ADA Research Summary

Summary:
Summary of Research Results From a Survey of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodation Request Experience of People Who Are Blind or Have A Severe Visual Impairment

eSight published a request for volunteers for a survey to study the impact of the ADA on the employment of people with severe visual impairments funded by the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR).

The study focused on how well the ADA functions as a tool to aid in accomplishing goals. Legal, technical, or philosophical opinions are less important than whether the ADA tool is used and how well it works. The essential questions were, "Did you request accommodation?" "Did you receive anything?" and, "Was what you received effective?" This was based on the definitions and examples of disability discrimination and readily achievable reasonable accommodations found in the text of the ADA and the EEOC/DOJ guidelines. Request situations in the following 5 areas were examined:

a) job applications and interviews,
b) on-the-job,
c) school or training programs,
d) government services, and also
e) private services.

Here is a summary of the research results.

Out of 151 volunteers, 113 (75%) described an average of less than 3 requests each, for a grand total of 311 requests made in all 5 areas between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2004. Thirty-eight people (25%) made no requests in any of the 5 years. Since a person who is blind could request more often than this, I thought the survey might be too long, but the survey respondents estimated they did not make many requests. They knew they had the right to request, but the ADA tool was just not used very often.

The survey respondents were asked why they made few or no requests. Eighty-three responses (53%) indicated there was no need for any, or any more employment-related accommodation. Some were not seeking employment and others requested and received effective accommodation prior to 2000 and did not need to make more requests during 2000 to 2004. Sixty-five responses (40%) indicated the ADA request process was a conflict or just an ineffectual way to obtain access to fulfill one's goals. Some (23) were concerned about retaliation. Some were denied the right to apply for jobs, transfers, or promotions, thereby being denied the right to request accommodation. The reason most often given for not requesting accommodation was that the request process was too much trouble. The ADA tool was not very efficient or user-friendly.

Those who made requests experienced the following rates of failure to effectively accommodate:

a) 38% during job applications and interviews,
b) 35% on-the-job,
c) 33% by schools or training programs,
d) 60% by government services, and
e) 52% by private services.

The combined, weighted average rate for all 5 areas for the failure to effectively accommodate was 43%, or conversely, the combined, weighted rate of effective accommodation for all 5 areas was 57%. The ADA tool was effective less than 60% of the time overall with a range of 33% to 60% failure rate to effectively accommodate. An individual's tolerance for the failure of other tools may vary, but reliance on the ADA is likely diminished due to this low level of reliability. The ADA tool was not very effective.

The accommodations requested fell into three categories. One was equipment, such as a CCTV, a scanner, or a Braille display, or computer access software such as a screen reader. The second category was alternate formats or processes, such as a reader or scribe, Braille, large print, or digital material, or more time, or a change in location. The third category was help with transportation or orientation and mobility. No requests for equipment were made to government or private services. In each category, requests were fulfilled or not at nearly the same rate. The type of accommodation requested did not seem to affect the success of requests. All the requests appeared to be reasonable and the requesters and the entities were covered by the law.

Several questions on the survey asked for the requesters' perception of the quality of the ADA request process. Having to repeat the same request for an obvious accommodation from the same entity makes the process tedious and may discourage requests. It sends the message that providing accommodation is a burden. Of the 82 survey respondents who had ongoing needs and answered the question, 49 (60%) only had to ask once or a few times, while 33 (40%) had to ask repeatedly or every time they needed obvious accommodation such as alternate formats for print material from the same entity. Of 91 respondents who rated the speed of the process, 45 (50%) found the process fast or very fast, 43 (47%) said it was slow or very slow and 3 (3%) did not know. Of 90 respondents who rated their satisfaction with the process, 61 (68%) were satisfied or very satisfied, and 29 (32%) were unsatisfied or very dissatisfied with the request process.

Two other measures of the ADA request process were the requesters' sense of the willingness of the entity to comply with requests and the difficulty of the process. These perceptions did not simply mirror whether an accommodation was received and was effective. The process might seem difficult and the entity seen unwilling even when effective accommodation was provided, or the reverse could occur. In 11 (9%) of 122 unfulfilled situations the process was viewed as easy or very easy. In 39 (22%) out of 178 fulfilled situations the process was considered difficult or very difficult. In 43 (35%) out of 124 unfulfilled request situations the entity was perceived to be willing or very willing to accommodate. In 10 (6%) of 178 fulfilled situations the entity was perceived to be unwilling or very unwilling to accommodate. At times, the ADA tool will be difficult to use, but leads to effective accommodation, and at times it may be easy to use, but leads nowhere. Also, at times the entity required to accommodate may seem unwilling to comply, but will do so anyway, or the entity may seem willing, but that will lead nowhere. These findings suggest that perceptions, opinions, or attitudes have less value for describing or predicting ADA request success than do current behaviors.

