thesis

Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance at College and University Athletic Facilities

by

Danielle Paulsen

B.A., Augustana College, 2006

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Masters of Art in Athletic Administration

____________________________________________________

Division of HPER

Athletic Administration

in the Graduate School

University of South Dakota

May 2008

ii

THESIS COMMITTEE

The members of the committee appointed to

examine the thesis of Danielle Paulsen

find it satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.

_______________________________

Timothy A. Mirtz, DC, PhD, CHES, Committee Chair

______________________________

Ken R. Friesen, Ed.D.

______________________________

T. Bruce Proctor, Ph.D.

_______________________________

Date

iii

ABSTRACT

There have been great advances for human rights and equality in the United

States. Up to 1990 and the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the disabled

population was not legally protected against discrimination in public facilities and

programs. Disabled individuals account for one out of seven American’s and range from

children to the elderly. Due to poor eating habits, lack of regular physical exercise, and

the baby boomer population aging, these numbers are expected to rise (Landers, 2007).

People with disabilities have a desire and need to participate in civil life, including

recreational activities (Friedman, 2006).

The purpose of this study was to examine college and university athletic facilities

to determine ADA compliance. NCAA Division I and II and NAIA colleges and

universities within 100 miles of Sioux Falls, SD were studied. Site visits and the use of a

modified version The Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily Achievable

Barrier Removal from the Department of Justice were used to establish current

compliance. The Checklist included four Priorities: 1) Approach and Entrance, 2) Access

to Goods and Services, 3) Rest Rooms, and 4) Additional Access.

Results were then compiled into frequency distributions using Microsoft Excel.

The colleges and universities examined were found to be 56% compliant in Priority 1,

47% compliant in Priority 2, 76% compliant in Priority 3, and 42% compliant in Priority

4. The results indicate that more effort and emphasis needs to be directed toward

inclusion of those with disabilities and toward providing the appropriate accommodations

at all facilities.

iv

No prior research was found in the area of college and university athletic facilities

and compliance with the ADA. Further research is needed to determine progress of these

facilities in becoming ADA compliant. More data regarding the disabled population at

and surrounding the colleges and universities, as well as the number of disabled who use

the facility, will give greater insight into the implications of ADA compliance.

v

DEDICATION

Above all, I would like to dedicate this work to my amazing husband, Ryan. For

all of your support, encouragement, understanding, and enthusiasm during this incredibly

long process. I am so grateful for you; I love you, babe. I wish also to dedicate this to

my family; Dustin, Danelle, Emmie Lou, Aubrielle, Deidre’, Buddy, Dezeray, Norma,

Bruce, Mallory, Dawn, John, Christopher, Adison, Hanah, and Ellie, thank you for your

love, support, and perhaps most importantly the comic relief. And lastly, I would like to

dedicate this thesis to my wonderful parents, Doug and Diane, for your everlasting love

and support of my dreams. You always pushed me to be my best, knowing that I could

accomplish all I set out to do.

vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge my advisor, Dr. Timothy Mirtz at the University of

South Dakota for providing much needed guidance and enthusiasm for me, as I

apparently had no idea what I was getting into. Your optimism was valued and

refreshing throughout this process. Thank you to my committee members, Dr. Ken

Friesen and Dr. T. Bruce Proctor of the University of South Dakota, for your insight,

expertise, and encouragement. Also, I wish to acknowledge my former advisor, Brian T.

Gerry, MS, ATC at Augustana College for his passion of Athletic Training and continued

education, and dedication to his students.

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: ADA Compliance in Priority 1- Route of Travel………………………………30

Table 2: ADA Compliance in Priority 1- Ramps………………………………………..31

Table 3: ADA Compliance in Priority 1- Parking and Drop-Off Area………………….32

Table 4: ADA Compliance in Priority 1- Entrance……………………………………...34

Table 5: Overall Compliance in Priority 1……………………………………………….35

Table 6: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Horizontal Circulation………………………..36

Table 7: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Doors…………………………………………37

Table 8: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Rooms and Spaces…………………………...38

Table 9: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Emergency Egress……………………………39

Table 10: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Signage for Goods and Services……………40

Table 11: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Directional and Informational Signage……..41

Table 12: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Controls……………………………………..42

Table 13: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Seats, Tables, and Counters………………...43

Table 14: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Vertical Circulation…………………………44

Table 15: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Stairs………………………………………...45

Table 16: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Elevators…………………………………….46

Table 17: ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Lifts…………………………………………47

Table 18: Overall ADA Compliance in Priority 2……………………………………….48

Table 19: ADA Compliance in Priority 3- Getting to the Rest Rooms………………….49

Table 20: ADA Compliance in Priority 3- Doorways and Passages…………………….50

Table 21: ADA Compliance in Priority 3- Stalls………………………………………..52

Table 22: ADA Compliance in Priority 3- Lavatories…………………………………..53

viii

Table 23: Overall ADA Compliance in Priority 3……………………………………….54

Table 24: ADA Compliance in Priority 4- Drinking Fountains…………………………55

Table 25: ADA Compliance in Priority 4- Telephones………………………………….57

Table 26: Overall ADA Compliance in Priority 4………………………………………58

ix

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………………….i

Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………ii

Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………..iii

List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….vii

Chapter 1- Introduction……………………………………………………………………1

Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1

Sport and Recreation for the Disabled…………………………………………….3

Significance………………………………………………………………………..5

Purpose…………………………………………………………………………….6

Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………..6

Abbreviations……………………………………………………………………...6

Study Limitations………………………………………………………………….7

Chapter 2- Review of Literature…………………………………………………………..9

Introduction……………………………………………………………………….9

Background………………………………………………………………………..9

Understanding the ADA…………………………………………………………12

Guiding Principles of the ADA…………………………………………………..13

Enforcement of the Guiding Principles…………………………………………..13

Disabled Person’s Perception of the ADA……………………………………….15

Public Perception of the ADA…………………………………………………...17

Becoming ADA Compliant………………………………………………………22

Priorities………………………………………………………………………….23

x

Chapter 3- Methodology…………………………………………………………………25

Population………………………………………………………………………..25

Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………..25

Research Design and Procedure………………………………………………….26

Statistical Analysis……………………………………………………………….27

Summary…………………………………………………………………………27

Chapter 4- Results………………………………………………………………………..28

Chapter 5- Discussion……………………………………………………………………59

NCAA vs. NAIA…………………………………………………………………67

Recommendations………………………………………………………………..68

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….68

References………………………………………………………………………………..70

Appendix A………………………………………………………………………………74

1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Human rights and equality have been issues with deep history in many countries.

These rights embrace many aspects of life, including social, political, domestic,

educational, occupational, and religious. Several laws have been enacted to ensure that

individual rights are being met and enforced. Some of these laws include The Civil

Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and, the heart of this paper,

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. These laws have played crucial roles in the

human rights movement which continues today. Human rights stretch from social and

political to educational and occupational including recreation and physical activity.

Equality and individual rights should be expected by every individual regardless of color,

sex, religion, age, national origin, and ability.

More than 51 million Americans, or 18 percent of the total population, are

disabled (Friedman, 2006). Increasing numbers of disabled are coming from young and

middle-aged adults. Also, the increase in overweight and obese children has raised

concerns that as they reach middle-age they will experience greater disability than the

current cohort of people older than 65 (Landers, 2007). This possibility translates to an

increase in the need for available and adequate health care. A greater need for qualified

health care workers and more education on the risks of unhealthy life choices remains.

Furthermore, there is the need for additional modifications in schools, businesses, and

restaurants to accommodate for the increase of people who are disabled. All of the above

comes at a price paid by the greater community. However, it is also something that can be

avoided by providing education about healthy choices such as exercise and proper diet.

2

Throughout a person’s lifetime it is very possible that he or she, a friend, or

family member will become disabled. This life changing experience ultimately affects

each aspect of the disabled person’s life, as well as their family. Many choices need to be

made in medical, financial, educational, and social situations. A disabled individual

simply has more needs to be met than those who are not disabled. Additional assistance

in dressing, bathing, cooking, cleaning may be needed by a person with a disability.

Others may need the use of a wheelchair, walker, cane, hearing aid, or communication

devices. Like any other individual, one who is disabled wants to have the best health care

possible, the best education, and to feel like a part of the community all the while being

comfortable and safe.

However, very commonly disabled persons are isolated and segregated from the

greater population. Some of the obstacles first thought of for a disabled individual

include getting quality medical care and education and feeling a sense of worth in the

community. From this standpoint, physical activity and recreation are not always on top

of the priority list for the disabled, but are a significant part to an individual’s overall

well-being. Physical activity and recreation come in many forms and include

participation and being a spectator. Many facilities were not designed for those with

disabilities, making it difficult to get into and maneuver within the facility. This creates

exclusion and segregation. After the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act

(ADA) in 1990, existing facilities have been required to provide basic accommodations

for those with disabilities. New facilities are required to be completely compliant with

the ADA by providing all accommodations listed within the ADA Guidelines. In 2002,

Recreation Facilities were added in a supplement to the Americans with Disabilities Act

3

Accessibility Guidelines and must be readily accessible and usable by individuals with

disabilities (Recreation Facilities, 2002).

Sport and Recreation for the Disabled

Sport and recreation activities are a large part of many peoples’ lives. Each

person should be able to participate in and enjoy recreation, sport, and leisure activities

regardless of ability. Recreation, sport, and leisure encompass many activities: reading,

card games, boating, biking, horse-shoes, fishing, arts and crafts, and many different

sports. Discrimination against people with disabilities has been prevalent in all aspects of

society. Physical activity is no exception. The history of adapted physical education

began with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Public Law 94-142 (Individuals with

Disabilities Education Act) of 1975 (Auxter, Pyfer, & Huettig, 2005). Prior to the

1970’s, many disabled individuals were not included in general education, physical

education or any type of recreation. Disabled individuals also struggled finding

employment until the Americans with Disabilities Act made it illegal in 1990. With the

number of disabled individuals expected to rise, it is evident that this is an issue worth

studying. To maintain and improve our nation’s current state of civil rights and equality,

it is vital to include disabled individuals in future plans for programs and facilities for

public recreational use.

As mentioned previously, the number of disabled adults is expected to rise due in

part to physical inactivity, diabetes, and obesity (Landers, 2007). Poor eating habits and

lack of regular physical exercise have contributed to children and young adults becoming

overweight and obese. Also, as the baby-boomers population continues to age the

4

number of disabled is likely to rise significantly in the next 30 years due to the fact that

age is a major risk factor for disability (Landers, 2007; S.933, 1990).

Many facilities and programs however, were not designed for the needs of those

with disabilities. Then, and now, many people in different societies viewed any disability

as a tremendous weakness or even as a result of sin and in turn avoided any contact or

responsibility for the disabled. In many cases, the goal was to “rehabilitate” the disabled

to become “normal” instead of providing reasonable accommodations for them

(Friedman, 2006). During the 1970’s, the disabled population fought strongly for society

to remove barriers and provide opportunity for participation in civil life (Friedman,

2006). The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was put into effect in 1990 to

provide a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability

(S.933, 1990). ADA includes requirements for employers and public facilities to

incorporate amenities for disabled employees and/or the general public, such as ramps or

elevators, lowered countertops in restrooms, grab bars in bathroom stalls, wide doorways

for wheelchair access, signs with brail, interpreters, audio assistance, and accommodating

seating.

