The Americans with Disabilities Act: An Examination of Compliance by State, Territorial, and Local Governments in the USA David Pfeiffer Hawaii University Affiliated Program on Disabilities University of Hawai`i at Manoa 1776 University Ave UA 4-6 Honolulu, HI 96822 USA and The Sawyer School of Management Suffolk University, Boston, USA Joan Finn AIDS Bureau Massachusetts Department of Public Health Boston, MA 02111 USA Abstract Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits public entities in the US from discriminating against people on the basis of a disability. The term "public entity" includes all state, territorial, and local governments and their instrumentalities. A survey was conducted to determine the extent of compliance by public entities in the US. Based on the survey the conclusion is that the ADA is being implemented on the state, territorial, and local levels in the US to a satisfactory extent. The Americans with Disabilities Act: An Examination of Compliance by State, Territorial, and Local Governments in the USA On July 26, 1990, the most comprehensive civil rights legislation for persons with disabilities ever enacted in the US was signed into law by the president. (Tysse, 1991) The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) extends protection from discrimination in employment from the public to the private sector in Title I, covers all state, territorial, and local government policies, practices, and services in Title II, covers public accommodations in Title III, and requires a relay system in each state for persons who can not use the existing telephone system in Title IV. There are miscellaneous provisions found in Title V. The ADA builds upon the previously existing mandates of the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, the Urban Mass Transportation Act amendment of 1970, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and later amendments, the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act of 1975, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act of 1980, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and Handicapped Act of 1984, the Air Carriers Access Act of 1986, the Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 which was originally enacted in 1975 under the name of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, and other federal statutes. (Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, 1989; Bowe, 1990; West, 1991; Tucker & Goldstein, 1992) It is described as the most significant civil rights statute for any group since the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Judged by the amount of attention it receives in the media and from employer organizations, it very well may be, in the long range, the most significant piece of legislation passed during the Bush Administration. Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from discriminating against people on the basis of a disability. The term "public entity" includes all state, territorial, and local governments in the US including special districts, other instrumentalities, commuter authorities, and AMTRAK. Besides the fifty state governments there are six territorial governments consisting of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the North Mariana Islands. In addition there are 38,978 local governments in the US including 3,043 counties, 19,279 municipalities, and 16,656 towns or townships. (Bureau of the Census, 1994: Table 3) There are also approximately 42,000 school and special districts which are coterminous with the other local governments. However, most of the population lives in about 600 local governmental areas and a dozen metropolitan areas contain about half of the people in the country. The responding local governments in the present study have a total population of 46 million which is 18% of the country's population. The 47 states and territories have a total population of 234 million which is 90% of the country's population. All aspects of a public entity are covered by Title II: their policies, practices, and services including transportation. Public school transportation is excluded from the ADA because it is covered by another federal statute. Employment by public entities is covered by Title I and by implication in Title II. Programs must be accessible under Title II although not all existing facilities must be. Public accommodations, including the ones owned or operated by public entities, are covered in Title III and must be accessible. Title IV requires that in each state and territory relay services for hearing impaired and speech impaired individuals be provided. And the ADA provides legal defenses against the charge of discrimination including undue hardship and feasibility. The ADA requires that all public entities with 50 or more employees designate an ADA coordinator and establish an internal grievance procedure to resolve complaints. All state, territorial, and local governments were required to conduct a self-evaluation of their policies, practices, and services to identify any policy or practice which is discriminatory. An opportunity for persons with disabilities to comment on the self- evaluation was required. Necessary architectural modifications to come into compliance had to be contained in a transition plan along with a schedule of when they are to be done. Some persons met the passage of the ADA with optimism (Macurdy, 1991); others viewed it as a challenge (Hunsicker, 1990; Kerner, 1991); still others pointed out its limitations, such as exemptions of the federal judiciary (Tucker, 1991); and it was called a full employment act for lawyers (Barnard, 1990). Some persons opposed the ADA as an intrusive and costly mandate imposed upon state and local government (Percy, 1993), while others viewed it as a necessary piece of legislation protecting the civil rights of persons with disabilities (Pfeiffer, 1994, 1996b). One of the most persistent questions heard today is whether the ADA is being implemented and whether this process is occurring in a satisfactory manner. The present study intends to examine these two questions. Literature Study The overwhelming number of studies of the ADA discuss its potential impact and key concepts without using empirical data. For example, West (1991) has chapters on various aspects of the ADA and what could be expected in the future. Other publications discuss the definition of a qualified person with a disability, questions that can be asked in employment interviews, existing standards, accommodations, and other things. Two studies, Galanos & Price (1992) and Levitan & Pfeiffer (1992), discuss the future of the ADA and its impact on state and local governments, but they do not use empirical data. Pfeiffer (1996a) critically reviews 35 studies which use empirical data. They break down into studies which focused upon people with