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

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

2
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.
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

3
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
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

4
overweight and obese. Also, as the baby-boomers population continues to age the
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

5
effective date for existing facilities to make such accommodations was 18 months after
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

6
aware of all in our society and their needs to continue to provide the best options and
opportunities.
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

7
1. ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act
2. DOJ: Department of Justice
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

8
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-
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

10
equal protection of its laws” (14th
Amendment, loc.gov). Roughly 100 years later, the
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 100.0 100.0 100.0
a
n = 145. b
n = 148. c
n = 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

17
increased awareness for the protection guaranteed by Title III in the marketplace.
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 Laws
Number (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 0.00
Improvements 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

18
_______________________________________________________________________
_
Public Perception of the ADA
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

19
considered as the accommodations must be developed on a case-by-case basis (Mitchell
& 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

20
education (NICHCY.org). Some students with disabilities may not be covered under
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

21
the school or NGAA, with or without reasonable accommodation; (3) an adverse action
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

22
the Nike and PGA Tours, prohibit the use of golf carts by players (Holohan, 2001). The
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.

30
Table 1
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=11
Yes 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%.

31
Table 2
ADA Compliance in Priority 1- Ramps
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 0
NAIA 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= 11
Yes indicates the facility provides the
accommodation.
No indicates the facility does not provide the
accommodation.
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

32
ADA Compliance in Priority 1-
Parking and Drop-Off Areas
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
N= 11

33
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
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.

34
Table 4
ADA Compliance in Priority 1- Entrance
Yes No NA %
If there are stairs at the main entrance, is there
also a ramp or lift, or is there an alternative
NAIA 0 0 7 0
Do all inaccessible entrances have signs
indicating the location of the nearest
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

35
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
N= 11
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
Frequenc
y
Relative
Frequency
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Relative
Frequency
Yes 147 0.56 264.00 1.00
No 45 0.17 117.00 0.43
NA 72 0.27 72.00 0.27
264 1.00
N=11
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%

36
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
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
N= 11
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

37
were 25% compliant in the final item. NAIA affiliated colleges and universities were
43% compliant in the final item.
Table 7
Doors
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
N= 11
Yes indicates the facility provides the
accommodation.
No indicates the facility does not provide the
accommodation.
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.

38
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
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
N= 11
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.

39
Table 9
Emergency Egress
Yes No NA %
If emergency systems are
provided, do they have both
flashing lights and audible
sounds? NCAA 3 1 0 75
NAIA 6 1 0 86
N= 11
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.

40
Table 10
Signage for Goods and Services
Yes No NA %
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
N= 11

41
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.
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
N= 11
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.

42
Table 12
ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Controls
Yes No NA %
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
N= 11
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.

43
Table 13
Compliance in Priority 2- Seats, Tables, and Counters
Yes No NA %
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
N= 11
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.

44
Table 14
Compliance in Priority 2- Vertical Circulation
Yes No NA %
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
N= 11
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.

45
Table 15
Compliance in Priority 2- Stairs
Yes No NA %
(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
N= 11
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.

46
Table 16
ADA Compliance in Priority 2- Elevators
Yes No NA %
Are there both visible and
verbal or audible door
opening/closing and floor
indicators? NCAA 2 2 0 50
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
N= 11

47
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 %
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
N= 11
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.

48
Table 18
Score
Frequenc
y
Relative
Frequenc
y
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Relative
Frequency
Yes 177 0.473 374.000 1.000
No 84 0.225 197.000 0.527
NA 113 0.302 113.000 0.302
374 1.00
N=11
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.

49
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
Are there signs at inaccessible
rest rooms that give directions
to accessible ones? NCAA 0 4 0 0
NAIA 0 7 0 0
N= 11
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.

50
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
used to identify rest rooms
and, is used, are raised
characters and Braille included
below them? NCAA 4 0 0 100
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
N= 11

51
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.

52
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
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
N= 11
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

53
items. NAIA colleges and universities were 100% compliant for one item and 71%
compliant for the other two items.
Table 22
Lavatories
Yes No NA %
Can the faucet be operated
with a closed fist? NCAA 3 1 0 75
NAIA 7 0 0 100
Are soap and other dispensers
and hand dryers within reach
ranges and usable with a
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
N= 11
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.

54
Table 23
Score
Frequenc
y
Relative
Frequenc
y
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Relative
Frequency
Yes 126 0.763 165 1.000
No 39 0.236 39 0.236
NA 0 0.000 0 0.000
165 1.00
N=11
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.

55
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
Are there controls mounted on
the front or on the side near the
front edge, and operable with a
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
N=11
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

56
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.

57
Table 25
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
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
N=11

58
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
Score
Frequenc
y
Relative
Frequenc
y
Cumulative
Frequency
Cumulative
Relative
Frequency
Yes 51 0.421 121 1.000
No 25 0.206 70 0.578
NA 45 0.372 45 0.372
121 1.00
N=11

59
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.
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.

60
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
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

61
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.
(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

62
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.
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.

63
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
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

64
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.
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.

65
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
(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

66
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
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

thesis

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to thesis

Similar to thesis (20)

thesis