computer bulletin boards such as FLIC-net, and circulating notices of program opportunities with the Disability Advisory Council.) Yes No If Yes,how? 2. Are recruitment and/or advertising materials effectively communicated to persons who are blind or deaf; and those with visual and hearing impairments. (Methods of effective communication involve providing auxiliary aids or presenting materials in alternative formats such as pre- recorded telephone job lines or other audio related services.) Yes No 102 3. Do department recruitment and advertising policies and procedwes include outreach practices to recruit participation of people with disabilities. (Examples may include community and computer bulletin boards, personal networking requests, human service orgmzations, senior citizen centers, doctors' offices, Disability Advisory Council, Finger Lakes Independent Center, Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities, and Commission for the Blind.)Outreach is not mandated by ADA, however, it may be a necessary measure to include this constituency. Yes_ No B. Eligibility/Admission Requirements 1. List any eligibility/admission requirements for participation in programs, services or activities of your department. (Examples include permit or job application forms, income levels, residency requirements, good health, letters of recommendation, professional expertise, physical requirements or required tests.) a) Are all listed eligibility/admission requirements non- discriminatory towards people with disabilities? (Examples of discriminatory requirements include, small print forms, written forms,medical exams.) Yea No 2. Does the department have the capacity to effectively communicate eligibility and admission requirements to people who are blind or dead and those with hearing or visual impairments through provision of auxiliary aids or alternative formats. Yes No 103 C. Participation 1. The ADA requires that each service, program or activity, when viewed in its entirety, be readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This may require use of alternate sites, provision of auxiliary aids and services, modifications of policies, special assistance for those with limited reading or comprehension skills, etc. Are all of your department's programs, services and activities accessible to qualified persons with disabilities? Yes No 2. Does the department have a mechanism for periodic updating and re- evaluation of accessibility of programs, services and activities to accommodate the needs of new or existing program participants or employees? Yes No 3. In selecting between alternative plans for accessibility, does your department have a policy that gives priority to methods that allow persons with disabilities to participate in programs, activities, or services in the most integrated setting appropriate? Yes No a) Do you consult with any agency about alterative plans, such as the Finger Lakes Independent Center, Program on Employment and Disability, or Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Individuals with Disabilities? Yes No 104 4. Does your department provide transportation to employees or the general public? Yes No a) Last any program or activity in which transportation is provided to employees or the general public. b) Is the transportation provided accessible to or useable by persons with disabilities? Yes No 5. A department may not offer different or separate services or programs for persons with disabilities unless it is necessary in order to provide them with services or benefits that are as effective as those provided to others. Separate programs must not tend to restrict the participation of people with disabilities in general program activities. Are all services and programs inclusive? (Responding No means that separate services and programs exist.) Yes No a) If No,what are the reasons for the special programs? b) if No, has staff been informed that an individual with a disability cannot be denied an opportunity to participate in programs, services or activities that are not separate or different, even if permissibly separate programs or services exist? Yes No 105 M. COMMUNICATIONS ADA regulations state that public entities shall take appropriate steps to ensure that communications with applicants, participants, and members of the public with disabilities are as effective as communications with others. This could include people who are blind, deaf deaf- blind, or who have limited reading, comprehension and communication skills. A Does your department have a policy to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services ('interpreters, readers, assistive listening devices, TDD's, Brame or large print materials, audio tape, help in filling out forms, etc.) if necessary so that an individual with a disability has an equal opportunity to participate in or enjoy the benefits of your services, programs, or activities? (It is required that individuals with disabilities have the opportunity to request the auxiliary aids and services of their choice. It is also required that requested auxiliary aids and services be given primary consideration.) Yes No B. Does your department's reception/point of contact staff receive training in how to recognize and be sensitive to the needs of people with different types of communication disabilities in order to assist them? Yes No C. Does your department make available to applicants, participants, beneficiaries and other interested persons, information and notice regarding the provisions of the ADA and its applicability to your services, programs, or activities in order to apprise them of their rights and of protection against discrimination? Yes No 106 D. What methods has your department used to ensure that people, including those with impaired vision and hearing or limited reading and comprehension skills, can obtain information conceming the existence and location of accessible services, activities, and facilities? TV Radio Newspapers Auxiliary Aids Community agency newsletters_ Ahernative formats Outreach techniques—No methods tried yet Other E. Does your department notify the public and other interested persons that its public meetings, hearings, and conferences are held in accessible locations and that auxiliary aids will be provided, upon request, to participants with disabilities? Yes No F. Do your handout materials and brochures list: (1) procedures for providing access to persons with disabilities; and (2) the ADA Coordinator's name and phone number? Yes No G. ADA regulations state that where a department communicates by telephone with applicants and beneficiaries, TDD's or equally effective telecommunications systems shall be used to communicate with individuals with impaired hearing or speech. Does your department have a TDD? Yes No 1. If Yes,list number(s)and location(s) 2. If Yes, What steps have been taken to publicize the TDD number? 