Many modifications had to be made at schools, businesses, restaurants, churches,

and community centers so those with disabilities could maneuver and even participate in

activities while having a comfortable experience. Facilities that were constructed prior to

the enactment of the ADA had to make alterations in such a manner that, to the maximum

extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility are readily accessible to and usable by

individuals with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs (S.933, 1990). The

effective date for existing facilities to make such accommodations was 18 months after

5

the enactment of the Act (S.933, 1990), or July 1991. In the case of new facilities, a

failure to design and construct facilities for first occupancy later than 30 months after the

date of enactment of the ADA that are readily accessible to and usable by individuals

with disabilities would be considered discrimination (S.933, 1990).

Significance

Employers, programs, and facilities are required to offer accommodating devices

and services for the general public so as to avoid discrimination against the disabled

population. With 18% of the American population being classified as disabled, it is

crucial that these individuals are considered in the development and implementation of

programs and facilities. The disabled population has a right to attend sporting events, go

to restaurants, movies, and libraries to enjoy them and to be treated equally and feel like a

part of civilization. Modifications are necessary to evade discrimination of the disabled,

which is where the Americans with Disabilities Act comes into play, establishing

guidelines, regulations, and enforcement of such modifications.

No past research has been found relating to college and university athletic

facilities compliance with the ADA. These types of facilities serve many purposes for

many people, such as sporting events, music and theatre productions, speakers, and

forums. People who use the facilities vary from students at the particular college of

university, faculty, staff, visiting students, and the community. For these reasons it is

important to note the degree to which college and university athletic facilities are

compliant with the ADA. Our nation is ever changing and very diverse and we must be

aware of all in our society and their needs to continue to provide the best options and

opportunities.

6

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to examine college and university athletic facilities

and the accommodations that are provided for those with disabilities. Recommendations

for additional amenities or accommodations can be brought forth. More specifically this

study will determine which colleges and universities are compliant with the ADA.

Definition of Terms

1. Disabled : With respect to an individual, a physical or mental impairment that

substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; a

record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment

(S.933, Sec. 3, 1990).

2. Discrimination : The unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of

prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender (Encarta World English

Dictionary, 2007).

3. Americans with Disabilities Act : Signed into law in 1990 by President George

Bush to provide a clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the

basis of disability (S.933, Sec. 2, 1990).

4. Individuals with Disabilities Act : Signed into law in 1975 requiring public

schools to make available to all eligible children a free appropriate public

education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their individual needs

(Guide to Disability Rights Laws, 1995).

Abbreviations

1. ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act

2. DOJ: Department of Justice

7

3. IDEA: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; also known as Public Law 92-

142 and Education for All Handicapped Children

4. IEP: Individualized Education Plan

5. NAIA: National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics

6. NCAA: National Collegiate Athletic Association

Study Limitations

Limitations of this study are based on the location of the colleges and universities.

The study includes 11 colleges and universities that are within 100 miles of Sioux Falls,

South Dakota and include National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Divisions I,

II, and National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA) participants. The survey

being used is adapted from the Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily

Achievable Barrier Removal: Existing Facilities Checklist to provide basic compliance

information. The checklist survey will be completed by one researcher and is assumed to

be subjective of that researcher. Due to the specific location and population of the

studied colleges and universities, no generalizations can be made of this study to other

colleges and universities which were not a part of this study.

Summary

There have been great advances for human rights and equality in the United

States. United States citizens should be proud of what has been accomplished, though

more ground needs to be covered. Up to 1990, the disabled population was not legally

protected against discrimination in public facilities and programs. Disabled individuals

account for one out of seven American’s and range from children to the elderly. This

population is growing due to an increase in overweight and obese children and young-

8

adults. Disabled individuals desire to feel a part of a greater community and to be able to

participate in activities and recreation. With laws like Americans with Disabilities Act,

this is becoming a reality. Programs and facilities must provide accommodations for

those with disabilities to allow for participation and equal treatment. This study will

examine university athletic facilities and establish the degree to which each facility is

ADA compliant.

9

CHAPTER 2

Introduction

The purpose of this study is to compare university athletic facilities and the

accommodations that are provided. Site visits will be used along with an adapted

checklist from the Department of Justice to compare each university and the degree to

which its facility is accommodating to those with disabilities.

Background

Human and civil rights impact every facet of our society. Our current state of

social values are a result of years of influencing change and acceptance. The Americans

with Disabilities Act has played a large role in the development of equal opportunities for

those with disabilities to enjoy activities and services provided to all. It is important to

understand the history of the ADA and related human rights laws and how our nation has

changed in response to them. For disabled persons, the fight for equality began late in the

nineteenth century, with the help of disability rights activists who helped diminish the

inhumane treatment of the disabled such as sterilization and euthanasia (Castaneto &

Willemsen, 2006).

In 1868, the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution

set the tone for the future of the United States. The 14th Amendment granted citizenship

to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including recently freed slaves

(14th Amendment, loc.gov). Also, it “forbids states to deny any person life, liberty, or

property without due process of the law” or to “deny any person within its jurisdiction the

equal protection of its laws” (14th Amendment, loc.gov). Roughly 100 years later, the

10

Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964 by President Lyndon B. Johnson. The Act is as

follows (H.R.7152, 1964):

To enforce the constitutional right to vote, to confer jurisdiction upon the district

courts of the United States to provide injunctive relief against discrimination in

public accommodations, to authorize the Attorney General to institute suits to

protect constitutional rights in public facilities and public education, to extend the

Commission on Civil Rights, to prevent discrimination in federally assisted

programs, to establish a Commission on Equal Employment Opportunity, and for

other purposes (p. 1).

In 1973, the Rehabilitation Act at last took into account the disabled population.

The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs

conducted by Federal agencies, in programs receiving Federal financial assistance, in

Federal employment, and in the employment practices of Federal contractors (A Guide to

Disability Rights Laws, 2005). Since the Rehabilitation Act, 11 other laws relating to the

disabled have been enacted including improvements to housing, education,

transportation, and technology (Aita, 2006). Other laws include Architectural Barriers

Act in 1968, Assistive Technology Act in 1998, Education for All Handicapped Children

(or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1975, Voter Accessibility for

the Elderly and Handicapped Act in 1984, and Americans with Disabilities Act in 1990

(Guide to Disability Rights Laws, 2005 & Disability Rights, 2005). Each of these laws

has played integral roles in the development of equal opportunity for those in protected

classes, specifically the disabled.

11

IDEA, formerly called Public Law 42-142, was passed in 1975 and requires

public schools to make available to all eligible children with disabilities a free

appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment appropriate to their

individual needs (Guide to Disability Rights Laws, 2005). The rights of persons with

disabilities became a central concern during the 1970’s; one million children with

disabilities in the United States were excluded entirely from the public school system and

did not go through the educational process with their peers (Auxter, Pyfer, & Huettig,

2005). IDEA, calls for an Individualized Education Program (IEP) to be developed by

the public school system for each child that reflects the specific needs of the child. The

IEP is developed by a team of knowledgeable person’s which usually includes parents,

teachers, and an agency representative who is qualified to provide or supervise the

provision of special education (Guide to Disability Rights Laws, 2005). Unfortunately,

few school districts have actually embraced the intent of P.L 94-142 (IDEA). Because

few schools have made a commitment to adapted physical education within the

curriculum, the strategy for delivering services varies dramatically (Auxter, Pyfer, &

Huettig, 2005).

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted in 1990 to establish a

clear and comprehensive prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability (S.933,

1990). The ADA incorporates public, state and local government, and the private sector,

broadening the scope of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Auxter, Pyfer, & Huettig,

2005). It consists of five titles: I) Employment, II) Public services, III) Public

accommodations and services operated by private entities, IV) Telecommunications and

V) Miscellaneous provisions (S.933, 1990). The specific area of interest for the purpose

12

of this paper is public facilities, particularly university athletic and recreation facilities.

According to Title II and III of ADA, individuals with disabilities must be able to access

and use facilities, including recreation facilities (Recreation Facilities, 2002). The ability

to maneuver in the facility is also included. For example, a person who uses a wheelchair

must be able to get around and use equipment in a weight room.

Understanding the Americans with Disabilities Act

For the purpose of this paper, Titles II and III of the ADA will be the center of our

attention. Title II focuses on public services and in the case of this study will include the

following:

Under Title III, Section 301.7 (C) and (D) of the ADA, public accommodations

include “…concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment; an

auditorium …or other place of public gathering” (S.933, 1990).

This includes athletic and recreation facilities. In 2002, the Architectural and

Transportation Barriers Compliance Board issued the final accessibility guidelines of the

Recreation Facilities supplement to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility

Guidelines (ADAAG). These guidelines ensure that newly constructed and altered

recreation facilities meet the requirements of the ADA and are readily accessible to and

usable by individuals with disabilities (Recreation Facilities, 2002).

Because the ADA is not a building code but a civil rights law, it can be

challenging to interpret exactly what is required of building owners. To identify

accessibility problems and solutions in existing facilities to meet the requirements of the

ADA, a checklist for existing facilities is provided by the Department of Justice (1995)

written by the Adaptive Environment Center, Inc. and the Barrier Free Environments,

13

Inc. The Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier

Removal: Checklist for Existing Facilities (1995), states that full compliance of the

ADAAG is required only of new construction and alterations. Existing facilities are

required to remove architectural and communication barriers when they are readily

achievable; that is, without much difficulty or expense (Adaptive Environment Center,

1995). Existing facilities must take a proactive approach and make plans for creating a

more accessible facility. The plans must also be put into action, completed, and

demonstrate progress toward greater accessibility (Madsen, 2004).

Guiding Principles of the ADA

The guiding principles of ADA are known as the Americans with Disabilities Act

Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). They are developed by the Access Board and

include new construction and alterations (ADA Accessibility Guidelines, 2002). The

ADAAG are technical and scoping requirements to be applied during the design,

construction, and alteration of buildings and facilities covered by Titles II and III of the

ADA and serve as standards enforced by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the

Department of Transportation (DOT) (ADA Accessibility Guidelines, 2002). The DOJ

provides a checklist for existing facilities to use to determine if the appropriate measures

have been taken and to know if each aspect of the facility has been covered.

Enforcement of the Guiding Principles

Enforcement of Title III of the ADA is established by the remedies and

procedures set forth in section 204(a) of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (S.933, 1990). In

general, the Department of Justice and the Attorney General are to investigate alleged

violations of this title and shall undertake reviews of compliance of covered entities

14

under this title. Also, if the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any

person or group of persons has been discriminated against under this title or any person

or group of persons in a pattern or practice of discrimination under this title, the Attorney

General may commence a civil action in any appropriate United States district court

(S.933, 1990).

Reasonable accommodations are expected to be made by new and existing

facilities to increase accessibility. This may include making existing facilities used by

employees or the public readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities,

as well as job-restructuring, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, the

provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for

individuals with disabilities (S.933, 1990). Existing facilities that face financial or

physical challenges as a result of meeting the requirements of the ADA may claim undue

hardship. Undue hardship means an action requiring significant difficulty or expense,

such as the nature and cost of accommodation needed under the ADA (S.933, 1990).

