DOCUMENT RESUME ED 376 901 JC 950 007 AUTHOR Lee, Martha C.; Mastrangelo, Eliz. B. TITLE Measuring Up: Lakeland Community College Report of the ADA Task Force. A Self Evaluation of College Services, Facilities, Programs, and Activities. INSTITUTION Lakeland Community Coll., Mentor, Ohio. PUB DATE 94 NOTE 85p.; Some appendixes contain blurred illustrations and broken print. PUB TYPE Legal/Legislative/Regulatory Materials (090) Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MFOI/PC04 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Accessibility (for Disabled); *Assistive Devices (for Disabled); Community Colleges; *Compliance (Legal): Hearing Impairments; Physical Mobility; Self Evaluation (Groups); Two Year Colleges; *Two Year College Students IDENTIFIERS *Americans with Disabilities Act 1990; Lakeland Community College OH ABSTRACT Prepared by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Task Force at Lakeland Community College (LCC) in Ohio, this report assesses LCC's compliance with ADA provisions and presents recommendations concerning projects to be undertaken. Section I provider an introduction to the ADA and its impact at LCC. Section II describes the self-evaluation process used by the committee. This section also includes a historical overview of LCC's early efforts to improve access to disabled students, a discussion of the legal backdrop for the study, and the results of self-evaluations by nine campus units (i.e., the Performing Arts Center, Admissions Office, Financial Aid Office, Cashier's Office, Human Resources, the Athletic and Fitness Center, Career Services, Student Services, and the Police Department). Section III focuses on the dissemination of information regarding the provisions of the ADA and its applicability to the services, programs, and activities of LCC, including information on signage and communications. After section IV describes the ADA's requirements regarding grievance procedures and the committee's development of a grievance form, section V focuses on LCC's physical plant priorities (i.e., lavatories and parking). Section VI enumerates the work done by the committee, and section VII presents recommendations regarding personnel, barrier removal, communications, procedures, practices, and long-term planning. Finally, section VIII presents conclusions about the challenges and opportunities afforded by ADA. The bulk of the report consists of appendixes providing legal information, division self-evaluations, the devised grievance procedure and form, and other detailed information. (RP) ********************m.,......,**********************).....,***************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** MEASURING UP: LAKELAND COMMUNITY COLLEGE REPORT OF THE ADA TASK FORCE A Self Evaluation of College Services, Facilities, Programs, and Activities Sr G. REIS, CHAIRMAN U S DEPARTMENTOF EDUCATION Once 01 Educausest Resech and wepunemeut COMPLIANCE OFFICER EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER tERICi )(nu eecumeel Pas Wee reproduced as eCeived loom me ottIOn Or tninrabon ovonahap C Minot C $ ^4' be de l rep/0(1.0.0d Wald. P0111.01 viet ot opmeons staled ,Th.s Occu. men' dp net necessaray /coiner,' PILOT, OERi Doiiron policy BY: MARTHA C. TEE, J.D. ELIZ.B MASTRANGELO,PH.D. C- PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY M. Lee O O TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER IERICr BEST COPY AVAILABLE CONTENTS Page(s) I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. THE SELF-EVALUATION PROCESS 1 - 10 A. Historical Perspective 3 B. Legal Backdrop 5 C. Checklist Approach 6 III. THE DISSEMINATION OF INFORMATION: BEYOND PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY....10 - 12 A. Notification of Rights 10 B. Signage and Communication 11 IV. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 12 V. PHYSICAL PLANT PRIORITIES 12 - 14 A. Lavatories 12 Parking B. 13 VI. WORK DONE 14 - 15 VII. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATICNS 15 - 17 A. Major Projects: Personnel 15 B. Major Projects: Barrier Removal 15 C. Major Project: Communication - Alarms, Signage, and Information 17 - 19 D. Other Projects 20 E. Recommended Procedures 20 - 21 F. Recommended Practicer 21 - 23 G. Necessity for Long-Term Planning and Coordination 23 - 24 VIII. CONCLUSION 24 Sources 25 Appendices 26 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT$ When we think of the journey from the inception of the study to this final document, we are reminded of the many hands and minds that participated in the Again, we than} process. the Ccmmittee and the people who looked at physical spaces with W. It seems now that we have measured endlessly and visited and revi:dted spaces many times in an attempt to solve problems. Our special gratitude is reserved for Gerard Rei.1 for both the personal commitment and the professional talent which he gave to guiding this massive project. The execution of such an evaluation is a complex matter and when we consider that all of the