Another measure of ADA requests was the requester's knowledge of the entity's accommodation history. In 31 (24%) of 128 unfulfilled request situations, requesters thought the entity did not usually accommodate. In 50 (39%) of the unfulfilled situations, requesters thought the entity usually did. In 47 (37%) unfulfilled situations, the requesters did not know the entity's history. In 10 (5%) of 183 fulfilled situations, requesters thought the entity did not usually accommodate. In 140 (77%) fulfilled situations, the requesters thought the entity usually did accommodate and in 33 (18%) fulfilled situations, requesters did not know the entity's history. Requests to entities that are known to accommodate are more often fruitful, but knowing the entity's accommodation history will not always reveal or predict its current behaviors.

The ADA appeals process was also examined. People with severe impairments rarely benefit from any redress process. An earlier exhaustive study of all ADA complaints found that only 5% win an EEOC complaint and most do not get anything even if they win. They win the right to sue, but do not have access to a lawyer. They lose in court by a huge margin. A rate of 314 loses to 14 wins for the year 2001 is typical. It is not a surprise then, that for this sample, appeals were only attempted in 25% of 128 situations where effective accommodation was not provided.

Out of 33 appeals, 3 were made to a federal agency and were ineffectual. One was a law suit that was not yet settled. Three appeals were made to a state, county, or city human rights agency. Of those, 1 was in progress, and 2 were unsuccessful. The most frequently used avenue of appeal (22) was to contact someone else in the same organization. Of those appeals, 7 were successful,10 were not successful and 5 were pending. Of the 17 completed appeals of failure to accommodate made to someone in the same organization, 41% were successful. The tools for redress of ADA violations were rarely used and were not often effective.

This was not a random sample. Therefore, the results do not generalize to all people with a severe visual impairment. The 151 survey respondents were from 41 states; 66% lived in a city, and the rest were about evenly divided between rural and suburban areas. About 50% were totally blind or only had light perception, 44% were legally blind, 6% had low vision, and 54% have had a visual impairment since birth. Also, 58% had a bachelor's degree or higher, 54% were female, 87% were White, and 50% were employed. The average age was 49, ranging from 20 to 64.

The most troubling findings came from the review of the literature. Rather than accepting that civil rights for people with disabilities is the law of the land, the professional literature either ignores the ADA or debates its merits as though seeking to have the law repealed. The professional, scientific media, not just the public media seem to be conducting a silence or attack campaign against the ADA. The prevalence in the professional media of ignoring or assaulting the ADA represents systemic disability discrimination in academia. A one-sided battle over the ADA continues.

Systemic disability discrimination in research on the impact of the ADA is perpetrated by perverse-results studies that report that the ADA harms the people it intended to help. In addition, some professionals redefine the ADA's purpose, concepts, and processes. The ADA is then measured by those false concepts and found lacking. Instead of looking into disability discrimination, which is what the ADA prohibits, some researchers study the ADA as though it were created to solve all problems, for all people with all types of disabilities. Others say Congress never intended it would do much of anything. Some researchers act as if the ADA is implemented while others claim research on the implementation of the ADA cannot be done, or cannot be done by disability type.

In highly relevant areas in the social sciences disability discrimination is ignored or distorted and the benefits of the ADA are hidden. Vague opinions may get reported, but behaviors and contexts that contribute to, or constitute disability discrimination are ignored. The law is used to justify diminishing or dismantling disability support systems on the basis of the false claims that access is now equal. In the literature, people with disabilities are being blamed for the discrimination they face and for the ADA's limitations. Or, the ADA and people with disabilities are ignored in relevant areas in research, reports, and professional textbooks. This is a repeat of the way some writers treated race and gender civil rights laws.

The confusion created by the professional literature in the past 16 years means people with severe impairments have not received pertinent information on disability discrimination and the impact of the ADA. They were told they have the right to request accommodation, but until this study, there has been almost no research on how well requests would be honored. Unless their experience is included, disability discrimination will remain hidden and the next generation of professionals will continue to create or evaluate the environment without considering its impact on people with severe impairments because almost no high school, college or graduate level textbooks in any field contain any mention of the ADA or related laws or mention people who encounter disabling environments.

This research begins to provide insight on the functioning of the ADA as a tool for those who need it. This type of research on the implementation and impact of the ADA should be continued on a regular basis and with other types of disabilities as well.

Many thanks to eSight and to the volunteers who made this research possible.

To read the entire report contact the RRTC on Blindness and Low Vision to order a digital copy for $20 of A Survey of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accommodation Request Experience of People Who Are Blind Or Have A Severe Visual Impairment.

Mail:

RRTC on Blindness and Low Vision
P. O. Box 6189
Mississippi State, MS 39762

Phone: 800/675-7782

e-mail: lisa1@ra.msstate.edu or schaefer@colled.msstate.edu

Bookmark this article to: