REPORT OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT SELF-EVALUATION PROJECT
Office of the Assistant Vice President for Human Resources
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI
April 1994
Robert Banks
Assistant Provost and
Assistant Vice President for Academic Human Resources
James Bristor
Professor, Park and Recreation Resources
Chair, President's Handicapper Advisory Committee
Eric Gentile
Coordinator, Office Of Handicapper Operations and Services
C. Keith Groty
Assistant Vice President for Human Resources
Chair, ADA Self-Evaluation Committee
Dawn Hecker
Project Coordinator
Martha Hesse
Assistant Director, Long Range Planning in the Office of Planning and Budgets
Barbara Kranz
Facilities, Alterations and Improvements Coordinator,
Facilities, Planning and Space Management in the Office of Planning and Budgets
Ruth Renaud
Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs and Services
Norman Schleif
University Architect
*Pamela Heatlie, Staff Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, served as legal advisor to the ADA Self-Evaluation Committee and project.
INTRODUCTION
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was passed into law in 1990, effective July 26, 1992. In five titles, the ADA prohibits discrimination against handicappers in employment practices, programs, transportation, public accommodation and telecommunication.
Such requirements as those imposed by the ADA are not new to Michigan State University. As a federal funding recipient, the University has, for 20 years, been covered by requirements of Title V of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (FRA), generally known as the first national-level "civil rights" legislation for handicappers. This legislation established the mandate that recipients of federal funding must make their programs accessible to handicappers.
Consistent with its commitment to diversity and general accessibility, the University has made efforts, beyond legal requirements, to make its programs accessible to handicappers.
REQUIREMENTS OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
Title II of the ADA extends the requirements of Section 504 of the FRA to public and private entities which are not recipients of federal funding. It specifically addresses program accessibility, requiring that programs conducted by state and local governmental entities be accessible to handicappers.
The major requirements of Title II of the ADA include the following:
TITLE II SELF-EVALUATION REQUIREMENT
Title II of the ADA requires public entities to conduct a self-evaluation of the policies and practices used to conduct their programs, services and activities in order to identify areas where handicappers are not afforded an equal opportunity to participate. Many public entities, including post-secondary institutions, have been and continue to be covered under Section 504 and have conducted a 504 self-evaluation. Title II stipulates that such entities need only evaluate those programs not covered in the 504 self-evaluation.
THE ADA SELF-EVALUATION PROJECT
The overriding goal of the ADA self-evaluation project was to bring the University into compliance with the self-evaluation requirement of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A secondary, but important goal, was to educate program administrators about the law and provide information to assist them in making their programs more accessible to handicappers.
Titles I, III, IV, and V of the ADA were not covered in the scope of the ADA self-evaluation project. Title I, covering employment, was addressed earlier by the ADA Task Force which evaluated the ADA's impact on the University's employment practices. Titles III, IV and V address public accommodations delivered by private entities, telecommunication by public carriers, and miscellaneous issues not applicable to the University.
In May 1993, MSU's one-year ADA self-evaluation project began. An administrative committee developed a process to evaluate all the University's programs, services and activities - including those previously evaluated under the 504 self-evaluation.
It was decided that a comprehensive self-evaluation of all programs, including those evaluated under Section 504, was necessary for two reasons. First, there was a need to increase awareness about legal requirements and the University's commitment to handicappers, and of program administrators' obligations to conduct programs that provide equal opportunity for participation of handicappers. Second, the number of programs which are new or have changed substantially since the 1978-79 Section 504 self-evaluation would make it very difficult to determine exactly which programs needed to be evaluated. A comprehensive evaluation would provide clearer total compliance with the ADA's self-evaluation requirement.
The decision was made to conduct the ADA self-evaluation via written survey. Primary responsibility for the process was placed on administrators of the University's major administrative units (MAUs). It was believed that conducting the self-evaluation in such a decentralized manner would increase program investment in the self-evaluation process and shift compliance responsibility to the MAUs, where it must ultimately fall at an institution the size and complexity of Michigan State University. Each MAU administrator was responsible for determining how to evaluate the programs conducted by the MAU's departments - how many self-evaluations would need to be completed, and who should complete them. MAU administrators were responsible for distributing, collecting and reviewing the self-evaluations completed for departments within each MAU.