3. If No, does your department have regular contact with the public or with City employees: 107 Yes No 4. Does your department have training on a regular basis to fanff ized any appropriate or new staff members with the operation of the TDD, the TDD Relay Service, and other effective means of communicating over the telephone with persons who have hearing or speech impairments? Yes No H. Are printed posters and announcements clearly legible? Yes No 1. Are they placed in physically accessible locations where smaller print can be read from a wheelchair? Yes No 2. Are high contrasting colors used in printed materials so that they can be read by individuals with visual impairments,including color bfuxiness. Yes No 3. Do graphics permit easy reading of content? Yes No I. Are written descriptions and visual representations of people with disabilities free from patronizing stereotypes? Yes No J. Does your department produce any television or videotape programming? Yes No 1. If Yes, is it captioned(can be opened or closed)? Yes No 108 IV. Use of Contractors ADA regulations state that a public entity, in providing any aid, benefit or service, may not, directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements deny a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate or benefit. Regulations also state that a public entity cannot aid or perpetuate discrimination by providing significant assistance to an agency, organization, or person that discriminates. In addition,because the City is a recipient of federal funds, discrimination against people with disabilities is prohibited by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. A Are steps taken to ensure that department staff responsible for contracting understand these requirements? Yes No B. Is language included in department contracts to inform contractors of their obligations to ensure that programs and activities operated with funds received through the City of Ithaca do not discriminate against people with disabilities. Yes No C. Does your department have procedures for ongoing monitoring of contracts to ensure that services do not discriminate against people with disabilities? Yes No Appendix E. Raw Data Results from 1993 Self-Evaluation Survey 109 Appendix F Recommendations from 1993 Self-Evaluation Survey its 119 Corrective Actions The following recommendations are based on responses elicited by the ADA Self= evaluation and the suggestions of department heads and other evaluation participants. Implementation of the recommendations will support the City's effort to improve accessibility of programs, services and benefits, and to inform City staff, officials and the public of the City's willingness and ability to provide reasonable accommodations. POLICIES The purpose and requirements of the ADA suggests that, at a minimum, municipalities adopt the following policies. 1. general policy of non discrimination against people with disabilities 2. policy to hold public meetings in accessible locations 3. policies to provide programs, services and benefits in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual 4. policy to provide accommodations on request 5. policy that improvement to City facilities or new construction shall meet ANSUADAAG Standards 6. (employment policies) Policies protecting the rights of people with disabilities are found in Chapter 215 of the Municipal Code entitled Human Rights, adopted by the City in 1985. The policies 128 concerning non discrimination and accessible meeting places are included in Article H- Anti-discrimination and Article III - Handicapped Accessibility. Amendments to the Ordinance shall be made to add policies to provide services in the most integrated setting, to provide accommodations on request, to ensure ADAAG or ANSI standards are met in construction or improvement of City facilities, and policies (concerning employment policies.) In addition to amendments needed to correct deficiencies, language of the ordinance also needs revision. This recommendation reflects shifts in terminology instituted by Congress with the passage of the ADA and is intended to eliminate stereotypes, patronizing attitudes and other subjective connotations that may be applied to people with disabilities. Responsibility: ADA Coordinator, City Attorney, Charter and Ordinance Committee, Common Council Target Date: 07/94 NOTICE The ADA requires municipalities to take steps to notify the public of City policies, procedures, and available accommodations in relation to compliance with the ADA- In addition, the City has the responsibility of keeping staff, municipal officials and lay boards informed of ADA requirements. By providing information to City employees and municipal officials, this guidebook is an example of such a step. The City shall take the following additional steps to meet notice requirements 121 POSTER The City shall prepare an 8 1/2"x 11" poster announcing the policy of non-discrimination on the basis of disability. Also included shall be the name, department, work address and telephone number of the ADA coordinator. The poster shall also inform the public of the City's willingness and ability to provide reasonable accommodations upon request and will list a contact