contributors assumed the assignment as an "add on" to their regular work, we further appreciate Gerry's task of educating people about ADA, uncrossing authority lines to solve problems, and pushing to meet deadlines. Gerry is to be commended first and foremost for the good heart which he brought to the endeavor. The ADA work was more than another assignment -- Gerry believed in it. He actualized his commitment by cutting through procedural delays in a kind of "let's do it now" style. His personal skills forged a diverse membership into a working unit. Furthermore, Gerry unstintingly gave what seemed like unflagging energy to meeting our obligations. Thank you, Gerry, from us and from untold numbers of disabled students. Now finally, but very important, we thank the staff of the Tutorial Center their for with patience frequent our preoccupation when they needed Pat To to see us. Cantz, especially, and to Peggy Tallion we offer thanks for their assistance in the long paperwork process of researching, compiling, writing, endless revising, and collating of reports. Truly, we would not have met our deadlines without you. I. INTRODUCTION The "Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990" (ADA), a piece of federal legislation which Evan Kemp, Chairman of the Equal Opportunity referred has to Commission, as "the Emancipation Proclamation for people with disabilities", has empowered individuals living with a disability with new rights and protections hitherto not granted to them in the past. Simply put, the ADA affirms the principle of equality of access and opportunity for persons with disabilities in much the same way as the civil rights legislation of the 1960's empowered other minority groups, including women. At Lakeland, it affects students, employees, and visitors alike. An individual is considered to have a disability if that individual either (1) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits a major life activity, (2) has a record of such an impairment (for example, has had cancer but does not any longer), or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment (for example, has a skin disease that is regarded by many as disabling). With its 300 pages of accompanying regulations, the ADA and the regulations it has spawned represent legislation of great depth and breadth. It has required Lakeland, as a public entity covered by Title II of the Act, to self-evaluate the College's policies and practices with respect to the disabled. In nuts-and-bolts terms, it has meant not only looking at stairs, parking, and entrances, but also at floors, pavement, door knobs, and employment programs, services, policies, among other issues. The Lakeland Community College ADA Advisory Committee began to meet in March 1992. The report that follows represents the distillation of the Committee's work, which was performed with the assistance of a broad spectrum of the Lakeland community -- from disabled students to department heads -- and to whom the Committee is grateful for their participation and valuable suggestions. THE SELF-EVALUATION PROCESS II. Originally conceived of as an ad hoc committee with a limited mission, the Lakeland ADA Committee began meeting in March 1992. The charge to the committee at that time was to examine the new Americans With Disabilities Act and to give the College President a report as to Lakeland's compliance by April 30, When the magnitude of the 1992 (APPENDIX A). 1 committee's task became apparent, more time was allocated for completion of the report. What the Ad Hoc Committee submitted to Dr. Doty in early June was 1992, enhitlsd "Preliminary Report". Its recommendations for "Stage I" of the College 's response to the ADA included the following: Because of the range of topics and depth of study 1. yet to be done, we urge that the Ad Hoc ADA Committee continue through January 26, 1993, as presently constituted Reis, Dellova, (G. J. M. Hendricks, Elliot, Doerr, S. and E. J. M. Lee, Mastrangelo). For the topics employment of 2. policies and accessibility to programs, services, and activities, the Committee should have the right to appoint subcommittees of LCC specialists or persons charged with dealing with the cognizant area. For example, the subcommittee on emplo3ment policies should include the Director of Human Resources. 3. Thereafter, a core of the Committee should continue for purposes of: advising on remodeling and new construction, monitoring implementation of accommodations, and processing grievances arising from provisions of the Act as required by law. This core should consist of G. Reis, M. Lee, and Dr. Mastrangelo. 4. No particular individual is in charge of decisions on handicap parking and signs for such parking. Consequently, decisions have been made ad hoc without careful deliberation to as legal requirements. The result has been unnecessary acrimony and confusion. We recommend that these decisions be part of the Committee's functions. The Chief of Police will report semi-annually to the Committee as to the status of these traffic issues. 