disabilities, studies which focused upon employers (primarily private sector), studies of activities by trade associations, studies of governments, and a few other studies. Some of the studies present significant findings, but many of them do not. Of these 35 studies there are six which examined the implementation of the ADA on the state and local government levels as well as in the private sector, on the grass roots level, and looked at activities of federal officials. There are seven other studies which looked only at implementation on the local government level. No single study exclusively examined implementation at the state and territorial government level as does the present study. Broader Studies One of the first studies of the implementation of the ADA was carried out by the National Council on Disability (1993). They gathered data from a number of sources including organizations from the disability community, nonprofit organizations, covered entities, federal agencies with ADA responsibility, the media, calls on a toll free telephone line, and correspondence from persons with disabilities. Hearings were also conducted in Washington, D.C., and in San Francisco. The National Council's positive conclusions are that federal officials are performing their responsibilities well, that people with disabilities are following the educate, negotiate, and only then litigate strategy, and that trade associations are trying to help members to comply. On the negative side the National Council found that barriers still exist, that there is still a need for information and technical assistance, that minorities with disabilities are not being adequately served, and that persons with certain disabilities are not being helped by the current levels of ADA implementation. However, overall they conclude that the implementation of the ADA is a success, so far. The National Council on Disability again held hearings in 1995. (National Council on Disability, 1995) This time they covered all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands. Drawing upon this testimony the National Council concluded that the ADA has had a beneficial impact: greater access, increased employment opportunities, more communication, and more mobility. They found that the cost of changes was moderate and that there was mainly voluntary compliance. The conclusion of the National Council was that the ADA has enhanced the self-image of people with disabilities, that there were positive changes in US society, and that there is beneficial implementation occurring. The U.S. General Accounting Office (1993) conducted a study of the implementation of the ADA in which teams visited 231 randomly chosen businesses and government offices in January 1992. Each site was judged on over 400 features and 67% of the features conformed to the ADA Advisory Guidelines. In addition, the General Accounting Office conducted a mail survey of persons with disabilities. Their sample size was 1,193 with a 64% return rate. Generally the survey results were in agreement with the findings from the site observations. In another study by the U.S. General Accounting Office (1994b) a comparison was made of their January 1992 with findings during August 1992 (322 different sites) and April 1993 (276 different sites). The mail survey was repeated in August 1992 (n = 854) and in April 1993 (n = 726) and compared with their results of January 1992. Again, the mail survey results supported their site observations. In this study (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994b) the percentage of features consistent with the ADA Advisory Guidelines increased to 74%. In 1992 29% of the sites had removed a barrier and this figure increased to 55% in April 1993. However, half of the facilities planned no further removal of barriers. The report concluded that businesses appear to be responding to the requirements of the ADA. West (1994) interviewed federal officials and observers of the federal ADA implementation effort. She found that effective procedures were developed by the federal agencies except in the area of enforcement which needed improvement. She also found in the federal government a number of appointees and employees with disabilities and advocates in a network concerned with the implementation the ADA. Implementation activities by the federal agencies is ongoing according to West. A part of the evaluation of the implementation of a statute involves the persons affected by it. In an attempt to gain insight into this aspect interviews were conducted with 67 persons with disabilities nation wide. (Pfeiffer, 1996b) People with disabilities on the grass roots level have a strong feeling of empowerment from the ADA. They see that it is being implemented. They are determined that no weakening of the ADA will occur. A small minority, on the other hand, feel that the ADA is only a impotent symbol which in some cases made things worse. Generally, however, the grass roots community of persons with disabilities views the ADA and its implementation as a step forward which aids them in fighting discrimination. Local Level Studies Of the seven studies of local government implementation, two of them focused only on transportation. The U.S. General Accounting Office (1994a) studied 12 local transit agencies and they reviewed 474 paratransit plans. They documented problems and uncertainties in the paratransit requirements. Further, they found that the cost estimates for compliance were still educated guesses, at best. However, they wrote that ADA was being implemented. The other study which exclusively focused on transportation was Project ACTION (1994). With a sample of 410 transit employees (customer service representatives and coach operators) and a sample of 194 selected riders (72% of whom reported a disability) from seven transit systems they studied attitudes toward public transportation access. Transit employees were more likely than the riders to say cost is a barrier to accessibility. The customer service representatives had a more positive attitude toward persons with disabilities than the coach operators. The coach operators were concerned with the time it took to board the wheelchairs. It was concluded that implementation in public transit authorities is happening. Isemann (1995) interviewed ADA coordinators in six cities in southwest Ohio. Implementation was rated on a scale using the organizational location of the coordinator, the coordinator's commitment, the self-evaluation process, whether any advisory committee existed, how the essential functions of jobs were established, if these job descriptions were published, what accommodations were made, plans for making accommodations, and if the city claimed an undue hardship to avoid making an accommodation. None had claimed an undue hardship so the last factor was dropped. Middle sized cities (in terms of