Appropriate actions against those who are found to have discriminated against

those who are disabled under this title include the following such as granting temporary,

preliminary, or permanent relief, providing an auxiliary aid or service, modification of

policy, practice, or procedure, or alternative method, and making facilities readily

accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. Such people discriminated

against may be awarded such other relief as the court considers to be appropriate,

including monetary damages to persons aggrieved when requested by the Attorney

General. Another penalty may include to vindicate the public interest, assess a civil

15

penalty against the entity in an amount--(i) not exceeding $50,000 for a first violation;

and (ii) not exceeding $100,000 for any subsequent violation (S.933, 1990).

Disabled Person’s Perception of the ADA

Not only is it difficult to determine exactly what is required of employers,

facilities, and programs, it is also challenging to establish the extent to which the

accommodations are effective and helpful for those with disabilities. Hinton (2003)

conducted a study to examine the perceptions of people with disabilities as to the

effectiveness of the ADA in regard to accessibility issues covered by Titles II, III, and IV.

Four factors have been described as having an impact on a person’s perception of the

effectiveness of the ADA; 1) type of disability, 2) age of onset of the disability, 3)

membership in disability organizations, and 4) employment status (Hinton, 2003). An

overview of respondents perceptions of changes in accessibility were rated as not better

for Titles II and III and better for Title IV by study participants (Hinton, 2003). Table 1

provides an overview of Hinton’s (2003) findings. Overall, the public sector (Title II) has

been rated somewhat higher than the private sector (Title III) in improved accessibility

since the passage of the ADA. Neither of these has rated better, although

telecommunications (Title IV) was rated as better; this rating appears to be consistent

throughout multiple analyses (Hinton, 2003). Hinton (2003) also found low ratings from

those individuals with visual disabilities in their assessment of the private sector (Title

III) thus raising questions of whether the ADA and its accompanying guidelines have

failed to adequately address accommodations for people with visual disabilities. Whether

accommodations for people with this type of disability are more difficult to implement

than for other groups, and whether the accommodations fail to meet their intended

16

purpose remains to be seen (Hinton, 2003). Hinton (2003) noted that because the ADA

in an unfunded mandate, future research addressing the impact of no federal funding on

implementations is possible.

Table 1

Respondents’ Perceptions of Changes in Accessibility of Title II (Public Sector), Title III (Private Sector), and Title IV (Telecommunications) Survey Items________________________________________________________________________

Title IIa Title IIIb Title IVc

Accessibility (%) (%) (%)__________________________

Better 47.6 31.8 60.3

Not Better 52.4 68.2 39.7

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0an = 145. bn = 148. cn = 116.

A second study conducted by Kaufman-Scarborough and Baker (2005) examined

the perceptions of a national sample of people with disabilities regarding the

effectiveness of the ADA and overall marketplace accessibility for people with

disabilities. This study used the 1998 NOD/Harris Survey of Americans with

Disabilities, which addressed the disabled persons’ self-perceptions. These perceptions

included: how their lives have changed in the past decade, experiences with social life,

education, and employment, and the impact of their disability on the quality of their life

(Kaufman-Scarborough &Baker, 2005). Results showed that of the 1,000 participants,

just over half (54.3%) had heard of “a law” for those with disabilities and about the same

number of people could identify it as the ADA. Sixty-one percent of participants who

had heard or read about the ADA reported it had made no difference (see Table 2)

(Kaufman-Scarborough & Baker, 2005). This study demonstrated there is a need for an

increased awareness for the protection guaranteed by Title III in the marketplace.

17

Accessibility can mean different things to different people. Thus, measures of ADA

awareness must be more fully developed so that researchers can better understand what

respondents mean by their awareness (Kaufman-Scarborough & Baker, 2005).

Table 2

Consumer Awareness and Effectiveness of Disabilities LawsNumber (Percent)

________________________________________________________________________Yes No Don’t Know Refused Total

Know any laws passed in past 10 years for disabled protection 543 (54.3) 267 (26.7) 189 (18.9) 1 (.1) 1,000 (100)

Heard, read about ADA 531 (53.1) 460 (46.0) 9 (.9) 1,000 (100)______________________________________________________________________________________

Make Make No Don’t Better Worse Difference Know Total

______________________________________________________________________________________Of those who heard, read about the ADA, think ADA made a difference in life 170 (32.0) 6 (1.1) 326 (61.4) 29 (2.9) 531 (100)

Test of P1 and P2: ADA Knowledge and Assessment of Change No knowledge of ADA, knowledge of ADA, and knowledge/no specifics on ADA Chi-Square Significance

Positive change for disabled in past 10 years 64.34 0.00Improvements in marketing-related areas: Public transportation 17.72 0.00 Public facilities/theaters/stores 21.54 0.00 Public attitudes toward disabled 33.75 0.00 Media portrayal of disable 27.43 0.00 Including disabled in advertising 13.98 0.01________________________________________________________________________

Public Perception of the ADA

18

The ADA has provided opportunity for the disabled, though psychological studies

reveal that many disabled individuals still battle with the current perception that others

have of them (Castaneto & Willemsen, 2006). Throughout the history of Western

civilization, prejudice has played a strong role and has been studied deriving from

intergroup differences based on race, religion, ethnicity, sex, and now disability

(Castaneto & Willemsen, 2006). Prejudice is a negative prejudgment of a group and its

individual members and classified psychologically as an attitude (Castaneto &

Willemsen, 2006). Thus, a person who is prejudiced might dislike (affect) people who

are different from the self, discriminate (behavior) against these people, and believe

(cognition) that his or her feelings and actions are justified since these people have, as

prejudiced thinking may convey, unattractive traits. From this, the mere disability of

these people, which others may dislike (affect prejudice), becomes the reason why people

discriminate against them. Even with the ratification of the ADA, discrimination against

the disabled manifests in a more subtle form of prejudice known as modern prejudice, as

opposed to the blatant prejudice that was common in the earlier part of American history

(Castaneto & Willemsen, 2006).

Title I of the ADA states that employers cannot deny a position to a current

employee or applicant because of a disability, as long as the person is able to perform the

essential job functions with reasonable accommodation(s) (Mitchell & Kovera, 2006).

Employers do not have to provide reasonable accommodations if it presents an undue

hardship for the employer, the law is vague, however, about the factors that should be

considered as the accommodations must be developed on a case-by-case basis (Mitchell

19

& Kovera, 2006). Neither work history nor disability origin is a legally permissible

factor in determining reasonable accommodation.

Moore, Moore, and Moore (2007) found the majority of small business owners

have positive attitudes toward the act and exhibit high levels of compliance. Firm

support for the ADA and participation in carrying out its requirements has been driven by

both positive and negative factors and extends well beyond the group of businesses that

under the law are required to comply with Titles I and III of the legislation (Moore,

Moore, & Moore, 2007). The results also suggest strongly positive impacts of the ADA

in the areas of accommodating customers with disabilities and disabled employees who

are already on the job.

Rimmer, Riley, Wang, and Rauworth (2005) developed Accessibility Instruments

Measuring Fitness and Recreation Environments (AIMFREE) which measures the

environmental accessibility of fitness and recreation centers for people with mobility

disabilities and visual impairments. The study included 35 facilities and examined built

environment, equipment, information, policies, swimming pools, and professional

behavior. Results show the majority of facilities were likely to have accessibility features

consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)

pertaining to elevators, bathrooms, entrance doors, water fountains, and parking areas

(Rimmer, Riley, Wang, & Rauworth, 2005).

Controversy with the ADA has developed under many circumstances at

businesses, schools, restaurants, libraries, and in athletics. Under P.L. 94-142 (IDEA), all

learners with disabilities are to have the opportunity to receive a free appropriate public

education (NICHCY.org). Some students with disabilities may not be covered under

20

IDEA. Under IDEA those students are guaranteed rights under Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act. Section 504 specifically requires that sport and athletic programs,

offered in facilities that receive federal funds, must provide equal opportunities for

comparable participation for individuals with disabilities (Auxter, Pyfer, Huettig, 2005).

In 2004, Final Regulations for IDEA were established. Changes were made to Section

300.108 regarding physical education, whereby the public agency has no obligation to

provide physical education for children with disabilities if it does not provide physical

education to nondisabled children attending their schools (Final reg., 2006). Section

300.107 supports the need for equal opportunity for students with disabilities to

participate in nonacademic and extracurricular activities. Additional language was added

to Section 300.107 to clarify that the steps taken by public agencies to provide access to

nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities include the provision of

supplementary aids and services determined appropriate and necessary by the child’s IEP

Team (Final Reg. 2006).

Since the passage of the ADA there has been an increase in the number of

learning-disabled students seeking accommodations from institutions of higher education

as well as an increase in the number of learning-disabled student-athletes who have

exercised their rights under Section 504 and the ADA (Denbo, 2003). To win a disability

lawsuit under Section 504 or the ADA, the student must establish all of the requisite

elements of his or her case. The student must prove that (1) he or she has a disability

within the meaning of the statute; (2) he or she is "otherwise qualified" to obtain the

benefits sought-in other words, he or she can meet the essential eligibility requirements of

the school or NGAA, with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) an adverse action

21

was taken against the student or student-athlete solely because of his or her disability; and

(4) the educational institution or other defendant receives federal financial assistance (for

a Section 504 claim) or is a public entity (for a Title II claim) or is a private entity that

owns, leases or operates a place of public accommodation (for a Title III claim) (Denbo,

2003).

Those who have filed claims have not been successful partly due to that fact that

learning-disabilities have not been clearly defined in the ADA and that a learning-

disability is difficult to identify and diagnose. There is a wide range of learning disorders

recognized by the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual

of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), adding another issue of whether an educational

institution or other entity like the NCAA needs to accept the wide range of disorders

(Denbo, 2003). Student-athletes must also prove that being barred from playing a sport

is “substantial limitation” of a “major life activity” (Denbo, 203). Debate comes from

those students who fail to establish that they do in fact have a disability. Some students

have not claimed to have a disability or ask for accommodation until the final semester of

their senior year of high school and after they have failed to meet the standards of a

college or university.

At the professional level, disabled athletes have faced challenges trying to

compete side-by-side with able bodied athletes. Professional golfer, Cassie Martin,

suffers from a degenerative circulatory disorder that obstructs venous blood flow from his

right leg. His disease makes it impossible for him to walk an 18-hole golf course.

However, PGA Tours third stage qualifying tournaments, as well as all tournaments on

the Nike and PGA Tours, prohibit the use of golf carts by players (Holohan, 2001). The

22

US Supreme court held that Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

requires the PGA Tour to make "reasonable and necessary" accommodations for people

with disabilities if those accommodations do not "fundamentally alter the nature of the

competition” (Holohan, 2001). The court rejected the argument from the PGA tour that

using a cart would “fundamentally alter the nature” of the golf tours and that by using a

cart Martin would no longer be subjected to the identical substantive rules as the other

competitors (Holohan, 2001).