5. Legal counsel should review this Preliminary Report. During the summer of 1992 the Committee underwent a minor reconfiguration process and saw the designation of "ad boc" dropped from its title. At that time Dr. Doty entreated the ADA Committee to proceed toward completion of the required self-evaluation process. In particular, the Committee's membership was instructed to focus on the following issues in its Stage 2 proceedings: 1) preparation of a job description for the College's ADA Compliance Officer; 2) targeting of 2 6 physical accessibility. projects to be undertaken, ranked in priority order; 3) creation and implementation of a grievance procedure, with rights of appeal built in; and 4) revision of certain academic and employment policies impacted by the ADA. Those currently serving on the ADA Committee include: Gerard Reis Vice President of Student Services, Chairman Gerald Dellova Facilities Technician, Athletic and Fitness Center Dr. Judith Doerr Dean, Social Science and Public Service Technology Sally Elliot R.N. Health Counselor Lawrence Howell Director, Physical Plant Martha Lee, Esq. Access Counselor Roselle Marilao Director of Human Resources Dr.Eliz.B.Mastrangelo Director of Special Student Services and Learning Support Center James McBride Chief of Police and Director of Safety Ex Officio: Don Pressly Disabled Student The Committee quickly delved into familiarizing itself with the basic components of the ADA in relation to the situation at Lakeland, with each Committee member building on his or her area of expertise. Often acting in a subcommittee format, selected members did the following: attended a) seminars; b) sought input from the College community and from disabled students, in particular (APPENDIX A-1) through the Access office and LAKELANDER notices; contacted other c) schools to see how they handled certain issues; d) ordered and reviewed pertinent statutes and regulations; e) consulted with Office of the Ohio Attorney General and the Space Planning and Architectural Division of the Ohio Rehabilitation Services Commission; f) screened films; and g) generally went about the business of assessing where the College was at this point. But before doing that with any finality, the Committee decided it needed to know "where the College had been" first. A. Historical Perspective At the outset of the study, the Committee thought it important to review Lakeland's self-evaluation under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which has :-squlated 3. higher education for twenty years) Regulations arising from the Act were first published in 1977, and colleges were given until June 3, 1978, to complete a self-evaluation regarding elimination of architectural barriers and the acceptance of handicapped students in the most integrated setting possible. Unlike the goddess Athena, even a new campus (1971) such as Lakeland's did not arrive fully developed and ideally constructed for all kinds of people. In August of 1977, the College sent its Personnel Director to the first national meeting on disabled students in highek education so that while one committee looked at architectural problems, another developed a consciousness of academic to services the handicapped. The Committee learned that it is to the early self- evaluation that the College owes thanks for such adjustments as better signage for shuttle buses, free lockers, handicap drinking fountains, special showers in the gym (AFC), handicap parking in the existing lots, handrails in the courtyard, and pavement repairs in several locations. The College used a State grant of $30,500 to fund these changes. Deemed too costly at that time were improvements in close-in parking, a shuttle with lift, automatic entry doors and elevator r'nversions. It was not until 1983 and the receipt of a State grant of $60,485 that Lakeland moved to install five power doors. Another grant created the present Handicap Parking Lot. The Committee's research revealed that while several items remained unresolved, there was clear evidence that the level of access-consciousness had been raised. Incredibly, in 1983, the original architectural drawings for the new E- Building did not include a power-activated entry door. Before construction, however, the Special Student Services Advisory Board recommended such a door, and it was included as part of the new construction. It was also at this time that the Skywalk was erected as means of a providing better accessibility back and forth from the core buildings (A, B and There was also an element of pragmaticism about the ' adoption of such an approach: while Title II of the ADA requires a public entity such as Lakeland to perform a self- evaluation of its services, program, and activities, it excludes from the scope of such evaluation those policies and practices that were included in an evaluation done pursuant to Sec. 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (Reg. 35.105(d)). The ADA is closely interconnected with Sec. in many 504 respects. 