population) she found to be more successful in ADA implementation than larger and smaller ones. She gave a possible explanation that small cities did not have the resources and that large cities had too many other problems to be as successful as the middle sized cities. She then determined if the ADA coordinator was located in the planning department, if earlier the city was in compliance with Section 504, if people with disabilities were among city employees, if the coordinators were sensitive in terms of disability rights, and if the advisory committee contained any people with disabilities. A yes on these questions meant better performance in terms of ADA implementation. Middle sized cities again performed better. She concluded that large cities have too many responsibilities to score well on ADA implementation. Small cities, she concluded, do not have the resources for successful implementation. Wilson (1994) conducted a survey of 91 managers of community recreation departments in Michigan. The department's mission statement reflected a commitment to serve people with disabilities in 66% cases. However, a person with a disability served on only 20% of the boards or commissions. In-service trainings on the ADA were held in 58% of the departments. She tested the association between saying that they were in compliance and a number of factors and found low or no relationship. Her conclusion is that implementation is proceeding in this part of Michigan's local government with most of the managers saying that they were in compliance with the ADA. An extensive survey was carried out by Condrey & Brudney (1995) of municipal government personnel administrators in all US cities with a population of 50,000 or more. Their sample size was 334 and their response rate was 63%. Over 90% of the respondents obtained literature on the ADA, participated in an ADA seminar, and appointed an ADA coordinator. Over 80% of their respondents had studied the ADA regulations, conferred with the city attorney, carried out the self-evaluation, and evaluated their job descriptions. Discussions with a labor lawyer were held by 42.5% of the respondents and discussions with an ADA consultant were held by 35.9%. The Job Accommodation Network was consulted for assistance by 21.6%. In over 80% facilities were made accessible and in over 70% of the local governments there had been ADA workshops. Many of the respondents reported other actions to accommodate workers with disabilities. They found a significant amount of activity by local government officials indicating that the implementation of the ADA is proceeding. The Massachusetts Office on Disability (1995) conducted a survey of municipalities in the state. Their sample size was 231 of the 351 cities and towns for a 66% rate of return. They were able to compare some of the 1995 responses with answers to a 1988 survey for a pre and post ADA contrast. For example, in 1988 sign language interpreters were provided by 13% of the municipalities upon request while in 1995 the percentage had grown to 57%. In 1988 TTYs were located in 30% of the police stations and 23% of the fire stations while 60% and 50% respectively had them in 1995. The percentage of municipalities having a commission on disability in 1988 was 32% and 47% in 1995. On the other hand, holding public meetings in accessible sites declined from 86% in 1988 to 82% in 1995. Yet accessible town halls grew from 44% in 1988 to 57% in 1995. Other findings in the 1995 survey: 77% had an ADA coordinator, 67% completed the self-evaluation plan, another 22% were in the process of finishing it, and a grievance procedure was in place in 52% of the municipalities. There is evidence that ADA implementation is occurring in Massachusetts. Procter (1995) is the only study of Title III exclusively. She interviewed small, rural business owners about access in the three rural Montana communities with a population under 2,500. With a sample of ten, she found that small, rural business owners in Montana agree with the principle of equal access, but they also agree that society, not the individual business owners, should pay for the changes. These thirteen studies indicate that ADA implementation activity is happening on the local level with support from government officials. There is virtually no evidence available from the empirical studies on the state and territorial level. The present study will present additional data on local level efforts and evidence about the state and territorial level. Implementation Models Before turning to the methods and results of the present study, some discussion of implementation models needs to be presented. These models are often put forth by various scholars as the way in which an evaluation of the implementation of the ADA can be made. However, one characteristic is shared by all of them: they use past data gathered after the implementation is complete and reflect, after the fact, what is necessary for successful implementation. (Watson, 1994) The studies using these models avoid making the contemporary judgment of whether the policy is being implemented and whether the implementation is sufficient. These two questions the present study seeks to answer so these implementation models are not too valuable except as general guides. There are various models to be found. Mazmanian & Sabatier (1983) present the classic overview of them. Three factors are usually cited as the backbone of implementation analyses: respect for legal intent, public administrators views of rational behavior, and the development of consensus within implementing agencies and the external political system. Other models include an examination of both the macro and the micro-level implementation efforts. (Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975; Weatherly & Lipsky, 1977; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1983; Percy, 1989) In the long run, however, changing socio-economic conditions and the ability of constituency groups to intervene effectively in the implementation process may be the most important factors. It is clear that the implementation process is complex and involves multiple steps. Each implementation is characterized by a distinct set of problems, opportunities, and constraints. Moreover, the process revolves around a complicated cast of actors who also have individual perspectives and interests. These actors, as Altman & Barnartt (1993) point out, are moral entrepreneurs (persons who seek the establishment of policy for moral, non-personal reasons) and "constituents" or stake holders (persons with a stake in the policy). Although they do not say so, it is possible for a person to be both a moral entrepreneur and a stake holder. Together these two types of actors, according to Altman & Barnartt (1993), were responsible for the passage of the ADA. Now, they say, the focus is on the