Oscar Pistorius, known as the “blade runner”, is a disabled track athlete who had

both legs amputated below the knee as a child. He is a Paralympic world record-holder

in the 100, 200, and 400m who had aspirations of competing in the Olympics (Hart,

2007). Pistorius agreed to work with the International Association of Athletics

Federation (IAAF) and undergo a biometrical analysis to ensure that his curved, carbon-

fiber prosthetic racing legs do not give him an unfair advantage (Associate Press, 2007).

IAAF (2008), found that running with prosthetic legs at the same speed as an able-bodied

person expended 25% less energy, and the returned energy from the prosthetic legs was

three times higher than from a human ankle joint (IAAF, 2008). Rule 144.2 of the IAAF

prohibits the use of any technical device that incorporates springs, wheels or any other

element that provides the user with an advantage over another athlete not using such a

device (IAAF, 2008). Therefore, the IAAF ruled that Pistorius’ prosthetic legs are

technical aids violating the rule making Pistorius ineligible to compete in competitions

organized under IAAF rules (IAAF.org, 2008).

Becoming ADA Compliant

23

The Checklist for Existing Facilities provided by the Department of Justice is a

way to identify accessibility problems and solution in existing facilities in order to meet

the obligations of the ADA (Adaptive Environment Center, 1995). It presents four

priorities for existing facilities to take into consideration when evaluating whether or not

their accommodations meet the ADA’s standard. Priority 1 covers approach and entrance

to the facility. Priority 2 concerns good and services provided at the facility. Priority 3

deals with rest rooms. Finally, Priority 4 addresses other measures of accommodation.

The checklist describes each Priority, asks questions regarding what accommodations the

existing facility currently has, and provides suggestions on how to remove barriers in the

facility to make it ADA compliant.

Priorities

Priority 1

Priority 1 explains that people with disabilities should be able to arrive on site,

approach the building, and enter as freely as everyone else. At least one route of travel

should be safe and accessible for everyone. This includes people with disabilities

(Adaptive Environment, 1995). Topics addressed include route of travel, ramps, parking

and drop-off areas, and entrance.

Priority 2

Ideally, the layout of the building should allow people with disabilities to obtain

materials or services without assistance (Adaptive Environment Center, 1995). Priority 2

focuses on doors, horizontal circulation, rooms and spaces, emergency egress, signage for

goods and services, directional and informational signage, controls, vertical circulation,

stairs, elevators, and lifts. Solutions to provide accessibility are adding non-slip surfaces

24

to treads, installing ramps or lifts, lowering sections of counters, rearranging tables and

chairs, and installing visible and audible alarms.

Priority 3

Usability of rest rooms is addressed in Priority 3. When rest rooms are open to

the public, they should be accessible to people with disabilities (Adaptive Environment

Center, 1995). Getting to the rest rooms, doorways and passages, stalls, and lavatories

are discussed. Attention is given to the space within the stalls and around the sinks and

the ability for a person in a wheelchair to maneuver and use the facility.

Priority 4

Additional access, Priority 4, includes amenities such as drinking fountains and

public telephones. When these, and other, items are provided for public use, they should

be accessible by people with disabilities (Adaptive Environment Center, 1995). This

Priority is for items not required for basic access in the first three priorities. Drinking

fountains must be at specific heights for a person in a wheelchair to have access to it.

The drinking fountain must also be operable with a closed fist. Telephones should also

be at an appropriate height, have push button controls, offer hearing-aid compatibility,

and be adapted with volume control.

25

CHAPTER 3

Methodology


and the accommodations that are provided for those with disabilities. More specifically

this study will determine which colleges and universities are compliant with the ADA.

Population

The college and university facilities selected for this study are within 100 miles of

Sioux Falls, South Dakota. These schools are members of NCAA Division I and

Division II, and NAIA. These private and public colleges and universities range from a

student population of 600 to over 11,000. The 11 colleges and universities to be

examined are in South Dakota, Minnesota, and Iowa.

Instrumentation

A checklist provided by the Department of Justice (1995) for existing facilities

was altered to reflect the purpose of this study. This checklist, entitled The Americans

with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal, covers four

Priorities that existing facilities need to consider when becoming ADA compliant. The

Priorities are 1) Approach and Entrance, 2) Goods and Services, 3) Rest Rooms, and 4)

Other Amenities. The checklist describes each Priority and asks questions regarding the

accommodations that exist at the facility. It then provides suggestions on how to alter the

facility in order to be compliant with the ADA. For this study the checklist has been

modified to allow for simple comparisons of each school.

It is important to note that this checklist does not cover all of the requirements of

the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (Standards). It does not attempt illustrate all

26

possible barriers or propose all possible barrier removal solutions. The Standards should

be consulted for guidance in situations not covered in this checklist (Adaptive

Environment, 1995).

Research Design and Procedure

The specific facilities examined are those that allow for multipurpose use. These

particular facilities will be used in this study due to their multipurpose functions,

including intercollegiate athletics (basketball, volleyball, wrestling, and in some cases

football), intramurals, coaches offices, classrooms, swimming pools, weight rooms, and

Athletic Training facilities.

By use of site visits, a comparison of each university and the extent to which its

facility is accommodating to those with disabilities will be completed with an adapted

checklist from the Department of Justice. The Americans with Disabilities Checklist for

Readily Achievable Barrier Removal (1995) was designed for existing facilities to be

used as a guide to become ADA compliant.

The four areas under study in this project are:

1. Approach and Entrance (Priority 1),

2. Goods and Services (Priority 2),

3. Rest Rooms (Priority 3),

4. Other Amenities (Priority 4).

Each facility will be scored based on findings during site visits to the college and

university campuses. Possible scores are Yes, No, and Not Applicable. A “yes” score

27

indicates that the facility provides the specific accommodation. “No” means the facility

does not provide the accommodation. “Not applicable” will be scored when the

accommodation is not necessary and/or not needed at the facility. For example, if the

facility is on one level, there is no need for an elevator or lift. Therefore, a one story

facility will receive a score of “not applicable” when the checklist calls for elevators or

lifts because this does not make the facility less accessible or accommodating.

Statistical Analysis

After the data is collected it will be compiled in a Microsoft Excel worksheet.

Due to the variance in size and population of each college and university, each facility

will be examined, scored, and analyzed individually. Descriptive statistics will be used to

determine the percentage of compliance within each Priority of the checklist. A

frequency distribution will be used to organize and summarize the data.

Summary


and the accommodations provided to those with disabilities. Eleven colleges and

universities will be studied using The Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for

Readily Achievable Barrier Removal from the Department of Justice (1995). Four

Priorities are included in the checklist 1) Access and Entrance, 2) Goods and Services, 3)

Rest Rooms, and 4) Other Amenities. After data is collected at each facility via site

visits, descriptive statistics will be used to organize and summarize the data. Results,

recommendations, and a discussion of the data can then be established. This study has

been approved by the University of South Dakota Office of Human Subjects Protection.

28

CHAPTER 4

Results


and the accommodations provided to those with disabilities. More specifically this study

will determine which colleges and universities are compliant with the ADA. Eleven

colleges and universities in Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa were examined. They

included NCAA Division I and Division II and NAIA participants. The facilities

observed were multipurpose facilities, used for basketball, volleyball, wrestling,

intramurals, physical education classes, and housed classrooms, coaches’ offices,

swimming pools, weight rooms, and Athletic Training rooms.

The Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier

Removal provided by the Department of Justice was modified and used in this study. The

modified version contains four Priorities with a total of 84 items. The Priorities are 1)

Approach and Entrance, 2) Access to Goods and Services, 3) Usability of Rest Rooms,

and 4) Additional Access. NCAA and NAIA college and university scores will be kept

separate for each item within each Priority. A frequency distribution will be complied

combining all colleges and universities, regardless of NCAA or NAIA affiliation.

Possible scores are “yes”, meaning the college or university does provide the

modification listed. “No” indicates the college or university does not provide the

mentioned accommodation. “NA” (not applicable) is scored when the listed

accommodation is not necessary at the college or university. For example, if the facility

is completely on one level, an elevator, ramp, or lift is not needed. This does not make

the facility less accessible. The “NA” score will not be counted when percentages are

29

completed. For example, there were seven NAIA participating colleges and universities.

Of those seven facilities, six facilities were on one level and therefore do not need an

elevator. For the items relating to elevators in Priority 2 those six colleges and

universities received an NA score and the remaining university received a Yes score

because it had an elevator. The compliance percentage is 14% (one out of seven) for

elevators at NAIA participating colleges and universities.

Table 1 displays results for Priority 1- Route of Travel. NCAA colleges and universities

were 100% compliant for each item within Route of Travel. NAIA colleges and universities were

100% compliant in three items, and 86% compliant in the fourth item as shown in Table 1.

Table 1

30

ADA Compliance in Priority 1- Route of Travel

Yes No NA %

Is there a route of travel that does not require the use of stairs? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Is the route of travel stable, firm, and slip resistant? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Can all objects protruding into the circulation path be detected by a person with a visual disability using a cane? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Do curbs on the route have curb cuts at drives, parking, and drop-offs? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 6 1 0 86

N=11Yes indicates the facility provides the accommodation.No indicates the facility does not provide the accommodation.NA indicates the accommodation is not necessary at the facility.

Ramps are also covered in Priority 1 and these results are shown in Table 2. All NCAA

and NAIA colleges and universities had entrances that did not include stairs and therefore did

not need a ramp. All colleges and universities received scores of NA, and their corresponding

compliance percentage was 0%.

Table 2

ADA Compliance in Priority 1- Ramps

31

Yes No NA %

Are the slops of ramps no more than 1:12? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 0 0 7 0

Do all ramps longer than 6 feet have railings on both sides? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 0 0 7 0

Are railings sturdy, and between 34 and 38 inches high? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 0 0 7 0

Are ramps non-slip? NCAA 0 0 4 0NAIA 0 0 7 0

Does the ramp rise no more than 30 inches between landings? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 0 0 7 0

N= 11Yes indicates the facility provides the accommodation.No indicates the facility does not provide the accommodation.NA indicates the accommodation is not necessary at the facility.

In Table 3, the results for Parking and Drop-Off Areas from Priority 1 are displayed.

These questions related to adequate accessible parking spaces, curb cut-outs, and appropriate

parking signs. In the first four items, NAIA colleges and universities were 100% compliant, but

only 14% and 43% compliant in the final two items, respectively. NCAA colleges and universities

were found to be 100% compliant in three of the six items, 50% compliant in two items, and 0%

compliant for one of the items.

Table 3

ADA Compliance in Priority 1-Parking and Drop-Off Areas

32

Yes No NA %

Are an adequate number of accessible parking spaces available (8 feet wide for car plus 5-foor accessible isle)? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Are the access isles part of the accessible route to the accessible entrance? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Are the accessible spaces closest to the accessible entrance? NCAA 2 2 0 50

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Are accessible spaces marked with the International Symbol of Accessibility? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Are there signs reading "Van Accessible" at van spaces? NCAA 0 4 0 0

NAIA 1 6 0 14

Is there an enforcement procedure to ensure that accessible parking is being used only by those who need it? NCAA 2 2 0 50

NAIA 3 4 0 43


The next item covered in Priority 1 is Entrance, found in Table 4. These

questions are concerned with the path leading to the entrance and doors, providing the

ability for someone to enter a facility with minimal assistance. Of the nine items, NAIA

33

colleges and universities were 100% compliant in four items, 57% and 29% compliant in

one item, and 0% compliant in three items. NCAA colleges and universities were also

100% compliant in four of nine items, 75%, 50% and 25% compliant each in three

different items, and 0% compliant in two items.