4 n C) to E Building. That it fell short of its worthy objective is less a function of good intent than of errors attendant with the construction of E. What was noteworthy to the Committee in its brief review of existing documents was the apparent absence of acrimony on the part of handicapped students who for 12 years could not open the entry doors to Lakeland's buildings. It is 'a reflection on the litigious nature of our current society that recent less burdensome barriers have created greater furor than a primary interest in entering buildings. Of great interest to the faculty were considerations of academic accommodations. The Academic and Scholastic Standards Committee debated not only whether it was right and just to provide special services to the one enrolled learning disabled student, but whether his transcript should be marked to indicate the unusual assistance provided to him. Ultimately, of course, the legal intent of Section 504 was researched, and the transcript escaped any form of prejudicial annotation. In the intervening years between the early 80's and today, the College has had to become concerned with evaluating each student's handicap on an individual basis, with establishing firm rules for considering the character of a disability in the institution's response, and for implementing accommodations where they count -- in the classroom. Very recently, with an upsurge in numbers of handicapped students, the College has had to return to reviewing some of the unfulfilled needs of the 1978 evaluation. Legal Backdrop B. A subcommittee also identified early in the study that Title II was the portion of the ADA that was key to Lakeland, a local governmental unit. Thus, the Committee turned its attention to delineating what the legal benchmarks were under Title II and to applying them to the College. Broadly speaking, Title II of the ADA outlaws discrimination against disabled persons by governmental entities. More specifically, it proscribes any policy or practice which prohibits a person with a disability from participating in or otherwise enjoying the benefits of services, programs, or activities provided by the public entity. (See: ADA Sec. 2010203, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12131-12133 (West Supp. 1991); 28 C.F.R. Sec. 35.130.) Title II is really the "hybrid" portion of the ADA because it cuts across both employment (treated in the private employer context in Title I) and accessibility (the subject of Title III). Under Title II, all facilities open to the public and all programs and activities conducted by a governmental entity 5 must be made accessible to persons with disabilities unless to do so would cause a "fundamental alteration" to the program or activity or would constitute an "undue financial burden" to the entity. While the Committee learned that, as alluded to above, the ADA regulations addressing physical accessibility are cumbersome and somewhat complex, it also tried to keep in mind that, at least for existing facilities, the College was required to "operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible" (Section 35.150 (a), "Existing Facilities"). The Committee quickly ascertained that, from the comments it was getting from students, the College was indeed perceived as being very accessible, a relatively barrier-free environment. C. Checklist Approach At the heart of ADA Title II is the self-evaluation requirement set forth at Section 35.105. In this connection the committee prepared an "audit" of the College's physical facilities so it could be certain of the thoroughness of the review. The list of facilities is attached as APPENDIX B. By breaking down the component parts of the College in this fashion and subsequently applying the ADA regulations2 to each of the enumerated facilities, the Committee was able to determine the location of each of the problem areas and, whenever possible, set about ameliorating as quickly as possible situations that lent themselves to immediate solution. For larger areas and/or important service centers or public areas (PAC, Financial Aid, Admissions, Cashier's office, and Human Resources), the committee devised individual self-evaluations which were completed by the respective heads/ Deans of those areas. A brief summary of each such self- evaluation follows. By way of background, there are two main 2 sets of accessibility standards used in the United States today: the Uniform Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and the ADA Guidelines. Public entities covered by Title II of the ADA and Sec. 504 are admonished to comply with that set of guidelines which offers greater accessibility on any particular point. In some areas, the ADA guidelines provide for greater accessibility (e.g., the provisions relating to communications); in other areas, the UFAS provides for greater accessibility (e,.g., there is no elevator exception for facilities that are less than three stories or that have less than 3,000 square feet per story). 6