implementation with similar actors. All of these models of the implementation process (except for Altman & Barnartt, 1993) have major problems. Many of the important factors set forth are difficult to operationalize and they do not specify which variables are controlled by various actors as well as the relationship between the variables. While retrospectively they can point to factors which probably influenced the process, they can not provide answers to the questions being asked now about the ADA. Following Altman & Barnartt (1993) this study asks two questions. The first question to be asked concerns access. By limiting the effect of discrimination the ADA and other statutes intend to create equal access to employment, housing, transportation, education, public facilities, and public services. Consequently the first question asks: is there access in these areas where public entities are concerned? The second question concerns the reaction by the moral entrepreneurs and the stake holders to what has happened in ADA implementation. The second question is whether the implementation by public entities is sufficient. To analyze the implementation of the ADA these questions have to be asked of the moral entrepreneurs and of the stake holders inside and outside of the state, territorial, and local governments. Based upon the previously discussed empirical studies it is clear that ADA implementation activities are occurring on the local government level. Further support of this statement will be presented in this study. The question of state and territorial level activities remains to be answered, but it will be by this study. The second question of sufficiency of activity will also be examined. The Present Study In order to obtain data with which to evaluate the implementation of the ADA a mail survey was conducted of chief executives and officials responsible for the ADA on the state, territorial, and local government levels. In a mail survey it is troublesome to ask questions such as whether facilities are fully accessible. The respondents will naturally tend to answer in the affirmative, but only on-site inspection can determine the accuracy of such a response. Surrogate questions must be used in order to indicate trends as was done in this study. By asking if an access survey had been carried out it will give the respondent the opportunity to answer a truthful negative without feeling uneasy. Local Governments In January 1994 2500 questionnaires were sent out to local governments. One thousand address labels were used from the National League of Cities, 1000 labels were used from the National Association of Towns and Townships, and 500 labels were used from the International City Management Association. In addition, the District of Columbia was included in the local government survey since it functions more like a local government than the other territories. By June 1994 there were 841 (34%) returns. This sample size gives a sampling error of +/- 3.5% which means the actual percentage might be 3.5% higher or lower or anywhere in between. Earlier versions of the findings were reported in Pfeiffer & Finn (1995) and Finn & Pfeiffer (forthcoming). One of the criticisms of research on local governments is that the very small ones are left out of the sample. The present study's sample contains a number of them. The smallest local government had a population of 30 and eleven more had populations under 100. There were 37 with populations less than 500. A third of the sample had populations of 5000 or less. The largest local government had a population of 2,000,000. The mean population of the local governments responding was 48,976 with a standard deviation of 145,882. The questionnaire asked if the local government currently had a 504 compliance officer and/or an ADA coordinator and 65.2% of the sample answered in the affirmative. It then asked if the local government had a committee or commission on disability and 42.3% answered yes. Of the local governments which did not have a committee or commission 15.2% said that they had plans for establishing one. [Table One about here] Some questions were asked to determine knowledge and awareness. First, it was asked if they worked with a state agency in order to provide technical assistance on the ADA and 39.5% said yes. Next it was asked if their state had an office on disabilities which assisted local governments and 38.4% answered yes. This figure is low because every state has at least one office which offers ADA assistance, but 51.6% said they did not know or did not answer. Of the respondents who answered yes, 77.1% gave a name, address, or phone number. Although less than 40% of the local officials reported that they worked with a state office, over three quarters of the officials who reported that they did gave a name, address, or phone number. As Table One shows a self-evaluation plan, which is required of all local governments and which must involve persons with disabilities, was completed by 69.5% of the sample with persons with disabilities involved in the process in 62.3% of the local governments. And 65.7% of the local governments had completed a transition plan or it was in process, but it was not required of all of them. One local official said that they had not yet completed their self-evaluation plan because they had not yet received it. The next set of questions concerned the accessibility of local government buildings or facilities. Again it was felt that a yes/no question about accessible facilities would produce automatic affirmative responses. Therefore, the respondent was asked if the facility had been surveyed for accessibility. While not a perfect surrogate question, it tends to avoid automatic yes answers. Recognizing that some of the facilities did not exist in some local government jurisdictions or if they existed they were under another government, the respondents had the chance to answer "not applicable." [Table Two about here] As Table Two indicates, 90% or more (with one exception) of the public facilities had undergone an access survey. The one exception is the schools and that was 88.1%. There is no guarantee that the buildings were brought into compliance after the survey, but there is a clear trend that access is of concern to public officials. Table Two also contains information about the location of a TTY in public facilities. Except for police stations (and that figure is low compared to other forms of access in the previous question) the percentages are very low. The Deaf Community in the US targeted police stations in the late 1980s as a place which had to have a TTY for safety purposes. This higher figure for them shows some success. The next question was designed to separate the really concerned and knowledgeable local governments from the rest. They were asked if the local government provided sign language