In November 1993 self-evaluation packets were distributed, via campus mail, to MAU administrators. Each packet contained a letter of introduction and instruction, an optional self-evaluation summary form, and sufficient self-evaluation instruments for the MAU's departments and additional programs. The time table called for return of the self-evaluations to MAU administrators by December 10, 1993. MAU administrators were to review the self- evaluations, complete a summary form if they wished, and return all self-evaluations to the project office by January 7, 1994.
The vast majority of MAU self-evaluation instruments were returned to the project office according to schedule. One-hundred percent compliance in self-evaluation completion and return was eventually achieved.
THE SELF-EVALUATION INSTRUMENT
The ADA self-evaluation instrument provided information about ADA's requirements and collected information about accessibility of the University's programs, services and activities.
In developing the self-evaluation instrument, the committee consulted handicappers in the MSU community, ADA coordinators at other institutions which had completed their self- evaluations, and fifteen individuals on campus who tested the instrument prior to distribution. A number of changes were made in the instrument, based on tester comments.
The self-evaluation instrument consisted of seven sections; a first general section which applied to and had to be completed for all programs, and six additional sections which pertained to only certain programs, and needed to be completed only for those programs. Throughout the self-evaluation instrument, descriptions of the ADA's legal requirements were followed by related questions calling for a YES, NO or CHANGE IN PROGRESS response. Space was provided within each item for explanation of any possibly non-compliant responses. Informational paragraphs, wording of questions, and requests for explanation made it clear which response to each item was considered non-complaint. The CHANGE IN PROGRESS option was to be selected when a program was in the process of making a change at the time of the self-evaluation and necessary modifications would be completed by February 28, 1994. FINDINGS AND PLANNED MODIFICATIONS
Self-evaluation findings for specific programs are detailed in MAU summary forms.
Findings of the ADA self-evaluation indicate that, overall, the University's programs are being administered in a manner that provides equal opportunity for participation to handicappers. In general:
There are some recurring patterns of potential non-compliance in such areas as providing accessible telephone communication and establishing and communicating building emergency brochures and special event publicity inviting handicappers to request accommodations. Program staff and faculty are being informed about federal requirements, the University's commitment to handicappers, and of their obligation to be responsive to handicappers who wish to participate in the University's programs. Elaboration on these points follows below.
A. Ensuring Accessible Telephone Communication
Many departments reported non-compliance or changes in progress in ensuring that telephone communication is accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals.
To make telephone communication more accessible to those who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, units with extensive contact with the public or the general student population (e.g., Admissions, Financial Aid, athletic ticket offices), and units with demonstrated need (i.e., a deaf employee or enrolled student) were advised to consider purchasing, renting or otherwise finding ready access to a TTY (TeleTYpewriter) device. Units which did not meet this criterion of extensive public/student contact or demonstrated need, were advised or, and planned to use the Michigan Relay Center and instruct faculty and staff in its use. The Michigan Relay Center serves as an intermediary in telephone conversations between persons who use TTYs and those who use voice-based telephone. The service is cost-free to both parties.
B. Informing Faculty and Staff about the ADA
Many programs reported a need to inform faculty and staff of ADA requirements and of their obligation to provide accessible programs.
In many units, changes were in progress to communicate information to faculty and staff regarding specific ADA requirements, the University's commitment to making its programs accessible, and their obligation to be responsive to handicapper requests to participate. although faculty and staff have a general understanding of the need to make programs accessible, these units planned to augment that understanding with specific information, being communicated in training sessions, in department meetings, and through memoranda and individual contacts. Staff in the offices of Programs for Handicapper Students (OPHS) and Handicapper Operations and Services (HOS) are available to discuss self-evaluation findings and specifics of ADA compliance, to discuss areas of non-compliance, offer suggestions for necessary program modifications, and respond to questions. Program administrators are encouraged to contact either of these offices for assistance.
C. Modification of Program Brochures and Publicity Materials
The University has advised that program brochures and publicity for special events sponsored by the University or any of its departments, contain a statement inviting handicappers to request needed accommodations and identifying a contact person. The self-evaluation revealed widespread change in progress in this area, as well as a number of programs indicating their brochures and publicity materials do not contain such an invitation to handicappers, although they may have indicated their programs are handicapper accessible.