Table 4

ADA Compliance in Priority 1- Entrance

Yes No NA %

34

If there are stairs at the main entrance, is there also a ramp or lift, or is there an alternative accessible entrance? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 0 0 7 0

Do all inaccessible entrances have signs indicating the location of the nearest accessible entrance? NCAA 0 4 0 0

NAIA 0 7 0 0

Can the alternate accessible entrance be used independently? NCAA 1 3 0 25

NAIA 0 7 0 0

Does the entrance door have at least 32 inches clear opening (for a double door, at least one 32-inch leaf)? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Is there at least 18 inches of clear wall space on the pull side of the door, next to the handle? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Are edges securely installed to minimize tripping hazards? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Is the door handle no higher than 48 inches and operable by a closed fist? NCAA 2 2 0 50

NAIA 4 3 0 57

Can doors be opened without too much force (exterior doors reserved; maximum is 5lbs for interior doors)? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

If the door has a closer, does it take at least 3 seconds to close? NCAA 3 0 1 75

NAIA 2 0 5 29

35


Table 5 shows a frequency distribution for Priority 1, providing a total number of scores

for all colleges and universities. Overall, the colleges and universities were 56% compliant in

Priority 1, scoring “yes” 147 times out of a possible 264. There was a total of 24 items listed in

Priority 1.

Table 5

Overall ADA Compliance in Priority 1

Score FrequencyRelative

FrequencyCumulative Frequency

Cumulative Relative

Frequency

Yes 147 0.56 264.00 1.00No 45 0.17 117.00 0.43NA 72 0.27 72.00 0.27

264 1.00


Priority 2, Access to Goods and Services, begins with Table 6, which shows compliance in

the area of Horizontal Circulation. This area focuses on the public spaces provided inside the

facility. NCAA and NAIA colleges and universities were 100% compliant in three of the four

items. In the fourth item, NCAA colleges and universities were 75% compliant while NAIA

colleges and universities were 86% compliant.

Table 6

36

ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Horizontal Circulation

Yes No NA %

Does the accessible entrance provide direct access to the main floor, lobby, or elevator? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Are all public spaces on an accessible route of travel? NCAA 3 1 0 75

NAIA 6 1 0 86

Is the accessible route to all public spaces at least 36 inches wide? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Is there a 5-foot space or a T-shaped space for someone with a wheelchair to reverse direction? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100


Priority 2 also covers Doors, and compliance in this area can be found in Table 7.

Questions in this area relate to space around doors, weight of doors, and the handles on the

doors. Of the three items in this area, NCAA and NAIA colleges and universities were 100%

compliant in two of the items. NCAA affiliated colleges and universities were 25% compliant in

the final item. NAIA affiliated colleges and universities were 43% compliant in the final item.

Table 7

ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Doors

37

Yes No NA %

Do doors into public spaces have at least a 32-inch clear opening? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Can doors be opened without too much force (5lbs for interior doors)? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Are door handles 48 inches high or less and operable with a closed fist? NCAA 1 3 0 25

NAIA 3 4 0 43


The third area covered by Priority 2 is Rooms and Spaces, found in Table 8. There are

also three items in this area. NCAA and NAIA colleges and universities were found to be 100%

compliant in two of the three items. In the final item, NCAA colleges and universities were 50%

compliant and NAIA colleges and universities were 14% compliant.

Table 8

ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Rooms and Spaces

Yes No NA %

Are all aisles and pathways to materials and services at least 36 inches wide? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

38

Is carpeting low-pile, tightly-woven, and securely attached along the edges? NCAA 2 0 2 50

NAIA 1 0 6 14

Is there a 5-foot wide circle of a T-shaped space for turning a wheelchair completely? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100


Also found in Priority 2 is Emergency Egress. The primary item in this area asks if

emergency systems provide both visual and audible warnings. NCAA colleges and universities

were 75% compliant in this area; NAIA colleges and universities were 86% compliant, as shown

in Table 9.

Table 9

ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Emergency Egress

Yes No NA %If emergency systems are provided, do they have both flashing lights and audible sounds? NCAA 3 1 0 75

39

NAIA 6 1 0 86


Table 10 shows results for Signage for Goods and Services, part of Priority 2.

This area deals with where signs are located, if pictograms are used, and whether or not

Braille is included on the signs. There are five items in this area and NCAA colleges and

universities were 75% compliant for one of the items, 25% compliant for three of the

items, and 0% for one of the items. NAIA colleges and universities were 43% compliant

for two of the items, 29% for two of the items, and 14% for one of the items.

Table 10

ADA Compliance in Priority 2-Signage for Goods and Services

Yes No NA %

40

If provided, do signs and room numbers designating permanent rooms and spaces where goods and services are provided comply with the appropriate requirements for such signage?

Signs mounted with centerline 60 inches from floor NCAA 0 4 0 0

NAIA 3 4 0 43

Mounted on wall adjacent to latch side of door, or as close as possible. NCAA 3 1 0 75

NAIA 3 4 0 43

Raised characters, sized between 5/8 and 2 inches high, with high contrast (for room numbers, rest rooms, exits). NCAA 1 3 0 25

NAIA 2 5 0 29

Brailled text of the same information. NCAA 1 3 0 25

NAIA 2 5 0 29

If pictogram is used, it must be accompanied by raised characters and Braille. NCAA 1 3 0 25

NAIA 1 6 0 14


Directional and Informational Signage results are found in Table 11. This area of Priority

2 ensures that directional and informational signage complies with legibility requirements.

NCAA colleges and universities were found to be 50% compliant and NAIA colleges and

universities were 43% compliant in this area.

41

Table 11

ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Directional and Informational Signage

Yes No NA %

Do directional and informational signs comply with legibility requirements (building directories and temporary signs need not apply)? NCAA 2 2 0 50

NAIA 3 4 0 43


The next topic covered in Priority 2 is Controls. These results are found in Table 12 and

consist of two items. NCAA colleges and universities were 100% compliant for one of the items

and 75% compliant in the other. NIAI colleges and universities were 71% compliant for both

items.

Table 12

ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Controls

Yes No NA %

42

Are all controls that are available for use by the public located at an accessible height? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 5 0 2 71

Are they operable with a closed fist? NCAA 3 1 0 75

NAIA 5 0 2 71


In Table 13, the results for Seats, Tables, and counters can be found. The

questions in this area are concerned with accessible seating as well as counters at

accessible heights. Of the three items, NCAA colleges and universities were 50%

complaint for one item and 25% compliant in the remaining two items. NAIA colleges

and universities were 29%, 14% and 0% compliant for the three items.

Table 13

Compliance in Priority 2- Seats, Tables, and Counters

Yes No NA %

43

Are the aisles between fixed seating (other than assembly area seating) at least 36 inches wide? NCAA 1 0 3 25

NAIA 0 0 7 0

Are the spaces for wheelchair seating distributed throughout? NCAA 1 3 0 25

NAIA 1 6 0 14

Are the tops of tables or counters between 28 and 34 inches high? NCAA 2 2 0 50

NAIA 2 2 3 29


Vertical Circulation is the next area within Priority 2. Table 14 displays the results for

NCAA and NAIA compliance for Vertical Circulation. NCAA colleges and universities were 100%

and 50% compliant for the two items within this area. NAIA colleges and universities were 43%

and 14% compliant in this area.

Table 14

Compliance in Priority 2- Vertical Circulation

Yes No NA %

44

Are there ramps, lifts, or elevators to all public levels? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 3 2 2 43

On each level, if there are stairs between the entrance and/or elevator and essential public areas, is there an accessible alternate route? NCAA 2 0 2 50

NAIA 1 2 4 14


Table 15 represents results for the Stairs area of Priority 2. There are two items in this

area regarding the surface of stairs and hand rails. NCAA colleges and universities were 0%

compliant for both of the items. NAIA colleges and universities were 29% and 0% compliant for

the two items.

Table 15

Compliance in Priority 2- Stairs

Yes No NA %

45

(The following questions apply to stairs connecting levels not serviced by an elevator, ramp, or lift). Do treads have non-slip surface? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 2 0 5 29

Do stairs have continuous rails on both sides, with extensions beyond the top and bottom stairs? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 0 2 5 0


In Table 16, the topic is elevators and whether the colleges and universities provide

visual and audible signals at each floor, if there is Braille lettering inside the cab, and if

emergency intercoms are provided. NCAA colleges and universities were 100%, 75%, 50%, and

25% compliant for the five items covered in this area. NAIA colleges and universities were 14%

compliant for four of the items and 0% compliant for the final item.

Table 16

ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Elevators

Yes No NA %

Are there both visible and verbal or audible door opening/closing and floor NCAA 2 2 0 50

46

indicators?NAIA 1 0 6 14

Do the controls inside the cab have raised and Braille lettering? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 1 0 6 14

Is there a sign on both door jambs at every floor identifying the floor in raised and Braille letters? NCAA 3 1 0 75

NAIA 1 0 6 14

If an emergency intercom is provided, is it usable without voice communication? NCAA 1 3 0 25

NAIA 0 1 6 0

Is the emergency intercom identified by raised and Braille letters? NCAA 2 2 0 50

NAIA 1 0 6 14


The next area covered in Priority 2 is Lifts. NCAA colleges and universities were 0%

compliant for each of the three items within this area. NAIA colleges and universities were 14%

compliant for each of the three items within this area.

Table 17

ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Lifts

Yes No NA %

47

Can the lift be used without assistance? If not, is a call button provided? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 1 0 6 14

Is there at least 30 by 48 inches of clear space for a person in a wheelchair to approach to reach the controls and use the lift? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 1 0 6 14

Are the controls between 15 and 48 inches high? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 1 0 6 14


Table 18 combines all areas within Priority 2 as well as the scores from all colleges and

universities, regardless of NCAA or NAIA affiliation. There were 34 items covered in Priority 2

throughout the twelve topics. Overall, the colleges and universities studied were 47% compliant

in Priority 2.

Table 18




Cumulative Relative

Frequency Yes 177 0.473 374.000 1.000No 84 0.225 197.000 0.527NA 113 0.302 113.000 0.302

374 1.00

48


Priority 3 focuses on Rest Rooms. The first area deals with Getting to the Rest Rooms.

Table 19 displays the results of compliance for NCAA and NAIA colleges and universities. There

are two items at question in this area and NCAA colleges and universities were 100% compliant

for one of the items and 0% compliant for the other. NAIA colleges and universities were 86%

compliant for one of the items and 0% compliant for the other.

Table 19

ADA Compliance in Priority 3- Getting to the Rest Rooms

Yes No NA %

If the rest rooms are available to the public, is at least one rest room (either one for each sex, or unisex) fully accessible? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 6 1 0 86

49

Are there signs at inaccessible rest rooms that give directions to accessible ones? NCAA 0 4 0 0

NAIA 0 7 0 0


Next within Priority 3 are Doorways and Passages. These results can be found in Table

20. With five items, NCAA colleges and universities were 100% compliant in four items and 25%

in one item. NAIA colleges and universities were 100% compliant in two items, 86%, 43% and

29% compliant in one of the remaining items.