number(s)to inquire about specific accommodations. (City Hall, Youth Bureau, Police Department, Fire Department. What about this notice in other formats? To accompany radio announcements etc.?) Department heads will be responsible for ensuring that the poster is hung in an accessible location used by the public. Responsibility: ADA Coordinator, Department head Target Date: 07/94 PAMPHLET/AUDIO TAPE The City shall produce a pamphlet detailing steps taken in compliance with the ADA. The pamphlet shall include a statement regarding the City's policy of non discrimination and shall provide the name, department,work address and telephone number of the ADA Coordinator. Information about the City's Human Rights Ordinance and grievance procedure shall be included. The pamphlet shall also inform the public of the City's willingness and ability to provide accommodations upon request, shall suggest available accommodations, shall affirm the right of the person with a disability to request accommodation that may not be listed in the pamphlet and shall outline the procedure for making requests for accommodations. (The pamphlet may also explain that the City is 122 required to consider, but after reasonable consideration, is not required to supply the first choice accommodation. In such cases, where the first choice is not "reasonable" the City is however required to communicate with the individual to find a suitable alternative.) The pamphlet shall be available at the City Clerks office, in the main lobby of City Hall and at principal reception areas of all municipal facilities housing programs, benefits and services to the public. STATIONARY The statement of the City's general policy of non-discrimination shall appear on all stationary ordered after 06/01/94 AGENDA&MEETING NOTICES✓LEGAL ADS A statement encouraging participation by people with disabilities shall be included on all meeting notices, agendas, legal advertisements, and media announcements of public meetings Such statement shall also communicate the City's willingness and ability to provide reasonable accommodations on request and a contact for making such requests. Procedure for determining undue burden The ADA does not require provision of accommodations if it can be shown that the accommodation will cause a fundamental alteration of the program or will create an undue financial or administrative burden. A determination of"fundamental alteration'or "undue burden' can only be made by a department head or others with budgetary iii authority and responsibility for making spending decisions. The municipality has the burden of proving that a compliance would result in such an alteration or burden. To ensure that decisions are made in light of full factual evidence, the department head shall consult with the Mayor. The Mayor shall use his or her discretion about whether to consult additionally with either the City attorney, the City Controller or the ADA Coordinator. Once a decision is reached, the department head shall prepare a written statement of justification. The statement shall be placed on file with the ADA Coordinator. UP-DATING THE SELF-EVALUATION. Evaluation forms completed in 1993 shall be entered onto the computer facilitate updating. The ADA Coordinator shall redistribute Evaluation forms every three years. Department Heads shall note where updated responses may differ from 1993 responses. The ADA Coordinator shall tabulate responses and prepare a summary report on findings. TRAINING It shall be the responsibility of the respective department heads to ensure that new and/or temporary employees, students,interns or any person working for the City shall be familiar with requirements and responsibilities of the City under the ADA- This may be accomplished by ensuring that these employees become familiar with information contained in the City of Ithaca ADA Guidebook. Department Heads shall distribute the Guidebook and after sufficient review period, shall schedule a that if department staff is so large as to make a such meeting discuss issues of interest or concern. It is suggested a 124 meeting impractical, that this responsibility be delegated to another manager within the department. Both department heads and staff should periodically review the iC�u debook . BIBLIOGRAPHY Access Unlimited minutes, agendas, notes, press releases, handouts, news clippings, 1988- 1990. Collected by Kuhn, Brenda. Albrecht, Gary. The Disability Business: Rehabilitation in America. London: Sage Publications, 1992. Census Bureau. Data on the City of Ithaca, 1990 Chock, Carol. (Consultant) Interview with the author, 1994. Ferguson, Philip. Abandoned to Their Fate: Social Policy and Practice Towards Severely Retarded People in America, 1820-1920. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994. Gray, Bill. (Department Head of Public Works)Handout about Ithaca's government. 1994. Kuhn, Brenda. (Member of the Disability Advisory Council)Interview with the author, 1993. Kuhn, Thomas S.. The Structure of Scientific Relations. United States of America: Chicago Press, 1962. Leagues of Women Voters of Tompkins County, Local Government in Tompkins County, Ithaca, NY, 1986. Osborne, David and Ted Gaebler. Reinventing Government:How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is Transforming the Public Sector. New York: Penguin Group, 1993. Piore, Michael J., and Charles F. Sabel. The Second Industrial Divide:Possibility for Prosperity. United States of America: Basic Books, Inc., 1984. Pope and Tarlov. Disability in America. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990. Scotch, Richard. From Goodwill to Civil Rights. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984 Shapiro, Joseph. No Pity:People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. New York: Random House, 1993. The Disability Advisory Council minutes, agendas, notes, press releases, handouts, news clippings, 1990-1993. Collected by Kuhn, Brenda. 125 iu ' Thurston, Sherry. (Member of Tompkins County Advocates for the Handicap) Interview with the author, 1994.