interpreters for public meetings upon request and 64.9% answered yes. Again it reflects some successes for the Deaf Community. In order to determine how active the local governments were it was asked if the personnel department had taken any of a number of steps to comply with the ADA. As Table Three shows almost two-thirds of the local governments had carried out changes in their job applications as required by the ADA. It could be that the other lower percentages are due to not being confronted with the request. [Table Three about here] Questions were then asked about ADA complaints and it was found that 13.6% of the local governments had faced an ADA complaint. The number of complaints per locality ranged from zero to sixty with most being less than four. About half of the local governments which had faced a complaint reported only one. By far the largest single category of complaints concerned employment (6.5%) as Table Four indicates although the total for various types of lack of physical accessibility adds up to 10.7%. [Table Four about here] In response to the question whether the local government had taken steps to solve problems associated with the complaints, only seven of the local governments answered in the negative. Generally the respondents indicated that they did a number of things to resolve the complaint as Table Five indicates. The most frequent activity was a physical modification. [Table Five about here] There are resources available to the local governments from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the US Department of Justice (DOJ), the Regional Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTAC), and the President's Committee on the Employment of People with Disabilities which funds the Job Accommodation Network (JAN). As Table Six shows, 57.2% of them had used the technical assistance manual developed by the EEOC to give assistance with the employment provisions of the ADA; 49.9% had used the Title II Technical Assistance Manual developed by the DOJ. A Regional DBTAC was consulted for assistance in complying with the ADA by 15.4%. (One respondent stated that he/she did not believe such an entity existed.) And 10.4% had contacted JAN to develop programs or to resolve current or potential problems. [Table Six about here] One of the questions to be resolved is what might encourage the implementation of the ADA by local governments. It seems reasonable that having an ADA coordinator made things happen so a series of hypothesis were tested by constructing cross tabulation tables using a chi square statistical significance level of 0.05 and the gamma statistic. In almost all cases there was a statistically significant relationship between having an ADA coordinator and carrying out the activity. There was also a moderate to strong association (as measured by the gamma) between having an ADA coordinator and almost all of the activities. Obviously, as one would expect, an ADA coordinator does facilitate the carrying out of ADA implementation activities. In order to study the overall amount of activity an implementation index score was calculated for each local government using the activities they said they had done. The score could range from zero (which 15 local governments scored having done nothing in terms of implementation) to 27 (which no local governments scored). Four local governments scored 24. The mean score for the implementation index was 11.25 (standard deviation of 6.55) and the median was 12.00. A number of correlations were calculated between different variables and the index. Most of them were not statistically significant at the 0.05 level and almost all that were had very small levels of association. However, there is often a multivariate relationship in complex cases such as implementation. The ordinary least squares regression procedure is a convenient and easily understood way to express multivariate relationships. Several models were tested using regression through the origin and using pairwise deletion of missing values. The best model found was: Y = 0.24POP + 0.21STPOP + 0.54COORD R Square = 0.63 SE = 7.95 F = 136.88 Signif F < 0.00005 In other words, the larger the municipality (POP) in terms of population and the larger the state (STPOP) in terms of population the higher the implementation index score which means more implementation activities occurred. Regression controls for the influence of one variable upon another so these two variables have independent contributions to the number of implementation activities. In fact, using Pearson's r the correlation between the two variables was not statistically significant (p = 0.09) and had a low association (r = 0.09). As expected, however, the existence of an ADA coordinator (COORD) has the greatest influence. The variable COORD is a dummy variable coded one for the existence of an ADA coordinator and zero for the lack of one. In large local governments, in large states, and where an ADA coordinator is to be found, the ADA is being implemented on the local level. The model explains 63% of the variance in the implementation activity index. This finding is significant in a theoretical sense for future research and is significant for the moral entrepreneurs and stake holders who are active in the implementation of the ADA. Contrary to Iseman (1995), who had a very small sample, the larger the public entity the more implementation activities are happening. Probably the larger municipalities and the larger states have more resources to devote to them. Most important, however, is the existence of an ADA coordinator. It is suggested in conversations with moral entrepreneurs and stake holders that many ADA coordinators are appointed as a sop to the disability community and that their main job is to keep people with disabilities quiet. This research demonstrates the opposite is true. An ADA coordinator on the local level means that implementation is proceeding. On the other hand, it was very disconcerting to discover - from their comments on the questionnaires - that many chief elected officials were appallingly ignorant of the ADA. Of course they are not the only persons in the US ignorant about important civil rights statutes. In addition many small town officials say that they have no people with disabilities in their municipality and therefore the ADA does not apply. Again, this response is typical in the US. State and Territorial Governments In order to study the implementation of the ADA by state and territorial governments 55 questionnaires were sent out in January 1994 to previously identified officials concerned with the ADA. (The District of Columbia was treated as a local government.) There were 47 returned by June 1994 for a 86% return rate. With such a high return rate the sampling error is low, but with such a small population it is difficult to estimate what it is. The 44 states