Table 20

ADA Compliance in Priority 3- Doorways and Passages

Yes No NA %

Is there tactile signage identifying rest rooms? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 5 2 0 71

Are pictograms or symbols NCAA 4 0 0 100

50

used to identify rest rooms and, is used, are raised characters and Braille included below them?

NAIA 3 4 0 43

Is the doorway at least 32 inches clear? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 6 1 0 86

Are doors equipped with accessible handles (operable with a closed fist) 48 inches high or less? NCAA 1 3 0 25

NAIA 2 5 0 29

Can doors be opened easily (5lbs maximum force)? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100

Is there a 36-inch-wide path to all fixtures? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100


Table 21 represents data for Priority 3 dealing with Stalls. Questions in this area relate

to space within the stalls as well as opening stall doors. NCAA colleges and universities were

100% compliant in three of the four items and 25% compliant in the final item. NAIA colleges

and universities were 100% compliant for one item and 86% compliant in the other three items.

51

Table 21

ADA Compliance in Priority 3- Stalls

Yes No NA %

Is the stall door operable with a closed fist, inside and out? NCAA 2 2 0 50

NAIA 6 1 0 86

52

Is there a wheelchair-accessible stall that has an area of at least 5 feet by 5 feet, clear of the door swing, OR is there a stall that is less accessible but that provides greater access than a typical stall (either 36 by 69 inches or 48 by 69 inches)? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 6 1 0 86

In the accessible stall, are there grab bars behind and on the side wall nearest to the toilet? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 6 1 0 86

Is the toilet seat 17 to 19 inches high? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 7 0 0 100


The final area identified in Priority 3 is Lavatories. These results are found in Table 22

and include three different items relating to mirrors, pathways, and dispensers inside lavatories.

NCAA colleges and universities were 75% compliant for all three items. NAIA colleges and

universities were 100% compliant for one item and 71% compliant for the other two items.

Table 22

ADA Compliance in Priority 3- Lavatories

Yes No NA %

Can the faucet be operated with a closed fist? NCAA 3 1 0 75

NAIA 7 0 0 100

53

Are soap and other dispensers and hand dryers within reach ranges and usable with a closed fist? NCAA 3 1 0 75

NAIA 5 2 0 71

Is the mirror mounted with the bottom edge of the reflecting surface 40 inches high or lower? NCAA 3 1 0 75

NAIA 5 2 0 71


Table 23 displays the data for all of Priority 3 with all college and university results

combined. All colleges and universities studied combined to be 76% compliant in Priority 3.

Table 23




Cumulative Relative

Frequency Yes 126 0.763 165 1.000No 39 0.236 39 0.236NA 0 0.000 0 0.000

165 1.00

N=11Yes indicates the facility provides the accommodation.No indicates the facility does not provide the accommodation.

54

NA indicates the accommodation is not necessary at the facility.

The final Priority in this study covers accessibility for other amenities in a facility. The

first area in Priority 4 is related to Drinking Fountains. Table 24 shows the results from the

NCAA and NAIA colleges and universities examined. NCAA colleges and universities were 100%

compliant in two of the four items in the Drinking Fountain area. In the remaining two items,

NCAA colleges and universities were 75% and 50% compliant. Among NAIA colleges and

universities, 71% compliance was met for two of the items, and 57% and 43% compliance was

met for the remaining two items.

Table 24

ADA Compliance in Priority 4- Drinking Fountains

Yes No NA %

Is there at least one fountain with clear floor space of at least 30 by 48 inches in front? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 5 2 0 71

Is there one fountain with its spout no higher than 36 inches from the ground, and another with a standard height spout? NCAA 3 1 0 75

NAIA 3 4 0 43

55

Are there controls mounted on the front or on the side near the front edge, and operable with a closed fist? NCAA 4 0 0 100

NAIA 5 2 0 71

Is each water fountain cane-detectable (located within 27 inches of the floor or protruding into the circulation space less than 4 inches from the wall)? NCAA 2 2 0 50

NAIA 4 3 0 57


The final area of interest in Priority 4 is that of Telephones. Seven questions relating to

accommodating telephones and the results of compliance at NCAA and NAIA participating

colleges and universities can be found in Table 25. NCAA colleges and universities were 75%,

50%, and 25% compliant in one each of the items, and 0% compliant in the final four items.

NAIA colleges and universities were found to be 14% compliant in three of the seven items, and

0% compliant in the remaining four items.

56

Table 25

ADA Compliance in Priority 4- Telephones

Yes No NA %

If pay or public use phones are provided, is there clear color space of at least 30 by 48 inches in front of at least one? NCAA 2 1 1 50

NAIA 1 0 6 14

Does the phone have push button controls? NCAA 3 0 1 75

NAIA 1 0 6 14

57

Is the phone hearing-aid compatible? NCAA 0 3 1 0

NAIA 0 1 6 0

Is the phone adapted with volume control? NCAA 1 2 1 25

NAIA 1 0 6 14

Is the phone with volume control identified with appropriate signage? NCAA 0 3 1 0

NAIA 0 1 6 0

If there are four of more public phones in the building, is one of the phones equipped with a text telephone (TT or TTD)? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 0 0 7 0

Is the text telephone identified with accessible signage bearing the International TTD Symbol? NCAA 0 0 4 0

NAIA 0 0 7 0


The results for all of Priority 4 and for all colleges and universities studied are displayed

in Table 26. There were eleven questions asked between the two areas within Priority 4.

Overall, NCAA and NAIA colleges and universities were 42% compliant in Priority 4.

Table 26




Cumulative Relative

Frequency

58

Yes 51 0.421 121 1.000No 25 0.206 70 0.578NA 45 0.372 45 0.372

121 1.00


CHAPTER FIVE

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to examine college and university athletic facilities

and the accommodations provided to those with disabilities. More specifically the goal

of this study was determine which colleges and universities are compliant with the ADA.

Eleven colleges and universities in Minnesota, South Dakota, and Iowa were examined.

They included NCAA Division I and Division II and NAIA participants. The facilities

observed were multipurpose facilities, used for basketball, volleyball, wrestling,

intramurals, physical education classes, and housed classrooms, coaches’ offices,

swimming pools, weight rooms, and Athletic Training rooms.

59

The significance of the findings and what the results mean for the colleges and

universities examined will be discussed. Suggestions and recommendations will be

presented for ways to improve and enhance the accessibility at the facility, as well as

ways to improve the study. The results cannot be generalized to colleges and universities

outside of this study due to size and location of the colleges and universities examined.

The Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier

Removal provided by the Department of Justice was modified and used in this study. The

modified version contains four Priorities with a total of 84 items. The Priorities are 1)

Approach and Entrance, 2) Access to Goods and Services, 3) Usability of Rest Rooms,

and 4) Additional Access. NCAA and NAIA college and university scores were kept

separate for each item within each Priority. A frequency distribution was compiled

combining all colleges and universities, regardless of NCAA or NAIA affiliation, to

determine overall ADA Compliance in each Priority.

Possible scores are “yes”, meaning the college or university does provide the

modification listed. “No” indicates the college or university does not provide the

mentioned accommodation. “NA” (not applicable) is scored when the listed

accommodation is not necessary at the college or university. For example, if the facility

is completely on one level, an elevator, ramp, or lift is not needed. This does not make

the facility less accessible. The “NA” score will not be counted when percentages are

completed. For example, there were seven NAIA participating colleges and universities.

Of those seven facilities, six facilities were on one level and therefore do not need an

elevator. For the items relating to elevators in Priority 2 those six colleges and

universities received an NA score and the remaining university received a Yes score

60

because it had an elevator. The compliance percentage is 14% (one out of seven) for

elevators at NAIA participating colleges and universities. Therefore, it is very important

to take this scoring procedure into consideration when viewing the tables and interpreting

the compliance percentage as stated in this study.

The first area of concern with low ADA compliance rates was in the Parking and

Drop-Off area, within Priority 1. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act

Checklist for Readily Achievable Barrier Removal, all parking lots must have at least one

accessible parking space. Also, at least one of those accessible spaces must be van-

accessible with a minimum of one van-accessible space in all cases (Adaptive

Environment Center, Inc., 1995). Not providing the appropriate number of accessible

spaces could cause safety concerns for those with a disability and those with them. It

may be difficult for a person who uses a wheelchair to get out of the vehicle without

enough space around the vehicle. When a facility does not properly identify accessible

spaces, it becomes unclear what type of vehicles can be parking in the space. Also within

the Parking and Drop-Off area is the item of enforcement for accessible parking. This

measure is to ensure that accessible parking spaces are used only by those who truly need

them. With no enforcement identified, there can be no subsequent discipline for those

who do not have proper identification on their vehicles. The issue of accessible parking

will continue to important as our nation ages since age is a major risk factor for disability,

which will increase the need for accessible spaces (Landers, 2007).

To become more compliant in the area of parking, colleges and universities may

need to reevaluate the size of the parking lot at the athletic facility to determine if an

adequate number of parking spaces are provided. According to Adaptive Equipment Inc.

61

(1995), parking lots with a total number of spaces ranging from 1-25 must have at least

one accessible space; 26-50 total spaces must have at least two accessible spaces; 51-75

total spaces must at three accessible spaces; lots with 76-100 total spaces must have four

accessible space.

Becoming an active part of the greater community and participating in civil life

has been a long-term goal for the many people who have disabilities (Friedman, 2006).

In Priority 1 and the area of Entrance, this study found that none of the eleven colleges

and universities studied provided signs at inaccessible entrances indicating the location of

an accessible entrance. The lack of appropriate signage for the location of an accessible

entrance can be considered exclusive to those who are disabled and need assistance

opening doors or climbing stairs. Along with this item is that of whether or not the

alternate accessible entrance can be used independently. Just one of the eleven colleges

and universities did have an alternate accessible entrance that could be used

independently.

All colleges and universities that were studied combined for a 56% compliance

rate in Priority 1. Keep in mind that this percentage was found by taking the total number

of “yes” scores divided by the total number of items in Priority 1. When a college or

university scored an “NA”, this score was counted as a “no” when figuring compliance

percentage, even though the facility should not be considered less compliant. The

research also showed that 17% of items received a score of “no”, indicating non-

compliance. This corresponds to a fairly high rate of compliance after factoring in those

items that were scored “NA”, such as ramps and lifts for one level facilities.

62

Within Priority 2 and the area of Signage for Goods and Services was one of the

lowest compliance rates for this study. Items of concern in this area were the location of

signs and the inclusion of raised and Braille lettering on the sign. If signs are placed on

the wall on the hinge side of the door, the door itself can become a barrier. Signs placed

too high or too low can be missed by patrons. By omitting raised and Braille lettering,

the facility is not accommodating to those with visual impairments. This is another

limitation to patrons in general and their right to participate in civil life.

In the area of Seating within Priority 2, ten of the eleven colleges and universities

use pull-out bleachers or did not have any type of seating in the facility. The pull-out

bleachers were deemed non-permanent by the examiner. One of the items is related to

isles between fixed seating and another inquires about accessible seating distributed

throughout. While gathering data for this study none of the bleachers were pulled out so

it could not be determined if there was accessible seating available throughout.