At the time of the self-evaluation most units not already including such information in program brochures and publicity materials were in the process of modifying materials to include such an invitation, and planned to be in compliance by February 28, 1994. some programs which had just printed new program brochures indicated this change would be made at next printing.
D. Emergency Evacuation Plans
The self-evaluation found widespread need for individual building evacuation plans to be developed, including plans to evacuate handicappers from buildings, and for plans to be communicated to program administrators, staff and participants, including handicappers.
University emergency evacuation procedure, defining general procedures for building evacuation, are in place. These procedures, however, have not established detailed evacuation plans for each campus facility. The University is in the process of developing building- specific evacuation plans. The MSU Department of Police and Public Safety, cooperation with identified building managers, will evaluate classroom and office buildings on campus, and establish evacuation plans which include identification of "assisted resource areas" within each building. Once established, these plans will be communicated to a designated "emergency coordinator" for each department housed within the building. These coordinators will conduce emergency drills and communicate emergency procedures to program faculty, staff and participants, including handicappers who may need to receive this information in alternative formats.
E. Review of Written and Audio-Visual Materials
Self-evaluation responses indicated that audio-visual and written materials shown or distributed by many programs have not been reviewed for appropriate language and to be certain handicappers are portrayed in a positive and accurate manner.
At the time of the self-evaluation, there was widespread change in progress reviewing audio- visual and written materials. Similarly, many program administrators indicated such materials had been reviewed and do not portray handicappers in any manner, as they are not shown in pictures or specifically mentioned in text.
In addition to areas mentioned above, where the self-evaluation identified widespread compliance issues, there are isolated situations which may be problematic.
A. Eligibility Requirements for Program Participation
There are isolated situations where programs (approximately 20) appear to apply eligibility guidelines which might unlawfully deny or limit access to handicappers.
These are not situations of explicit exclusion of handicappers, but rather reflect application of possibly unnecessary eligibility criteria which incidentally exclude handicappers. This was noted most frequently in descriptions of required activities in various scientific laboratory courses. These situations are noted on the MAU summary forms, with cautions against making assumptions about the abilities of handicappers based on their characteristics. Comments stress the importance of talking with the individual handicapper to determine, whether any modifications can be made in required activities which still provide the student with the essential information and experience to be gained from the course.
B. Availability and Use of Accessible and Accommodating Facilities
Some programs (approximately 50) reported problems related to accessibility of facilities. Among issues mentioned were, inaccessible buildings or offices housing programs, and lack of accessible and accommodating facilities in which to locate special events or relocate routine services as needed. For off-campus facilities, the major issue is reportedly lack of control over locations selected for events.
Issues related to availability of accessible and accommodating facilities will be referred to Facilities, Planning and Space Management in the Office of Planning and Budgets for review and follow-up. There appears to be a shortage of accessible and accommodating space on campus, especially for large events. Some of the instances of apparent non-compliance may, however, result from lack of information about available accessible and accommodating facilities in which to hold activities, or procedural difficulties booking such space. Program administrators have been advised to ensure that off-campus activities are held in accessible and accommodating facilities when events are open to the public, or as needed.
FUTURE INITIATIVES
In meeting the legal obligation to conduct a self-evaluation of programs, the ADA self- evaluation project has also raised awareness about handicapper issues and concerns, and provided information about how the University's programs, services and activities can be conducted to make them most accessible to handicappers.
The ADA self-evaluation project has placed major responsibility for compliance on MAU administrators working with their department and program administrators. Self-evaluation summary packets distributed to MAU administrators require them to assume responsibility for assuring that areas of non-compliance identified in the self-evaluation are addressed and corrected in a timely manner, and reported to the appropriate vice president. Similarly, MAU administrators are advised to verify that changes in progress at the time of the self-evaluation and due for completion by February 28, 1994, have been completed. Facilities, Planning and Space Management in The Office of Planning and Budgets will follow up on issues of availability of accessible and accommodating facilities, identified in the self-evaluation
Michigan State University's commitment to diversity and institutional accessibility is long standing and has been affirmed most recently in such documents as "MSU IDEA II" and "Foundations and Guiding Principles." It is fundamental to this commitment to provide programs, services and activities which offer handicappers an equal opportunity to participate, and to welcome the contributions of all members of the University community, including those who are differently-abled
Appendices Table of Contents
Appendix H
Diversity Home Page
MSU Home Page