and three territories are shown in Table Seven. [Table Seven about here] Slightly over half (56.5%) of the respondents held the title of ADA coordinator or compliance officer for their state or territory and 6.5% were the directors of the office on disabilities which meant that they should play a large role in the ADA implementation. Twenty eight (59.6%) said that their state or territory had an office on disabilities which assisted municipalities with the ADA, but 29 (61.7%) gave a name, address, or phone number of such an office when requested to do so. One respondent answered in the affirmative, but did not give a name and address when requested. Two respondents answered in the negative, but provided a name and address. [Table Eight about here] Since all states and territories had over 50 employees, they all were required to complete a self evaluation, but not all of them were required to have a transition plan. As Table Eight shows 57.8% had completed their self evaluations and 20.0% were in the process of completing them. All of the ones which had completed their self evaluation and all of the ones which still had it in process had included people with disabilities in the procedure. A transition plan was completed by 75.6% of the respondents and 8.9% had it in process. Similar to local governments the state and territorial respondents were asked about accessibility surveys and location of TTYs. As Table Nine shows a high percentage of state and territorial governments had conducted an access survey in their buildings. Again, this question indicates a trend of activity. The same can be said for the placement of TTYs in offices with the state police stations having the highest percentage with state houses coming in second. These two figures represent the Deaf Community targeting public safety offices and the state house which is the way in which they obtained the placement of TTYs in public safety and other offices. When asked if the state or territorial government provided sign language interpreters for public meetings upon request, 97.8% said yes. Another tribute to the Deaf Community, but also an ADA related activity. [Table Nine about here] In order to determine further the ADA activity of state and territorial governments they were asked if the personnel department had taken any of a number of steps to comply with the ADA. As Table Ten shows a much larger percentage of the state and territorial governments had taken actions required by the ADA than local governments. This result could be a statistical artifact of the sample sizes or it could indicate that the states and territories are more aware of the ADA requirements. [Table Ten about here] Questions were asked about ADA complaints and it was found that 72.3% of the state and territorial governments had faced an ADA complaint compared to 13.6% of the local governments. The number of complaints ranged from zero to 37 with most being less than three. By far the largest single category of complaints concerned employment (62.9%) as Table Eleven indicates although the total for various types of lack of physical accessibility adds up to 90.2%. [Table Eleven about here] When asked if the state or territorial government had taken steps to resolve the complaint, none answered no, but 17.0% replied that they did not know. As Table Twelve indicates a large percentage (66.0%) took steps to solve problems associated with the complaints. Outside assistance was sought by 57.5% and 77.5% provided a reasonable accommodation. Relocation of future meetings to accessible locations was done by 57.5% and 70.0% began to provide programmatic accessibility while 75.0% said that they now provided ADA and awareness training and had made a modification to a building. Other modification were undertaken by 28.2% of the states and territories. [Table Twelve about here] There are resources available to the state and territorial governments from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the US Department of Justice (DOJ), the Regional Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTAC), and the President's Committee on the Employment of People with Disabilities which funds the Job Accommodation Network (JAN). As Table Thirteen shows, 95.7% of them had used the technical assistance manual developed by the EEOC; the same percentage, 95.7%, had used the Title II Technical Assistance Manual developed by the DOJ. A Regional DBTAC was consulted for assistance in complying with the ADA by 75.6%. (Two respondents stated that they were partners of the regional DBTAC.) And 62.2% had contacted JAN to develop programs or to resolve current or potential problems. [Table Thirteen about here] In order to study the overall amount of activity an implementation index score was calculated for each state and territorial government using the activities they said they had done. The score could range from zero (which one state government scored having done nothing in terms of implementation) to 30 (which no state or territorial governments scored). Two state governments scored 28. The mean score for the implementation index was 20.8 (standard deviation of 5.6) and the median score was 22.0. Again ordinary least squares regression was used to explore the relationship between the index of implementation activities and the other variables. Several models were tested using regression through the origin and using pairwise deletion of missing values. The best model found was: Y = 0.25STPOP + 0.75COMPLAINT R Square = 0.81 SE = 9.55 F = 90.73 Signif F < 0.00005 Like the local government model the larger the state population (STPOP) the higher the score on the implementation index which means the greater number of implementation activities happening. The variable COMPLAINT is a dummy variable coded one for an negative answer (there had been no complaints) and zero for an affirmative answer. It seems logical that the lack of complaints could result from more implementation activities. The two variables explain 81% of the variance in the implementation activity index. The variable indicating the existence of an ADA coordinator was not used on the state and territorial level since the mailing list was supposed to be the ADA coordinator in each state and territory. In other words, they all have an ADA coordinator. Conclusion Is the ADA being implemented on the state, territorial, and local governmental levels? The empirically based implementation studies indicate that there is considerable activity aimed toward implementing the ADA. West (1994) found that federal officials had generally developed effective procedures to carry out their duties in regard to ADA implementation. She also documented that, using the terms of Altman & Barnartt (1993), moral entrepreneurs and stake holders within the federal government had formed a network to support its successful implementation. The