This issue of not providing accommodating seating is one of many issues that

have been fought for for decades. Particularly in the 1970’s, many physically and

developmentally challenged Americans argued instead that society should remove

barriers preventing them from participating more fully in civic life (Friedman, 2006).

This goes back to the idea of inclusion of all in social and educational situations. A

suggestion for the colleges and universities that may not have accessible seating areas is

to designate an area for those with wheelchairs, walkers, or canes and their friends or

family so the event can be fully enjoyed. This designated area should have full view of

the event, whether it is a concert, play, or sporting event. The Checklist used,

recommends rearranging tables and chairs to provide 36-inch wide accessible isles as

63

well as allowing for wheelchair seating throughout the area (Adaptive Environment Inc.,

1995). The instrument used in this study is not designed specifically for recreational

facilities, as a result and particularly in this Seating area, the results are somewhat biased

because the items used to determine compliance are generalized for all facilities.

The questions in the area of Stairs are directed toward stairs that lead to levels not

serviced by an elevator, lift, or ramp. There were just five colleges and universities that

were required to have stairs to other levels because they did not offer an elevator, lift, or

ramp. This leads to the next area: Elevators. Only one NAIA college or university

needed to provid an elevator, while the other six did not need to because their facilities

were on one level. Therefore, when looking at the compliance rates for NAIA colleges

and universities it is important to remember that six of the facilities received scores of

“NA”. Meanwhile, all four NCAA colleges and universities did provide elevators. Items

covered include providing visual and audible signals at each floor, Braille lettering inside

the cab and on each door jamb at each level, as well as emergency intercom service. To

become more compliant in the area of Elevators, facilities should install visible and

audible signals, install raised and Braille lettering next to buttons, and modify

communication systems so they can be used without voice communication (Adaptive

Environment Inc., 1995).

One of the eleven colleges and universities provided a lift. None of the NCAA

facilities had a lift, nor did they need to have one because the facilities provided an

elevator. NAIA colleges and universities were 14% compliant in this area, as six of the

facilities did not provide a lift as these facilities were on one level. The one NAIA

facility that had a lift scored “yes” for each items in this area.

64

Overall compliance in Priority 2 was 47% among all colleges and universities

studied. Considering 30% of the scores were “NA”, the rate of non-compliance was

fairly low at 22%. In the area of access to goods and services, this is quite good. This

indicates that the colleges and universities studied do provide an above average amount

of access to the services they provide. The most “no” scores were recorded in the Signs

for Goods and Service. The lack of appropriate signage not only affects those with

disabilities, but all who use the facility. All patrons need to know where to find

restrooms, elevators, and specific rooms. Many of the colleges and universities studied

would benefit tremendously from adding a directory in their athletic facility. Providing a

directory and layout of the facility would create greater traffic flow and less confusion by

guests. Updating the elevators and seating areas at the colleges and universities studied

would be another very effective way to become more ADA compliant.

Rest Rooms were the main topic in Priority 3. This research showed that none of

the colleges and universities provided signs at inaccessible rest rooms indicating where to

find accessible rest rooms. It may be difficult in itself to find a rest room in some

facilities when no signs are provided, not to mention a rest room that is accessible for

those with disabilities. There may not be staff or faculty available at the facility to

redirect the person to an accessible rest room.

The next area, Doorways and Passages, presented some challenges when scoring

the facilities. One of the items asks if doors are equipped with accessible handles and

operable with a closed fist. The “closed fist” test for handles and controls is to try

opening the door or operating the control using only one hand, held in a fist. If the

experimenter can do this, so can a person who has limited use of his or her hands

65

(Adaptive Environment Inc., 1995). This test was used at each facility at doors to the rest

rooms, inside the rest rooms on stall doors, on soap dispensers, and on faucets. To be

considered an accessible rest room, a person with any type of disability should be able to

use all amenities within the rest room. This detail is extremely important as

independence and personal privacy are highly valued by our society.

Within the area of rest room Stalls, is the item concerning wheelchair accessible

stalls. The item asks if there is a wheelchair accessible stall with an area of 5 feet by 5

feet clear of the door swing, OR a stall that is less accessible but that provides greater

access than a typical stall. This is an ideal example of the fact that existing facilities do

not have to be completely compliant with all areas of the ADA (Adaptive Environment

Inc., 1995). After visiting each facility, less than half of the colleges and universities

provided a stall with 5 by 5 feet of clear the door swing, but nearly all did provide a stall

that is more accessible than a typical stall. The 5 by 5 feet layout would be ideal for a

person using a wheelchair to maneuver more easily.

Most of the items in the area of rest rooms are likely not things that most people

think about when using a rest room, unless they are disabled. Items provided in rest

rooms such as paper towel dispensers, hand dryers, mirrors, soap dispensers, and faucets

can be taken for granted by those who do not need accommodations because they do not

have trouble using them. A person using a wheelchair, however, may not be able to

reach the faucet or the soap dispenser. They may not be able to see themselves in the

mirrors or be able to dry their hands.

These compliance rates were fair, but need to be as close to 100% as possible.

Using the rest room is a basic function necessary for all, and the barriers that remain in

66

some facilities are unacceptable. To reach compliance in this area, some facilities may

need to rearrange furnishings in the rest room, adjust or replace the lavatory, provide

additional dispensers at appropriate heights, and tilt down mirrors.

Overall compliance in Priority 3 was the highest of the four priorities at 76%.

The compliance rate is quite impressive when considering the age of some of the

facilities studied. It is promising too, that colleges and universities have taken it upon

themselves to ensure accessibility in the area of rest rooms.

Priority 4 covers accessibility for additional items. Public telephones are not

required of facilities, but if they are offered they must be usable by those with disabilities.

The phone must have push button controls, be hearing-aid compatible, and be adapted

with volume control. None of these facilities that provided a phone offered a phone with

hearing-aid compatibility or a phone with volume control. This greatly affects those with

hearing impairments and limits their ability to use the telephone. To become more

compliant, phones need to be adapted with volume control and should be hearing-aid

compatible. Signs indicating volume control phones should also be provided.

The overall compliance in Priority 4 was 42%. Keep in mind that the percentage

of “NA” scores was 37% in this Priority. It is important to note that the items covered in

Priority 4 are for amenities that are not required for basic access (Adaptive Environment

Inc., 1995).

NCAA vs. NAIA

Although direct comparisons between NCAA and NAIA colleges and universities

cannot be made due to size, student population, and location, general comparisons of

compliance rates may be an indicator as to what is required of these governing bodies.

67

No information was found as to requirements for compliance with the ADA from the

NCAA or the NAIA. However, the NCAA states on its website (“Diversity and

Inclusion”):

Diversity and Inclusion is directly tied to the Association's core values and is

linked with the NCAA Strategic Plan. More specifically, Diversity and

Inclusion's efforts relate to the Association's core value of diversity, which urges

member institutions, athletics conferences and governance groups to be

committed to creating and supporting an inclusive culture that fosters equitable

participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and

administrators from diverse backgrounds.

When comparing compliance percentages, the NCAA was found to be more compliant

than the NAIA in the areas of vertical circulation, elevators, doorways and passages,

stalls, and lavatories. In other areas the two governing bodies were fairly compatible,

with no dramatic differences. Note that there were four NCAA institutions and six NAIA

institutions and percentages were found by dividing the total number of “yes” scores by

the total number of items in each area, and the number of “NA” scores may skew the

percentages.

Recommendations

No research was found similar to the design of this study. Further research in this

area is needed to determine the progress of existing athletic facilities in being ADA

compliant. Recommendations for further research in this area include:

68

1. Research from other areas of the United States to compare to this study to provide

an insight as to how geography and population factor in to this question of

compliance.

2. Conduct research at colleges and universities of greater student population and a

greater athletics influence should be studied to establish a standard based on

institution size and value of sport and recreation.

3. Data on the usage of the facility by those with disabilities as well as the

population of those with disabilities in the respective area of the facility would be

beneficial for establishing implications, purpose, and effectiveness of the ADA.

4. Use of an instrument specifically designed for athletic facilities would likely

produce more accurate data.

Conclusion

The overall compliance rate in each priority ranged from 42% to 76% among NCAA

and NAIA colleges and universities. The most compliant priority was rest rooms, while

the least compliant priority was additional access to amenities. The compliance rate was

within expected ranges, and some facilities impressed the researcher with what was

offered. It is clear that more effort and emphasis on the inclusion of people with

disabilities is needed at athletic facilities to allow for equal opportunity and participation.

The colleges and universities examined are fairly small in terms of student population

and campus size. The number of those with disabilities who use these facilities is not

known. The results cannot be generalized to other colleges and universities that were not

a part of this research.

69

None of the colleges or universities studied were completely compliant with the

ADA in all areas provided by the Checklist used. This is not surprising considering the

age of most of the facilities, as well as the cost associated with updating and remodeling.

It is evident that each facility has provided accommodations within its means and

resources, and hopefully each college and university will continue to make ADA

compliance a priority.

It has been shown that many people with disabilities are still unfamiliar with the

ADA and its purpose (Kaufman-Scarborough & Baker, 2005). Continued education to

those with and without disabilities on the purpose and goal of the ADA can help increase

the awareness of the needs of those with disabilities. With many existing facilities trying

to make advancements and improvements, understanding what is required by the ADA is

vital to promoting inclusion and equal opportunity. These existing facilities must make

efforts to remove barriers and increase accessibility (Madsen, 2004).

REFERENCES

14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. Library of Congress. Retrieved on

January 21, 2008 from

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html#top.

(2005). Disability Rights. The Washington File. Retrieved on January 12, 2008 from

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-

english&y=2005&m=June&x=20050614105615liameruoy0.1511499.

70

(2005). Guide to Disability Rights Laws. U.S. Department of Justice: Civil Rights

Division. Retrieved on January 8, 2008 from

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/cguide.htm#anchor62335.

Accessible Sports Facilities. (2003). United States Access Board.

Adaptive Environment, Inc. (1995). The Americans with Disabilities Act Checklist for

Readily Achievable Barrier Removal. Retrieved on February 10, 2008 from

www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/racheck.pdf.

Aita, Judy. (2006). U.S. Hails Convention on Rights of the Disabled. The Washington

File. Retrieved on January 7, 2008 from

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-

english&y=2006&m=December&x=20061214142719eaifas0.5566828.

Americans with Disabilities Act. S. 933, 101st Cong. (1990).

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board. (2002). Americans with

Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities;

Recreation Facilities. Federal Register. 67, 170.

Associated Press. (2007). Double-amputee sprinter Oscar Pistorius agrees to IAAF

testing on his prosthetic legs. Associated Press; July 2007. Retrieved March 1,

2008 from http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/26/sports/EU-SPT-ATH-

IAAF-Pistorius.php.

Auxter, D., Pyfer, J., & Huettig, C. (2005). Principles and Methods of Adapted Physical

Education and Recreation (10th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

71

Castaneto, M. V., & Willemsen, E.W. (2006). Social Perception of the Personality of

the Disabled. Social Behavior and Personality. Retrieved March 2, 2008 from

https://mail.usd.edu/en/mail.html?sid=z8Sy22qOx5Y&lang=en&cert=false.

Civil Rights Act. H.R. 7152, 88th Cong. (1964).

Denbo (2003). Disability Lessons in Higher Education: Accommodating Learning-

Disabled Students And Student-Athletes Under The Rehabilitation Act And The

Americans With Disabilities Act. American Business Law Journal, 41(1), 145-

203. Retrieved March 1, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document

ID: 643913971).

Department of Education. (2006). Assistance to States for the Education of Children

with Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities; Final Rule.

Federal Register, 71, 156.

Diversity and Inclusion. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Retrieved on April

20, 2008 from

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/portal/!ut/p/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_

QjzKLN4g38nYBSYGYxqb6kWhCjggRb31fj_zcVP0A_YLc0IhyR0VFAABTEJ

w!/delta/base64xml/

L0lDU0lKQ1RPN29na21BISEvb0VvUUFBSVFnakZJQUFRaENFSVFqR0VBL

zRKRmlDbzBlaDFpY29uUVZHaGQtc0lRIS83XzBfNVVVLzIzMDcxMTE!?

WCM_PORTLET=PC_7_0_5UU_WCM&WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/

wps/wcm/connect/NCAA/About%20the%20NCAA/Diversity%20and

%20Inclusion/.

72

Friedman, Michael J. (2006). Americans with Disabilities Act Transforms Lives. The

Washington File. Retrieved on January 7, 2008 from

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-

english&y=2006&m=June&x=20060605165205jmnamdeirf0.1433832.

Hart, S. (2007). Blade Runner Oscar Pistorius Furious at IAAF. Sunday Telegraph.

Retrieved March 1, 2008 from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/main.jhtml?

xml=/sport/2007/07/15/sofron115.xml.

Hinton, C. A. (2003). The Perceptions of People with Disabilities as to the Effectiveness

of the ADA’s Implementation. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 13, 210.

Holohan, B. T. (2001). ADA: PGA Tour must accommodate qualified, disabled

golfer. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 29(3/4), 408-409. Retrieved

March 1, 2008, from Research Library database. (Document ID: 98503032).

International Association of Athletics Federation. (2008). Oscar Pistorius - Independent

Scientific study concludes that cheetah prosthetics offer clear mechanical

advantages. Retrieved March 1, 2008 from

http://www.iaaf.org/news/kind=101/newsid=42896.html.

Kaufman-Scarborough, C., & Baker, S. M. (2005). Do People with Disabilities Believe

the ADA has Served Their Consumer Interests? The Journal of Consumer Affairs,

39, 26.

Landers, Susan L. (2007). Number of Disabled Expected to Rise; More Research Urged.

AMNews. Retrieved on January 10, 2008 from

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/05/21/hlsb0521.htm.

73

Library of Congress. Primary Documents in American History: 14th Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution. Retrieved December 31, 2007 from

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html.

Madsen, J. J. (2004). Compliance or Defiance. Buildings, 98, 94-97.

Mitchell, T. L., & Kovera, M. B. (2006). The Effects of Attribution of Responsibility

and Work History on Perceptions of Reasonable Accommodations. Law and

Human Behavior, 30, 6.

Moore, D. P., Moore, J. W., & Moore, J. L. (2007). After Fifteen Years: The Response

of Small Businesses to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Work, 29(2), 113-

126. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database.

(Document ID: 1334251641).

Rimmer J. H., Riley, B., Wang, E., & Rauworth, A. (2005). Accessibility of Health

Clubs for People with Mobility Disabilities and Visual Impairments. American

Journal of Public Health, 95(11), 2022-8. Retrieved February 28, 2008, from

ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 924488351).

Appendix A

Checklist for Existing Facilities

Priority 1: Accessible Approach/Entrance

74

People with disabilities should be able to arrive on the site, approach the building, and enter as freely as everyone else. At least one route of travel should be safe and accessible for everyone, including people with disabilities. Route of Travel Yes No

Is there a route of travel that does not requirethe use of stairs?

Is the route of travel stable, firm, and slipresistant?

Can all objects protruding into the circulationpath be detected by a person with a visualdisability using a cane?

Do curbs on the route have curb cuts at drives,parking, and drop-offs?

Ramps Yes No

Are the slops of ramps no more than 1:12?

Do all ramps longer than 6 feet have railingson both sides?

Are railings sturdy, and between 34 and 38 inches high?

Are ramps non-slip?

Does the ramp rise no more than 30 inchesbetween landings?

Parking and Drop-Off Areas Yes No

Are an adequate number of accessible parkingspaces available (8 feet wide for car plus 5-foot

75

accessible isle)?

Are the access isles part of the accessible routeto the accessible entrance?

Are the accessible spaces closest to the accessible entrance?

Are accessible spaces marked with theInternational Symbol of Accessibility? Arethere signs reading “Van Accessible” atvan spaces?

Is there an enforcement procedure to ensurethat accessible parking is being used only bythose who need it?

Entrance Yes No

If there are stairs at the main entrance, isthere also a ramp or lift, or is there an alternative accessible entrance?

Do all inaccessible entrances have signsindicating the location of the nearestaccessible entrance?

Can the alternate accessible entrance be usedindependently?

Does the entrance door have at least 32 inchesclear opening (for a double door, at least one

32-inch leaf)?

Is there at least 18 inches of clear wall spaceon the pull side of the door, next to the handle?

Are edges securely installed to minimize tripping hazards?

Entrance, continued Yes No

Is the door handle no higher than 48 inchesand operable by a fist?

76

Can doors be opened without too much force(exterior doors reserved; maximum is 5lbs for interior doors)?

If the door has a closer, does it take at least3 seconds to close?

Priority 2: Access to Goods and Services

Ideally, the layout of the building should allow people with disabilities to obtain materials or services without assistance. Horizontal Circulation Yes No

Does the accessible entrance provide directaccess to the main floor, lobby, or elevator?

Are all public spaces on an accessible routeof travel?

Is the accessible route to all public spaces at least 36 inches wide?

Is there a 5-foot space or a T-shaped space forsomeone with a wheelchair to reverse direction?

Doors Yes No

Do doors into public spaces have at least a32-inch clear opening?

Can doors be opened without too much force(5lbs for interior doors)?

Are door handles 48 inches high or less andoperable with a closed fist?

Rooms and Spaces Yes No

Are all aisles and pathways to materials

77

and services at least 36 inches wide?

Is carpeting low-pile, tightly-woven, andsecurely attached along the edges?

Is there a 5-foot circle or a T-shaped spacefor turning a wheelchair completely?

Emergency Egress Yes No

If emergency systems are provided, do theyhave both flashing lights and audible sounds?

Signage for Goods and Services Yes No

If provided, do signs and room numbersdesignating permanent rooms and spaces where goods and services are provided complywith the appropriate requirements for suchsignage?

• Signs mounted with centerline60 inches from floor.•Mounted on wall adjacent to latchside of door, or as close as possible.• Raised characters, sized between 5/8and 2 inches high, with high contrast(for room numbers, rest rooms, exits).• Brailled text of the same information.• If pictogram is used, it must beaccompanied by raised charactersand braille.

Directional and Informational Signage Yes No

Do directional and informational signscomply with legibility requirements(building directories and temporary signsneed not apply)?

Controls Yes No

Are all controls that are available for use by

78

the public located at an accessible height?

Are they operable with a closed fist?

______ Seats, Tables, and Counters Yes No

Are the aisles between fixed seating (other thanassembly area seating) at least 36 inches wide?

Are the spaces for wheelchair seating distributed throughout?

Are the tops of tables or counters between28 and 34 inches high?

Vertical Circulation Yes No

Are there ramps, lifts, or elevators to allpublic levels?

On each level, if there are stairs between theentrance and/or elevator and essential publicareas, is there an accessible alternate route?

Stairs Yes No (The following questions apply to stairsconnecting levels not serviced by an elevator,ramp, or lift.)

Do treads have non-slip surface?

Do stairs have continuous rails on both sides, with extensions beyond the top and bottomstairs?

Elevators Yes No

Are there both visible and verbal or audible

79

door opening/closing and floor indicators?

Do the controls inside the cab have raisedand Braille lettering?

Is there a sign on both door jambs at everyfloor identifying the floor in raised and Brailleletters?

If an emergency intercom is provided, is itusable without voice communication?

Is the emergency intercom identified by raised and Braille letters?

Lifts Yes No

Can the lift be used without assistance? Ifnot, is a call button provided?

Is there at least 30 by 48 inches of clear spacefor a person in a wheelchair to approach to reach the controls and use the lift?

Are the controls between 15 and 48 inches high?

Priority 3: Usability of Rest Rooms

When rest rooms are open to the public, they should be accessible to people with disabilities. Getting to the Rest Rooms Yes No

If the rest rooms are available to the public,is at least one rest room (either one for eachsex, or unisex) fully accessible?

Are there signs at inaccessible rest roomsthat give directions to accessible ones?

Doorways and Passages Yes No

Is there tactile signage identifying rest rooms?Doorways and Passages, continued

80

Are pictograms or symbols used to identify rest rooms and, if used, are raised charactersand braille included below them?

Is the doorway at least 32 inches clear?

Are doors equipped with accessible handles(operable with a closed fist), 48 inches highor less?

Can doors be opened easily (5lbs maximumforce)?

Is there a 36-inch-wide path to all fixtures?

Stalls Yes No

Is the stall door operable with a closed fist,inside and out?

Is there a wheelchair-accessible stall that hasan area of at least 5 feet by 5 feet, clear of thedoor swing, OR is there a stall that is less accessible but that provides greater access thana typical stall (either 36 by 69 inches or 48 by 69 inches)?

In the accessible stall, are there grab bars behindand on the side wall nearest to the toilet?

Is the toilet seat 17 to 19 inches high?

Lavatories Yes No

Can the faucet be operated with a closed fist?

Lavatories, continued Yes No

Are soap and other dispensers and handdryers within reach ranges and usable with a

81

closed fist?

Is the mirror mounted with the bottom edge ofthe reflecting surface 40 inches high or lower?

Priority 4: Additional Access

Note that this priority is for items not required for basic access in the first three priorities. When amenities such as drinking fountains and public telephones are provided, they should also be accessible to people with disabilities. Drinking Fountains Yes No

Is there at least one fountain with clear floorspace of at least 30 by 48 inches in front?

Is there one fountain with its spout no higherthan 36 inches from the ground, and anotherwith a standard height spout?

Are there controls mounted on the front oron the side near the front edge, and operablewith a closed fist?

Is each water fountain cane-detectable (locatedwithin 27 inches of the floor or protruding into the circulation space less than 4 inches from the wall)?

Telephones Yes No

If pay or public use phones are provided,is there clear color space of at least 30 by48 inches in front of at least one?

Does the phone have push button controls?

Is the phone hearing-aid compatible?

Is the phone adapted with volume control?

Telephones, continued Yes No

Is the phone with volume control identifiedwith appropriate signage?

82

If there are four or more public phones in the building, is one of the phones equippedwith a text telephone (TT or TTD)?

Is the text telephone identified with accessible signage bearing the International TTD Symbol?

thesis

Documents

university athletic

ada compliant

disabilities act compliance

public facilities

disabled population

disabilities act checklist

implications of ada

current compliance