studies done by the Governmental Accounting Office (1993, 1994b) indicate numerous activities on the state and local levels as well as in the private sector. Condrey & Brudney (1995) find abundant activities on the local level with over 80% of their respondents completing their self evaluation and having accessible facilities, figures which are comparable to the findings of the present study. They also found that over 70% of their respondents had provided ADA training to their employees on the local government level. This figure is considerably higher than the findings of the present study, but perhaps it is because Condrey & Brudney (1995) surveyed personnel managers in large municipalities. Iseman (1995) found ADA implementation activities in six municipalities in southwest Ohio although her results in terms of size of local governments runs counter to the findings of the present study. Wilson (1994) and the Massachusetts Office on Disability (1995) also found local ADA implementation activities. So too did the National Council on Disability (1993, 1995), the US General Accounting Office (1994a), and Project ACTION (1994). The findings of this study strongly support such a conclusion. There is no question that the ADA is being implemented on the local governmental level. The most important finding of the present study is that the existence of an ADA coordinator on the local government level has a considerable impact. A person to oversee the necessary activities and to deal with complaints (in various ways) increases the implementation activities on the local level. Contrary to anecdotal stories, ADA coordinators do appear to be furthering the implementation of the ADA in a positive manner. On the state and territorial level the ADA is also being implemented. The findings of this study give firm backing to such a conclusion. Over three quarters of the state and territorial governments have completed their self evaluations and almost 85% say that their agencies have transition plans. Attention is being paid to the requirements of the ADA. Sign language interpreters are provided by 97.8% of the states and territories upon request. Over 90% had changed questions on their employment applications, provided material in alternative format, and changed locations for interviews. A reasonable accommodation had been provided by 87.0% of the states and territories. There is considerable ADA implementation activity on the state and territorial level. Since the state and territorial respondents were supposed to be ADA coordinators (whatever their title) there was no statistical method to compare states and territories with and without ADA coordinators. However, the considerable activity which is occurring gives support again to the effectiveness of ADA coordinators. Is there sufficient implementation of the ADA? For persons with disabilities there can never be enough in terms of barrier removal and the opening of society. Pfeiffer (1996b), McGaughey, Foley, & Ard (1994), and the National Council on Disability (1995) found, however, that the stake holders (grass roots people with disabilities) felt empowered by the passage of the ADA. They and the moral entrepreneurs wanted the implementation to go faster, but most of them felt it was progressing at a sufficiently rapid rate. They would not tolerate any attempt to weaken or repeal the ADA. From the empirical studies including the present one it is clear that the ADA is being implemented at the state, territorial, and local government levels. The disability community (moral entrepreneurs and stake holders) is keeping watch on the process. If it falters, they are ready to act. At the same time they are realistic and know that complete barrier removal and integration into society lies in the future. References ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS. (1989) Disability Rights Mandates: Federal and State Compliance with Employment Protections and Architectural Barrier Removal. Report A-111. ALTMAN, B.; BARNARTT, S. (1993) Moral entrepreneurship and the promise of the ADA, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4, pp. 21-40. BARNARD, T. (1990) The Americans with Disabilities Act: nightmare for employers and dream for lawyers? St. John's Law Review, 64, pp. 229-52. BOWE, F. (1990) Into the private sector: rights and people with disabilities, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 11, pp. 89-101. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. (1994) 1992 Census of Governments (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce). CONDREY, S.; BRUDNEY, J. (1995) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Assessing a Model of Its Implementation Success. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. FINN, J.; PFEIFFER, D. (forthcoming) The Americans with Disabilities Act: an evaluation of compliance by local governments in the U.S. Forthcoming in the Proceedings of the 1994 meeting of the Society for Disability Studies. GALANOS, J.; PRICE, S. (1992) Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: concepts & considerations for state & local government employers, Stetson Law Review, 21, pp. 931-48. HUNSICKER, J. (1990) Ready or not: The ADA, Personnel Journal, August, pp. 80-86. ISEMANN, E. (1995) Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Public Administration. KERNER, B. (1991) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: new challenges for labor and management, Detroit College of Law Review, 1991, pp. 891-900. LEVITAN, D.; PFEIFFER, D. (1992) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: a compliance review, National Civic Review, 81, pp. 143-54. MACURDY, A. (1991) The Americans with Disabilities Act: time for celebration, or time for caution? Boston University Public Interest Law Journal, 11, pp. 21-35. MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE ON DISABILITY. (1995) Municipal Access Survey (Boston: Massachusetts Office on Disability). MAZMANIAN, D.; SABATIER, P. (1983) Implementation and Public Policy (Glenview: Scott, Foresman and Company). MCGAUGHEY, M.; FOLEY, S.; ARD, C. (1994) Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act: National Survey of Individuals with Disabilities. Paper presented to the annual meeting of the Society for Disabilities Studies. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY. (1993) ADA Watch - Year One: A Report to the President and the Congress on Progress in Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act. NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY. (1995) Voices of Freedom: America Speaks Out on the ADA. PERCY, S. (1989) Disability, Civil Rights, and Public Policy (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press). PERCY, S. (1993) ADA, disability rights, and evolving regulatory federalism, Publius, 23, pp. 23-44. PFEIFFER, D. (1994a) The Americans with Disabilities Act: costly mandates or civil rights? Disability & Society, 9, pp. 535-44. PFEIFFER, D. (1996a) A critical review of ADA implementation studies which use empirical data, Disability Studies Quarterly, 16, pp. 26-43. PFEIFFER, D. (1996b) "We won't go back": the ADA on the grass roots level, Forthcoming, Disability & Society. PFEIFFER, D.; FINN, J. (1995) Survey shows state, territorial, local public officials implementing ADA, Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 19, pp. 537-40. PROCTER, N. (1995) Attitude, access and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): the rural business owners' perspective in Montana, Technology and Disability, 4, pp. 11-27. PROJECT ACTION. (1994) Attitudes of Transit Personnel and Public Transit Consumers Towards Public Transportation Accessibility (Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Accessible Transportation). TUCKER, B. (1991) The federal courts: exempt from legislation, National Disability Law Reporter, September 18, 1, p. 23. TUCKER, B.; GOLDSTEIN, B. (1992) Legal Rights of Persons with Disabilities: An Analysis of Federal Law (Two volumes; Horsham, PA: LRP Publications). TYSSE, G. (editor). (1991) The Legislative History of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Horsham, PA: LRP Publications). U.S., GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. (1993) Americans with Disabilities Act: Initial Accessibility Good But Important Barriers Remain. U.S., GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. (1994a) Americans with Disabilities Act: Challenges Faced by Transit Agencies in Complying with the Act's Requirements. U.S., GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. (1994b) Americans with Disabilities Act: Effects of the Law on Access to Goods and Services. VAN METER, D.; VAN HORN, C. (1975) The policy implementation process: a conceptual framework, Administration and Society, 6, pp. 445-88. WATSON, S. (1994) Applying theory to practice: a prospective and prescriptive analysis of the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 5, pp. 1-24. WEST, J. (editor) (1991) The Americans with Disabilities Act: From Policy to Practice (New York: Milbank Memorial Fund). WEST, J. (1994) Federal Implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 1991-94. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund. WILSON, S. (1994) An Examination of the Americans with Disabilities Act in Community Parks and Recreation Agencies in the State of Michigan. Masters thesis, Central Michigan University. Acknowledgement This study was supported in part by Suffolk University and in part by a grant from the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. It is grant H133G20108, a Field- Initiated Research Grant for the years 1993-95. We express our thanks to NIDRR and especially to our program officer, Dr. Richard Johnson. The opinions expressed in this paper are exclusively those of the authors. Table One Responses by Local Governments Question Yes ADA Coordinator 65.2% Disabilities commission 42.3% Completed self evaluation 69.5% Persons with disabilities involved 62.3% Transition plan completed or in process 65.7% Table Two Percentage of Affirmative Responses Local Governments Facility Access Survey TTY City hall 93.2% 41.5% Police station 94.6% 62.7% Library 93.4% 37.6% Senior center 94.1% 16.5% Schools 88.1% 14.9% Community center 94.0% 18.6% Parks 92.5% na Voting sites 91.0% 9.0% Court house 92.6% 32.5% Table Three Percentage of Affirmative Responses Local Governments Question Yes Provided sign language interpreters 64.9% Changed applications to eliminate questions about disability 64.4% Provided alternative format 35.7% Provided alternative location for interviews 49.3% Assisted in providing a reasonable accommodation 39.0% Table Four Percentage of Affirmative Responses Local Governments Question Yes Complaints 13.6% Employment 6.5% Education 0.5% Public meetings held in inaccessible location 2.0% Services or programs held in inaccessible location 3.3% Did not provide programmatic accessibility upon request 0.9% Other lack of accessibility 5.4% Table Five Percentage of Affirmative Responses Local Governments Activity Yes Met with complaining party 11.9% Brought concern to office on disabilities for assistance 5.8% Provided a reasonable accommodation 8.1% Relocated future public meetings, programs or services to accessible locations 7.1% Now provide programmatic accessibility 7.3% Now provide ADA and awareness training 9.7% Made modification to a building 11.8% Other, mainly physical modifications 4.9% Table Six Percentage of Affirmative Responses Local Governments Question Yes EEOC manual 57.2% DOJ manual 49.9% Regional DBTAC 15.4% JAN 10.4% Table Seven States and Territories Responding Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Guam Hawaii Idaho Illinois Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York N. Mariana Islands Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Washington West Virginia Wyoming Table Eight Responses by States and Territories Question Yes In Process ADA Coordinator/OD director 63.0% na Completed self evaluation 57.8% 20.0% Persons with disabilities involved 100.0% 100.0% Agencies have transition plan 75.6% 8.9% Table Nine Percentage of Affirmative Responses State and Territorial Governments Facility Access Survey TTY State house 95.7% 82.1% Housing authority offices 75.7% 63.6% Universities 91.1% 79.5% Public assistance offices 88.9% 74.4% Parks 88.9% 55.9% State police stations 83.7% 84.2% Court houses 85.4% 64.7% Table Ten Percentage of Affirmative Responses State and Territorial Governments Question Yes Provided sign language interpreters 97.8% Changed applications to eliminate questions about disability 91.9% Provided alternative format 91.3% Provided alternative location for interviews 93.5% Provided a reasonable accommodation 87.0% Table Eleven Percentage of Affirmative Responses State and Territorial Governments Question Yes Complaints 72.3% Employment 62.9% Transportation 23.5% Public meetings held in inaccessible location 31.4% Services or programs held in inaccessible location 44.1% Did not provide programmatic accessibility upon request 28.6% Other lack of accessibility 14.7% Table Twelve Percentage of Affirmative Responses State and Territorial Governments Activity Yes Met with complaining party 66.0% Brought concern to office for assistance 57.5% Provided a reasonable accommodation 77.5% Relocated future public meetings, programs or services to accessible locations 57.5% Now provide programmatic accessibility 70.0% Now provide ADA and awareness training 75.0% Made modification to a building 75.0% Other, mainly physical modifications 28.2% Table Thirteen Percentage of Affirmative Responses State and Territorial Governments Question Yes EEOC manual 95.7% DOJ manual 95.7% Regional DBTAC 75.6% JAN 62.2% ---------- End of Document .